Category Archives: culture

Progressive-Democrats’ Tuesday Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Some are calling it rowdy; others say raucous.  There’s this more concrete description, too, from Tony Katz:

Everyone else is talking to each other, yelling at each other, yelling at the moderators, yelling at the guy in the rafters….

And talking over each other, interrupting each other, trying to drown out each other. Recall the 2015-2016 Republican primary debates—they were rowdy, often rude, as participants occasionally interrupted or tried to talk over each other.  Tuesday’s Progressive-Democrat debate was nothing but a constant rolling drumbeat of that.

I have a different take on that debate from “some,” “others,” and Katz.

This debate was a clear and present demonstration of Progressive-Democrats’ view of free speech.  Their interruptions and talkings-over were not occasional, nor were they done in the heat of the moment, for all the zeal of their arguments.

No, their interruptions and talkings-over were demonstrative of their attitude toward the speech of anyone who disagrees with them.  What any particular Progressive-Democrat decides he has to say is the only thing worth hearing.  What others have to say—are already saying—is just too trivial, too unimportant to waste time on; the new speaker will just start talking, and those others should just shut up.

It’s of a piece with one of them insisting that the others should drop out of the primaries altogether and get out of his way.

Tuesday’s verbal melee also was demonstrative of their views of us in the audience and in TV viewer-land.  Progressive-Democrats will tell us what we should hear; they will tell us what we will be permitted to hear. We’re wholly unfit to decide that for ourselves.

And that’s what they’ll inflict on our free speech rights if they gain the White House and the Senate and hold the House. Freedom’s just another word for “Shut up; I’m talking.”

Journalistic Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the People’s Republic of China expelling three Wall Street Journal journalists over their article headlined China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia that an outside contributor to the WSJ had written.

Here’s the cynicism of the PRC detractors of that headline;

The phrase “sick man of Asia” was used by outsiders and Chinese intellectuals to refer to a weakened China exploited by European powers and Japan in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

What the phrase also harkens back to, and which was the referent used by the WSJ headline writer, was the disaster that was Turkey 100+ years ago: the sick man of Europe.  The phrase also goes to a more recent usage: Germany as the sick man of Europe as its economy was in long-term stagnation during the late middle 20th century.

The complainers’ decision to focus on the one, much older, interpretation while carefully ignoring the newer referents illustrates their own determination to find things by which to be offended so they can deprecate others.

The timidity comes from the WSJ‘s own journalists.

Some Journal staffers have signed an internal letter calling on the newspaper to apologize for the headline to anyone who was offended, while condemning the expulsions and pledging not to allow the Chinese government to influence the Journal‘s coverage.

Nonsense. No one serious was offended, so no apology should even be under consideration.

On the other hand, opinion often offends, especially when it’s logically formed and supported with fact, so no apology should even be under consideration. The truth often offends, especially when it’s the whole truth, and not just a carefully edited subset of it, so no apology should even be under consideration.

Even were an apology warranted, a legitimately done one couldn’t possibly include weasel-words, or excuses, or “you were wrong, too” claims.

Deliberately Ignorant

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article about the espionage and intellectual property theft threat posed by the People’s Republic of China, Boston University William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor artificial intelligence researcher H Eugene Stanley said this when his PRC research collaborator—whom he enthusiastically took on—said this when she was arrested for lying on her visa and for potential espionage:

I’m not interested at all in politics. I’m a scientist.

And

If a person anywhere in the world wants to come to my group, and they have the money to come, I say why not?

Wow. He might want to review the musings of Plato and Aristotle on politics and individuals’ relationship with politics.

And this, as paraphrased by the WSJ:

Mr Stanley said that he receives droves of research requests and that he vets candidates’ scientific credentials. A Boston University spokesman said the school doesn’t engage in classified research and relies on the State Department to screen foreign applicants for national-security risks.

Of course. It’s someone else’s responsibility. Only Government should do, not each of us.

That “research” collaborator?

[F]ederal prosecutors accused Yanqing Ye of acting as an agent of a foreign government. On her application for a J-1 visa used for scholarly exchanges, she said she was a student at [the People’s Republic of] China’s National University of Defense Technology, but omitted that she was a lieutenant in the PLA….

On being asked whether it was useful to work with scholars of the PRC’s National University of Defense Technology, which was the school claimed by Ye and by her handler Kewei Yang on a paper co-written by the two along with Stanley, he responded

Is it a bad place? I don’t know[.]

Here is an example of the failure of the ideology that insists that Government is the solution, of the passivity that lets Government handle personal responsibilities exclusively rather than acting as support for each of us handling our own duties.

The proximate solution? In the particular case, bar Stanley from any government research funding, which the school claims he has none of presently, and bar Boston University from government funding until it cleans up the understanding of ethics and of personal responsibility on the part of its staff and students.

A Cynical Attitude About Health and Health Coverage

Posted on by
Reply

California demurs from the Trump administration’s position that the State’s mandate to insurers that they must cover abortion violates Federal law.  The administration has said it will withhold Federal funding from the State if it doesn’t correct its insurer demand.

The objection to the Trump administration position offered by California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra, though, is especially disingenuous.

The Trump Administration’s threats not only put women’s health on the line, but illegally threaten crucial public health funding that Californians rely on.

For one thing, if the good citizens of California rely on crucial public health funding, then California should provide it. The citizens of the other States of our nation should not be held accountable for the California government’s spending and revenue decisions.

The larger thing, though is Becerra’s women’s health grandstand. Abortion has much, much more to do with the baby’s health than it has with the mother’s health. While pregnancy can threaten a woman’s health, these are extremely rare cases, and they should be handled on the rare case by case basis in which they exist. Funding for and insurance coverage of these few exceptions can be handled in other guises than funding abortions with Federal dollars.

Some Thoughts on the Nevada Caucus

Posted on by
2

…based on 60% of the precincts reporting.  The Nevada map provided at the link indicates that Sanders won the urban counties, Buttigieg won the rural counties, and Biden’s precinct wins are too scattered to show up.

Biden’s showing here indicates he’s wasting his money and Progressive-Democrat primary votes by staying in. He finished second—likely, only 60% of the results are in as I write—and he’s bragging about what a strong showing that is, but the first place finisher got more than twice as many votes as he did. Given the way this campaign began all those months ago, as much as Sanders won so big in Nevada, so big did Biden lose in Nevada.

Mouse over the map, the map, though.  It’s apparent that where Sanders won, he won big, especially in Las Vegas (which is where Biden had his best showing, too—a not quite so distant second). Buttigieg, on the other hand won his rural counties only narrowly.

Sanders’ urban showing, especially in contrast with his rural showing, has interesting implications for President Donald Trump if Sanders becomes the Progressive-Democratic Party nominee.

An aside a propos competence in general, and nothing to do with the candidates themselves. Recall the confusion the Nevada caucus managers had and how they dumped two separate software “aids” for counting results.  After 20 hours for results reporting, Iowa was 62% complete.  Nevada got to 60.4%–the results on which I comment above.

Update: Now, two days after the caucus, Nevada’s reporting is roughly 96% complete. The thrust of my claims remains accurate. The only material change in outcome is that Buttigieg, who was “viable” at the 60% mark, no longer is.

And, at those two days, Nevada’s caucus managers are showing their better performance compared with Iowa’s.