"we all pay"

Definitely worth noting how the  left selectively applies that phrase.

Consider the following statement from a leftist lawyer ("dudeguy01") who comments at Arlnow:
<blockquote>If a lot of people get Covid and drive up healthcare costs, we all pay.

There are SO MANY reasons to care about public health besides your own safety. There was a time when that wasn't controversial.</blockquote>

How about if I modify the first sentence there to:
"If a lot of people get AIDS and drive up healthcare costs, we all pay."

What would be the reaction?
"Oohh, you're a homophobe", for daring to state the uncomfortable, for male homosexuals, truth?

Likewise for the costs to the total society of these filthy mutilations of people's genitals to make some perverts happy, and to embellish the income of the doctors that perform them.
Perversion rules, in some "elite" circles.
(Including the dirtbag AMA and APA (American Pervert Association).

<hr />

Another example from Arlnow.com:


$4 Million to Heirs Annually Cp Tighe
3 days ago
"who cares?"

Probably all the people you would have been exposed before getting to the point of needing hospitalization.

This will likely be too difficult to understand, but life is not all about you. 
Acting as a decent person with regard to covid means 
<i>caring about how your conduct impacts others.</i>

Do the male homosexuals buggering each other without using condoms 
care about how such conduct will end up driving up the nation's bill for health care?
I.e., "how [their] conduct impacts others"?

<hr />

That a broader public is FORCED to pay doctors of various types 
to cater to "transgenders" 
is shown by the following:


"Another law (HB 1429), signed a day before SB 868, 
prevents ministries from obtaining health insurance that doesn't cover 
sex reassignment surgery and related transgender medical procedures, such as hormone therapy."

I.e., if you support those ministries financially, then part of that support will be going to pay for those procedures.


Critical Race Theory

"Critical Race Theory" has exploded into the national spotlight in 2021.
This post will collect a number of articles on the subject, almost all from my POV, which is extremely critical of the subject.
(Hey, can anyone criticize "critical race theory"? 
Some one would like to make "Critical Theory" and its descendant "Critical Race Theory" the ultimate ivory tower, 
which can criticize and look for self-interest in everyone else but is itself immune from criticism and examination of self-interest.
To which, I say "b......t".
I don't care how many doctoral degrees you have from once prestigious universities.
That just isn't right.



This is, from my POV, an excellent introduction to the subject.
It presents Critical Race Theory as a descendant of Critical Theory, 
which I believe it very clearly is.

<blockquote>[Max] Horkheimer first defined “critical theory” in a 1937 essay 
contrasting it with what he called “traditional theory,” which, by his lights, 
sought simply to understand and explain a phenomenon. 
Critical theory, however, is first and foremost practical. 
A theory is critical to the extent that it tries 
“to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” and 
“to create a world which satisfies” their “needs and powers.”</blockquote>
Sounds a lot like the view and goals of feminism, doesn't it?



<blockquote>[The American Historical Associaton] authored a statement, joined by 
the American Association of University Professors, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and PEN America, 
“Legislative Efforts to Restrict Education about Racism and American History.” 
It has since been co-signed by 130 organizations and counting, many of which represent institutions of higher education. 

The statement is a tour de force in presenting both disingenuous arguments and fake narratives.

These bills, the statement reads, intend “to suppress teaching and learning about the role of racism in the history of the United States.” 
If that were the aim of the legislation, we all should share their outrage.

Yet state governments are not trying to expunge racism from history textbooks. 
Consider the bill that was recently proposed in Texas. 
<i>At no point does it mandate that public schools drop the history of racism in America from their curricula.</i> 
Any class on American history worth taking can and should cover the transatlantic slave trade, chattel slavery, and Jim Crow, as well as emancipation and the civil-rights movement. 
Slavery and racism are indelible sins of our country’s past. 
On that you’ll find universal agreement, within the AHA and any other educational organization.

The trouble is that the torrent of critical race theory being foisted on schoolchildren goes far beyond giving them proper history lessons. It indoctrinates them in the notion that invisible systems of racial oppression infuse all parts of American life whereby a nebulous group of those deemed white subjugates a nebulous group of those deemed nonwhite. Take it from a mother in Virginia who survived Maoist China: Critical race theory, she says, is “the American version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.” Rather than conduct an empirical examination of inequality of outcome, critical race theory dishonestly attributes all racial disparities to racial discrimination.</blockquote>


Afghanistan 2021


"Biden plans to leave roughly 650 troops behind to provide security for diplomats at the U.S. Embassy, a facility that has been expanded and fortified significantly since 1989."

That statement is absurd, one might even say insane.
There is NO WAY that number of troops, no matter how well trained and motivated, can hold out against a determined Taliban onslaught.
And as to fortifying the embassy, the Taliban have mortars.
Over time, those can reduce the embassy compound to rubble, with the deaths of all in it.
Further, if the Taliban controls the surrounding territory, they can cut off supplies and water, and even poison the incoming water.

So who is going to prevent this disaster scenario for the embassy from happening?
The Afghan National Army (ANA)?
It was barely holding its own against the Taliban when ten thousand American troops were supporting it, 
and when American air power flying from Bagram was supporting both.
Now both the air support and supporting American troops are gone.

As the ANA sees the tide turning against it, no doubt both individual soldiers and more importantly whole units will switch sides, wanting to be on the winning side.
The collapse of the ANA will snowball.
Leaving the American troops guarding the embassy at the mercy of the Taliban.

A quite relevant precedent for
a U.S.-backed, -supplied, and -trained force simply disintegrating, and turning over its weapons to insurgents, 
was the disintegration of the Iraqi Army under pressure from ISIS in the mid-2010s:
See also

To assert that 650 American troops can prevent either the takeover of, or the destruction of, the American embassy in Kabul is simply not credible.
Seems a shame the media didn't point that out as part of their initial reporting
{recall how quick they were to, rightly or wrongly, claim about everything President Trump said was not credible).


The <i>Politico</i> article goes on to give a quote from an American diplomat:
<blockquote>Scott Weinhold, the assistant chief of mission at the embassy, pointed out that many of the people working there are accustomed to operating in difficult conditions.

“I think people in a way are almost redoubled in their energy to try to help partners and the people that they work with, because you see the concern among our Afghan contacts, and especially a lot of our women contacts, about what’s coming,” he said. “People are really focused on how do we help them, how do we try to assist the key people that may be at risk.”</blockquote>

Well, "redoubling their energy" won't help against the pressure the Taliban can, and likely will, put on the embassy.

<hr />


CNN : Top US general in Afghanistan says 'we should be concerned' about Taliban.


"The embassy added that it's "confident that we can conduct our work in a safe manner to the benefit" of Afghanistan and the bilateral relationship," noting that it has "well-developed security plans to safely protect" its personnel and facilities."

Sounds out-of-touch-with-reality to me.

<hr />

Also see the many demands from American media that the U.S. stay in Afghanistan, e.g.


<hr />

<h3>After the collapse of the Ghani government</h3>

CNN: Former CIA counterterrorism official: How the US set itself up for failure in Afghanistan.


[I]t's worth hearing the views of Douglas London, who oversaw operations and intelligence in Afghanistan as 

the CIA's chief for counterterrorism in south and southwest Asia from 2016 to 2018. 

London, who served in the Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Africa during his 34-year career in the CIA's Clandestine Service, retired in 2019.


BERGEN: It seems that there are going to be a lot of Afghans who helped the United States who are just going to be left behind.

LONDON: And the Taliban is going to very much focus on finding those people. They've always been very effective at maintaining a counterintelligence operation. So, I see reflections of this in the press, about their first order of business for the Taliban will be identifying who was supporting the US, the Brits, and NATO. I really have no faith in their claims of amnesty and this idea that all is forgiven. I think they're going to very effectively go after these folks.

Now, whether or not they're going to summarily execute, detain, or "rehabilitate" people remains to be seen. I think because they have become so attentive to media and PR, they might take an approach similar to what the Chinese government is doing by putting Uyghurs in reeducation camps.

<hr />

<b>Did the War in Afghanistan Have to Happen?</b>

In 2001, when the Taliban were weak and ready to surrender, the U.S. passed on a deal. Nearly 20 years later, the Taliban hold all the cards. 

By Alissa J. Rubin

Aug. 23, 2021


<hr />

Patrick Lang in 2018 and 2019:

Reprint of 2018 post:

Afghanistan – Graveyard of Dreams – Republished 28 Jan 2018, Re-republished 9 September 2019


Lang said:

"President Trump should be told that there is nothing there of real importance to the US, nothing worth more vast quantities of our money and more rivers of our blood. Let the Afghans, Chinese, Pakistanis, Iranians and Russians deal with the chaos. pl"

Patrick Lang in 2021:

Will Biden let the jihadis wipe out resistance?


Lang now says:

"Comment: Will Joe Biden and his cultural Marxist crew let these [resistance] guys be destroyed before they really get going or will he approve a covert operation finding to provide a modicum of support; 

a few falsely labelled STOL cargo aircraft, half a dozen ODAs disguised as civilians from some veterans group and these fellows could be kept in the game to make it impossible for the jihadis to govern in peace and misery for all.

Will Biden do that? I doubt it. He is too much in love with his own greatness and cleverness in embracing his Taliban ally. pl"