I am now involved in the “going through stuff” stage of grief. This one won’t be quick – not that any of them are quick.
After my son and nephew go home, there will be a great deal more to do. I know someone who helps with this sort of thing for a living, and I plan to try to hire her. She’s an exceptionally kind and capable person.
(1) We’re expecting a big storm with rain and winds all weekend. Will I lose power? Perhaps. Hope not.
(2) Trump gets a SCOTUS win regarding verifying voter citizenship:
The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to use a modified centralized database to verify voters’ citizenship. In a seven-page opinion issued just 39 days before the Nov. 3, 2026, election, the justices paused a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had blocked the government from doing so on the ground that it violated (among other things) federal privacy laws.
Democrats want non-citizens to vote.
(3) Another day, another poll showing how leftism has been growing in the US:
More than four in ten Americans have a positive view of socialism – 43 percent – only 12 points lower than the 55 percent who view capitalism positively, a recent Gallup survey revealed.
The survey asked respondents if they have a negative or positive image of small business, free enterprise, capitalism, socialism, and big business.
Small business had the highest rating at 95 percent positive, followed by free enterprise with 77 percent positive, and capitalism with a 55 percent positive rating.
However, 43 percent now have a positive view of socialism. This is “the first time this figure has exceeded 39% in Gallup’s trend since 2010,” Gallup reported.
Notice any contradictions there?
(4) It’s deja vu all over again:
President Trump has reportedly rejected a seven-day cease-fire proposed by Iran and expects to resume bombing the country after the midterm elections.
As part of the proposed cease-fire, Tehran pledged to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume negotiations on dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for the US ending its blockade of Iranian ports.
However, Trump is “skeptical” Iran will agree to his demands and has told aides it is “likely” the US military restarts airstrikes after the November contests, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing US officials.
(5) I keep reading about promising new pancreatic cancer treatments. Here’s another. But what works in mice doesn’t always work in humans. And it doesn’t seem to be a cure.
Note that the development of the COVID vaccine seems to have contributed to knowledge that helped researchers come up with this treatment.
For a short while it seemed as though Cambridge was going to investigate how it was that it had hired someone – Jason Arday – who was a serial plagiarist and liar, as well as unqualified academically. But now there appears to be a shift and the emphasis will be on how the university failed to properly support Arday.
This shouldn’t be a surprise, because reporting on the initial process honestly and thoroughly would be too threatening to the entire belief system that has taken over Cambridge and so many other universities in recent years. We could call that belief system anti-meritocracy, pro-DEI, anti-truth, or some combination of all three. The original stated aims of the investigation would threaten the livelihood of too many people connected with the university. Best to focus on the question of why the university wasn’t kinder and more helpful to Arday, who after all is no longer on this earth because he committed suicide after his plagiarism et al was revealed.
The university is now virtue-signaling, its favorite occupation. But perhaps the greater virtue would have been to have systems in place that wouldn’t have exposed Arday to any of this in the first place by hiring him. His hiring was itself a form of virtue-signaling – “look at this nice young black man we hired; aren’t we super?” They used him, among other things, although he also used them. And both used the students, who were shortchanged.
I would guess that students at Cambridge are constantly shortchanged these days. Cambridge is hardly alone in this, either.
From the article:
As reported by A.J. Katz of TheWrap and original findings published by The New York Times, the University of Cambridge has altered the scope of its planned independent inquiry into the appointment of the late Professor Jason Arday, opting not to focus directly on his individual recruitment or academic record. …
As reported by The New York Times, Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice had initially promised a “thorough and transparent” investigation into the recruitment of Professor Arday, who made national headlines in 2022 when appointed to a chair in the sociology of education as Cambridge’s youngest Black professor at the age of 37.
“However, the university has restructured its approach into a two-part review. The first stage, led by former British prosecutor Nazir Afzal, focuses exclusively on the welfare and support provided to Professor Arday while he was subject to public scrutiny. As noted by A.J. Katz of TheWrap, Mr Afzal stated that this phase is “not about the allegations made against Professor Arday or about his academic record,” but is instead centred on ‘his welfare, his care, his well-being’.”
The second phase of the review is set to evaluate broader university policies regarding academic hiring and the handling of research misconduct claims across the wider institution. As reported by The New York Times, the framework for this second phase remains unfinalised, leading critics to argue that specific questions surrounding Professor Arday’s vetting process will remain unresolved.
I suppose it’s possible that the second phase will actually deal with the origins of the problem honestly and thoroughly. However, I doubt it. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it does.
It seems there are two factions among the Cambridge faculty on this:
A group of Cambridge professors has begun circulating a draft letter expressing concern over the narrowed scope of the review. According to the Times, the draft letter calls for greater institutional accountability and requests an explicit examination into how the university verified and promoted Professor Arday’s qualifications and background during his recruitment.
Conversely, supporters and colleagues have highlighted the severe psychological strain placed on academics facing public allegations, arguing that the university’s primary duty in such circumstances must be to evaluate duty of care and mental health support structures.
The entire thing is sad from start to finish.
I remember this show well. Loved the idea, but my plastic kept falling off the TV screen:
… with the topic of modern-day hospitals and the medical care found therein, which sparked a lot of discussion and comparing of sorrowful stories in this thread. But I need to take time between posts on what is a profoundly disturbing topic for me.
Right now my son is here and helping with the dismantling of his father’s place and all the many papers, decorative items, furniture, and memorabilia there. It’s a huge task and won’t be completed for a while. He’s here for a few days to give it a jump start, though. Wish me luck.
Not that he ever could have done so. But Mamdani’s bluster was that he would arrest Netanyahu if he dared to set foot in the city.
Here’s an excerpt from Netanyahu’s speech that I think encapsulates the irony of the situation:
Devastating Iran’s nuclear facilities was hard. It was very hard to do. But for me, it was one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make as prime minister. Because if we hadn’t done it, we’d all be dead.
Now, you want to hear the ultimate irony?In defending itself, Israel is also defending many of the countries whose delegates just left this hall!
In fact, I want you to know that many of their leaders even thank us privately for taking out Iran’s nukes.
There is a great deal of charade in the Middle East, and a great deal of destructive maneuvering at the UN. Netanyahu is telling the truth, but it won’t matter.
The UN has been an anti-Israel force for a long long time, which is also ironic because it was a UN vote that helped establish the modern state of Israel. For the history-challenged (which is an ever-increasing number of people), see this:
Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end.
Other ironies: it is Hamas and other terrorist groups who would dearly love to genocide the Israelis/Jews if they could, and 10/7 was a step in that direction with greater ambitions than it achieved. It is Israel that has neither wanted to commit genocide nor taken steps to do so, and yet it is Israel that is widely accused of genocide. It is Hamas and other terrorists groups that purposely kill babies and other children in Israel as well as purposely putting their own children in harm’s way, whereas Israel tries not to kill children but sometimes does so as collateral damage, and yet it is the Israelis who are accused of targeting children.
The latest salvo in the “child-killer” rhetoric is this pernicious propaganda film:
Israel’s culture minister has called for the Oscar-winning Israeli co-directors of Naza, a documentary that accuses the Israeli army of mass civilian killings in Gaza, to be stripped of their citizenship over “treason against the state”.
Named for the Hebrew military acronym for collateral damage, the film speaks to 24 unidentified Israeli military and intelligence officers who outlined the AI-powered targeting systems used by the Israeli army to bombard Gaza in the war triggered by the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023.
Twenty-four unidentified Israeli military and intelligence officers. Hey, can I be one, too?
More:
How does a film reliant on masked “witnesses,” unverified testimonials, and zero cross-examination command instant international acclaim?
You know how – it fits the preferred agenda of the Israel-haters and Jew-haters and Netanyahu-haters around the world, and in particular the left but hardly limited to it.
Co-director Yuval Abraham claimed the film was created to “spark a public discussion about the Israeli government’s actions.” But if the genuine goal is to spark a meaningful, honest conversation, you must present full context and transparent information. You must give people the complete picture so they can make an informed judgment. True dialogue requires context, nuanced expert analysis, and an honest acknowledgment of the existential security threats Israel faces. …
Much of the Western public exhibits an insatiable appetite for any narrative that delegitimizes or criminalizes the State of Israel, or its IDF. We see this cycle play out constantly: initial, unverified claims or inflated casualty figures following an Israeli strike make front-page headlines and send thousands into the streets in protest. Days later, when independent reviews reveal the original reporting was false or misleading, the retraction is buried in quiet, footnote-sized corrections that nobody reads. The damage is already done. Without verifiable identity, specific context, or cross-examination, some audiences trust and applaud the authors’ narrative on faith.
None of this is to claim that any military, including the IDF, operates flawlessly or above critique. Evaluating military ethics in asymmetric warfare is agonizingly complex.
How do you calculate proportionality when fighting an enemy that deliberately embeds itself behind its own civilian population? When terrorist cells operate out of homes, schools, and hospitals, using human shields, every military response carries tragic potential costs. But judging operations strictly by their heartbreaking outcomes—while entirely ignoring the explicit strategy of human shielding that causes them—presents a fundamentally distorted view of reality.
Distorting reality in the interests of a narrative is the point. What’s more, it has been very very successful.
… it’s laser wars versus drones:
Ballistic missiles are cheap. Anti-ballistic missiles are expensive.
But drones are dirt cheap — like switching to Walmart from Tiffany’s — and interceptors are still expensive.
Lasers are cheap to fire, but can be expensive to develop — if the military really did spend just half a billion dollars to put laser defenses in the field, that’s something to cheer. It was a year ago almost to the day that the New York Times reported the Army would “soon” field lasers, and quoted Electro Optic Systems’ chief executive Andreas Schwer saying, “The Ukrainian war and the Gaza war were key trigger events that everybody thought, ‘It’s the time now to make this operational. We should not spend any more years in doing demonstrations, tests and prototyping.'” …
Lasers also come with extreme power requirements and some serious limitations, particularly distance. But when it comes to point defense, there might not be a better solution to the drone problem, and it’s good to see them getting a workout in Iran.
“Somewhat surprisingly,” the Post claimed, “the laser weapons are operated by soldiers using reconfigured Xbox game console controllers.”
Winning wars is about many things, but one of them is technology. That goes way way back into antiquity. For example, there was the crossbow:
Thought to have been invented about the time of the First Crusade by western Europeans, the crossbow actually arose around 500 BC simultaneously in China and Greece. The impetus for its creation was the desire to improve upon bows of the time. It would come to later redefine war in the Middle Ages. …
The medieval crossbow, or “arbalist” as it was called during the Middle Ages, was resurrected in the form of a hand-held weapon in the 10th century, and its use spread rapidly across Europe. From 1200 to 1480 it evolved through several stages to become a powerful and deadly weapon. Its popularity had much to do with the ability of its missile, called a bolt, to penetrate mail body armor at close range. As such, the crossbow became a class leveler—a man of even modest means could afford one, it was very easy to mster, and unlike the knight who had to maintain armor, horse, and retainers at enormous expense, the owner of a crossbow needed only bring bow strings and bolts to the field of combat.
The medieval crossbow and its user were disparaged by the era’s military elite, i.e., the horse-borne knight. But aristocratic disdain could not erase the fact that the mounted warrior of the Middle Ages was at great risk from this plebeian, generally infantry, weapon.
Sounds as though the crossbow was slightly analogous to the drone in terms of lowering the expense of a weapon.
Before the crossbow, there was the chariot:
The first evidence of humans using vehicle in warfare are Sumerian depictions of four-wheeled wagons pulled by semi-domesticated onagers. These war wagons were slow and cumbersome, but provided a protected elevated platform for javelineers and slingers. Chariots with spoke-wheels pulled by horses were lightweight and fast which made it feasible to outrun light infantry and wagons. Although horses have been ridden as from at least the 4th millennium BC they were most likely largely relegated to transporting warriors, who fought on foot. Until the invention and widespread adoption of the saddle, chariots remained the primary form of cavalry, as they offered a controllable and reliable platform from which fighters could rapidly manoeuvre around the battlefield and engage with projectile and melee weapons, dismount and fight on foot or climb on to make a swift retreat.
The list is long and I don’t see it ending any time soon, unless it ends catastrophically. About the latter – I grew up thinking I wouldn’t grow up, because of nuclear weapons, but fortunately that turned out to be untrue.
Not that they care. But he didn’t pull his punches:
That’s to say, [the UN has] become a useless organization whose only purpose is to sustain a cast of fatally arrogant parasites, masquerading as well-intentioned bureaucrats.
I would remind them of what Mises said: good people do not think about controlling the lives of their fellow human beings.
Those who were supposed to guarantee collective security and human rights failed in their task.
Instead, they allowed chaos, violence, and international terrorism to flourish.
The alleged defenders of human rights have sheltered bloodthirsty dictatorships and regimes that stone women in the streets.
They have systematically voted against Israel while remaining silent in the face of Islamic terrorism and the genocide of Christians in Africa.
It’s really quite simple as well as obvious. But the institution is fatally flawed and the words will fall on deaf ears.
People have been committing suicide when terminally ill or in terrible pain for a long long time, and it’s sad and troubling although understandable. But health care institutions and the state haven’t usually been involved until more recently. When they are, it seems that nightmare scenarios turn up with some frequency.
Consider the case of 83-year-old Brigitte Stegemann, whose assisted suicide under Canada’s MAiD program sounds more like it may have been a murder. It’s necessary to read the whole thing to understand the story, but the gist of it is that the elderly grandmother seemed to have lacked the ability to understand what MAiD was intending to do, and she was nowhere near the point of agreeing anyway:
… [A]ccording to [her granddaughter and primary caregiver] Kranendonk, her grandmother still had a good appetite even following a stomach cancer diagnosis, and rejected the idea of using MAiD when it was presented as an option.
Everything changed, however, in June when Kranendonk left to go on a 10-day road trip with her husband.
… [O]n July 3, near the end of her trip, Kranendonk said she received a call informing her that the home planned to arrange a MAiD assessment for Stegemann, despite her grandmother previously telling her that she did not want an assisted death.
Kranendonk said, according to The Daily Mail, that when she returned, she asked a nurse at The Pearl about who had initiated the MAiD conversation. …
When Kranendonk interjected and said, “She doesn’t understand what you’re saying,” the doctor allegedly looked at Stegemann and said, “We’re going to make sure you won’t have any more pain.”
According to a doctor, Stegemann was “deemed fit for MAID, and we’re going to proceed,” The Daily Mail reported.
It’s a chilling story, one of many under such programs. It has a special resonance for me at the moment because, although the details were very very different from that of Brigette Stegemann, I have recently experienced what it is like to feel that a hospital gave up on an older patient prematurely and to have nearly all my input and all my requests fall on deaf ears.
The distinct impression I got was that, once my ex-husband became very ill (at least in part because of what I consider to have been doctor negligence), many of the doctors seemed to ignore the fact that I kept telling them that his quality of life prior to this surgery had been pretty decent despite his Parkinson’s, and that he had been living completely independently.
I never got the impression they believed me. They didn’t seem to be able to adapt by changing interventions. Their concern seemed fake and unctuous, and it was combined with a condescension and early pessimism that were infuriating.
The hospital has a good reputation. Would another have been better? I’m not at all sure, and at any rate I didn’t know how to find that hospital or how to accomplish a transfer. The hospitalist system, in which doctors (some of whom don’t have particularly good English skills) rotate constantly, is extremely frustrating as well. The doctors didn’t take much time with my ex, and I’m virtually sure they didn’t read the bulk of the notes on his case. With a long hospital stay (three and a half weeks from relatively good health to death), the number of notes became enormous and would have taken hours to plow through.
No hospitalist was going to do that, and therefore in my opinion they missed what was really going on. Nor did they particularly care about a patient whom they barely saw – and would not be likely to see again after their days or week on that floor ended and they rotated out again. My distinct impression was that they wrote him off very early on and spent a great deal of time sending palliative care doctors to speak to me and try to convince me to write him off, too.
If I sound angry, it’s because I am.
The administration might not be able to ban birth tourism, but that doesn’t mean it’s powerless against it.
For example, there’s this:
The State Department’s new policy uses powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act to yank visas from those “who knowingly engage in, have engaged in, or facilitate birth tourism to the United States,” including so-called visa fixers, or individuals who coach foreigners on ways to lie or exploit America’s immigration laws.
The US has long maintained a set of rules intended to prevent birth tourism.
The words “a set of rules” links to this article dated January 23, 2020, written at the beginning of the final year of Trump’s first term as president. This tidbit of information is of interest:
Chinese citizens do not require a visa to visit certain U.S. territories, such as the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. The birth tourism industry is rampant there, with more annual births to Chinese visitors than native residents.
Birthright citizenship tends to be organized by those who make money off it, so this move against them is an excellent idea.