Tag Archives: responsibilities

Be Quiet

Posted on by
Reply

Your Betters are working.

Elon Musk, who as CEO of Tesla Motors, which is building self-driving cars, has a personal, vested interest in the matter, says we must stop criticizing self-driving cars—they’re going to save lives.  One day.

In the meantime, we’re to keep our critiques—which would actually make the cars better, safer, and more consumer friendly—to ourselves.  He knows what he’s talking about; we don’t.  And we’ll kill people if we don’t shut up with our comments.

If, in writing some article that’s negative, you effectively dissuade people from using autonomous vehicles, you’re killing people[.]

Just be quiet.  Trust me.

As Predicted

Posted on by
2

…by a number of folks, including politicians.

Senior Iranian officials, including the country’s president, have been floating the possibility of further payments from the United States for months. Since the White House agreed to pay Tehran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year as part of a deal bound up in the release of American hostages, Iran has captured several more US citizens.

Here’s Senator Mark Kirk (R, IL) again:

After airlifting $1.7 billion in cash ransom payments to Iran, even the US State Department ‎now warns of increased dangers that the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism will continue to illegally seize Americans and Westerners who travel or do business with Iran. Companies, banks, and American citizens would be wise to stay away from Iran[.]

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp, Iran’s primary military force, and the Praetorian Guard supporting Iran’s Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei says

“We should wait and see, the US will offer … many billions of dollars to release” American businessman Siamak Namazi and his father Baquer….

Yep.  Saeed Ghasseminejad, Associate Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:

Paying $1.7 billion to Iran to release the US prisoners has encouraged Iran to arrest more Americans.  Iran senses weakness in the US leadership as it constantly tests the administration through a chain of provocative actions.

We shouldn’t have to look forward to more of this after early November.

Precious Self-Importance

Posted on by
Reply

The media has it.

And its arrogance is wrong.

According to CNN’s Chris Cuomo, possessing the stolen John Podesta emails is a crime — unless you’re a member of the media.

“Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents,” Mr Cuomo said on air. “It’s different for the media, so everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.”

Because we’re the Cool Kids.

It’s hard to believe that these folks, for whom words are their stock in trade, and for whom the 1st Amendment is central to their trade, don’t know this.  What does that say about media integrity?

Holding out for Perfection

Posted on by
Reply

William McGurn, of The Wall Street Journal, had some thoughts on this as it concerns NeverTrumpers [emphasis added].

Give the Never Trumpers their due: most do not shy away from the implication that anyone who would vote for Mr Trump is as low and base as he is. Their problem is that the argument doesn’t seem to be having much traction with Republican voters. …

One reason may be that the argument about morally corrupt GOP voters is not really an argument. More precisely, it’s an argument Republicans typically hear from the left. Instead of weighing the prosaic facts—i.e., the practical ramifications of having Mrs Clinton sitting in the Oval Office versus Mr Trump—how much easier it is to try to end all discussion by pronouncing the GOP nominee repellent.

Because forming a rational argument on the matter is as repugnant to NeverTrumpers as it is to Progressives like Clinton and Obama (and Reid and Schumer and Pelosi) and to Democrats generally.

This will only get NeverTrumpers Clinton as president.

It’s hard to believe these folks—grown, adult, rational human beings all—don’t know that.  Maybe NeverTrumpers just don’t care one way or the other.  Maybe they’re just abdicating their responsibility by hiding behind their demand for purity rather than doing what’s least damaging.  Or what’s possible.

State Department and Quid Pro Quo

Posted on by
Reply

Another thought on State’s quid pro quo offer to the FBI occurs to me based on an exchange between Fox News‘ Catherine Herridge and State Department spokesman Mark Toner concerning the FBI’s 302 (interview summary form) containing the apparent offer.  The relevant part of the exchange began with Herridge calling out Toner on his denial of certain facts.

“[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’ “[Redacted] advised that in exchange for marking the email unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.”

“I mean, this conflicts directly with what you’re saying today,” Herridge said after reading it aloud.

“I’m sorry,” Toner said, smiling. “I could speak to the fact that 302s are simply interviews conducted by the FBI.”

“So you’re saying the FBI agent either got it wrong or is lying in this 302?” Herridge asked.

“I can’t speak to what his or her intentions were, saying these kinds of things, but clearly expressing a personal opinion about what happened,” Toner said. “Any, really, assertion that this was somehow tit for tat or quid pro quo, exchange in that manner, really, frankly is insulting.”

No, Toner, what’s insulting is your cynical, Alinsky-esque refusal to answer the question and your attempt at deflecting by insulting the questioner.