Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

M
Category: Culture

On Abortion

by | 0714, 9 Aug 22 | , | 68 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. I put a taste below. I realized that as the abortion debate has moved to the state houses where we, the people, will actually have to debate the issue and come to some decisions, the rhetoric of abortion politics is still frozen in the theater of inaction in which SCOTUS froze it in 1973. This is one guy’s attempt to explain his position on the issue. Hopefully those with other opinions will offer them with the same sincerity and not resort to the crutch of “you hate women” or some such nonsense and we can have a grown-up debate about public policy. Pollyannish? Probably, but a guy can hope.

Our nation’s Declaration of Independence set forth that we are all created equal and, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.” Our United States Constitution went on to protect people from being deprived of life without the due process of law in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Both documents are based on a fundamental understanding of Natural Rights.

 

Natural rights are universal and inalienable. They are not dependent on government, laws, customs, traditions, or societal norms. They are rights that are embedded in the very essence of humanity and are enjoyed by each individual irrespective of age, color, creed, nationality, gender, or station. The just duty of government is to protect those rights from being infringed upon by others and to regulate the outcome of when two rights collide.

 

The most precious Natural Right is the right to live. Life is the right from which all other Natural Rights flow. The only real question regarding abortion, then, is to determine when life begins, for once we have determined that a life has begun, it is incumbent on us to protect that life through the power of government.

 

Fortunately, here in the 22nd century, the mysteries of reproduction and gestation have been largely solved. Once an egg is fertilized, a unique DNA is created and cells begin to multiply until they form a human that we would recognize. Some would pinpoint the start of life at when the heartbeat starts, or when brain activity begins, or when the baby would be viable outside of the womb. Some would allow abortion even in the moments after birth under the argument that the baby is still woefully dependent on the mother. That is the same argument that could be made for infanticide well into the toddler years.

 

For me, the most ethical and logical point at which to mark the start of life is when that unique DNA is created. That is when there is a unique life. There is clearly nothing separate from the parents before that moment and there is someone unique after it. While one could argue that life begins at a more viable state, each of those benchmarks seem arbitrary. Our moral, ethical, and legal obligation to protect life should make us err, if we are to err, on the side of prudence. It is better to accidentally protect people’s pre-lives than it is to intentionally kill them.

 

With life beginning at fertilization, we must structure our laws to protect those lives. In the case of a mother not wanting a baby, we come into a conflict of the rights of two individuals. The baby has a right to life. The mother has a right to bodily autonomy. In such cases of conflict, we make laws to decide the best, least harmful, outcome. In no other area of law do we permit the killing of one individual to protect the bodily autonomy of another. Neither should we in this case. The consequences for the mother are significant, but the consequences for the baby are cataclysmic. In such cases, we must protect the life of the baby even though its very existence imposes obligations and consequences on the mother.

Starbucks’ “Dens of Debauchery”

by | 0802, 20 Jul 22 | , | 0 Comments

I haven’t willingly bought Starbucks for years precisely because their leadership has supported the policies that lead to this stuff for years. Perhaps Schultz is signaling a change from woke to awake? 

The CEO of Starbucks is intentionally shuttering more than a dozen profitable stores nationwide over disruptions that he’s blamed on the cities’ woke local elected leaders for ‘abdicating their responsibility’ to fight crime.

 

Howard Schultz said ‘America has become unsafe’ after he announced that 16 stores will close in several cities across the country – all set in left-leaning locales – because staff are being attacked and reports of drug use at the popular cafés.

 

The cities set to see closures include the company’s hometown of Seattle, as well as five other liberal-run municipalities. Those stores are in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Portland, and Washington, DC.

Schultz warned that this is ‘just the beginning’ of store closures and said there ‘would be many more’ amid issues with mental illness, homelessness and crime.
[…]

The reported disruptions include drug use by paying customers and, more often than not, members of the public – who often take advantage of the company’s open bathroom policy, which allows nonpaying patrons to use their facilities.

 

As a result, the bathrooms have in large part devolved into dens of debauchery, regularly used by vagrants and homeless to do drugs and engage in other illicit behavior.

Planned Parenthood of Illinois Reports Increase in Wisconsinites Getting Abortions

by | 1757, 14 Jul 22 | | 0 Comments

This is kind of a silly story about a tragic topic.

The number of Wisconsin women seeking abortions at Planned Parenthood of Illinois has gone up 10-fold since June 24, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights and Wisconsin halted abortions, the head of the organization said Thursday.

 

[…]

Planned Parenthood declined to say how many Wisconsin patients have had abortions at its centers in Illinois since the ruling last month that overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
They won’t give numbers, so there really isn’t a way to validate their claims. But the claim itself is misleading.
“number of Wisconsin women seeking abortions at Planned Parenthood of Illinois has gone up 10-fold”
Okay. Until a few weeks ago, abortions were legal in Wisconsin, so it stands to reason that Illinois saw very few Wisconsinites getting abortions in their clinics. Why would a Wisconsinite travel to Illinois when they could get in Wisconsin? So the starting number for that alleged “10-fold” increase may be as few as 1 resulting in 10 additional abortions. Is that significant? It is for the children, but not for much else. If, for some strange reason, IL clinics have a history of 100 or more Wisconsinites getting abortions every month, then an increase to 1,000 is very significant.
What I would like to know is if the aggregate number of abortions has increased or decreased since the ruling? Wisconsin averaged about 500 abortions a month. Since the ruling, have IL and MN seen a net increase of about 300 abortions? If so, then abortions have not been reduced. If it’s substantially less, then the ruling may have already saved a couple hundred babies. We will need several months of data before we can really start to draw some conclusions, but the evidence from when other states increased regulations on abortions, the net number of abortions for the region decreased. We can hope.

Celebrating independence in 2022

by | 0851, 9 Jul 22 | , | 2 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week.

As we celebrate another Independence Day and the blessings of our liberties, it is also incumbent on us to reflect on the state of the constitutional republic our Founders left us. President Ronald Reagan reminded us that, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” What time is it on the Doomsday Clock of the great American experiment?

 

The structure of our constitutional republic sits on pilings of genius sunk in a deep understanding of the human condition. Our Founders understood that any government requires some humans to hold power over other humans. They also understood that all humans are inherently flawed — sinful, in ecclesiastical parlance — and could not be trusted with power over others.

 

To square this circle, our Founders developed a constitutional framework that trifurcated power into three separate and coequal parts. Each part had distinct powers and restrictions with the other two parts serving as a check lest too much power be usurped by one part. In essence, the genius of our Founders’ construct is that it uses the worst parts of the human condition — envy, pride, bigotry, hubris, etc. — as a millstone to grind down the sharpness of concentrated power. In order for our great constitutional republic to function, it requires widespread consent of the governed in the form of mass voluntary obedience to the rule of law. We are a nation full of diverse opinions on what our laws should be and we hash that out through our elected government. Inevitably, there will be swaths of people who disagree with various laws for various reasons. For our society to function, it requires that the vast majority of the people accept and obey the laws even when they disagree with them. A small percentage of ne’er-dowells will violate laws for which we maintain a nominal police force to correct and punish, but most people must obey constrained only by their consciences and adherence to our form of government.

 

When laws are unjust, mass civil disobedience is a legitimate form of corrective action in a free society. This is when a significant percentage of citizens refuse to obey the unjust law. In response, the government can either enforce the law with increasingly aggressive tactics at the risk of enraging the larger citizenry, or forgo enforcement, thus undermining the authority of the law. We have seen that civil disobedience in response to a just law fizzles under the weight of societal indifference.

 

When we move beyond individual laws being unjust to government itself being unjust, then we venture beyond civil disobedience into the realm of uncivil disobedience. It is incumbent on a free people to throw off a government that has become tyrannical, but such action must be embarked upon with great prudence such that ”Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” But when there is a sober realization that the totality of the government has become intolerably tyrannical and it can no longer be rectified through the established constructs of our constitutional republic, then rebellion is the only recourse left to the dignity and conscience of a free people.

 

Where are we in 2022? We are in dangerous times. There are significant and growing factions in our nation that have moved well beyond protesting what they perceive as unjust laws into rejecting the very institutions of government as irrecoverably illegitimate. Groups like antifa and the Youth Liberation Front are using every societal spark to rebel and destabilize our institutions.

 

Left to their own devices, these fringe groups would rage in a vacuum where the fire quickly snuffs out. But recent years have seen mainstream leaders and elected representatives give them oxygen by echoing and validating their claims that our nation’s very institutions have become irredeemable. Calls by established and trusted leaders that the Supreme Court, Electoral College, Congress, and president are not just wrong, but illegitimate, are a manifest call to replace those institutions — even by violence. After all, what free people can tolerate living under the yoke of an illegitimate and tyrannical government? Such calls are reckless unless they are intended to be traitorous.

 

Thankfully, most Americans still respect our core government institutions and are willing to do the hard work of continuing to make our nation fairer and freer through the arduous representative process laid by the Founders. As we engage in robust debates in the public square and consider heterodox views without murdering each other, so too must we boldly engage and reform our government institutions without murdering them.

 

So what time is it on that Doomsday Clock? It’s time to get to work.

UN Touts Benefits of World Hunger to Benefit the Rich

by | 0621, 6 Jul 22 | , | 2 Comments

Wow… just… Wow. The liberal world order (that we are all paying high energy prices to support according to the Biden Administration) really hates us.

We sometimes talk about hunger in the world as if it were a scourge that all of us want to see abolished, viewing it as comparable with the plague or aids. But that naïve view prevents us from coming to grips with what causes and sustains hunger. Hunger has great positive value to many people. Indeed, it is fundamental to the working of the world’s economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there is a need for manual labour.

 

[…]

 

For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset.

Celebrating Independence in 2022

by | 0705, 5 Jul 22 | , | 0 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

The structure of our constitutional republic sits on pilings of genius sunk in a deep understanding of the human condition. Our Founders understood that any government requires some humans to hold power over other humans. They also understood that all humans are inherently flawed — sinful, in ecclesiastical parlance — and could not be trusted with power over others.

 

To square this circle, our Founders developed a constitutional framework that trifurcated power into three separate and coequal parts. Each part had distinct powers and restrictions with the other two parts serving as a check lest too much power be usurped by one part. In essence, the genius of our Founders’ construct is that it uses the worst parts of the human condition — envy, pride, bigotry, hubris, etc. — as a millstone to grind down the sharpness of concentrated power.

 

In order for our great constitutional republic to function, it requires widespread consent of the governed in the form of mass voluntary obedience to the rule of law. We are a nation full of diverse opinions on what our laws should be and we hash that out through our elected government. Inevitably, there will be swaths of people who disagree with various laws for various reasons. For our society to function, it requires that the vast majority of the people accept and obey the laws even when they disagree with them. A small percentage of ne’er-do-wells will violate laws for which we maintain a nominal police force to correct and punish, but most people must obey constrained only by their consciences and adherence to our form of government.

 

When laws are unjust, mass civil disobedience is a legitimate form of corrective action in a free society. This is when a significant percentage of citizens refuse to obey the unjust law. In response, the government can either enforce the law with increasingly aggressive tactics at the risk of enraging the larger citizenry, or forgo enforcement, thus undermining the authority of the law. We have seen that civil disobedience in response to a just law fizzles under the weight of societal indifference.

 

When we move beyond individual laws being unjust to government itself being unjust, then we venture beyond civil disobedience into the realm of uncivil disobedience. It is incumbent on a free people to throw off a government that has become tyrannical, but such action must be embarked upon with great prudence such that ”Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” But when there is a sober realization that the totality of the government has become intolerably tyrannical and it can no longer be rectified through the established constructs of our constitutional republic, then rebellion is the only recourse left to the dignity and conscience of a free people.

Declaration of Independence

by | 0702, 4 Jul 22 | , | 0 Comments

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

SCOTUS Reins In Power of Regulatory Agencies

by | 1127, 30 Jun 22 | , , | 0 Comments

Excellent.

But he added that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to do so.

 

‘A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,’ he wrote.

Much like with the other rulings, this court is returning power to the people and their elected representatives from courts, executives, and agencies who have usurped that power over time. We WANT big questions to be debated and decided by the representative part of our government. Yes, it’s harder that way. It’s cumbersome, slow, inefficient, and often ineffectual. But representative government is far superior to the arbitrary rule of bureaucrats whether they wear black robes or suits.

Racist Roots of California’s Gun Control Laws

by | 0806, 28 Jun 22 | , | 1 Comment

Gun control has always had racist roots.

Lest you think I’m being facetious, recall how California got started on its journey to having the toughest gun control laws in the country.

 

It was in 1967 that members of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense staged a protest at the California Capitol. Armed with the handguns and shotguns they normally used to protect Black neighborhoods in Oakland by “policing the police,” they announced that the time had come for “Black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.” And then they went inside.

 

“We have a constitutional right to bear arms,” they shouted as they wandered the halls of the Capitol.

 

Lawmakers were so freaked out that they quickly passed the very bill the Black Panthers had been protesting — the Mulford Act, which banned the open carry of loaded weapons without a permit. Gov. Ronald Reagan signed it posthaste.

Marijuana Use Leads to More Injuries and Hospitalization

by | 1948, 27 Jun 22 | , | 3 Comments

Interesting data to consider as the push to legalize pot expands.

The study, published Monday in the journal BMJ Open Respiratory Research, looked at national health records data for over 30,000 Ontario, Canada, residents between the ages of 12 and 65 over a six-year period.

When compared with people who did not use marijuana, cannabis users were 22% more likely to visit an emergency department or be hospitalized, the study revealed.

Respiratory problems from smoking weed was the second leading reason users seek emergency care, the study found.

The finding held true even after adjusting the analysis for over 30 other confounding factors, including other illicit drug use, alcohol use and tobacco smoking.

“Physical bodily injury was the leading cause of emergency department visits and hospitalizations among the cannabis users, with respiratory reasons coming in a close second,” Vozoris said.

Left Engage in Violent Protests

by | 0825, 25 Jun 22 | , , , | 3 Comments

If the ruling had gone the other way, there would not have been riots. We all know it. Only one side of the ideological spectrum routinely resorts to violence and rage when things don’t go their way.

Furious pro-choice demonstrators took to the streets in cities including Washington DC, Phoenix, New York City and Los Angeles as they begged the Biden administration to find a way to overrule the decision.

 

A group was spotted burning the flag of the United States in the capital while others gathered outside Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ home.

 

In Arizona, cops were forced to fire tear gas at protestors after they appeared to breach the State Senate building in Phoenix, with staff evacuated but no one reported to have been injured.

 

And at least 25 were arrested in New York City after around 17,000 descended on Washington Square Park before marching through the streets to Grand Central Station, Times Square, and Bryant Park.

 

They also stopped outside News Corp headquarters – home to Fox News and The New York Post – and yelled ‘Burn it down! Burn it down! F–k Tucker Carlson!’ Vandals also sprayed ‘F*** Fox’ on the side of the building.

 

Meanwhile pro-life protesters also amassed nationwide, some breaking down in tears as they celebrated the immediate end of abortions in 18 states.

Fina Issues Rule on Transgender Swimmers

by | 1816, 19 Jun 22 | | 1 Comment

This seems like a reasonable rule, although, I seriously question the morality of allowing/forcing a child to go through changing their physical gender.

Fina, swimming’s world governing body, has voted to stop transgender athletes from competing in women’s elite races if they have gone through any part of the process of male puberty.

Fina will also aim to establish an ‘open’ category at competitions for swimmers whose gender identity is different than their birth sex.

The new policy, which was passed with 71% of the vote from 152 Fina members, was described as “only a first step towards full inclusion” for transgender athletes.

The 34-page policy document says that male-to-female transgender athletes are still eligible to compete in the women’s category “provided they have not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 [which marks the start of physical development], or before age 12, whichever is later”.

Planned Parenthood Stops Scheduling Abortions in Wisconsin

by | 1631, 17 Jun 22 | , | 6 Comments

Wonderful news!

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, which operates three clinics that provide abortions in the state, is not scheduling the procedure beyond June 25 as it anticipates a late June decision reversing the landmark 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. The organization in recent weeks has dedicated two staff members to help patients book appointments and figure out how to get to clinics.

 

Whether clinics in Wisconsin will be able to provide abortions, though, has turned into a day-to-day question.

A Lefty Explores the Depravity of San Francisco

by | 0632, 8 Jun 22 | , | 20 Comments

How bad? This bad.

“And quite frankly, what San Francisco’s doing is not a safe consumption site at the Tenderloin Center. For lack of a better term, it’s opium den, where people can sit in Adirondack chairs and shoot dope all day. They’re monitored by a nonprofit worker that was given ten minutes of training on how to administer Narcan.”

 

As for whether addicts are availing themselves of services at Tenderloin Center, Wolf said, they are not.

 

“Forty thousand people have gone to that Tenderloin Center in the last month, and they linked less than half a percent of those people to treatment,” he said. “I don’t know what kind of weird experiment San Francisco is doing right now, but I promise you that that’s not helping anybody find recovery.”

 

Instead of fostering wellness, the center seems to be metastasizing the problem, the addiction spilling into the streets. I am going to do my best to not put too fine a point on this, to not illustrate what is happening within a few feet of Sandberg and me in a way that makes you think I am trying to win you to one side or another, but if you will, here is the scene: A young man stands in front of us babbling for ten minutes, wanting us to buy a vape pen or to have sex, it’s unclear which. A toothless woman screams. A legless man lights a pipe. Tourists photograph each other with City Hall in the middle distance, and a woman with a leg cast encrusted in grime rolls past. It’s not possible to tell how old she is: thirty? Fifty? She has no possessions that I can see, and no destination, rolling in a desultory manner toward and then away from several men also in wheelchairs, one whose foot is so badly infected my groin contracts and feels flash-burned.

Once again, we see a leftist policy that is allegedly based on good intentions (help addicts be safe and give them access to treatment) end up in utter failure and making the problem worse. These policies are rooted in a fantasy version of the human condition instead of the real world.

I’ve known my fair share of addicts. I have lost family members to addiction. Many of us have. And there is a truth to addiction… enablement just makes it worse. They have to hit a bottom before they will seek treatment. Often times that bottom is losing their marriage, job, or home. Sometimes it is going to jail where they have an opportunity to truly detox and get treatment. But offering an addict a “safe place” to indulge their demons with no consequences will always end up just like it did in San Francisco.

It’s cruel. It’s cruel to the addicts and it’s cruel to the people who have to suffer from the crime and disease that radiates out from them.

British Theater Chain Cancels Showings of Movie about Muhammad’s Daughter

by | 0604, 8 Jun 22 | , | 1 Comment

What a shame for liberal thought.

Cineworld has cancelled all UK screenings of a film about the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad, after it prompted protests outside some cinemas.

 

The cinema chain said it made the decision “to ensure the safety of our staff and customers”.

 

More than 120,000 people have signed a petition for The Lady of Heaven film to be pulled from UK cinemas.

 

The Bolton Council of Mosques called the film “blasphemous” and sectarian.

 

But House of Lords peer Baroness Claire Fox called the decision “disastrous for the arts [and] dangerous for free speech”, while Health Secretary Sajid Javid said he was “very concerned about the growing cancel culture” in the UK.

 

In an email to Cineworld, reported by the Bolton News, the chairman of the Bolton Council of Mosques, Asif Patel, said the film was “underpinned with a sectarian ideology” and “misrepresents orthodox historical narratives and disrespects the most esteemed individuals of Islamic history”.

Media Portrayals Skew Demographic Representations

by | 2047, 5 Jun 22 | | 5 Comments

This is for Britain, but I bet it holds in the U. S. of  A.

The public also hugely overestimates the number of vegans and vegetarians – suggesting about 20 per cent refuse to eat animal products, when it is just four per cent. Results of the survey, commissioned by the Common Sense Campaign, have been used to gauge the accuracy of minority representation in the media. Those surveyed were asked 16 questions to work out the overall perception of the make-up of the UK.

 

Tory MP Sir John Hayes said: ‘This distorted impression created by much of the broadcast and online media is so out of tune with the facts as to befuddle people about the true character of Britain. There are, of course, all sorts of minority groups that deserve our respect and regard.

 

‘The overwhelming majority of British people are drawn from a small number of groups. Media preoccupations with minorities are skewing the facts.’

 

The poll revealed that the public thinks 10 per cent of people are bisexual and 15 per cent are gay or lesbian. The true figures, official statistics say, are 1.3 per cent and 1.8 per cent respectively.

Roe Ruling Could Spark Massive Increase in Adoptions

by | 1932, 4 Jun 22 | | 3 Comments

What a blessing that would be.

With the Supreme Court seemingly poised to overturn Roe v. Wade this year, adoption agencies around the country are now strategizing their next steps — including securing additional funding and hiring staff — should the reversal lead to higher demand for adoption services. At the same time, some experts are warning that the highly unregulated industry also should guard against a rise in “coercive adoptions” and improper vetting of adoption workers.

 

In the decades since Roe, the percentage of children who have been put up for adoption has declined. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about nine percent of children born to never-married women under 45 were put up for adoption before abortion was legalized in 1973. That number dropped to 2 percent in the 1980s and fell even further — to 1 percent — in 2002, the last year for which data is available.

 

Private domestic adoptions are estimated to be about 0.5 percent of the annual number of births, or about 18,300 to 20,000 adoptions per year, according to a study by Gretchen Sisson, who used data from the National Council for Adoption, CDC and Guttmacher Institute to analyze patterns from 2002 to 2014. The share of adoptions could jump up significantly in a post-Roe world, perhaps even reaching pre-Roe levels, said Sisson, a sociologist at the University of California San Francisco whose research focus includes pregnancy decision-making.

 

Sisson said such a jump, a 20-fold increase from the current rate, would be “astronomical.”

Musk’s Companies Go Back to the Office

by | 1634, 2 Jun 22 | , | 5 Comments

I, for one, appreciate this.

Tesla boss Elon Musk has ordered staff to return to the office full-time, declaring that working remotely is no longer acceptable.

 

The new policy was shared in emails that were leaked to social media.

 

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment on the messages, one of which appeared to be addressed to executives.

 

People who are unwilling to abide by the new rules can “pretend to work somewhere else” Mr Musk said on Twitter, when asked about the policy.

 

“Everyone at Tesla is required to spend a minimum of 40 hours in the office per week,” he wrote in one of the emails. “If you don’t show up, we will assume you have resigned.”

Don’t get me wrong.. I am not making a statement on the policy. I have been a remote worker for 15+ years and don’t think I would ever go back to work in an office unless 1) I had to, or 2) they paid me a LOT of money. I think remote workers can be very effective, but it is not appropriate for all job roles. It is also not appropriate for all people. It takes some self-discipline.

It is also perfectly acceptable for a company to want workers in the office for the inherent benefits the company gets in terms of culture and collaboration. Musk believes that working in an office is better for his business’ outcomes and is not going to coddle employees who won’t accept that condition of employment. Good for him. And if that stance costs him great employees, then that’s a consequence he will have to manage. We need to get back to having workplaces that are mutually beneficial for all parties. If it isn’t working for one of the parties, then they are free to make adult decisions about their future.

Purchasing and protecting our liberty

by | 0737, 31 May 22 | | 4 Comments

Here is my full column that ran on Saturday in the Washington County Daily News.

Memorial Day is the one day every year we set aside to pause our lives, bow our heads, remember, and thank all of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have given their lives to preserve the cause of freedom. For over 240 years, Americans have fought and died so that we may enjoy the blessings of liberty purchased with their blood.

 

Last week, my wife and I sailed through Norfolk, the home of the mighty United States Fleet Forces Command. We passed three Nimitz class aircraft carriers, submarines, cruisers, destroyers, and countless other supply and warships built for the purpose of defending freedom throughout the world. Nestled among the great grey ships of war was a single white one. The hospital ship USNS Comfort sat in the shadow of the USS George HW Bush as a reminder that those ships go to war full of Americans and not all of them come home.

 

We continued up the York River to spend the week in Yorktown, the site of the final armed engagement of the Revolutionary War. In the visitor center, we learned the history and stood under the green flaps of General George Washington’s actual campaign tent. We strolled through the pastoral battlefield still wrought into defensive berms and ditches to shield men from iron, peeked over the siege lines, and tried to imagine the violence of 1781.

 

Redoubts 9 and 10 stand barely 150 yards apart and it strains the modern mind to think of the brave Americans Alexander Hamilton led with fixed bayonets and unloaded guns up the scarp of redoubt 10, through the palisades, and into the nest of the waiting British. At nearby redoubt 9, our brave French allies had a tougher go, but fought like lions to push the redcoats out of their defensive position. These last two clashes proved to be the final major bloody engagements, save continued bombardment of the British in Yorktown, to secure America’s independence.

 

At the northern end of the defensive lines, across the street from what was the Royal Welsh Fusiliers Redoubt, lies the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown. The museum is packed with artifacts from the colonial period and Revolutionary War, including a pair of the Marquis de Lafayette’s pistols, an early Brown Bess musket from 1741, and rare July 1776 broadside of the Declaration of Independence. A walk outside finds a living history showcase of a Revolutionary War camp and colonial farm.

 

It is difficult to view such things without being filled with appreciation for the liberties we enjoy, and the sacrifice made by so many Americans to secure those liberties. It is also difficult to not think of the millions of Americans who stand watch today willing to give all of their tomorrows to secure the blessings of today.

 

Such sacrifices by the dead impose responsibilities on the living. One of the admonishments made throughout the museum is that the siege of Yorktown was not the end of the revolution, but the beginning. The liberties won with bullet and blade must be preserved and expanded with voice and vote.

 

With the smell of liberty still filling my nostrils, I reflect with remorse on how easily too many of us give up the liberties secured for us by the precious blood of so many Americans. Too often we are unwilling to endure even discomfort or incur offense for the sake of liberty even though it is a small price compared to the price paid by so many others.

 

We must use our voices and votes to preserve our liberty on every front. When we read or hear things that cause offense or discomfort, we must respond with robust debate and not resort to using the power of government or technology to silence those with whom we disagree. We must return to the national ethic that we may disagree, but we will defend to the death each other’s right to speak freely.

 

When evil people commit violence, we must not react by restricting the civil rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. The story of mankind is the story of the conflict between the individual yearning for liberty and the collective power of authority to crush it. An armed citizen is the last and best defense against the tyranny of government whether they wear coats of red or blue.

 

We must ensure that every American citizen can cast their vote. Government without consent of the governed is illegitimate and innately tyrannical. Securing the right to vote also means ensuring that every vote cast is legitimate and counted.

 

And so with every natural right, we Americans must first seek to protect those rights from people who mean to restrict them. Our overriding bias in public discourse and public policy must be on the side of more freedom — not less. Yes, a free society is messy, but it is far preferable to orderly oppression. The price we pay for our liberty is vigilance, discomfort, frustration, anger, and compromise, but it is far less costly than the blood of heroes. Rights surrendered with ink are often only recovered with blood.

 

This Memorial Day, we remember and thank those Americans who paid the ultimate price for our liberty. May their sacrifice weigh heavy on our hearts and give us strength to protect the liberties their sacrifice secured.

 

Purchasing and protecting our liberty

by | 0905, 28 May 22 | | 10 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. I know that it usually runs on Tuesdays, but with the Memorial Day Holiday, they decided to run it today. Here’s a part:

It is difficult to view such things without being filled with appreciation for the liberties we enjoy, and the sacrifice made by so many Americans to secure those liberties. It is also difficult to not think of the millions of Americans who stand watch today willing to give all of their tomorrows to secure the blessings of today.

 

Such sacrifices by the dead impose responsibilities on the living. One of the admonishments made throughout the museum is that the siege of Yorktown was not the end of the revolution, but the beginning. The liberties won with bullet and blade must be preserved and expanded with voice and vote.

 

With the smell of liberty still filling my nostrils, I reflect with remorse on how easily too many of us give up the liberties secured for us by the precious blood of so many Americans. Too often we are unwilling to endure even discomfort or incur offense for the sake of liberty even though it is a small price compared to the price paid by so many others.

 

We must use our voices and votes to preserve our liberty on every front. When we read or hear things that cause offense or discomfort, we must respond with robust debate and not resort to using the power of government or technology to silence those with whom we disagree. We must return to the national ethic that we may disagree, but we will defend to the death each other’s right to speak freely.

 

When evil people commit violence, we must not react by restricting the civil rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. The story of mankind is the story of the conflict between the individual yearning for liberty and the collective power of authority to crush it. An armed citizen is the last and best defense against the tyranny of government whether they wear coats of red or blue.

 

We must ensure that every American citizen can cast their vote. Government without consent of the governed is illegitimate and innately tyrannical. Securing the right to vote also means ensuring that every vote cast is legitimate and counted.

 

And so with every natural right, we Americans must first seek to protect those rights from people who mean to restrict them. Our overriding bias in public discourse and public policy must be on the side of more freedom — not less. Yes, a free society is messy, but it is far preferable to orderly oppression. The price we pay for our liberty is vigilance, discomfort, frustration, anger, and compromise, but it is far less costly than the blood of heroes. Rights surrendered with ink are often only recovered with blood.

 

This Memorial Day, we remember and thank those Americans who paid the ultimate price for our liberty. May their sacrifice weigh heavy on our hearts and give us strength to protect the liberties their sacrifice secured.

Login | Register

Archives

Categories

Pin It on Pinterest