The ideologies of sexual revolution and feminism promised all of us wonderful things and there have been positives which have come about over the past fifty-years. There have also been costs and we have ventured into areas which could not be imagined at that time. How are we to judge the plusses and minuses, the gains and losses, the freedoms gained and their costs? Like most movements, no one can ever declare victory and let the movement rest on its laurels; there are too many people who have profited from the movement that has become either an industry or religion. Indeed, it has a momentum of its own and to question any aspect of the path being travelled earns the title of “hater,” “homophobe,” “misogynistic,” etc.

There are times when you read an article or news report and just for a moment, you think it must be a joke. The link below will take you to one of those moments; an action taken in the name of political correctness that is not only short sighted, but also clearly stupid. Ms. Stein, who joined the museum earlier this year, fired all the docents (who are all volunteers) because they were all white women.  Apparently, because they are all white, visitors of “color” are offended or cannot comprehend what the docents are saying. Or the docents cannot explain how the Impressionistic painting at the museum relate to the experiences of a person of “color.”  Instead, those visitors will be free to wander the halls and view many of the 300,000 works of art on their own, creating their own “truth”. When criticized by the Chicago Tribune for the action, the Chairman of the Art Institute defended the action with the following words: ““Critical self-reflection and participatory, recuperative action is required if we are to remain relevant to the changing audiences seeking connection to art.” What? Would you buy a car from a salesman who speaks like that?

To become a docent, the volunteer is “engaged in eighteen months of twice-a-week training to qualify as a docent, five years of continual research and writing to meet the criteria of 13 museum content areas, and monthly and bi-weekly trainings to further educate ourselves with the materials, processes and cultural context” of the Art Institute’s collection. Clearly this type of knowledge and dedication must be stopped. And what will Ms. Stein do to replace these women with all their expertise? Well, nothing at the current time, but I am sure with her obviously brilliant management expertise, she shall be able to produce a solution in no time.

Once again, political correctness leads to a lowering of standards and to ignorance.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/indecency-art-institute-of-chicago-docents-diversity-firing-11634310172?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

The linked article provides, and embedded videos provide excellent examples of the pros and cons of each side. Be sure to spend time on the video with Jordan Peterson at the University of Toronto as he presents his case vs. two opponents who come at him from two different angles.

Peterson rise to wide social prominence during the discussions in Canada regarding C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding “gender identity or expression” as a prohibited ground of discrimination. It also extended hate speech laws to include these two terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” and made it a hate crime to target someone for being transgender, publicly inciting hatred or advocating genocide. The question during debate, is the definition of “hate speech;” is disagreement in speech a right of free speech or can it be interpreted as “hate speech”? For example, can a woman be charged with hate speech if she objects to a trans individual using the same changing or rest room? Can a male inmate who “identifies” as a woman demand to be housed in a female prison and can female inmates who object be charged with a hate crime?

If you are not conversant with this subject, be prepared!

https://quillette.com/2021/09/21/the-progressive-case-for-renouncing-gender-extremism-last-of-a-three-part-series/

There is no doubt that in many parts of the country, the term “starter house” means entering a bidding war where the starting point in California is $440,000 and the median cost is about $800,000. Could it be due to, in California, a Code of Regulations on housing is over 21,000,000 words in length, or because all new houses must have solar panels which add about $8,000 or more to each new house? Of course not, as the government, both State and Federal are there to “solve” the housing problem. We might very well have a housing problem because of the State and Federal regulations which aim at taking away local control of housing and centralizing all decisions by bureaucrats far from those who lives they attempt too “better.”

At the Battle of Jutland, Admiral Beatty was heard to say, “There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships” after three of his “greyhounds,” his beloved battle cruisers blew up and were sunk in a few minutes. What was wrong was his management; Battle Cruisers were not designed to engage battleships in a gun-to-gun battle, but Beatty misused his ships with the results of several thousand British seamen lost for no purpose.

The same poor management seems to have infected the F.B.I. Instead of focusing on their primary function, for one, they have recently displayed an amazing ability to interject themselves in politics to the ruination of their reputation and for disastrous consequences to the nation. There is no record of any police force becoming politicized to the benefit of the nation they swear to serve. History is littered with examples of police forces which have served their political masters and the abuses that have been done.

A recent study by the California State University system of 50,000 Freshmen, found that sixty-eight percent needed remedial help. This is the future of our country? What parent would knowingly send their child to a university and pay the enormous fees so their child can receive a remedial education? Are the parents really that dumb themselves? Or is the university not advising the parents that their child should not be at the university? Are the universities so hard up for money to pay their tenured staffs and bloated diversity/equity bureaucracies that they will lower their standards and ruin their reputations by eventually graduating sub-par students?

After decades of huge spending on education and the installation of a “progressive” educational agenda, we continue to hear cries of “systemic racism” as the cause of failure within our public-school systems. To cover the failure of the “progressives” (I am never quite sure what they which to progress too) regarding the disastrous reading and math scores among some minorities, they now wish to eliminate correct and incorrect answers in math and science (as that is racist) along with any notice of hard work and merit.

The claims from the left that math is racist and that CRT needs to be the basis for our educational system all in the name of equity come at the cost of the death of merit and an assault on science.  The threat to our society, our standard of living both now and in the future are very real as we condemn literally millions of our children to a world ruled not by science and facts, but rather by an ideology which is grounded on the inability to deal with facts.  Not since the Soviet experiment under Stalin and Lysenko has a society been so threatened by an attack on science.  Those on the left who gleefully claim to “believe in science” do not condemn the attack on science, fact, and merit in their support of the goal of equity.  In doing so, they kowtow to the rule of the lowest common denominator.  Our “friends” in China are taking a different tack and must be amazed at our willingness to do harm to ourselves.  Check out this excellent article on how the U.S. is failing in the STEM race. https://quillette.com/2021/08/19/as-us-schools-prioritize-diversity-over-merit-china-is-becoming-the-worlds-stem-leader/

True gender identity is rare, impacting about 0.01% of the population, most of whom are male. Yet today, we see literally thousands of young girls electing “gender affirming” therapy (without the parents’ consent), doctors misrepresenting the effect of puberty blockers, organizations who claim they wish to protect women steering teenage girls into medications which the FDA has never approved for halting puberty, while a new industry has sprung up which lobbies and receives tax payer dollars to support their self-interests. In the UK, there has been a 4,400 per cent increase in girls seeking treatment at national gender clinics. At the same time, gender ideology seeks to eradicate girls’ and women’s safe spaces. In California and Washington State, hundreds of biological males have suddenly found their true gender and are applying for transfers to women’s units. Who are the drivers behind this warped movement and what is their goal? The excellent article by Abigail Shrier in Imprimis examines both the problem and the need for parents to be aware of the terrible damage that is facing our young, mostly, girls. Paste this link for the article and remember that you can subscribe to Imprimis at no charge. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/gender-ideology-run-amok/

The link at the end of my comments will take you to a proposed “solution” from a group of university researchers who believe in global warming (or is it global climate change?). In the end, they believe that all we need do is cut our energy usage by 90%, wash less frequently, have fewer clothes, and give up much of international travel. The problems with their “solution” are many, such as for example, with less international travel, millions will be thrown out of work for in the service and hospitality industries and how will they earn a living; does the decrease in international travel mean decreased manufacturing and longer lead times with the resulting decline in the maintenance of equipment which will lead to a further decreased standard of living. They also base their projection of energy production to include nuclear power, but that source is condemned by most of the environmental movement. It is easy to “solve” a problem if one ignores the impact on real world individuals. It seems that their “solution” in the end flies in the face of all human history, in which humanity has endeavored to improve its standard of living and refused to accept failure. Perhaps their “brave new world” is based on a model of humanity that has only been dreamed of by totalitarians. https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study/