Tag Archives: culture

Great Britain’s Retreat from Liberty

Posted on by
Reply

Or, perhaps they’ve been routed by the forces of Government Knows Better.

This incident occurred last January, but there’s no evidence since that the Brits—their government, anyway; there are pockets of concern, as this incident also indicates—have regained their spine.

A man has been fined after refusing to be scanned by controversial facial recognition cameras being trialled by the Metropolitan Police.
The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods.

Here’s Detective Chief Superintendent Ivan Balhatchet, Scotland Yard’s lead for facial recognition:

The technology used in Romford forms part of the Met’s ongoing efforts to reduce crime in the area, with a specific focus on tackling violence.
As with all previous deployments the technology was used overtly.

That’s utterly disingenuous.  Being open about dragooning citizens to give up their privacy for the convenience of Government does not at all mitigate the fact of being forced to surrender individual privacy to Government for no reason other than that Government is…curious.

A man declined to be tracked by a warrantless government, and he was punished by that government for his effrontery.  Never mind that warrants and the requirement to have them were invented by the English centuries ago.

A Ban on Facial Recognition

Posted on by
Reply

San Francisco is about to ban the use of facial recognition by city agencies.

I agree with the sentiment.

However, good luck enforcing this sort of ban. There’s also a general ban on lying under oath, but in the end, all perjury laws can do is attach liability to the lie; they can’t prevent the lying. The primary difference is that lying under oath is easier to detect than is using facial recognition, and so the ban on lying under oath is easier to enforce.

What’s needed more is the ability to detect the use of facial recognition.  Banning it and applying sanction to its illegal use, whether shaking the city’s finger very firmly at the misbehaver or applying heavy fines and serious jailtime, is an empty gesture without that.

Christianity is a Threat

Posted on by
Reply

The Chinese Communist Party, through its provincial organ in Henan Province, says so.

The Hebi Municipal Radio Administrative Bureau [hosted] a presentation titled “Christianity’s Enormous Harm on China’s Security,” to party members in the city of Hebi….

Instructive title, that.  The seminarists insisted that the “correct view” is that Christianity (and, I suppose, religion generally), are bent on undermining the Communists’ rule.  Never mind that “render unto Caesar” bit.

Of course, Christianity’s central tenets of conscience, free will, individual responsibility do work out to threats to tyrannical societies like the PRC’s because these fundamental positions are threats to the power of the tyrants that reign over those societies.  Hence the need for the CCP to work so zealously to suppress Christianity and along the way to lock Muslims up in concentration camps and jail Falun Gong followers.

Keep in mind, too, that this is the People’s Republic of China that Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden says is no threat to us.

A Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker (D, NJ) has one in spades. The article at the link was centered on Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke’s mild disagreement with Booker’s position on gun control, but one of the false premises that inform Booker’s misunderstanding was exposed.

Booker argued that just as a driver’s license demonstrates a person’s eligibility and proficiency to drive a car, “a gun license demonstrates that a person is eligible and can meet certain safety and training standards necessary to own a gun.”

First, Booker’s analogy is badly flawed.  A drivers license does not at all demonstrate a person’s eligibility to drive a car. Eligibility to drive comes from the person being a US citizen (or, according to many Progressive-Democrats, from their presence in the US and in a State, whether that presence is legal or not) of a State-determined minimum age, and from no other criteria.  The drivers license then demonstrates a minimum level of proficiency and knowledge of State driving laws. Other restrictions on driving then impact whether the person will be allowed to retain that license; they do not change his eligibility criteria to drive, for getting a license.  Indeed, that license must be granted on a will-issue basis on satisfactory completion of training; licensing courses cannot be used to restrict driving.

On the larger issue, a person is eligible to own a gun and to bear it solely from his status as a citizen of the United States.  Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says:

…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s nothing in there about eligibility criteria. The only addenda to that are State-mandated criteria related to whether the person has a violent felony history.  All a gun license demonstrates is that State-mandated levels of safety and training standards, which include knowledge of State laws, have been met.  And that license must be granted on a will-issue basis on satisfactory completion of training; licensing courses cannot be used to restrict owning and bearing.

Military Academy Athlete Grads Go Pro Immediately?

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump supports this, and he’s actually serious.

I am going to look at doing a waiver for service-academy athletes who can get into the major leagues, like the NFL, hockey, baseball, and they’ll serve their time when they leave professional sports. I imagine that would make recruiting a little bit easier[.]

This is foolish.  These guys got an excellent education at good engineering schools as well as a strong military and leadership training.  In return for paying zilch for that education, they accepted a multi-year commitment to serve on active duty in our armed forces and to begin that service upon graduation.

Delay that service in favor of a professional athletic career?  Let’s leave aside the morality of such a thing and what it says to the less athletically stellar cadets who don’t have professional sports careers in the offing.  Look, instead, at the practical outcome.

A professional baseball career can last for years—a decade or more (ignoring outliers like Cal Ripken), even longer if AAA ball counts for this delay, serving as it does as continued prep for the majors and as rehab opportunities in later stages of a career (more on this in a bit).

A professional football or hockey career lasts quite a bit shorter—because of career-ending injury or accumulation of injuries.  What’s the value of a soldier, airman, marine, or sailor who’s so banged up that he can no longer ply his athlete’s trade by the time he reports for active duty?  Here we include that baseball player sent down for rehab.  What’s the risk he poses to the soldier, airman, marine, or sailor serving beside him in a fight?  What’s the additional medical cost this guy poses to the service required to wait on his appearance for duty?

How much time does such a man have left for his military career if he’s able to complete his professional sport career reasonably injury-free?

On the flip side are these two examples.  David Robinson, Navy Academy grad and basketball star, served his commitment promptly on graduation and then went on to a highly successful NBA career.  He needed no delay.

Napoleon McCallum, Navy Academy grad and football star, served his commitment promptly on graduation and then went on to a highly successful NFL career—until he had a career-ending injury during a Monday Night Football game.  McCallum’s injury, admittedly, was exceptionally gruesome, even for a terminating one, but blown knees that end careers are common in football:

[He suffered a] ruptured artery in his left knee, and tore three ligaments, tore the calf and hamstring from the bone, and suffered nerve damage in the knee. …McCallum’s surgeon told him that there was no chance of him ever being medically cleared to play again.

How fit for military duty would McCallum have been had he had that injury before serving his commitment?

This is a bad idea that needs no further serious consideration.