Tag Archives: culture

A Definition of Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

The Global Terrorism Database has one (and scroll to Data Collection and the Definition of Terrorism):

the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.

Notice that: no killings necessary to be an act of terrorism. No destruction necessary to be an act of terrorism. No definition of what constitutes violence. In the end, only the threat of…something…is necessary to be an act of terror.

Leave it to the Left (the GTD is an arm of the University of Maryland) to invent a version of terrorism that could include microaggressions, triggers, and on and on—all acts of “fear,” “coercion,” “intimidation” in the hearts of precious snowflakes and others terrified of disagreement or uncomfortable truths.

It’s true that the GTD picked up this definition from a predecessor; however, GTD has made no effort to tighten the definition at all. It’s only made its database searchable with criteria that let the searcher make up whatever definition of terrorism suits his narrative.

Microaggressions as terrorism. Triggers as terrorism. Hurt feelings as terrorism.

Hmm….

No Self Importance Here

Posted on by
Reply

…by a prominent Left personage.

Even those of us on the left feel the wrath of the leftier-than-thou brigade from time to time. I don’t generally have a hard time avoiding objectionable language myself because (a) I’m liberal, (b) I’m good with words, and (c) I write rather than talk, which gives me time to get my act together. But even at that, sometimes I cross an invisible line and get trounced for it.

But for someone without my advantages, I can easily see how it might feel almost impossible to express an unpopular opinion without tying yourself in knots. And let’s be honest: we liberals do tend to yell racism a little more often than we should. And we do tend to suggest that anyone who likes guns or Jesus is a rube. And the whole “privilege” thing sure does get tiresome sometimes. And we do get a little pedantic in our insistence that no conversation about anything is complete unless it specifically acknowledges the special problems of marginalized groups. It can be pretty suffocating at times.

Well. That’s real white of him. Read the whole thing to see just how white, though.

A Constitutional Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Governor Greg Abbott called for a constitutional convention, looking to revive support for an existing movement that seeks a constitutional convention. Abbott also offered a number of Amendments of his own that he’d like to see proposed at such a convention.

  • Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs in one state
  • Require Congress to balance its budget.
  • Prohibit administrative agencies from creating law
  • Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states of override a Supreme Court decision
  • Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
  • Restore balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution
  • Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law regulation.

But no constitution, whether our existing one (favored by me, with a single Amendment concerning term quasi-limits), our existing one as amended by Abbott’s proposals, or any other constitution, has no value whatsoever in the hands of a government whose men and women ignore it at convenience.

Abbott himself tacitly noted this, but he seems to have missed the meaning of his own remark.

The Supreme Court is a co-conspirator in abandoning the Constitution. Instead of applying laws as written, it embarrassingly strains to rewrite laws like Obamacare.

Before it’s useful to discuss modifications to our Constitution, it’s necessary to replace in toto the men and women of our government with men and women who understand and will respect rule of law and the supremacy—especially over their own actions—of our Constitution.

Once our Constitution has been restored to its proper place, then we can set about assessing where, if anywhere, it might profitably be amended. Not until.

Obama and Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent Wall Street Journal article regarding President Barack Obama’s (D) planned unilateral actions to impose further gun controls on us, Obama was quoted as saying

We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one? What if Congress did something—anything—to protect our kids from gun violence?

Congress already has done quite a bit to protect our kids: they’ve been blocking your constant efforts to disarm us and thereby leave our kids utterly defenseless against still-armed criminals.

What’s more, We the People—your employer, even though you choose not to accept that—also have already done something, the critical thing, to protect our kids. It’s called the 2nd Amendment, reprinted below for your education.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s nothing in there that says you get to do what you feel like about our Arms. Note especially that phrase shall not be infringed. This means you, Ace.

Two Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Thirty-five years ago (nearly two generations ago), the People’s Republic of China government decreed that families in the PRC could have only one child. Ostensibly, this was to reduce population pressures on the country’s ability to feed itself. It’s also had, though, other consequences. One of them is this:

China has the world’s largest population at 1.37 billion, but its working-age population—those aged 15 to 64—is shrinking. The United Nations projects the number of Chinese people over the age of 65 will jump 85% to 243 million by 2030, up from 131 million this year.

That’s a doubling of the old-age population in just the 15 years it’ll take this year’s newly born babies to reach working age. Is the raise in the number of permitted babies per family to two sufficient to alleviate the problems brought on by the shrinking work force, with its reduced ability to produce goods and services, and food; or the problems brought on by a shrinking work force’s ability to pay for, in any way, the growing (relative to the working population as well as in absolute terms) population of elderly?

Many Chinese couples say the cost of having children is prohibitive, and some will opt to have only one child. A previous relaxation of China’s one-child policy did not lead to a significant increase in baby numbers.

“Many” is more than it sounds; it’s a significant fraction of today’s couples.

On top of that, though, most demographers say it takes 2.1 babies per woman (not just to women in marriages) just to maintain a population at a given level for developed nations. That minimum rate rises in less developed nations, as infant mortality rates rise. The PRC’s new limit of 2 babies per family (not all women) doesn’t reach the replacement rate.

Probably the raise in the limit on the number of permitted babies is insufficient.