Tag Archives: culture

Think about Leaving

Posted on by
Reply

Portland business owners are more than fed up with the level of crime destroying their businesses. Their idea of who has the solution is misguided, though.

Frustrated business owners are calling on city and county leaders to do more to combat rising property crime in Portland….

This situation is not solely on the heads of Portland’s city councilmen or the county commissioners. The business’ fellow residents of Portland keep electing those councilmen and commissioners, politicians who’ve demonstrated their lack of commitment to order and rule of law.

Why would any business owner want as his customers folks who so consciously approve of and vote for such politicians? Those are the voters, after all, who then vandalize, rob, and otherwise trash their businesses. There are plenty of jurisdictions that do regard rule of law to be a Good Thing, and those jurisdictions have sound economies with plenty of room for businesses currently domiciled in lawless Portland.

Punishing the Successful

Posted on by
Reply

There are changes to Americans’ 401(k) plans that are included in the Omnibus Spendathon bill currently in front of Congress, and they are IMNSHO highly favorable. (Aside: I hope the Omnibus Spendathon gets killed in favor of a short-term bill—or no bill at all; we won’t miss the Federal government for a few days—that will let the incoming Republican-majority House have its input into the year’s spending. These 401(k) provisions could be brought up and enacted then.)

Among those changes are a raise in the age at which account holders must begin taking their Required Minimum Withdrawals from the current 72 years old to 75 years old.

Cue the outrage from the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and their Leftist supporters, all of whom hate the success of others.

Some lawmakers, academics and policy analysts have criticized some of the provisions, including the move to raise the age of required retirement account distributions to 75. They argue much of the legislation benefits the wealthy and the financial-services industry.
“It will primarily subsidize the wealthy and worsen the racial wealth gap,” said a statement from Americans for Tax Fairness.

Leave aside the racist slur from ATF regarding its manufactured race beef. Never mind that the proposed legislation doesn’t harm anyone, or that it gives a path to greater prosperity to those willing to scrimp more now in favor of greater payoffs tomorrow. Those Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters are desperate to hold back some because others can’t keep up. They can’t conceive of—or refuse to consider—ways to help those others do better.

Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters, at bottom, have nothing but contempt for the capabilities of those of us on the middle and lower economic rungs. We average Americans are simply too grindingly stupid to be able to act on our own; we must be “taken care of” by our Betters on the Left.

Some Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump Jr has posted some ideas for maintaining/protecting the freedom of speech of us American citizens that his father, former President Donald Trump (R) has for 2024. He’s on the right track….

I have some thoughts on some of them.

Regarding Section 230: Social media—Twitter, Facebook, Alphabet—have made themselves into the public square, and with their collusion with the Federal government to censor speech, they’ve made themselves arms of that same Federal government. That’s two ways, each of which alone is determinative, in which social media have demonstrated their lack of need and forfeited their “right” to protection under Section 230.

Regarding Federal dollars going to academic institutions or programs that don’t live and breathe free speech—especially unpopular speech: Not a single copper penny should be going to those things. If they’re going to censor Americans, they need to do it on their own coin.

Regarding the 7-year cooling off period for intel-related folks: Go broader. Lift the security clearances for all government officials as soon as they leave office, with this exception: the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and Agency heads should be allowed to keep their clearances for 90 days, with no possibility of an extension, in order to arrange their library/library-like affairs.

Regarding a Digital Bill of Rights: No. Not at all. Our rights do not come from government; they come from our Creator, as our Declaration of Independence acknowledged and still acknowledges. In addition to that, we already have a Bill of Rights; it’s written into our Constitution. That Bill of Rights also is technology agnostic; digital matters are subsumed into it. Declaring an additional set specifically for digital matters, apart from my just above objection, would only dilute that extant and much more powerful set of Rights.

Voting as a Teaching Tool

Posted on by
Reply

The Boston City Council has approved a petition to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in city elections. The city council’s next move is to submit its petition to the Massachusetts legislature for enactment. It’s the council’s rationalization for the move that’s instructive.

Progressive members of the City Council argued that lowering the voting age would help young people build a habit of voting and make them more likely to continue being politically engaged later in life.

And this:

When it comes to making a decision as to who’s going to represent them [16- and 17-year-olds], that has been denied to them.

This, especially, is egregiously misleading. Those children have parents representing them. Those parents vote. Those parents are the source of instruction.

Never mind, though. Voting isn’t important in choosing our political leaders. Nobody teaches American history in grade school anymore, apparently, or Civics in junior high, or Western Civilization at any age. No, voting has no importance beyond teaching children a measure of responsibility, because schools also seem to lack any other tools for teaching them ethics (Aristotle, anyone?) or morality (Aesop, or religion, maybe?).

Sure.

An Excellent Response

Posted on by
Reply

Last Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, a case centered on Web Page designer Lorie Smith and her First Amendment right to not put messages on her designs that conflict with her religious beliefs.

In the course of those arguments, there occurred this exchange (audio is at the first link above) between newly confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Kristen Kellie Waggoner, CEO, President, and General Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Smith in this case:

[Jackson] asked about a situation where a Christmas photo company was recreating old-time pictures and as a result they only allowed white children to participate because it accurately reflects the time period. As part of the hypothetical, the company served Black people for other types of photos and would refer them to other vendors if they desired. Jackson asked if this would be acceptable under Smith’s logic, because by forcing the photographer to take Black customers it would be changing their vision and forcing them to create something they do not want to create.
“…there are difficult lines to draw and that may be an edge case, but this is not. We have a creative—a creator of speech and a very clear message—”

It’s about time lawyers stopped being afraid to call out activist judges and Justices’ dumbass cynical quibbling over corner cases and kept them focused on the matter actually before them.