Category Archives: culture

The Moral Relativism of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

It doesn’t matter whether the Left is our own gang or Germany’s—they carefully are insisting that their hate groups are legitimate while those claiming to be on the right are terrible.  And they distort the facts while they’re about it, so lost in their own bigotry are they.

This cynical distortion is from Deutsche Welle (the author of the piece didn’t have the courage to sign his name to it, as do other authors of DW articles):

In his comments, Trump also appeared to show sympathy for the white nationalists’ efforts to preserve Confederate monuments—the issue that had started the confrontations, as a monument depicting Civil War General Robert E Lee was being removed in Charlottesville.

Of course, DW knows this is false.  The ones trying to preserve the Confederate monuments were folks who view them as symbols of a heritage of courage and loyalty.  The white nationalists and white supremacists who were present have nothing to do with that and were there only to assert their own twisted ideology, usurping an entirely separate protest altogether.

There’s also German Justice Minister Heiko Maas:

It is intolerable how Trump is now glossing over the violence of the right-wing hordes from Charlottesville.

Because the Antifa gang, whose goal it is to physically attack those with whom they disagree, who attacked the protesters—who had the city’s permits to engage in their protest—is entirely justifiable.  This is shocking from a man who sits on a judge’s bench.

On our side of the water, there’s ex-Vice President Joe Biden (D) tweeting

There is only one side.

He’s right about, but not in the way he thinks.

Never mind that neo-Nazis; KKK, neo- and otherwise; white supremacists; et al., have nothing to do with the right (beyond the “alt-right” of the NLMSM’s fetid imagination).  It’s wrong to condemn the Left’s Antifa, BLM, New Black Panther Party, CAIR, La Raza, et al., for the violence, vandalism, and other crimes they committed during the Charlottesville riots last weekend.

Those thugs and their bigotry, their hatred of all who disagree with them, their attacks on those of whose speech they disapprove, their criminality can’t possibly be on the same plane as those who usurped a peaceful pro-Confederate flag protest by inserting their Nazi spew into the protest.  Mm, mm.

The Left’s hatred is better than the hatred they attribute to the right.

That’s crap.  Hate groups aren’t part of the right or the left, they’re just part of Hate.  They’re on only one side—their own, the side Biden accidentally called out.

It’s interesting that the Left enthusiastically embraces its hate groups while the right openly and just as enthusiastically reject the hate groups that claim they’re on the right—as the right condemns all hate groups.  Just as President Donald Trump condemned all hate groups in Charlottesville.  There are no moral differences among hate groups.

The Left doesn’t get that.  Or doesn’t care.

Right Idea, Wrong Target

Posted on by
Reply

Charlottesville, VA, Mayor Mike Signer (D):

I’m not going to make any bones about it.  I place the blame for a lot of what you’re seeing in America today right at the doorstep of the White House and the people around the president.

True enough; that is where last weekend’s sorry events began.  The identity politics of the last eight years by the White House of ex-President Barack Obama (D) and by his mentee, Democratic Party White House hopeful Hillary Clinton, and those associated with the two created the conditions that caused the rioting in Charlottesville last Friday and Saturday.

After all, those who disagreed with Obama were unpatriotic, were terrorists, were hostage takers, were racists.  Those who weren’t in that White House’s chosen groups were contemptuously dismissed as Bible-clinging, gun-toting residents of flyover country.  Those who disagreed with the policies of the Democrats’ favored groups were slandered as irredeemably deplorable racists (repeatedly racist), homophobes, Islamophobes, any _phobe Democrats could think of.

The police were stupid when they weren’t being racist—never mind any of the facts of the situations.  The Left gleefully calling Tea Partiers “teabaggers.”  Democratic Congressmen, on the Capital Building steps in the aftermath of Obamacare’s passage, falsely claiming racist slurs coming from the protestors that greeted them on those steps.

Signer needs to check his sight picture.

Bullies

Posted on by
Reply

Recall how Google, last week, outed a Conservative employee and his critique of Google personnel practices, then bullied him with public opprobrium, then fired him.

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai was going to have an all-hands town hall this week to address the matter, but then, after employees expressed concerns

about their safety and worried they may be “outed” publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall[,]

he cancelled the whole affair.  The company put the original teapot tempest into the public’s eye, but when allegedly faced with the same outcome for themselves, they skittered back into their baseboard holes in the walls.

Aside from the breathtaking hypocrisy of this sorry charade, this illustrates an old maxim: bullies are cowards, and Google management and Google’s Precious Ones employees are just the same.

Way to Go, Google

Posted on by
2

Recall the now ex-employee who wrote a lengthy and thought-out memo for internal distribution via one of what Google is pleased to call its open communication channels. A summary of the ex-employee’s case is in the Sunday Wall Street Journal; my comments on the situation, based on that summary, are below.

…critics saying the company squelched free speech by firing a male employee who wrote a divisive memo denouncing its diversity push, while others said his views showed that the company’s diversity policies were needed.

Both the critics and “others” are right: the incident clearly demonstrates need for open debate and discussion, not the need to suppress discussion and debate by firing the one who raised the question.

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai said…to suggest “colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.”

Commenters here, in the WSJ comment thread, and elsewhere can offer data on either side of that claim. Pichai’s decision to provide none is beyond arrogant; it’s dishonest.  As is Danielle Brown’s decision to speak solely ex Cathedra ab umbilico in her responding memo, similarly without the first minim of actual data.  We’re just supposed to accept the bald statements of these august personages.

Indeed, here’s a Google spokesman responding to a WSJ request for comment/elaboration:

He violated our Code of Conduct, period.

Not gonna discuss it. Sit down, and shut up.

As an aside, there is this much in the WSJ piece [emphasis added]:

…[the ex-employee] wrote that biological differences explain some of the gap between male and female tech workers….

Indeed. The more mendacious NLMSM is carefully omitting that qualifier.

The memo can be seen on Gizmodo here, along with Google’s vapid response.

What a way to go, indeed.

Gun Control

Posted on by
1

A bill is making progress in Congress that would allow concealed carry license holders, whose license was issued in one State (their State of residence) to concealed carry their weapons in all States: the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.  The bill also would require such a carrier to abide by the laws of the State they’re visiting, including all of that State’s gun-free zone designations.  In this way, the reciprocity law is similar to drivers license reciprocity, under which it’s legal to drive in any State so long as the driver both is licensed in his home State and obeys the driving laws of the State he’s visiting.

Naturally, the bill has lots of resistance in the coastal States and cities—jurisdictions run by Progressive-Democrats.  The California Police Chiefs Association President Edward Medrano, for instance, has these objections:

The bill would erode local control of issuing concealed carry permits, as the arbitrariness of the issuing authority rules would reduce the requirements for concealed carry to the lowest common denominator.  Further, the lack of a national database for concealed carry permits makes it functionally impossible for a law enforcement officer in the field to determine the legal compliance of an individual carrying a concealed firearm.

Both of these objections are disingenuous.  The requirement for concealed carry is quite simple, and it’s laid out clearly in the 2nd Amendment [emphasis added]:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The “lowest common denominator” objection also illustrates the utter illogic of Medrano’s objection.  It is the multiply varied local jurisdiction rules that are arbitrary.  The lowest common denominator standard, accepting that characterization arguendo, would be easily understood and widely so, since it would not at all be arbitrarily varying.  Too, a required reciprocity like that in the Act, would put the onus for keeping up with local jurisdiction variability and arbitrariness where it belongs: on the individual and not on the government’s men.

Beyond that, no national database of concealed carry permits is needed.  Most States issue concealed carry licenses and require the license holder to have that license in his possession at all times—just like his drivers license.  A few States don’t require licenses to carry concealed, but those States are easily identified—by the drivers license the holder still must have with him at all times.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (OK, an interior mayor, but a Progressive-Democratic Party one nonetheless) argue that the reciprocity act would

essentially force the localities to give full faith and credit to permits that are issued on less rigorous grounds [and] remove local governments’ ability to maintain sensible gun standards.

Because full faith and credit is a terrible thing.  We’ve also seen what Progressive-Democrat “sensible gun standards” amount to: a citizen having to show to a government official’s satisfaction that a need to carry exists.  The Supreme Court has already ruled on the illegality of that arrogant nonsense.

Progressive-Democrats like New York’s District Attorney Cy Vance is even arguing that reciprocity would give Daesh terrorists (and other terrorists, presumably) a leg up.  This is just a cynically offered red herring of a scare tactic.  Guys like Vance carefully ignore the fact that the leg up is that of an armed citizen or group of us confronted with an already armed terrorist.

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act needs to go through without any delay.