Canceling Halloween in the Name of “Inclusion”

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Ronald G. Taylor, South Orange & Maplewood School District (New Jersey) Superintendent, has canceled Halloween celebrations and costumery in his schools, all in the name of inclusion and diversity.

On the district’s website, a[] release stated principals were surveyed on whether school-sponsored Halloween celebrations should continue or be replaced with a festival that is focused on autumn. They state the principals’ “overwhelming” response favored in canceling Halloween celebrations in school.

Notice that Taylor didn’t survey the parents or the students. Of course, he didn’t: the kids belong to the district; uppity parents have nothing to say, and the students…well, they’re just kids. Taylor:

Ultimately, it was determined that I know this may make some uncomfortable….

But the discomfort of some doesn’t matter when it’s the discomfort of those who might disagree.

Inclusion. Diversity. Don’t like the nature of Halloween? Don’t participate; no one is making anyone do so.

Yes, that’s the point. Forcing “inclusion” is exclusionary. Forcing “diversity” is exclusionary. Each ignores the views, even the preferences, of those disfavored by the forcers and locks those disfavored ones out of the programs instead of inclusively letting folks decide for themselves whether to participate. And those varying opinions and decisions regarding participation are the essence of diversity.

“What New Catastrophe?”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors wrote about the lack of Iran sanction enforcement, with particular regard to Iran’s ballistic missile development program. The editors wrote of a number of failures to enforce despite Iran’s repeated violations.

They closed their editorial with this question:

What new catastrophe would cause President Biden to rethink his Iran policy?

Here is what that catastrophe will look like, but Biden’s “rethinking” will be too late.

If one day, he [Rafsanjani] said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons]—on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

Biden’s current “thinking” has him desperate to reenter the agreement with Iran whereby Iran is allowed (even were it to honor such an agreement) to finish its nuclear weapons development after some small period of time.

Mayorkas’ Closed Border

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has repeatedly said that our southern border is closed, for instance, on the occasion of the end of Title 42. Here are some data just from the CBP app that DHS personnel have foisted off on the CBP, an app with which would-be entrants to the United States may schedule appointments to appear at US ports of entry.

Between January 12, 2023, and September 30, 2023, more than 278,431 appointments were made through the app, with roughly 95.8% of individuals securing parole into the US interior.

That’s just in general. It gets…more so…particularly regarding illegal aliens from nations that are inimical to us.

  • 94% of 20,948 Russians who scheduled appointments through CBP One secured parole
  • 93% of 246 Afghan applicants secured entry
  • 97% of 57,381 Venezuelans secured admission
  • 98% of 801 Belarusians were allowed in
  • 88% of 18 Iranians were allowed in
  • 88% of 36 Chinese were allowed in
  • 82% of 2,279 Uzbeks were allowed in

This is Mayorkas (and Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden, who hired him) using their Newspeak Dictionary definition of “closed border.”

Mandating Supply in the Absence of Demand

Posted on by
Reply

What could go wrong? Look at Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s mandate, through his Energy Department (run by the Secretary who thought it hilarious that we should—or could—produce more oil), that American automakers—Ford, GM, and Stellantis—make only battery cars by 2032. Along the way, look at his Energy Department’s proposed new rule:

The Energy Department in the spring proposed to eliminate the 6.67 multiplier….
Detroit auto makers would be slammed harder than foreign competitors by the regulatory changes because pick-ups and SUVs make up a larger share of their fleet sales. “The average projected compliance cost per vehicle for the D3 is $2,151, while non-D3 auto manufacturers only see an increase of $546 per vehicle,” the Big Three recently told the Energy Department.

That multiplier was an early regulation that made it possible to impute (however accurately or inaccurately) the miles per gallon achieved by internal combustion engines—itself subject to increasingly higher requirements under successive ED regulations—to the “mileage” achieved by battery cars. ED’s proposed rule change—under that D3 regime—essentially eliminates the mileage equivalent multiplier.

Combined with Biden’s requirement that our automakers make only battery cars by 10 (now 9) years from now, results in this outcome:

[U]nder the Energy Department’s proposal, it could make more sense to pay the government penalties than to increase production of EVs that don’t sell. This may be why GM is now throttling EV production, as Ford has also done.

It’s cheaper for the manufacturers to non-comply and pay the vig than it is for them to produce and pay the even bigger cost of not selling a government-required product the buyers—us ordinary Americans—don’t want and won’t buy.

And what does that preference for violating a law say about a culture of routine law-breaking?

Biden and his Progressive-Democratic Party syndicate can’t even get Rule by Law right, much less live within the dreary and inconvenient process of operating within the law—Rule of Law. And we Americans pay the price of that.

Risk Responsibility Transfer?

Posted on by
Reply

Some of the newer generations of Americans are relying increasingly on cell phone apps on their own cells phones that let their parents track their locations.

Gen Z respondents to a recent survey from Life360 said they share their location when they drive, when they go on dates, and when they attend concerts and other large gatherings. Many keep location sharing on at all times.

As Julie Jargon points out in her article, though,

[T]racking may be creating a false safety net for both parents and teens. Knowing where kids are doesn’t necessarily keep them safe when disaster strikes.

The problem is larger, yet. Michele Borba, an educational psychologist—and spokeswoman for Life360:

These kids have been helicoptered, snowplowed, and bubble-wrapped[.]

Indeed. And those kids have no clue how to take care of themselves. Their parents will come bail them out. The kids are transferring more than a small measure of responsibility for their own safety to their parents, and that transfer might—might—make them safer in the near-term, but it leaves them less safe in the mid- and longer-term, especially when they no longer have their parents to rely on because they’ve left their cozy nest.

The problem goes even beyond that once they’ve left their nest. The mindset they’re learning is that someone else always is looking out for them. That someone else, ultimately, is Government, and they no longer are independent actors; they’re wards of the State.