RUTHFULLY YOURS

In a not terribly long life, I have known well three transsexuals (as we used to say), and another three not so well. Not because I especially sought out their company, but just because I’ve spent a lot of my time around theatre and music and areas that attract those who feel “different”. Two of those three friends I didn’t know were transsexual until they were “outed”, one very publicly – although with hindsight certain curious aspects of both their physiognomy and behavior suddenly made a lot more sense.

But that’s the point: Even those far closer to them than I was weren’t aware – because back then the object of having a “sex change” (also as we used to say) was to change from being a man to being a woman. There were still only two teams and you were simply crossing over to bat for the other side. The trans-life had little in common with “gay pride” – because the object wasn’t to come out of the closet, but to blend into it so smoothly no one would know you hadn’t always been there. Before their outing, the two ladies in question were more lady-ier than thou: both used to show up once a month with a box of Tampax discreetly poking out from the top of their handbags – even though, as we all understood in retrospect, they had no need of it. But they had chosen to live as women, and so they wished to be as other women. And they were mortified when they were exposed.

David A. Deptula, a retired Air Force general, is dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter’s recent remarks on the efficacy of Iraq’s army reflect the fact that, despite years of training by thousands of U.S. and coalition forces, the army has not been able to halt Islamic State aggression. What makes anyone think that a few more months of similar training will yield success?

We must not, however, confuse Iraq’s objectives with critical U.S. national security interests. While the two may overlap, they are not the same. Each demands its own strategic, military and policy approach. From the U.S. perspective, the most important goal is not the maintenance of the Iraqi government but the destruction of the Islamic State.

Selective data trimming, adjusting, and stitching together is how global warming enthusiasts get the results they want.

A flurry of recent publication activity on the health impacts of carbon dioxide by the catastrophic climate change community is evidence that it has now moved beyond post-normal science. That was the philosophical answer to traditional science founded on rational hypotheses, reproducible experimentation, and impartial confirmation of results. Post-normal science was to be the answer to really difficult research problems; it would apply in cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent,” according to its advocates Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991. These same attributes accurately describe the status of climate research. Loosening the traditional standards of acceptable proof to include some postulating and science conclusions based on consensus and opinion would expand the universe of available answers desperately desired by governing bureaucrats and environmental activists.

Nothing more pointedly and poignantly describes the state of colleges in the United States today than the comment by Jen Lara in the March 16th issue of Community College Week wherein she writes “[o]ur job is to teach the students we have. Not the ones we would like to have. Not the one[s] we used to have. Those we have right now… and to embrace a growth mindset and change and disrupt the status quo.”

Most teachers have accepted the need to dumb-down material, accept a lackluster student body and make believe that the diploma conferred upon most of the graduates is a meaningful document.

And thus, the expected result of 40+ years of open enrollment, affirmative action and general lowering of academic standards has colleges and universities making changes to their “assessment processes for under-prepared students.” It is why remedial classes burgeon because the reading level of some incoming college students hovers at sixth grade. Could this dismal statistic be the result of attitudes evinced in a now discarded 1987 book entitled Language and Thinking in School: A Whole-Language Curriculum where one learns that:

Definition of “dark horse”-a candidate or competitor about whom little is known but who unexpectedly wins or succeeds.Richard Nixon won after several bad starts….Rick Perry’s performance at the 2012 debates was terrible….but his announcement speech merits a second look….rsk Read the entire speech:

http://time.com/3909562/rick-perry-campaign-launch-transcript/

Richard Nixon won after several bad starts….Rick Perry’s performance at the 2012 debates was terrible….but his announcement speech merits a second look….rsk

“But success does nothing to foster indolence or forgetfulness in Mr. Perry. He knows the ugly truth: National security requires strength — the presidency is about defense, basically — there is no peace other than by threatening to kill your enemies and doing it when necessary. Hence, there will be no deal with Iran while Mr. Perry is president.”

https://ricochet.com/the-speech-of-political-manliness/Leadership is deeds, not speeches (except, one supposes, speeches that take on the force of deeds). The media and Washington-the-place are the problem. The surplus of spirit in the people is the solution. The president should serve something greater than himself — like Washington-the-man going back to his farm, a very Cincinnatus, relinquishing power after fully discharging his duties. Mr. Perry obviously believes he would not shrink in the comparison — he could withstand the gaze of millions, like the poet says.

After many tough losses, Egyptian-born, Orthodox Jewish owner of the horse that won it all lauds ‘unbelievable race’The Triple Crown Trophy that went unclaimed for nearly four decades was in the firm grasp of American Pharoah’s owner, Ahmed Zayat.

“This is for the sport,” he proclaimed after his brilliant colt won the Belmont Stakes on Saturday. “Thirty-seven years! This is for all of you.”

And then he turned and handed off the three-sided trophy created by Cartier to his trainer, Bob Baffert, who then gave it to jockey Victor Espinoza.

Since 1977 I have attended about 26 graduations- from grade school, high school, college, law schools. In none of the graduations I have attended has a national military draft loomed. In September 1940 there was a different outlook for millions of graduates.
The Burke-Wadsworth Act calling for a peacetime draft in the history of the United States was imposed. Selective Service was born and the registration of men between the ages of 21 and 36 began one month later. There were some 20 million eligible young men—50 percent were rejected the very first year, either for health reasons or illiteracy (20 percent of those who registered were illiterate). In November 1942, with the United States now engaged in World War 11 the draft ages expanded and men 18 to 37 were now eligible. By war’s end, approximately 34 million men had registered, and 10 million served with the military.
Those were the young men who answered the call of duty- who fought and died with honor in the major battles which vanquished Japanese and German enemies. Graduation parties gave way to separation, boot camps, shipping out and combat.
I think of them today on the anniversary of the Normandy Invasion.
Their memory is a blessing….rsk

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays.

Dear Reader (a salutation that was gender neutral before gender neutral was cool),

I’m going to try to write this blogger-style, which is not a variant of Kung Fu whereby you distract your opponent with a cloud of Cheetos-dust and then pummel him with couch cushions. No, what I mean is that I think I need to get back to a more “news”lettery format with more items and fewer stream-of-consciousness essays. Don’t worry, I remain devoted to keeping this “news”letter news free.

Fowl Play

It was reported earlier this week that ISIS is morally opposed to raising pigeons. Among their problems with the practice is that it somehow exposes good Muslims to avian genitalia. Where to begin? First of all, bird junk is arguably the least offensive in the entire animal kingdom. They’re pretty much the only animals that can be drawn as cartoon characters without having their kibbles and bits bowdlerized. Foghorn Leghorn (the inspiration for Hillary Clinton’s Southern accent, I’m told), has not been castrated by an eraser. You can’t say the same about poor Porky Pig.

The point is, if you were a psychotic sex-phobic fanatic, you’d think pigeons would be one of the few acceptable animals precisely because they have the most G-rated crotches in the whole vertebrate phylum. I mean, have you seen the bait and tackle on a camel?

At Powerline this week, Steve Hayward penned a post aptly entitled “The Insincerity of Rand Paul.” The senator’s legal arguments against the Patriot Act, he posits, mimic papa Ron Paul’s 2003 calls for a formal declaration of war against Iraq: mere “constitutional punctilio to cover his real feelings.”

Steve is right. Congress statutorily authorized the use of military force in Iraq. Nothing more was constitutionally required. The real reason for Representative Ron Paul’s formalistic nattering about a declaration of war was his opposition to American intervention in Iraq. That, in turn, was driven by his theory that it was American national defense policies that cause anti-U.S. animus.

Senator Rand Paul’s overwrought constitutional claims against the Patriot Act similarly camouflage his real objection: He is anti-government even with respect to national security, one of the few things for which we actually need the federal government.

In the wake of CNN’s Wednesday revelation [1] that journalist/activist Pamela Geller was targeted for beheading by slain Boston area jihadist Usaama Rahim, CNN’s Chris Cuomo interviewed [2] Ms. Geller Thursday. Most attention to the interview has been focused on Geller’s understandable reaction [3] to Cuomo’s suggestion that non-profane, free-speech cartoons of Muhammad — for example, ex-Muslim artist Bosch Fawstin’s thoughtful drawing [4] below, which was awarded first prize at the recent Garland, TX exhibit [5] – were somehow too provocative.

Said Geller to Cuomo:

Drawing a cartoon … warrants chopping my head off? That’s too far? I just don’t understand this. They’re going to come for you, too, Chris. They’re coming for everybody and the media should be standing with me.