I remember the other day someone answering the argument that the CEO of Mozilla who was fired for having been discovered to have contributed to the campaign against the gay marriage ballot initiative in California with the question "Would you allow a Holocaust denier to serve as a company president?"
I have to admit, it is a good question. I suppose that those who defended the right of the CEO to oppose gay marriage to would have to admit that it is not the proposition that any private view is acceptable in business, only that the line should be drawn a bit more broadly than it current seems to be. I would probably not want a Holocaust denier running my company and the fact that one was running a company probably would make me less inclined to support do business with that company.
Still, if that is the standard, what are we to make of people that want to keep doing business with the PLO and their leader Mahmoud Abbas? The great and good of the world insist not only that Israel do business with him, that the West continue to fund him, but that the Jewish state allow him to have an army parked at their doorstep. It is one thing to give a Holocaust denier your money, it is surely another to give him an army, an air force and a missile launch pad within a few miles of your capital.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Orono students make robotic hand for boy born without fingers - KMSP-TV
The high school teacher who led the class said in the interview "to help someone--I don't want to call it--with a disability, but..." Well, if not having any fingers on your hand is not a disability what the hell is? It can't be an advantage.
Here is this man who has done a great thing for other human beings, but he still has to bow to the gods of political correctness, mustn't say anything that suggests someone is not equal to someone else. You are allowed to correct the disability but you can't refer to it as a disability, lest you be fell upon by the squealers, those people who do nothing to actually help anyone but take it upon themselves to correct other's vocabulary. Their correctitude in language makes them morally superior to people that actually do something to help others.
The aristocrats in the 18th century who ruled their times were less noxious than these self-appointed priests of proper diction.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Beyond Parody: Irving Kristol Edition
Ed Driscoll » Student Mugged, Says He Deserved It Because of His ‘Privilege’: Kristol said that a neo-conservative was a liberal that had been mugged by reality and a liberal as one who was so broad minded that he wouldn't take his own side in a fight. It is hard to make fun of people that keep stealing your punchlines to congratulate themselves.
Monday, November 24, 2014
From Walter Russell Mead
Obama’s Big Miscalculation - The American Interest: "Latinos are the new blacks: a permanent racial minority or subgroup in the American political system that will always feel separate from the country’s white population and, like African-Americans, will vote Democratic. On this assumption, the Democratic approach to Hispanic Americans should be clear: the more the merrier. That is a particularly popular view on the more leftish side of the Democratic coalition, where there’s a deep and instinctive fear and loathing of Jacksonian America (those “bitterly clinging” to their guns, their Bibles, and their individualistic economic and social beliefs). The great shining hope of the American left is that a demographic transition through immigration and birthrates will finally make all those tiresome white people largely irrelevant in a new, post-American America.Of course, this is perfectly true. But if that is true aren't the members of the ethnic group scheduled from elimination from history in their own country right to be somewhat hostile to the new arrivals? Or, more precisely, to the elites that hope to use the new arrivals as a path to elimination of the bitter-clingers and their reactionary influence?
But that is the genius of modern liberalism, picking fights where any punching back from the other side is delegitimized as racism or sexism.
This is what makes the situation so reminiscent of the English Civil War.
From Walter Russell Mead
Obama’s Big Miscalculation - The American Interest: "Latinos are the new blacks: a permanent racial minority or subgroup in the American political system that will always feel separate from the country’s white population and, like African-Americans, will vote Democratic. On this assumption, the Democratic approach to Hispanic Americans should be clear: the more the merrier. That is a particularly popular view on the more leftish side of the Democratic coalition, where there’s a deep and instinctive fear and loathing of Jacksonian America (those “bitterly clinging” to their guns, their Bibles, and their individualistic economic and social beliefs). The great shining hope of the American left is that a demographic transition through immigration and birthrates will finally make all those tiresome white people largely irrelevant in a new, post-American America.Of course, this is perfectly true. But if that is true aren't the members of the ethnic group scheduled from elimination from history in their own country right to be somewhat hostile to the new arrivals? Or, more precisely, to the elites that hope to use the new arrivals as a path to elimination of the bitter-clingers and their reactionary influence?
But that is the genius of modern liberalism, picking fights where any punching back from the other side is delegitimized as racism or sexism.
This is what makes the situation so reminiscent of the English Civil War.
Most Heavy Drinkers Are Not Alcoholics - NYTimes.com
The standards that they use to define alcoholics would have included Churchill. I am sure that this would give the authors of such standards no cause for second thought. The fact that a great man from the past would be classified as suffering from a disease would only make them more confident in their own superiority.
What is so unpleasant about our age is that it crows about its tolerance while being the least tolerant of other societies, times and cultures that differ from our standards. It is not that our standards are different, it is that we are uniquely inclined to define deviations from our standards as pathological.
What is so unpleasant about our age is that it crows about its tolerance while being the least tolerant of other societies, times and cultures that differ from our standards. It is not that our standards are different, it is that we are uniquely inclined to define deviations from our standards as pathological.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Teens Are Sharing Gross Pictures Of Their School Lunches With The Hashtag #ThanksMichelleObama
Thanks Michelle! And remind me again why the party that thinks Washington has to pick your lunch is the cool party?
Obama's wrong way to do the right thing: Our view
USA Today Editorial: "Obama was well aware of the issues raised by such sweeping unilateral action. More than a dozen times earlier in his presidency, he told those pushing for such an order that he couldn't responsibly sign one. "Believe me," he said in 2011, "the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.""
Someone should ask him what other things he has felt tempted to do and what, if anything, stops him from doing them now? Of course, that would require a press core composed of vertebrates.
The editorial draws a good parallel with the possibility of a future Republican president suspending enforcement of Obama-care tax mandates.
Someone should ask him what other things he has felt tempted to do and what, if anything, stops him from doing them now? Of course, that would require a press core composed of vertebrates.
The editorial draws a good parallel with the possibility of a future Republican president suspending enforcement of Obama-care tax mandates.
News Distribution Network, Inc.
Report via instapundit that the Tennessee DA has restricted the use of civil forfeiture. But it should not just be curtailed, it should be eliminated in any situation where the actual property owner is actionable. Republicans should oppose this on the same grounds that they oppose the corporate income tax and support freedom of speech, because you can't prosecute or curtail the rights of a piece of property any more than you can do so to a corporation, because corporations are people.
When you do something to a corporation you are not doing it to the corporation, you are doing it to the people that own the corporation and possibly the people that work for the corporation. In the same way, when a prosecutor steals property under the color of law he is not doing something to the property, he is doing something to the owner of the property.
When you do something to a corporation you are not doing it to the corporation, you are doing it to the people that own the corporation and possibly the people that work for the corporation. In the same way, when a prosecutor steals property under the color of law he is not doing something to the property, he is doing something to the owner of the property.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
The Pinnacle of Hypocrisy
Full text: Obama's immigration speech: "It has shaped our character as a people with limitless possibilities — people not trapped by our past, but able to remake ourselves as we choose."
As we choose? Apparently not. Apparently it is as anyone who strolls across the border chooses. We have assumed among the powers of the rights of a sovereign nation--except we are not allowed to decide who joins our nation. Our deciding who joins our nation is, uniquely among the nations of the Earth, not simply being a sovereign nation, but being racist.
We are told that these people just want to work. Well, I have no doubt that they do. But there are a lot of Americans that want to work to and have given up on finding work. The question is who do we owe? Who comes first? Permit me to say that it is Americans to whom we owe our first obligation.
It is compassionate to the illegal aliens? Perhaps, but only to the extent that we are willing to be less compassionate to the Americans that do not get jobs or have their wages lowered by the surfeit of illegals who are quite rationally from willing to take jobs at lower wages.
What about all the people killed by illegal aliens? We cannot talk about that because all of the crimes committed by illegal aliens are committed by citizens, too, and so singling out illegal aliens is racist. But then we turn around and talk about their willingness to work as if it were some sort of unique human achievement that is beyond the capability of typical Americans.
As we choose? Apparently not. Apparently it is as anyone who strolls across the border chooses. We have assumed among the powers of the rights of a sovereign nation--except we are not allowed to decide who joins our nation. Our deciding who joins our nation is, uniquely among the nations of the Earth, not simply being a sovereign nation, but being racist.
We are told that these people just want to work. Well, I have no doubt that they do. But there are a lot of Americans that want to work to and have given up on finding work. The question is who do we owe? Who comes first? Permit me to say that it is Americans to whom we owe our first obligation.
It is compassionate to the illegal aliens? Perhaps, but only to the extent that we are willing to be less compassionate to the Americans that do not get jobs or have their wages lowered by the surfeit of illegals who are quite rationally from willing to take jobs at lower wages.
What about all the people killed by illegal aliens? We cannot talk about that because all of the crimes committed by illegal aliens are committed by citizens, too, and so singling out illegal aliens is racist. But then we turn around and talk about their willingness to work as if it were some sort of unique human achievement that is beyond the capability of typical Americans.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Jon Stewart: Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber is a 'super egghead' | Red Alert Politics
A sad commentary on the 'professional' journalists; the avowedly liberal comedian that does the fake news has more integrity than the media.
Universities Are Now Taking Down Their Jonathan Gruber Videos | National Review Online
The temples of dirigisme close ranks to protect their own.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Excuse me, did I say lie? I meant 'lack of transparency'
Obamacare Architect Admits Deceiving Americans to Pass Law
My favorite part, "call it the stupidity of the American voter..." meaning the voter's inability to see through their lies--oh, there's that word again. I meant 'lack of transparency'.
Remember this the next time we are told, "trust us, we are experts and have your best interests at heart." They wouldn't be boring on about how expert they were if what they were saying made sense on its own. For example, the reason that the CDC and supporters of Obama's resistance to a tourist visa ban on the countries experiencing an ebola outbreak feel compelled to mention their credentials and the supposed scientific consensus that motivates their actions is because their policy is so at odds with the common sense of most people.
And their certainty that they are doing what they are doing for the good of others is what should make you suspicious of them. People are never so unconstrained by conscience as when they are convinced they are doing something for the good of others and not themselves.
My favorite part, "call it the stupidity of the American voter..." meaning the voter's inability to see through their lies--oh, there's that word again. I meant 'lack of transparency'.
Remember this the next time we are told, "trust us, we are experts and have your best interests at heart." They wouldn't be boring on about how expert they were if what they were saying made sense on its own. For example, the reason that the CDC and supporters of Obama's resistance to a tourist visa ban on the countries experiencing an ebola outbreak feel compelled to mention their credentials and the supposed scientific consensus that motivates their actions is because their policy is so at odds with the common sense of most people.
And their certainty that they are doing what they are doing for the good of others is what should make you suspicious of them. People are never so unconstrained by conscience as when they are convinced they are doing something for the good of others and not themselves.
Sunday, November 09, 2014
"He fits the suit."
Putting the O in Johnny Bravo | National Review Online: Jonah Goldberg explains the entire Obama phenomenon with an episode of the Brady Bunch. Its as good as anything I have seen from political scientists.
Rising Star?
Stone Brain Rises | National Review Online
The rise of the Maine governor points up two things wrong with the conventional wisdom: you have to be bipartisan and compromising to win and that the Republican victories last Tuesday had nothing to do with the substance of policy.
The re-election of Maine's LaPage and the rise of figures like Walker who were brash and took on entrench shibboleths of the Left were the victors in the election, the milquetoast moderates are the ones that did poorly on both sides.
The idea that the election had nothing to do with policy substance is belied by the sweeping and if anything more impressive victories of the Republic party at the state level. The governors and state legislatures that went to the Republicans and, especially, where Republicans were re-elected, were moved not by mere dislike or dissatisfaction with the president but that the Republicans had delivered. It is funny how the Republicans do well when they are responsible for both the legislature and executive or where they pass major and controversial reforms that the electorate gets to pass judgement on at a remove of some years. Moreover, when the Republicans control the state governments, where the government does not have practically unlimited power to print or to borrow money, they deliver results that the voters approve.
That is certainly something.
The rise of the Maine governor points up two things wrong with the conventional wisdom: you have to be bipartisan and compromising to win and that the Republican victories last Tuesday had nothing to do with the substance of policy.
The re-election of Maine's LaPage and the rise of figures like Walker who were brash and took on entrench shibboleths of the Left were the victors in the election, the milquetoast moderates are the ones that did poorly on both sides.
The idea that the election had nothing to do with policy substance is belied by the sweeping and if anything more impressive victories of the Republic party at the state level. The governors and state legislatures that went to the Republicans and, especially, where Republicans were re-elected, were moved not by mere dislike or dissatisfaction with the president but that the Republicans had delivered. It is funny how the Republicans do well when they are responsible for both the legislature and executive or where they pass major and controversial reforms that the electorate gets to pass judgement on at a remove of some years. Moreover, when the Republicans control the state governments, where the government does not have practically unlimited power to print or to borrow money, they deliver results that the voters approve.
That is certainly something.
Rising Star?
Stone Brain Rises | National Review Online
The rise of the Maine governor points up two things wrong with the conventional wisdom: you have to be bipartisan and compromising to win and that the Republican victories last Tuesday had nothing to do with the substance of policy.
The re-election of Maine's LaPage and the rise of figures like Walker who were brash and took on entrench shibboleths of the Left were the victors in the election, the milquetoast moderates are the ones that did poorly on both sides.
The idea that the election had nothing to do with policy substance is belied by the sweeping and if anything more impressive victories of the Republic party at the state level. The governors and state legislatures that went to the Republicans and, especially, where Republicans were re-elected, were moved not by mere dislike or dissatisfaction with the president but that the Republicans had delivered. It is funny how the Republicans do well when they are responsible for both the legislature and executive or where they pass major and controversial reforms that the electorate gets to pass judgement on at a remove of some years. Moreover, when the Republicans control the state governments, where the government does not have practically unlimited power to print or to borrow money, they deliver results that the voters approve.
That is certainly something.
The rise of the Maine governor points up two things wrong with the conventional wisdom: you have to be bipartisan and compromising to win and that the Republican victories last Tuesday had nothing to do with the substance of policy.
The re-election of Maine's LaPage and the rise of figures like Walker who were brash and took on entrench shibboleths of the Left were the victors in the election, the milquetoast moderates are the ones that did poorly on both sides.
The idea that the election had nothing to do with policy substance is belied by the sweeping and if anything more impressive victories of the Republic party at the state level. The governors and state legislatures that went to the Republicans and, especially, where Republicans were re-elected, were moved not by mere dislike or dissatisfaction with the president but that the Republicans had delivered. It is funny how the Republicans do well when they are responsible for both the legislature and executive or where they pass major and controversial reforms that the electorate gets to pass judgement on at a remove of some years. Moreover, when the Republicans control the state governments, where the government does not have practically unlimited power to print or to borrow money, they deliver results that the voters approve.
That is certainly something.
Maybe they are not real Indians?
More Non-White Voters for the GOP | National Review Online: "Native Americans, who make up 1 percent of the national electorate, favored Republicans by 52 to 43 percent."
But I am sure that Jon Stewart would find a way to dismiss them as not being real Native Americans based on more scientific criteria like hair style or cool 'nativey' looking jewelry.
But I am sure that Jon Stewart would find a way to dismiss them as not being real Native Americans based on more scientific criteria like hair style or cool 'nativey' looking jewelry.
Make them say no
GOP, Show That You Can Govern | National Review Online. Krauthammer shows the way ahead.
It has driven me crazy how the media has portrayed the refusal of the two parties to agree as Republican intransigence. How does that work? The President proposes something and the Republicans vote it down, therefore, the Republicans are the ones that want to do nothing. Leave aside the fact that the Republicans in the House pass hundreds of bills that the Senate never even takes a vote on, these are never reported on, so in the press it is the Republicans that are the party of no.
Now at least the story line can be changed. The Congress can no pass bills that have to go to the President's desk and the he is the one that has to take an overt action, he has to sign it or veto it. He has to say no. At the very least he has to admit that he is the one that would prefer inaction to an action that he disagrees with. Democrats in the House and the Senate will often find themselves having to vote against their president or against their constituents. And, in some cases, there may even be enough votes for an override. Now wouldn't that be fun (though I thin that repudiating Obama might at some point in the future mark the turning point in the Democratic party's fortunes).
It has driven me crazy how the media has portrayed the refusal of the two parties to agree as Republican intransigence. How does that work? The President proposes something and the Republicans vote it down, therefore, the Republicans are the ones that want to do nothing. Leave aside the fact that the Republicans in the House pass hundreds of bills that the Senate never even takes a vote on, these are never reported on, so in the press it is the Republicans that are the party of no.
Now at least the story line can be changed. The Congress can no pass bills that have to go to the President's desk and the he is the one that has to take an overt action, he has to sign it or veto it. He has to say no. At the very least he has to admit that he is the one that would prefer inaction to an action that he disagrees with. Democrats in the House and the Senate will often find themselves having to vote against their president or against their constituents. And, in some cases, there may even be enough votes for an override. Now wouldn't that be fun (though I thin that repudiating Obama might at some point in the future mark the turning point in the Democratic party's fortunes).
Death of Micro-Pandering?
Politics in the Age of Big Data | National Review Online: Jonah Goldberg says that the most recent election marks the end of targeted scare-mongering guided by fine-grained data-mining, but I am not so sure.
Saturday, November 08, 2014
Thursday, November 06, 2014
The Economist's Take
America's mid-terms: Republicans on a roll | The Economist:
There is a line in Kafka about the government being dissatisfied with the people and deciding to create a new one that would fit in nicely here, I think...
The Daily Beast described Obama as conciliatory...
Well, he is willing to read the minds of people that don't bother to vote but can't figure out what it means when the voters that actually, you know, vote, decide to turn out his party at most every chance. Curiously, last week there was to be no mistake about the fact that it was his 'policies are on the ballot.'
America is a country with two electorates. One, a national electorate which appears once every four years when a president is on the ballot, leans slightly Democratic. The other, made up of those Americans who reliably turn out in mid-term and state elections, is markedly older, whiter and more conservative.Of course, President Obama has generously declared his intention to listen to the electorate, whether they voted or not!
There is a line in Kafka about the government being dissatisfied with the people and deciding to create a new one that would fit in nicely here, I think...
A reporter pressed him to describe in a word the impact of Tuesday night’s results. In 2010, when Democrats lost the House, Obama called it a “shellacking.” This time he decline to offer an adjective, said he would leave it to others to go through the tea leaves of the election.
Well, he is willing to read the minds of people that don't bother to vote but can't figure out what it means when the voters that actually, you know, vote, decide to turn out his party at most every chance. Curiously, last week there was to be no mistake about the fact that it was his 'policies are on the ballot.'
Tuesday, November 04, 2014
Immigration-the great unmentioned
Warner, Gillespie draw differences on issues in Va. senate race | WJLA.com--The coverage on TV has not mentioned the big differences in immigration policy in the races that Republicans have managed to make into races. I have been watching the network coverage on CNN and Fox and no one has mentioned the immigration issue as a reason that Republican candidates unexpectedly came from behind. Gillespie was a 'comprehensivist' going in but staked out more of a border security first position in the debates. Scott Brown hammered the issue. Why will no one mention it?
Feminist Star Chambers and their effects on real people
"A sexual harassment policy that nearly ruined my life"
an Oped in the Boston Globe from a former Harvard student
an Oped in the Boston Globe from a former Harvard student
Monday, November 03, 2014
A Lot of Democratic Senatorial Candidates Feel the Same Way
One Day in an Elevator With Obama, Then Out of a Job - NYTimes.com-The felon that was not a felon but still gets fired anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)