Graffiti and other Smears at Yale Law School

“Christine Blasey Ford Quote Painted at Yale Law School

You’d think most of the alumni, students and faculty of Yale Law School would understand the difference between fact and opinion as well as the difference between a Senate hearing and a trial in a court of law.

You should also be aware by now of some stunning exceptions to understanding of these differences which have dominated recent headlines in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process.

First, consider the alumni, which would include members of the American Bar Association and visitors attending Alumni weekend at Yale Law School. According to the article linked above, on Monday morning following the conclusion of Alumni weekend a graffiti painting quoted the words of Christine Blasey Ford outside the school’s door.

Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter.

According to the article, this quote, extracted from Ford’s testimony at a Senate Committee hearing during the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh as Justice of the Supreme Court, was given in testimony against Kavanaugh. Omitted is the fact that this “testimony” was given at a Senate hearing which is not a court of law. Also omitted is the relevance of testimony that applied to a near forty-year old event that was certainly not criminal and would never be admissible in any rational court of law.

I agree that there is some evidence that the events described in Ford’s testimony may well have occurred, though I doubt they would have been exactly as described. But the evidence is weak to begin with and as both Ford and Kavanaugh were teenagers at the time, four decades prior to reaching the heights of their subsequent professional careers, it should never have been subjected to the corrupt process of a “trial” by media and political opinion. There was no reason such sensitive matters could not be considered in private conference with committee members.

The media would of course never consider the sensitivity of the protagonists and so it is not surprising that although Kavanaugh has been confirmed on the basis of his professional record, which is the only relevant evidence here, the media and other political activists choose to keep the “trial” running until it yields some result acceptable to them.

Consider this statement from the article.

Despite protests, calls to senators and pushes to deem him unfit for a lifetime on the court Kavanaugh was confirmed.

If there’s a mention of Kavanaugh’s ability and sterling performance as a judge anywhere, express or implied, I must have missed it. “Protests, calls to senators and pushes” to the contrary, his judicial record thankfully prevailed. His career unfortunately is forever smeared by the corruption of the confirmation process. The perpetrators, primarily the media and Senate Committee members who dragged the vague recollections of middle-aged adults as teenagers through the process as an indictment, will never be accountable except in their own moral ineptness.

The article reports on other protests from Yale Law School, by students as well as faculty and even the Dean, which were raised prior to Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

The Dean of Yale’s law school called for an investigation into the allegations from Ford. “I join the American Bar Association in calling for an additional investigation into allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh. Proceeding with the confirmation process without further investigation is not in the best interest of the Court or our profession,” said the statement from Dean Heather Gerken.

Observe that even the American Bar Association had thrown its hat into the ring to call for “additional investigations,” according to Dean Gerken’s quoted statement. That nonsense is even less relevant now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed.

Let’s fervently hope the anarchist inspired efforts of this process fade away into merely a smear on the record of the confirmation process for Justices of the Supreme Court.

Edward’s Post

New Brunswick village council backs down after “inclusiveness” effort

“N.B. village raises ‘straight flag’ and promptly takes it down following a public backlash

The mayor and council of Chipman, New Brunswick apparently thought they were on to a good thing when they raised a “straight flag” on Sunday, with the intention of letting it fly for a week, as they had earlier voted to do and did with regards to a “rainbow flag.”

The linked article quotes the mayor from a speech given on Sunday:

Whatever your personal persuasions, political or religious views, or country of origin, we welcome you in our community and ask for your volunteer efforts to help make Chipman a more open, dynamic and attractive community for all citizens.

This kind of “virtue-signalling” is unacceptable to the “politically correct” establishment, particularly when it’s punctuated by the raising of a “black and white” flag. According to the article:

Comments have poured in on the village’s Facebook page from residents and neighbours criticizing the decision as harmful towards the LGBTQ community and urging the town to take down the flag — three black stripes over a white background. [emphasis added]

In what way is this nonsense harmful to the “LGBTQ community?” Answer: in the same way it’s harmful to the “straight community” to fly a “rainbow flag.” Which is to say not harmful at all, except to the extent that all of us should be annoyed about all such wasteful gestures.

Within less than twenty-four hours the black and white flag was taken down in response to a community backlash via social media, according to the linked article. There is zero tolerance apparently, for anything but rainbows and the exalted “LGBTQ community” in Chipman and its neighborhood.

Democracy has prevailed you might say, by expressing the feelings of the people through social media. Would that more people were willing to express their individuality rather than counterblast with their passive acceptance of socially identified collectivist “communities.”

Edward’s Post

Canada Post “workers” to use their coercive monopoly starting Monday morning

“Canada Post union workers to begin rotating nationwide strikes Monday morning

I’m annoyed. I knew it was possible for the government-sponsored monopolies at Canada Post to upset my daily routine. I ignored that possibility when I placed an on-line order for a specialty household product I’ll need by month-end.

So now, the very next day following the placing of my order (the vendor offers free shipping by expedited Canada Post shipment) I read (see link above) that the disgruntled union is ordering “rotating strikes.”

This means my order may be delayed and I won’t receive it in time for next weekend, when I have planned to clean the hard-water deposits from my espresso machine.

Trivial stuff, I know, when counterpoised against the heady issues of ” . . . health and safety, gender equality and good, full-time middle-class jobs . . ..”

I guess where the whole thing comes apart for me is that here are two government-sponsored monopolies opposing each other in the pit of practically unlimited dollars confiscated from taxpayers and sloshing around for the taking.

Canada Post, the crown corporation, enjoys a monopoly. Nobody else is allowed to deliver letters or bulk mail by order of law. On the other side of the dispute is the union of postal workers, who enjoy a peculiar monopoly of their own; no other individuals may perform their work without being members of the union, a status also enforced by order of law.

Then there are the issues, which on their own provide just cause for annoyance at the least. Let’s see, “health and safety” is a kind of “sugar-pie” issue that nobody can argue against. I’m all for the health and safety of workers regardless of their peculiar employment circumstances. Exactly what are the concerns of postal workers, the majority of whom are only stressed by repetitive sorting of letters weighing less than an ounce, or carrying bags of same that cumulatively could weigh more than a bag of groceries? Perhaps this stress is outweighed by the healthy walking letter-carriers do in making their appointed rounds.

What about “gender equality?” This term as used here must be some kind of package deal. On the face of it, genders are only equal before the law and morality. It means equality of opportunity and not of outcome. In absolute terms, gender is a distinction with a difference. So I’ll leave it to union representatives to explain why this is an issue so dire as to withdraw their members from active employment, rotating or otherwise.

Finally, we have “good, full-time middle-class jobs” as a key point of disagreement. Now I know that a government-sponsored monopoly employer, which has never demonstrated much regard for the proverbial “bottom-line” has probably been rather accommodating in regard to “job-creation” when it comes to allocating resources. Who has not wondered how a clerk who is paid more in wages and benefits than the average Canadian unskilled worker can be financially justified at a few dollars per transaction, when they, the taxpayers, wait on-line for service from the same, often surly clerk?

Is that what “good, full-time middle-class jobs” means to the union? By what right does this monopoly provide a superior standard of living to unskilled workers to what they might obtain in free markets without the benefit of a government enforced monopoly?

Edward’s Post

Drunken vandals face 10 years in jail for defacing artifact in Thailand

“Brit, Canadian face 10 years in jail for spraying Thai wall”

Yes, it’s a slow news day in Canada when this is a “top story.”

Perhaps much of the population is still “coming down from a high” after celebrating the “historic day” of cannabis “legalization.”

With some supply problems already apparent the period of tranquility may soon end. Or, since Canadians are accustomed to long line-ups and rationing of medical care they’ll just shrug it off.

The sad tale of the two drunken louts in Thailand won’t garner too much sympathy among domestic “stoners” but the chastened miscreants can take comfort that the embassies are “providing services.”

Edward’s Post

Protesters urge Ford to defy reality and economic facts

Doug Ford may not be the most charming or erudite politician to grace the halls of political power in Ontario, and he has certainly gained the negative attention of media, political, and academic intellectuals across Canada.

One thing in his favor however is that he apparently understands a fundamental problem in modern welfare state politics: out of control government spending coupled with unrealistic regulation of the productive sector of the economy.

So, when protesters come out to challenge the regulatory rollback of stupid anti-reality notions that employees must be paid more in wages and benefits than market prices have determined as a result of mutual trade between employers and employees, we should hope Ford remains firm in his convictions.

Any weakening in resolve would further encourage the rule of society by the mob rather than by trade for mutual benefit.

Edward’s Post

Legalizing Impaired Consciousness

Forget pipelines (built or unbuilt); forget global warming (“climate change” is an anti-conceptual term used to obfuscate the scientific challenges to global warming hypotheses); forget “free trade deals” negotiated by governments (which frustrate rather than free trade); forget problems with Saudi Arabia (diplomatic relations and now, the Khashoggi affair); forget all the economic and political promises made by the Liberal government in Canada, for what really matters is one big election platform promise that prime minister Trudeau and the Liberals delivered: legalization of cannabis.

The awareness of this fact is palpable across Canada. Commentary and media coverage is so intense that even important issues like the activist court decisions regarding the Kinder Morgan pipeline are all but forgotten.

The recent UN IPCC dire “warnings” have agitated the parliament but it seems like nobody cares, not even the Green Party (many of the environmentalists may be on a natural “high” so aren’t paying attention).

Christia Freeland has commented on the Khashoggi affair, but that’s because she’s freed from the heady negotiations regarding managed trade among the US, Canada and Mexico. Her comments added nothing however, so again nobody cares.

What everybody cares about, if media coverage is any indication, is that they’ll be able to legally buy cannabis from licensed retailers and smoke their brains out on 17 October.

Everywhere there is heightened awareness of this issue. Street signs remind us that driving “high” is the same as impaired driving, the determining criteria for which keep lowering to the point where a 200 pound man who has a glass of wine with dinner may risk losing his driving privileges.

State media (CBC) has regular news items related to the many anticipated problems with the rollout of legal cannabis, as well as special programs examining specific issues related.

So what’s it all about? The election promises were focused on eradicating the black market and limiting access to cannabis by children. I’ll predict this objective will not be satisfactorily met. Users with reliable black market supply are not likely to change, particularly because the regulations and licensing requirements will push up the prices for “legal” supply.

As for the kids, only good parenting and an education system focused on conceptual development will encourage the maturation of independent thinkers who understand that consciousness-altering drugs are inimical to a flourishing life.

But, let’s not have anything detract from this political “achievement.” If Canadians base their assessment of the current government on its allowing them to legally render themselves unconscious then they deserve what they get.


“Jihadi Jack?” Welcome!

‘Would you like to come to Canada?’ What officials are doing for Canadians held in Syria over ISIS allegations

Altruistic Canadian officials are prepared to assist alleged ISIS fighters to come to Canada and live “a good life.”

Sure, why not? Today’s prevalent and stunted morality will forgive any crime or indiscretion from treason to murder, but will never tolerate an independent thought to be expressed that runs against the status quo.

Just ask Jordan Peterson, for example.