Tag Archives: culture

Some Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump Jr has posted some ideas for maintaining/protecting the freedom of speech of us American citizens that his father, former President Donald Trump (R) has for 2024. He’s on the right track….

I have some thoughts on some of them.

Regarding Section 230: Social media—Twitter, Facebook, Alphabet—have made themselves into the public square, and with their collusion with the Federal government to censor speech, they’ve made themselves arms of that same Federal government. That’s two ways, each of which alone is determinative, in which social media have demonstrated their lack of need and forfeited their “right” to protection under Section 230.

Regarding Federal dollars going to academic institutions or programs that don’t live and breathe free speech—especially unpopular speech: Not a single copper penny should be going to those things. If they’re going to censor Americans, they need to do it on their own coin.

Regarding the 7-year cooling off period for intel-related folks: Go broader. Lift the security clearances for all government officials as soon as they leave office, with this exception: the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and Agency heads should be allowed to keep their clearances for 90 days, with no possibility of an extension, in order to arrange their library/library-like affairs.

Regarding a Digital Bill of Rights: No. Not at all. Our rights do not come from government; they come from our Creator, as our Declaration of Independence acknowledged and still acknowledges. In addition to that, we already have a Bill of Rights; it’s written into our Constitution. That Bill of Rights also is technology agnostic; digital matters are subsumed into it. Declaring an additional set specifically for digital matters, apart from my just above objection, would only dilute that extant and much more powerful set of Rights.

Voting as a Teaching Tool

Posted on by
Reply

The Boston City Council has approved a petition to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in city elections. The city council’s next move is to submit its petition to the Massachusetts legislature for enactment. It’s the council’s rationalization for the move that’s instructive.

Progressive members of the City Council argued that lowering the voting age would help young people build a habit of voting and make them more likely to continue being politically engaged later in life.

And this:

When it comes to making a decision as to who’s going to represent them [16- and 17-year-olds], that has been denied to them.

This, especially, is egregiously misleading. Those children have parents representing them. Those parents vote. Those parents are the source of instruction.

Never mind, though. Voting isn’t important in choosing our political leaders. Nobody teaches American history in grade school anymore, apparently, or Civics in junior high, or Western Civilization at any age. No, voting has no importance beyond teaching children a measure of responsibility, because schools also seem to lack any other tools for teaching them ethics (Aristotle, anyone?) or morality (Aesop, or religion, maybe?).

Sure.

An Excellent Response

Posted on by
Reply

Last Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, a case centered on Web Page designer Lorie Smith and her First Amendment right to not put messages on her designs that conflict with her religious beliefs.

In the course of those arguments, there occurred this exchange (audio is at the first link above) between newly confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Kristen Kellie Waggoner, CEO, President, and General Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Smith in this case:

[Jackson] asked about a situation where a Christmas photo company was recreating old-time pictures and as a result they only allowed white children to participate because it accurately reflects the time period. As part of the hypothetical, the company served Black people for other types of photos and would refer them to other vendors if they desired. Jackson asked if this would be acceptable under Smith’s logic, because by forcing the photographer to take Black customers it would be changing their vision and forcing them to create something they do not want to create.
“…there are difficult lines to draw and that may be an edge case, but this is not. We have a creative—a creator of speech and a very clear message—”

It’s about time lawyers stopped being afraid to call out activist judges and Justices’ dumbass cynical quibbling over corner cases and kept them focused on the matter actually before them.

WaPo Racism

Posted on by
Reply

And by extension, much of journalism’s racism through their own silence regarding their colleague’s and their colleague’s employer’s refusal to condemn this racism.

MSNBC fired anchor Tiffany Cross last month, and The Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah called that racism. After all, that MSNBC anchor is a black woman. I’m frankly surprised that Attiah, and that WaPo through its columnist, didn’t cry “sexism,” too. MSNBC fired that anchor who was a woman.

This is yet another example of journalism’s racism: there are very few more insidious examples than to manufacture racism out of whole cloth. WaPo, Attiah—journalism—all know full well Cross was fired over her poor ratings and her own poor performance and that racism had nothing to do with it.

That Is Right-Wing Ideology

Posted on by
Reply

Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board wrote about so many former-President Donald Trump (R) judicial appointees ruling against Trump on a number of cases.

What really jumped out to me, though, was this brief bit, almost tossed off as an aside to the main thrust of the piece.

The chief distinction of Trump appointees, [The Alliance for Justice] said, is “absolute adherence to right-wing ideology.”
How about adherence to the law and respect for the separation of powers?

Imagine that—”right-wing ideology” is centered on actual adherence to law and respect for separation of powers in our Federal government.

What does that claim by an organization on the Left in American politics say about the Left’s view of law and separation of powers?

Maybe it says something akin to ex-Progressive-Democratic Party President Barack Obama’s and current Progressive-Democratic Party President Joe Biden’s bragging that if Congress doesn’t do what they personally want, they’ll act freely and independently with their “pen and phone.” What is the Left’s ideology, anyway?