Tag Archives: morality

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.

Why Aren’t They

Posted on by
1

…fired for cause?

The Department of Veterans Affairs said Friday two high-ranking officials were finally demoted in response to a federal probe that found they manipulated the agency’s personnel system for their own gain, but a key lawmaker is asking why they weren’t prosecuted.

The two high-ranking officials are Diana Rubens, director of VBA’s Philadelphia regional office, and Kimberly Graves, director of VBA’s St Paul regional office. The behavior of these two women (I won’t call them “ladies;” their behavior has established what they are, and they’ve already named their price) warrants termination for cause.

Congressman Jeff Miller’s (R, FL) question—he’s the “key lawmaker”—is an entirely valid one, too. Their behavior seems criminal enough to warrant that type of investigation, too.

And my own question: what has taken the VA so long to do even this trivial hand-slap? Even the original October move (allegedly having to be redone due to “administrative error”) was far too slow in coming. What’s the VA’s excuse [sic] here?

Veteranos administratio delende est

Personal Secrecy vs National Security

Posted on by
Reply

The latest batch of 3,105 emails includes 275 documents upgraded to “classified” since they landed in the former Secretary’s personal inbox. That brings the total number of classified docs found in the emails to 1,274. A State Department official told Fox News on Thursday that two of those emails were upgraded to “secret,” while most of the others were upgraded to “confidential.”

Because Democratic Party Presidential candidate and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire to keep her doings in our name as a Cabinet Secretary were more important than our national security.

We don’t need four more years of this from within the White House.

A Japanese Apology

Posted on by
1

Following Japan’s apology to the Republic of Korea over “comfort women,” the People’s Republic of China is demanding the same for itself.

The problem is this. When one nation repeatedly and incessantly demands an apology from another, the apology-demander can never take the apology as anything other than the result of an exercise of power over the apology-giver, no matter the sincerity of the apology. This is especially true in the present case, with the PRC cavalierly dismissing the Japanese apology to the RoK as American puppetry.

The apology-demander can never view the apology as anything other than a lie, square filler that it is. That renders the apology less than a waste of time for the apology-giver; the apology is reduced to a surrender of sovereignty (even if a small amount)—an act of puppetry—to the apology-demander.

Japan would do well to ignore the PRC’s incessant demands and only after the matter has died down for some considerable time make an apology, unbidden. If one is warranted.

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.