Category Archives: culture

A Bad Deal

Posted on by
Reply

And all for the sake of a personal legacy, apparently.

Republic of Korea President Moon Jae-in has cut an Olympic-sized deal with northern Korea concerning the latter’s participation in next month’s Winter Olympics.  According to the deal,

South Korean athletes and performers [will go] north of the demilitarized zone for training at a North Korean ski resort and a cultural event at a scenic mountain resort.

Further,

[T]he two Koreas will walk into the opening ceremony of next month’s Winter Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea, under one flag—the unification flag that depicts all of Korea. The two countries’ women’s ice hockey teams will unite to form a joint Korean squad.

It’ll be interesting to see how many ROK athletes and performers will be willing to go north and the quality of those who do.  It’ll also be interesting to see what the single flag looks like; here’s what the “reunification” flag looked like at the 2006 Winter Olympics:

It’ll be even more interesting to see how many of the RoK women’s hockey team actually show up.  There’s considerable disgruntlement among the team, Olympic athletes generally, and athletic sphere leadership over Moon’s agreement here, both over the agreement and over the RoK players who will be cut or denied ice time to make room for the north’s players.

And: the agreement seems not to have been done with athletes’ input or even warning that it was coming.  Moon certainly is setting his legacy.

An Exam

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump had his annual physical earlier this week, and at his request, a mental acuity exam was administered to him as well.  The White House doctor, Navy Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, who performed the exams was the same White House physician for George Bush the Younger and for Barack Obama.  The results were presented by Jackson at a Tuesday presser, and at Trump’s insistence, Jackson stayed to answer, completely—no doctor patient confidentiality—every question the NLMSM (my term; Trump has a different term for that subset of the nation’s press) might ask.

In short, Trump has high cholesterol and needs to take his cholesterol meds, and he’s overweight.  Trump also got a perfect score on the mental acuity exam.

In long, the press spent an hour quizzing Jackson about the exam’s results.  An hour to get the results of an exam.

That hour demonstrates the NLMSM’s desperation to find something—anything—with which to smear the President.  It’ll be interesting to see if the NLMSM will let go of this particular bit of dishonesty.

Nope.  Jackson hadn’t even left the briefing room when MSNBC‘s Rachel Maddow put out this.

You know what? I’m gonna go out on a limb here and raise the possibility that this statement was not written by the White House physician. […]

I’m not basing my skepticism on the authorship of this statement on the “Trumpiness” of the statement itself. The reason I think this might not have actually been written by the White House physician, Dr. Ronny Jackson, is because that is not how your spell Ronny Jackson.

This is the offending tweet that formed the stuff of Maddow’s fevered nightmare:

Jackson’s misspelled first name proves—proves!—that the whole thing is a stinking lie and Trump, according to the NLMSM, really is crazier than a hoot owl.

And a Newsweek headline, via Yahoo!:

Trump at Risk for a Heart Attack With Dangerous Weight and Skyrocketing Cholesterol

The Party Wants No Deal

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress don’t want a deal, neither on the budget nor on DACA.  They want the Federal government shut down so they can blame the Republicans for it during this fall’s elections.  They also want to keep the DACA situation and immigration in general alive as a debating question for those same elections.

Democrats said Mr Trump’s dismissal of “shithole countries” in Africa in a closed meeting last week with lawmakers positioned him as the person who upset the negotiations.

Notice that.  The Progressive-Democrats are doing two things here: masquerading a claim of certain words being spoken as a fact that those words were spoken, and then using those words as an excuse to refuse to deal on DACA rather than actually dealing on DACA.

That the Progressive-Democrats do not want a DACA deal at all is illustrated by a third thing to notice, a matter that’s being carefully ignored by both those Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM.  Such words spoken publicly would be damaging to our national reputation; on that we’re all agreed.  What’s ignored is that, having been said in that closed meeting (if they were said), no one outside the meeting would know about them and no damage would be done—but for a meeting participant (Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL) comes to mind) running screaming to the press as soon as the meeting broke up to bruit about those words.  This is a deliberate move to blow up any DACA negotiations.

Nor is a DACA agreement needed in the current budget debate.  President Donald Trump’s rescission of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) DHS memorandum gave Congress, where such a matter belongs, until next March to enact a DACA program legislatively, or explicitly decline to do so, before Trump’s rescission takes effect.  The lack of urgency is further well-known to the Progressive-Democrats: a Federal judge has blocked Trump’s order.  Demanding a DACA deal in the current budget debate is simply a mechanism to block a budget deal.

Too, the Progressive-Democratic Party must come before children.  That Party is more important than children is demonstrated by two outcomes of the Progressive-Democrats’ obstructionism.  The DACA children will get nothing from any government shutdown.  The Progressive-Democrats’ rejection of a budget deal also will reject the CHIP program, whose funding is renewed for six years, in the deal on offer.  Millions of children will be denied access to health insurance.

Remember that in the coming elections.

A Justice Misunderstands

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court heard arguments the other day on an Ohio voter registration law.  That law removes voters from the roll if they haven’t voted over a two-year period and don’t respond to a follow-up notice from Ohio’s Secretary of State.

It’s a partisan case from the Left’s perspective: those opposing the law argue, with some justification, that those who live in urban regions (and who happen to vote Democratic) relocate more frequently than do those who live in the ‘burbs and out in the country (and who happen to vote Republican).  This would seem to put Democrats at a disadvantage in elections since they’re more likely to have not voted over a two-year period and not responded to the follow-up notice.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor put the thing nakedly: Ohio’s law

results in disenfranchising disproportionately certain cities where large groups of minorities live, where large groups of homeless people live

and, as the WSJ added,

including people who can’t make it to the polls because of the long hours they work.

The one is at best a misunderstanding, albeit entirely consistent with the Left’s view that responsibility lies with Government and not with the individual.  The other is just nonsense.

Urbanites may well have a higher turnover rate than suburbanites and [farmers], but nothing stops those who leave from registering to vote in their new jurisdiction, and nothing stops those arriving as “replacements” for the departed from registering in the current jurisdiction.  Turnover has nothing to do with it, skin color (I won’t address ethnicity; we’re all Americans in the voting booth) has nothing to do with it, homelessness has nothing to do with it (although this group has a beef in terms of demonstrating their residency so they can register).

The other is wholly irrelevant: Ohio has an extensive early voting time frame; there are lots of opportunities for those with long hours to go vote.

Privacy Innovation

Posted on by
Reply

The FBI’s management says it supports strong encryption, but out of the other side of their mouth they claim that the FBI’s

inability to access data [is] “an urgent public safety issue” that requires “significant innovation.”

Here we go again.  Heads up for FBI Director making plain what he’s now only hinting at: he wants a backdoor into our encryption so Government can enter whenever it takes a notion to.

FBI Director Chris Wray is seeking to reboot the privacy-versus-security debate surrounding law enforcement’s inability to access data on electronic devices protected by powerful encryption.

Over the past year, the FBI failed to access data from nearly 7,800 devices, Wray said Tuesday at the International Conference on Cyber Security in New York City, adding that the number continues to grow[.]

This is disingenuous.  The FBI, in the San Bernardino terrorist shooting, pretended it was unable to open decrypt the cell phone of one of the terrorists because they couldn’t hack the password.  They also pretended difficulty decrypting the contents when they did get the phone opened.  In both cases, when a private enterprise was allowed into the problem, that private company cracked both problems lickety-split.

But we can trust Government.  Nobody in Government would abuse that backdoor.

Here’s an innovation: do your own work at keeping up in the encryption/decryption arms race; don’t demand private enterprise hand you the keys to our kingdom.

Here’s another innovation: get a warrant.