Monthly Archives: October 2018

Another Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Posted on by
Reply

There is a nascent movement, the #WalkAway movement, that for the last five months has been urging those disgruntled with the Progressive-Democratic Party to leave the party and form a different one.

Some said the Democratic Party has become hate-filled and hostile to opposing points of view while moving further to the left. Others say they were tired of the party’s “politically correct” culture.

The movement appears to have gained steam from the Kavanaugh hearing travesty.

Of course, it can’t possibly be a legitimate effort, though; it must be an effort by those Evil Republicans to break up the Progressive-Democratic Party.  CNN‘s David Love says it’s fake and a Russian ploy.  Because everyone knows those Republicans are in cahoots with Russia.

Republicans want to split up the Democratic political opposition and divide black and Latino voters. And Russia looks like it wants to help here, too.  The most recent example of this strategy is the #WalkAway hashtag, which is presented as a grassroots effort by former Democrats who are critical of the party’s alleged intimidation, confrontation and lack of civility and want people to walk away from the party.

And this bit of Love’s hysteria:

#WalkAway has also now been connected to Kremlin-linked Russian bots, and it is now the seventh most popular Russia-influenced hashtag.  The purpose of this now-astroturf campaign is to manipulate public opinion by creating the illusion that this is a popular movement. In reality, #WalkAway has become pure propaganda, a psychological operation.

It’s vast, and it’s right wing, and it’s fake, and it’s, it’s, it’s bad.

Fairness

Posted on by
Reply

Various nations around Europe and Asia are looking at ways to add to the tax burden on multinational technology companies doing business in those nations.

Bruno Le Maire, French Minister of the Economy and Finance, rationalized the movement this way:

It is a question of fairness.

Leave it to a European politician to not understand the concept.

No. Fairness is cutting taxes, not raising them, thereby leaving more of the citizens’ money in their hands.

Fairness is cutting spending.  This would greatly reduce Government’s crowding out pressures against citizens’ businesses through competition for “customers.” This also would greatly reduce Government’s competition for inputs to production, competition which drives up the cost of those inputs to private businesses.

Fairness is cutting spending especially to be less than tax revenue, reducing the need for Government borrowing and its twin outcomes: driving up the cost of money for private businesses and increasing the likelihood of future tax increases for both the citizens and their private businesses.

And this is the Europe our very own Progressive-Democrats want us to emulate.

The End of Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

At least in Europe.  The European Court of Human Rights ruled last Thursday that it’s impermissible to make crude remarks about Islam’s Muhammed if those remarks fall outside what Government deems acceptable.  It seems that, in the course of a 2009 seminar, a woman commented on Muhammed’s marriage to his child bride:

[Muhammed] liked to do it with children…. A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?

The ECHR ruled that remark unobjective, lacking historical background, and intended to disparage Islam.

Government will decide what parameters must be present in “free” speech—here, objectivity, with Government defining that parameter—Government will decide the environment and context within which “free” speech must be made.  Government has decided that rude speech is verboten.

The answer to bad speech is not more speech, but—in Europe—no speech other than that which is Government approved.

A Rejection

Posted on by
Reply

The “caravan” wants no part of sanctuary in Mexico.

Several thousand migrants—traveling in a large group from Central American countries to the United States—have turned down an offer by Mexico to help them find shelter and work in the country, The Associated Press reported Saturday.

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto addressed the mass of people directly:

We know very well that what you’re seeking is an opportunity, you want to build a new home and a better future for your family and loved ones. Today, Mexico lends you a hand[.]

The lended hand was via an aid program called, aptly enough, You are at home.

That mass of people rejected the offer and restated their intent of “heading north.”

Now why would they do that?  By their own statement, it’s clearly not sanctuary or refugee status they want.  What’s the real motive here?

Right Answer, Wrong Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington State Supreme Court issued a ruling favorable to the State’s charter schools last Thursday.  The question before the court was whether those charter schools were violating the State’s constitution by receiving funding from the State’s lottery facilities.  Writing for the court, Justice Mary Yu wrote in plain words,

Charter schools are not rendered unconstitutional just because they do not operate identically to common school[.]

She expanded on that in addressing the plaintiffs’ argument that the charter schools lacked voter control, holding that, as The Seattle Times paraphrased her,

…”it makes sense” for charter schools not have local voter control because their funding source, unlike traditional schools, does not include local property tax levies.

Justice Barbara Madsen in dissent, wrote

They [charter schools] are not subject to local voter control and lack any direct accountability to the communities they purport to serve….

This is mistaken.  Charter schools are especially accountable to the communities “they purport to serve” because, unlike the case with public schools, those parents, those members of the served communities, those voters, easily can remove their children from a charter school and enroll them elsewhere.