Merit?

We don’t need no stinking merit.  That’s what the Progressive-Democratic Party in Pennsylvania says.

In May, two women were elected to the Progressive-Democratic State Committee.  Then the Committee said the election doesn’t matter.  They rejected the women, denied them their places on the committee.  The committee instead

[gave] the positions to men who garnered fewer votes. Believe it or not, Democrats are justifying this decision in the name of gender equity.

If Darrell Clarke and Noam Kugelmass, the two men who were gifted the seats resoundingly won by Judi Golding Baker and Mariel Martin, had a scintilla of grace, of self respect, of integrity, they’d have refused to accept the seats.  But….

It’s not only the dishonesty of the Party’s hypocrisy that’s in play here.  It isn’t even the Progressive-Democrats’ plain war on women that this move illustrates.  It’s both of those, but even more importantly, it’s the deliberate overruling of the will of the voters.  The Progressive-Democrats didn’t just ignore their voters.  Having been issued their instructions by those voters, the Party flat overruled them.  Voters’ votes just don’t count according to this Party.

This is the sort of thing we can expect if the Progressive-Democratic Party regains a majority in the House this fall—in spades if they regain the Senate.

A Sanctuary City Success

New York City is a sanctuary city.  There are more than eight million stories in the city. Here is one of them.

Within the three months, from January to mid-April this year, ICE prepared more than 440 detainers against aliens booked by NYPD or NYDOC. Nearly 40 individuals who were released from custody, reoffended and were again arrested for crimes by local law enforcement officers.

That’s a 9% repeat offense rate, and those repeats happen quickly.  Here are some of those releases.

A 43-year old man from China was released in March after being arrested for Criminal Possession Controlled Substance…, then re-arrested for Criminal Possession Controlled Substance…in April.

And

A 28-year old man from Azerbaijan was released in February after being returned on a warrant for a Criminal Trespass…, then re-arrested in April for Grand Larceny…. [This one also is a violent offender, with an assault conviction in his history]

And

A 20-year old from Guatemala arrested for a felony count Assault 2nd Degree: Injure Victim 65 or older and released in January, arrested in February for Felony Grand Larceny, and arrested again in March for Resisting Arrest

And

A 28-year old Salvadoran man arrested for Assault in March was released, then again arrested for Robbery in April

Yes, indeed, that’s a success.  For illegal aliens who also are serious criminals.

A New US-RoK Alliance?

That’s what Michael O’Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution wants.  He thinks a continued, but greatly reduced alliance would be a useful tradeoff for northern Korea’s elimination of its nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons development program along with a reduction in its conventional military forces.  Aside from the utter naivete of the suggestion that northern Korea would reduce its conventional capability along with giving up its nuclear capability—or especially in light of that cessation—one comment at the end of his piece really illustrates the naivete of his idea.

The heavy Army brigade now in Korea might be transformed into a light brigade, better suited for peacekeeping missions.

Peacekeeping missions are wholly incapable of keeping the peace unless they’re fully capable of fighting.  Unfortunately, peacekeeping missions are incapable of fighting a serious enemy (and police forces are better suited for dealing with unserious enemies—criminals).  A light brigade on that peninsula would not be a peacekeeper, it would be a target.

A Matter of Integrity

Elizabeth Bernstein asked—and she was serious—the question of when it’s appropriate to violate a confidence.

A while back, my sister, Rebecca, called with a request: she wanted me to book a flight to come and see her immediately—and not tell anyone.

Rebecca explained that she was having a breast biopsy the next day, was terrified to hear the results, and wanted me there for support. But she didn’t want to worry others in our family.

I jumped on a plane but wrestled with a dilemma. Many members of my family are doctors. Rebecca herself is an internist. Our father is an orthopedic surgeon and another sister is a gynecologist. I knew they would have advice for Rebecca—and would want to know if she were sick. But my sister asked me not to share what she told me. And I didn’t.

How do you decide whether to keep someone’s secret when there are good reasons to tell?

There are no good reasons to tell this sort of secret.  There are no good reasons to tell anyone’s secret of any sort, to violate any confidence, with a single exception.  Either the person being told the secret has honor and integrity, or he doesn’t, and giving up someone else’s secret is a terrible dishonor. There isn’t any middle ground.

Two days later, while I was sitting in Rebecca’s living room, I got a call from my mother. My sister, overwhelmed with worry, had told her about the biopsy she’d asked me to keep secret, and my mom was angry with me for preventing the rest of the family from supporting Rebecca. Then my other sister, the gynecologist, called, hurt that I didn’t seem to value her expertise. Too late, I realized that in keeping Rebecca’s secret, I might have betrayed others.

Not even close.  Those folks were completely out of line on two counts. One is directing their ire at Bernstein: she was keeping a confidence, as integrity demanded.  Their beef was with the sister for insisting they not be told.  That’s the other count: their beef was bogus.  The secret was the sister’s to tell, or not; it most assuredly was not the others’ to demand to hear.  Full stop.

“Essentially, you become a co-owner of the information,” says Sandra G Petronio, a communication professor and director of the Communication Privacy Management Center at Indiana University[.]

No, you don’t.  You become a co-keeper of the information, but ownership in no way, shape, or form, changes hands or gets diluted.

“Just having to think about someone else’s secret makes it harmful to our wellbeing,” says Michael Slepian, an assistant professor at Columbia Business School….

Having integrity, honoring obligations, isn’t all roses and sugar plums.  Doing the right thing isn’t always going to be easy, and rarely will it be comfy-cozy in the short term.

Here is the single reason a confidence can be violated: if the one passing the secret and asking for secrecy is describing her victim status in an abusive relationship. Then, and only then, can a confidence be violated, since the person’s life is in the wind.

Offensive, Is It?

Recall that President Donald Trump has decided to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum on national security grounds, and that these tariffs impact Canadian (among other nations’) imports to the US.  Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau finds it offensive that Trump considers Canada a security threat to the US.

Really, he said that.

No, what’s offensive is Trudeau’s cynical distortion of the purpose of those tariffs.  The national security threat for us is our inability to produce our own steel and aluminum, not the steel and aluminum we might import.  Whether tariffs are the best way to encourage recovery of that ability can be debated, but it’s clearly self-sufficiency that’s our concern, not imports per se.

Trudeau is young, and he has much to learn.  But he knows this much full well.