Tag Archives: morality

Another Brief Thought on Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

A WSJ Letters letter writer representing Share our Strength wrote to protest the paring back of Federal outlays to State SNAP programs. He had this early in his missive, and he was right:

We can agree that states should ensure eligible families get the proper benefits.

In the very next sentence, though, he had this contradiction:

But penalizing states without providing the resources to improve administration leaves more children hungry by pushing more parents away from SNAP.

The latter part of that may be true, but it’s not the Federal government’s responsibility to improve any State’s SNAP administration, nor is it the Federal government’s responsibility to provide resources for that improvement. Both of those requirements lie strictly and solely with the State involved.

And, using New York as his example, he offered this naked excusal for States’ failure to perform:

Honest mistakes can happen when overworked caseworkers using outdated technology to calculate benefits have to factor in a gig worker’s fluctuating income or a parent picking up occasional extra shifts.

If [New York] truly were serious about those error rates, it would satisfy its own (not the Federal government’s) responsibility and hire more (well-trained) caseworkers and upgrade the technology those caseworkers must use.

At bottom here is a State’s own decision regarding its own spending allocations. Nothing is stopping any State from changing what it chooses to fund and what set of Federal dollars it chooses to try to freeload off of.

All the Federal government can do, all it should do in our federal republic, is provide incentives to States to carry out their own responsibilities. Withholding financial transfers from States that choose to shirk their own responsibilities is a perfectly fine incentive, and one the Federal government should apply more broadly regarding money transfers to States.

Dishonesty of the Left and of the Ex-Right

Posted on by
Reply

Michigan’s closet socialist and Progressive-Democratic Party nominee for the US Senate, Abdul el-Sayed, has said that he would

mourn the 3K lives, 6K injuries, & infrastructural devastation in NYC, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my faith.
Tomorrow, I’ll mourn ~1M lives, millions of injuries, & infrastructural devastation in 3 countries, perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my country.

When Michigan’s Republican Party candidate for the US Senate, Mike Rogers, demurred, calling el-Sayed’s downplaying the tragedy of those Americans lost to terrorism—a cynically dishonest downplaying IMO—disgusting, the ex-conservative and now Leftist apologist and conspiracy pusher, Tucker Carlson, piped up.

Understanding that the Bush administration was wrong to kill hundreds of thousands of people and waste trillions of dollars in Iraq, even though, again, Iraq did not do 9/11, is disgusting?
We are really not sure who Mike Rogers is, but if anyone in Michigan’s Senate race is “unfit to serve in public office,” it is him[.]

Leave aside Carlson’s foolishness in saying he doesn’t know about Rogers, but he knows about Rogers’ unfitness. There’s plenty of cynical disinformation and misdirection in the rest of Carlson’s apologist statement favoring el-Sayed.

The Bush administration did not kill hundreds of thousands of people and waste trillions of dollars in Iraq. That claim, originating from Iranian-backed Iraqis, has long since been debunked. Nor were trillions of dollars spent in the operation, much less wasted. The outcome was the removal of the murderous Hussein regime from power, with the Iraqis given, finally, a chance to govern themselves. That they’re apparently not optimizing on that chance is irrelevant to this discussion’s subject.

The premise that we went into Iraq in response to 9/11 is deliberate misdirection. We invaded Iraq that second time to prevent Saddam Hussein from having WMD—in particular chemical weapons, which he had a history of using on the Kurds in Iraq, on the Arabs in southeastern Iraq, on any other group of Iraqis who disagreed with him. (That Hussein no longer had chemical weapons was learned only after the fact.)

At The Core of Progressive-Democratic Party Ideology

Posted on by
Reply

It was stated in so many words by socialist (though he risibly denies it) and Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for US Senator from Michigan, Abdul el-Sayed:

…if we took seriously the idea that all of our kids were all of our kids. If we started with that idea that every child is our child….

Too many people on the right are writing this off as just so much Kamala Harris-esque word salad, and that’s dangerously failing to hear what he’s saying, what Party and its Democratic Socialist of America members have in mind for our republic.

El-Sayed is clear here. Children don’t belong to the parents; they aren’t the responsibility of the parents. Children are the responsibility of the community, of the state. Children are the state’s property.

Errors, Lies, and State-sanctioned Murder

Posted on by
Reply

As recently as late June 2022, then-State Progressive-Democrat Representative James Talarico (TX) sent this letter to then-President Joe Biden (D).

The errors: one is Talarico’s claim of a constitutional right to abortion. There is not, nor has there ever been, such a right. There was, via Roe v Wade, a Supreme Court ruling that women should be able to obtain abortions up to the third trimester. There is no clause in our Constitution that says so, and while Supreme Court rulings carry the weight of law until modified or rescinded by the Court, or until corrected by legislation, they are not amendments to our Constitution. (This Supreme Court ruling, further, has been rescinded by Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization.)

Another error is his claim that pro-life Americans (whom Talarico disparages as anti-choice) are taking advantage of undemocratic loopholes to press for mechanisms for preventing abortions. There’s nothing undemocratic about following the laws of our land, which include Talarico’s so-called loopholes, which are nothing more than areas within laws that allow some things to be done that otherwise would be illegal.

Another is characterizing efforts to preserve the lives of babies as somehow radical.

The lies: one is the claim that pro-life Americans are a minority. A large majority of Americans oppose abortion in most forms. A larger majority of Americans oppose murdering babies in the womb.

Another lie is one of omission. This is the claim that the pro-life movement is threatening our most basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What Talarico has cynically omitted from this claim is that abortion does not just threaten those most basic rights, it prevents unborn babies even from having their own most basic rights to their own lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness.

The state-sanctioned murder is that of babies in Talarico’s Federally sanctioned and provided abortion facilities.

This is how far the Progressive-Democratic Party has fallen. This is how far the Texas Progressive-Democratic Party has sunk.

If necessary, right click on the image and select Open in New Tab to get a clearer image.

H/t: @ralflongwalker

Closet Socialist

Posted on by
Reply

And sub rosa racist, in addition to his religious bigotry. That’s Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for US Senator from Texas, James Talarico. As recently as 2020, Talarico made his racism and socialist bent crystalline. He

described capitalism as an “oppressive system” that’s associated with white supremacy and climate change.

Capitalism is oppressive, and the primary alternative to that is the Progressive-Democratic Party—and Talarico—and Party’s recent enthusiastic embrace of the socialism of the Democratic Socialists of America. That overt embrace post-dates Talarico’s remarks, but he’s done nothing since to indicate he disagrees with his Party on that.

And: tying capitalism, which gets its strength and its legitimacy from the simple fact that it’s the only economic system that, on the one hand encourages voluntary participation in exchanges, and on the other hand, makes those participants—all of them—better off after the exchange than they were before the exchange, to the blatantly unequal—falsely so, immorally so—relationship among a supposedly oppressor race and supposedly intrinsically inferior races is nothing other than the manufacture of a race beef where none exists. And that is disgustingly racist.