Category Archives: culture

Italy and Migrant Shipping

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a case making its way through the Italian courts that challenges the government’s policy of denying docking rights to migrant rescue boats.  Critics are up in arms. The policy, they assert, would

leav[e] them in the Mediterranean Sea for days or even weeks—a campaign critics have branded as cruel but that has garnered support from many Italians.

The critics, though, are being disingenuous. To the extent that there is cruelty here, it’s on the part of the “rescue boat” captains and the ships’ operators who have chosen to spend those days or even weeks trying to force entry rather than moving promptly to other nations’ ports where they would be allowed entry.

There are arguments for and against the Italian policy, but this sort of distortion does not advance the debate a bit.

Facebook and Trust

Posted on by
2

…seem, increasingly, a contradiction in terms.

See this image, from The Sun via Fox News, below.

The girl pictured has a laryngeal cleft, a hole between her larynx and her esophagus, which means she can’t eat normally; food or drink can pass into her airway.  The tube through her nose passes down her esophagus, bypassing that hole; it’s the only way she can take sustenance.

The girl’s mother tried to post the image on Facebook, not to garner sympathy, but to raise general awareness of the hassles and hazards of laryngeal clefts, and to raise money for her daughter’s necessary surgery.

Facebook barred the image, for the reasons listed in the text to the right of the image.  The text is hard to read; the money rationalization is this: the image

contains shocking, sensational or excessively violent content.  This type of material creates an unexpected experience for users, and goes against our core value of fostering a positive global community.

Because a smiling little girl, albeit with a tube in her nose, is shocking, sensational, or excessively violent.  Because Facebook has such contempt for its users that it considers them such snowflakes that unexpected experiences—surprises—would excessively disturb them.  Because Facebook’s view of positivity overtly excludes attempts to bring those apparent snowflakes’ attention to an uncommon medical condition so that that attention might foster increased medical research into ways of alleviating or correcting such a condition.

The mother successfully appealed the bar, but questions remain: with this sort of ban being Facebook’s kneejerk, initial action, how can Facebook be taken seriously?  How can Facebook’s management be trusted?

In the Liberal Stock

Posted on by
Reply

Neomi Rao is in one, now that she’s a nominee for the DC Circuit Court.  She’s currently serving as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administer, which means she’s already been vetted by the Senate—bipartisanly.  The Senate already knows who she is and what her abilities and qualifications are.

Well, never mind.  It seems, according to BuzzFeed—you remember the purveyors of a Cohen false news story so dishonest that even Mueller had to go public with the BS flag—Rao “wrote inflammatory op-eds in college.”  The horror.

Here’s an example of that inflammatory writing:

It has always seemed self-evident to me that even if I drank a lot, I would still be responsible for my actions.  A man who rapes a drunk girl should be prosecuted. At the same time, a good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober.

Victim blaming?  Rational people wouldn’t think so, but….

The Progressive-Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee actually are taking Buzzfeed seriously.  The idiocy.

As The Wall Street Journal put it in their editorial at the first link above, none of that

is relevant to how she might rule as a 45-year-old judge with adult life experience.

The WSJ misunderstands, though.  Rao’s not the life experience of a wise Latina, so it’s irrelevant.  The intervening years don’t exist.

And that’s a tool wielded by those Progressive-Democrats and their NLMSM arm in their efforts to smear another conservative jurist.

Sound Familiar?

Posted on by
Reply

Sadanand Dhume led off his Wall Street Journal op-ed last week with this:

Seven decades after the country first embraced caste-based quotas in education and government jobs, they have become permanent entitlements that cement social divisions, encourage mediocrity and poison political discourse.

Segregationist identity politics. This is the preferred ideology of the Progressive-Democratic Party, also.  No less a light than Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) led off her campaign for President saying she would center her campaign on her potential to be our first black woman President, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) insists it’s time for a woman to be President (she’s a young mom, you see).  And San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (D) wants to be our first Hispanic President.

Notice the pattern here: none of these Progressive-Democrats want to be President of the United States.  Every single one of them want to be the first [ethnic/race/gender-of-choice] President of an identity politics-divided United States.

The Indian example is what we can look forward to if the party of identity politics ideology gets a member elected.

Progressive-Democrats and a Wall

Posted on by
Reply

In a Fox News Online piece about a Fox News Sunday interview with President Donald Trump’s Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney from last Sunday, there appeared this gem from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D, MS).

…Thompson…broke with some of his fellow congressional Democrats by acknowledging in an interview that he “would not rule out a wall in certain instances,” although he cautioned that the White House needs a better “plan” than simply using a wall as a “talking point.”

But then he said this:

“Mr President, Democrats will work with you.  But you can’t pick what Democrats you work with. We have picked our leaders, and you have to work with our leaders.  The notion that we can’t have barriers is just something that’s not true.”

This is the level of disingenuousness Republicans are stuck working with.  “Walls work in certain instances. You have to work with our leaders. We can have barriers.”  But Progressive-Democratic Party leadership—particularly House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) have promised no wall, no way, not ever.

The Progressive-Democrats are offering only talking points, not negotiation.  Still.