Tag Archives: politics

This is Who

Posted on by
Reply

…the Progressive-Democratic Party has become. This from Party leader, President Joe Biden (D), as he bragged about his starting out in DC happily lunching with segregationists like [James (D, MS)] Eastland and [Strom (D, SC)] Thurmond, all those guys:

[W]e ended up eating lunch together. Things have changed. We got to bring it back.

Get back to hobnobbing with segregationists. Sure. This is yet another example of the manifest racism of Party.

Dan McLaughlin, National Review Senior Writer, noted:

Segregationists were famously chill about who got to eat lunch together[.]

National Journalism Center Program Director Becket Adams had this:

[O]f course you ate lunch together. [Y]ou were allowed to sit at their counter.

David Rubin of The Rubin Report, tweeted:

Nothing like a hot lunch with a segregationist…

Not all of us, and certainly none of us average Americans are interested in bringing the old days of segregation back. That’s the desire of the Left with their identity politics racist and sexist bigotry.

Ooh—Count ‘Em

Posted on by
Reply

Germany has agreed to supply the Ukrainian army with self-propelled howitzers, the Panzerhaubitze 2000, which can fire a 155mm round 25-40 miles, depending on the round selected.

All seven of the howitzers.

And, in keeping with the German government’s practice of slow-walking all aid to Ukraine in the latter’s struggle to defend itself against the Russian barbarian invasion, Germany’s Defense Ministry

did not give a time frame for the delivery of the howitzers….

The weapons aren’t even operational; they’re being taken from a “pool” that has been set aside by the Defense Ministry for repairs. The weapons will be repaired over the next few weeks. Here’s an indication of the quality of German maintenance, too, via Deutsche Welle:

Germany has more than 100 of these howitzers, of which only 40 are currently ready for deployment[.]

A 40% combat ready rate is…suboptimal…except that Germany has been satisfied with that for some time.

For comparison purposes, a modern Russian Army self-propelled 152mm howitzer battery consists of 6 guns, and a modern US Army self-propelled 155mm howitzer battery also consists of 6 guns.

Seven howitzers. Chancellor Olaf Schulz shouldn’t strain his defense establishment so much just to make an insultingly puny contribution to Ukraine’s fight for its survival.

Rule of Law

Posted on by
Reply

The matter of leaking the Supreme Court’s draft opinion on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization has drawn into the open the Progressive-Democratic Party’s and its politicians’ utter contempt for law, along with these persons’ preference for our nation being ruled by men—so long as those men are members of Party.

Here are a couple of canonical examples. First up, President Joe Biden (D) through his Press Secretary, Jen Psaki:

Q    Why not criticize this leak?
MS. PSAKI:  Again, because I think what is happening here, and what we think is happening here, is there’s an effort to distract from what the actual issue here—
…
MS. PSAKI:  And we are not—we are working not—to not allow that to be the distraction.

Next up is Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA):

I don’t care how the draft leaked. That’s a sideshow[.]

Laws are just distractions, sideshows, to be set aside, to be ignored, whenever they become inconvenient.

This disregard for the protection that laws give all of us against the vagaries, whims, egos of others of us and the preference for those vagaries, whims, egos—so long as it’s the right men who have them—need to be kept firmly in mind this fall.

“diminished public trust in the Court is a good thing”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of Ian Millhiser over at Vox. He added this, and he actually was serious:

Litigation, in other words, is a far more potent tool in the hands of an anti-governmental movement than it is in the hands of one seeking to build a more robust regulatory and welfare state.

That’s a feature of our republican democracy form of governance, not a bug. Millhiser’s beef is with our Constitution, not with our courts; our Constitution being as clear as it is on who makes the laws (it’s not the courts) and as clear as it is, also, on the lack of sacrosanctness of legislative edifices. Parliamentary Supremacy is a British thing, not an American one.

Millhiser knows this full well, and he destroys his credibility by pretending otherwise.

Close in Spirit

Posted on by
Reply

…but wide of the mark. Wide of the target itself, even. In Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section, a letter-writer offered this on the matter of student loan debt:

The solution is to hold academic institutions accountable. If they want government to give my money to their students, they need to prove the value of their product. Set parameters: an 80% graduation rate in five years, and the ability to secure a job at a reasonable salary one year postgraduation. Failure results in withdrawal of federal money available to future students until parameters are met.

It’s entirely appropriate to hold the colleges and universities individually responsible for their product: students taught, successfully or not, for one or more years along with graduated students. But the writer’s suggestion still wants far more government intervention than is warranted.

Let the free market solve the puzzle, and here is where legitimate government intervention would be appropriate. Information is key. Require the colleges and universities to publish their dropout rates by number of years in school, graduation rates by major, and both the median and mean annual incomes, again by major, of graduated students five years after graduation.

One more path for government intervention: require the colleges and universities to be the primary lender to the student or to co-sign as borrower on the loan to their students. As part of the loan or co-signed loan document, require the borrowing student to answer the income survey.

A final act of government intervention: let the borrowing student discharge his student loan debt through personal bankruptcy, as with any other personal debt, and then deal with the economic and reputational consequences of that bankruptcy.

With this, there would be no need for government to lend to students or to guarantee any loans to students. Thus, a final final act of government intervention: government should withdraw entirely from the student loan industry.