Category Archives: culture

Disingenuosity

Posted on by
Reply

Thy name is TikTok. India has banned TikTok along with a potful of other PRC apps on national security—cybersecurity—grounds. In response, TikTok’s CEO Kevin Mayer said that

Chinese authorities had never requested the data of their Indian users, and even if they had, the company wouldn’t comply.

Right.

“Never requested” is a cynically offered non sequitur. Not having been asked is entirely separate from never will be asked.

It’s more serious than that, though. The People’s Republic of China enacted a law in 2017 that requires all PRC-domiciled companies to comply with PRC intel community requests for information. Not “pretty please,” not “strongly encouraged.” It’s “stand and deliver, stand in violation of law.”

This past week, the PRC enacted an additional law, that while nominally aimed at Hong Kong, has the effect of fleshing out that 2017 law. This latest rule by law enactment tells the PRC government that it’s authorized to go outside the nation’s borders to enter other nations to arrest and bring to the PRC for trial those who violate or threaten PRC national security. Mayer’s pious claim that TikTok wouldn’t comply with such a request would be a clear violation—in PRC government eyes—and subject him and his staff to arrest and removal to the PRC.

Article 38 of that law specifically says this:

This Law shall apply to offences under this Law committed against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from outside the Region by a person who is not a permanent resident of the Region.

Beijing has long said that Hong Kong is critical to the PRC’s national security—and that’s the PRC’s rationale for this additional law. From that, any company not complying with an intel request, by threatening PRC security, offends against Hong Kong.

Mayer knows that. He’s not an ignorant or oblivious man.

Cancelation

Posted on by
Reply

There’s cancelation and there’s cancelation.

The Left is busily canceling folks and institutions over historical transgressions—nearby or old, real or perceived, major or minor—including canceling heroes of the fight to end slavery because they were flawed. Why, then, are they so studiously not working to cancel the symbols of the Democratic Party, the leaders and other prominent members of that party, and the party itself? After all, it’s the Democratic Party that

  • actively fought for slavery anti-bellum and created the KKK post-bellum
  • moved to enact gun control laws explicitly to keep blacks unarmed and helpless against continued depredations
  • enacted Jim Crow laws
  • resegregated the Federal government under Woodrow Wilson
  • refused to integrate the military under FDR
  • nationalized minimum wage laws explicitly to keep blacks from competing for jobs by being willing to work for less than white union members wanted to
  • created today’s “welfare” system that keeps blacks (and other poor) trapped in welfare cages
  • perpetuates racist segregation with their identity politics today
  • and on and on.

Oh, wait—that would mean the Left and the Party would have to cancel themselves.

Racism in the White House

Posted on by
Reply

And Sexism. That’s what Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential nominee Joe Biden is promising for us if he’s elected.

No, this isn’t about his sexist promise that he’ll have only a woman for Vice President, rather than the most qualified person, who might happen to be a woman, nor is it his strong leaning that the woman must be black, not—again—the most qualified person, who might happen to be black (and/or a woman).

This is about Biden’s promise of who he’ll nominate for Supreme Court Justice.

I have—we are putting together a list of a group of African-American women who are qualified and have the experience to be in the court.

Not people who are qualified and have the experienced to be on the Court and who happen to be black and women. No. Biden’s first criteria for his selections are skin color and gender—only third is actual qualification and experience.

This isn’t just pandering to blacks for their vote. This isn’t just insulting blacks by presuming they’re stupid enough to be bought off by such naked pandering.

Nor is this just a matter of pandering to women for their vote. Nor is it only insulting to women’s intelligence.

This is far worse than that: this is stinking sexism and rank racism.

A Judicial…Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has struck Louisiana’s abortion law that required doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital before they could be permitted to carry out abortions. The ruling was by a 5-4 vote; the five hung their ruling on the Court’s 2016 Whole Woman’s Health decision holding that there were “no medical benefits” to such a requirement, and so “a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy” was circumscribed.

One of the five was Chief Justice John Roberts.

Here’s his rationalization for his vote:

I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.

Wow.

If the decision being used as precedent was wrongly decided, the correct response is to overrule that precedent and correct the error, not to flip and bureaucratically uphold the error and, by doing so, codify it.

Codifying error as precedent also has a strong whiff of legislating from the bench.

With his logic, maybe Roberts would have argued against going to war to overrule a Dred Scott, or argued against altering Plessy.

Running Mate

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote earlier of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s promise to pick a woman running mate and the implications of such a promise.

Now we have this.

…some Democratic women are urging Mr Biden’s campaign during phone calls, at fundraisers and in writing to be part of history…by selecting the first black woman as a vice-presidential running mate.

For instance, this from House Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Karen Bass (D, CA):

It would be energizing and exciting for there to be an African-American woman on the ticket. If there is not an African-American woman on the ticket, I think people will be disappointed.

Just as it’s hard to be more sexist (and demeaning to women) than to pick a candidate for Vice President because the candidate is a woman and not the most qualified person who happens to be a woman, it’s hard to be more racist (and demeaning to the race of the selected candidate) than to pick a candidate for Vice President because of the race of the candidate and not the most qualified person who happens to be of one race or another.

The racism and sexism are strong in Party.