Category Archives: morality

Yet More Disingenuousity

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s at the State level of education. As usual, the sham bellyaching comes from the Left. In a Just the News piece regarding the slowdown in dismantling the US Department of Education related to DoEd wins in a variety of education and court milieus, we got this from Leslie Babinski, Research Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience in Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy:

We’re looking at 7.4 million students with disabilities who could potentially be impacted by changes with funding through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act[.]
There are 9.8 million students in rural schools who depend on federal support for bridge funding in communities with more limited local tax bases.

This is hysteria hyping in education. Funding needn’t be impacted at all by anything DoEd does, including being disbanded altogether. That includes those rural school students. Education is, by design and overwhelmingly correctly so, local. The Federal government has no business being involved except at a top level—through Title IX’s protection of girls and women in sports and the elimination of DEI bigotry from school curricula.

Local means local, and the top of local in our federal construction is the States. Students with disabilities need extra funding, no doubt, and rural schools with limited local tax funds available also need extra funding. That funding, though, should—must—come from the States. They have no excuse for leaning on [in both sense of that phrase] the Federal government for those tax dollars remitted to the Federal government from other States. States need to do—and all they need to do, regardless of how hard State government politicians think it is politically—is to reallocate their existing spending to better treat their own schools.

That folks like Babinski don’t think of things like this is why politically oriented experts who are not actual politicians cannot be taken seriously.

Politicians in the Federal and State governments, on the other hand, who claim that State level spending reallocations are too hard to do are doing nothing more than holding our children hostage against those politicians’ personal spending wishes. That’s as disgusting as it is immoral.

Right On

Posted on by
Reply

Cliff Asness and Michael Mendelson, of AQR Capital Management, wrote in the Saturday Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section decrying Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani’s statement that we “shouldn’t have billionaires.”

The money part of their letter, though, is their closer:

We are tempted to end by saying, with considerably more evidence than Mr Mamdani, that “we shouldn’t have socialists.” The country would be better off without such noxious and destructive ideas. But unlike him, we know we don’t get to decide who exists and who doesn’t.

Right on.

Disingenuousness of the Abortion Industry

Posted on by
Reply

Planned Parenthood is the industry’s canonical example. This organization has announced that it is going to sue the Trump administration over cuts in funds to it that are contained in the just-passed reconciliation bill.

The provisions contained in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act prohibits abortion providers from receiving Medicaid funding for up to one year for any other reproductive health services they may provide.

Those “other reproductive health services” are primarily related to Planned Parenthood’s and other abortion centers’ abortion activities. Access to any government funding for these is immoral and should be prevented.

Planned Parenthood’s legal beefs, though, are two: one is Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson’s statement:

Everyone deserves access to high-quality, affordable health care.

This is absolutely true (just not by government issue, but that’s a different story), and that care can be provided by a host of facilities, government, NGO, and private. However, abortion is not health care, it’s strictly a matter of killing not yet born babies.

Planned Parenthood’s other beef is this:

Planned Parenthood said the provision puts nearly 200 centers across 24 states at risk of closure and that 90% of those closures would occur in states where abortion is still legal.

That makes explicit that Planned Parenthood puts abortion at the center of what they claim is health care. Aside from that, it’s an irrelevant beef, as is the sub-beef of those business’ locations. No business model creates a government obligation to fund it. If Planned Parenthood, or those centers, wherever they are, want to continue operating, they should change their business models to focus on actual health care provision.

The beefs are wholly irrelevant in another way: government has no obligation to send taxpayer money to any entity, whether NGO or private enterprise.

Even more cynical and disingenuous aspect of this is that nowhere in any abortion providers’ beefs about lack of government funding is there even the smallest syllable of concern for the welfare of the baby being killed by an abortion.

Insidious

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section wrote,

In the dissenters’ telling [in Mahmoud v Taylor], children can be expected to manage the complex issues of sex and gender as objective information, quite apart from the faith and morals their parents seek to instill.

What’s especially insidious here, though, is government, public school administrators, and public school teachers pushing onto their students, our children, clear disinformation and outright lies on more than just issues of sex and gender, such claims as gender being a matter of choice and not genetically, and so immutably, determined at conception, and that some races are intrinsically and irreversibly oppressed while other races are intrinsically and irreversibly oppressors.

That’s the sort of thing those…dissenters…want to see continue, whether deliberately or from the blindness of their modern liberal/monarchist ideology that insists that government, public school administrators, and public school teachers each know better than parents.

School choice, above all, would allow parents to rescue their children from such sewers. To that end, as another letter-writer in the same section wrote,

Let public-education funding follow families’ decisions.

Free Speech Climate Funding Industry Style

Posted on by
Reply

The UN is at it again; this time it’s the UN arm of the Climate Funding Industry that’s attacking individual freedoms.

A United Nations climate expert is calling for people who question the goal of avoiding a climate catastrophe by rapidly eliminating fossil fuels to face criminal penalties.

Elisa Morgera, UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change is insisting that nations have an obligation to

defossilize information systems to protect human rights in the formation of public opinion and democratic debate from undue commercial influence and from information distortions.

In order to protect human rights, our most basic, intrinsic, and inalienable right—free speech—must be circumscribed to suit Climate Funding Industry personages’ definition of proper and properly free speech.

This is just one more reason climate activists cannot be taken seriously and must be cut off from government funds, tax credits, subsidies, and so on.