Category Archives: ethics

Take It or Leave Us

Posted on by
Reply

Here is one of the final steps in Brussels’ studied refusal to deal in good faith with Great Britain’s leaving the EU in all the long “negotiations.”  With the Brits’ departure now set for 12 April, the EU’s Chief Negotiator for the United Kingdom Exiting the European Union, Michel Barnier, has issued the EU’s ultimatum:

  • The possibility of a successful “meaningful vote” on the withdrawal agreement in the next few days. “The only way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is and will be through a positive majority. We should continue to make this point in the public debate,” Barnier said.
  • Leaving without an agreement should the meaningful vote fail: “No deal was never my desired or intended scenario, but the EU 27 is more prepared. It becomes day after day more likely.”
  • Requesting an extension to Article 50, should the deal fail. “Such an extension would carry significant risk for the EU,” said Barnier. “A strong justification would be needed.”

In other words, there can be no extension (which would be a foolish, if not humiliating, surrender by Great Britain, in any event) to the departure.

Barnier added, to obfuscate the nature of these “choices,”

If the UK so wish we’re ready to rework the political declaration so long as the principles of the EU are respected.

In other words, the rework will continue to require Great Britain to accede to Continental requirements rather than exercise its own national sovereignty—the purpose of the Brits’ Leave vote.

This is no choice. It’s designed solely to thoroughly denigrate Great Britain both as punishment for Leaving and as a message for other EU nations contemplating going out from the Union.

Naïve

Posted on by
Reply

A bunch of non-defense and non-foreign policy folks—and so experts on both—don’t think we should be moving to defend ourselves against our enemies.  Such actions might…provoke…them.

Dozens of scientists, health care professionals and academics have written a letter to the UN calling for an international ban of autonomous killer robots, saying recent advances in artificial intelligence “have brought us to the brink of a new arms race in lethal autonomous weapons.”

These tools might also fall into the hands of terrorists and despots.

Such a withdrawal or failure to engage in the first place, though, would amount to unilateral disarmament in the face of our enemies: an agreement—done at the UN or done between nations—cannot be expected to be honored by those who wish us ill.  It’s necessary only to see the years-long Russian violation of the intermediate-range nuclear missile treaty in Europe and its partition and occupation of parts of Georgia and Ukraine.  It’s necessary only to see the People’s Republic of China’s seizure of the South China Sea and the islands therein—the territory of other nations around the Sea, albeit disputed among those nations—and the militarization of those occupied islands.

It’s necessary only to see the continued nuclear weapons arming of northern Korea, despite past agreements to stop.  It’s necessary only to see the continued drive toward nuclear weapons development in Iran, despite past agreements not to.

Our enemies will—and are—racing to development “killer robots” regardless of any piously agreed treaties to not.  Many of these enemies—Iran, for instance, and northern Korea—would be happy to sell the weapons to terrorists and despots to facilitate their ability to do us harm.

We should be leading in this development and deployment not hiding from it.  That’s the only way to maximize our ability to control their use: from understanding how to counter them to minimizing through deterrence the likelihood of our enemies using them or selling them on.  That’s the only way to maximize our ability to defend ourselves.

Aside from all of that, an arms race is itself a useful tool in facing down our adversaries.  It’s necessary only to recall the space-based missile defense race, the economic toll that took on the Soviet Union, and the outcome of that price exaction.

At best, these folks are naïve.

Progressive-Democrat Disingenuousness

Posted on by
1

The manufactured anxiety of many Progressive-Democrats and their support entities over release of the Mueller report is breathtaking.

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT) wants

the whole damn report.

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D, MA)”

The American people deserve to see the full report.

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar (D, MN):

Today, like everyone else, I want to see that Mueller report.  It’s time to make the entire report public. That’s justice.

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris:

…a short letter from Trump’s hand-picked Attorney General is not sufficient.”  The American public deserves transparency and accountability and the Mueller report must be made public for a full accounting of what happened….

Congressmen and Committee Chairs of six House Committees, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Elijah Cummings, Maxine Waters, Richard Neal, and Eliot Engel wrote a letter to AG William Barr demanding release of the report “within a week.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D, VT):

The next step: the full release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, with its underlying evidence, and with only limited redactions for truly classified material. Not a summary.

Congressman Peter Welch (D, VT):

The American people have a right to know what’s in his report.  If the Attorney General refuses to make it public, Congress should demand its immediate release and subpoena it if he refuses.

Public Citizen:

[Nine] in 10 Americans believe the complete Mueller report should be public…. The demand is vocal, obvious, and must be met.

What these folks are carefully ignoring as they emphasize their hysteria is that Barr has already, and repeatedly, promised as complete a release as the law and DoJ regulations allow and as quickly as possible.

This disingenuous personally aggrandizing worry should be kept in mind during the campaign season.

Cowards

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate voted on the Green New Deal, but the proposal, first offered in the House (and yet to be voted on there), failed a cloture vote to let it come to the floor for discussion, debate, and subsequent vote up or down.

The Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the Green New Deal, the ambitious plan to combat climate change proposed by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after what Democrats said was a politically-motivated show vote.
The measure, which needed 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle, failed in a 0-57 vote, with 43 Democrats voting present.

Those 43 Progressive-Democrat Senators without the courage to vote their convictions included Senator Ed Markey (D, MA), the proposal’s Senate cosponsor, along with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) in the House.  Apparently, the Senate cosponsor isn’t serious about his own proposal.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) demonstrated the fundamental failure of the Progressive-Democratic Party with this rationalization:

[W]e are finally talking about the issue, and that is great….

Well, no, the Senate is not finally talking about the issue; 43 Progressive-Democrat Senators hid under their desks during the vote and called “Present,” deliberately blocking the Senate’s opportunity to talk about the issue.

Senators Joe Manchin (D, WV), Doug Jones (D, AL), Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ), and Angus King (I, ME) were the only Progressive-Democrats with the moral courage to vote for cloture, to vote to allow the Green New Deal to be talked about on the floor of the Senate, in full view of Senators’ constituents.

Risks

Posted on by
Reply

Or, perhaps, threats.

Take careful note of this tweet from Matthew Brennan.  Not only does this system know who Brennan is without any input from him (this time).  It knows where he is and where he’s going.

Imagine that identification and tracking ability in the hands of Government.  The government in the tweet is the PRC’s, but that’s not the only government spreading surveillance systems around the nation like butter on warm toast.

 

H/t to ralf.