Month: December 2020

Reference:         U.S. to allow small drones to fly over people and at night | Reuters

                OK, maybe drones have some legitimate uses.  Surveying natural disaster sites, mapping, missing person searches and military applications seem to be appropriate and could save lives.  But delivering our new pair of underwear?  C’mon.  Talk about yet another solution in search of a problem.

                Yes, our government, in its infinite wisdom, has just issued long-awaited rules allowing drones to fly over people, and at night.  They have to have lights and have an identification chip so it can be identified from the ground (but not by ordinary citizens of course).  As noted in the above article, “’The new rules make way for the further integration of drones into our airspace by addressing safety and security concerns,’ FAA Administrator Steve Dickson said. ‘They get us closer to the day when we will more routinely see drone operations such as the delivery of packages.’”

                Whoopie.  We’re not at all sure why drones have to be integrated “into our airspace.”

                “In August, Amazon.com Inc’s drone service received federal approval allowing the retailer to begin testing commercial deliveries through its drone fleet.”

                Wow, that’s terrific.  We can’t wait.

                Of course, all the big retailers are getting in on this latest fashionable craze, like the Walmarts of the world.  Is this progress?  Well, we suppose it is if you manufacture drones or want to deliver things.  Otherwise?  Meh.

                This is what happens when government fails to do its job, which in turn makes us wonder what the hell good is government doing?  If there is any, it certainly isn’t evident from the rolling-over-and-showing-your-belly capitulation to and acquiesence in the commercial drone business, which doesn’t appear to have any legitimate argument for its existence.

                Think about it.  Someday soon, which we hope we don’t live to see, the skies will be flush with busy little drones buzzing back and forth between residences and fulfillment centers.  You think the people in East Boston and Milton have it bad with flights screaming overhead to and from Logan?  Just wait.  Any urban area is eventually going to be subject to clouds of these things blackening the skies.  Want to see the eclipse?  Forget it.  Want to see the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter?  You’ll have to get on a Space X flight. Think light pollution is bad? Don’t worry – there won’t be any, not from the sun or the moon anyway.

                Now, they may have some beneficial environmental effect of getting a bunch of these delivery vans off the streets, although what all those people are going to do for work after they all have to declare bankruptcy is certainly an interesting question. 

                But the larger question here is the notion of “progress” and whether or not progress should be allowed to run roughshod over all of us.  Since the Renaissance, it’s been onward and upward in everything.  Economies have to grow or die, cars have to get bigger, then smaller, then bigger again, then smaller again, etc., wrinkles can be made to disappear with botox but you’ll look like you’re 150 year old by the time you’re 60.  Just look at all these Hollywood “stars” with pouty lips run amok.  The internet has basically eliminated libraries, dictionaries, encyclopedias and books you can hold in your hand with pages to turn.  Social media has turned into a pox on society worse than any pandemic.  Actually, the internet and social media have largely relieved many people from the arduous and time-consuming task of thinking. 

                And of course there are these fashionable but phony alleged-to-be-good-for-the-environment remedies for past polluting progress like electric vehicles, which are the new polluting progress.  As it turns out, the environmental costs of just producing the batteries for these vehicles largely eliminates any benefit from their gaslessness.  But no doubt progress will cure that too, though bear in mind the old saw that the cure is often worse than the disease.

                And now, some clowns have developed drones, which will ruin privacy in any inhabited area, ruin aesthetics and ruin just about any view.  It’s going to be just like a buzzing plague of locusts darkening the sky to dine on your crop except it isn’t going away once its belly is full.  All in the name of getting our new pair of underwear to us as soon as humanly possible.  And just because they got invented and the government has kowtowed to big business, the rest of us have to suffer.  That’s progress all right!  Keep it up!  It’s not climate change that’s going to do us all in (which was caused by “progress” in the first place), it’s progress.  Or the drone that fell on your head.

Reference:          ‘It’s hostage-taking.’ AOC lashed out after lawmakers got only hours to read and pass the huge 5,593-page bill to secure COVID-19 relief (msn.com)

                While we rarely agree with New York Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on just about anything, she is absolutely spot-on in her criticism of the Congressional “leadership’s” handling of this almost 6,000 page so-called “stimulus” bill, of which “stimulus” turns out to be just a tiny part apparently.  The entire bill is a so-called “omnibus” spending bill that finances the government until September, 2021, along with apparently many hefty aide servings of pork.  No one knows, however, because no one, including members of Congress who are supposed to be able to vote intelligently on a bill because they read it and are aware of what’s in it, were never given an opportunity to read it or understand it. 

                In the famous words of current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca), “. . . we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.”  Now to be fair, that statement was in relation to the citizenry learning what was in the Obamacare bill years ago, not the membership, though the membership had no idea either.  But either way it is astounding in a representative democracy that the handfull of (hopefully) pre-senile senior citizens who run Congress feel perfectly comfortable telling their members to pass a bill that no one has read. 

                And that is business as normal.

                What are these people thinking?  Read our December 2, 2020, post The Massachusetts General Court And Its “Leadership” Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves, which is about the exact same issue on the state level, wherein the Massachusetts General Court got only hours to read a large and highly controversial piece of legislation on police “reform” before a vote on it.

                The arrogance and irresponsibility of these “leaders” is stunning, though we suppose not surprising given their history.  But no one voted for them to be the “leadership” of Congress or of the country.  Their districts voted them in so they could serve in Congress and represent that district – no one voted for them to dictate policy and laws to the rest of us, never mind being a shepherd for the sheep in Congress.  None of us checked off a ballot voting for Nancy Pelosi as Majority Leader in the House, or McConnell in the Senate either. 

                But the feckless membership puts up with this with few complainers.  The comical parts of all this are listening to those members and those outsiders who support or criticise such legislation even when they don’t know what’s in it other than what they were told by the “leadership” – the classic blind leading the blind.  This is not what we elected these clowns for.  We elected them so that they will soberly and responsibly think about what is good for the populace before they decide how to vote and then vote accordingly.  That consideration should not be founded on what the “leadership” demands or insists on, or what lobbyists want, or even what the loudmouth minorities back home or in Washington demonstrate for.  And it shouldn’t be determined by how desperate the membership is to get back home for Christmas.

                We suggest that there should be a rule, or even a statute, or a Constitutional Amendment, mandating that members of Congress (and at least the Massachusetts General Court) get at least one week to review any proposed legislation prior to a vote on it.  What’s the argument against that?  That some legislation is critical and has to be passed immediately?  Baloney.  Congress has been futzing around with this bill for months and months, just like the Massachusetts legislature was, and it is only their own dilatoriness that has created some “crisis,” and they pull this nonsense time and time again.  If they’d act like adults (although it is frightening to think that perhaps they actually are acting like adults), then they should focus on the job and get it done.  Only in government and government bureaucracy is this type of nonsense tolerated.  It is not tolerated in the private sector – people get fired when they pull this crap.  Good luck firing Pelosi.

                In any event, we propose a week of repose before a vote on any bill.  That seems eminently sensible and might also result in better thought-out bills that aren’t going to be subject to judicial interpretations anywhere near as much as is currently the case.  That will save us all a lot of trouble and hassle.

Reference:         George Floyd Memorial Thrives, but Minneapolis Neighborhood Struggles – WSJ

                This is getting ridiculous.  So-called “activists” have created a “memorial” to George Floyd in the intersection where he was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  OK, so far, fine.  Memorials generally are nice things.  However, they have taken over that intersection and adjoining roads so:

“Motorists can’t drive through, impeding patronage of businesses on the block.  Police patrols aren’t allowed in . . . A busy bus stop next to a gas station that was boarded up amid the summer’s unrest had to be moved. . . . Local activists, who have set up a medical shed and greenhouse as part of an effort to make the area autonomous, say they aren’t ready to relinquish the intersection to the city.  People stand guard and stop police and nonresidents from driving through.  ‘When we get something that looks like justice, they’ll get something that looks like a street,’ said Marcia Howard, a 47-year-old high-school teacher and area resident who waved neighbors through a concrete barrier on a recent day.”

                Of course, the City is letting this all happen like it’s OK for “activists” to just take over any part of a town or city they want with impunity.  When City officials “began discussions to reopen the intersection in August . . . [they] backed off when they were met with resistance from activists and a list of 24 demands that included firing several law-enforcement officials and investing in the community”.

                Subsequently, in September and November, the City sent letters to organizers outlining “steps the city is taking to respond to the demands within the city’s jurisdiction.  They include funding in the mayor’s 2021 budget to address structural racism in the city, while the 2020 budget includes $100,000 for planning a permanent memorial to Mr. Floyd.” 

                Minneapolis City Council Vice President Andrea Jenkins, who “represents a ward that includes much of the current memorial, said it is an inspiring and healing place for visitors.  For many residents, however, she said, ‘It is challenging, to put it mildly.‘”  She added that [t]his autonomous zone has created an atmosphere of criminal activity and drug sales and violence, gun shots, and that’s separate from people who are occupying the space.”  Consequently, “[y]ear-to-date, murders are up 65% compared with all of 2019.  Shootings have more than doubled compared with the same period last year. Carjackings are up more than 300%, with 385 reported through Dec. 8”, said a police spokesman.  He added that “[t]here has been such an anti-law-enforcement rhetoric that people have been emboldened to go out and do what they want.”

                OK, so these clowns have taken over an intersection, don’t let the police in, are trying to make it “autonomous, and neighbors are having a “challenging” time living in their own neighborhood, and the government, the jurisdictional entity responsible for that area just throws up its hands and lets this go on, now for months and months and months. 

                Just as in Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, public authorities have completely and shamefully abdicated their responsibilities to the businesses, citizens, and taxpayers of their cities and let unelected “activists” just take over neighborhoods as though this is business as usual.  This is absolute foolishness; it’s the wild west all over again.  It’s a wonder the residents haven’t pulled out every firearm they have and themselves forced these clowns out since the City won’t do it.  Fortunately that hasn’t happened yet, but the longer nonsense like this is allowed to go on, who knows what will happen.

                Of course the feckless City and its elected officials are busy trying to figure out how to appease these clowns and persuade them to move along rather than actually do anything about it.  We respectfully suggest it is a fundamental responsibility of elected officials in any community to provide public services to the entire city, including public safety, and not have residents’ lives, businesses and activities compromised in the selfish interests of a tiny bunch of loudmouthed bullies who attempt to cow the city into appeasing their every stupid demand.  Again, to appeasers we have two words:  Neville Chamberlain.  Look it up.

Reference:          Author of WSJ Op-Ed on Jill Biden Denounced by Former Employer, Has Profile Removed From Northwestern Website (msn.com)

                Of all the things to be concerned about in the world, some former Northwestern professor has attacked Dr. Jill Biden, who has a doctoral degree in education, for having the presumption to refer to herself as “Dr.” Jill Biden.  Dr. Joseph Epstein (we added the Dr.) actually does have some academic chops, which makes his desire to create a controversy so he can get another 15 minutes of fame somewhat curious.  He’s been surrounded his whole working life by academics who call themselves “Dr.s”, but suddenly it’s a problem meriting a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece.  Our father, 30 years a college professor, also used “Dr.” and didn’t seem to suffer any ill effects, nor did anyone else of which we are aware. 

                Dr. Epstein says only medical doctors should be allowed to use the title, never mind the years of work and sweat that go into earning a doctoral degree.  This fellow should know, but apparently doesn’t, that credentials matter, especially in snooty and elitist academia.  And people who earn a doctorate should rightly be proud of their achievement.

                Surpisingly, the Associated Press “stylebook” agrees with Epstein and plainly states that:

“Use Dr. in first reference as a formal title before the name of an individual who holds a doctor of dental surgery, doctor of medicine, doctor of optometry, doctor of osteopathic medicine, doctor of podiatric medicine, or doctor of veterinary medicine. . . . .Do not use Dr. before the names of individuals who hold other types of doctoral degrees.”

                In this world of hims are thems or hers or nongendered, and hers are thems or hims or nongendered, and the media being willing to call any egotist just about whatever they decide they want to be called (for example, “the artist formerly known as Prince” – c’mon), it is particularly surprising that the AP here is willing to make an editorial judgement about the value of a hard-earned Ph.D degree.  And that value judgment apparently is that it has no value, so even if you have a doctorate you can’t call yourself a Dr. 

                The hypocrisy here is redolent with media elitism (or more accurately, the media’s intellectual inferiority complex, which is well earned, by the way), since it exceedingly rare to find a so-called “journalist” that has a doctorate.  “Those that can’t do, teach” is the rule apparently. 

                We are willing to call Dr. Epstein a Dr., whether he likes it or not, he earned it, though there are lots of other things we could call him.  Narcissist comes to mind, as if anyone really gives a hoot what he thinks about anything.  If he doesn’t want to be a Dr., then fine, but his attempt to undermine the value of a higher degree is insulting to his colleagues and everyone else who thinks getting a doctorate is an actual achievement.  But to raise this sort of a phony issue in an attempt to get himself into the news does nothing but show how big a jerk he is. 

Let’s abbreviate “jerk” to “Jk.”  So he can be Jk. Epstein going forward.  He’s earned it.

Reference:          Shawn Mendes Apologizes To Sam Smith For Misgendering Them (buzzfeed.com)

                Not that we have the slightest idea who Shawn Mendes or Sam Smith are, but they apparently had a little contretemps about Mendes “misgendering” Smith.  Both are biological males, by the way, but Smith apparently is confused about his gender and has adopted “they/them” pronouns in reference to “them”self (“himself” to normal people).  At some music industry get-together Mendes introduced Smith as “him”, which led to Mendes apologizing to Smith for “misgendering” him (or them, or they, whatever).  And Smith’s response was “We’re all learning together.”  Smith, of course, is now a hero for being gracious about the “misgendering.” 

                OMG!  We’re not sure what we’re supposed to be learning together, but it certainly seems quite fashionable these days among a certain crowd to pretend you aren’t what you are and that you are what you aren’t.  In our experience that’s generally called “acting” and belongs on the stage or the set, not incorporating it into your real life. 

                But this nonsense is becoming insidious, along with being idiotic.  It’s now potentially an insult to refer to a him as a “him,” or to a her as a “her”, as if we’re all supposed to keep track of the phony gendering that these morons think is so cool these days (not to mention it apparently gets your name in the media, as in “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”).  

So now how do we ever know who is referring to whom?  Using the plural to refer to the singular is just silly.  “And now let me introduce Joe Schmoe, we’re happy to have them with us tonight.”  OK, so where’s the other one, or two, or three?  And we all are expected to cater to these foolish whims as if it’s normal.  The media, of course, is all over it like white on rice, and is happy to refer to people by whatever they want to be called.  Much of it seems to have started with Prince deciding he wanted to be referred to as some unpronounceable symbol – you remember, “the artist formerly known as Prince.”  Yikes.  Now the “gender non-conforming” crowd as apparently adopted that approach, and we fear we haven’t seen the last of it.

                But if we’re going to go down this road, our suggestion is that anyone who claims some sort of gendering issue and doesn’t want to be referred to as a “him” or a “her” simply be called an “it.”  Like references to a baby still in the womb when the gender isn’t known.  That should be the rule going forward and forget letting these clowns determine and try to impose every goofy thing they want to be called.  That should satisfy them (would be “it” in the singular, but in this formulation plural and singular still matter) since their gender is still a mystery, and it keeps the normal singular/plural of the language intact. 

                So next time, let’s have it be “”And now let me introduce Joe Schmoe, we’re happy to have it with us tonight.”  Let that be the rule and perhaps this foolishness will abate.

Reference:         Tulsi Gabbard introduces bill to ban trans athletes from women’s sports; faces backlash over ‘blatantly transphobic’ legislation (msn.com)

                Transphobia, like beauty, is apparently in the eyes of the beholder.  You’ve all likely read about one or another guy who thinks he’s a girl whipping the pants off the girls in sports like field hockey and track and winning state championships so they can ace the girls out of college scholarships meant for girls.  The real girls, naturally, generally think that’s unfair.  The homosexual/lesbian/trans etc. crowd thinks that is fair.  School officials, terrified of (1) getting sued for discriminating against that crowd, and (2) the woke publicity and likely other PR fallout, go along whether they think it is fair or not.  Actually, the only ones on record as thinking it is fair is the homosexual/lesbian/trans etc. crowd (at least until some lesbian gets beat by a guy-girl in the 100 meter dash – then some feathers will fly).  This is some of the collateral damage of the anti-discrimination laws that to be fair was pretty unforeseeable at the time of enactment.

                So, in a brave attempt to legislate some common sense into the world, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D. Haw.)(first Hindu in Congress and the first Samoan-American voting member) and Representative Markwayne Mullin (R. OK)(a so-called Native American, likely no stranger to discrimination himself), have co-sponsored a bill that would ban so-called trans athletes from participating in women’s sports.  Put another way, people with penises would not be allowed to compete in sporting contests of physical ability against people with vaginas.  Geez, seems pretty basic to us.

                The bill, called the “Protect Women’s Sports Act of 2020”, would limit federal Title IX  protections based on “biological sex as determined at birth by a physician.”  Title IX is the law prohibiting sex discrimination in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.  In a press release, Representative Gabbard said the bill “protects Title IX’s original intent which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex” in athletics among other areas.

                Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this bill is that one of its writers is a Democratic Representative (along with a well-known anti-queer crowd Republican representative).   It took some balls (pun is absolutely intended) for Representative to put her name on this bill, and she should be congratulated for exercising some common sense and being apparently willing to take the heat that is coming her way.  Makes one wonder if she plans to run for re-election or if she’s already given that up.

                Unsurprisingly, the “boys can be girls if they want to be, and girls can be boys if they want to be” protest freaks declared war instantly.  According to the above article, “Charlotte Clymer, a former press secretary for rapid response at the Human Rights Campaign, called the bill a ‘blatantly transphobic piece of legislation aimed at trans and non-binary young people.’ . . . . Sarah McBride, who made history in November when she was elected the country’s first openly transgender state senator, for Delaware [home of Joe Biden, by the way], used fewer words to criticize the Democratic lawmaker: ‘Tulsi Gabbard: assigned Republican at birth.’” (which we have to say is an excellent riposte).

                Of course the bill is “a blatantly transphobic piece of legislation aimed at trans and non-binary young people”.  That’s the whole point of the thing.  Not at the “trans community” generally, but just those in it, and their “allies,” who think it’s OK to treat girls unfairly by making them compete against boys.  Whether this bill actually goes anywhere remains to be seen, as will whether Biden supports common sense or folds under the likely woke pressure. 

                In any event, kudos to Representatives Gabbard and Mullin for finally noticing that the Emperor has no clothes. 

Reference:          Johns Hopkins Founder Owned Slaves, Disrupting Belief He Was An Abolitionist : NPR

                Researchers apparently working for Johns Hopkins University as part of a perhaps suicidal university-led project on the school’s history have – shock and surprise – allegedly found “evidence” that Mr. Hopkins owned slaves:

“Historians for Johns Hopkins University discovered that the founder of the Baltimore-based school owned slaves, contrary to the long-held belief that the wealthy philanthropist was a staunch abolitionist.”

                It’s probably only a matter of time until Mr. Hopkins is cancelled and his name consigned to the dustbin of history by the baying woke crowd.  Wonder what they’ll call the school now?  Woke U? Looking at the “evidence” presented however, it certainly seems far from overwhelming.  And there is also evidence that he once bought a slave for the sole purpose of freeing him.  What an evil man! But even just having walked past a slave on the street two hundred years ago is more than enough “evidence” to cancel anyone these days.  Well, people going digging for trouble are more than likely to find it.  Presumably the university will take some idiotic appeasing action to appease the jackals. We have two words to say about appeasement: Neville Chamberlain. Look up how it worked out for him.

                Anyway, to all of this we say, so what?  This identity politics cencellation business has gotten way far out of hand.  Someone who generations ago allegedly owned a slave, or may have had “racist” views, or thought a woman’s place was in the kitchen or that queers were, well, queer – these all have to completely cancelled.  It just doesn’t matter what they did with the rest of their lives, what they achieved, who they helped or didn’t, what they built; that one thing is enough to ruin them.

                Who among us is so pure they could stand to have their entire life minutely examined by these woke morons?  Did you kick a dog once when you were a kid?  Did you push your cat off the dining room table? Did you call someone a “bitch” (or worse) once?  Did you get drunk or high once and do something stupid?  Would you want every stupid or vicious or evil thing you ever thought or said or did, or view you had, plastered all over the internet so people can chase you down and try to ruin you?  Isn’t every single one of us a mix of good and bad, the proportion being the only variable. Do we all want to be entirely defined by just one thing or one thought or one action? Or even two, or three, or four? And just who decides? Do you want some woke snot-nosed college kid who never had to pay a bill in his life or have a job and knows nothing whatever but what his “progressive” college professors have filled his wooden head with, making those decisions? Not us.

                Wasn’t it Jesus himself who said those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.  Or even more eloquently:

                “[N]ever send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee”.  John Donne, Meditation XVII (1623)(popularly and typically misquoted as “ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”). Think about it.

References:        Massachusetts Exits Getting New Numbers, Based On Mileage – CBS Boston (cbslocal.com)

For some businesses, state’s changing exit numbers add up to a headache – The Boston Globe

                So Massachusetts is finally changing over its exit numbers to mileage numbers.  That is a federal mandate for which federal highway money is the carrot.  But why exactly is this necessary?  Well, it isn’t actually, this is the classic solution in search of a problem.

                Several reasons have been offered:

“MassDOT said there are several benefits to the change, including making it easier for drivers to calculate the distance to their destination, better emergency response and bringing Massachusetts in line with how almost every other state does exit numbering. The agency said 90% of the project will be paid for with federal funds.”

               It is difficult to believe this is being taken seriously.  With the prevalence of GPS and the mapquests of the world, who even needs or uses road signs to figure out mileage calculation?  When’s the last time you used a Rand-McNally Road Atlas?  Or even saw one?  So that’s nonsense.  Better emergency response?  C’mon, that’s pretty doubtful – local emergency responders know the local roads, so just changing the signs and knowing the mileage from one exit to the next seems pretty unhelpful and completely irrelevant anyway, not to mention they have GPS too.  When’s the last time you saw an article about how someone died because some first responder didn’t know how many miles until the next exit?  Ever? C’mon. 

                Bringing Massachusetts in line with other states?  Who cares?  Keep getting federal money?  OK, maybe that works if the feds insist, but if none of the actual substantive reasons is valid, why are the feds still pushing this?  This is a complete waste of money and burden on businesses and people who have relied on the current numbers for years with absolutely no ill effects whatsoever.  And it has no discernable benefit except making work for someone.  In fairness, this mandate from the feds likely predates widespread use of GPS, but even so, what the heck was the urgency in the first place?  There wasn’t one, that’s the answer.  Just another pork boondoggle for someone courtesy of your elected “representatives.” But someone should have rethought this given the “advances” in technology, rather than move forward with something that, to put it charitably, is just stupid.

Reference:         Divided Legislature passes police accountability bill, sending controversial measure to Baker – The Boston Globe

                Once again, our arrogant Great and General Court and its “leadership” have slathered themselves in shame and completely abdicated their responsibility to both their members and the public.  Whatever the merits of the just-passed police “reform” bill, this is just another in an endless string of shameful attempts by the House and Senate leadership, with the ovine consent of the membership, to ram an undigested and complex – and politically sensitive – bill down the throats of their members with little or no notice after months of inaction and/or months of secretive drafting. 

                A 129 page “reform” bill, drafted in complete secrecy by a handful of members, is unveiled to the world, and to most of the House and Senate members, less than 24 hours before the leadership intends to, and does, put it to a vote.  This is after the leadership cabal has spent four full months working on it because it is so complicated and sensitive.  And then their members get not-even 24 hours to read, digest, and think about all its provisions and whether or not they are good public policy.  And rather than put on the brakes, they vote the way their “leadership” tells them.  Kudos to those who did not go along and voted against the bill, though it is unclear whether “no” votes were on the merits or because of some principled grievance about the process and timing.

                This is not representation of the citizenry in any sense of the concept.  The American colonists in the 1770s had more to say about how they were taxed than the people of the Commonwealth, and most of their elected representatives, had to say about this bill, and many, many others.  This is the paternalistic (and maternalistic) “leadership” deciding what is going to happen and then using every slimey and rushed tactic they can to get it to pass with few people actually reading it, never mind understanding it.  Unfortunately, this is business as usual on Beacon Hill – nothing ever gets done when it should, so there is a panicked rush at the end of each term to cram legislation through the House and Senate with most members not even being able to read most of what they vote on.  There actually was no rush to get this passed once a draft was ready other than the political pressure of the progressive interest groups.  But alas, that is what passes for public-policy-making on Beacon Hill.

                According to the Globe article above, “‘It takes courage to take a vote like this,” Representative Claire D. Cronin, an Easton Democrat and one of the chamber’s chief negotiators, said on the House floor . . . . ” 

                Yeah, right.  It takes “courage” to try to hoodwink your colleagues and the public and ram something down their throats and not even give them a chance to read or think about what this bill contains.  There’s only one reason to push this bill through so fast, and that’s because if people actually had a chance to read it and think about it, that process likely would come to a screeching halt so sober minds could reflect.  (That and the upcoming Christmas holidays of course).  And of course bringing an end to the constant yapping and sniping of the interested advocacy groups.  Maybe some members want to be untroubled by thinking about the legislation they consider and vote on, but we think not – we ardently hope not, anyway. 

                The Globe further reports that “House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, referencing the push by advocates to tighten police accountability, said lawmakers had vowed to usher in change during the summer. ‘With today’s vote, the Legislature acted on its promise to ensure fairness and equality,’ the Winthrop Democrat said.”

                  Well, that sentiment is utter nonsense.  The members, unfortunately, did what their leadership demanded.  That certainly does not equate to acting on their “promise to ensure fairness and equality.”  Fairness would be publicizing this draft bill, circulating it to the public and having a public comment period, and allowing the membership to review the bill themselves and hear from their constituents.  THAT is representation and fairness, which is NOT what the General Court and its “leadership” regularly serve up. 

Reference:         The statues must go: Brown should not celebrate colonialism (browndailyherald.com)

                Yikes, we thought Brown University was a good school with smart students.  Well, sorry to disabuse those of you who might have once thought the same.  In a recent op-ed in the Brown student newspaper, several woke students with a lot of time on their hands penned an explanation for why Decolonization at Brown (DAB), a student group to which the writers apparently belong, think it’s a good idea to eliminate campus statues of Caesar Augustus and Marcus Aurelius. 

                DAB is “a student group committed to reimagining Brown by decolonizing our academics, spaces and relationships.  One of our current initiatives is to remove and replace the two copies of Roman statues, those of Caesar Augustus and Marcus Aurelius, on Brown’s campus. . . . we are calling for the statues’ removal because they celebrate ongoing colonialism in the United States and idealize white, Western civilization — both of which continue to cause harm at Brown today.”

                As you can imagine, colonialism in the US is viewed by these students as nothing more than than “the violent displacement and occupation of Native communities and land by Europeans and others. The 13 original colonies were created by European settlers through the killing of Native peoples and the systematic dispossession of Native land. These settlers did not leave following the Revolutionary War. Instead, they remained on Native land, claiming it as their own. Today, Americans continue to perpetuate this process. The 13 colonies have expanded to 50 states and many territories — an expansion made possible by further displacement, genocide and the continued denial of Native rights. This is what we mean when we refer to colonialism in the United States.“

Brown evidently doesn’t require homework before mouthing off in writing. Even a cursory review of pre-colonial American Indian culture and activities would show these kids that there is no monolithic American Indian. Rather, those peoples were made up of hundreds of tribes, some settled, some nomadic within certain bounds, many of which warred on and murdered their neighbors and took their land from them, and didn’t give it back until and unless it in turn was taken from them by some other tribe or federation, and so on and so forth over the years – very much like European history and the history of everywhere else on the planet. To demonize the white colonists for doing exactly the same thing is pretty hypocritical. And the American Indians were every bit a vicious as the colonists, if not more so; the colonists, at any rate, didn’t come over with scalping the inhabitants in mind.

                Therefore, continues the DAB dogma, “within this broader context, the two Roman-style statues at Brown are harmful because they celebrate the ongoing occupation of Native land by the United States and replace Native histories with monuments to white, Western civilization.”  This is because “the Europeans who began colonization in North America cited Ancient Rome as a guiding example for their colonial mission on Native American lands. Later, the founders of the United States would do the same, claiming Ancient Rome as part of a lineage of European civilization. This idea of a shared Western civilization led European settlers and their descendants to set up replicas of Roman statues across the United States.”

                Therefore, they have to go because their “presence shapes space at Brown and forces students to interact with monuments to colonialism and whiteness . . . . our initiative aims to remove the public celebration of colonial occupation and white superiority within the monuments of our landscape.”

                There’s a lot more of this nonsense in their excessively long op-ed piece, but we won’t tire you with it here.  But we do have to say that the scope of their ambition is admirable, though it’s a shame they haven’t put it to better use.  Yes, it isn’t just America that is run by white racists, it is all European countries, and presumably all white countries from the beginning of time.  Why they only went back to the Romans and not further back to the Greeks is something of a puzzle, but we assume that must be because they only took History of Western Civilization II and not I.  Could be they never even heard of the Greeks.  Not to mention that the concept of “white supremacy” wasn’t even a concept until hundreds of years after the height of the Roman empire.

                But you have to be careful what you wish for.  Take their “thinking” (if you can call it that) to its logical conclusion and their view seems to be that every white in the country should have to go back to Europe, every black back to Africa, every Hispanic back to south of the border (unsure we are whether or not Hispanics count as white for these purposes), every Asian back to China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, etc.  After all, the whites didn’t leave after they defeated the British in the American Revolution, as these kids think they should have.

Call it a foot in the door, the thin edge of the wedge, pick your cliche, but if statues of Romans come down because they celebrate white colonialism, then it isn’t a long step to advocating for largely depopulating the country and leaving only those who call themselves Native Americans, even though, as these Brown students fail to realize, so-called “native” or “indigenous” Americans aren’t any more native or indigenous that you or us or probably 99% of Brown students – we and/or our forebears all came from someplace else, they just got here earlier.  An anthropology course in human migration might serve these kids well. 

                So, who’s in favor of ponying up and cancelling these kids’ student loans!?