Tag Archives: responsibilities

Don’t Accept His Credentials

Posted on by
1

The British government has nominated Lord Peter Mandelson to be their ambassador to the United States. I write “nominated” because he’s not it until we accept his credentials as British ambassador.

This is what Mandelson has said about Trump in the recent past.

What Donald Trump represents and believes is an anathema to mainstream British opinion.

More:

Even those who have a sneaking admiration for Donald Trump because of his personality, nonetheless regard him as reckless, and a danger to the world.

Especially this:

little short of a white nationalist and a racist.

Now he says,

Frankly, I think President Trump could become one of the most consequential American presidents I have known in my adult life.

Mandelson already has shown what he means by this circumlocution.

And this:

I made those remarks six years ago in 2019, led rather along this by an Italian journalist….
I consider my remarks about President Trump as ill-judged and wrong.

Of course those prior remarks weren’t his fault. Never mind that he’s an experienced politician (even though he pretends otherwise) in which profession words are the stock in trade, and he has years of experience dealing with the press. Aside from that, of course he’s claiming to have changed his mind: he wants the prestige and wealthy perks of an ambassadorship.

This is a “diplomat” who’s already demonstrated a level of integrity and bias that shows he can’t be trusted to report to his government objectively about our government’s doings or to treat with our government honestly in his government’s name.

He’s not worth the trouble of dealing with. Don’t accept his credentials.

Gaslighting

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article—and this news outlet is not at all alone in this—centered on ICE arrests of those in our nation illegally who have criminal histories, the newswriter, Michelle Hackman, insists on calling them “immigrants,” even as she acknowledges in her lede that they’re here illegally.

…targeting immigrants in the country illegally with criminal backgrounds, including minor offenses.

And

…the agency [ICE] is still conducting arrests by pursuing immigrants on so-called “target lists” of criminals developed by the agency….

No. These folks are not “immigrants,” nor are they, as they are often referred to, “migrants,” illegal or otherwise. They are illegal aliens. On the matter of criminal history, that includes their crime of entering our nation illegally.

They cannot be immigrants under any circumstance unless and until they enter our nation legally. They ceased to be migrants when they entered Mexico (or Canada) illegally by those nations’ laws. Even those who entered Mexico or Canada legally, and so might be migrants there, ceased to be migrants and became illegal aliens when they entered our nation illegally.

Nor does the gaslighting stop there. Abeer Ayyoub, Jared Malsin, and Anat Peled have a piece centered on the return of Gazans to northern Gaza and the destruction wreaked there by Hamas in its war of extermination against Israel. These newswriters—and they’re not alone on this, either—determinedly refer to Hamas as Palestinian militant group Hamas. Again, no. These thugs are not militants; they are terrorists.

As long as newswriters insist on gaslighting us about these, neither they nor their journalism guild in general, will have any credibility at all on these subjects, and by extension, on any other—they might be gaslighting on those subjects, too.

Aside: by entering our nation illegally, illegal aliens have placed themselves outside the boundaries set by our law. By doing that, they have denied our nation’s jurisdiction over them. That has serious implications regarding birthright citizenship and our 14th Amendment, with its requirement of subject to the jurisdiction thereof [the United States] in order to become citizens.

Imaginary Risk

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta‘s boss, has said he’s opening his Facebook and Instagram to free speech and no longer managing what advertisers’ spots appear alongside postings. Advertisers are concerned.

Advertisers have expressed concerns over the past few weeks—in meetings with Meta as well as with their own agency partners—that Meta‘s tools might not be enough to stop ads from showing up near offensive content as the new content-moderation approach comes into effect, and that user feeds could become inundated with misinformation.

Advertisers’ concerns are wholly unfounded. Any serious risk is entirely in their own timid imaginations. There always will be folks who manufacture objections and smears based on the appearance of an ad alongside a posting that someone decides to find objectionable. As long as those timid ones accede to those someones’ manufactured ire, their reputation—the safety of their brand—will be in the wind. Were they to find, instead, the backbone to ignore the someones and their artificial beefs, those someones would remain the vast minority of viewers, potential customers, and customers who might see the pairing, and the advertisers’ brand safety would remain soundly tied to the quality of their product and to nothing else.

The someones are just bullies, and they’re best dealt with by ignoring them and second best dealt with by directly confronting them and pushing back, hard. Their mis- and disinformation is best handled, not by running away from it, but by answering it with actual facts and logic.

A Plenty Good Enough Reason

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is preparing a series of sanctions against the anti-Semitic International Criminal Court and the bigots populating it. Naturally, those…persons…are unhappy. One carefully anonymous official:

The concern is the sanctions will be used to shut the court down, to destroy it rather than just tie its hands[.]

After all, as Ellie Grant wrote at the link,

Such a move, they say, could bring the court to a standstill, severely hindering its access to the services it depends on to function.
One of the most significant risks posed by sanctions would be the disruption of the court’s ability to access banking and payment systems, IT infrastructure, and insurance providers. A complete block on these services, including US-based companies, would apparently cripple the court’s day-to-day operations.

Since this institution spends so much of its time, funding, IT work, and insurance proceeds attacking Israel and the men and women of the Israeli government on trumped up complaints, these are sufficient, and necessary, reasons for applying the sanctions and shutting off, and shutting down, the nakedly biased institution.

DOGE’s Mission

Posted on by
1

And the mission of the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress has cutting spending at the top of their lists. Fraud, waste, and abuse has been the empty word chants of politicians from both parties for far too many years.

Now there’s a concrete example of waste, and of waste of a magnitude that it could easily obscure double potsful of outright fraud and abuse.

The federal government reported net costs of $7.4 trillion in fiscal year 2024, but it couldn’t fully account for its spending. The US Government Accountability Office, which is Congress’s research arm, said that the federal government must address “serious deficiencies” in federal financial management and correct course on its “unsustainable” long-term fiscal path.

Absolutely. One way to light a fire under the behinds of the bureaucrats who manage these departments and agencies—from the political appointees nominally in charge on down through middle management—along with those entities and personnel required to report to the former is to cut those department and agency budgets by the amount of unaccounted for spending by each department and agency. In parallel with that, identify by name the personnel responsible for the tracking, and identify by name and entity those responsible for reporting to these trackers, and deal with them, publicly shaming where useful, firing for cause where necessary, and terminating contracts of those responsible for reporting and not doing so or not doing so accurately.

Yes, that includes DoD, which hasn’t bothered to track its own spending well enough to pass an audit in the last too many years. We’re not plussing up our military, we’re not building a combat force, when DoD is losing track of its money and so isn’t spending its money on training, equipment, and logistics.

The incompetence, laziness, and criminality of those responsible for actually spending—and tracking their spending—the monies allocated to them are threats to our national security regardless of the specific spender. So are those not bothering to report accurately and completely up the chain to those trackers. That alone should make the laziness and incompetence involved as felonious as the fraud itself.