Tag Archives: freedom

The People’s Republic of China Escalates

Posted on by
Reply

…and the Obama administration bleats. The escalation comes in the context of a PRC attempt to install a large oil rig near the Paracel Islands in waters claimed by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of China (note: not the PRC; their claim is nothing other than an illegitimate sea grab).

…about 80 Chinese vessels had moved into an area…. [Vietnamese officials] said Chinese vessels repeatedly rammed into and fired water cannons at Vietnamese vessels, injuring at least six Vietnamese sailors.

Instead of doing anything concrete, Daniel Russel, Assistant Secretary (of State), Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, while claiming to understand the importance of Vietnam to US security interests in the region, offered this, instead:

Competing sovereignty claims in disputed areas, including the Paracels, must be dealt with peacefully, must be dealt with diplomatically, and must be dealt with in accordance to international laws.

He added that the US has no position on the relative merits of any claims in the region.

Of course not.

Ya ta ta, ya ta ta, ya ta ta. Moral relativism. Ya ta ta, ya ta ta, ya ta ta.

Economic Fears and War

Posted on by
Reply

It would seem that European fears of the damage done by properly thorough economic sanctions against Russia for its invasion and occupation/partition of Ukraine might be overblown. As has been suggested before.

French bank Société Générale SA said Wednesday that a €525 million ($731.26 million) write-down on its Russian business pushed first-quarter net profit down 13%, while Carlsberg A/S and Imperial Tobacco Group PLC both said that falling sales in Russia and a weak ruble had cut profit and would weigh on revenue for the remainder of the year.

“Net profit down,” “cut profit.” Sounds like profits remain. Pretty small potatoes in some circles of sacrifice. That 13% drop for Société Générale, by the way, is to €315 million ($438.76 million) from €364 ($507). The pain…. And

Russia today accounts for only about 5% of the group’s total revenue….

The “damage” done Carlsberg and Imperial Tobacco is similar.

It’s true enough that Europe’s energy enterprises—especially Germany’s—that depend on Russian oil and gas will be hit harder, as well as those enterprises’ customers. But this is a wakeup call concerning the wisdom of depending on an aggressive and territorially acquisitive Russia for much of anything.

It’s an easily enough remedied situation, too, if time consuming.

A Thought on the Ukraine “Crisis”

Posted on by
1

President Barack Obama isn’t the only politician too timid to take meaningful steps vis-à-vis Ukraine and Russia’s invasion of that nation.

From the outset, Europe’s fragile economy and concerns over a crimp in energy supplies have tempered the continent’s response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

But that’s the thing about war: both sides do get hurt, both sides do suffer damage. The only way to limit the damage to one side is to give in to the aggressor. But then the unilateral damage is done the acquiescer, and the aggressor is only encouraged to aggress again.

Regarding the existing “sanctions,” those

…targeting officials close to Mr Putin and a few banks and energy firms have already rattled investor nerves in Russia and accelerated the country’s downturn.

The hope here that these will somehow lead to changes in Russia’s behavior (much less Russian withdrawal from the occupied parts of Ukraine) necessarily is predicated on Vladimir Putin and a) how much discomfort he’s willing to absorb in order to achieve his goals and b) how much he cares about any discomfort the Russian people will suffer from “the country’s downturn.” And that contains the forlornly naïve, and erroneous, assumption that Putin’s pain threshold and his people’s threshold held in proxy by him are the same as ours.

Alongside these misunderstandings is another:

“It’s [figuring out what sanctions to apply to Russia] a bit like getting into a fight with your spouse,” says Bryan Carter, a senior vice president at Acadian Asset Management, which manages more than $50 billion in assets for pension funds, governments and other clients. “You want to make your point without damaging anything.”

No, it isn’t a bit like that. This is war. If I’m engaged in a war with my spouse, it’s time for a complete break, anyway.

Just like it’s time regarding Russia.

Weak of Moral Character

Posted on by
1

Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the idea of public prayer at the opening of (Greece, NY) town board meetings (and by extension at the opening of government meetings generally). The ruling, Town of Greece v Galloway, can be read here.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 majority, wrote in part

From the earliest days of the Nation, these invocations have been addressed to assemblies comprising many different creeds. These ceremonial prayers strive for the idea that people of many faiths may be united in a community of tolerance and devotion. Even those who disagree as to religious doctrine may find common ground in the desire to show respect for the divine in all aspects of their lives and being. Our tradition assumes that adult citizens, firm in their own beliefs, can tolerate and perhaps appreciate a ceremonial prayer delivered by a person of a different faith.

Justice Elena Kagan demurred from that view of the fundamental adulthood of American citizens. She wrote in dissent

…Greece’s town meetings involve participation by ordinary citizens, and the invocations given—directly to those citizens—were predominantly sectarian in content. … So month in and month out for over a decade, prayers steeped in only one faith, addressed toward members of the public, commenced meetings to discuss local affairs and distribute government benefits. In my view, that practice does not square with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government.

Because in the Progressive view of Americans, we don’t have the strength of character, the firmness of moral belief of an adult human being. Like children, we need continual instruction by government in what to believe, we need continual stiffening by government to hew to the correct line. We can’t do these things on our own.

Once again, Progressives are projecting their own failings onto others. (And that bit about “distribut[ing] government benefits:” another Progressivism—that’s the purpose of government.)

Bigotry in the Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

…not of the Supreme Court. I writing now about the Court’s ruling in the Michigan affirmative action case (Schuette v BAMN) concerning the state’s “decision to end affirmative action at its public universities.”

The Court ruled 6-2 to uphold Michigan’s decision, holding essentially, that such a choice should be left to the States’ citizenry and not determined by the court system.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court (mostly—there were a number of separate concurring opinions), expanded on that:

The electorate’s instruction to governmental entities not to embark upon the course of race-defined and race-based preferences was adopted, we must assume, because the voters deemed a preference system to be unwise on account of what voters may deem its latent potential to become itself a source of the very resentments and hostilities based on race that this nation seeks to put behind it.

Justice Elena Kagan recused, Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg joined the dissent.

Sadly, Sotomayor’s dissent was fundamentally racist.[1] She insisted that “race matters.” And

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.

Indeed. But the Constitution, which must be applied “with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination,” must be applied as it is written—especially because, in the present context, the Constitution is color—and gender, come to that—blind, and explicitly so under the 14th Amendment. That means that there cannot be anything other than equal treatment under law; in particular, there cannot be special treatment for some groups, and there cannot be special treatment for some groups at the expense of other groups.

Applying special treatment, as Sotomayor demands because of those centuries of racial discrimination, is only to maintain that racial discrimination for centuries more.

She attempted to offer alternatives to citizens speaking their voice:

In the wake of Grutter, some voters in Michigan set out to eliminate the use of race-sensitive admissions policies. Those voters were of course free to pursue this end in any number of ways. For example, they could have persuaded existing board members to change their minds through individual or grassroots lobbying efforts, or through gen­eral public awareness campaigns. Or they could have mobilized efforts to vote uncooperative board members out of office, replacing them with members who would share their desire to abolish race-sensitive admissions policies.

This, of course, is just what the voters of Michigan did—only they did it state-wide, rather than piecemeal. There is no difference between the two, except in the mind of Sotomayor.

She buried this in a footnote:

Although the term “affirmative action” is commonly used to describe colleges’ and universities’ use of race in crafting admissions policies, I instead use the term “race-sensitive admissions policies.”

Which is nothing but the racism of preferential treatment based on race. Made blatant by her preferred term of reference.

Sotomayor concluded her dissent with this:

For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.

Because, of course, we cannot demarginalize those groups by treating them like adults and equals, we can only demarginalize them by perpetuating their status as…dependents…through continuing to single them out for special treatment.

I respectfully dissent from Sotomayor’s dissent.

 

[1] I of course do not mean to suggest that Justice Sotomayor wrote with anything like invidious intent. But the dissent at issue in this case seeks to change the rules of the political process and of the 14th Amendment to the disadvantage of members of our society disfavored by government.

Update: Added Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s first name to the first time she’s mentioned in the post.  It’s my usual habit; I missed it this time.