29 thoughts on “Last Open Forum Of 2022!

  1. My apologies for spiking our host’s blood pressure, but I’ve been waiting for an opening to bring up an article from Business Insider:

    Why Biden’s student-loan forgiveness ignited a debate over the fairness of debt relief, according to an ethicist

    In which a self-proffessed ethicist tries to rationalize student debt cancellation with an outright lie namely that taking on debt you can’t or won’t pay is a “forced move”. That must come as quite a surprise to the millions of young adults who voluntarily made other choices in order to avoid student debt.

    • This is garbage reasoning:

      “Normally, the fact that when I promise something, it gives me an obligation as an individual, as a person of integrity, to follow through there. But this looks like a really exceptional case… these young people are agreeing to something, yes, but they don’t really have a lot of other options,” Walsh continued.

      This paragraph right here shows she is either lamentably biased or completely bereft of reason. Let’s dissect the argument:

      1. A person wants to go to college, but can’t afford it.
      2. Student loans are available and almost guaranteed, but the consequence is crippling debt if the prospective student is without sufficient means (Which most aren’t).

      Her conclusion is that these two facts mean that the person in question “doesn’t have a lot of options.” This is patent nonsense, shamefully so. This person could:

      – Go to work and earn enough money to make college practical later in life;
      – Forgo college and learn a trade;
      – Go to community college;
      – Join the Armed Services to obtain assistance after service;
      – Go to work for an employer who will help with college (there are a number who will).

      That’s just off the top of my head. Higher education is not some kind of right, it is either an investment or a rich person’s pastime. Back in my day, there were lots of people who couldn’t go to college because they couldn’t afford it, and guaranteed student loans weren’t a thing back then. They usually wound up getting drafted and going to Vietnam. More nonsense:

      “The structure itself is not fair,” Walsh said. “The financing of higher education is now so broken that we need to think about these questions of fairness and justice.”

      It behooves me not to analyze this, as it’s obvious she has substituted emotionalism for ethics, which depends strongly on reasoning that isn’t transparently biased. Young people have lots of options, and fairness in not part of life, ever. If you accrue debt, you must pay it or take protective action as required by law, including acceptance of the consequences. That’s what being an adult demands of us, and calling bad decisions “structur[ally] unfair” is just excusing poor decisions and amplifying an entitlement mentality.

      Ugh. What an unethical ethicist.

  2. Can someone direct me to good resources addressing climate change hysteria? I’ve tried searching for one that has “Manhattan” in the name I think? One I saw referenced here once but didn’t keep the link. When I try searching for it myself Google has too many other things about Manhattan and climate change it wants to show me.

  3. Marc Anthony poised in front of Julius Ceaser’s bier, famously said, “I have not come to bury Ceaser but to praise him.” Metaphorically, at year’s end is it our task to bury the year past or praise the year past and quixotically glorify the year to come? Politically, what we bury is dependent. The left continues to bury the laptop, whereas the right refuses to bury Mr. Trump to allow for a possible victory in the future. The left continues to praise the erstwhile work of the January 6 investigation. The right cannot wait to bury that stage show. We bury the stories of left-winged corruption and manipulation, but most recently will the right bury the candidate Santos for his corruption?
    We seem to have buried science and continue to praise scientism which has led us to dark corners.

    Let us then strive to move forward not to an unreliable utopia, rather let us go seek truth and justice and the American way of quality for all.

    • I have a few mnore observartions:

      – First and foremost, law often steps in when ethics fail. And ethics failed.
      – One indicator of common carrier status is how a business advertises itself. In NetChoice v Paxton, the Fifth circuit noted that Twitter had advertised itself as the “free speech wing of the free speech party”. p. 2 In oral argument, Twitter itself had argued that despite having advertised itself as such, “it could turn around
      and ban all pro-LGBT speech for no other reason than its employees want to
      pick on members of that community”. I do believe advertising your own forum as the “free speech wing of the free speech party” would be sufficient for a court to conclude that your forum is a common carrier.
      – All states have laws against religious discrimination, and many state courts interpreted that to cover Internet businesses such as eHarmony. Would removing posts and comments that promote Roman Catholic beliefs constitute discrimination against Roman Catholics? If so, what about removing posts and comments expressing Judenhass, or praising the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Could that be considered discrimination against militant Islamists? after all militant islamists could argue that expressing Judenhass is part of their faith, and 9/11 is a religious day to them. And, fo course, would applying anti-discrimination laws to social media institutions violate the First Amendment.
      – Finally, just because law often steps in when ethics fail, does not mean it steps in competently.

  4. The House Ways and Means Committee just released to the public Trump’s tax returns. As I understand it the SCOTUS ruled against Trump and upheld Congress’ the right to examine any individual’s tax returns when needed for a legislative purpose. What was the legislative purpose behind releasing them to the public? Is releasing them a violation of law if the only reason they were given access was to craft legislation? What implications or precedent does the release of a private citizen’s tax returns by Congress create?

    • Well, we all knew they were going to do that, now didn’t we? They swore to the Supreme Court that there was a legitimate legislative purpose to obtaining the tax returns, and I don’t think the court can really just say ‘liar, liar, pants on fire’, even though I’d bet that is what the justices were thinking.

      There was some twaddle about the IRS being late in auditing Trump’s tax returns, which was contradicting by the IRS. Even were that true, there is no justification for releasing the returns other than to somehow embarrass Trump (not sure that’s possible).

      It is simply a horrible precedent to set, another ‘norm’ that the Democrats have broken. If the Republicans do the same thing to a leading Democrat, I am sure that they will howl about it.

      I actually hope this is something the Republicans don’t emulate. Tit for tat is not a good way to run the government.

      What I hope is that the House Republicans, once they take over, (assuming they deign to do so), will get back to actually doing the job we elect them to do — run the government. It’s been a long, long time.

  5. When do we get to see Bill and Hillary Clinton’s tax returns? Or Joe Biden’s for that matter? Shouldn’t Congress be entitled to every president’s tax return in connection with discharging their IRS oversight responsibilities? How about Nan and Paul Pelosi’s returns? John Heinz-Kerry’s?

    • Politicians have often been advised of keeping their own hands clean by having payoffs directed to family members. Instead of reviewing the tax paperwork of those politicos, now that Congress in its wisdom has decided people’s privacy isn’t a concern, perhaps the American public could review the tax paperwork of their immediate family members. I’m sure they would have no objections, since resolving that concern is in the public interest. Sauce for the unethical goose, if you will…

  6. My wife and I had a discussion this morning about a trend we’ve seen of people online rebelling against the notion of new year’s resolutions. Apparently folks argue that focusing on what’s wrong with you paradoxically makes you feel worse, and that we should all just learn to love and accept ourselves as we are instead of seeking change. On the one hand, I’ve beaten myself up for plenty long about the few pounds I need to lose, or the gym trips which never happen, and I get the urge to just move forward from a place of contentment. On the other hand, this has the strong flavor of the modern narcissistic self-esteem-centered lifestyle which I find abhorrent. The balance between appreciating what you have while planning, preparing, and pressing towards a distant goal is an old one. However, if resolutions are such an unpopular tradition, which makes people unhappy, perhaps it is time to put them out to pasture.

    • There is a very fine balance we must eternally struggle with between accepting who you are and striving to be better.

      The popular take these days is an extreme, and probably the worse extreme of the two.

  7. Ever wonder why the “swamp” in Washington DC is so overwhelmingly liberal?

    Russel Jacoby explains, “Self-righteous professors have spawned self-righteous students and unleashed them into the public square” in a piece called The Takeover. Absolutely worth the cup of coffee it takes to read.

  8. How about the illogical absurdity of virtue signaling electric vehicles and the droning propaganda mantra of “zero emissions” out of tail pipes…

    Is This a ‘Diesel Car Charging Station’ for Electric Cars?

    Check out how Snopes starts to manipulate readers from the very start…

    “The electric car industry is much larger than a single photograph.”

    Zero emission cars?!

    I’m all for cleaning up our environment but these people have collectively lost their freaking minds! Zero emissions out of the tail pipe of their electric car is factually truthful but it’s a baldfaced propaganda LIE (like most propaganda) because what they are doing is shifting their tailpipe emissions to a different carbon burning (or nuclear) power generating source so they can falsely signal their virtue. Not to mention all the carbon emissions that it takes to produce the car and the devastating problems with mining the finite supply of raw materials that are used to manufacture the batteries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.