Category Archives: morality

Overreach

Posted on by
Reply

Alphabet strikes again.

Google informs children when their parents are monitoring their account activity, the tech giant confirmed this month, with the company claiming that doing so is a way of balancing the interests of both parents and children.

Such “balancing” is not Google’s call. It’s not the decision anyone or any enterprise can make in place of the parents, with the narrowly bounded exception of a child’s endangerment—which in the present context is what parental monitoring is for. More broadly, the degree of privacy a child has—is accorded—while growing up is a parental decision and no one or no thing else’s. Full stop.

Alphabet, in commenting, pointed to both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recently passed UK Age Appropriate Design Code as examples of child-privacy advocacy to which it adheres. This is cynically disingenuous (my deliberate redundancy): Alphabet is not a UN agency, nor is it an arm of the British government. Nor is Alphabet subject to UN proscriptions anywhere or to British law outside of Great Britain.

It’s time to rein in this company. It’s intruded too far into the lives of ordinary Americans, this time unconscionably presuming to take the role of parents, usurping that from a child’s true parents.

Panic

Posted on by
Reply

This is what the Left and their Progressive-Democrat governors are panicking over—actual data that give the lie to their claimed need to exercise control over the doings and businesses of their States’ citizens for those citizens’ own good. An exercise that’s actually for the power of that exercise.

The data don’t support their panic-mongering, though. Via a tweet from Carrie Sheffield, a Just the News anchor:

Getting sick is never fun. However, the mortality rate from the Wuhan Virus has always been very low—and getting very lower—for all ages under 70 years. We’ve learned a lot since the virus outbreak last spring, and the mortality rate for that last age group has gotten quite low, also.

The Biden Cabinet, So Far

Posted on by
2

In Biden’s own words, as summarized by Howard Kurtz:

  • the first-ever openly gay nominee to lead a Cabinet department.
  • the first ever black secretary of Defense
  • the first ever Latino head of the DHS
  • the first ever Latino head of HHS
  • the first woman…of South Asian American descent to lead OMB
  • the first woman and Asian-American to lead [as] the United States trade representative
  • the first black woman to chair the president’s Council of Economic Advisers
  • the first ever woman to hold Alexander Hamilton’s position as Treasury Secretary

And that’s just for starters.

Notice what Biden is bragging about: the first identity square checked off.

Biden isn’t even picking these folks because they’re politically expedient, or because many of them reprise his BFF ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) administration, an indirect political expedience.

No, Biden is picking these folks in furtherance of his Progressive-Democratic Party’s identity politics imperative—a political expedience of an especially…prejudicial…nature.

Notice, too, what Biden isn’t bragging about: these prospective nominees’ qualifications for the job. In keeping with Party’s identity politics ideology, qualification is centered on identity; actual skill or experience is in the far reaches of the system—if present at all.

Even if these folks could be counted on to put in honest effort, their broad and aggregated lack of qualification, their intrinsic incompetence, will be disastrous for our nation.

Progressive-Democrats and Religious Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats want to vastly curtail, if not eliminate altogether, religious freedoms. You recall those—the core part of our 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….

The Secular Democrats of America PAC, an arm of the Progressive-Democrat movement, counts the Trump administration’s actions to advance religious freedom a national security threat. Moving radically beyond merely eliminating our national motto because it dares mention God, this crowd denounces our national heritage and our belief in ourselves as a Christian nation (which is a distortion of theirs; we actually hold ourselves to be a Judeo-Christian nation).

In a 28-page list of “recommendations” this crowd sent to Progressive-Democrat President-Elect Joe Biden, they included the following:

  • withhold federal funds from any faith-based organization perceived as discriminatory on the basis of religion
  • repeal non-medical exemptions based on religious grounds
  • mandate inclusion of non-religious advisors at all faith-based gatherings at the White House
  • Biden (apparently personally) should discourage politicians from using the words “God” and “country” while speaking

So, this part of the Progressive-Democratic Party wants Government to tell religious organizations they are not allowed to practice their religion and receive the same government funding other organizations get. Government must heavily deprecate religious practices.

This crowd also insists on dictating what speech an elected official might use and who he must have in his meetings: “elected official” because there’s no reason to believe this demand, once acceded to, won’t spread far from the White House.

Biden has chosen not to comment on these recommendations. His considered silence smacks of agreement with it. If Republicans don’t hold the Senate, it’ll be a long four years of destruction.

Blatant

Posted on by
Reply

Racism and sexism, that is, and they’re rampant in the Progressive-Democratic Party. Here’s Congresswoman Karen Bass (D, CA) during a FOX 11 interview last Friday on who California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) should pick to replace Senator Kamala Harris (D) in the Senate:

I will tell you that I do believe that there should be an African American woman in the Congress[.]

On the other hand, when asked whether should select an Hispanic to replace Kamala Harris, Bass said,

I agree with that 100%. I think that is absolutely correct, and I think that that should happen[.]

Once again, for the Progressive-Democratic Party qualification for a position matters very little, if at all. The primary criterion, according to Party, is the “candidate’s” race, and the close second criterion is the individual’s sex.

Qualification is far down the list.