While driving the other day, and being bored with the news, I decided to listen to an excerpt from a collection of the great speeches of history. At random, the first speech was of Martin Luther at his trial for in 1521 before the Holy Roman Emperor and the Diet of Worms. That speech is considered the tipping point between the old world and the modern world as it threw down the challenge of a person to believe as they wished.

It was a wonderful speech, firm and positive, a brilliant discourse on his beliefs and the errors of his accusers. I was struck by the level of language and the phraseology which made one listen and think at the same time. It was in short magnificent. At the end of the speech, I continued onto the speech by Sir Thome More in 1535 and again, the level of intellect and the sharpness of mind forced me to marvel at how the leaders of their time risked all for their beliefs. The same was true for the speech by Queen Elizabeth I in 1588 as she rallied her subjects to defend the realm from an invasion by the Spanish. Her speech showed her leading by example with a willingness to die for her people.

The series of speeches start with one by Socrates in 399 B.C. and include speeches by Patrick Henry, Cromwell, Lincoln, Churchill and more. Listening to them, brought home to me the fact that unlike the “Reckoning” interpretation of history which we have today, the power structure of Western Man is not the result of some vast conspiracy against everyone else, but rather the result of thousands of years of inquiry, discourse, the struggle of ideas and ideals, and a quest for knowledge. 

There is a story, possibly a fable, that when the great Chinese fleets sailed hundreds of years ago, one ship brought back to the Imperial Court, a giraffe. Everyone was amazed but the emperor asked what good is the animal? It does not look tasty, it gives no milk, one cannot ride it. In the end the emperor decreed that the native Chinese animals were better and, the great fleets with their magnificent ships were left to rot. How different from Western man! The record of inventions that have come about by the desire to learn, to make more efficient, to increase productivity are legend and most were done by individuals seeking something better not only for themselves, but for humanity.

The Western system is not always fair, or kind. But would anyone care to live life without the inventions and tools of the Western system? That is the cost if you want to be fair. Do not take the fruits without paying the price. Trivial things like electric light, modern medicines, fertilizers which have saved hundreds of millions from starvation, air travel, the automobile, telephones, etc.? Were wrongs done? Yes. Was there justice in the societies conquered by the West? No. They like the societies of the West were flawed. In the end, we need to give the devil his due and move forward. Beating one’s chest due to the belief that one’s ancestors had been wronged will not move one forward. Self-pity is never attractive.

https://quillette.com/2022/10/08/reckon-with-this/

What happens when an “oppressed” minority becomes the ruling majority? Do they learn from their history of “oppression” and shed the traits and habits of that time, or do they institutionalize those very traits and habits in the institutions which they control? If it is the latter, how do we determine that those institutions are improving, providing better service or a finer product?

Over the past half century, women have made major strides in the world of academia. As the linked article points out, they have gone from less than ten percent of doctoral degrees to over fifty percent, while composing over fifty percent of the faculty at postsecondary institutions. No matter where you look, women are becoming the driving force in our education system. Is that a positive or a negative? What do they bring with them and how will their hopes, fears, likes and dislikes shape those institution? According to numerous studies, the results can be serious in the long term. Why? Consider:

• Women believe colleges should protect students from “offensive” ideas at a higher rate than men
• If controversial claims are made by speakers, such as  men are better at math, all white people are racists, etc.,” women opposed allowing those speakers to speak at a rate several times higher than men
• Women by a margin of almost forty percent believe that colleges should not invite speakers if students threaten violence
• Women are more willing to support dismissal campaigns than men against colleagues whose research resulted in controversial conclusions

Studies have shown that women are more willing to suppress science for moral reasons as women are more focused on social justice and egalitarian norms. This is censorship and goes directly counter to the very concept of a liberal education. By placing themselves as the arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not, women create a system based on their narcissistic belief that they possess the only correct vision and path for the future.

The concept of safe places, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) committees and Deans as well as DEI Commitment Statements, trigger warnings, etc. brush too closely to censorship and authoritarian group think. It is time that we return to a system that is mores free, more objective and allows an ebb and flow of ideas and discourse.

Toxic masculinity ignores that males overwhelmingly were responsible for the gains in wealth, health, the rise in living standards, progress in science and so much more that has provided women with the opportunities they have today. It is doubtful that a toxic femininity can provide a path to a freer and better world.

https://quillette.com/2022/10/08/sex-and-the-academy/

“Talking about ‘healthy masculinity’ is like talking about ‘healthy cancer” and “Traditional masculinity has oppressed girls and women and limited the identity construction of all boys and men.”  But let us not forget, “we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it.”  Thus begins a review of No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men by Anthony Esolen (the review is by Noah M Peterson.

Mr. Esolen has written a rebuttal to statements like those and others that attack the concept of masculinity that has evolved for thousands of years. His rebuttals include examples of how civilization was built by the very forces that are condemned so readily today; men’s drive to create and conquer (which motivated technological development), men’s willingness to fight (not only physically but mentally) and other traits that have moved humans forward from the darkest caves.

Peterson, points out that while the author is only half right in some areas, such as his assertion that “Every typical difference between the behaviors of boys and girls can be seen as the natural expression of the forms of their bodies”, he is consistent in following his views to their logical if controversial conclusions.  For example, are women incapable of “dispassionate analysis”? Was government created by men to protect women and children?

 Esolen fails in his discussion of virtue in that he does not “provide a standard of virtuous masculinity that men can strive for….”  If virtue is a means of restraint, how is a boy growing into manhood be taught when to use his strength and drive and when to temper it? This is a question that cannot be answered by a secularist for what is the higher universal standard of a secularist? Perhaps the answer regarding virtue can be more easily answered by those who believe in a higher purpose and being? This is not covered in this discussion.

The questions and conclusions Esolen cover may infuriate some, but all we need to do is recall the quotes at the start of this review and then remember that we are also told that no one is attacking masculinity.

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/boys-to-men-2/

We constantly hear cries about income inequity in our nation and how we must immediately correct this problem. Yet, as so often the case, the cries of panic from the Left do not stand up to any degree of investigation. The following paragraph from the attached article says so much but the actual article will provide you with the hard facts. Yes, there is income inequity, but the real victims are not those at the bottom of the economy but rather the middle class which works so hard but receives so little for their effort.

“The average second-quintile household earned almost five times as much as the average household in the bottom quintile, because it has 2.4s times as many working-age members working and on average each worker worked 80% more hours. The average middle-quintile household earned almost ten times as much and had 2.6 times the percentage of its working-age people, each working twice as many hours. Yet the bottom 60% of American households received essentially the same income after accounting for taxes, transfer payments a household size.”

If you are upset about your level of taxation, be sure to be sitting when you read this article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/income-equality-not-inequality-is-the-problem-labor-force-participation-income-taxes-transfer-payments-middle-bottom-rich-household-size-census-11661781351

The attached article by Mr. Lomberg raises a key question: in a society based on competition and the freedom of consumers to find products that best fit their needs, why does the government mandate you accept a product they prefer? What exactly is the benefit to the consumer? Is it:

• Less costly
• More efficient
• Provide better service/value

If the mandated product does not address the points above, then what is the rational for the mandate? It should raise significant questions for when the last time was the government mandated a product which altered the consumers buying pattern. The one example that comes to mind is the Affordable Care Act which among other things, promised that it would be less expensive and that you could keep your old doctor. How did that work out?

Bjorn Lomborg has excellent environmental credentials, and he often suggests options which are not only less expensive to all parties, but less traumatic. I hope you enjoy his article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/policies-pushing-electric-vehicles-show-why-few-people-want-one-cars-clean-energy-gasoline-emissions-co2-carbon-electricity-11662746452

Here is the good news:  Canada is increasing its military budget in an attempt to reach the NATO target of 2%. Here is the sad news: the increase will only increase the spending to 1.59% from its current 1.36%.

While the increase does not sound like much, Canada is making a major change in its uniforms which have seen minor change since 1945. Why is this important? Because as several NATO members have stated, Canada is several years ahead of other nations in this area. How have they managed to move ahead of the U.S., the U.K., and all the other NATO nations? By liberalizing the dress codes to allow cross gender dressing, earrings, nose rings, green hair (if it does not conflict with the camouflage uniforms, and more (much, much more). It is wonderful to see Canada step up and assume its rightful place of leadership with these important improvements.

I am confident that when a Canadian color guard is on display at some international conference, the attendees will appreciate the wonders of diversity and individuality. Lucky the officer who will command that unit.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/first-reading-get-ready-for-green-haired-soldiers-inside-the-militarys-new-dress-code/ar-AAZjuCm

Pity the small business owner in Great Britain! Imagine their feelings of trepidation as they are ready to renew their three-year energy contract with their local provider. They know the price of energy has been going up and the last contract was a just bearable $31,000 but the new contract has finally arrived. They open it and there must be a misprint! $135,000! (NYT, 9/3/2022, B1) No, it is not a misprint, it is the result of years of just in time energy deliveries (not enough storage), the war in the Ukraine and most importantly, two decades of green energy policies which has cut into the North Sea oil fields and stopped fracking.

Unfortunately, the above story is all too common in Great Britain today. Energy bills are going up 80% for homeowners and the new Prime Minister has moved quickly to put a cap on these increases for the next two years. The cost? About $115.35 billion or 4% of annual economic output. Given that the government debt is already at 95.5% of annual economic output, such subsidies will cause higher inflation for years to come. All this while estimates are that 100,000 businesses could close due to high energy prices. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of workers in transportation, trash services and energy have walked off their jobs to protest the excessive cost of energy and the resulting inflation.

Not the best of time to be the new Prime Minister! Fortunately, she has acted quickly and has eliminated the band on fracking and hopes are that it will pay off as soon as March 2023 which will help. Some people do learn and are willing to lead from the front.

The world is facing a crisis in its climate policies. The U.S. has gone from energy independence and being an exporter of fossil fuels to being an importer; will our leadership continue to ignore reality as Janet Yellen has (see link below) or will some adults appear and take the children in hand? The time for daydreaming and wistful ideals is over.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/janet-yellens-fantasy-economy-biden-administration-inflation-wages-dearborn-michigan-11662674409?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-global-crisis-of-climate-policy-europe-germany-energy-prices-bankruptcy-winter-subsidies-borrowing-green-nuclear-11662651070?mod=opinion_featst_pos3

The prime function of a military is to be prepared to inflict and sustain violence. Other functions include socializing an individual into a given society, creating a sense of order and discipline in the individual and creating a bond which will, when needed, allow the individual to take an action that is more important than the narrow self-interest of that individual. We see this in what we call “heroic actions” or acts of “bravery.” It is reinforced through group recognition and the awarding of medals and citations. To achieve its goals, the military must constantly be involved in training which will not only help to achieve those goals but will also enhance the individuals’ chances of survival if there is a call to violence.

Anything during an individuals’ time in the military which lessens or diminishes either the period of training, or which hinders the creation of the military bond is a distraction which could put the individual and the group in greater danger due to the loosening of that bonding process or the missed training.

The link below looks at the rise of Wokeness and its cost in the military. What exactly is the upside to such a program and what sort of measurement if any, is being used to judge its impact? For generations, the U.S. military was seen by most as an equal opportunity operation. Not always, not perfectly, but its mindset like society’s and like the weapons it employs has been in a constant state of evolution. Does the ideology of Wokeness enhance or subvert that natural evolution and distract from the primary functions of the military? The margin for error in the military is small and can easily be a mater of life and death. Is it correct to experiment with an organization on which the fundamental security of the nation depends? Read the article which may help you decide.

“What we have here, is a failure to communicate.”  That is one of the most famous movie lines of all time. It could be altered to sum up the average person’s view of government; “What we have here is a failure to listen to your citizens.”  We seem to have a growing belief that government, at many levels, goes about its business without caring about the people it is there to serve, without learning from their failed policies. Government (and in this specific instance, the Federal government) seems to go on its merry way, instituting policies that fail time far more than they are successful; ignoring basic rules of economics and human nature, is wasteful and those who are entrusted with the wealth of the land are incompetent and corrupt while being without fear of retribution. I must admit that the government is excellent at merchandising, a prime being the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act which has little to do with reducing inflation and much to do with vast sums of borrowed money given to a select few political favored industries which have yet to live up to even minimally acceptable standards.

We live in a time where politicians can lie and change the standards by which they are judged. The traditional definition of when a recession starts is thrown out, or the border is secure even through we can see that millions have entered our country illegally. Too many politicians seem to believe in telling the big lie; tell it often enough and it will become the truth.

We have a trust deficit because politicians have become so arrogant in their distain to the average person. Perhaps they believe that because they are re-elected so many times, despite their policy failures, the average person really must be stupid. What other explanation can there be for their hold on office? But the average person is beginning to awaken; it has happened before in our nation, when the lies, corruption and cronyism became so blatant that the people literally did “throw the bums out.”  Are we approaching that time? When our politicians and their families make millions working with a foreign power determined to replace us, when our leaders institute economic policies which destroy the opportunity for a better life, we need to see a day of reckoning.

The attached article provides examples of how government speak is wearing thin as reality hits more citizens. It is time for the “protected” class to feel some of the pain their inflict on the “unprotected” citizens. The actions of busing a few thousand illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities is having an effect (although I would prefer, they be bussed to certain parts of Delaware and around the neighborhoods of those pols who distain border walls). Americans are losing confidence in the ruling class; all they want is to be told the truth and to have accountability. If that is too difficult for today’s political leadership, then they deserve to reap what they sow.

https://nypost.com/2022/07/28/team-biden-denies-were-in-a-recession-americans-dont-trust-government/

One of the most hotly contested rules of the Covid lockdown was the various mask mandates. Wearing a mask was a mark of subservience to the unscientific political whims of elected officials who suddenly seemed to believe that they had secret knowledge of Covid. The rules and exemptions were often silly and illogical, such as being allowed to not wear a mask when dining out, but if you went to the washroom, you needed to wear the mask while in transit. Or, if on an airplane, keep the mask on during flight service but you could quickly slip it down while taking a sip of your beverage. Somehow Covid would be too slow to attack you or slip past your uncovered mouth during those couple of seconds. It always struck me as odd that healthcare workers often had to wear hazmat suits while treating patients, but we could all help stop Covid by wearing a cheap piece of cloth for days on end.

Finally, we are seeing some studies which show that wearing masks may be a wonderful way to be virtue signaling, but aside from puffing up one’s ego, it does little if anything to successfully fight off Covid.