Quick Takes – Good Policy Is Good Even If Coincidental: Affirmative Action; Ending DEI; Ending Non-Deportation Of Illegals

     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: Just as coincidence of policy does not establish consanguinity of doctrine, non-sanguinity of doctrine does not preclude a coincidence of policy.

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

     Let it not be said that your humble author won’t give credit for doing the right thing where credit is due. The original LBJ-era “Affirmative Action” executive order has been rescinded.

“It is being reported that President Trump has rescinded Executive Order 11,246, which has long required ‘affirmative action’ programs for companies doing contract work with the federal government. You can skip the first paragraph of this old NRO post and then read why this EO’s notorious implementing regulations — which, one presumes and hopes, will vanish with the EO itself — are riddled with bad law and bad policy.”

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

How Woke Works

     Wokeness isn’t just some social affectation of evil or even just something unnatural or objectionable. Beyond the superficial level that most people recognize is the underlying falsity of foundation that underlies how it works, and how it end up manifesting regardless of the particulars of the manifestation.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

News of the Week (January 26th, 2025)

 

News of the Week for January 26th, 2025


Continue reading

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Comments Off on News of the Week (January 26th, 2025)

Firing Line Friday: Who Killed Bobby Kennedy?

     In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.

     With President Trump declassifying the files on the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy (or so the Stonecutters would have us believe), let us look back half-a-century ago when William F. Buckley, Jr. and Allard K. Lowenstein discusses the question of who killed Bobby Kennedy?

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Quick Takes – Goings On In Academia: Discriminatory Neutrality; Health Equity Center; Anti-Racist Workshop For White Educators

     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 all ya got is an anti-racist hammer, everything is a racist nail.

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

     Treating people equally is discrimination at Columbia University.

“Columbia University in New York City recently updated its anti-discrimination policy in which the school now says that race-neutral policies that have a ‘disproportionate impact’ constitute discrimination.

“The policy, which was updated on Sept. 23, states that ‘having a neutral policy or practice that has a disproportionate and unjustified adverse impact on actual and/or perceived members or associates of one Protected Class more than others, constitutes Discrimination.’”

Continue reading

Posted in Education | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Quick Takes – Goings On In Academia: Discriminatory Neutrality; Health Equity Center; Anti-Racist Workshop For White Educators

Normalizing Pregnancy As A Disease

     Anti-natalism is ultimately anti-human. One shouldn’t belittle or deman women form whom having children wasn’t in the cards, those who outright declare that pregnancy is a disease are indeed obsessively nuts. Such is the case of the authors of this little scholastic journal article declaring that pregnancy should be seen as a disease, normatively speaking.

“In this paper, we identify some key features of what makes something a disease, and consider whether these apply to pregnancy. We argue that there are some compelling grounds for regarding pregnancy as a disease. Like a disease, pregnancy affects the health of the pregnant person, causing a range of symptoms from discomfort to death. Like a disease, pregnancy can be treated medically. Like a disease, pregnancy is caused by a pathogen, an external organism invading the host’s body. Like a disease, the risk of getting pregnant can be reduced by using prophylactic measures. We address the question of whether the ‘normality’ of pregnancy, its current necessity for human survival, or the value often attached to it are reasons to reject the view that pregnancy is a disease. We point out that applying theories of disease to the case of pregnancy, can in many cases illuminate inconsistencies and problems within these theories. Finally, we show that it is difficult to find one theory of disease that captures all paradigm cases of diseases, while convincingly excluding pregnancy. We conclude that there are both normative and pragmatic reasons to consider pregnancy a disease.”

     Right off the bat, the justification for this “normative” idea that pregnancy is a disease is to treat the perpetuation of the species as something abnormal…

“Imagine a patient who visits the doctor having an abdominal mass that is increasing in size, causing pain, vomiting and displacement of other internal organs. Tests are booked, and investigations are planned. But when the patient mentions that she has missed her period, these alarming symptoms suddenly become trivial. She is pregnant! No disease, nothing to worry about. But is this the right way to think about things?”

     Yet even while calling pregnancy a “disease”, they note it has “subjective benefits”, such as reduction in lifetime risk of breast cancer, but that won’t let anyone get in their way to declare that pregnancy can be much worse and thus ought to be considered a disease on par with the measles. What’s worse, pregnancy is a sexist disease!

“However, unlike measles, pregnancy is a condition that affects only a certain group of people: those with female reproductive organs. Perhaps this partly explains why the risks involved in pregnancy are higher in places where women’s rights and independence receive less social and legal protection.”

     They then go on to claim that disease itself is subjective and it’s only a disease if you don’t like it?

“A person who is happy to be pregnant may welcome even unpleasant symptoms such as stretch marks and nausea. The pain of childbirth may be treated as a badge of honour. Perhaps then, the ‘badness’ component of pregnancy can simply be disregarded in such cases. If so, a wanted pregnancy is not a disease, whatever its impact on a person’s health. However, for consistency, this might imply that in other cases where a person finds value in their experience, they can no longer claim to have a disease.”

     If you want these horrible outcomes, then it’s not a disease to you! This is the logic of “bug chasers” and “gift givers” intentionally transmitting AIDS. Pregnancy, in this paper, has become nothing more than a masochistic fetish.

Continue reading

Posted in Healthcare, Science | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Normalizing Pregnancy As A Disease

Natural Born Birthright Is The Law, And Our Heritage

     That a person born in the United States and not excepted from its jurisdiction, which is otherwise absolute, is a citizen at birth has been well established not only by the 14th Amendment (which simply reaffirmed the color-blind nature of this precept) and explicit statutory declaration, but by the very Common Law which predated the independence of the United States of America or even the foundation of the colonies which became the Untied States of America.

     This has been made clear, not only by United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), but by a clear review of the actual historical evidence.

     But President Donald Trump has declared that he can simply wish differently in order to effect a “quick fix” for some contemporary political problem by publishing by executive order an update to the Newspeak dictionary. And yet again, it becomes necissary to debunk that.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

News of the Week (January 19th, 2025)

 

News of the Week for January 19th, 2025


Continue reading

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Comments Off on News of the Week (January 19th, 2025)

Firing Line Friday: William F. Buckley Jr., Malcolm Muggeridge, and the World

     In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.

     Just some sharp wit and sharper remarks between and with William F. Buckley, Jr., Malcom Muggeridge, Peter Ridell, James Galbraith, and Patricia Hewitt discussing the world.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on Firing Line Friday: William F. Buckley Jr., Malcolm Muggeridge, and the World

Quick Takes – Killing Just Because: Killing Non-Medically; Killing The Mentally Disabled; Killing To Organ Harvest

     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: Just a little killing here and a little killing there…

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

Death, Rx

     Much like how “Medical Marijuana” was used to normalize non-medial weed legalization, euthanasia was used to normalize killing people.

“The idea of a nonmedical model for assisted suicide was just pushed again by bioethics professor Eric Mathison. From the assisted-suicide-boosting Thaddeus Mason Pope’s Medical Futility blog (an excellent resource on these issues, reported by Pope objectively):

“‘Eric Mathison proposes a non-medical model of assisted dying.

 “‘The current, dominant model of MAID requires patients to get approval from healthcare providers before getting access to assisted suicide and euthanasia. This is problematic for a couple of reasons.

 “‘First, there’s a theoretical problem — namely, it’s paternalistic because it requires a healthcare professional to be convinced that the patient is suffering intolerably. And second, there’s a practical problem because there aren’t enough healthcare professionals who provide the service.

 “‘In response to these problems, Mathison believes that (1) the only requirement that a patient needs to meet is that they are making an autonomous choice, and (2) that non-medical personnel should be able to assist in their deaths.’

“That’s only logical. Killing/suicide isn’t a medical act. So why should it be restricted to doctors and nurse practitioners?”

Continue reading

Posted in Healthcare, Progressives | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment