News of the Week for November 24th, 2024
News of the Week for November 24th, 2024
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
When it comes to crime and punishment, we seem to go through cycles where high crime lead inevitably to tough on crime measures which lower crime… which results in the softening of anti-crie legislation, until the cycle repeats again. California, via initiative went from tough anti-crime “3 Strikes” laws to practically legalizing theft, and has now returned to more tough on crime policies. Let us look back thirty years ago when some went so far in opposing tough on crime legislation that they questioned if we needed prisons at all, with John C. Goodman, Jean Harris, Stephen B. Bright, Charles W. Colson, Pierre S. Du Pont and William F. Buckley, Jr.
Until next Friday.
![]()
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: When stupidity and fantasy collide.
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…

Watermelons: Green on the outside and red on the inside. Case in point: “Critical Political Ecology/Economy: From Extraction Regeneration”.
“A private university in New York City is offering a course titled ‘Critical Political Ecology/Economy: From Extraction Regeneration’ that puts forward ‘(eco)feminism’ and ‘(eco)Marxism’ as ‘viable alternatives’ to current political structures.
“According to The New School’s website description, the fall course’s premise examines capitalism’s alleged failures from an ecological and economic perspective. Students will study what is ‘necessary’ to ‘substantiate viable alternatives’ to the system.
“The course’s subject matter uses several disciplines to examine how capitalism supposedly “disrupts Earth system processes.”
“‘. . . in analyzing the making of the world-system economy/ecology of Euroamerican colonial capitalist modernity, [the course] also charts the histories of alternative social ecologies,’ the description says.
“The ‘living history’ course seeks to ‘substantiate viable alternatives and transformative paradigms like (eco)feminism,(eco)Marxism; postcolonialism, decolonialism, Indigenous, post-development, degrowth, post-extractivism, and environmental/climate justice.’”
![]()
Magical healing of the planet is something that education is intended to dispel from students minds. Harvard, on the other hand, thinks saving Gaia requires confronting “structural racism”.
“The planet is sick, so says the environmentalists, but here comes Harvard University heal it.
“The Ivy League university, where freshmen need refresher courses on algebra, will now offer a concentration (fancy word for “major”) in ‘Climate Change and Planetary Health.’
“‘The idea is that we move from an understanding of planetary health to training planetary healers,’ Professor Christopher Golden told The Crimson.
“‘We see climate change as one of the most important existential threats that is affecting public health,’ the faculty co-director also told the student newspaper.
“Healing the planet includes confronting ‘structural racism,’ too.
“‘Students in this concentration will also learn about the health inequity born out of environmental degradation,’ the Chan School of Public Health description states.
“‘Structural racism and international economic policy have exacerbated the climate crisis, with communities of color, poor communities, and the Global South being disproportionately impacted,’ the website states. ‘You will be equipped to use research, leadership, advocacy, and policy to implement solutions that better serve these populations.’”
![]()
Nothing says academic rigor like the “trans history” of “radical faeries”…
“Columbia University is offering a course titled ‘A Trans History of the United States.’
“The class covers ‘the diversity of gendered experiences across the history of the United States with an emphasis on the individuals, communities, and movements that have been interpreted as trans,’ and aims to “offer an in-depth survey of the history of trans and gender nonconforming experiences across the history of the United States.”
“The ‘key themes’ to be examined include the ‘experiences of trans/gender in relation to race and colonialism, labor, migration, medicine, kinship and sexuality, legal and carceral systems, activism, performance, media, and technology,’ as well as ‘the political stakes of trans history during times of backlash and hostility towards trans communities.’
“The class instructor, Nikita Shephard, who goes by ‘they/them’ pronouns, is currently working on a doctoral dissertation that ‘documents a political history of the public bathroom in modern America.’ His work focuses on ‘histories of LGBTQ communities, gender/sexuality and race, social movements, data and surveillance, and radical politics in the twentieth century United States and beyond.’
“His past work included research on ‘Radical Faeries,’ a group that includes ‘drag queens, leatherfolk, political activists, witches, [and] magicians,’ who get together to ‘do drag,’ ‘make love,’ ‘dance naked,’ ‘cry, sing, laugh, argue,’ ‘sew,’ ‘commit heresies,’ and ‘cover each other with mud.’”
TTFN.
Once upon a time, Tucker Carlson was a bowtie-wearing young man with insightful and thoughful ideas. Then, in a change of course, he began wearing a necktie and some time thereafter began speaking as a contrarian, speaking of economic ridiculousness and going widdershins from supporting the War on Terror to full blown “Blame America First” to the point beyond where even Pitchfork Pat would be aghast by defending Nazi apologia and even beyond Walter Duranty in his worship of Russia.
But that doesn’t signal true madness. Yes, there is the inevitable overreach of whatever message he’s trying to peddle, but he’s gone far beyond that by blaming everything on Satan.

This is beyond even Satanic Panic 2.0. Tucker Carlson honestly seems to believe that demons attacked him.
Postmodernism and Marxist Critical Theory combine to create a hellish spawn, and it’s pedagogy targeted at young people. Logan Lancing examines this synthesis and what it means.
I want to discuss a paper this morning, one that helped me understand the merger of Critical Theory with Postmodernism.
Peter McLaren's "Critical Pedagogy and the Postmodern Challenge" (89')
— Logan Lancing (@LoganLancing) October 19, 2024
The paper's central argument was this:
We live in the wake of Postmodernism. PoMo argues that grand narratives (big stories about progress/history) are broken. Meaning is slippery, identity fluid, and everything fragmented. This creates unique challenges for fighting oppression.
— Logan Lancing (@LoganLancing) October 19, 2024
Back when Barack Obama was President, Chris Rock said that “the president and the first lady are kind of like the mom and the dad of the country. And when your dad says something, you listen. When you don’t, it usually bites you in the ass later on. So I’m here to support the president.” Back then, Republicans and conservatives decried the idea that the government was your or anyone else’s parent.
Demonstrating that the Old Left is just the New Right, Republicans are now not only applauding the idea that government is your “Daddy”, but now giddy about that “Daddy” spanking America like a naughty little girl. Tucker Carlson (Hitler apologia defender, Putin sycophant, and “peaceful tourist” fantasist) giddily fantasizes about America being a bad girl who will be given a vigorous spanking by the coming Trump Presidency.
Tucker Carlson’s vision of a Trump presidency is that “dad comes home” and says to America,
“You’ve been a bad girl. You’ve been a bad little girl and you’re getting a vigorous spanking, right now. … It’s going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts me.”pic.twitter.com/fh25KmyYmG— Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) October 24, 2024
News of the Week for November 17th, 2024
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
The death penalty isn’t at the top of voters concerns like it was thirty years ago, but the overarching question of whether we should have the death penalty or not today reveals a still standing stark division between the states. Let us look back when the question of whether the death penalty is a good thing or not was debated by William F. Buckley, Jr., Leon Botstein, Ira Glasser, Bryan Stevenson, Ed Koch, Stephen B. Bright, Walter Berns, and Susan Boleyn, as moderated by Michael E. Kinsley.
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: Not today Grim Reaper!
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…

Not only is medical murder not a fundamental human right, it’s outright banned in
West Virginia now!
“West Virginians narrowly approved a constitutional amendment to explicitly prohibit physician-assisted deaths, according to a MetroNews analysis of statewide numbers.
“At the time of the call, votes in favor of the amendment numbered 318,386. Votes against the amendment numbered 312,886. That was a 5,500 vote difference.
“Amendment One, which presents a heavy question about life and death, was on the back of ballots — beneath national, state and local political races.
“The explanation provided on ballots was that ‘The purpose of this amendment is to protect West Virginians against medically-assisted suicide.’”
![]()

There has been, for some unfathomable reason, a staunch opposition to genetically engineering catgirls for domestic adoption. Now the bioethics of raising animals to the level of human (e.g. “uplifting”) is not only being brought up, but even attacked!
“Bioethics journals play a crucial role in this, providing an important space for this reflective exercise to take place. There are (at least) three important dimensions to this. The first involves identifying the ethical issues raised by these emerging technologies. The second, debating these issues, with journals providing an important forum in which disagreement and debate can play out on how to respond to them. Only once reasoned views have been formed on these morally contentious issues can these then be used to inform the development of tangible public policy or regulation — the third important dimension.
“It is the debate over these contentious issues that has come under threat in recent years, with increasing pressure to avoid engagement with ideas deemed ‘unpalatable’ from a misplaced fear that debating the issues simply serves to give oxygen to (allegedly) unacceptable views. Within this context, bioethical journals and their publishers must strive to ensure that they continue to provide a space in which all views on these issues are explored and debated however controversial or morally questionable they may be. The best way to confront immoral or mistaken viewpoints is to challenge the errors and presumptions that underpin those views. Abdicating from, or worse silencing, dissenting voices is a dead end.”
And, sadly enough, such experiments shouldn’t even be allowed, according to some!
“The idea that perhaps such experiments shouldn’t be conducted at all isn’t even considered by the bioethicists, who tend to cite the usual justification for radicalism in science, such as that human diseases could be eventually ameliorated by the findings of such experiments. They are concerned with setting “new standards for future research,” and the moral status of humanized animals should be accorded.
“There are two kinds of such animals discussed: animals in which neural function is not affected (such as, say, a pig with a humanized kidney for use in transplantation medicine), and animals with modified brains that enhance their intelligence. To these bioethicists, function is the key:
“‘The origin of a neuron, brain or person does not matter morally. It does not matter whether they are natural or artificial, carbon based or silicon based. Their anatomy or structure does not matter. Their appearance does not matter. What matters morally is function.’”
But how can we genetically engineer hyperintelligent catgirls with such restrictions?
