Tag Archives: culture

Misplaced Attributions

Posted on by
2

A couple of letter-writers in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section are worried about the the Trump administration supposedly pressuring people out of their offices. These are misplaced attributions that exaggerate the strength of “pressure.”

One opines,

Reports that political pressure from outside forces may have contributed to the resignation of UVA’s president are troubling and strike at the heart of institutional autonomy.

This writer should concern himself more with the UVA President’s lack of courage. He resigned; he was not fired. Resigning is entirely a voluntary decision, no matter the level of perceived pressure to leave. What strike[s] at the heart of institutional autonomy is not “political pressure;” it is institutional managers in leadership positions who run away rather than stay and defend their institutions and their own actions in support of those institutions.

The other letter-writer wrote,

President Trump used his political and executive powers to force an end to [Senator Thom Tillis’ (R, NC)] public service….

Leave aside the fact that Tillis had, some months before, reached his decision to not run for reelection and that Trump’s supposed pressure merely accelerated his announcement of his decision. It’s possible that this letter-writer was unaware of that fact.

What should be obvious to this person is the same thing that is so apparent in the UVA President’s case: Tillis’ decision, and his choice of timing for announcing his decision, were entirely voluntary acts entered into by Tillis himself. No amount of pressure from Trump (which were, at bottom, merely words of opprobrium) should have been sufficient to “force an end.” That’s especially true in Tillis’ case, or that of any other politician: a President has no power to force a Congressman of either house to serve or not to serve. That choice is decided entirely by the incumbent in his decision to stand for reelection or not, and in the former case, falls next to the voters of his constituency and to no one else.

Pressure can be decidedly uncomfortable, but only the faint of heart succumb to it, and we’re all better off with the faint of heart departing.

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.

He’s Right

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is looking to seal off leaks, especially those that center on potentially treasonous leaks to the press.

A leaked report claimed that the U.S. strike only set back Iran’s program by a few months. U.S. officials have said the nuclear sites were destroyed and it would take years for Iran to rebuild them.
…
Trump suggested compelling the journalists who publicly reported on the leaked intelligence to reveal their source for national security reasons.

Certainly such leakers should be identified, haled into criminal court, and if convicted, locked up for a very long time. This kind of leaker isn’t just violating his oath of office, or the terms of his employment, he’s committing the felonious act of sending classified material—national security-related material—to the press, which our enemies avidly read. Furthermore, the only way this sort of leaker can have passed the classified material along to the press is by having stolen the material first, and the theft itself should be separately punished with a jail term.

There’s more to this than just that, though.

In all other walks of life, receiving stolen goods is itself a crime, magnified by efforts to profit from the receipt. Unlike the legal and medical professions, there is no intrinsic right to confidentiality between news writers—journalists—and their sources. The Frankenstein-esque creation of a “need to protect sources” is right next door to violating the 14th Amendment’s requirement for equal treatment under law.

Journalism would suffer mighty and irreversible damage were journalists required to reveal the source(s) who transmitted to them stolen materials or communicated to them information the sources were revealing in violation of the obligations of their position? This is cynically offered nonsense. In times past, journalists were required by their editors to have at least two on-the-record sources corroborating the anonymously sourced information those journalists published. That requirement has since been abandoned by the journalist guild.

What concrete, publicly accessible, and publicly measurable standard of journalistic integrity do today’s news writers and their editors use?  They refuse to say, which is them saying loudly and clearly that they have no standard.

It’s long past time to bring journalism, which refuses to regulate itself, back within the bounds of a law that the rest of us must obey.

Mamdani Is Not a Communist

Posted on by
Reply

He says so, and that settles it, doesn’t it? Yet the Progressive-Democratic Party’s candidate for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has said, much more forcefully, otherwise, and not so long ago, given his youth (he’s only 33).

  • …we need a socialist New York to give these workers their power back….
  • [I]f we want to change the nature of politics in New York State wholesale, it will require bringing in a lot more DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] members
  • [T]here are other issues which we firmly believe…[including] the end goal of seizing the means of production
  • if we want everyone to be full participants in the economy, we need worker ownership of the means of production

And so on.

Mamdani’s denial of his communist status is typical Leftist and Progressive-Democratic Party reliance on their Newspeak dictionary and their parallel rejection of our American English dictionaries.

Ignorance is strength.

Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.

Indeed. Our ignorance. Know Betters’ strength. Our minds torn asunder. Know Betters’ choosing.