Well, that was strange. Yesterday’s warm-up turned into the long post about Judge Staton’s disturbing dissent, and by the time I had finished it and the previous “fake news” compendium, my window for getting the Saturday Warm-Up up had slammed shut. Today’s Warm-Up is largely made up of the items that were wiped off the board by the Obama-appointed judge’s “whenever the courts really, really think national policy should be different from what it is, they have the power to change it by edict” opinion.
1. Sausage biscuit ethics. I’m fond of sausage biscuits for breakfast, but the 7-11 variety have a garbage-y taste, and the sole local McDonald’s that I’m not boycotting for ethics transgressions is mobbed in the morning. Of the frozen variety, I will not patronize a company, Jimmy Dean, which uses its dead founder as a TV spokesperson without pointing out that he’s dead. Over the holidays, I tried a lesser and much cheaper brand of frozen sausage biscuit, Tennessee Pride, and they were good enough.
Yesterday I bought another box. When I pulled out a bag of two “sausage biscuits,” I saw that the sausage was sitting between two small buns, unlike the contents of the previous box. Buns are not biscuits, but the label on the box read in large type, “Sausage Biscuits.” I did notice, however, that the photo on the box showed buns.
Would that fact be a complete defense against an accusation of false labeling? I doubt it, but it doesn’t matter. “Fool me once” is once too many.
2. Res Ipsa Loquitur: “an informed public.” Twitter user @Golfergirl2018 shared a post she saw on Facebook, written by someone who sympathizes with antivaxx parents (you know…morons) who don’t want to put “chemicals” in their kids. “I think instead of chemical shots the doctors should give a small piece of the virus, so the body can build immunity,” he wrote.
BRILLIANT! Why didn’t someone think of that long ago?
Yes, it is unethical and irresponsible to publish opinions on topics you haven’t researched, don’t understand, and know nothing about. I wonder how many social media posts would survive if this were recognized as a rule of commentary?
3. NBC actually published this on its “Think” page! Long. LONG time reader Michael Ejercito passed along the link to “Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?” by Noah Berlatsky, the editor of the comics and culture blog “The Hooded Utilitarian” who has been inexplicably allowed to make readers dumber on Slate, Reason, NPR, and The Atlantic, among others. This is an unethical and an ill-informed piece designed to mislead anyone not alraedy so biased that they can’t detect the many tells that should alert readers to an unprincipled activist at work. No, you hack, Trump never said that “Mexicans are rapists.” No, you Big Lie agent, it was NOT “clear” that “Make America Great Again” meant “America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure.” No, you shameless propagandist, opposing illegal immigration is not being “anti-immigrant.” No, you logic-challenged boob, the fact that 58% of white voters voted for President Trump does not mean they approve of your absurd translation of MAGA, nor does it mean the President was favored by racists, nor does it even mean they approved of him or his stated policies. It means they preferred him to the horrible alternative. No, the fact that you think voting for Trump was obviously an irrational choice doesn’t mean it was. No, you Constitutional ignoramus, you cannot prevent citizens from voting their values and conscience by labeling them racists.
This is one of the increasing number of “resistance”-inspired “there has got to be some way to take over the government without having to cope with people who disagree with us” articles, books and speeches polluting public discourse. You don’t have to be a racist to vote against their candidates, or their agendas.
4. To be fair, this is worse, and it’s from Harvard: In “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation,” some un-named Harvard scholars propose to divide the District of Columbia into 127 states (that all voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic party in the 2016 election), and then once the new teensie-weensie states join the union and can dominate the old 50, it can force a Constitutional convention, junk that archaic document, and lead the newly progressive U.S to Nirvana. “Radical as this proposal may sound, it is no more radical than a nominally democratic system of government that gives citizens widely disproportionate voting power depending on where they live,” the lunatic authors write, apparently unaware that their argument embodies the infamous Rationalization #22, “There are worse things.”
As with Noah Berlatsky’s incoherent blather, this ridiculous plan makes no sense, in unconstitutional on its face, is motivated by ant-democratic motives, and has no chamce, zip, zero, of ever being taken seriously by more than a handful of educated and sober Americans outside of a padded cell, much less implemented. The District of Columbia can’t get approval for itself to be admitted as a state, and these Harvard wackos want it to be divided into 127 states, with 127 governors, 254 Senator…riiiight.
Luckily my Harvard diploma is already turned to the wall.
5. And speaking of the Pro-Totalitarian Party:
- Joe Biden said in an interview with the New York Times‘ editorial board that he favored revoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a federal law that’protects online platforms from being legally liable for content produced and posted by third parties. “Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” said Biden. “… it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy…There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.” Biden argues that both Zuckerberg and Facebook should be held civilly liable for “false information” posted on the platform, and even suggests that Zuckerberg could somehow be held criminally liable.
Notes Reason: “Free speech online has given voice to everyone and cracking down on that right, as with all forms of censorship, would most hurt those who have less political or social power.” I might also note that Facebook, even now, censors me. Conservative writer David French adds, “Repealing Section 230 would — in practical reality — result in the single-greatest wave of censorship in the modern history of the United States.”
By the way, did you know that the autocrat Donald Trump is a threat to our rights?
- Tweets Elizabeth Warren: “We have a student loan crisis—and we can’t afford to wait for Congress to act. I’ve already proposed a student loan debt cancellation plan, and on day one of my presidency, I’ll use existing laws to start providing that debt cancellation immediately.”
“We can’t wait for Congress to act” means “we can’t follow the Constitution and get what we want.” This is the anti-democratic logic of The Green New Deal, of the Harvard usurpers above, of Judge Staton.
Forget for the nonce that massive student loan forgiveness proposal is a terrible proposal burdening taxpayers with paying for at least $640 billion in debt that millions of students freely accepted (while others paid for their own tuition, or paid back their loans.) This is unconstitutional. Warren has offered some convoluted arguments justifying this dictatorial move, but like the 127 states scheme, it can’t and won’t happen.