Tag Archives: culture

But What Has UCLA Done Concretely?

Posted on by
Reply

UCLA’s Chancellor Julio Frenk protested that his school has done much to combat antisemitism in his letter to The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section. He even piously cloaked himself in his extended family’s history of flight from Nazi Germany and holocaust survival.

Among other actions, we have recruited an associate vice chancellor for campus and community safety, established an Initiative to Combat Antisemitism with dedicated resources, reorganized our Office of Civil Rights, and appointed a Title VI/Title VII officer. We have strengthened our time, place, and manner policies to safeguard both free expression and campus operations. We are also supporting and partnering with community organizations engaged in the fight against antisemitism.

These, though, are merely steps that set up John Cleese-esque argument clinics.

What has the good Chancellor or his staff done to rid the school of its recalcitrant antisemitic bigots, whether employee or pupil? What has he done, personally, to address directly any of these bigots? What has any member of his staff done to address them directly?

Transgenders are Better than other Americans?

Posted on by
Reply

Kansas passed a law with effect last Thursday that requires driver licenses to reflect the biological gender of the license holder and not the holder’s currently self-claimed gender. The law invalidates, with immediate force, existing driver licenses that reflect a gender different from the holder’s birth gender. That lack of notice strikes me as unfair, but that’s a separate issue. The law also

invalidates birth certificates of residents [sic] who changed their gender and says citizens can sue transgender Kansans who use public bathrooms that don’t correspond with their assigned birth sex.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit claim that

the law violate[s] transgender Kansans rights to privacy, equality, and free expression guaranteed by the state constitution.

Leave aside the plain fact that the plaintiffs’ suit utterly denies biological fact. What’s interesting here is the self-important arrogance of the plaintiffs, along with the cynically offered irrelevance of one of their beefs.

Last thing first: the law does not deny the plaintiffs’ their right to free expression. No one is telling them they cannot self-claim a different gender than that of their biology. No one is telling them they cannot live their lives as though they were that…alternate…gender, with the few exceptions that all citizens have when exercise of their rights interferes with the ability of their fellow citizens to exercise their own rights.

Which brings me to the first things. Plaintiffs, with their suit, insist that others’ rights to privacy and equality must take a back seat to plaintiffs’. To hell with women’s rights to their own privacy, the equality of their own rights. They must accept that their rights are less important than, are inferior to, the claimed rights of men who claim to be women.

This is a suit that should be tossed on its face, with prejudice, and in short order.

Mistaken Emphasis

Posted on by
2

A letter-writer from the Hudson Institute in The Wall Street Journal‘s Monday Letters section tried to make a case for Europe’s ability to defend itself against a Russian invasion based on Ukraine’s capability.

Despite Russian air superiority and numerical advantages, Ukrainian forces and local volunteers slowed, halted, and ultimately rolled back Russia’s assault on the capital. They did so because they were fighting for national survival, and, in many cases, defending their homes and families as the Russians advanced.

They did so, also, because Ukrainians, individually and as a population, didn’t hesitate to enter a stout defense–The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride. As the letter-writer misconstrued the wargame exercise, Germany did hesitate in the wargame, with fatal effects on the attempted defense against the Russian invasion.

Furthermore, that part about fighting for national survival as well as defending individuals’ homes and families does not obtain in Germany or France. Far too many of those nations’ citizens—including their younger generations and members (of all ages) of their major political parties—would rather not fight even to defend their nation.

Next, much of the reason Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine failed, despite apparent superiority in numbers and equipment, was its mistaken assumption that the invasion would be a walkover. Russia has learned the lesson of that failure, and it won’t underestimate the level of resistance capability of its next target, whether Germany’s and France’s reluctant citizens or the Baltics’ and Poland’s willing but small populations.

And this: the runup to WWI in the aftermath of an Archduke’s assassination was one of a race to mobilize and to achieve a mobilization level conducive to successful attack vs a level conducive to deterrence or to defeat of an attack. In that race, both sides proceeded from substantially equal baselines of military capability and mobilization ability. In the realization, the race ended in a substantial tie, and the German invasion of France, after initial gains of the sort that nearly always accrue to the first aggressor, was brought to a standstill.

That substantial mobilization capability equality does not obtain in today’s Europe.

Russia already has combat-hardened (even if of uncertain quality) troops, a war materiel production capacity already in place and growing, and force buildups occurring, low-key, in Belorussia and in Kaliningrad. The Baltic States and Poland, stipulate arguendo, have similar per capita capacities, but they’re already maxed out due to their small populations and limited, even operating at maximum output, industrial capacity. Behind those front line nations, though, Germany has no serious troop establishment and it cannot even field a combat-ready brigade of armor. Its industrial capacity is not capable of producing materiel in war deterring, much less fighting, much less at mobilizing rates before 2030. Italy and France are little better off.

In a mobilization race today, Russia wins. And that, coupled with the incapacity for defense that even the most dedicated nations have, means Russia wins the war, too.

Pending Republican Failure

Posted on by
Reply

And it’s from the same old story of Republican failure. The backdrop is this:

Job growth trounced expectations. The unemployment rate fell. Wages grew.

And inflation is down, those rising wages are catching up with inflated prices, our border is secure, eleven of twelve budget allocations passed, with only a Progressive-Democrat Party-blocked DHS bill remaining as Party pushes for another (partial, this time) of their government shutdowns.

President Donald Trump (R) is rightly touting all of these successes and more (even though he’d benefit from bragging less and focusing on those successes for our national weal more). Congressional Republicans and candidates for Congress, though, are failing miserably in their own communication responsibilities.

Some of the more nationally known Congressmen are on the national and cable talk show hustings, but it isn’t enough just for those few to give interview to network and cable news outlets.

There’s more to this than that, too. It’s an utter lack of understanding, swaddled as they are in their cloisters, of each of the Congressmen’s and candidates’ need especially to talk to—and with—their constituents in their districts, not just the few to the nation at large. In the case of Senators, whose constituents are State-wide, and it includes the need to talk to voters in Progressive-Democrat enclaves as well as to their own.

It’s also the need to be specific—no glittering generalities, no obfuscating or question-dodging speechifying. Republicans need to discuss the specifics of their policies and policy goals, and they need to explain to their constituents in concrete terms how their policies will help them in particular. No generalizing about national-level benefits. How their policies and goals would help their constituents with their grocery bills, fueling up their cars, reducing their utility bills in real terms. And then tie those real terms to the nominal costs that are what comes out of their constituents’ pocketbooks.

That, though, takes courage. Being specific would bring on a host of Leftist and Party criticism, as we’re already seeing with the objections to the newly House-passed SAVE Act, which would go a long way toward ensuring only American citizens could vote in American national elections. It would be easy enough to demonstrate the foolishness of those policy specifics criticisms, just as it would be easy enough to demonstrate not only the foolishness, but the outright racist nature, of Party’s objections to SAVE—if Republicans only had the necessary courage and the willingness to do the work.

The needed work: Republican Congressmen and candidates need to stop wasting time on national television and get out into their districts and into Progressive-Democratic Party candidates’ base areas and hold town halls and meet in diners and recreation centers directly with their constituents. They need to write op-eds in their districts’ local news outlets, give interviews on local television and radio stations.

Each of these Congressmen have Congressional staffs, and they have offices scattered around their districts; these staffers can assist them with getting the interviews, drafting their op-eds, etc. Candidates have fewer staff outlets, but they have some, and these could help. It isn’t enough to just throw up a policy statement or a news release on their respective Web sites and call it a day. Those are necessary, but stopping there is just lazy when it isn’t cowardice.

In the end, too, those moves will make it much easier for their staffers and volunteers as they mount their get-out-the-vote efforts, which is especially critical regarding low propensity voters and unenthusiastic Republican voters.

[W]inning candidates motivate base supporters to turn out in off-year elections. That’s no easy task for a GOP coalition that relies on infrequent voters and unreliable partisans.

If Republicans fail at these specifics, they’ll deserve to lose their elections. And our nation will lose badly.

“Our Democracy”

Posted on by
Reply

Jack Butler, a deputy editor at The Wall Street Journal‘s Free Expression, had a good piece on Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ defense of our democracy. The TL;DR of it (it really isn’t that long; it’s a good read in its own right) is this:

Party politicians and the Left generally aren’t talking about our nation’s republican democracy or our democracy in the lazy phrasing too often fallen onto; they’re talking about our democracy, and the rest of us can join them or go hang. This is illustrated by the remarks of Party’s ex-President Joe Biden:

In a 2022 speech, President Biden agreed with a federal judge’s assessment that “Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans” are a “clear and present danger” to “our democracy” and called on Americans to “unite behind the single purpose of defending our democracy, regardless of your ideology.”

This is Party’s attitude toward American citizens: you’re either with us, or you’re separate from us, and we’ll simply ignore you while we take care of our version of the nation of the United States.