Target Delenda Est

Not only has this company doubled down on its awful and utterly unnecessary bathroom policy (after seeing its stock plummet by $billions). No, it also despises its customers, to the extent that it is now suing a man who saved a teenage girl from being stabbed in one of Target's stores:

When she was sixteen, Allison Meadows was shopping in an East Liberty, Pennsylvania, Target store when Leon Walls rushed into the outlet and stabbed her.

With the assistance of surveillance video, Walls was convicted of attempted homicide for his attack on the girl.

The only reason the girl did not suffer more injuries is because Michael Turner interceded and, along with several other men, confronted Walls. Turner himself chased Walls out the store with a baseball bat.

Unsurprisingly, Meadows was extremely thankful for Turner’s efforts....

Target, however, is less grateful for Mr. Turner’s heroics. And now the retailer is suing him for “endangering” the store’s customers.

According to the company’s filing, Target says Turner and several others chased the suspect toward the store’s entrance after the attack on the girl. The store insists Turner put other shoppers at risk with his actions.

The victim of the stabbing and her family are furious with the retail chain and say Target is just trying to shift the blame away from its own security failures.

I can think of few companies (Starbucks is an obvious contender) which at this time are generally worse--for the culture, and for humanity. I suppose they could be worse--they could fund Planned Parenthood.

Tenure Requirements in a Nutshell

"To discover and to teach are distinct functions; they are also distinct gifts, and are not commonly found united in the same person."

So said Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman, who was perhaps the most brilliant thinker in England of his day. I notice that the modern university demands that its faculty do both, or face termination. Small wonder that so many graduates learn so little from their myriad classes.

Why We Will Homeschool--Reason Number 857837820

My wife and I don't live in Oregon, but I'm from there. So this does strike close to home for me, in a sense (my emphases added):

Oregon’s state government released a set of guidelines for schools Thursday informing educators that students must be allowed to use whatever locker rooms they want and play on opposite-sex sports teams as long as they say it reflects their chosen gender identity.

Not only that, but if the student doesn’t want his or her parents to know, teachers don’t have to tell them.

The 15-page document makes Oregon one of just a handful of states to release detailed guidelines for how states should handle the topic of transgender students. In general, the guide tells teachers to adhere to the wishes of students when it comes to affirming their chosen gender identity.

“A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day should be respected and treated like any other girl,” it says. “So too with a student who says he is a boy.” Students should be called by whatever name they wish (regardless of their legal name), and they have the right to use bathrooms and locker rooms of either sex in accordance with their wishes...

the LGBT-rights group Basic Rights Oregon declared the new standards were a “wonderful first step” for the state in improving transgender rights in school.

And what happens in the more progressives states soon get exported to saner states, either by the slow slipping of the culture or by judicial (or presidential) fiat.

As an added aside, I noticed this passage in the document:

"Students are often still in transition at the time of graduation and have not necessarily completed legal name changes and other documentation. Recommended best practice for graduating transgender students is to provide two diplomas and two sets of transcripts, one with the legal first name and one with the preferred first name."

Really? At that point in my life, I was going by a different name from my legal name (and I still do, though now I go by either my nickname or my given legal name or my last name preceded by the appropriate appellation depending on circumstance). My diploma was written in my legal name. My wife has changed her name from maiden to married last name since graduating--but alas, her diplomas all still have her last name on them. In other words, this document is encouraging a special privilege to transgendered students "above and beyond" what the other 99.99% of students are provided. It may be a petty thing to be hung up on (this is really one of the least important points in the damned document), but there it is.

Also, there's this, from page 10 (the same page which says that boys can now use the girls' room and vice-versa):

Based on a recent OCR finding against an Illinois school district, it is recommended that alternative accommodations, such as a single “unisex” bathroom or private changing space, should be made available to students who request them, but should not be forced upon students, or presented as the only option.

This paragraph started strong and then fizzled. Frankly, the single-use restroom, shower, or changing area/locker space is the best option available if we concede that people should not simply be made to use the space provided to their anatomy. In other words, the compromise position is out; trying to avoid this battle in the culture wars will not be permitted. It certainly lends credance to the idea that these fights over lockerroom use, the so-called "Bathroom Wars"* really are less about the bathroom and more about the war.

And now, a prediction, with a bit of irony. Years ago, when I was an undergraduate student, this kind of thing was all the rage among the proto-Brownshirts of the "Social Justice" set. I remember there being discussions and arguments, and even resolutions brought before the student body's senate as to whether we should make our campus' bathrooms unisex. This is not many steps away from simply allowing everyone to use whichever bathroom or locker room he or she chooses--indeed, the two proposals have the same effect. And, on a similar note, there were rumblings then (and more so at the university where I did my doctoral work) that dorm rooms should be made optionally coed.

My prediction then is this: whether dorm rooms are made to be co-ed or not, I suspect that this bit of insanity will eventually render the point moot. A young woman will decide one day that she is actually a he, and then be assigned to a dorm room accordingly, or (perhaps more frequently), a young man will decide that he is really a "she" and be assigned to a room accordingly. And while I must confess that I wonder what the response of the university housing would be if said students change their minds once, let alone several times (will every transexual now be given his or her own private room, above and beyond what is allocated to other students), there is another problem here. Namely: what recourse will the normal and sane students who are not undergoing some gender confusion have?


---------

* I would prefer "Bathroom Battles" both for the alliteration and as a reminder that they are one front in a greater cultural war.

A Few Good Links (vol. 23)

The semester is over.

1. What's wrong with rights? For one thing, they often leave forgotten the more important things, which are our duties. 
2. What is driving the bathroom wars? In part, it's that old-time gnosticism, or maybe manichaeism.
3. Did Jesus oppose poverty? No. He in fact praised it when undertaken for the right ends. Giving to the poor is something we do to help them, but also (and in a different way) to help ourselves--to allow ourselves to become less materially attached, but also to allow for the growth of charity. Charity, like any virtue, is something which exists between persons, and it exists without the intermediary of the state. To attempt to eradicate poverty is to attempt to make a liar out of Jesus, who told us that the poor we would always have.
4. Why do so man people like/support/vote for Trump? He is now winning a majority of Republicans, in mostly blue or pink states--but he won handily in the South (which was, granted, divided between many not Trump candidates. Note that there are a number of reasons why people are supporting him, but they are not necessarily good reasons, or (more to ht point) they are good reasons, but not applicable to supporting Trump. The man is good at selling snake oil, which is, I suppose, why he won the nomination.
5. Why are the popularizers of science so consistently bad at philosophy? And why does it seem like they all get worse as they attempt to embrace a role as "spokesmen of science?" Case in point: Bill Nye.
6. Why are our campuses such hotbeds of the worst kind of leftism? They are generally completely overrun by the social justice brownshirts and other crybullies that they are beginning to look like a Greek comedy (but one which will end in tragedy, no doubt).
7. Why does evil often triumph? Because no good deed goes unpunished, and every hero will have a day in court (and then jail).

Long live the new semester.

TMM: Linksdump and Bitter Dregs of Politics

There is no good news in the realm of politics and the Union now: it is a dark time indeed. Ted Cruz has suspended his campaign, so barring a miracle Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee. Cruz was a long shot going in to Indiana--but he didn't need to win on first ballot. There are a number of things which I dislike about Cruz, but he was at least clearly better than any of the alternatives. Some pro-Trump commentators suggest that he plays to much for TV in the digital era, but I can't help but wonder if he doesn't play too much for radio. Many of the things he has said or done "on-the-spot" have been nice soundbites (I especially like his impromptu discussion with Ellen Page about religious liberties, and his "signing" of the communist manifesto), but have not been as well-received because of his odd facial expressions.

Trump is not clearly better than Hillary Clinton (though I suspect he may be the slightly less awful option). Neither is Bernie Sanders, who besides having a ruinous "pie in the sky" economics program, would use the justice department to punish any state which defunds Planned Parenthood. He is as pro-abortion as Clinton or Obama.

I'll wait until after the conventions have sorted things out before deciding who I will vote for--it's almost certainly going to be a third party/independent candidate, since neither major party candidate is likely going to clearly be the lesser evil. Maybe I will write in Joe Schriner. I dislike a few of his policy positions, and think that a few more are problematic in the opposite way that those of Bernie Sanders are problematic (you can only make a modern economy be so small and so local), but I at least don't have grave moral reservations here. We'll see if any major independent campaigns are started or not, and who they back.

Evil is Often Indifferent

There are, I am sure, some people who are evil for the sake of being evil, or nearly so. They relish the thrill of getting away with it, or enjoy seeing others suffer. True cruelty exists as a means to the pleasure of another, who relishes the suffering of others.

Far more prevalent than this, though, is indifference. Evil is mostly banal, and it is more often caused by carelessness or apathy than for it own sake (or for the sake of some perverted pleasure derived from the suffering of others). For every man who seeks to persecute others for the sake of watching them suffer, there are many more who would "accidentally" persecute others for the sake of expediency or convenience.

Case in point:

This is real bigotry. This is real evil, raising its head to mock. Refusing to participate in somebody else's evil is not bigotry. Real small-mindedness is insisting that others must serve you at all times, that all other people are there for not but your convenience. Evil likes to trivialize itself: just offer one single, small, pinch of incense to Caesar, and hope that God does not notice or care. Bow down before the Golden calf, just once, what can it matter?

I saw a nice counterpoint to all of this:

This is difficult, and often untried. But we do live in a vale of tears, and those tears are all the more bitter because of the sheer cruelty of indifference. We don't live in a time and place of hard persecution--but it is certainly a time and place of soft persecution. This may seem trivial in comparison, as if there is a great gulf between what we suffer here and what martyrs suffer elsewhere: in a sense, there is a wide gulf. But even the greatest distance can be traversed by taking many small, seemingly trivial steps.

Religions of Pieces

A juxtaposition:

That about sums it up.

Springstein

Sites like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Papers have noticed something interesting about the decision of Paypal, Bruce Springstein, Disney, the State (governor) of New York, etc. to attempt to boycott states like North Carolina and Mississippi. Said boycotts are in response to these states' attempts to enact even the most toothless lawsrecognizing the rights of conscience and Religious Liberty.

There is a certain double-standard at play here--and it is not the only double-standard. After all, many of these folks who are so adamant about the importance of protecting so-called gay (and transgendered) rights from the consciences of Christians will gladly turn a blind eye to the treatment of those same gays when they are beheaded by Mohammedans or imprisoned by Hindus.

Nor is this the only way in which the religious freedoms of Christians in general (and Catholic in particular) are under assault from the Left in America.

Siblings Day Fun

I must say, I have to tip my hat to these brothers for playing one of the funniest pranks I've yet seen in the wake of their little sister's having her wisdom teeth removed:

Comedy gold.

What Is Best in Life: Sanders the Bernbarian Edition

What is best in life?

This is basically what the Left represents in modern times (well, that and Moloch worship, and protection of ever more deviant perversions at the cost of curtailing actual freedoms).

On a related note, Time's financial section (Money) has linked to a pair of simple tax calculators, one by the International Business Times, and one by Vox, which attempt to estimate the impact of the four* major candidates tax plans on how much you should expect to pay  in federal taxes. They also attempt to estimate how these tax plans will impact the federal budget (and deficit--there are no projected surpluses). Neither site paints an especially rosy picture for any of the candidates.

On the individual side of things, most people would benefit in the form of more take-home money from both Cruz and Trump (the calculates both estimate that I will take home a few thousand dollars more annually under Cruz and a little more under Trump--but there are no deductions considered for one, and only number of children is considered in the other). Clinton's tax is a wash for the middle class--you don't pay much more, but you do pay a little more.

Bernie Sanders' tax plan is a complete disaster. Vox estimates that my annual tax burden will increase by a staggering $10 000, and the International Business Times estimates a $430 increase to my monthly taxes, which is about comparable**. This, to pay for things of disputable benefit. We don't need a federal healthcare plan, nor should we pay for every kid to go send 4 years at college: the former will mean a worsening of our healthcare in general (longer waiting lines, perhaps rationing or worse, and I can imagine how things like the tyrannical HHS contraceptive/abortion mandate will only be expanded, and worked around whatever Supreme Court ruling is handed down); the latter will mean that college is further dumbed down (it's already slipping there somewhat, and the value of many BS degrees is often worse than worthless). We have "free" k-12 education already, improving the quality of that would work far more wonders than tacking on another 4-6 years of college "education. And from a purely selfish standpoint, I see these as especially burdensome to me: the few actual perks of my job include steeply discounted tuition for my family, "free" health insurance***, and a pension plan****. So people like me will lose out the most on Bernie Sanders, because we will see a large tax increase to fund entitlements that we already pay or receive as a perk (read: non-cash payment) to our jobs.

On the other side of things, none of the candidates have made specific plans for cutting back our already bloated federal budget. The result is that while Ted Cruz and Donald Trump will cut taxes somewhat, they will also be increasing our debt (which has soared to nearly $20 Trillion as of this writing). Not that Bernie Sander or Hillary Clinton avoid doing this, mind you. The outlook for this election is bleak.


*John Kasich is excluded, but then again, he is mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination at anything short of a brokered convention (which actually is looking more and more likely).

**Vox includes everything from income tax to payroll tax to corporate tax. International Business Times does not, as far as I can tell.

***I pay for some of it, and of course I "pay" for some more in a reduced salary, my boss has estimated by about $20000/year. I don't hold high hopes for getting to pocket that money if we go to universal healthcare.

****Which actually take a substantial portion of my monthly paycheck, just under 10% of my earnings, so it is really more like a mandatory group investment.

Rise of Trump?

I've read a lot of commentary as to why Donald Trump is doing so well, and among so many different groups (he polls strongly across all groups save party establishment loyalists). One such article--I lost track of it, so no link right now--was sent to me a few months before the primaries in a conversation with a good friend of mine from South Carolina, who explained that he planned to vote for Trump.

Here is another one from John Hayward of Breitbart.com:

Trump’s voters have lost faith in the Republican Party, the media, the federal government, long-standing assumptions about the economy… and, most unfortunately, many of their fellow citizens.

That loss of faith has been building for a long time, across an entire generation and several presidencies. Its echoes can be heard among some Democrat constituencies as well, although they tend to blame different elements of the old order for breaking faith with the people.

On the Republican side, the loss of faith in the GOP Establishment is palpable, building into an avalanche of distrust over the past three elections....

The immigration issue resonates because it’s such an obvious example of the Establishment holding a radically different position than voters… and relentlessly trying to shove it down their throats, year after year, no matter how much they protest. It’s like the customer in the Monty Python skit trying to order a meal without spam, from a restaurant that insists on cramming spam into every single menu item. No matter how loudly they object, Republican voters can’t get their party leadership to take immigration seriously.

The central premise of open-borders ideology is that people who are not American citizens have needs the U.S. government must prioritize above the needs of Americans. Big Republican donors want cheap labor at the expense of American workers. On both sides of the aisle, our elite lost faith in us, long before we lost faith in them...

Saddest of all, the American people have lost a crucial degree of faith in each other. That’s not surprising, because they’ve been blasted with messages – and billion-dollar programs – for the past seven years, based on the idea that only the biggest Big Government in history can protect us from each other. Middle Americans see armies of Social Justice Warriors lined up against them. People who have been told they have no moral right to organize politically understand how that leaves them defenseless against a rapacious political culture. Nominally conservative big-money interests turned out to be very willing to cut deals with Big Government.

The value of persuasion has been reduced, because socialism is compulsive – it’s not a debate, it’s Thunderdome. The losers are punished and looted. No one gets to sit on the sidelines.

Can we persuade the Left to rediscover the value of free speech… or must we send Trump to show them how it feels to be on the wrong side of their tactics? Can we persuade the Left to remember the importance of limited government and the separation of powers… or must we replace their beloved “benevolent dictator” with Trump, to frighten them back into constitutional government?

This is a fairly good summary of the reasons I have seen given. Personally, I take these collectively as reasons to be wary of Marco Rubio (the establishment's current choice after Jeb Bush fizzled out). If you dislike the establishment, vote for Ted Cruz. The man at least has a touch of decorum and class, even if he does at times come across as a used car salesman or evangelical preacher.

Presidential Primaries Endorsement

Since primary season is upon us, I suppose I should make some endorsement. For the Democrats, I cannot offer an endorsement, because I think that both main candidates are absolutely awful. If you must vote Democrat, then I suppose that the approach should be "Bros before hoes," but then again I suspect that Sanders is more likely to win than Clinton in a national election.

For the Republicans, my endorsement is a bit more serious, because I might actually vote for their nominee. If it's Trump, then I'm going to vote third party, in all likelihood. Each of the other candidates has, in my opinion, some large flaws but also some significant upside. With that said, I think my preference is either for Rubio or Cruz. Carson seems very discerning, and he's certainly quite intelligent, and Kasich is also reasonably discerning about where he will dig in his heels and fight and where he will compromise. He's not pro-life enough for my tastes, and is weak on the marriage questions--but on the other hand he is signing the bill to defund Planned Parenthood in Ohio, and I suspect that we have lost the political fight over the meaning of marriage for the next generation at least. The goal her should really be, "do no harm."

With that said, neither Kasich nor Carson has a particularly clear (nor likely) path to the nomination. My first Choice was Jindal, but he did not even make it to the Iowa caucuses (in the the same way, my first preference two cycles ago was Brownback, who dropped out shortly after Iowa). If we had a less appalling frontrunner, I might consider a vote for Carson or Kasich, but really I don't lean much towards either of them over Cruz or Rubio.

I lean slightly more towards Cruz than Trump, but my actual endorsement at this point is "anybody but Trump." To this end, I would recommend the following strategy: vote for whichever between Cruz and Rubio is the frontrunner (or second behind Trump) in your state, at least until it becomes apparent that one or the other will bow out. Since many states are either winner-take-all or (more commonly) winner-take-most, having Trump lose (or come in second) in many states will draw a lot more delegates away from him, and will go much further to prevent his becoming the nominee, than will splitting the "not Trump" vote between Rubio and Cruz within each state.