Nostalgia is one hell of a drug. For some people, the present is an exercise, not in what is good, but what detracts therefrom. The future is forever descending doom. No wonder, then, why so many want to look back as older movies and ads and hope for a world where that fantasy could be real… to the point of believing that it is not only real, but we can will it into existence. Again, nostalgia is one hell of a drug.
The truth is that the halcyon past wasn’t perfect. Even is somethings feel worse now, the past wasn’t the utopia that some people seem to fancy it as, and in many ways it sucked compared to what we have now.
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
The question of whether certain measures are necessary for safety to protect out liberties or an attack on the same, sparked by recent violence, is nothing new as this discussion on whether a then proposed anti-terror bill is a danger to civil liberties by William F. Buckley, Jr., Steven Emerson, Ira Glasser, Michael E. Kinsley, Victoria Toensing, James J. Zogby, and Davic Cole demonstrate in the second part of this discussion.
Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: These statements will not help you diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
Theodoric of York, NHS Health Specialist
HHS Secretary RFK, Jr. promised gold standard research that would inevitably beg the question regarding health policy. ‘Twould seem that this is a fools gold standard rife with phantom citations.
“Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says his ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Commission report harnesses ‘gold-standard’ science, citing more than 500 studies and other sources to back up its claims. Those citations, though, are rife with errors, from broken links to misstated conclusions.
“Seven of the cited sources don’t appear to exist at all.
“Epidemiologist Katherine Keyes is listed in the MAHA report as the first author of a study on anxiety in adolescents. When NOTUS reached out to her this week, she was surprised to hear of the citation. She does study mental health and substance use, she said. But she didn’t write the paper listed.
“‘The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with,’ Keyes told NOTUS via email. ‘We’ve certainly done research on this topic, but did not publish a paper in JAMA Pediatrics on this topic with that co-author group, or with that title.’”
It’s not like he isn’t already convinced of some kooky ideas, right? Oh, wait…
“The guy with brain worms who dumps baby bear carcasses and decapitates whales always seemed like an odd fit at best at the Department of Health and Human Services and a potentially catastrophic one at worst. It was not reassuring when Kennedy strode into his confirmation hearing and made clear that he didn’t know which one was Medicaid and which one was Medicare. (Those programs make up 85 percent of the budget at HHS.) Nor was it comforting when Kennedy assured Dr. Phil McGraw and his audience that he thinks the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is behind the phenomenon of “contrails” and that ‘I’m going to do everything in my power to stop it.’”
At least they corrected the report when this was pointed out, right?
“The Trump administration’s clean up of the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Commission’s hallmark and error-riddled report is opening new questions about how the report’s authors drew some of its sweeping conclusions about the state of Americans’ health.
“At least 18 of the original report’s citations have been edited or completely swapped out for new references since NOTUS first revealed the errors Thursday morning. While some of the original report’s inconsistencies have been changed, a few of the new updated citations continue to misinterpret scientific studies.”
For the most part, people generally agree that racial harassment has no place in the workplace. While there are some libertarians who believe that, as deplorable as it may be, it ought not be a government matter, even they generally believe that that racial harassment itself is not morally acceptable. While there is valid concern of such rules going to far, as with stray comments taken out of context or a stray offensive joke or so, an actual hostile environment created with the blessing of the bosses running the show is odious to the vast majority of decent Americans.
Sadly, just such harassment, targeted against one racial group, has been not only pushed by “DEI” loving corporate managers, but even pushed by the Federal government itself: Implicit Bias Trainings, and other such similar training to convince people that Whites have a different way of knowing that was oppressive.
A recent court case, Chislett v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Ed., resulted a hostile work environment claim could go forward when it involved training that caste one race as problematic compared to others, in this case the race being “White”.
The test for a hostile work environment involves “both objective and subjective components: the conduct complained of must be severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive, and the victim must subjectively perceive the work environment to be abusive.” … Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, a rational juror could find that discriminatory conduct at the DOE was sufficiently severe and pervasive to have created a hostile work environment…. Chislett set forth sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find that she was repeatedly exposed to racial harassment at her workplace throughout 2018 and 2019.
First, Chislett presented evidence from which a rational jury could find that racist comments were expressed during bias trainings. For example, instructors mentioned several times that the “values of [w]hite culture are supremacist.” Similarly, during one training session, Ababio-Fernandez, Senior Executive Director of the OEA [DOE’s Office of Equity & Access], declared: “There is white toxicity in the air, and we all breathe it in.” In the sessions, there was persistent messaging to the effect that white culture is generally “[d]efensive[];” “[e]ntitle[d];” “[p]aternalis[tic];” “[p]ower [h]oard[ers];” and “[p]rivilege[d].”
Further, there was physical segregation of white employees and singling out of staff by race during one training session as participants were ordered as to racial privilege associated with whiteness and physically “lined up to reveal the dividing ‘color line of privileges that favored whites.'” Negative generalizations and stereotypes about white people were also targeted specifically at Chislett during the trainings. For instance, during a Q&A session, instructors told Chislett that her “interest in excellence was perfectionism and consistent with white supremacy.” On the question of the objectivity of considering the training environment hostile and abusive, it is pertinent that one of Chislett’s co-workers was similarly upset about the racial generalizations and that another regarded the DOE as “an extremely hostile environment for white individuals.” {[And t]he fact that the purpose of the sessions was to combat race discrimination does not excuse the alleged presence of race discrimination in the conduct of the sessions.}
Ronald Reagan famously said that government wasn’t the solution; it was the problem. And while the government is not the root of all of life’s problems, it is a more problematic “solution” than the purported problem itself. James Lindsay notes as much, which is quoted in full below due to the limitations of Twitter/X embeds.
Warren Buffett’s late investing partner, Charlie Munger, once said, “Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.” This is one of the most important sentences in English.
It also explains why government can’t solve most problems, why it can’t work for us either.
Anytime you have a problem, you have an incentive. The incentive is to fix it or otherwise get away from it. That’s what it means for it to be a problem, by definition.
Nobody has more incentive than you do to solve your problem. The government has almost zero incentive to solve your problem.
This isn’t because government is broken or corrupt or whatever. It’s much more deeply structural to government itself. It is because you are first person to your problem, and the government is third person to your problem — unless, of course, your problem is a problem for the government (and then, watch out).
You don’t just have an incentive to solve your problem, though.
You have an incentive to solve it well.
You have an incentive to solve it fast.
You have an incentive to solve it cheaply.
You have an incentive to solve it with what you already have if you can.
You also have an incentive to solve it in a way that can scale to other people who have the same problem who can then purchase your solution from you.
“Show me the incentive, and I’ll show you the outcome.”
Under a “reasonable” threat, all telecommunications services can be severed:
15.2 (1) If there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation, the Minister may, by order and after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and with the persons the Minister considers appropriate,
(a) prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person, including a telecommunications service provider; and
(b) direct a telecommunications service provider to suspend providing for a specified period any service to any specified person, including a telecommunications service provider.
Meanwhile… in Canada…
Oh, and the people ordered by the government to do this aren’t allowed to say anything, or indeed is a targeted person allowed to say anything about this:
(3) The order may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence, or some or all of its con tents, by any person.
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
The question of whether certain measures are necessary for safety to protect out liberties or an attack on the same, sparked by recent violence, is nothing new as this discussion on whether a then proposed anti-terror bill is a danger to civil liberties by William F. Buckley, Jr., Steven Emerson, Ira Glasser, Michael E. Kinsley, Victoria Toensing, James J. Zogby, and David Cole demonstrate.
Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Good riddance to bad policy.
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…
Anti-DEI laws in Kansas have led to Kansas State University closing down a center that provided, in part, help involving financial support, housing accommodations, name change support, scholarships, and more available specifically for trans-identifying students.
“Kansas State University is closing its LGBT Spectrum Center at the end of this month following a new state law targeting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives.
“‘With thoughtful consideration and deep respect for our community, I write to inform you that the Spectrum Center will cease operations effective July 31,’ Dean of Students Thomas Lane announced Wednesday in a message to the campus community.
“The center, which opened in 2010, has provided ‘connection, advocacy and education’ for LGBT students, he stated.”
