Category Archives: culture

A Presidential Library

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-President Barack Obama (D) plans to build a Presidential library in Chicago, and he’s looking at a non-standard concept for his library.  The folks on the Left don’t like it, as exemplified by the Chicago Tribune‘s Ron Grossman.

It seems the proposed library has a test kitchen in it, in which FLOTUS’ views of proper nutrition can be explored.  There’s also supposedly room for a yoga center; although, that’s not defined in the architectural plans.  The horror.  How unpresidential.  How unlibraryish.  Grossman bleated

President Obama, is that how you want to be remembered? As the healthy-eating and meditation-advocating president?

Then Grossman spent the bulk of his missive laying out his Better Idea for the library.  As though it were Grossman’s library and not Obama’s.  Never mind that all of us will remember Obama for his legacy, however we characterize it (and none of those characterizations see Obama as a lotus-eating spinach and broccoli lover), or that Obama gets to set up his library as he sees fit—and kudos to him for not going with tradition for tradition’s sake.  Or taking seriously the morsels of a pressman’s fetid imagination.

Readers of this blog—all half-dozen of you—know that I’m not a real big fan of the Progressive-Democrat ex-President.  But, jeez—this just shows that the Left are a bunch of crybabies who’ll whine about anything.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Three Leftist parties in Germany want to change—to “strengthen”—the nation’s online hate speech law: the Free Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Left Party.  (FDP claims to be a libertarian-leaning, classical liberal party, but with this move, it exposes itself as being Modern Liberal.)

The current law requires social media companies to police themselves regarding posts someone—anyone—flags as offensive.  This is too much free speech, however.

[FDP General Secretary Nicola] Beer said Germany needed a law similar to the one the FDP proposed before Christmas that would give an “appropriately endowed authority” the right to enforce the rule of law online rather than give private companies the right to determine the illegality of flagged content.

“Appropriately endowed.”  Government, or a government sanctioned and guided facility, will “determine the illegality” of the speech.  Because Government Knows Better.

This is the Europe our own Left wants us to emulate.  This is the censorship college and university management, professors, and snowflakes want us to implement.

This is part of the Big Government that the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to inflict on us as part of their general Government intrusion into private lives push.

The Obama White House, the Obama DoJ, and Hezbollah

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Politico report on how then-President Barack Obama (D) and his Department of Justice killed an investigation into Hezbollah’s drug dealing because Obama was so desperate for a nuclear weapons deal—any nuclear weapons deal—for his legacy.

Now we’re seeing that Derek Maltz, ex-Special Agent-in-Charge of the DEA’s Special Operations Division, had briefed Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, on Hezbollah’s performance and on the depth of their drug empire’s penetration in the US.  Maltz said that Holder was “very alarmed” by the briefing, and Maltz also said that Holder “promised to set up meetings with national security officials and was almost always ‘supportive’ of his investigations”—and nothing happened.  There was no followup.

Maybe Maltz misinterpreted Holder’s alarm, degree of support, and the nature of his promises to follow up.

The investigation into Hezbollah was spiked some time after that briefing.  Maybe Holder’s alarm was over how much was being found out about Hezbollah’s drug dealing and the extent of its drug empire in the US.  Maybe Holder’s support for the investigations was so he could keep abreast of how much was being learned about Hezbollah’s drug operations.  Maybe there was followup on Maltz’ briefing: that killing of the investigation.

Legacy matters, after all.  And maybe the true nature of a particular legacy is coming to light.

Facebook Revamp?

Posted on by
Reply

Christopher Mims had a piece on this, that Facebook MFWIC Mark Zuckerberg says he’s interested in doing.  Mims opened his article with an important question:

So here’s the multibillion-dollar question: is Mr Zuckerberg willing to sacrifice revenue for the well-being of Facebook’s two billion-plus users?

Unfortunately, his piece centered on the potentially addictive nature of Facebook (among other virtual, interactive social media).  Important as money is to running a business, and important as addiction is to handle, Mims missed a number of larger questions—which bear on addiction, but not exclusively so.

  1. making sure that time spent on Facebook is time well spent Whose definition of “time well spent?” Is Facebook going to dictate that to its users?
  2. encourage meaningful social interactions Whose definition of “meaningful?” Is Facebook going to dictate that, too?
  3. push us away from harmful ways of using the service Whose definition of “harmful?” Will Facebook dictate that to users, going beyond the possibly addictive nature to other definitions convenient to Facebook?
  4. steps include [what] Facebook…believes will reduce engagement on the service, including hiding click bait and fake news Whose definition of “click bait?” Of “fake news?” How will Facebook prove it’s not merely censoring? It already has been exposed as having an unbalanced coterie of “content moderators” who censor what they personally view as unacceptably conservative.

All of this, also, elides Facebook’s well-known lack of concern for user privacy, invading it at will for “business” purposes.

Porch Dogs

Posted on by
Reply

Some of you may be aware of the protests in Iran, protests that are growing in size and becoming subject to increasingly violent attempts at suppression by the Iranian government.  “Some of you” because the NLMSM isn’t talking much about the protests.

It turns out that Iranian women are playing a prominent leading role in those protests.

  • a young Iranian woman standing atop a container and shedding her hijab…while simultaneously waving it as a flag
  • a woman confronting security forces and proclaiming “Death to Khamenei” while crowds around her join in
  • Another woman was seen on tape declaring “You raised your fists and ruined our lives. Now we raise our fists. Be men, join us. I as a woman will stand in front and protect you. Come represent your country.”

And on and on.  These women are risking their freedom, such as it is in Iran, risking arrest, beatings, perhaps their lives just to be in these protests, much less to lead many of them.

But, where are the Western “feminists” who were willing—anxious, even—to protest loudly against the inauguration of a President of whom they disapprove, protest against the perceived evils of Civil War heroes of the Confederacy, against sexism and sexual harassment and assault in the halls of Hollywood and Congress?

Never mind that these protests all were conducted wholly within the safety of a nation that proudly protects the freedom to speak one’s mind, to protest against government or any other ill, real or imagined.

Where, now, are Linda Sarsour?  Elizabeth Warren?  Nancy Pelosi?  Kathy Griffin?  Kamala Harris?  Kirsten Gillibrand?  Amy Klobuchar?  Debbie Stabenow?  Debbie Dingell?  Madonna?  Amy Poehler?

Others, like Catherine Ray, Federica Mogherini’s spokesman, has uttered only bland platitudes about rights to peaceful protest and free speech.  The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy herself has chosen, so far, not to speak at all in her own voice.

What are these women, safe and sound in the bosom of the United States and Europe, saying and doing in support of those Iranian women?  Not much.

Susan Rice, ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) National Security Advisor and UN Ambassador, says the timidity is proper:

Stephen Miller, the author of the piece at the link, wants to know why these modern “feminists” don’t speak up or act concretely in support of those Iranian women.  I have a different bit of advice: stay up on the porch, ladies.  It’s safe there.  Real women are taking action.

Even porch dogs yap, though.