What would be the political consequences of a SCOTUS decision in Dodd to overturn or modify Roe?
Democrats backing abortion rights predict a “revolution” of outraged voters ousting anti-abortion Republicans in elections for state legislatures and Congress. At least some Republicans are nervous about such a backlash…
Today, the leading pro-abortion rights constituency is white college graduates, especially women (as have been most college grads these past 25 or 30 years). Many will probably be enraged by an overturning of Roe. But the potential for partisan upheaval is limited because over the past 50 years, views on abortion have increasingly followed party lines.
Affluent college graduates since the mid-1990s have trended Democratic, increasingly so since Donald Trump rode down his escalator in 2015. As a result, most of those who might be moved to retaliate against anti-abortion Republicans have been voting Democratic for years. They may be especially motivated to vote, but affluent college grads are already the most reliable turnout demographic.
You can expect abortion-rights activists to stoke fears that a reversal of Roe will criminalize abortion in all 50 states. Of course, serious Democrats know better. In states like New York, politicians have been pushing laws that declare abortions legal until the moment of birth. Overturning Roe simply means that states decide.
…Even states like Texas, whose recent abortion ban controversially authorizes enforcement by citizen lawsuits, are unlikely to ban abortion altogether. And the large majority of current abortions, as abortion-rights supporters often point out, occur before Mississippi’s 15-week time limit. Total abortion bans are likely to be passed only in states where almost no legal abortions are performed already or in the anti-abortion territory of Guam. The lion’s share of abortions currently legal will remain legal.
Milan Kundera on national memory
The Book of Laughter and Forgetting was the first book I ever read by Milan Kundera back when it was first published in 1980, and it probably is still my favorite work of his. It’s a very strange but wonderful book, really just a succession of loosely connected long short stories. The author constantly steps away from the storyline to offer political, historical, and philosophical observations, such as this.
The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.
I would add that the memory involved is cultural or national memory. Personal memory doesn’t often falter in that manner (although sometimes it does). It’s the transmission of those memories and their lessons from one generation to another where the slip-up occurs.
Kundera also wrote:
The first step in liquidating a people,’ said Hubl, ‘is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster.
1619 Project, anyone?
The thing about the US right now is that, without being conquered by a foreign country and without a huge majority of people supporting the left, we are currently doing it to ourselves and have for quite some time.
Medical discrimination on the basis of race
White people in some states willl have a tougher time getting possibly lifesaving meds for COVID [emphasis mine]:
It takes a score of 4 or more to be somewhere on the list to receive monoclonal antibodies, the best treatment we have for covid, and being “Black, Indigenous or a Person of Color” gets you halfway there, counting as much as being over 65, having diabetes, and so on. Being white gets you nowhere. The Minnesota Department of Health, apparently with a straight face, calls this an “Ethical Framework for Allocation of Monoclonal Antibodies during the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
My friend comments:
“Hospital system protocols that use an algorithm to decide who qualifies to obtain the medication we know works best for treatment of COVID 19, monoclonal antibodies, now all include different weighting for patients of different races. While we have no evidence that I am aware of that shows BIPOC do worse than white people when controlled for other confounding factors, the Minnesota Department of Health believes it is more ethical to deny the treatment to white people based on the color of their skin.”
This seems to be illegally discriminatory on the face of it. Will it hold up to court challenges? Even if it does not, the institution of such policies in several blue states shows how far gone we are in terms of what blue cities and blue states consider racially fair. As long as it’s white people who are the targets of the discrimination, these states seem to think it’s not just okay but laudable.
And my guess is that government officials in those states will always be able to get the treatment they want, no matter what their race, both for themselves and their loved ones.
Open thread 1/4/22
Ozzy Man in an un-cynical mood for 2022:
January 6th anniversary: the invented coup lives on…
…and has a one-year anniversary coming up. The Democrats and the MSM are planning a big big celebration of their finest propaganda hour.
But how many people other than the leftist core care anymore? One of the problems for the left caused by the fast news turnover is that a year ago can seem like ancient history.
…[I]n the Orwellian world of Democrats, trying to prove that fraud was committed by someone else means you are yourself guilty of fraud. Believing the election was stolen means that you yourself tried to steal the election. And worst of all, asking people to march “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol means that you were instructing them to riot and overthrow the government.
NOTE: I’ve also written many posts on the possibility that many FBI agents and informants were involved in January 6th. Glenn Greenwald has been especially good on this subject.
Caroline Glick on the escalating international war against Israel
The [UN] Human Rights Council’s decision to form its new permanent inquisition constitutes an unprecedented escalation of the political war the UN has been waging against Israel for the past fifty years. To grasp the danger, it is necessary to understand how Israel’s foes operate at the UN and how their partners in Europe and Israel itself operate…
Shortly after the Human Rights Council was established [2006], it determined that demonizing Israel would be a permanent agenda item. Item Number 7 is the only permanent agenda item that deals with a specific country…since 2006, the council has convened nine special sessions to expand its focus on attacking the Jews. To get a sense of just how overwhelming the council’s focus on Israel is, in the same period, the council has convened just 19 special sessions to deal with every other country on the planet.
The council’s template for demonizing Israel has been fairly consistent through the years. Immediately after each Palestinian terror campaign against Israel comes to an end, the Holocaust denying, terror sponsoring PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas has his UN representatives ask for a special session to discuss the “war crimes,” and “crimes against humanity” Israel supposedly carried out against the Palestinians. No one ever mentions that ever single missile launched against Israel from the Hamas terror regime in Gaza constitutes a separate war crime. No one ever mentions Hamas at all…
At the end of its “in-depth investigation,” the commission issues a report which determines that Israel conducted war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Glick goes on to describe much more UN history and future plans in that vein, including major European participation involving – among other things – economic boycotts and lawfare.
And then of course there’s Iran and its nuclear program. Glick has some recommendations here. Let’s just say she doesn’t think the Biden administration has a clue what to do. I will add that I don’t think they care any more than the Obama administration did. Perhaps less.
And of course this is not just about Israel. The entire Middle East balance of power, as well as nuclear proliferation, are all threatened by the nuclear ambitions of Iran, and this affects the US as well:
…[A] nuclear-armed Iran would end all gains the U.S. has made over the past 75 years in preventing nuclear proliferation and arms races. Not only would Russia and China massively increase their nuclear arsenals. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and other regional states would follow Iran in developing or purchasing nuclear arsenals of their own. And, following hot on the heels of America’s humiliating retreat from Afghanistan, a nuclear-armed Iran would destroy the vestiges of U.S. superpower credibility in the region and the world.
Given the danger a nuclear-armed Iran represents for U.S. national security and America’s global position and interests, it behooves the administration to consider new policy options now that its nuclear diplomacy has failed.
Dream on. Even if they wanted to, they are so incompetent they couldn’t carry it out properly. Granted, it’s very challenging.
Japan’s birthrate is low. But why?
[NOTE: This post was inspired by some comments in today’s open thread.]
The Japanese are failing to reproduce in anywhere near replacement numbers. The population is therefore skewing older, and it has a negative effect on the economy already. It’s been well-documented that this is happening. But why?
Here’s a 2017 article from The Atlantic that attempts to tackle the question:
The blame has long been put on Japan’s young people, who are accused of not having enough sex, and on women, who, the narrative goes, put their careers before thoughts of getting married and having a family.
But there’s another, simpler explanation for the country’s low birth rate, one that has implications for the United States: Japan’s birth rate may be falling because there are fewer good opportunities for young people, and especially men, in the country’s economy. In a country where men are still widely expected to be breadwinners and support families, a lack of good jobs may be creating a class of men who don’t marry and have children because they—and their potential partners—know they can’t afford to.
“The gender stuff is pretty consistent with trends around the world—men are having a harder time,” says Anne Allison, a professor of cultural anthropology at Duke University…
The article goes on to say that Japan’s workforce used to have stable, lifelong jobs, but now a great many workers are what’s called “irregular”:
According to Kingston, the rise of irregular workers in Japan began in the 1990s, when the government revised labor laws to enable the wider use of temporary and contract workers hired by intermediary firms. Then, as globalization put more pressure on companies to cut costs, they increasingly relied on a temporary workforce, a trend that intensified during the Great Recession…
In a culture that places such an emphasis on men being breadwinners, this has serious implications for marriage and childbearing. Men who don’t have regular jobs are not considered desirable marriage partners; even if a couple wants to get married, and both have irregular jobs, their parents will likely oppose it…
Women seeking full-time work frequently find themselves in irregular jobs too, which also has implications for raising a family, because the hours are unpredictable and the pay is low. But it is more of an obstacle for marriage if a man doesn’t have a good job—roughly 70 percent of women quit working after they have their first child, and depend on their husband’s salary for some time.
So there’s a cultural lag between expectations based on the past, and present-day economic realities in Japan. And of course, when women work, they don’t need a husband to survive (especially if they’re living alone in those tiny apartments featured in today’s open thread).
And then there’s the situation of the nature of the “good” jobs:
Knowing that people in their 20s and 30s are desperate to get regular jobs, companies hire lots of young people and force them to work long hours for little to no overtime pay, assuming that most won’t be able to survive the harsh conditions, Konno said. Japan has long had a culture of overwork—there’s even a Japanese word, karoshi, for death by overwork—but Konno says that it has worsened since the Great Recession…
The result is that even Japan’s “good” jobs can be brutal. People who hold them may earn enough money to support families, but they often don’t have much time to date, or to do anything but work, sleep, and eat.
Of course, that was also true long ago (and even today to some extent) of the upward-striving poor in the US. Many of our ancestors worked round the clock and barely had time to see their children. But they still had children (birth control being an iffy proposition at the time), and their hope and dream was of a better life for those children.
I think the Japanese – and to a lesser extent, young people in the Western world in general – have somewhat lost that dream.
I wrote a post in 2017 on the Japanese aversion among younger generations to sex itself – that is, sex between two actual people. In it I linked to this article:
Nearly a third of Japanese people are entering their 30s without any sexual experience, according to research.
The country is facing a steep population decline as a growing number of youngsters abstain from sex and avoid romantic relationships.
So it’s certainly not just reluctance to marry. In the article’s interviews with young Japanese, some men said they fear rejection if they ask a woman for a date, and a woman cited the ready availability of porn that some men substitute for the risks (emotional and otherwise) inherent in sex between two people.
Whatever it is – and I think the phenomenon is multiply-determined and hardly limited to Japan, although Japan may be the canary in the reproductive coalmines – it is an ominous sign.
Open thread 1/3/22
I guess this is for real:
Happy New Year’s Day
Today I’m trying to relax. I don’t have a hangover because I don’t drink, although I had my customary thimbleful of champagne last night. I don’t have any resolutions because I’ve learned over the years that I break them quickly. So why make a liar out of myself?
But it’s nice to have that fresh clean slate anyway. January 1st!
Belief systems: Proving or disproving AGW
Commenter Richard Aubrey writes:
Looking at such belief systems from the outside is puzzling. Is it that the individual believes in certain things? Or is it that the individual believes in BELIEVING, irrespective of factual difficulties?
From time to time I’ll recommend looking at Watts Up With That, WUWT, a warming denial website. Read their stuff, figure out why they’re wrong. Simple enough, right? Right? Oh, no. Not going to read that.
Aubrey makes two different points there. One is especially valid, I think – which is that the refusal to even look at and read a least some dissenting views is a sign of a mind that is closed. I’ve read the case for many things in which I don’t believe, and even if I often find them unconvincing I think it’s important to at least take a look.
Which brings us to the second point. With AGW, I’ve read reams and reams on both sides, and I am unable to come to a conclusion for the simple reason that both sides rely on figures and methods that I can’t evaluate in the way I can evaluate less esoteric information. For example, I can say for AGW that I believe models will always leave out important aspects and therefore are suspect. But that doesn’t tell me whether AGW is really occurring or not. So the most I ever can say is that I think the jury is out, and that for me the most reliable-seeming source has been Judith Curry. I find her perspective fair, open-minded, and refreshing.
But I can’t prove anyone right or wrong in this debate. I don’t have the training, and neither do the vast vast majority of people.
That’s where the “consensus” argument comes in for those who believe. Whether or not there really is such consensus, and if so how complete it is and how much politics enters into it (I think a great deal), the point I’m trying to make is that for many people, seeming consensus or claimed consensus good enough. Their reasoning goes something like this: “I’m not a scientist and can’t figure it out myself, but if most scientists agree then I think it’s probably true.”
You can get into arguments about whether “consensus” in science matters, and how many things were once agreed on by most scientists and have turned out to be incorrect as far as we know today. But this post is not about that; it’s about how most people (or certainly many people) evaluate scientific hypotheses and come to believe or disbelieve in them.
COVID tests
And I know it’s tempting to criticize the administration for not supplying ample amounts of tests but that is the wrong approach also.
Tests are how this goes on forever so by criticizing them now you are just setting them up for a win when they produce 40 gazillion tests in a month.
My response? Yes and no.
Yes, tests yield cases, and cases have been the wrong metric for a long long time now. Tests also might play into the increased number of hypochondriacal people who want to test themselves all the time.
But the administration will claim a win no matter what happens, and the MSM will back them up and their supporters will believe. It doesn’t really have to reflect reality. So whether we criticize the administration or not is somewhat irrelevant, I think.
What’s more, home tests are really helpful. Over a month ago I was visiting my grandkids and caught a very nasty bug. In fact, I’m still recovering a month later, although I’m nearly 100% now. But I had symptoms that seemed to point to COVID: sore throat and runny nose, insistent cough, exhaustion, and chills and fever. I think for a while I also didn’t really taste much, and my appetite was decreased. The fever, which was somewhat low-grade much of the time although sometimes higher, lasted nearly two weeks, which was highly unusual for me and quite alarming.
I had access to a home test through a relative, and it was a wonderful thing to be able to avoid waiting in line with other sick people, and also being able to find out quite quickly whether I tested positive or not. The test was negative, and I took another a couple of weeks later – negative also. I’ve had friends exposed to COVID who had to wait many days for test results and missed important family events because of it.
So I do think it would be a great thing on a personal level if people had access to such tests. How they use them is their business, I suppose.
One other thing – the more tests available, the easier testing is for even the asymptomatic hypochondriacal among us, the more people will test positive and will perhaps be able to relax and live more normally, knowing they now have good immunity for COVID. Or am I giving people way too much credit?
