Tag Archives: culture

Insincerity

Posted on by
Reply

Former House Judiciary Chief Counsel Julian Epstein laments the alleged hijacking of the Progressive-Democratic Party (my label, not Epstein’s) by the far Left, and the supposed lack of courage of Progressive-Democratic President Joe Biden and his staff to say “No” to that supposed far Left.

I speak to Democrats about this all the time. They lament the fact that the intersectional left, the far-left, has overtaken the party. They’ve hijacked the party. …the far-left has commandeered policy-making under the Biden administration, and they haven’t had the guts to say no to them and to say, we’re going to tack towards the political center where majority of the voters are going to go to voters. ….

I disagree with each of the claims. “Hijacking” and “commandeering” each says that it was a takeover and the takeover was done against the will of Party. No, Party is a construct only and has no will to go with or against. Party is populated, though, with grown, adult human beings who do have will to go with or against. The far-Left didn’t takeover Party in any way, shape, or form. Party managers and members openly, whole heartedly, and of their own volition embrace the ideology and have gone toward the Left deliberately and consciously. The far-Left has been absorbed by Party and Party’s core is far-Left.

Then there’s Epstein’s lament that the Biden administration politicians won’t say that they’re going to tack towards [sic] the political center. The problem here is Epstein’s motive for why Party should so tack: that’s where the voters are, and (sotto voce) that’s the path to election wins and continued political power. Party should tack toward the middle because Party’s managers and members think that would be the right thing to do for the good of our nation. Tack this way or that for the political power of the moment. That’s the nature of sincerity in the minds of Progressive-Democrats.

A Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

This one, increasingly unsurprisingly, comes from The Wall Street Journal‘s “news” room. This is the lede from the outlet’s Monday article centered on the 11th Circuit’s decision blocking a Venture Firm’s Grant Program for Black Women:

A federal appeals court on Monday blocked Atlanta-based investment firm Fearless Fund from continuing with a contest that grants awards to businesses owned by Black women, a blow against diversity and inclusion programs that have been under increasing legal attack.

No. It’s actually a blow against segregationist programs that have been under increasing legal attack.

TIFIFY.

Selection on the basis of race or gender rather than merit, as this “venture firm” attempted to do, is intrinsically racist and sexist. Fearless‘ lawyer, Jason Schwartz, in his dismay over the ruling, had this:

The discrimination in access to funding that the Fearless Foundation seeks to address is long-standing and irrefutable[.]

That argument merely adds to the weight of the majority decision: adding discrimination to existing discrimination (stipulating arguendo that Schwartz’ claimed prior is true) merely adds to the discrimination. Further, Shwartz’ argument begins by tacitly acknowledging the inherent racism and sexism of that “existing” discrimination. Schwartz is either disingenuous or broadly oblivious.

Judge Kevin Newsom, writing for the majority, agrees, albeit somewhat more circumlocutorily:

“The fact remains, though, that Fearless simply—and flatly—refuses to entertain applications from business owners who aren’t ‘black females'[.]” If that warranted protection under the First Amendment, “then so would be every act of race discrimination.”

Even the court’s lone dissenter in the decision had no argument against the ruling itself; Judge Robin Rosenbaum argued only that the plaintiff had no standing to bring the case in the first place.

It’s pretty instructive to note that what those so enthusiastically pushing for solutions like Fearless‘; college/university affirmative programs, which also push favoring one group at the expense of others solely on race or sex; et al., miss is that while the problem they claim to want to address is real, the solution lies at the bottom: equal opportunity in the formative years of our children so they enter adult life on an equal footing. Top down solutions, which really are after the fact and too late solutions, don’t accomplish anything other than continued racist and sexist segregation.

That last is a milieu where the Left’s precious mantra of middle out and bottom up actually could have serious effect.

There’s a Hint There

Posted on by
Reply

The farm bill just passed out of the House Agriculture Committee contains a provision barring the Secretary of Agriculture from increasing, on his own alleged authority, SNAP spending above the amounts provided for in the legislation:

[c]orrects egregious Executive branch overreach and disallows future unelected bureaucrats from arbitrarily increasing or decimating SNAP benefits.

Austin Scott (R, GA):

The Farm Bill includes protective language that prevents extreme changes to SNAP benefits without Congressional input and continues the cost-neutral status that the TFP [Thrifty Food Plan] has maintained for over 40 years.

The Progressive-Democrat Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack claimed, though, that

the proposal would amount to a roughly $27 billion cut to SNAP[.]

This is the AgSec’s confession that he fully intended to spend—on his own and without any Congressional spending authority to do so—at least those $27 billion above his authorized level. He’s not alone in this. Congresswoman Yadira Caraveo (D, CO):

…it is necessary that we go back to the negotiating table and remove this provision[.]

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D, MI):

It…does not have the votes to pass on the House floor. And certainly not in the Senate[.]

This is the budgeting and spending paradigm of the Progressive-Democratic Party: Congressional appropriations and allocations are mere suggestions, and they are to be disregarded whenever inconvenient to Party. After all, it’s only your and my money they’re spending.

There’s an election coming up. Maybe us average Americans should vote our tax dollars.

More Party Gaslighting

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s Progressive-Democratic Party politicians doing the gaslighting.

Progressive-Democrat Congressman Dean Phillips (MN) wants New York’s Progressive-Democrat Governor, Kathy Hochul, to pardon former President Donald Trump (R) “for the good of the country.”

But is this a Ford pardons Nixon for the good of the country pardon request? Ford pardoned Nixon to reduce (it wound up damping down almost completely) the political divisions growing out of Nixon’s misbehaviors.

No, that’s not the sort of pardon request that Phillips is after. Here’s Phillips in his own words:

You think pardoning is stupid?
Making him a martyr over a payment to a porn star is stupid. (Election charges are entirely different.)
It’s energizing his base, generating record sums of campaign cash, and will likely result in an electoral boost.

Phillips isn’t interested in tamping down our nation’s current divisions. He’s interested only in nakedly favoring his Progressive-Democratic Party, and he has no concerns at all for partisan division mitigation. His “for the good of the country” is just so much gaslighting.

Crimes and Stolen Data

Posted on by
Reply

Ira Stoll, of FutureOfCapitalism LLC, pointed out in his 27 May Wall Street Journal op-ed, that he’s a victim of a crime, namely the “leak” of his personal tax data (along with the “leaks” of many thousands of other Americans’ personal tax data) by the IRS to ProPublica, among others.

Stoll proposed a solution to the larger problem, that of government possession of confidential data of any sort:

Much of this could be solved if the government simply collected and stored less confidential data.

He’s absolutely right on that. However, his proposal addresses only the front end of the crime. It’s a take the keys to your car with you as you go about your business, rather than tossing them onto the front seat, kind of solution. It’s necessary, but woefully inadequate, especially since it’s the confidential data storer that’s tossing your keys onto the front seat.

The back end of the crime needs to be worked, also.

In most other areas of US law, receiving stolen property is itself a felony. That should apply to journalism, also.

At the very least, journalists should be required to turn the received stolen goods over to the police or to return them to the source (and, in the case of digital goods, to certify that all electronic copies have been irretrievably deleted and in the case of hard copy documents to certify that no hard or digital copies have been retained), and journalists should be required to identify the source from whom they received the stolen goods. Criminals in the midst of committing their crimes are not sources that should be protectable by journalistic “investigative reporting” imperatives or by any other excuse. Journalism’s “public interest” is not served by being allowed to abet a crime. More importantly, the public’s public interest is actively harmed by allowing journalists to abet a crime.

Either all American citizens are equal under law, or we are not.