Category Archives: morality

Responsibility—Another Thought

Posted on by
Reply

Failure on both sides of the question.

A southern California city aims to fight back at bullies by making it a crime to pick on others, in a measure that would protect not only school children but anyone up to age 25 who is targeted for harassment.

“We’re not talking about putting a 5-year-old in jail, we’re talking about intervening in both the bully’s life, who is a person who is hurting too, and the victim’s life,” [Carson Mayor Jim ] Dear said.

But of course. Dealing with bullies is a task for government, not for parents, not for responsible adults. Because 25-yr-old American citizens aren’t adults. After all, they’re still on mumsy’s and pop-pop’s health plan….

The ACLU, though, doesn’t think the proposed law goes far enough.

Brendan Hamme, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the measure is too vague and does not even spell out how much jail time an offender could potentially face.

Naturally. Adult judgment mustn’t be allowed. That would place responsibility on the citizens, and not on government, or on the ACLU. After all, there’s that whole we’re not adults thing, again. To say nothing about how our taking care of ourselves would put a lot of self-important government officials and lawyers out of jobs.

Finally, there’s this, which makes explicit government’s intent to enter private homes:

“We are going to protect not only the kid that is bothered in school, but when you leave school and go home, we’re going to protect you as a city,” said Carson City Councilman Mike Gipson, who co-sponsored the law.

Because the business of parenting—of teaching the kid who’s a bully not to be one, and of teaching the bullied kid how to deal with bullies—is too important to be left to actual parents. Government has to do it, instead. Since parents aren’t responsible adults, you see.

Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

What is this thing, responsibility?

A Detroit teacher [at Pershing High School] has been fired after a cell phone video surfaced of her breaking up a fight between two students with a broom.

Keith Johnson, President of the Detroit Federation of Teachers, understands what this thing, this idea of responsibility, is? He said that

the teacher was wrong for using a broom, although he understands her motive. “Unfortunately, the method that she used, in terms of swatting one with a broom, is a violation of the corporal punishment provision under the Michigan school code. But she’s caught in a quandary because under that same code she’s expected to do what is necessary to diffuse a situation.”

It’s the rules’ responsibility, not the person. Nope, the union rep doesn’t get it.

Then there’s Kiren Lowery, one of the pupils in the fight. He said that

he does not feel responsible for her termination. He thinks she should have waited for security to come.

Because it’s always someone else’s problem. No understanding here, either.

Does any school teach responsibility anymore?

It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer

Posted on by
Reply

…than this. Via Catherine Herridge at Fox News.

From: Rhodes, Benjamin J. (Benjamin._J ._Rhodes@[redacted]

Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 8:09PM

To: Vega, Dag; NSC Deputy Press Secretary; Plouffe, David; Pfeiffer, Dan; Carney, Jay; Palmieri,

Jennifer; Eamest, Joshua R.; Govashiri, Ferial; Ledbetter, Howli [sp] J.; Selak, Dawn; Brundage,

Daniel; Pelton; Erin; Alhassani, Mehdi K.

Subject: RE: PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET

RELEASED IN PART B6

Goals:

• To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;

• To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet ·video, and not a broatler failure of policy;

• To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who hann Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;

• To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength artd steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

RTWT

The referenced email docs can be seen here.

A New McCarthy Era

Posted on by
Reply

[Gina “Joe”] McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning the agency will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” who are arguing the EPA is using “secret science” to push costly clean air regulations.

Because we can’t have all this dissent. It gets in the way of our Agenda. It’s unseemly. McCarthy claimed,

Those critics conjure up claims of EPA secret science—but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society.

No, Madam, it’s about challenging their conclusions and methodology—which is what science, real science, honest science, does.

And

It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it—and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of secret science because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it—then so be it.

This is patently false—no one has asked for the confidential personal data, which are metadata, anyway, and not the raw data. No, Madam, only those raw data, data the scientists used to reach their conclusion are being sought.

And that peer review bit? On what basis do you ignore the peer reviews that dispute the conclusions of your chosen scientists? On what basis do you ignore the efforts of these…scientists…to suppress dissenting papers?

Relatedly, even, arguendo, were confidential personal data called for, the Federal government has procedures in place for safeguarding them, even while briefing members of Congress in detail about them. The security agencies, the NSA, CIA, etc are well experienced, with sound procedures in place, in doing this. McCarthy knows this; her demurral here is just another cynical red herring.

And there’s this:

McCarthy promised she would make such data publicly available during her confirmation process last year. Now her refusal to cough up the data has angered Republicans.

This is another McCarthy era tactic—just make stuff up, then refuse to follow through when it becomes inconvenient to do so.

Finally,

“Those critics are playing a dangerous game by discrediting the sound science our families and our businesses depend on every day,” McCarthy said. “You can’t just claim the science isn’t real when it doesn’t align well with your political or financial interests.”

Nor can you claim it is real just because it aligns well with your political or financial interests, Madam.

More Sanctions…Sort Of…And Moral Equivalence

Posted on by
Reply

In President Barack Obama’s latest round of pretend sanctions, he’s targeting 17 companies supposedly linked to Russia’s Tsar President Vladimir Putin along with 7 more oligarchs. But don’t take it personally, Vlad, Obama assures all concerned, this isn’t intended to, like, hurt. It’s just that flexibility I talked about a couple years ago.

The goal here is not to go after Mr Putin personally[.]

The Wall Street Journal took note of Obama’s cynical moral equivalence shortly after his assurance.

In [Obama’s] view Mr Putin is reacting understandably to Russia’s post-Soviet decline in power and the West’s NATO expansion. Ukraine and the rest of the Russian near abroad are part of the Kremlin’s historic sphere of influence, so let Mr Putin have them and after a slap on the wrist we can all return to business as usual.

Two more years is a long time….