Category Archives: culture

Should be a No-Brainer

Posted on by
1

As The Wall Street Journal‘s editors put it,

Get ready for what could be another landmark Supreme Court case. On Friday the Justices agreed to consider whether majority-minority Congressional districts drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act are compatible with the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

The Court has asked the litigants in Louisiana v Callais to assess whether creation of a second majority-minority Congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.

This is long overdue, as states are now caught in a vice. If they weigh race too heavily, they can run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. But if they ignore race, they can be sued for violating Section 2. Louisiana’s House map is a prime example.

It is long overdue, from as far back as 1965 when the Civil Rights Act was first enacted. The relevant clause of the 14th Amendment is in its first Article:

No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 15th Amendment is even more explicit:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Favoring one group of Americans over another—which especially in the zero sum game of voting favors one group at the direct expense of another—denies both groups equal protection of the laws by that favoring. Tailored to the right to vote, creating a voting district to favor one group on the basis of race or color explicitly abridges the voting rights of those citizens in that district who are not members of the favored race or color while simultaneously exaggerating the voting rights of those who are members.

This should be a no-brainer: Louisiana’s voting districts, drawn as they are on the basis of race, are unconstitutional, and the Voting Rights Act, which mandates such favoritism is itself unconstitutional. Any use of race, however seemingly slight, to create a district or any policy that considers race is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court should listen to and heed its recently prior ruling that any consideration of race in college/university admissions is unconstitutional.

Bureaucratic Interference

Posted on by
Reply

The lede laid out the problem, but the news writer missed it.

The agencies under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy are getting squeezed between old-guard staff who object to Trump administration priorities on one side, and prominent conservatives and business interests on the other.

Old-guard staff are well worth listening to and taking their input, especially their objections, seriously. But, this:

The dynamic is creating a minefield between Make America Healthy Again and deregulation for current leaders and new appointees.

No, it does not create any sort of minefield. The situation really is quite straightforward and simple, requiring only some managerial will.

Staff inputs, especially those objections, legitimately, apply only during the investigation, ideation, and discussion/debate phases. Once the decision has been made, though, here by Kennedy or his designated subordinate—CDC Director or Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director, for instance—it then becomes the duty of old-guard staff, every single one of them, to carry out that decision with zeal and enthusiasm. Their objections or disagreements no longer matter and should no longer exist.

If an old-guard staffer does not believe s/he can carry out that decision in good conscience, then his duty is to resign, not to refuse to execute or to passively resist.

If an old-guard staffer—or a newer hire—does resist the decision or obstruct it passively, then the relevant manager must fire the staffer. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya has an opportunity here. In a kerfuffle over whether NIH would create a list of DEI-related words to be banned from grant recommendations, he issued a directive barring any such lists.

[B]ut some program officers “took it upon themselves” to create ad hoc, unofficial lists.

Those program officers should be identified and fired for cause.

I Have a Question

Posted on by
Reply

In partial response to President Donald Trump’s (R) refusal to pay Progressive-Democrats $1 billion in released foreign aid and NIH funding—variously a bribe or an extortion payment, depending on who’s talking—in order to get Party Senators to agree to speed up the nomination confirmation process that Party has been busily stonewalling, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) had this:

Sooner or later, Donald Trump—Mr “Art of the Deal,” or so he claims—is going to have to learn that he has to work with Democrats if he wants to get deals, good deals, that help the American people[.]

My question, and the answer illustrates the intrinsically partisan and obstructionist nature of Party, is this: when will “Democrats” work with Trump? When will “Democrats” work with Republicans generally? Party’s determined refusal to do so is harming us American people about whom Schumer and his Party so piously pretend to care.

Failure of the VA

Posted on by
Reply

The way the Department of Veterans Affairs is (mis)treating our veterans suffering from PTSD—post-traumatic stress disorder—is appalling. Drug them up with a multiplicity (as many as five or more simultaneously) of psychiatric drugs and call it a day is the current protocol.

The VA’s own guidelines say no data support drug combinations to treat PTSD. The Food and Drug Administration warns that combining certain medications such as opioids and benzodiazepines can cause serious side effects, including death.
Nonetheless, prescribing cocktails of such drugs is one of the VA’s most common treatments for veterans with PTSD, and the number of veterans on multiple psychiatric drugs is a growing concern at the agency….

Aside from just drugging up these men and women who put their lives on the line for our nation, that “growing concern” is the sham of empty words unbacked by corrective action.

The VA has long been aware of the risks of overprescribing, and has internal research since at least 2016 showing the potential harms, including increased risk of suicide.
…
Studies by VA researchers link the simultaneous use of multiple psychiatric drugs to suicide risk among veterans, including a 2016 paper that found Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans taking five or more central nervous system drugs faced higher risks of overdose and suicidal behaviors.
Yet the agency has been slow to mandate changes. It has failed to implement nationwide electronic systems to alert doctors when they prescribe multiple psychiatric drugs, despite evidence from its own studies that these alerts improve care. The VA doesn’t uniformly require written informed consent for all psychiatric drugs with suicide risk, something that veterans groups and some members of Congress are urging. Some veterans who have resisted taking cocktails of drugs say they were warned by VA and military doctors that refusing them could jeopardize their eligibility for disability benefits, which can reach $4,500 a month.

Not only is the VA passively refusing to do anything about its mistreatment of our veterans, the agency and “doctors” are threatening our veterans if they don’t comply with those dangerously ineffective VA prescriptions.

Some veterans who have resisted taking cocktails of drugs say they were warned by VA and military doctors that refusing them could jeopardize their eligibility for disability benefits, which can reach $4,500 a month.

These men and women would be far better served, as would all of our veterans, if the VA were dissolved and its then-current and all future putative budgets converted to vouchers for each veteran which s/he could use to get treatment from a doctor, clinic, and hospital of his choice and on the schedule that suits him rather than the agency. Other “benefits” of the VA, viz., Home Loan Guarantee, Insurance, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment, GI Bill, and Compensation & Pension, are far better done from within HUD and DoD.

VA Secretary Doug Collins should have the mission of achieving that dissolution, to be completed by the end of 2028. Continuing to prop up the department is worse than a waste of our taxpayer money: it’s outright destructive of our veterans, who already have sacrificed so much for our benefit.

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

Core Progressive-Democratic Party Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ) made it explicit a couple days ago in a speech opposing unanimous consent passage of some bipartisan bills, including one led by his Progressive-Democrat colleague Catherine Cortez Masto (D, NV). Booker’s position, loudly and proudly stated on the Senate floor:

It’s time for Democrats to have a backbone[.]
…
This is a problem with Democrats in America right now. We’re willing to be complicit to Donald Trump to let this pass through, when we have all the leverage right now. When are we going to stand up as a body and defend our work, defend our jurisdiction, defend this coequal branch of government?

Then, when challenged on this by Cortez, instead of responding with facts and logic, Booker answered in typical Progressive-Democrat fashion:

Don’t question my integrity, don’t question my motives[.]

Those Progressive-Democrat Senators who disagreed with Booker and his behavior, Senators Masto and Amy Klobuchar (D, MN), are increasingly on Party’s fringe, far from the Party center. That’s where the Bookers of Party stand.

That stance: everything against Trump and Republicans, nothing for what’s explicitly good for their constituents or for our nation as a whole.

Party’s core and only policy is naked opposition to all things originating outside of Party.