Monthly Archives: June 2019

Nicknames

Posted on by
1

Maybe President Donald Trump has selected the wrong nickname for Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden.  Trump calls him “Sleepy Joe.”

It took the former vice president all of one day before he caved last night on the Hyde Amendment. Never mind that his more liberal rivals were using it to taunt him. Never mind that the press was overwhelmingly relying on critiques from abortion rights advocates and portraying Biden’s stance as a moral failing.
He had taken a stance, the same stance he’s had for decades, as a matter of principle. And then he melted.

Maybe “Spineless Joe” is a better nickname.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to not have these things in our homes.

According to internal documents seen Wednesday by local media, German interior ministers are considering a proposal that would allow data from speech assistants to be legally permissible as evidence for the prosecution of crimes.

“Speech assistants”—is that what the kids are calling these things?  The speech assistants to which those German interior ministers refer are “smart” home devices like Alexa, Siri, smart TVs, presumably Cortana, and on and on—any device we allow in our naivete into our homes—that listen to our every word, every sound we sigh, and records the most current of them.

Those interior ministers say those “digital data saved on devices” are there to be “collected and evaluated by authorities.”  Those data, those interior ministers piously claim, are “‘increasingly important’ for investigating capital crimes and preventing terrorist threats.”

All very high-minded and pure of intent.  There’s no need of any natural limiting principle to constrain this surveillance.  Because no government would ever grow…curious…of the doings inside a private home.  No government would ever get so protective of its own prerequisites that it would look preemptively for untoward, or rude, criticisms.  No government’s bureaucrat would ever eavesdrop on the sounds of pleasure flowing through a home for his own jollies.

No.

This is the People’s Republic of China’s overt, face-by-face surveillance of citizens in the public square brought into the privacy of a home. And, like the PRC’s surveillance, this one would be done solely with speculative intent.

So far, this effort is overt only in Germany, but we need to be vigilant against its spread and to ensure our own government doesn’t try to embrace such an invasion of our castles, our homes—our privacy.

Tariffs on Mexico

Posted on by
1

There is some hue and cry over President Donald Trump’s threatened tariff on Mexico in an effort to get the Mexican government to take seriously its role in the crisis on our common border.

Critics of the tariffs, including those within the administration, have said the ratification of the pact would be threatened by the tariffs.

There’s no threat to ratification of the USMCA from these tariffs. There is a threat from the Progressive-Democrats who hate the treaty separately from this.  However, the lack of threat is illustrated by Mexico; since the tariff threat, that government has said it still intends to ratify the treaty.

On the other hand, critics of the present tariff threat are conflating the two purposes of tariffs. One is as protectionist devices; these are the tariffs that are targets of the USMCA, and they remain controlled by the agreement.

The other purpose is as a foreign policy tool used to induce another nation to do/not do the things identified by a particular tariff-as-foreign policy tool’s stated purpose.

The threatened tariff is not at all a protectionist tariff. On the contrary, it’s a foreign policy tool, a take-your-own-immigration-laws-seriously tariff.

Update: The foreign policy tool seems to have worked. Of course, we’ll have to see the realization over time, but that’s the case with all agreements.

Rewriting History

Posted on by
Reply

Here is an example of the level of integrity of the men reigning over the People’s Republic of China.

Thirty years ago, a man stood in front of a column of tanks, halting their hulking passage from Tiananmen Square a day after the bloodshed of June 4.
…
“Tank man” images are ruthlessly excised from Chinese social media, according to monitoring services.
…
Now the Chinese government is seeking to exert the same sort of control over how China’s history is seen in the rest of the world.

President Xi Jinping and his henchmen are increasingly restricting access by foreigners to PRC—even academic—databases of the nation’s history (such as it’s allowed to exist) along with actively purging them to control domestic consumption.

Nor is just this relatively passive censorship.  Here’s Glenn Tiffert, a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution:

The way to think about the PRC on the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen is that it isn’t just trying to bury a set of inconvenient truths and facts, but is trying to construct a new narrative.

Xi and his men aren’t lying about their nation in a fit of self-delusion, nor is this an attempt simply to keep such knowledge from circling back to the citizenry from outside; Xi and his men are lying in a conscious effort to delude us.

Such men cannot be trusted in any venue.

“Freedom” in Hong Kong

Posted on by
Reply

Natasha Khan had a piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal concerning the implications of the People’s Republic of China’s 30 years ago Tiananmen Square bloody crackdown on today’s Hong Kong, especially in light of the PRC’s increasing and increasingly direct control over Hong Kong.  In the course of that piece, Khan asked about the implications of tightening freedoms on Hong Kong’s position as an international finance center.

To which I answer:

The implications of the PRC’s “tightening” of freedoms in Hong Kong are obvious and universal. The “tightening” is not that, it’s a direct attack on those freedoms with a view to converting them from actual freedoms to freedom to do as the PRC and its ruling Communist Party of China require.

Such an attack can only result in the destruction of freedom, and from that, the destruction of a people’s ability to prosper physically and morally.

The proximate impact will be the destruction of free market business in Hong Kong, followed by the departure of foreign businesses from Hong Kong, taking with them their economic activity and their jobs. That will lead to the impoverishment of the Hong Kong people.

There’s an upside, though. It’ll provide a clear, empirically done object lesson of the differences in outcomes between free markets and freedom on the one hand and a centrally controlled economy and freedom to do whatever the men running the Communist Party of China will allow from time to time on the other hand.