Tag Archives: morality

Jews for Nazism?

Posted on by
Reply

One Jew, anyway. The Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Maine, Graham Platner, sports—has done for 18 or so years—a Nazi symbol tattooed onto his chest: a copy of the skull and crossbones as used by the SS Totenkopf (more formally, the SS-Totenkopfverbände and not to be confused with the 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf), which operated the Nazis’ concentration and Jew extermination camps.

That’s all jake with Vermont’s “Independent” Senator Bernie Sanders (he enthusiastically caucuses with the Progressive-Democratic Party Senators).

…what he did was, he has expressed his darkness on the internet, probably not a brilliant thing to do, all right, and he said things that are stupid, things that were hurtful. He has apologized for it.

Sanders proceeded to profess his continued support for this fellow Party candidate.

Platner wore that despicable symbol of Jew hatred for the 18 years, but he apologized for it. That makes it all better. Never mind that he still wears it, albeit “disguised” with another tattoo overlaid on it.

Never mind, either, that tattoos can be removed with laser treatment.

A Jewish Senator supporting Nazism because Party. A Jewish Senator excusing Nazism in any guise.

Imagine that.

Education Parity

Posted on by
Reply

There are two paths for achieving some sort of “parity” in education. One path is through pushing for equality of opportunity. This path is exemplified by New York City’s gifted and talented programs that identify gifted children before they reach school age and try to funnel them into educational programs that are tailored to enhance their giftedness and encourage them to learn more and faster—to excel. This is a reflection of Theodore Roosevelt’s each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. Roosevelt was speaking economically, but the guarantee applies just as surely to education systems. That equality of opportunity makes each person—each student—equally capable of reaching his full potential, however large or small that might be from student to student.

The other path for education parity—it really is binary—is to push for—parity—in educational outcomes. This is the path Progressive-Democratic Party New York City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani espouses. Mamdani promises to eliminate the city’s gifted and talented program under the fiction that children will benefit more from experiencing the breadth of ability in their peers than they will be harmed from being held back to the pace of their peers. Mamdani’s claim extends to insisting that the gifted children will, in the end, be unharmed from being restrained.

Oh, sure, Mamdani gussies up his move:

Mr Mamdani argues that New York City’s gifted programs have produced racially inequitable outcomes, and therefore all students should remain in the same classrooms, regardless of ability.

This is a Mamdani paraphrasing Woodrow Wilson: [removing gifted and talented programs] is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you [parents]. This is deeply insulting to those parents and to their children. This is Mamdani saying in so many words that black children and brown children are intrinsically inferior to white children and Asian children, they cannot hope to compete in school, and so they must get the protections of holding back the white and Asian children.

It’s inconceivable to Mamdani and his fellow Progressive-Democrats that blacks and browns could easily compete did they have the same access to opportunity as their white and Asian fellow children.

Personal Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

This is a core tenet of our federal republican democracy—the concept that us American citizens are the ones primarily—and most often solely—responsible for the outcomes of our decisions and our actions. This is a tenet that applies just as firmly in our fundamentally capitalist economy to our businesses. In particular, for this post, it applies to our banks, large, small, and in between.

Or, it should apply. Dangerously, our banks, particularly our small and mid-sized banks, would be relieved of that responsibility under legislation that Tennessee Republican Senator Bill Hagerty, who should know better, and Maryland’s Progressive-Democrat Senator Angela Alsobrooks, who is merely acting on her party’s big and bigger government bent, are proposing. That legislation would raise the FDIC’s deposit guarantee from $250,000 per depositor’s account to $10 million.

The editors of The Wall Street Journal have the right of it on this one.

The truth is that a higher insurance limit will increase moral hazard and make the banking system less sound, which will hurt all Americans.

Because

It would also encourage more risk-taking since banks will have to worry less about runs.

Massachusetts’ Progressive-Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren as recently as 2023:

We have to do this because these banks are under-regulated, and if we lift the cap, we are requiring—or relying even more heavily on the regulators to do their jobs.

Here is the monarchist Party’s purpose revealed and now pushed by Alsobrooks: an ever more intrusive and controlling central government.

The proposed legislation is an idea whose time never will be, and the proposed legislation needs to be scotched in committee, if not before.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

A study of Purdue’s entering freshmen class of 2018 indicated that women freshmen who didn’t get their preferred class on registration were significantly less likely to graduate in four years than were their women counterparts who got their preferred class on registration. (There was no significant effect for that year’s male freshmen, but that’s neither here no there for this post.) Leave aside the various limitations of this study; focus on the particular outcome.

This is a conclusion of one of the study’s authors, Kevin Mumford:

Our estimates suggest that reducing course shutouts, particularly for STEM courses, can be an effective way to improve female-student outcomes[.]

No. Lowering standards—which is what “reducing course shutouts” amounts to, if only through increasing the class sizes of those courses that are in such demand—is not the way to improve women’s graduation rates.

The answer is insultingly wrong, too, suggesting as it does that women students need to be coddled in order to function in college.

What is necessary is to take steps to help these women overcome a disappointment that doesn’t bother men by helping them identify classes that are effective substitutes of their preferred class, classes that cover the same subject with a different professor, or is in a different section under the same professor, or take the preferred class in a subsequent semester, or….

“Is Britain safe for Jews?”

Posted on by
Reply

That was the opening sentence of the lede—the lede of the lede, if you will (or even if you won’t)—of the opinion piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal. The next sentence laid out the case:

On Thursday authorities in Birmingham, the country’s second-largest city, prohibited the fans of an Israeli soccer team from attending a match next month, even though the threats to cause trouble are coming from locals.

The game in question is scheduled for early next month as part of an international soccer tournament, and the Israeli fans have been barred because they might be victims of violence rather than perpetrators of it. A test, as instructive as it would be interesting to see, is whether British soccer teams and especially the teams’ owners will boycott those tournament’s games that are played in the UK, refusing even to take the pitch until Birmingham undoes its support for thuggery or until the British government overrules Birmingham’s instance of antisemitic bigotry.

Those locals, as the opinion expands, are primarily Islamists. Birmingham, and by extension the British government, through its studied inaction on the ban, so far indicate that they favor Islamist thugs and their thuggery over Israeli soccer fans and British non-Muslim subjects.

If neither government acts, then no, Britain is not safe for Jews, and that would be by British government, both local and national, design.

That would be beyond sad, it would be disgusting and despicable. The cradle of government by consent of the governed and of individual liberty would no longer be fit for civilized or even merely polite company.