Monthly Archives: September 2018

Foolish

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) has offered legislation, in coordination with Congressman Ro Khanna (D, CA), that is his latest bit of socialism.  His legislation would hit large businesses with a tax equal to 100% of the welfare payments any of their employees might receive while working.

Sanders and Khanna say—and they’re actually serious—that this would pay for the welfare programs involved.

Andy Puzder has a different view of such legislation.

[T]he first step on the path to financial self-sufficiency is finding a job. A tax on employing welfare recipients would discourage employers from hiring them. It would increase the cost of employing such people without an offsetting increase in productivity or employee satisfaction, since the extra payment would go to the government rather than the employee. Companies could avoid the tax simply by hiring people not on welfare, reducing job opportunities for the people most in need of jobs and opportunity.

This is the anti-business—worse, the anti-poor, the anti-single mom, and the anti-just-starting-out youth—position of the Progressive-Democrat Party and their Socialist confreres.

But, hey—votes.  Our youth, our single mothers, our poor, they aren’t human beings needing a start a or hand up in the eyes of the Party.  They’re just votes to be kept trapped in the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage.

Bots and Comments

Posted on by
Reply

As a result of a bit of censorship in which The Wall Street Journal engaged on a comment of mine over the weekend, I had the following exchange with them.

On Sunday, in responding to their piece on trade and tariffs, I tried to post the comment below to the WSJ‘s Comments section, but they blocked it: there were, they claimed, one or more offending words in it [the non-italicized sentences are cut/paste quotes from the article].

[T]he decision’s timing risks deepening the already bitter trade fight by starting another tit-for-tat round of tariffs.
And
The tariffs are bound to complicate—if not derail—talks with top Chinese officials, which are currently scheduled in Washington for Sept. 27 and Sept. 28, say people familiar with the plans.
Another interpretation, carefully ignored by the authors, is that in any conflict, it’s necessary to keep pressure on the opposing side while negotiations occur.  The battlefield shapes the talks, and the talks shape the battlefield–the battlefield encompasses both the talks and the conflict.

I emailed the WSJ‘s comment facility, per their blocking message, asking what the offending word or words were and why they were not identified in the blocking message.

I got a same-day response to my email; kudos to the WSJ.

“Thank you for contacting us. Our filter blocked your comment for the word ‘tit’; we have approved your post and apologize for any inconvenience.”

I asked the obvious question: why is “tit” allowed in the article itself if it’s not allowed in the comments?  Their answer:

Our filter is automatically set up to block certain words that may be used in a less than pleasant manner in the comments sections. We will review this word, however.

This is an example of the failure, here including outright hypocrisy, of using AI bots in place of actual judgment.  I won’t comment on the snowflakiness of “less than pleasant manner;” that speaks well enough for itself.

Responsibility

Posted on by
Reply

The government of Puerto Rico is insisting on some in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.

The Puerto Rican government is taking a hard line on rebuilding properties decimated by last year’s Hurricane Maria, offering homeowners federal financial assistance only if they move out of flood-prone areas.

It’s about time some politicians stood tall and required some personal responsibility instead of subsidizing its lack with taxpayers’ money.

Likenesses

Posted on by
Reply

Vanity Fair thinks Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Texas is Kennedyesque.

Really?  Does Vanity Fair really think O’Rourke abandoned a young woman, trapped in his car, to drown in a Texas creek?  Does the magazine really think O’Rourke nakedly lied about a Supreme Court Justice nominee to smear him during a confirmation hearing?

That’s an interesting connection for the magazine to draw.

Talks and Conflicts

Posted on by
Reply

The Saturday Wall Street Journal had a piece that worried about President Donald Trump’s decision to add more tariffs to People’s Republic of China’s goods just prior to another round of trade talks with the PRC.

[T]he decision’s timing risks deepening the already bitter trade fight by starting another tit-for-tat round of tariffs.

And

The tariffs are bound to complicate—if not derail—talks with top Chinese officials, which are currently scheduled in Washington for Sept 27 and Sept 28, say people familiar with the plans.

Another interpretation, carefully ignored by the authors, is that in any conflict, it’s necessary to keep pressure on the opposing side while negotiations occur.  The battlefield shapes the talks, and the talks shape the battlefield–the battlefield encompasses both the talks and the conflict.