Remember back when transgender rights was about adults, and there was lengthy screening by the medical and therapy professionals involved to make sure that those adults were not making the choice because of other mental health issues?
Now it’s about keeping kids’ secrets from parents whose rights diminish every day:
Empower Wisconsin publicized the slide used in the Eau Claire district in western Wisconsin.
Superintendent Michael Johnson defended the training saying the district “has a responsibility to maintain an educational environment that is equitable, safe and inclusive,” reports M.D. Kittle on Wisconsin Spotlight.
“A district court in 2020 issued a partial injunction against Madison Metropolitan School District’s policy allowing children of any age to transition to a different gender identity at school — without parental consent,” reports Kittle. “The full case is now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”
That case is known as Doe v. MMSD:
The policy includes the following provisions:
–Children of any age can transition to a different gender identity at school, by changing their name and pronouns, without parental notice or consent.
–District employees are prohibited from notifying parents, without the child’s consent, that their child has or wants to change gender identity at school, or that their child may be dealing with gender dysphoria.
–District employees are even instructed to deceive parents by using the child’s legal name and pronouns with family, while using the different name and pronouns adopted by the child in the school setting.
The lawsuit alleges the district’s policy violates constitutionally protected parental rights. Transitioning to a different gender identity is a significant psychotherapeutic intervention that requires parental notice or consent, the attorneys said in a press release. “Public school districts, like Madison, do not have the right to make those decisions for parents.”
I’ve read a lot about what might be behind this deal, and I’ve even written about what might be behind it (see this as well as this).
But I’m still having trouble believing it, because it is so terrible. In that latter post I quoted a piece by Caroline Glick, who explains the motives behind the Iran deal in this way:
The Biden administration justifies its pro-Iranian and anti-Israel/Sunni Arab policy by claiming it is a means to disengage the U.S. from the Middle East at a time that Washington is keen to concentrate its resources and attention on Asia and the rising threat of China…
Biden’s policies are the polar opposite of Trump’s policies both conceptually and substantively. Biden’s policies represent a reinstatement and escalation of Barack Obama’s policies for Iran and the wider Middle East. In contrast to Trump, Obama, Biden and their advisors believe that the U.S.’s Middle Eastern allies – Israel and the Sunni Arab Gulf states – maliciously worked for decades to entangle the United States in the wars of the Middle East. To disentangle America from the region and its pernicious “allies” the Obama-Biden doctrine posits the U.S. must realign itself away from its allies and weaken them, and towards Iran, which it must empower.
That’s probably as good an explanation as any, in the sense of logic. Nevertheless I still can’t wrap my mind around it, even as an explanation for behavior I think is stupendously unwise and destructive to US interests. The logic exists only as a surface logic, because even if one were to accept the “Israel and the Arab Gulf states have maliciously worked to entangle the United States” part of the reasoning, the “so instead let’s embrace a country dedicated to our destruction and the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world” part doesn’t really follow as a good alternative. The only explanation for taking that road, it seems to me, is the desire to destroy the US and the West or at least weaken it immensely, and to empower the Iranian mullahs as well as the terrorists they sponsor.
Everything I’ve read so far about this new Iran Deal – one that’s apparently set to be announced every day now – is frightening and profoundly disturbing. Here’s some of the latest:
Russia’s top state-controlled energy company is set to cash in on a $10 billion contract to build out one of Iran’s most contested nuclear sites as part of concessions granted in the soon-to-be-announced nuclear agreement that will guarantee sanctions on both countries are lifted.
Russian and Iranian documents translated for the Washington Free Beacon show that Rosatom, Russia’s leading energy company, has a $10 billion contract with Iran’s atomic energy organization to expand Tehran’s Bushehr nuclear plant. Russia and the Biden administration confirmed on Tuesday that the new nuclear agreement includes carveouts that will waive sanctions on both countries so that Russia can make good on this contract.
Days after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) fired missiles aimed at the U.S. consulate in northern Iraq, President Joe Biden’s administration is reportedly planning to remove the Iranian outfit from the list of international terrorist organizations.
The decision to drop the IRGC — Iranian regime’s military arm — from the terror list, appears to be yet another concession made by the Biden White House to restore the Obama-era nuclear deal with Tehran.
This last point seems to have been what’s delaying the deal somewhat at the moment – but once again chances are that the Biden administration will concede on this, too, or already has done so. In fact, it may not even be over then, because there may be a continuing series of escalating demands from Iran, as it sees the utterly compliant Biden group willing to give them everything they ask for in order to get them to acquiesce.
It’s as though malevolent beings representing the US have hatched this plan in order to laugh maniacally at the world and to greatly harm the United States and the West. I don’t usually write in such extreme terms but that’s the way this appears to me, and I’m reduced to a desperate and almost certainly vain hope that the real thing will be nowhere near as bad as the advance reports predict.
So what happens if an administration – and the mostly unelected and unvetted by Congress “diplomats” who are doing the negotiating of a deal with a foreign power that is our enemy – are tantamount to Benedict Arnolds squared, on a global scale? Is there any recourse? The obvious one would be Congress somehow getting in the way or even impeaching and removing that president. But that won’t happen because it would need many Democrats to cooperate, and the requisite numbers will not be doing that. There are a few who will probably object, but they almost certainly can’t meet the 60-vote threshhold to invoke cloture. And wouldn’t Biden be able to veto any bill that might be passed, which would mean there would then be a 67-vote threshold?
What’s in it for Biden and company? What constituency does a deal like this appeal to, except for the Israel- and US-hating far left? How large is that group?
However large the public support may be – and I continue to think it’s significantly less than a majority – there are too many people in positions of power in this administration (just as in the Obama administration) who appear to be fully in favor of this insanity. Are they all moles? Are they all being blackmailed or paid off? And/or do they all want to harm the West and the US that much? Despite how cynical and skeptical and suspicious I’ve become over the years, I just can’t bring myself to answer “yes” to that last question, even though I think that’s likely to be the correct answer.
It feels like the crazy Queen of Hearts is president and that deck of playing cards her courtiers, and we – the American people – are Alice trying to wake from this nightmare:
Or maybe the president is the Mad Hatter and the rest of them are attendants at the mad tea party where logic gets twisted and things spin wildly out of control:
Biden on Wednesday called Putin a “war criminal” for the first time, upping American rhetoric and jumping ahead of a legal process that can take years.
“I think he is a war criminal,” Biden told reporters at an event at the White House….
The Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed a resolution backing a war crimes investigation into Putin and Russian forces.
The bipartisan resolution urged the International Criminal Court in The Hague and other nations to launch an investigation of war crimes committed by the Russian military during its invasion of Ukraine.
The headline doesn’t mention that he first said “no,” then seems to have thought better of it and came back to change his answer.
The issue I have with all of this is that, in addition to the seeming vacillation within just a few moments, no good can come of it. The point isn’t whether Putin actually is a war criminal or not. He may very well be. But one of our goals should be to give Putin the opportunity for some sort of face-saving exit. Whether he would avail himself of such an exit is anyone’s guess, but it has to be something he at least thinks is open to him. That he has already been judged a war criminal can only have the effect of making him figure he may as well act that way even if he hasn’t already. Why not continue the war as brutally as possible, if he’s already going to be judged as a war criminal?
Biden’s remark also gives Putin the golden opportunity to accuse Biden of having been a war criminal, and his spokesman predictably did something of the sort:
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the Biden’s statement “unacceptable and unforgivable rhetoric on the part of the head of a state whose bombs have killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world,” according to Russian state news agency TASS.
I’m not even big on what Congress did in terms of asking for a war crimes investigation of Putin. At this point it’s premature and all it does is up the ante and make it harder for Putin to come up with an exit strategy. Maybe he doesn’t want one, but it’s worth it to give him a chance, and there’s nothing to be gained from screaming “war criminal” at this early date. Do people think he’ll desist from bombing civilians if we call him names?
Smollett was granted a release on bond from the Cook County Jail in Illinois pending the appeal of his conviction. A panel of three appellate judges came down with the ruling in a 2-1 decision granting the former “Empire” star’s release after posting a personal recognizance bond of $150,000.
It is nearly the amount of the $120,106 restitution Smollett was ordered to repay after he was convicted of lying to Chicago police about being the victim of a hate crime in 2019.
The article goes on to discuss grounds for appeal – mainly double jeopardy – and the opinions of various lawyers on whether an appeal could work.
I predict that Smollett will not be seeing any more jail time.
The Babylon Bee observes: “Jussie Says He Fears For His Life As His Attackers Have Been Released.”
The New York Times has released a major report on Hunter Biden detailing the authenticity of his now-infamous laptop and confirming details about the ongoing criminal investigation into Joe Biden’s son.
As for the question “why now?”, I think the answer might be found in that phrase “ongoing criminal investigation into Joe Biden’s son.” That investigation certainly doesn’t seem to have been fast-tracked, does it? But my guess is that the Times is now trying to get ahead of the story.
Back in October of 2020 the MSM and social media outlets insisted that the Hunter laptop was bogus and not worth any attention. All of those who relied on that and shrugged it off – and their numbers are legion – or never even heard about it at the time because the blackout was so pervasive, should be outraged now. Absolutely outraged and questioning so much of what they hold dear in the political sense.
I predict that will not happen, except for a few isolated people.
Here’s what the NY Post has to say about it today, in an editorial with the bitter title “Now that Joe Biden’s president, the Times finally admits: Hunter’s laptop is real” [emphasis mine]:
In the heat of the presidential race of 2020, the Times never missed a chance to cast doubt on the laptop, saying the information was “purported” and quoting a letter from former Democratic officials who claimed — with no evidence — that it was Russian disinformation.
Why was it unsubstantiated? Because of willful ignorance and the Times’ curious lack of curiosity…
Now we’re 16 months away from the 2020 election, Joe Biden’s safely in the White House, and the Times finally decides to report on the news rather than carry the Biden campaign’s water. And they find that hey, Hunter Biden’s business interests benefited from Joe Biden’s political status to a suspicious degree. Perhaps this is a topic worthy of examination.
How did the Times “authenticate” the laptop? It doesn’t say. Unlike The Post’s reporting, which detailed exactly how we got the files and where they came from, the Times does a hand wave to anonymous sources. No facts have changed since fall 2020. They knew the laptop was real from the start. They just didn’t want to say so.
You may recall that the NY Post was the paper that took the revelations seriously and published stories about the laptop. For its pains it was banned for a while from Twitter, and its reporting was discounted and squelched. The Post gets the last laugh, but I’m afraid it’s a hollow one, because Biden came to power anyway – and the rest, as they say, is history.
I’m happy to say that I’m now able to identify which Bach piece I learned after that Chopin waltz, as described in this previous post.
Actually, it was two Bach pieces, two minuets. Easy ones but very lovely. If your piano skills are rudimentary and your sight-reading is poor – like mine – you should still be able to learn these.
First we have the Minuet in G minor:
And next the Minuet in D Minor, which was my favorite:
In a desperate attempt to save the nuclear deal, President Joe Biden appears to have surrendered to last-minute Russian demands, allowing Moscow to trade with Iran despite sanctions imposed in wake of Ukraine invasion.
“We received written guarantees. They are included in the text of the agreement itself on the resumption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters at a press briefing on Tuesday.
It wouldn’t surprise me, but I hope it’s not true. Actually, nothing this administration does would surprise me – except perhaps if it does something that isn’t destructive.
‘The first lady’s husband contacted COVID,’ President Biden said during an Equal Pay Day celebration for Women’s history month.
Someone off to the side quickly corrected Biden, pointing out that his statement would mean he was the one with COVID.
It’s actually Kamala Harris’ husband who’s been diagnosed with COVID.
A troubling statement on Biden’s part, but it’s nothing new for Biden to refer to Kamala Harris in ways that sound as though she’s the president. I hate to report on this sort of lapse, because it evokes that feeling of dismay and even sympathy. Other countries must think it very odd and very dangerous that we tolerate a president in such obvious decline, and I can’t say I disagree.
I will add that this sort of thing is still episodic for Biden, and that he can sometimes sound quite coherent. But a president needs to be coherent more than now and then. Also, even a coherent Biden would be a disaster in terms of policy.
Ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, I’ve noticed certain assertions made by some commenters here and around the blogosphere. They are often stated as though they are self-evident truths, unnecessary to document.
Most people in the US – and that includes me – have not previously obsessively followed the history of Ukraine or of NATO and Russia. So it’s easy to just accept as fact that which is repetitively and authoritatively stated as such. But are such things actually true?
I’m going to try to deal with just one of them today. There are others I hope to tackle at another time.
Russia keeps saying – and many US commenters keep repeating – that NATO promised not to expand eastward – but was there ever such a promise? Let’s look at this article from 2014:
The West’s supposed violation of a pledge not to enlarge NATO has long figured as a key element in Putin’s narrative about (and against) the Alliance. In his bombastic February 2007 speech to the Munich Security Conference, he said:
“And we have the right to ask: against whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? … I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”
The Russian president returned to the subject in his March 18, 2014, Kremlin speech justifying Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea: “… they [Western leaders] have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed before us an accomplished fact. This happened with NATO’s expansion to the east, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders.” Although it has been clear for several years that the Alliance has no appetite for putting Ukraine on a membership track, Putin went on to express horror at the prospect of NATO forces in Crimea: Russian inaction “would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory [Sevastopol], and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia.”
[But] Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR)…
We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”…
To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
Make of that what you will. I know what I make of it is that there was no such promise.
What’s more [emphasis mine]:
Several years after German reunification, in 1997, NATO said that in the “current and foreseeable security environment” there would be no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new NATO members. Up until the Russian military occupation of Crimea in March [2014], there was virtually no stationing of any NATO combat forces on the territory of new members. Since March, NATO has increased the presence of its military forces in the Baltic region and Central Europe.
So it appears that Russian soldiers in Crimea constituted the writing on the wall for NATO. It was Russian military action in Crimea that signaled a change in the previous “security environment,” and that in turn triggered changes in NATO.
The article ends like this. Remember, it was written in 2014 [emphasis mine]:
Putin is not stupid, and his aides surely have access to the former Soviet records from the time and understand the history of the commitments made by Western leaders and NATO. But the West’s alleged promise not to enlarge the Alliance will undoubtedly remain a standard element of his anti-NATO spin. That is because it fits so well with the picture that the Russian leader seeks to paint of an aggrieved Russia, taken advantage of by others and increasingly isolated—not due to its own actions, but because of the machinations of a deceitful West.
It also fits in very well with various narratives from the US left and sections of the US right on how the US double crosses everyone (which it sometimes does do, particularly during the Obama and Biden administrations). The line is picked up by many politicians, pundits, bloggers, and commenters all around the blogosphere and the media as well as social media.
It’s interesting that Putin’s claim of such a promise, and such a promise violated, is taken at face value by so many Americans. I’m certainly not one to automatically trust what the US says, but I’m even less likely to trust Putin and in this case I believe the facts run mostly against the tale Putin tells.
