Monthly Archives: June 2019

Green Cow Gas

Posted on by
Reply

…or something.  The Wall Street Journal opined Monday on the alleged hypocrisy of California’s Progressive-Democrats on the matter of going carbon-neutral in a shade over a decade.

California has plowed billions of dollars into green energy to wean the state off fossil fuels. But now progressives are complaining that biofuel producers are milking government subsidies intended to help dairy farmers cut emissions. Here is another illustration of the left’s anti-carbon contradictions.

The Editors went on in that vein, describing those Progressive-Democrats’ dismay over two companies thoroughly dominating the cow manure and flatulence emissions carbon credits market, even taking advantage of California’s laws governing those emissions.

The Editors closed with this gem regarding those Progressive-Democrat greens:

California dairies have been shrinking due to the high costs of complying with environmental regulation and water restrictions. By subsidizing methane digesters, the state intended to prevent more dairy farmers from leaving the state for less green pastures. But green groups now say the subsidies will encourage farmers to increase their herds, which could cause more water and air pollution from manure….

I have to ask, then: haven’t these editors (and other critics) heard? Sniffing methane develops magical thinking powers.

Regulatory Capture

Posted on by
Reply

…and campaign finance hypocrisy.  Regulatory capture is where companies subject to this or that regulatory body are large enough and financially successful enough to…influence…their regulators and guide the nature and scope of the regulations to which they, and their competitors, are subject.

The most recent presidential campaign filings show that [Senator Elizabeth, D, MA] Warren and [Senator, I, VT (or D, depending on which spin is current] Bernie Sanders—who has called for ramping up antitrust enforcement and taking on the big tech companies—have each attracted large amounts of contributions from people connected to Google and other tech companies.

As The Wall Street Journal noted just ahead of that cite,

No other candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination has been as eager to call for the breakup of Google as Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Therein lies the hypocrisy: these two, along with many of their fellow Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates, argue most vociferously for getting Big Money out of campaign finance.

Flip Flops

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal concerned itself with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s flip flop surrender on the question of abortion rights and the Hyde Amendment.  I have some thoughts on that.

Joe Biden’s best claim to the Democratic presidential nomination is that he’s a moderate liberal who can pull centrist votes from Donald Trump.

?? Biden himself has never made this claim during the present campaign. He led off his campaign by saying he was the most Progressive of all his fellow candidates.

That’s a non sequitur [the premise abortion rights are dependent on zip code]. The existence of a right doesn’t assume the government’s obligation to pay for it.

The second is WSJ‘s own non sequitur. Government doesn’t pay for anything; us taxpayers do. Government only brokers the deal. However, the WSJ‘s sentiment is on track, sort of: we taxpayers aren’t obligated to pay for anyone’s abortion, either.

Biden’s about-face…underscores how far left the Democratic Party’s activist base has moved.

This raises the more important and more general question. As the Progressive-Democrat candidates race each other to the far left to pander to the Progressive-Democratic Party’s base, what will the winner do in the general election?

Will that candidate betray the Party’s base in an effort to appeal to the center and to Independents, or will he betray the center and those Independents in order to stay with Party base?  In either event, how can he be believed by any voter?

Alphabet Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

They’re at it again.  This time, it’s Alphabet’s YouTube, owned through Alphabet’s subsidiary Google that’s inflicting censorship.

YouTube has blocked some British history teachers from its service for uploading archive material related to Adolf Hitler, saying they are breaching new guidelines banning the promotion of hate speech.

Alphabet restored the censored data, but only after it had gotten caught in its censorship and the ensuing uproar got too uncomfortable.

Alphabet’s censorship was because the material consisted of

content that promotes hatred or violence against members of a protected group.

Yeah—the protected group here was Alphabet’s censors.

One of the victims of this censorship, though, seems to have missed the lesson.  Scott Alsop owns the MrAllsopHistory website saw Alphabet censor his efforts to upload archival Hitler imagery and video clips because Alphabet disapproved of them.

I fully support YouTube’s increased efforts to curb hate speech, but also feel that silencing the very people who seek to teach about its dangers could be counter-productive to YouTube’s intended goal[.]

“Counter-productive?”  Well, NSS.

Alphabet’s IT personnel are professional folks, fully versed in what they’re doing.  So are Alphabet’s folks responsible for testing IT’s…fixes.  This failure shows that Alphabet either did this deliberately and got caught—to stop people being radicalized, because these Precious Ones know better than their users—or it demonstrates the inevitable outcome of well-intentioned incompetence.

Either way, censorship itself is a failure that directly attacks free speech.  Some speech is inherently uncomfortable.  The discomfort, though, is in the perception of the hearer (who plainly is not a listener) and not at all in the speech of the speaker.  The hearer can listen better or stop paying attention to the speaker altogether.  The hatefulness of other speech is in the speaker, true enough, but those who receive the speech still have only two choices: stop attending to the speaker, or answer him with their own speech.

The Alphabets of the world—private enterprise, as in the present case, or government man—have no business dictating to us what they, in their precious awesomeness, will presume to permit us to say.  Or to hear.  And we have no business sending them our money in the form of buying their product, nor do we have any business electing them to office.

Rule By Law

Posted on by
Reply

The House Progressive-Democrats insist that they, in the words of Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D, MA),

will not allow this president and his administration to turn a blind eye to the rule of law[.]

Current House rules regarding subpoenas issued to Executive Branch personnel that those personnel do not comply with must go to a full House floor vote in order for enforcement in Federal court to be sought.  That’s not fast enough or powerful enough to suit the Progressive-Democrat leadership.  It also exposes Progressive-Democrats from competitive districts to the risk of losing in the 2020 election.

Under their proposed new rule (scheduled for vote Tuesday), committee chairmen can seek court enforcement without even a committee vote, much less an ensuing floor vote.  They would only need to get the agreement of a small group of House leadership: the Speaker, the Majority and Minority Leaders, and Majority and Minority Whips.

Guess which way those votes will go.

Changing the rules solely for the purpose of achieving a narrow partisan end is not the rule of law that McGovern so piously claims to want.  It’s naked rule by law.  It’s what tyrannies do.