Daily Archives: 24 December 2020

The Most Important Criterion for Office

Posted on by
Reply

…is race, according to too many members of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

Recall that California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has named his Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, to fill Kamala Harris’ (D) seat in the Senate on her assumption of the office of Vice President of the United States. The press has been making a big deal out of Padilla being the first (!) Latino to be a California Senator—as if his brown skin actually matters.

Apparently, though, skin hue does matter to many in Party. San Francisco Mayor London Breed (D):

Definitely, this is a real blow to the African-American community[.]
It’s an unfortunate situation as we are trying to move this country forward and making sure that Black lives truly matter and that African-Americans have a seat at the table, especially African-American women, after what was done in this race on a national level, definitely is unfortunate.

Congresswoman Karen Bass (D):

I will tell you that I do believe that there should be an African American woman in the Congress. When Senator Harris is sworn in as the Vice President, there will be one African American Democrat, one African American Republican, no African American women.

Being qualified for the office, being an American-American, doesn’t matter. The first qualifying criterion is race, and the second criterion is gender.

This is part and parcel with Joe Biden and his Progressive-Democratic Party having selected Harris for his Vice President based first and foremost on her race and gender. It’s an extension of Biden’s empirically demonstrated primary criteria for his Cabinet desires.

The bigotry stinks.

Overreach

Posted on by
Reply

Alphabet strikes again.

Google informs children when their parents are monitoring their account activity, the tech giant confirmed this month, with the company claiming that doing so is a way of balancing the interests of both parents and children.

Such “balancing” is not Google’s call. It’s not the decision anyone or any enterprise can make in place of the parents, with the narrowly bounded exception of a child’s endangerment—which in the present context is what parental monitoring is for. More broadly, the degree of privacy a child has—is accorded—while growing up is a parental decision and no one or no thing else’s. Full stop.

Alphabet, in commenting, pointed to both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recently passed UK Age Appropriate Design Code as examples of child-privacy advocacy to which it adheres. This is cynically disingenuous (my deliberate redundancy): Alphabet is not a UN agency, nor is it an arm of the British government. Nor is Alphabet subject to UN proscriptions anywhere or to British law outside of Great Britain.

It’s time to rein in this company. It’s intruded too far into the lives of ordinary Americans, this time unconscionably presuming to take the role of parents, usurping that from a child’s true parents.