Tag Archives: culture

It’s Not Him, It’s Me

Posted on by
Reply

The funeral for civil rights icon, ordained and practicing minister, and one-time Democratic Party Presidential candidate Jesse Jackson occurred last week. His family had explicitly asked that there be no politics involved, only celebrations of the man and his accomplishments.

“Who dat said dat,” said Progressive-Democrat ex-Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Obama:

Each day, we’re told by those in high office to fear each other, and to turn on each other. And that some Americans count more than others. And that some don’t even count at all. Everywhere we see greed and bigotry being celebrated and bullying and mockery masquerading as strength[.]

Biden:

We got an administration that doesn’t share any of the values that we have, and I don’t think I’m exaggerating a little bit[.]

Biden added, and it wasn’t an aside; it seemed like an emphasis of the importance of the rest of his remarks,

I’m a hell of a lot smarter than most of you.

Progressive-Democrats can’t help themselves. They must—they’re driven to—turn every event they attend into a political diatribe against those who disagree with them, especially anything or anyone Trumpian.

On the other hand, the Evil Current President Donald Trump (R), who often clashed with Jackson and more often helped him, had this to say:

Jesse was a force of nature like few others before him. He had much to do with the Election, without acknowledgment or credit, of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who Jesse could not stand. He loved his family greatly, and to them I send my deepest sympathies and condolences. Jesse will be missed!

Do we really need such self-centered, self-important persons in our republican democracy-structured government?

Target Placement vs Targeting

Posted on by
1

The US might have hit a girls school as collateral damage when it struck an IRGC compound in Minab, Iran, on the Minab River and 15 miles as an IRGC rocket flies from the Strait of Hormuz.

The school is located on the edge of a compound linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps…. There are indications the school building had previously been used as an IRGC headquarters….

There’s this, too, from IDF Spokesperson for International Media, LTC Nadav Shoshani. Scroll to the second video, which shows the extent of Khamenei’s underground bunker, its widespread and widely separated access points—and its placement in the heart of Tehran in the middle of a densely built up civilian neighborhood.

Such placement of military and critical governing facilities in the middle of civilian areas or adjacent to high propaganda value civilian facilities like hospitals and—in the present case—schools, using them and especially their occupants as shields, is typical of terrorist entities.

While collateral damage should be minimized, especially as that damage includes deaths of civilians and their children, that risk is both the moral and legal responsibility of the terrorists who create it and must not be allowed to leave the military targets unscathed.

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.