Wednesday Potpourri

 First, A. J. Edelman, proud Yale graduate, received a request for a donation to his alma mater-- to commemorate his class reunion.

He responded:

Last year I faced suspension and a trespassing charge if I returned to campus without proof of a 5th COVID shot. Perhaps you can ask one of the fine Yalies bravely harassing their Jewish peers instead. They're easy to find; they're hosting a Jew hatred festival in the middle of campus and calling for violent intifada.

Second, Andrew Ross Sorkin offers one strategy for American corporations. It’s the Google solution. He highlights the fact that corporate America has mostly kept silence about the demonstrations in favor of gang rape and baby killing.

He wrote:

Controversial thought experiment: What would happen if companies told universities that they wouldn’t hire ANY of their students unless the schools take decisive action to end blatant antisemitism on campus. After all, no company would use an executive search firm with even one employee who openly engaged in antisemitism.

We expect that Congress will-- sooner rather than later-- pass legislation to punish schools who have allowed anti-Semitism to fester on their campuses.

As I have often mentioned, anyone who gets caught up in this madness will almost assuredly pay a price. Children who are demanding amnesty fail to recognize that it is a futile gesture. 

Companies might not say it. They probably will not say it. But they are more likely to reject job candidates who might have been part of the anti-Semitism madness. How will they know who was more likely to be storming the quad, I leave you to conclude.

Third, the polls are looking bad for Joe Biden. Aside from wanting to play both sides against the middle in the Gaza conflict, the administration has tended to criticize Israel and to soft-pedal its criticism of Hamas.

And yet, the American people have not been fooled. The New York Post reports the results of the latest polls:

Four out of five voters (80%) back the Jewish state in its nearly seven-month-old war against the Islamic terrorist group, with the highest levels of support concentrated among older age groups, according to a Harvard CAPS/Harris survey released Monday.

Meanwhile, 72% of voters say they back an Israel Defense Forces military operation in Rafah to “finish the war,” with 28% saying Israel should “back off now and allow Hamas to continue running Gaza.”

Fourth, most citizens understand that the Biden shuffle, the way that the president walks, signals cerebral decline. Administration flunkies have decided that the best way to cover up the boss’s deficiencies is to surround him with other people, not to let him walk alone.

Zero Hedge has the story:

With the presidential election still more than six months away, President Biden's handlers are under increasing pressure to divert Americans' eyes from his obvious and accelerating mental and physical decline. 

Where his deteriorating mental abilities are concerned, we've already seen them using tactics like drastically minimizing his spontaneous interactions with reporters and excessively stage-managing his rare press conferences -- down to furnishing him with answers to questions submitted in advance. 

Now comes news that Team Biden's latest stage-management innovation is focused on obscuring his frailty: Uncomfortable with the way Biden looks as he unsteadily shuffles across the White House lawn, one or more staffers now walk at his side, helping to prevent close scrutiny of his gait. 

The country is in the best of hands. I bet you feel better already.

Fifth, a sidelight, perhaps only telling for those of us who live in Manhattan, but one of the nicer quarters in the city, the Flatiron district, has been hollowed out and nearly destroyed by criminals.

The New York Post has the story:

Flatiron is in shambles.

The once-thriving Manhattan business district is now a virtual wasteland littered with empty storefronts — with locals blaming spiking crime and the Big Apple’s disastrous post-pandemic retail real estate market.

“Big Box” retailers — including Lowes, Bed Bath & Beyond and Staples — have fled in the last few years, leaving one of the city’s shopping meccas peppered with Businesses who are trying to hang on have been plagued by rampant shoplifting and thefts, according to workers and city crime statistics.

Sixth, on the transmania front the Biden administration has been trying to enshrine delusional beliefs into law. And a federal court declared yesterday that states could not refuse to pay for what is falsely called “gender affirming care.”

The Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine brings us up to date on what is happening in Europe, where sanity is taking hold:

The European Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) published a policy statement on child and adolescent gender dysphoria, calling on healthcare providers to "not to promote experimental and unnecessarily invasive treatments with unproven psycho-social effects and, therefore, to adhere to the "primum-nil-nocere" (first, do no harm) principle. " ESCAP pointed to the "poor reliability and instability of a gender dysphoria diagnosis in a specific child over time" and the "possible effects of the decisions to block puberty or preventing medical transitioning on a child's psychosocial development." 

ESCAP allowed for the possibility that some children may benefit from gender reassignment but acknowledged the current lack of quality research to determine the risk-benefit ratio. It provided several key recommendations that focus on generating quality research in the area of gender dysphoria management for youth, with a call to differentiate between experimental practices of established medical treatments. 

ESCAP also insisted that "research findings are published solely on the grounds of quality criteria and not based on their findings," suggesting it is aware of the significant current publication bias, whereby studies reporting favorable transition outcomes are routinely published even if they are deeply methodologically flawed. 

ESCAP reminded everyone of the core ethics principles, putting them in the context of gender dysphoria treatments in youth: 

1. The principle of non-maleficence: do not use outside the research environment any experimental interventions with potentially irreversible effects, or interventions with unknown long-term consequences; do not adopt new practices prematurely without sufficient evidence; do not continue with outdated practices that might not be in the best interest of the patient. 

2. The principle of beneficence: adopt medical interventions with favorable benefits-to-harms ratio; consider benefits- to-harms ratio of not providing medical interventions; ensure adequate diagnosis and treatment of co-existing psychiatric disorders; ensure comprehensive diagnostic assessment of gender dysphoria instead of only relying on the self-assessment of children and adolescents 

3. The principle of autonomy: involve minors in the decision-making processes around their care in an age- and development-appropriate manner, assessing their capacity to consent; adopt an adequate informed consent process for possibly lifelong and irreversible decisions, securing that children and adolescents fully understand the potential risks, benefits, and irreversible nature of the treatments; consider the rights of their parents and guardians to consent to any major intervention or for participation of their children in research on experimental treatments; consider the rights of their parents and guardians to be fully informed about the current care for their children; offer adequate support and resources to those who decide to de-transition to their assigned sex, and respect their decision to do so. 

4. The principle of justice: ensure access to reliable and up-to-date information, assessment, and treatment for gender dysphoria, and during transition or de-transition; adopt equal precautionary measures for all; and protect the rights of children and young people as a group in a particularly vulnerable developmental phase. 

Seventh, Great Britain, with its National Health Service, is leading the march against transmania. Steve Watson reports:

The UK government is updating the constitution of the National Health Service specifically to expunge the creeping effort to ‘transition’ medical language by radical gender ideologists.

The move is being taken to ensure hospitals use language that is medically accurate and based in biological science.

It means that terms such as ‘Chestfeeding’ as a replacement for breastfeeding will be effectively banned.

Referring to ‘people with ovaries’ instead of women will also no longer be considered acceptable.

Eighth, and then there is egg freezing. Anna North has written an interesting article about it, for Vox.

Naturally, it has to do with feminism. Women who follow feminist dicta and place career before family often end up failing to have children. In some cases, it’s the biological clock, which apparently does not conform to feminist ideology. In other cases, it’s the problem of reaching a certain age and discovering that all of the good men are taken.

Feminism promises women that after they prioritize career over family they will find themselves irresistibly attractive, because they will be economically self-sufficient and do not need a man for anything other than siring children. 

It is not true. It was always a lie, but more than a few women believed it.

Meantime, Anna North writes this:

Despite the eye-popping cost of the procedure, experts predicted it would usher in a new era of gender equality and career advancement for women. A now-famous 2014 Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover story promised a new option for professional women: “Freeze Your Eggs, Free Your Career.”

And yet, egg freezing is a risky venture, one that more often than not does not work out as planned:

the chance of a live birth from frozen eggs was 39 percent. 

And that, of course, assumes that the refrigerator where the eggs are stored does not suffer a power outage.

But then, North continues, women choose to freeze their eggs, not because they want to advance their careers, but because they want to take the time and put in the effort to find a suitable mate.

Ten years ago, egg freezing was seen as a path to economic and social empowerment for women. But most people aren’t freezing their eggs so they can work; they’re freezing their eggs so they can date.

Eliza Brown, now a sociology professor at the University of California Berkeley, and her team interviewed 52 women who had frozen or were considering freezing their eggs in 2016 and 2017. None of them cited a desire to climb the corporate ladder. Instead, almost all were interested in egg freezing because they lacked a romantic partner. “Most of our participants understood egg freezing as a way to actually temporarily disentangle romantic and reproductive trajectories,” Brown tells Vox.

One does not know whether the problem lies in the fact that women are outcompeting men in worldly achievement and that men do not find such women to be very attractive. Men seem not to be enamored of the idea of marrying a woman who is going to ask them to do half the housework and half the diaper changing.

Egg freezing doesn’t change the fact that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, nor that social norms still fetishize the male-breadwinner family, pressuring women and men alike to look for something that may no longer fit them or the times they live in. It also doesn’t change the fact that many women find dating men to be a frustrating and demoralizing experience, as Anna Louie Sussman writes in the New York Times. Daniel Cox, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has surveyed more than 5,000 Americans about dating, told the Times that many men were “limited in their ability and willingness to be fully emotionally present and available” and that dating today “requires a level of emotional sensitivity that I think some men probably just lack.”

Some feminists blame men for the results of their own choices:

“Maybe men are going to need to get more comfortable marrying women who are more educated than they are and make more money than they do,” Harwood said. “Maybe the change happens there, in our gender ideologies and how we think of family.”

Back in the day, a woman named Susan Patton, who had a son who was a Princeton student and another son who was a Princeton graduate, wrote to the university’s student newspaper to recommend that young women marry young, that they seek out prospective mates while in college.

Naturally, the feminist intelligentsia exploded with outrage. Patton had wanted to consign women to the kitchen and the laundry. How ignoble can you get?

But, if the alternative is to miss out on family and marriage, and to live for the moment when you can take your frozen eggs and attempt to turn them into a baby-- knowing that the moment is more likely than not never to come-- it seems not to be such a bad idea.

Ninth, the Biden administration is trying to shower Hamas with empathy. It keeps saying that the Israeli military operation cannot succeed. It knows this because it read Tommy Friedman’s columns in the New York Times.

And yet, the Financial Times reports a change of heart among Gazans. It has been largely ignored, so it is worth noting:

Palestini­ans in Gaza are increas­ingly will­ing to voice their anger against Hamas, accus­ing the mil­it­ant group of fail­ing to anti­cip­ate Israel’s fero­cious retali­ation for its Octo­ber 7 attack that sparked the dev­ast­at­ing six-month war.

Hamas rules Gaza with a tight grip, but as Israel’s offens­ive has reduced the enclave to rubble, killed tens of thou­sands and brought the pop­u­la­tion close to fam­ine, res­id­ents such as Nas­sim — a retired civil ser­vant — have begun speak­ing out against the Islam­ist group.

“They should have pre­dicted Israel’s response and thought of what would hap­pen to the 2.3mn Gazans who have nowhere safe to go,” Nas­sim said from the south­ern city of Rafah, which teems with intern­ally dis­placed fam­il­ies from across the shattered ter­rit­ory. “They [Hamas] should have restric­ted them­selves to mil­it­ary tar­gets.”

Mohammed, another Gazan, went fur­ther by dir­ectly blam­ing Yahya Sin­war — the leader of Hamas in Gaza and the mas­ter­mind of Octo­ber 7 — for the dev­ast­a­tion Israel’s offens­ive has wrought in the strip. “I pray every day for God to pun­ish the one who brought us to this situ­ation,” Mohammed said. “I pray every day for the death of Sin­war.”

The next time someone says that you cannot defeat an idea militarily, recall these testimonies.

Tenth, whereas yesterday I wrote a column about face, and especially about the virtue of interacting with other humans face to face, the Wall Street Journal affirms my theory today:

Prof. Jeffrey Hall reports:

Although all social interactions reduced loneliness and built connections compared with being alone, face-to-face interactions and phone calls were the best.

I hope you have enjoyed reading these notes. If so, please subscribe to my Substack, for free or preferably for a fee.

Losing Face, Cosmetically

Barely a day goes by without someone whining about how we are not expressing our feelings. We even have government-produced ads on television advising us all to get in touch with our emotions.

It is a pathetic enterprise, reeking with pathos, and we must count it within the constant effort to feminize the culture. Women are far more in touch with their feelings than are men. They feel more empathy. When you ask a woman how she feels, she will easily tell you far more than you wished to know. When you ask a man how he feels, he will look at you blankly, as though you are speaking a foreign language.

When it comes to expressing emotion, we have numerous tools at our disposal. Among the most important-- facial expressions. In fact, when we meet someone face to face-- increasingly a rarity-- we read their emotions by unconsciously mimicking their facial expressions. Then we figure out whether they are mad, sad, glad or bad.

This assumes that they have facial expressions. Increasingly, women, especially, have chosen to numb their faces, to reduce or eliminate their ability to communicate via facial expressions. Thus, they adopt a wrinkle-free, line-free ageless countenance. And they wonder why they are having trouble communicating. They even complain about the lack of emotion in their interlocutors.

Of course, these women want to look younger than they are. They are often competing for men against younger women, so why not a little subterfuge.

Of course, facial lines and wrinkles often bespeak good character, maturity and experience. Strangely, many older women do not want to show off their good character, maturity and experience. Exception given for today’s Queen of England.

A more important point concerns deception. Does a Botoxed face bespeak deception, or is merely a cosmetic enhancement?

A Botoxed face makes manifest the pretense that the person is much younger than she is in reality. I use the female pronoun here because precious few males undergo such treatment. 

And yes, I am fully aware that our current president has had a great deal of work done on his face. If that was the worst thing we could say about him, the world would be a better place.

But then again, a Botoxed face might attain a different extreme, and become unrecognizable. One aspect of human communication involves knowing with whom you are talking. In principle, this occurs when you are talking to someone face to face. If you are not recognizable, or if there is doubt about who you are, communication will become more difficult.

Looking your best is not the same as looking like someone else. Social beings are recognizable by their face, more than by the expression of emotion. Expressing emotion does not identify you. Being mad, sad, glad or bad does not say who you are. Your face does.

The risk with cosmetic treatment is that you become unrecognizable and therefore, as the expression goes, you will have lost face. That means that you become a pariah, someone who does not belong in polite society.

Anyway, it gets worse. It’s one thing for women of a certain age, good feminists that they are, to want to shave a few years off their appearance, especially if they are unattached. They might not recognize that they can no longer connect with other people. They will find solace in the fact that Botox does wear off in a matter of months.

But now, a new phenomenon has reared its head. Cosmetic surgery for younger women, presumably to give them features that are notably considered to be sexually desirable. 

Olivia Petter has the story in the British newspaper, the Independent:

Take a look at the faces around you. Notice anything? The shapes of people’s eyes all tilting up in the same way towards their hairline? Pouts that pucker up with perfect uniformity? Cheekbones that protrude almost violently through the skin? Perhaps you don’t notice any of these things, in which case you’re already too far gone. But if you do? Well, it’s only a matter of time until you become indoctrinated. Because in 2024 beauty is a homogenous ideal, one that none of us can escape from.

I do not accept the clunky phrase, “homogenous ideal” but the trend suggests that young women are very insecure, to the point where they do not believe that they can attract men without looking like some vulgar simulacrum of a celebrity. One feels some considerable sympathy for women who have learned to think this way.

Of course, the larger issue is whether this absurd habit is more erotic or more aesthetic. Is it about sex or is it about beauty? Assuming that you can distinguish the two? 

Surely, it is about deception, though I hasten to remark that if a young woman is erotically unappealing with one face she is just as likely to be erotically unappealing when she puts on a mask. Unless of course, she is up for sale.

More importantly, as Petter points out, young women end up looking the same. They lose the characteristics that allow them to be identified, to have face in the world. Her article bears the title: “Are we all going to have the same face.”

One suspects that the gremlins who edit the newspaper decided that they needed to make the phrase gender neutral. In truth, the problem most involves women, not men.

If we do, none of us will have face. We will all have lost face. We might be exquisitely and irresistibly attractive but we will have more than a few problems making our way in the world. A false face will not do you very much good in the marketplace.

Looking like you are wearing a mask will not serve the same purpose. Masking your features makes you look like you are hiding something.

Please subscribe to my Substack, for a free or preferably for a fee.

An Israeli Profile in Courage

Tis a puzzlement. How did America’s great institutions of higher learning become infested with leftist agitators who hate higher learning?

Writing in the Atlantic George Packer traces the origin of today’s student protest movements to the Vietnam Era. Then, students occupied the office of Columbia University’s president, making non-negotiable demands and insisting on the overthrow of academic authority.

Packer does not mention that the student radicals of the 1960s had a very specific reason for wanting to end the Vietnam War. They did not want to fight. They did not see anything worth fighting for. They thought that Communism was the future-- it was preordained-- and that it was futile to stand in the way of history.

Students rebels considered themselves to be idealistic peace lovers. People in other parts of the country believed that they were cowards. The moral taint that hung over the Vietnam protesters suggested that they were less idealistic and more chickenshit.

One recalls that Winston Churchill once opined that the only thing that was worse than losing a war was refusing to fight.

So, a generation of presumptive cowards was faced with a daunting task. How to erase the presumption of cowardice. The group decided to take over the American mind, to undermine the value system that defined martial culture, and to teach students that those who rebelled against authority were courageous while those who defended American values were involved in a criminal enterprise that had succeeded in exploiting of non-white peoples. 

Rather than embrace the moral taint of cowardice, the opponents of the Vietnam War declared that they would be willing to fight, but only not for America. They would fight injustice. They would fight oppression. Remember the song: Street Fighting Man. They draw a line at America. They would not defend a criminal enterprise.

If you believe that this is recent history, recall the words of Susan Sontag, uttered during the Vietnam Era:

America was founded on a genocide, on the unquestioned assumption of the right of white Europeans to exterminate a resident, technologically backward, colored population in order to take over the continent.

Or else, this:

The white race is the cancer of human history.

There is nothing new under the sun. People do not quote Sontag any more, but they believe that the meaning of America lies in slavery. They believe that the white race is a cancer and that America was founded in a genocide.

Again, these hysterical minions are creating a new world, where they are courageous and where those who fought to defend America or who worked to build America are criminal conspirators.

So, children go off to college and learn the lessons of twentieth century anti-Americanism. They learn lessons that glorify their anti-war parents and disparage those who fought and died for America. That is, they learn how to think like totalitarian leftists.

They might, Ross Douthat remarks, study some of the classics, but once they arrive at the twentieth century, it’s all leftist propaganda:

But then comes the 20th century, and suddenly the ambit narrows to progressive preoccupations and only those preoccupations: anticolonialism, sex and gender, antiracism, climate. Frantz Fanon and Michel Foucault. Barbara Fields and the Combahee River Collective. Meditations on the trans-Atlantic slave trade and how climate change is “colonial déjà vu.”

To understand the world before 1900, Columbia students read a range of texts and authors that are important to understanding America and the West in their entirety — Greek and Roman, religious and secular, capitalist and Marxist.

To engage with the contemporary world, the world they are being prepared to influence and lead, they read texts that are only really important to understanding the perspective of the contemporary left.

These students are being recruited into the vanguard of the revolution. They are going to fight the good fight against capitalism and patriarchy. 

A minimal understanding of history would have told them that the central conflict in the twentieth century, between capitalism and communism, has been resolved. It would have taught them that communism lost, but not before killing tens of millions of people, most often by starvation.

No one with a brain still believes in the hopes peddled by communism. And yet, American students are told that they ought to be engaged in permanent protest against a criminal enterprise like America. They are not allowed to feel any patriotic stirrings over America’s victories in wars, in world wars and in the cold war.

Given the world that the left is trying to produce, Israel is now a reproach. A pro-American nation, where people are proud of what they built, where citizens are willing to fight to defend their land-- this refutes all of the most sacred beliefs of the American academy.

Israelis are showing what it means to have courage. They have not bowed down to Biden and Blinken. They know that they did not deserve October 7.

If they had simply accepted the atrocities of October 7 they would have been showing that they believed the horrors to be just punishment for their white supremacist conspiracy. They would have accepted that they had accomplished nothing during the past decades, and that whatever successes they garnered were built on oppression and exploitation.

Israel did not think this way. And yet, if theirs is a profile in courage what does that make those who have rallied to Hamas, imagining that committing atrocities should be rewarded and that the cowards who raped and mutilated women and children were heroes fighting oppression.

Please subscribe to my Substack.

What Was Courtly Love?

It used to be called courtly love. Now it’s a felony.

Courtly love was a medieval practice. It grew up in Southern Europe, and eventually morphed into what we call courtship. That is, courtship leading to marriage. 

Keep in mind, for most of human history and certainly for people in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, marriages were arranged. 

When marriage was arranged, adultery was more easily tolerated. Having mistresses, concubines and courtesans was the norm. But then, with the advent of courtly love women entered the adultery game.

When men rode off to fight the crusades, they left their homes and properties to their wives. Said wives, being fully empowered, used their newfound freedom to seduce the young males who remained behind. They were too young to fight the crusades but were not too young to fall in love.

These newly empowered women invented courtly love, an erotic seduction ritual whereby a young male, generally teenaged, would perform a series of ordeals in order to win the favors of his beloved, a woman that he often called his Lord. 

These young men kept chronicles of their exploits in a genre of romantic poetry. They were called troubadours. Today we call them guitar heroes.

Courtly love was frankly adulterous. Yet, by the terms of the contract the two lovers never consummated their passion. They showed the truth of their love by sleeping in the same bed and not touching each other.

Assuming that you believe what they said. Some scholars have pointed out that the courtly lovers, especially the male troubadours, had a serious incentive to deny any carnal knowledge. If they had admitted to consummation they would have been risking their lives.

So, nowadays we are seeing a rash of incidents where older married female teachers have seduced boys of high school age and have been caught in the act. Some of them have been imprisoned.

One remarks that the other side of the equation, male teachers seducing female high school students seems less prevalent, perhaps because it is more obviously criminal.

The tabloid press happily reports all of the cases, for the obvious reason, that the women in question are good looking. If you were a seventeen year old male who was the object of the affections of a comely twenty-seven year old, tell me that you would have turned her down.

Obviously, age does matter here. If the boy in question is closer to twelve, evidently the calculus changes considerably.

As it happens, psycho therapist Stacy Kaiser specializes in the field. She calls these women sexual predators, which is less gracious than calling them courtly lovers. Said women are now considered to be rapists. They are occasionally spending their days in prison. 

Kaiser is appalled that we do not understand how deranged these women are and how much they are damaging the teenage males in their charge. 

True enough, some of the boys in question suffer emotionally from their encounters. One does not, from Kaiser’s account, know why this is the case. It might be that they feel responsible when their teachers get caught and get convicted and get imprisoned. It could be that they are told that they must be feeling very badly for having had sex with an attractive teacher. 

At the least, we must recognize that adolescent boys are far more likely to take such actions in their stride than are teenage girls. Obviously, Kaiser, good feminist that she must be, considers that such seductions are always bad and even criminal.

You do not have to have lived too long to understand that men and women do not react the same way to sexual encounters. Evidently, this disparity counters feminist ideology which states that men and women are precisely the same, but no one with a brain really believes it.

One might read Donald Symons’ book The Evolution of Human Sexuality to gain a minimal understanding of the differences between male and female sexuality.

Anyway, Kaiser goes all moralistic on these women, whom she, purportedly a professional, holds in contempt:

Crippled by their insecurities, these perpetrators seek relationships that enable them to manipulate others – giving them a sensation of control that they otherwise are incapable of achieving in their everyday lives.

The two women I counseled were utterly remorseless over their actions. Their only regret was not being able to continue their relationships.

Dare I point out, consulting with two patients does not offer anything more than anecdotal evidence. And, dare I mention, the concept that Kaiser introduces, “control” is positively meaningless. Psycho therapists overuse the word and have reduced it to so much blather.

Understand this. When courtly love began in medieval Europe marriages were arranged. They began their seductions because they had been abandoned by their husbands, often for years on end.

We ought to notice that the older, more experienced women involved in courtly love were functioning as teachers for younger less experienced boys. As though that is a crime. 

Arranged marriage continued until the Protestant Reformation and Puritanism. Then, for Martin Luther and his followers, marriages were considered to be expressions of love. Once that was the case, as you see with the scarlet letter, people were far less tolerant of adultery. 

The change took place, I will posit, because Luther and his followers had been excommunicated. Thus, they were no longer required to remain celebate, but they lacked social standing, wealth or prestige. Thus, the bases for most marriages were precluded and they fell back on a default position-- romantic love. Previously, romantic love was relegated to adulterous relationships.

As for teacher-student relationships, one should not ignore the simple possibility that the women in question find it exciting to teach boys how to have sex. And they might find it exciting to transgress, to do something that is somewhat forbidden.

Besides, didn’t feminism teach them that they should never compromise their sexuality and that they should express it openly and fully.

Dare we mention that we do not have enough material from enough cases to know how these women’s husbands were treating them. Surely, that has some importance here.

In her Daily Mail article psycho therapist Stacy Kaiser continues to express her contempt for these women:

The women I counseled told me that they felt 'real connections' with the boys they targeted.

Some offenders claim to 'fall in love' with their victims and even purport to be 'dating' them.

That's nothing more than delusional thinking - a way to justify breaking the law and traumatizing a vulnerable person.

An adult cannot have a meaningful or mature relationship with a minor, as children and teens do not have fully developed brains - and victims are influenced by fear, coercion and deceit.

Obviously, this is not delusional thinking, though Kaiser does not seem to know what the word means. Any serious study of female sexuality will explain that when a woman has carnal relations she feels connected and she feels that there is an emotional component. Such is not always the case for the males in question.

One is impressed by Kaiser’s ability to attribute the most sordid and pathetic motives to the boys in question. I will not share the head shots of the women in question, but if you find the Daily Mail article and examine them, you might not think that this is all about fear, coercion and deceit.

Please subscribe to my Substack.

Saturday Miscellany

First, it took them far too long, but the Biden administration has joined with other world leaders in calling for Hamas to release the hostages they have been holding for some 6 months now.

The Daily Mail has the story:

President Joe Biden joined leaders from 17 other countries on Thursday in calling on Hamas to release all the hostages being held in Gaza.

All of the countries have citizens being held hostage by Hamas. In addition to demanding their release, the leaders call for an 'immediate and prolong ceasefire.'

'We call for the immediate release of all hostages held by Hamas and Gaza, now for over 200 days,' the leaders say. 'They include our citizens. The fate of the hostages and the civilian population in Gaza, who are protected under international law, is of international concern.'

'We emphasize that the deal on the table to release the hostages would bring an immediate and prolonged ceasefire in Gaza, that would facilitate a surge of additional necessary humanitarian assistance to be delivered throughout Gaza, and lead to the credible end of hostilities.'

As of early April, 133 hostages remained in captivity in the Gaza Strip.

Surely, these dumbass world leaders did not really believe that Hamas really wanted a ceasefire and humanitarian assistance. As long as these leaders were trashing the Israelis, Hamas concluded that they were winning and that Joe Biden had their back.

Second, you remember the pier that we are building in Southern Gaza, the better to facilitate the transport of humanitarian assistance for the human shields held by Hamas.

Well, Ryan Saavedra has reported that Hamas has greeted the construction with a round of artillery shells:

Palestinian terrorists fired mortar shells at a pier that is being constructed by U.S. forces to bring aid into Gaza The mortar attack occurred as United Nations officials were touring the site with Israeli troops on the coast of central Gaza, the IDF says in response to a query on the incident. The IDF says the UN officials were rushed to a shelter by troops amid the attack. A Hamas official told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the militant group will resist any foreign military presence involved with the port project.

Third, on the campus front of the war against terrorism, we learn that the president of Columbia University has a rather sketchy academic publication history:

Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak reports:

Nemat Shafik - @Columbia Prez only has 1 well-cited publication in her life, in Oxford Econ Papers 1994. This paper is lifted almost entirely from a 1992 report coauthored with consultant not credited in the publication. This is wholesale intellectual theft, not subtle plagiarism.

Reminds you of Claudine Gay, doesn’t it.

Fourth, on this score I have hardly been derelict. As it happens, the more America’s great academic institutions become war zones, the more America’s corporate chieftains and hedge fund tycoons are ceasing to recruit from them.

These young people are destroying the value of their diplomas. Apparently, they are not as smart as we thought they were.

The New York Post has the story:

The violent, antisemitic protests at some of the nation’s elite colleges has forced top corporate recruiters to assess the quality of the education dispensed at these places — and whether they should look elsewhere for job candidates, the Post has learned.

Activist investor Daniel Loeb, a Columbia University graduate, has begun to reconsider whether to focus offering jobs at his hedge fund to fellow alums and other Ivy League schools like Harvard, Yale, Penn amid their tepid responses to the protests on their campuses, he told The Post.

The anti-Israel protests now at Columbia, and throughout some of the country’s once revered, top-tiered universities are tarnishing degrees from these places, these people say.

At issue: Can schools that rationalize non-stop protests while allowing course curriculum that imbibes students with a leftist interpretations of world events be trusted to produce quality job candidates?

The re-evaluation of the elite-school degree comes amid a broader crackdown on strident political dissent in the office environment. 

Now, recruiters say, many that haven’t tapped down on violent protesters or moved their curriculum away from “woke” core courses are paying the price in terms of the perceived diminished value of the degrees they are handing out when students begin to look for jobs.

Now, that Ivy League degree is going to become an impediment.

Fifth, I have occasionally remarked that the bloom is coming off the feminist rose. Women are asking themselves whether feminism really helped them.

Now, Petronella Wyatt-- formerly the girlfriend of one Boris Johnson-- asks the hard question in the Telegraph:

Where, for instance, does it [feminism] leave women like me, when we have reached the age of 54, as I have, and find ourselves both single and childless? Hugging the collected works of Proust, or engaging in furtive sojourns to the pub that bring remembrances of things pissed? One in 10 British women in their 50s have never married and live alone, which is neither pleasant nor healthy. 

Wyatt identifies the problem:

Feminism made the error of telling us to behave and think like men. This error was a grave one, and women like myself are paying for it, like gamblers in a casino that has been fixed. We are not men, and in living the single life, with its casual encounters, we play for much higher stakes and have more to lose. I wish I had not been taught to throw the dice so high. Even Shakespeare’s princes needed someone to look after them in their old age.

Sixth, Louis Gerstner, formerly of IBM, argues that a budding corporate executive cannot learn how to manage when he is working remotely. For those who have not been following my numerous expressions of doubt about the value of remote work, here is another better informed opinion, from the Wall Street Journal:

The class of employees for whom working in a solitary setting is highly detrimental is people who aspire to lead or manage others in an academic, nonprofit, governmental or business institution. One learns how to manage and lead principally by watching others demonstrate how—or how not—to do so.

He continues:

Another skill you can’t learn sitting at home is motivating others to reach for success. Leadership involves getting people to do things they otherwise wouldn’t. This requires articulating and continually reinforcing an external purpose and a visceral sense of teamwork. It isn’t a cold digital process; it is a human and at times personal connection with all the members of your team. It manifests itself in immediate and constructive feedback. None of us are born with these skills, nor are we conditioned or trained to do them well. Watching others who have successfully developed this leadership capacity is, in my mind, the singular way to learn it. There are, of course, many other skills that are learned “on the job” principally by watching others demonstrate them. We also learn a lot by failure—not only our own but that of others.

Seventh, large numbers of Americans believe that illegal migration is a major problem. More and more of them support the idea of mass deportation.

David Strom reports:

Axios commissioned a Harris poll and discovered something unsurprising, even if the establishment was shocked. 

Americans support mass deportations of illegal aliens. I suspect they would support mass deportations of some legal aliens who express anti-American views as well, come to think of it. 

Eighth, Thomas Jefferson High School in Alexandria, Virginia used to be the top ranked high school in the nation. Then, the grandees who run the place decided that it needed more diversity and inclusion. They decided to dispense with the test driven admissions criteria, thus reducing the number of Asian students. The result, from Number 1 to Number 14.

The Coalition for TJ; Fighting for Merit reports:

TJ for the first time dropped out of the top 10 of the US News list of top US high schools, falling from being number 1 2020-2022, to 5 in 2023, to now 14 in 2024 as its college readiness score and state test assessment scores fell dramatically.

Ninth, it could not have happened to a nicer guy. Adam Schiff parked his car in a garage in San Francisco. When he left it unattended, thieves broke in and stole his suitcase. 

Kevin Fagan has the story in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Hello to the city, goodbye to your luggage. That was Senatorial candidate Adam Schiff’s rude introduction to San Francisco’s vexing reputation for car burglaries Thursday when thieves swiped the bags from his car while it sat in a downtown parking garage.

The heist meant the Democratic congressman got stuck at a fancy dinner party in his shirt sleeves and a hiking vest while everyone else sat in suits. Not quite the look the man from Burbank was aiming for as he rose to thank powerhouse attorney Joe Cotchett for his support in his bid to replace the late Dianne Feinstein in the U.S. Senate.

“I guess it’s ‘Welcome to San Francisco,’ ” Cotchett’s press agent Lee Houskeeper, who was at the dinner, remarked dryly.

Please subscribe to my Substack.