Tag Archives: responsibilities

Projection

Posted on by
Reply

Kentucky has decided to take advantage of new Federal Medicaid rules and add a work requirement to those receiving Medicaid payments in order for them to be eligible for continued payments.  Recipients in the typical working age range of 19-64 must do 80 hours—two weeks—of what the State terms “community engagement.”  There are, of course, exceptions for those who cannot work.

As Kentucky’s governor Matt Bevin (R) noted in his tweet about his decision to approve the new rule,

There is dignity associated with earning the value of something that you receive. The vast majority of men and women, able-bodied men and women … they want the dignity associated with being able to earn and have engagement.

Progressive-Democrats are in an uproar over the requirement that people actually work in order to receive government largesse.

Congressman John Yarmuth [D, KY] call[ed] it a “dangerous and irresponsible” decision that will lead to the “financial ruin” for thousands of families that reside in Kentucky.

Of course.  Just like adding a work requirement in the Federal government’s reform of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (later replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which continued the work requirement—until then-President Barack Obama (D) waived the work requirement) dangerously and irresponsibly led to financial ruin for all those hundreds of thousands of families.  Oh, wait—that actually led to the adults in those families not only going to work, but to those families’ increased prosperity, since their earned income was greater than their AFDC/TANF payments.

The Progressive-Democrat is projecting.

 

*The waiver led to an explosion of families on TANF and their increased poverty, thus providing an actual experiment on the outcome of a work requirement.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Three Leftist parties in Germany want to change—to “strengthen”—the nation’s online hate speech law: the Free Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Left Party.  (FDP claims to be a libertarian-leaning, classical liberal party, but with this move, it exposes itself as being Modern Liberal.)

The current law requires social media companies to police themselves regarding posts someone—anyone—flags as offensive.  This is too much free speech, however.

[FDP General Secretary Nicola] Beer said Germany needed a law similar to the one the FDP proposed before Christmas that would give an “appropriately endowed authority” the right to enforce the rule of law online rather than give private companies the right to determine the illegality of flagged content.

“Appropriately endowed.”  Government, or a government sanctioned and guided facility, will “determine the illegality” of the speech.  Because Government Knows Better.

This is the Europe our own Left wants us to emulate.  This is the censorship college and university management, professors, and snowflakes want us to implement.

This is part of the Big Government that the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to inflict on us as part of their general Government intrusion into private lives push.

Facebook Revamp?

Posted on by
Reply

Christopher Mims had a piece on this, that Facebook MFWIC Mark Zuckerberg says he’s interested in doing.  Mims opened his article with an important question:

So here’s the multibillion-dollar question: is Mr Zuckerberg willing to sacrifice revenue for the well-being of Facebook’s two billion-plus users?

Unfortunately, his piece centered on the potentially addictive nature of Facebook (among other virtual, interactive social media).  Important as money is to running a business, and important as addiction is to handle, Mims missed a number of larger questions—which bear on addiction, but not exclusively so.

  1. making sure that time spent on Facebook is time well spent Whose definition of “time well spent?” Is Facebook going to dictate that to its users?
  2. encourage meaningful social interactions Whose definition of “meaningful?” Is Facebook going to dictate that, too?
  3. push us away from harmful ways of using the service Whose definition of “harmful?” Will Facebook dictate that to users, going beyond the possibly addictive nature to other definitions convenient to Facebook?
  4. steps include [what] Facebook…believes will reduce engagement on the service, including hiding click bait and fake news Whose definition of “click bait?” Of “fake news?” How will Facebook prove it’s not merely censoring? It already has been exposed as having an unbalanced coterie of “content moderators” who censor what they personally view as unacceptably conservative.

All of this, also, elides Facebook’s well-known lack of concern for user privacy, invading it at will for “business” purposes.

Porch Dogs

Posted on by
Reply

Some of you may be aware of the protests in Iran, protests that are growing in size and becoming subject to increasingly violent attempts at suppression by the Iranian government.  “Some of you” because the NLMSM isn’t talking much about the protests.

It turns out that Iranian women are playing a prominent leading role in those protests.

  • a young Iranian woman standing atop a container and shedding her hijab…while simultaneously waving it as a flag
  • a woman confronting security forces and proclaiming “Death to Khamenei” while crowds around her join in
  • Another woman was seen on tape declaring “You raised your fists and ruined our lives. Now we raise our fists. Be men, join us. I as a woman will stand in front and protect you. Come represent your country.”

And on and on.  These women are risking their freedom, such as it is in Iran, risking arrest, beatings, perhaps their lives just to be in these protests, much less to lead many of them.

But, where are the Western “feminists” who were willing—anxious, even—to protest loudly against the inauguration of a President of whom they disapprove, protest against the perceived evils of Civil War heroes of the Confederacy, against sexism and sexual harassment and assault in the halls of Hollywood and Congress?

Never mind that these protests all were conducted wholly within the safety of a nation that proudly protects the freedom to speak one’s mind, to protest against government or any other ill, real or imagined.

Where, now, are Linda Sarsour?  Elizabeth Warren?  Nancy Pelosi?  Kathy Griffin?  Kamala Harris?  Kirsten Gillibrand?  Amy Klobuchar?  Debbie Stabenow?  Debbie Dingell?  Madonna?  Amy Poehler?

Others, like Catherine Ray, Federica Mogherini’s spokesman, has uttered only bland platitudes about rights to peaceful protest and free speech.  The High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy herself has chosen, so far, not to speak at all in her own voice.

What are these women, safe and sound in the bosom of the United States and Europe, saying and doing in support of those Iranian women?  Not much.

Susan Rice, ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) National Security Advisor and UN Ambassador, says the timidity is proper:

Stephen Miller, the author of the piece at the link, wants to know why these modern “feminists” don’t speak up or act concretely in support of those Iranian women.  I have a different bit of advice: stay up on the porch, ladies.  It’s safe there.  Real women are taking action.

Even porch dogs yap, though.

A More Bipartisan Senate?

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Doug Jones (D, AL) was sworn in on Wednesday, and he claimed to be “starting fresh” and wanted to be the voice of reason.  Buried in that WSJ piece, though, was this unadorned comment by the piece’s author, Siobhan Hughes, and that is the point of this post:

Democratic leaders started 2017 expressing a desire to find common ground with Mr Trump, and ended the year so alienated from the legislative process….

They alienated themselves by rejecting all efforts at bipartisanship.  A couple of interviews at the end of the year gave the Progressive-Democrats’ game away.  Congresswoman Debbie Dingle (D, MI) said that she wanted bipartisanship and was anxious for Republicans to work with her.  Senator Ben Cardin (D, MD) said that he was interested in bipartisan solutions and he wanted Republicans to work with him to achieve them.

Not a syllable of interest in these Progressive-Democrats, or their fellows in either House of Congress, in their working with Republicans.  It’s strictly one-way.