What did they change?
Well, there was a rule that said mommies had to be allowed to kill their babies before they were born everywhere in the country, and the court said states could decide whether or not to keep that rule.
Why would mommies want to kill their babies?[Open full post]
Honestly, I never thought I’d see the day, but the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, which invented a Constitutional right to abortion across the country. To this day, many Americans don’t realize just how radical the judicial legislation was, making the United States much more extreme than most of the world, with abortion up to the point of birth and so on.
As if to provide an explanation for that lack of knowledge, the news reporters, as in this Associated Press article published by WPRI, are doing their part to support the party and facilitate division and hostility with raw propaganda. At least they’re continuing to make it easy to identify them for what they are. Americans should brace, however, for craziness and outbursts from the political Left, for whom abortion is something like a sacrament and whose party, the Democrats, is desperate for subjects to rile up their voters and distract from the catastrophe of their governance.
A reasonable assessment should begin with facts and the legal process. Overturning Roe means only that the decision must be made at the state level, and states will vary from total bans to a complete absence of restrictions, and even taxpayer subsidies for abortion. On this issue, people will once again be able to exercise the fundamental right of choosing the sort of society in which they wish to live. Allowing us to do that, while remaining one people working together, is the entire point of the American experiment. Along those lines, most states will probably fall somewhere in the compromise zone, setting some point of gestation at which unborn children may no longer be killed.
Moreover, one of the bulwarks of our Constitutional system has held firm, for now, albeit with a half-century delay. The Supreme Court should not simply be a mini legislature to enact policies that elected officials are unwilling to enact.
Unfortunately, the Left will push the opposite conclusion — that they must manipulate the political process until they control the court once again, almost certainly with an amplified madness.
So, the work falls to all of us. The Supreme Court has upheld the obvious conclusion that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to kill unborn children. Now, more than ever, we have to defend reason, the rule of law, and the reality of biology against the forces of destabilization.[Open full post]
Voters (and other citizens) very often make claims about what attributes they want in elected officials that they do not substantiate with their support. They say they’d prefer public servants who are not career politicians and who are in it for “the right reasons,” by which they generally mean they are not merely seeking power or acting on behalf of special interests, whether economic or ideological, but they make no decisions that encourage the good or discourage the bad. Consequentially, we do not foster a political system with incentives for the people we say we want in office.
And so, hitting the inboxes of supporters and journalists this morning is a letter from Republican House Minority Leader Blake Filippi saying he will not seek reelection:
Now having served in the General Assembly for eight years, nearly 20% of my life, I have struggled about whether to seek another term in office. The time is now to step aside and for new public servants step up and serve our communities in the House.
While I will not run for reelection, I intend to remain deeply engaged in our beautiful corner of the world. The art of the politics, as is the art of life, is all about human connection and the friends we make along the way. I cherish our friendships and look forward to nurturing them in the years ahead.
There is nothing in Rhode Island politics for somebody whose principles align with the Republican Party. No infrastructure exists to make it financially reasonable for a talented person to stay in the game (let alone make a career of public service), such as the Democrats display when they shuffle their members from office to non-profit to union to government job to office. Meanwhile, the nifty experience of being in the news is severely tainted when a market’s journalists have uniformly adopted the narrative that you are on the side of evil by nature of the party to which you belong. Indeed, the culture and practice of demonization diminishes every ancillary benefit from the modest prominence that running for and winning elected offices provides.
Just as one cannot blame members of the “productive class” who’ve been leaving Rhode Island for decades because they will be better able to translate their talents and efforts into stable lives for their families elsewhere, one cannot be surprised that a competent man like Filippi has concluded his time is better spent on other endeavors as he enters middle age. Sooner than later, Rhode Islanders will come to regret that they have not maintained a system in which such people apply their talents and efforts to making our community vibrant, full of opportunity, and reasonably run.[Open full post]
Shift your focus just a little bit from the standard narrative, and you can only shake your head at the conspicuous omission in Amy Russo’s Providence Journal article reporting that “racial disparities in homeownership are more severe than the national average” in Rhode Island:
The report, released Thursday and authored by Brown School of Public Health academics whose work was funded by United Way of Rhode Island, states that overall, 62% percent of the state’s residents own a home, yet only 34% of the state’s Black residents are homeowners. By contrast, across the United States, 64% of the population owns homes, while 42% of Black people are homeowners. The data dates back to 2019.
Rhode Island is a state run by and for insiders and special interests. By nature, such people protect their own advantages, and by logic, their practice will disproportionately affect groups that are not numbered proportionally among them.
The idea that the dividing line is fundamentally racial is laughable. Northeastern insiders would love, love, love to boast that the group of people with whom they associate have different skin colors and fashionable lifestyles. They just insist that those people think pretty much the same thoughts they do, especially about the importance of maintaining the insider system.
The problem for minorities (for anybody who starts off outside the clique) is that the insider and special interest priorities mean the State of Rhode Island is run very poorly, with limited economic opportunity and a mountain of rules and restrictions for what people can do for housing. To observe that the Ocean State’s “racial gap in… homeownership [is] wider than the national average” is simply to observe that this is not a good place to attempt to build an independent life.
Nobody has incentive to state this plainly, and plenty of people have incentive to amplify group allegiances and racist thinking, so advocates’ solution isn’t to make Rhode Island a good place to improve one’s lot in life, but rather to encourage minorities to act as a special interest. Helpfully for them, this solution will only create opportunity for insiders among the minority groups.
Along with that minor advance for a handful of people, we’ll get huge amounts of racial animosity, making non-insiders less able to work together and thereby cementing the control of the insiders. Little wonder they insist that we focus on race!
Featured image by Justin Katz.[Open full post]
On WNRI 1380 AM/95.1 FM, John DePetro and Justin Katz discuss:
- Sabino Matos’s problem with the First Amendment
- Dan Yorke’s short sight on naked fat tests
- The General Assembly’s overreach on guns
- The budget’s overspending
- The RI GOP’s targeting of Ruggerio
- The soccer stadium’s grab for money
Featured image by Maksym Kaharlytskyi on Unsplash, colorized by Anchor Rising.[Open full post]
Guests: Louise Kiessling, Andrea Martin, and Susan Orban – Washington County Coalition for Children, www.washcokids.org
Host: Susan Orban Time: 30 minutes
Description: Dr. Kiesslink offers an overview of the mental health status of children. Unfortunately, there has been a trend of diminishing health and helpful treatment is not readily available nationwide. She cites some of the local efforts to find or create helpful treatment options; but supply of these falls short of the growing demand. Martin describes the use of literature (bibliotherapy) as a helpful approach to helping children of varying ages. She introduces a small sampling of books their efforts have found appropriate and helpful. Orban describes current programs
Naturally, the mainstream media is choosing to share video of Joe Biden falling on his bicycle in which you can’t see what actually happened. Barstool Sports has the good clip:
DOWN GOES BIDEN pic.twitter.com/yxHhRWOJyC
— Barstool Sports (@barstoolsports) June 18, 2022
It wasn’t even one of those stumbles that happens from time to time. The White House occupant just forgot how to get off the bicycle.
The people who installed this man have put the planet in cataclysmic danger.[Open full post]
No sooner do I resolve to take the summer off from social media than the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Rhode Island, Sabina Matos, decides it’s politically advantageous to involve me in her primary campaign to retain her seat. According to her press release:
The Ocean State Current and the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gave a platform for years to Justin Katz and others who have proven time and again to be vitriolically anti-choice, casually homophobic, and unconscionably sympathetic to white supremacy.
As evidence of my iniquity, Matos (through her PR hack, Evan England) links to a tweet reply of mine to Democrat Governor Dan McKee. When a small group of far-right cosplayers conducted a pathetic few-minute protest of a reading of Communist doctrine by a pathetic handful of committed Socialists in Providence, the Governor of the State of Rhode Island made an issue of it, asking Rhode Islanders to report any wrongthink if they had “information related to this incident.” I asked him his position on the First Amendment, which (for progressives who have lost track) is the one recognizing Americans’ right to free speech.
The tweet is actually more relevant than Matos and England might realize. The point of the press release is that Matos is refusing to participate in a forum with her primary opponent, Deborah Ruggerio, because it is hosted by people with whom she disagrees politically. A transparently convenient excuse, that. Take note that the lieutenant governor only represents people who share her politics.
Matos, through England, insists that my tweet “defend[ed] the indefensible rhetoric of white supremacists.” In point of fact, unlike the governor, I defended the right of American citizens to express their opinion. If he and she are not willing to do the same, they have no business at all holding public office.
Predictably, a politician at sea on large issues is adrift on small ones, too. Rhode Islanders should demand that top elected officials with influence on the expenditure of billions of their dollars should up their game. Matos must have no case at all for her reelection if she has to look to my Twitter feed — not to mention rejection of the First Amendment — for justification.
Featured image downloaded from Sabina Matos’s campaign site.[Open full post]
This is probably a strange question to pose, but nonetheless, one wonders. As the state government moves toward spending big money on suicide barriers that will inevitably change the aesthetic character of the bridges on which they’re installed, what is the belief system underlying our local culture? Where do supporters for such things stand on, say, physician-assisted suicide?
I ask only because my sense is that our society is deeply confused exactly in the way that would spend money to stop people from killing themselves by jumping off bridges while also spending money for doctors to pull the fatal chemical trigger upon request.[Open full post]
The idea of “reasonable” and “common sense” gun control laws is becoming an obvious sham. Reasonable people acting according to common sense differentiate between policies in different states and balance facts such as how frequently a particular type of weapon has been used in crimes in the state where gun-control legislation is proposed and what the circumstances tend to surround actual shootings. A state that already has relatively strict gun laws in which no high-capacity magazines have contributed to mass shootings and where increases in gun violence appear to be associated with increasing gang violence is not a place where common sense dictates a need to ban such magazines, particularly when doing so further reinforces the common wisdom that Rhode Island is not a good place to invest your life’s effort:
“It’s devastating,” said Jeff Goyette, owner of Pocasset Arms LLC. “I don’t know what I’m going to do.” …
“I’ve got my life invested in this shop right now, and I haven’t even finished it,” he said. …
“In the past few years that I’ve been stocking up, trying to get them into my retail store, probably over $250,000 worth of firearms,” Goyette said. “Eighty percent of those probably hold more than 10 rounds.”
The state’s message to Goyette, and those whose investments have been limited only to guns they’ve already bought, is, “You do not matter in this state.” The people pushing these changes are not acting according to reason and common sense; they’re acting according to ideology and emotion, and the end goal (certainly of those who are manipulating the unreasonable) is not a balance of rights and safety, but control and the removal of all rights from people with whom they disagree.
Featured image by Jose Clement Orozco on WikiArt.[Open full post]