NYC’s overblown migrant crisis, Iran’s threat and other commentary

From the right: NYC vs. Texas Towns

If McAllen, Texas, (pop. 143,000) is supposed to handle its 1,000-a-day migrant surge, asks PJ Media’s Rick Moran, why can’t New York City? “The problem is not that New York and D.C. are ‘overwhelmed’ with illegals. The problem is that they want it to appear they are overwhelmed in order to get the federal government to block Texas from sending any more buses their way.” DC Mayor Muriel Bowser and NYC’s Eric Adams “want to posture about how welcoming their cities are to illegals. Now they’re experiencing the real-world consequences of their policies. Instead of whining about how ‘inhumane’ [Texas Gov. Greg] Abbott’s bus program is, they might want to bring the problem to Joe Biden’s office instead.”

Libertarian: CDC’s Pain Problem

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 “issued guidelines that discouraged doctors from prescribing opioids for pain and encouraged legislators to restrict the medical use of such drugs,” assuming “overprescribing was responsible for rising drug-related deaths,” notes Reason’s Jacob Sullum. But a new Frontiers in Pain Research study “finds no correlation between opioid prescriptions and drug-related deaths.” Indeed, there’s been a record number of opioid-related deaths, “primarily involving illicit fentanyl,” despite “the sharp decline” in prescribing. The “consequences for patients” include “undertreatment, reckless ‘tapering’ of pain medication, and outright denial of care.” But the CDC still pushes its false narrative.

Conservative: Radical Programming for Kids

“A network of professional activists” has “smuggled university-style gender theory into more than 4,000 schools under the cover of ‘gender and sexuality’ clubs, or GSAs,” reports City Journal’s Christopher F. Rufo. The national GSA Network “is a professionally staffed nonprofit with a multimillion-dollar annual budget” that “is driven by pure left-wing radicalism that extends far beyond sexuality” as it “calls for the ‘abolition of the police,’ the ‘abolition of borders and ICE,’ . . . the end of ‘global white supremacy,’ and the overthrow of the ‘cisgender heterosexual patriarchy.’” The “cult-like programming techniques” tell kids to locate themselves on a power scale “along the axes of race, sex, gender, and national origin,” then tell the ‘privileged’ children that they must . . . ‘use your privilege (and your physical and monetary resources) to support Trans, Queer, Non-binary / Gender Non-Conforming, Black, Indigenous people of color, issues, businesses, and projects.’” And: “All this activity, the group believes, is best kept secret from parents.”

Terror desk: Rushdie Attack Shows Iran Threat

“Chances are exceptionally high,” argues The Federalist’s David Harsanyi, that the stabbing of novelist Salman Rushdie “was the work of a jihadist.” Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa over Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” was “the first time in postwar history” that “terrorism was aimed at suppressing free expression in the liberal Western world” — “not only to punish Rushdie for blasphemy, but to intimidate others from daring to engage.” And “it worked.” So “we should not forget, even as the Biden administration is trying to strike another sweetheart deal” with Iran, “that this is the work of the theocratic terror state of Iran” — “the fatwa still stands today.” In fact, “in 2016, Iran raised it to nearly $4 million.” 

Campus watch: ‘Anti-Racism’ as Job Requirement

“Ideological litmus tests are becoming the norm” in academia, laments John Sailer at UnHerd. “Many universities require faculty job candidates to submit ‘diversity statements,’” and “similar requirements increasingly apply to sitting faculty,” as diversity, equity and inclusion statements “become standard components of the promotion and tenure process.” Indeed, “‘anti-racism’ has come closer to a formal” condition of employment. At UC Berkeley, job candidates get a low score on diversity statements for stating “the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and ‘treat everyone the same.’” Such requirements “dissuade faculty from expressing” their political opinions and may be illegal but nonetheless “continue to be adopted.” Academics may soon “expect a choice: demonstrate a commitment to the ‘successor ideology’ or start looking for another job.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Source link

Comments are closed.