Category Archives: culture

No National Defense for You

Posted on by
1

Many Microsoft employees don’t want the United States to be able to defend itself—to defend its citizens and resident aliens.

More than 150 Microsoft employees signed a letter demanding the tech giant cancel a $480 million contract to build a HoloLens for the Pentagon, saying they “refuse to create technology for warfare and oppression.”

And

We are alarmed that Microsoft is working to provide weapons technology to the US military, helping one country’s government “increase lethality” using tools we built. We did not sign up to develop weapons, and we demand a say in how our work is used[.]

Never mind their ideology that our nation should not be allowed to have the tools necessary for our defense, their arrogance—employees demanding veto authority over their boss’ decision—is itself unacceptable.

These Precious Ones should be terminated for cause over their refusal to work the contract.  Their insubordinate arrogance is just confirmation of the need for Microsoft to see the backs of them.

One more thing: if this is the best Silicon Valley—or the Redmond-Seattle environs—can do for employees, Microsoft should give serious thought to relocating.

Forgive, Certainly

Posted on by
Reply

“We Gave Him a Chance”: Mercy for Abusive Priests Divides Church reads the headline of an article in a recent Wall Street Journal.  And the division exists; although IMNSHO, it need not; it stems from a misunderstanding of a basic concept.

Recall last fall’s American Bishop conclave in which the group’s decision was to hold all abusers—priests, bishops, cardinals—absolutely accountable with all of them defrocked for a single occurrence—a zero-tolerance position.  Also common, though, is an opposing position, exemplified by a Polish priest:

You have to exonerate the human being[.]

This after his congregation had rallied behind a colleague convicted of distributing child pornography.

The American bishops come closer to the mark, but they miss, too. Forgive, of course—but that, in no way, requires, or even suggests, forgetting the sin or the sinner, nor does it even hint at leaving the man in the same place or function within which he committed such grievous sins.

Forgetting, or taking no sanction—which not removing the abuser would be, no matter the pretty words of scold that might be uttered—cannot be.

Full stop.

No Delay

Posted on by
Reply

European Council President Donald Tusk, whose contempt for the Brits and their move to free themselves of the European Union is well known, now is insisting that Great Britain just willy-nilly delay its exit past the current legally mandated 29 March date.

European Council President Donald Tusk said that keeping the current divorce date at March 29 would be risky, as a revised deal is not in sight and businesses are worried about a chaotic exit under a “no deal” situation.

Perhaps a no-deal Brexit would be risky, but it would be considerably less risky, though, than adhering to the (failed in Parliament) “deal” imposed on a too timid British Prime Minister Teresa May that would leave the Brits in servitude to the EU.

Nor will it be as chaotic as the moles of Brussels make it out to be.  While London-based financial companies, for instance, are opening branches in continental capitals (particularly Berlin), they’re not pulling up stakes.

So far, May is showing some new-found backbone and staying on schedule.  She needs to maintain that; Brexit, deal or no deal, must occur on time.

Full stop.

Update: Sadly, this is more typical of May’s backbone:

Prime Minister Theresa May will allow parliament to vote to delay the U.K.’s exit from the European Union if lawmakers reject her divorce agreement next month….

Kamala Harris Wants to Confront Dark History

Posted on by
1

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate wannabe and Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) wants us to take our dark history seriously.

We must confront the dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination in this country that has had many consequences, including undermining the ability of black families to build wealth in America for generations.  We need systemic, structural changes to address that.

Absolutely.  The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of slavery and government-sanctioned discrimination.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of its Democrat, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney, who ruled that Dred Scott, a free (because escaped) black man in the north, must be returned to the southern ownership of his owner—and who further ruled that blacks could not be citizens of the United States because blacks were not fully men.

It must confront its demand for the States Right of holding slaves, slavery over which the nation had to fight a bloody civil war to end because of Party intransigence.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of its creation, the Ku Klux Klan, which it used to terrorize newly freed blacks—and any who supported them—in the aftermath of the Party’s lost overt slavery policy.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of its Jim Crow Laws, designed explicitly to keep blacks from voting.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of segregation, resumed in full under President Woodrow Wilson (D), who actively resegregated the Federal government after it had been steadily integrated following the Civil War, a policy for which Wilson insisted blacks should be grateful for the “protection,” and which continued apace in schools under the fiction of “separate but equal,” which included all public spaces, and which extended even to sections of buses, drinking fountains, and rest rooms.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of destroying black families by enacting “welfare” laws that paid single mothers but not intact families, making it fiscally useful, if not wholly immoral, for fathers to absent themselves.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of deliberate, overt racial (and gender) discrimination in its “affirmative action” policies that give special treatment based, ultimately, on skin color and/or gender.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark history of undermining the ability of black families (such as they’re allowed to exist) to build wealth by keeping them trapped in Party’s welfare cage with the designed-in welfare cliff that prevents welfare recipients—most of whom are minority recipients, with most of those black—from getting a new job or a pay raise that would put them above an income threshold because that would cut welfare payments by more than the pay raise.

The Progressive-Democratic Party must confront its dark present of identity politics that seeks to give special treatment to particular groups of Americans—which is nothing more than segregation modernized.

The Progressive-Democratic Party does, most definitely, need systemic, structural changes to address that.