Tag Archives: morality

Siding with the Extremists

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) not only advised his Progressive-Democrats in the House to hold off on trying to pass the “infrastructure” bill. This is the bill, remember, that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) had so solemnly promised the more moderate members of Party she would bring to the floor for a vote on 27 Sept. Then after breaking that promise, she promised to have the vote on 29 Sept, then promised 30 Sept, then 1 Oct, then canceled the vote altogether, for a total of four solemn cynical promises broken.

No, that wasn’t all for Biden. He then made his own promise late Friday to the House Progressive-Democratic Party caucus in a closed door meeting in one of their House conference rooms. The “infrastructure” bill

ain’t going to happen until we reach an agreement on the next piece of legislation[.]

That next piece of legislation is the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill he and his fellows are so anxious to get enacted.

With that commitment, Biden repeated and renewed the promise he made last June to not sign the “infrastructure” bill until he also had his reconciliation bill on his desk. With that renewed commitment, Biden broke earlier, campaign and inauguration speech promises to unite our nation and to govern in a bipartisan manner.

Biden has, instead, openly and irretrievably united with the most progressive of the Progressive-Democrats—the extreme Left of a Party that already has gone far Left.

In Which I Disagree

Posted on by
Reply

This time, I disagree with a Koch family and their Stand Together Foundation and their stance on teaching Critical Race Theory in our schools. They oppose the idea of government bans on speech in general, arguing that even unpopular speech must be protected.

Leaders inside the network of right-leaning organizations built up by the billionaire Koch family are saying they oppose government bans on the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools despite not agreeing with what is being taught.
Evan Feinberg, the executive director of Stand Together Foundation, a Koch-affiliated organization, said that “using government to ban ideas, even those we disagree with, is also counter to core American principles.”

Feinberg, et al., are right as far as they go, and it is difficult to draw a line between what is unpopular, even hateful, speech that must be protected, and speech that is plainly dishonestly done and so legitimately subject to ban. CRT, though, is so blatantly dishonest that it clearly is on the wrong side of that broad gray area.

CRT insists that America is inherently and inescapably racist and that blacks are intrinsically incapable of succeeding—they’re permanently victims, solely because they’re black—and that whites are never anything but oppressors, solely because they’re white. From that, CRT pushes the distinctly racist ideology of identity politics.

Teaching CRT is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is none, akin to committing slander, akin to lying in advertising or contracts. Those limits on free speech are properly applied, and so are the bans on teaching CRT.

Whose Kids Are They?

Posted on by
Reply

And who are the real parents? Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe (D) claims schools, worse than being merely ex loco parentis (which is bad enough), are actually the parents themselves, at least during school hours and while homework is being done at, you know, home. At Tuesday’s debate with Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin, McAuliffe said in all seriousness:

I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach[.]

McAuliffe also bragged about a bill he vetoed that would have acknowledged that parents have the right to veto books.

I’m not going to let parents come into schools, and actually take books out, and make their own decision[.]

Not even about the sexually explicit material in the library that parents would have been notified was present under the vetoed bill.

Parents being barred from telling schools what they should teach also includes, under McAuliffe’s claim of who controls children, parents having no ability to block racist CRT teaching; or teaching children that America is systemically racist; or teaching children that blacks have no hope because they’re black and so permanently victims and whites have it all because they’re successfully permanent oppressors; or teaching children that boys can be girls and girls boys; or schools insisting that it’s OK for biological boys to have access to girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, athletic endeavors, and vice versa.

By extension, too, McAuliffe seems to be exposing himself to opposing home schooling or any other form of school choice—since by making those choices, parents would be “telling schools what they should teach.”

This is how extremist the Progressive-Democratic Party has become.

Deliberate Segregation

Posted on by
Reply

This particularly insidious form of racism is being perpetrated by Western Washington University in Washington State.

Western Washington University has designated the fourth floor of Alma Clark Glass Hall as housing reserved for its “Black Affinity Housing program,” becoming the latest school to adopt such a program.

This is the racist segregation of 70 years ago brought back—deliberately and with careful…thought.

Washington State University rationalizes its move with this impressive bit of Newspeak:

Black Affinity Housing residents, representing all diverse identities, pride themselves on fostering a sense of belonging for all residents by creating a safe environment for open, honest, and sometimes challenging dialogue[.]

Because diversity is served by segregating blacks from all non-blacks at the school.

And:

…the opportunity to live in a shared space…with others who have a shared identity, specifically a marginalized identity.

By carefully marginalizing all others.

Right.

Ransomware Shame

Posted on by
Reply

Corporate executives openly confess that they would aid and abet ransomware criminals by paying them for their crimes.

  • 78% of C-suite executives claim that they would be willing to pay a ransom
  • 56% would be willing to pay over $100,000 to resume operations

That’s deliberately hanging a target on their enterprises.

And this…

  • 74% of executives with hybrid work environments believe their in-house IT and security teams lack the capability to defend against ransomware
  • 60% of executives believe their employees could not identify a cyberattack

…indicates that those executives aren’t even trying seriously to train their IT and security teams or their employees, or to enforce security measures by their work-from-home employees.

Worse than that, they actively cover up their crime enabling:

well over half (61%) of business owners admitted to concealing a breach

This willingness to reward hackers for their hacking not only endangers their own companies, it endangers other companies, as well, by making the crimes routinely lucrative—which these executives are smart enough to know.

That willingness to pay the fee-for-hacking-services aggregates into a threat to our nation’s weal and security. After all, where are the hackers so willingly rewarded located? In our nation’s enemies: 82% of the attacks come from within Russia and the People’s Republic of China, split evenly between the two.