Category Archives: culture

More Whining and Bodice Ripping

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s from a Wall Street Journal editor, Collin Levy.

President Donald Trump (R) is expanding the East Wing with a ballroom fit for its purpose—to entertain visiting numbers of national leaders, not just any dignitary, and to put on the welcome and entertainment that fits such large gatherings. The expansion is to replace convening those same large gatherings in a collection of tents out on the White House lawn. Levy objects, and she opened her cri de coeur with this:

It [the new ballroom] might have been be tacky, but the republic can withstand some nouveau riche architecture on federal property.

That’s typical journalistic arrogance; she’s masquerading her opinion as received fact. On the contrary, what’s tacky is entertaining foreign leaders outdoors in tents as though the White House lawn is home for trailer park trash.

She closed her tearful piece with this:

It [the White House] is a symbol of power, legacy, and national identity. Respect for the nation and all that it has built still matters. These aren’t trifles or overreactions. They are the foundations of the republic we built. That’s worth defending.

The White House as an edifice is, indeed, a symbol. The larger, more important symbols of our nation’s power, legacy, and national identity, though, are our respect for and rule of law, the integrity of our national borders, and our American culture centered on the idea of inalienable rights coming from our Creator, not any government, and of individual liberty along with liberty’s dual, individual responsibility. And that culture, ideal of law (including those borders), and culture are what the White House stands in symbol of.

Those symbols presently are threatened by domestic terrorism; politicians musing on and hoping for the murder of political opponents and their children; attempts at murdering a President by a Leftist; politicians’ threats of violence against Supreme Court Justices and attempts at murdering one of them; the actual murder by Leftists of a leading Conservative activist; and the divisive likening of political opponents to Hitler and fascism, followed by attempts at mass murder of Republican Congressmen.

Yet, all this WSJ editor can find—all she can think of—to worry about is a needed remodel and expansion of the White House’s East Wing, a modification that will add to the White House’s grandeur.

Schumer Shutdown Food Funds Cutoff

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Agriculture has run out of funds, due to the Schumer Shutdown, and as a result, food stamps will not be issued in November.

This is what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) has said is good for Democrats. Cutting the needy off from badly needed nutrition resource support is what House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D, MA) says is a legitimate thing to do because it produces leverage for Democrats.

This is the cynicism of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

All within the Party, nothing outside the Party, nothing against the Party.

Especially nothing from the Party for our nation, nothing from the Party for us average Americans.

A Medical Man Demands Slow Approvals

Posted on by
Reply

In his letter to The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section, Todd Lorenz, a Stanford University employee degreed as a Medical Doctor, pushed for FDA to continue to pass on the efficacy of a new drug as a condition for approving it, never minding that that would drastically slow approval and subsequent availability.

There is no way to know for certain if drugs work without doing efficacy studies in humans. Preclinical and animal studies, while helpful, can’t predict with confidence which drugs will be useful. Most investigational cancer drugs that go into the clinic have been shown to work in animal models. Most don’t work in patients.

In a truly competitive free market, those that don’t work won’t stay in the market for long. Delaying approval until efficacy can be “proven,” though, denies cancer patients access to those drugs that do work, unnecessarily—unconscionably—risking their lives. Lorenz closed with this:

The answer, then, is to approve drugs after they’ve been demonstrated to be safe. Yet no drug is completely safe; some can lead to substantial adverse reactions. It may be acceptable to prescribe drugs with such profiles if the diseases they are intended to treat are serious enough to warrant the risk. The choice to use any drug in a particular patient always depends on such a cost-benefit analysis. Without an objective assessment of efficacy, no such determination is possible.

No drug is ever completely efficacious, either. Even so, Lorenz contradicted his call for a cost-benefit analysis with that repeated demand for an objective assessment of efficacy. He ignores the simple fact that that cost-benefit analysis is best done—is most effectively done—by the patient and his doctor, not by Government. The benefits and costs of a particular drug treatment can only be assessed empirically by those two critical analyzers acting in a medical drug market that is competitively fed by safe drugs. Those empirically collected use and outcome data will determine efficacy, and they will do so far faster and far more thoroughly than can a government agency populated by bureaucrats who happen to have medical degrees of one sort or another, and who hold out for repeated trials with sample sizes that are miniscule relative to the target population, even if those sample sizes argued to be statistically significant.

UCLA Emeritus Professor James Meyer, also the proud possessor of a degree as a Medical Doctor, complemented Lorenz with his own non sequitur.

Messrs Hooper and Steiner [Deregulation Can Make Medications Cheaper] argue that the cost of new drugs could be greatly reduced if the FDA focused only on their safety. Maybe so. But this overlooks that the federal government has had a major and increasing interest in efficacy since the passage of Medicare (1965), the growing responsibility for veteran care since the Vietnam War (1965) and the passage of ObamaCare (2010).

You bet it does. Those agencies have burgeoning populations of bureaucrats to keep employed and to keep expanding. Never mind that bit about denying access to safe drugs by those who need them until a collection of bureaucrats gets around to approving “efficacy.”

A Solid Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

John Early, of the Cato Institute and ex-Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (two times), has a thought on how to further remove unconstitutional race considerations from Federal government tolerance and behavior. Expanding on Chief Justice John Roberts’s observation that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race[,]” he offers this:

One simple way that the Trump administration can promote these objectives is by revising the Office of Management and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive 15, which specifies the kind of data on race and ethnicity government agencies must collect. The current directive is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and scientifically unsound.
If OMB revised the directive to prohibit the collection of racial data, it would make it more difficult for regulators and attorneys to devise schemes for government to discriminate by race.

He’s mostly right on this. There is no need for the Federal government to collect race or ethnicity data under a couple of axes. One is that it’s barred by the 14th Amendment, which requires all of us to be treated equally under law. That makes race irrelevant. The other axis is that we’re all American citizens—see that 14th Amendment, again. We’re all the same in every way that matters to law.

There is, thus, no need for the Federal government to collect any data on persons present in our nation beyond the number of American citizens and the number of non-citizens actually present. I’d break that last into two categories, but not doing so wouldn’t be a deal breaker: the number of resident aliens and the number of illegal aliens. That last subcategory would, of necessity, be a guess, but DHS and Interior have the resources with which to make reasonably educated guesses.

“Mostly right:” there’s little need to collect ethnicity data either: the ethnicity of us American citizens is American. Full stop. There might be interest in collecting ethnicity data regarding non-citizens present in our nation, but that centers mostly on the illegal aliens so we know the first option regarding where to deport them. Ethnicity data regarding these, though, can be identified as the illegal aliens are caught; there’s no real need to collect the data as a matter of course.

Education Parity

Posted on by
Reply

There are two paths for achieving some sort of “parity” in education. One path is through pushing for equality of opportunity. This path is exemplified by New York City’s gifted and talented programs that identify gifted children before they reach school age and try to funnel them into educational programs that are tailored to enhance their giftedness and encourage them to learn more and faster—to excel. This is a reflection of Theodore Roosevelt’s each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. Roosevelt was speaking economically, but the guarantee applies just as surely to education systems. That equality of opportunity makes each person—each student—equally capable of reaching his full potential, however large or small that might be from student to student.

The other path for education parity—it really is binary—is to push for—parity—in educational outcomes. This is the path Progressive-Democratic Party New York City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani espouses. Mamdani promises to eliminate the city’s gifted and talented program under the fiction that children will benefit more from experiencing the breadth of ability in their peers than they will be harmed from being held back to the pace of their peers. Mamdani’s claim extends to insisting that the gifted children will, in the end, be unharmed from being restrained.

Oh, sure, Mamdani gussies up his move:

Mr Mamdani argues that New York City’s gifted programs have produced racially inequitable outcomes, and therefore all students should remain in the same classrooms, regardless of ability.

This is a Mamdani paraphrasing Woodrow Wilson: [removing gifted and talented programs] is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you [parents]. This is deeply insulting to those parents and to their children. This is Mamdani saying in so many words that black children and brown children are intrinsically inferior to white children and Asian children, they cannot hope to compete in school, and so they must get the protections of holding back the white and Asian children.

It’s inconceivable to Mamdani and his fellow Progressive-Democrats that blacks and browns could easily compete did they have the same access to opportunity as their white and Asian fellow children.