Tag Archives: responsibilities

A Thought on Joe Biden

Posted on by
Reply

Check out these two videos of a recent interaction between Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden and a constituent in Michigan a couple days ago.

The behaviors in those examples and longer, more contextual versions of it, sadly, aren’t entirely Biden’s fault.

For one thing, much is being made (not necessarily in those two threads) of Biden sticking his finger in the questioner’s face. I disagree: he was pointing, as many of us do, for emphasis and pointing in the direction of the man’s chest without pointing anywhere, or at anything, in particular. It wasn’t until the end that, in his zeal, Biden’s finger came up toward the man’s face.

More importantly, though, as is also being pointed out, that behavior and others like it in the last few weeks, strike me as consistent with, although not by themselves diagnostic of, early stage dementia.

This may be why Biden is being limited (I don’t see him limiting himself) to seven minute speeches (we’ve already seen him tire and visibly fade during 90+ minute debates), few interviews, few interactions of this type, few public appearances at all.

The foolishness and humiliation, though, are the fault of his handlers for continually exposing him and on the part of the Progressive-Democratic Party for letting this charade go on; although at this stage, Party really is limited on what they can do about it.

The best thing that could happen to him now—and best for Party—would be to encourage Sanders to destroy him at the next debate.  Party can’t stop the fight on a TKO, but Sanders can go ahead and knock him out. Of course, a lot of that will be up to the debate moderators and how much they try to protect him.  Biden is wholly incapable of defending himself at this point.

On the other hand, I’m not sure Sanders has it in him to deliver a coup de grâce.

The Threat to our Court System

Posted on by
Reply

…was made plain last week with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D, NY) naked threat against two of our Supreme Court Justices if they don’t start ruling the way Progressive-Democrats dictate.

Schumer’s threat follows threats by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) and his cronies in the Senate to stack the Supreme Court if that body didn’t start ruling the way Progressive-Democrats dictate.

These follow long-standing “liberal” judges’ and Justices’ utter disregard for our Constitution. Such disregard includes district judges presuming to issue nation-wide injunctions—arrogantly reaching into the jurisdictions of other judges’ districts, other appellate court districts.

It includes Justices like Thurgood Marshall whose mantra was an even more arrogant attitude of ruling wholly independently of the law and then demanding the law catch up

It includes the attitude of current liberal Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who considers our Constitution to be a document that lives through and is alterable by rulings from her judicial bench. She contemptuously ignores the fact that our Constitution actually lives through its Article V and is alterable solely by our Constitution’s owners, We the People.

Keep the power balance of the Senate—which must confirm or reject all judges and Justices—and the party residing in the White House—which originates all judicial nominations—in mind this fall.

Working for the Opposition?

Posted on by
Reply

Rick Moran had a piece over at PJMedia, in which he described some folks on Mike Bloomberg’s erstwhile paid campaign staff who bragged about taking Bloomberg’s paycheck and going out and campaigning for Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT).  Citing the Daily Caller, Moran wrote

“I would actively canvass for Bernie when I was supposed to be canvassing for Mike. I know of at least one team of ‘volunteers’ that was entirely fabricated by the organizers who had to hit their goals,” one staffer said, according to [Ken] Klippenstein’s report.
The person added: “It was easy enough to fudge the data to make it look like real people put in real volunteer work, when in reality Mike was getting nothing out of it.”

Then Moran closed his piece with this:

Whatever those staffers did to Bloomberg, he deserves it.

Because if we don’t like the guy, it’s perfectly OK to cheat him, to defraud him, to break laws doing him down.

Right. That’s certainly what liberals think and do. Maybe those Bloomberg staffers aren’t the only ones secretly working for the opposition.

Journalistic Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the People’s Republic of China expelling three Wall Street Journal journalists over their article headlined China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia that an outside contributor to the WSJ had written.

Here’s the cynicism of the PRC detractors of that headline;

The phrase “sick man of Asia” was used by outsiders and Chinese intellectuals to refer to a weakened China exploited by European powers and Japan in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

What the phrase also harkens back to, and which was the referent used by the WSJ headline writer, was the disaster that was Turkey 100+ years ago: the sick man of Europe.  The phrase also goes to a more recent usage: Germany as the sick man of Europe as its economy was in long-term stagnation during the late middle 20th century.

The complainers’ decision to focus on the one, much older, interpretation while carefully ignoring the newer referents illustrates their own determination to find things by which to be offended so they can deprecate others.

The timidity comes from the WSJ‘s own journalists.

Some Journal staffers have signed an internal letter calling on the newspaper to apologize for the headline to anyone who was offended, while condemning the expulsions and pledging not to allow the Chinese government to influence the Journal‘s coverage.

Nonsense. No one serious was offended, so no apology should even be under consideration.

On the other hand, opinion often offends, especially when it’s logically formed and supported with fact, so no apology should even be under consideration. The truth often offends, especially when it’s the whole truth, and not just a carefully edited subset of it, so no apology should even be under consideration.

Even were an apology warranted, a legitimately done one couldn’t possibly include weasel-words, or excuses, or “you were wrong, too” claims.

Deliberately Ignorant

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article about the espionage and intellectual property theft threat posed by the People’s Republic of China, Boston University William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor artificial intelligence researcher H Eugene Stanley said this when his PRC research collaborator—whom he enthusiastically took on—said this when she was arrested for lying on her visa and for potential espionage:

I’m not interested at all in politics. I’m a scientist.

And

If a person anywhere in the world wants to come to my group, and they have the money to come, I say why not?

Wow. He might want to review the musings of Plato and Aristotle on politics and individuals’ relationship with politics.

And this, as paraphrased by the WSJ:

Mr Stanley said that he receives droves of research requests and that he vets candidates’ scientific credentials. A Boston University spokesman said the school doesn’t engage in classified research and relies on the State Department to screen foreign applicants for national-security risks.

Of course. It’s someone else’s responsibility. Only Government should do, not each of us.

That “research” collaborator?

[F]ederal prosecutors accused Yanqing Ye of acting as an agent of a foreign government. On her application for a J-1 visa used for scholarly exchanges, she said she was a student at [the People’s Republic of] China’s National University of Defense Technology, but omitted that she was a lieutenant in the PLA….

On being asked whether it was useful to work with scholars of the PRC’s National University of Defense Technology, which was the school claimed by Ye and by her handler Kewei Yang on a paper co-written by the two along with Stanley, he responded

Is it a bad place? I don’t know[.]

Here is an example of the failure of the ideology that insists that Government is the solution, of the passivity that lets Government handle personal responsibilities exclusively rather than acting as support for each of us handling our own duties.

The proximate solution? In the particular case, bar Stanley from any government research funding, which the school claims he has none of presently, and bar Boston University from government funding until it cleans up the understanding of ethics and of personal responsibility on the part of its staff and students.