Late Night Visitor

 We have a collection of animals in front and back. This guy I have seen frequently looking for what I do not know.

Down with the Old?

 

The NY Times has a piece by some Yale Prof. Not surprisingly he proposes:

 Ageism has not ended, but that should not stop those questioning and seeking to rein in American gerontocracy.

Ageism is prejudice against older folk. Gerontocracy is the group of older who have been successful and prudent and have assets. Now this character is no saying "kill the old" but it comes close.

First home ownership. My current house bought in 1980 had a mortgage rate of 18.5%! It would have been cheaper on my credit card. I had to bear the Nixon/Johnson war tax if you will. Fortunately Reagan came in and put a halt to it.

Second, I drive a Honda. Not a BMW or Mercedes.

Third I worked seven days a week, and for several years by traveling around the world managed to get at times greater than 24 hours for a day.

Fourth, I have no country club, no country house, etc. 

Fifth, I saved wisely.

Thus due to my prudence I am in the gerontocracy. Perhaps this Yale Prof may be coming for me? This character further states:

Absolutely, but what your story misses is that older citizens are complicit in the lack of senior housing. We have very good studies of how land use decisions — typically at town meetings where there is a lot of white hair in the audience. Ironically, if we democratized land use we would serve elder citizens better — by building more age-appropriate housing for them, and more housing in general.

 Yep, ship me off to age appropriate housing...try NYC with the local Marxist! No wonder students, at Yale and elsewhere are so off center!

We have gone from "kill the rich" to now "kill the old"! Thank you US Universities.... 

 

Missing the Point

 

Stefanik, in “Poisoned Ivies”, provides a recount of the hearing of College Presidents regarding the antisemitic riots on campuses and the suppression of free speech. Regrettably, that is about all; it is detailed and limited to the confines of the testimonies with some minor examinations of causes and remedies. She examines several major universities and then summarily discusses what went wrong and what to fix. I think, from personal experience over the past sixty plus years, that her depth of coverage is a bit shallow. The book does help to understand what happened in the hearings but it fails to understand what were the deep causes of these situations. In my opinion and in my experience, this change for the worse in universities has been building for quite a while.

The book is divided into three sections. First a long recitation of the events surrounding multiple universities and their clumsy if not outright incompetent defense of their dealings with the Hammas slaughter aftermath in 2023. Second a limited analysis of what went wrong. Third, in my opinion, a rather weak assessment and sets of recommendations on what should be fixed and how. Overall, however, the author is facing a much more complex issue and the 2023 issues were but the tip of an iceberg regarding cultural changes in US universities.

I have personal experience with three of the institutions examined by Stefanik. Stefanik provides a twenty year view, mine is over sixty five years.

First is MIT, where I was a student, faculty and researcher over the period of the 60s until the early 2010s. I chose MIT based upon my collecting trash in a janitor job at a public school in New York. The trash contained a bunch of old MIT catalogs. I took them home and spent hours reading these catalogs, seeing labs, reading course materials. In those days all you needed was great SATs and good grades. In New York Regents exams proffered grades and SATs I garnered from some friends at the Jewish Community Center, could be mastered by attending a prep course and studying the exam book, that led to 1700+ grades. Then just fill out the application, no essay, no interview, and get accepted. Never even visited! Think of the days of Richard Feynman from Rockaway Beach! Tuition at MIT in 1960 was $750 per year. Room and board the same but if you managed to live off campus with some colleagues it could even be less.

Then, over the past 60 plus years, things changed, but for the worse. The most recent example was when some administrator put gates at all the entrances of MIT. That was more symbolic than the actual physical gates. Then they went and put DEI officers in every department to ensure compliance. Then the administration became a mess of non-alumni bringing in their view of what students should look like and should believe. The quintessential example was the statements of the MIT President at Stefanik’s committee.

From a historical perspective. an interesting observation at MIT is the experience of the Presidents[1]. Until 1990, Presidents had close ties to MIT before taking office. They had studied there and taught there. Then came the outsiders with their ideas and truly gross misunderstanding of what MIT meant. I believe that this change was critical to the problems that occurred. These 36 years have been the seeding ground for the deprecation of quality education.

Consider MIT Lincoln Lab, a major Federal Research Lab, has a multibillion dollar budget funded by the US Government. It is a singular research facility primarily for the Air Force but also the FAA and intelligence community. However its management continues to display statements such as:

… is invested in cultivating a strong culture of innovation and is deeply committed to diversity and inclusion across the Laboratory… currently serves as the Executive Sponsor for the Lincoln Laboratory Hispanic/Latinx Network employee resource group.

Clearly the DEI culture still not only survives but prospers. Apparently managers select employees based upon these cultural imperatives. I spent three years working with Lincoln Lab and was highly impressed by its competence. Selection or members of the staff was based upon accomplishment. My wife also worked at Lincoln, so the employment was not DEI but competence.

One should then ask who was in charge of this change? We see that the number of graduate students from abroad, and especially the PRC! 30+% are from there and these students are supported on Government contracts. We are educating our adversaries on our tax dollars. Are US students that stupid? Hardly, it is a political ploy by the administrations to appear global, globalization of education. When these PRC students complete degrees with no debt they go back to PRC! Will we see them again as we saw Admiral Yamamoto ate Pearl Harbor?

Now Columbia is another interesting case. I had been a Professor in the Business School and on Boards at the Medical Facilities. But the best part was when I applied as an undergrad, I was denied admission in writing because I was a Catholic! A long letter from a Dean (a Donald Barr, yes the father of) accompanied my denial. Thus clearly Columbia was anti-Catholic, exemplified by Professor Hofstetter who was a highly aggressive anti Catholic. Yet none spoke of this issue 60+ years ago. But that was Columbia, in the 1930s a den of Communists. During Viet Nam it was a collection of violent protesters.

As for Harvard, I have some experience there as well but most on the medical side, which is great, and not much on the other side of the river. Medicine is simple, save a life and do so the best you can while having dignity for the patient.

What Stefanik seems to miss is how did these institutions get this way. She is just seeing the current issues. Harvard has always been a bit antisemitic, think Lowell. Columbia has always be extreme left wing, so no surprise there. But MIT? An institution which was critical in WW II, which just got a $12 B 5 year contract from the Air Force at Lincoln Lab. Yet, as I noted, when you examine the CVs of the Lincoln Management one see massive DEI efforts! If I am spending $12 billion perhaps I want the best workers not those filtered by DEI!

Finally, and most importantly, there is the issue of the institutions Governing Boards, such as the MIT Corporation[2]. It is these shadow players, often self-selected based on donations and commonality of political views that are often the buffers in retaining the new world views and degradation of the institutions. It was this Board that rid Harvard of its President but on the other side supported MIT’s President for comparable behavior. Stefanik should be examining them and not just Presidents.

Thus, Stefanik seems to miss the steps in evolution. Some steps were there before but others, such as MIT, have ruptured forth in just the past two or three decades. How did this happen? That is more important than just what is happening now.

As to what is to be done; simple, provide opportunities for American students. Feynman types should be admitted and supported. Essays and interns are useless. One never knows who writes and who reads essays. Also interning is a façade of the wealth and well connected. The Government can provide scholarships and fellowships only to American students. What counts is prior performance, not gilded credentials of no true merit. But Stefanik proposes a massive list of Government controls. The worst problem is that these institutions are not creating American students of excellence. Preference for admission should be given to American students. Perhaps the problem is mostly in American secondary education, and its failures to teach adequately which place American students at a disadvantage.

I would like to have seen Stefanik address these issues but she lightly covered them; what caused this and what can be done. The answer is not Government controls, God knows what that would lead to, the US Postal Service. The answer is university administrations and presidents who are leaders of excellence not administrators of social policy.

---

 

---

[1] https://facts.mit.edu/leadership/

 [2] https://corporation.mit.edu/

 

Pope and President

 Much of Christian “Just War” concepts come from Augustine. Augustine lived just after Constantine had made the Church the universal religion of the Roman Empire, an Empire in which Constantine and his several hundred thousand troops massacred the opposing forces. However, at the time, there was fear amongst many that Christians were pure pacifists and would not fight to defend the Empire. This was despite the fact that Constantine had many Christians in his forces. Augustine saw this as a potential theat. Thus evolve the construct of just war, namely a permitted use of deadly force. At first a simple dictate and then a more all-encompassing one. The Church has stated a recent construct of the “just war” theory[1]. The Church Catechism notes:

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."

Now Aquinas was an additional exponent of a version of the “just war” theory Augustine had actually taken from the ancient Romans, such as Cicero. For a war to be just, it must be commanded by someone in authority, there must be a just cause, and it must be carried on without disproportionate violence. It is not justifiable to lie to an enemy, since that would destroy the trust that will be needed to restore peace. [2]

Now Uhlmann noted[3]:

Augustine’s argument was later amplified, most notably by St, Thomas Aquinas, who specified three criteria for the ius ad helium:

(1) Only legitimate public authority may declare war.

(2) It may be waged only for a just cause (originally thought to encompass the rectification of wrongs, but now largely confined to self-defense),

(3) It requires a right intention (the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil, as opposed to hatred, revenge, or the pursuit of glory and power). Later refinements of the Thomistic argument have elaborated four additional criteria, as set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

(4) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain,

(5) All other means for putting an end to it must be shown to be impractical or ineffective (often referred to as “last resort”).

(6) There must be serious prospects of success.

(7) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders greater than the evil to be eliminated.

Let us examine these seven criteria in the context of the two current wars; Iran and Ukraine.

 

Criteria	Iran	Ukraine
Legitimate Authority	President	President
Just Cause Self Defense	Clear and present danger of nuclear attack as stated and demonstrated by adversary	Intention to aggregate lands
Right Intent (Avoid Evil)	Avoided massive civilian and military fatalities	Massive civilian casualties
Aggressors Damage Grave and Certain[4]	Known grave damage from nuclear attack to massive civilians.	Ukraine presented no threat
Last Resort	Decades of negotiating to no avail	Just a sudden attack
Prospect of Success	High expectation due to gross imbalance of power	Highly problematic
Limited Harms	High tech targeting of enemy sites and no civilian attacks	Deliberate civilian targeting

 Yet as Uhlmann noted:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church recognizes as much. After setting forth the specific criteria for just war, it declares: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have the responsibility for the common good.

Now one must examine the mindset of the opponent. On the one hand the pope is mandating Catholic doctrine, which we have noted above. On the other hand the opponent is Musim and has a different set of religious mandates. As Ebstein notes ( Ebstein, In the Shadows of the Koran: Said Qutb’s Views on Jews and Christians as Reflected in his Koran Commentary, 2009 by Hudson Institute, Inc ):

According to the majority of jurists and scholars in classical Sunni Islam, the precept of jihad underwent four chronological stages during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad.

At first, while Muhammad was still in Mecca and suffering as he did from the fierce opposition of the unbelievers, he was ordered by Allah to disseminate the message of Islam by peaceful means such as persuasion, and was forbidden to involve himself in violent activities of any kind.

In the second stage, after Muhammad had emigrated to al-Madina, he was ordered to perform solely defensive jihad—that is, to defend himself and his followers if necessary.

In the third stage, after the Islamic strength had grown in military, political, and economic terms, Muhammad was allowed to perform aggressive jihad and to initiate attacks against the nonbelievers, though within certain restrictions (such as the prohibition to fight during the four holy months.)

In the fourth and final stage, Muhammad was ordered to perform both defensive and aggressive jihad, at all times and wherever possible (under various rules of conduct).

It was this final stage which abrogated (nasikh, from naskh, “abrogation”) previous stages and which was accepted from then on as the legal rule binding the Islamic community. While various modern Islamic liberals had attempted to reformulate the precept of jihad according to one of the three initial stages, Qutb stresses that it is only the fourth and last one which is relevant to Muslims, and has been so ever since the final years of the Prophet’s activity

Thus one can argue that the enemy in this case has a drastically disparate mindset, one that enables the actions under just law theory.

Now Heresy and heretics have been abundant in Church history. They were burned, exiled, beheaded. Some recently become Professors and authors. But what is heresy and how does one identify heresy and heretics?

Leff notes tha[5]t:

“Heresy is defined by reference to orthodoxy.”

Namely there must first be an agreed upon orthodoxy, statement of faith, agreed upon, and then a heretical act or statement must then be shown to clearly contradict that orthodoxy. The demonstration of this contradiction is accomplished at a council meeting or the like. One, including the Bishop of Rome, cannot just single handedly declare a heretic.

The orthodoxy in this case are the seven “rules” of just war. As we have argued, the Iran War is clearly a just war, Ukraine is not. The pope has stated that Iran is not a just war. Given the simple definition of heresy, the popes statements are unambiguously heretical, and thus the pope is a heretic.

The NY Times noted[6]:

Last year, Pope Leo XIV questioned whether the “inhuman treatment of immigrants” is consistent with being pro-life.

This year, on Easter, he said, “Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace!”

On Friday, he posted a message that anyone who is a disciple of Jesus Christ “is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”

The above statements as well as a massive number of others by Leo assert indirectly and directly that the President is conducting an unjust war. We have clearly and simply shown using Catholic doctrine that it is clearly not the case.

1. We have demonstrated Catholic Doctrine

2. We have shown two cases of Doctrine and actuality. Clearly the Iran case is Just and the Ukraine is not.

3. We have shown the pope has stated that the Iran case is pari passu with Ukraine and no just. I have found not papal analysis of either case however.

4. The conclusion is simple. The Doctrine is followed on Iran and the pope states it has not. Thus denial of Doctrine. The pope is therefore heretical on this topic. 

A more detailed presentation has been presented,

---

[1] https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_two/chapter_two/article_5/iii_safeguarding_peace.html

  [2] See Aquinas, Summa, 2–2, q. 40, a. 1, a. 3.

 [3] Uhlmann, The use and abuse of just-war theory, vol. ill number 3, summer 2003 essays, Claremont Review of Books https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-use-and-abuse-of-just-war-theory

 [4] See Worldwide Effects Of Nuclear War: Some Perspectives U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1975.

 [5] Leff, Heresy in the latter Middle Ages, Manchester University Press, 1967

 [6] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/14/opinion/pope-president-war-immigration.html

Scams!!!!

 I needed a birth certificate for a passport update. Used Google for NYC Records. Instead I got some company that looked just like but not really. They charged 8 times the NYC one which I found later. Clearly this was a Google assisted scam. Will wait and see. Generally very cautious but this one went by me! Wonder what will happen next. Still have attorneys on retainer!

Some Popes

 The Papacy has had an odd collection of characters over the past two thousand years. I have written about a few; one in the fourth century, Sylvester, one in the seventh century, Gregory I, and one in the fourteenth century, John XXII. 

Now Sylvester was Bishop of Rome, one of several called Popes at the time,  and during the reign of Constantine. In the Council of Nicaea, 325, Sylvester decided not to attend. After all Constantine was in charge and it was Constantine who essentially formed the Nicene Creed. He also eliminated Arian ideas for a while. After the Council Constantine tried to move to Persia with no luck. Gregory was a classic Bishop of Rome around 600 AD. Constantinople was the capitol city and the language was Greek. Gregory allegedly spoke no Greek so was effectively ostracized from the ruling emperors. Finally John XXII was in Avignon, a French plant, while there were at time two other Popes. Chaos ruled.

By the late Middle Ages the Pope had obtained massive secular powers including their own armies. Some Popes advocated massive war against the Muslim tribes, called the Crusades, resulting in brutal and massive killings on both sides. The Popes adhered to the concept of "The Two Swords". namely Kings have one and the Pope another.

The current resident in Rome seems to want to get into a battle with the current resident in Washington. It seems to be a "your mother wears combat boots" interaction, no winners. 

The issue is simple. The Persians want to finish the development of their nuclear weapons and they have clearly stated the want to destroy the US. This should not be taken lightly. Thomas Aquinas had proposed the concept of the Just War, and also the Unjust enemy. Perhaps a rereading of Thomas and an understanding of Papal history would be of some use.