“Findings”

Posted on by
Reply

“Findings”

In a Wall Street Journal editorial centered on Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) campaign of smear against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the Editors concluded with this:

Ms Cheney keeps telling Republicans they ought to believe the committee’s findings, and much of that is compelling.

I have to ask.

What’s compelling about “findings” manufactured in the complete absence of cross-examination and of witnesses brought by the other side?

What’s compelling about “findings” wholly stripped of context?

What’s compelling about “findings” not determined objectively?

More Gun Control Distortion

Posted on by
Reply

Delaware, President Joe Biden’s (D) adopted home State, has a new gun law [emphasis added].

Under the bill, known as the Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022, the manufacturing, sales, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, and transport of assault weapons, aside from those lawfully possessed or purchased before the bill became law, is prohibited.
The law classifies weapons that feature a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower used in a sports, or recreational, form is outweighed by “the danger that is can be used to kill and injure human beings” and are restricted on the possession and use of those weapons. However, the bill states that it is not the intent of the Legislature to place restrictions on those weapons designed for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activity.

This is Progressive-Democrats presuming to dictate to the good citizens of Delaware those Government-approved purposes for which they will be permitted to keep and bear Arms, even though no such authority exists in the 2nd Amendment or anywhere else in our Constitution.

There’s this, too, in that bill:

The law also provides that anyone currently owning, or possessing, those weapons are encouraged to receive a certificate of ownership from the state’s Department of Homeland Security[.]

Encouraged. Sure. There’s no reason for this, either, given the unconstitutionality of the law (which obviates any need to prove grandfathered ownership) other than so that Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, who continue to decline to identify their limiting principle, can know who has weapons for future confiscation.

This is yet another example of the lawlessness of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

Progressive-Democratic Party Newspeak Dictionary

Posted on by
Reply

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) has a new entry. While using her authority to line-item veto $21 million she says was allocated for “anti-choice” programs.

Anti-choice: what she vetoed was this:

$10 million for marketing programs about adoption, $2 million in tax credits for adoptive parents, $3 million for a “maternal navigator pilot program,” $1.5 million for pregnancy resource centers and $700,000 for a nonprofit pregnancy center.

She claims her veto was based on the pregnancy crisis centers spread disinformation and withhold other information. These are plainly bogus beefs.

Instead, Whitmer is claiming that giving women options regarding their pregnancies is anti-choice.

Self-Awareness

Posted on by
Reply

This time, not of politicians, but of artificial intelligence software. In a Wall Street Journal article centered on Alphabet’s Google firing of the Google AI engineer Blake Lemoine, there was this cite of AI specialists:

AI specialists generally say that the technology still isn’t close to humanlike self-knowledge and awareness.

That seems a bit narrow and self-important to me. What’s the basis—factual/empirical, logical/philosophical, any other—for seriously claiming that self-knowledge and awareness have to be human-like in order to exist?

Idiocy

Posted on by
Reply

Or outright dishonesty.

Ukraine is asking the US for long-range, armed drones to give the Ukrainian forces improved chances against the barbarian invader.

President Joe Biden (D) and his administration won’t send them.

More than two months ago, Ukrainian officials requested four MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones, US officials said. The Biden administration was reluctant to approve the request, the officials said, citing a number of concerns, ranging from the potential loss of advanced technology from the battlefield to the need to train Ukrainians to operate the drones.

The need to train Ukrainians? They’d be trained up by now if the request had been honored those two months ago.

The American technology would be given over to the barbarian via battlefield losses? The enemy always gets its adversary’s technology from battlefield losses. The only way to prevent that is to not go onto the battlefield at all. And then surrender the technology, anyway, when the adversary is peacefully conquered due to its decision not to fight.

…highly-sensitive technology could wind up in Russian hands if Ukrainian forces are overwhelmed.

This is a cynical, if not deliberately dishonest, sham rationale, creating, as it does, the vicious circle: the Ukrainians might lose a battle and give up the tech, so we won’t supply the tech, thereby vastly increasing the likelihood that the Ukrainians not only lose a battle, but lose the entire war.

All because the Biden administration is so…risk averse…that they refuse the risks involved in actively helping a sovereign nation, and a potential ally if not friend, defeat a barbarian’s invasion and drive the barbarian back out.

It’s disgusting, and Ukraine might not survive until January 2025, and even if it does, vastly more Ukrainian women and children will be butchered between now and then, all for the convenience of Biden’s risk aversion.