Category Archives: culture

Apologies

Posted on by
Reply

Daniel Henninger had a thought in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal on the relationship between the Wuhan Virus situation (my term, not his) and apologies.

I have my own thought on the broader matter of apologies themselves.

…difficult this year to tell which is greater—the number of people infected with Covid-19 or the number of politicians issuing apologies….

Other than Operation Warp Speed’s chief, General Gustave Perna, I’ve heard almost no politician apologize for anything. In truth, though, the apology was killed long ago.

What is issued in lieu of apology, and not only by politicians, has long been an expression of “regret” for “any offense that might have occurred.” Never mind that offense plainly was taken, or there’d have been no objection. Doubting that is dishonest.

On top of that, the utterer piously announces his regret—for an offense that he’s not convinced even occurred—but he has not a syllable of actual apology for his misbehavior that led to the offense. Masquerading his utterance as an apology is a very large lie.

Aside from that, “accepting responsibility,” “owning the matter,” and similar self-serving claims are cynically meaningless phrases, uttered only to distract from the fact that the speaker does nothing to change his behavior or otherwise to correct his error.

“Good Union Jobs”

Posted on by
Reply

That was Joe Biden’s mantra all through his campaign.  Now Karl Zinsmeister, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed asks this question: Will Biden’s Education Nominee Stand for Students or for Unions?

Supposedly, his nominee, Miguel Cardona, is pro-student:

Dacia Toll, CEO of the Achievement First charter-school network that operates in Connecticut, says of Mr Cardona: “I haven’t found him to be driven by ideology and politics. He is more focused on making sure every kid gets an excellent education than the type of school they go to.”

Zinsmeister hopes Cardona is made of stern stuff and will resist the pressure he’ll get from the unionists in his administration, elsewhere in his Cabinet, and in Congress.

I’m not that sanguine. Who has this good union man, Joe Biden, nominated? At best, a token offered as a sop to all those in Congress who are to the right of the radical left progressives (but I repeat myself) who are the Progressive-Democratic Party. More likely, a shiny object cynically offered to distract those worthies from the far more broadly insidious policies of the Progressive-Democrats.

The Most Important Criterion for Office

Posted on by
Reply

…is race, according to too many members of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

Recall that California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has named his Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, to fill Kamala Harris’ (D) seat in the Senate on her assumption of the office of Vice President of the United States. The press has been making a big deal out of Padilla being the first (!) Latino to be a California Senator—as if his brown skin actually matters.

Apparently, though, skin hue does matter to many in Party. San Francisco Mayor London Breed (D):

Definitely, this is a real blow to the African-American community[.]
It’s an unfortunate situation as we are trying to move this country forward and making sure that Black lives truly matter and that African-Americans have a seat at the table, especially African-American women, after what was done in this race on a national level, definitely is unfortunate.

Congresswoman Karen Bass (D):

I will tell you that I do believe that there should be an African American woman in the Congress. When Senator Harris is sworn in as the Vice President, there will be one African American Democrat, one African American Republican, no African American women.

Being qualified for the office, being an American-American, doesn’t matter. The first qualifying criterion is race, and the second criterion is gender.

This is part and parcel with Joe Biden and his Progressive-Democratic Party having selected Harris for his Vice President based first and foremost on her race and gender. It’s an extension of Biden’s empirically demonstrated primary criteria for his Cabinet desires.

The bigotry stinks.

Limits to Response

Posted on by
Reply

Massive Hack Blamed on Russia Tests Limits of US Response is the headline of a Wall Street Journal piece on the Russian hack of our government and some infrastructure facilities.

Despite its size, a sprawling computer hack blamed on Russia could leave President Trump and the incoming Biden administration struggling to find the right response, former US cybersecurity officials and experts said.

The Russian hack was an overt invasion of the United Space, just as much in cyber space as it would have been had it occurred in physical space. The only limits on our response—the only real limits—are our capacity to respond, and the mindsets of those with the authority to order the response.

Capacity includes our shamefully limited cyber capability coupled with the much lower degree of Russia’s dependence on cyber in its various facilities (military, political, economic).

Capacity also includes, though, political, economic, and physical response venues.

This attack badly wants a more prompt response than economic sanctions are capable of effecting.

 “It’s a hack. It’s a breach. It’s espionage. It’s not an attack,” said former White House and Justice Department official Jamil Jaffer, executive director of George Mason University’s National Security Institute. “I don’t think some major offensive response is warranted based on what we know now.”

And

…the former officials said the intrusions fell more along the lines of classic digital espionage, however brazen.

This insistence on downplaying the severity of an invasion is a major player in our vulnerability to such attacks is an illustration of the weakness of the mindsets involved, for all that Jaffer is not one of those charged with the responsibility. It increases our vulnerability to physical attack.

There needs to come an end to mental weakness, idle chit-chat, and vapid responses and to get serious about such invasions.

Now.

Progressive-Democrats and Religious Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats want to vastly curtail, if not eliminate altogether, religious freedoms. You recall those—the core part of our 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….

The Secular Democrats of America PAC, an arm of the Progressive-Democrat movement, counts the Trump administration’s actions to advance religious freedom a national security threat. Moving radically beyond merely eliminating our national motto because it dares mention God, this crowd denounces our national heritage and our belief in ourselves as a Christian nation (which is a distortion of theirs; we actually hold ourselves to be a Judeo-Christian nation).

In a 28-page list of “recommendations” this crowd sent to Progressive-Democrat President-Elect Joe Biden, they included the following:

  • withhold federal funds from any faith-based organization perceived as discriminatory on the basis of religion
  • repeal non-medical exemptions based on religious grounds
  • mandate inclusion of non-religious advisors at all faith-based gatherings at the White House
  • Biden (apparently personally) should discourage politicians from using the words “God” and “country” while speaking

So, this part of the Progressive-Democratic Party wants Government to tell religious organizations they are not allowed to practice their religion and receive the same government funding other organizations get. Government must heavily deprecate religious practices.

This crowd also insists on dictating what speech an elected official might use and who he must have in his meetings: “elected official” because there’s no reason to believe this demand, once acceded to, won’t spread far from the White House.

Biden has chosen not to comment on these recommendations. His considered silence smacks of agreement with it. If Republicans don’t hold the Senate, it’ll be a long four years of destruction.