Monthly Archives: June 2020

More Federal Money to States and Locals?

Posted on by
Reply

The “unrest” sparked by the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and now by the killing of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, is encouraging Congressmen to include increased funding for State and local jurisdictions in any “next stimulus” package that might be in the offing.

States and cities facing budget shortfalls have warned they might need to pare back spending on public safety, including police officers and fire protection.

“Including police officers and fire protection” is a cynical excuse for spending yet more OPM.

State and local jurisdictions aren’t effectively using the Federal monies they’re being given now, though. This is demonstrated by the rioting, looting, bad policeman (not bad police force) incidents that continue to proceed with no, or too slow, consequences.

There’s no need to throw more Federal money—more money from the taxpayers of other jurisdictions—down those ratholes until they start cleaning up their own messes.

Affirmative Action in California

Posted on by
Reply

The good citizens of California banned discrimination on the basis of race and sex when they voted up Proposition 209 nearly 25 years ago. That proposition barred affirmative action programs.

Those citizens of a generation ago understood that affirmative action programs, by their deliberate use of race and sex as selection criteria, are fundamentally racist and sexist.

Here we have the California Assembly affirmatively supporting just that racism and sexism.

California Legislative Black Caucus Chair Dr Shirley Weber, primary sponsor of ACA 5, which is designed to rescind Prop 209 and to that end puts the matter on the November ballot, said this about her bill, claiming that the current political and social environment is

forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matters[.]

However, rather than addressing the root causes of “inequality” (carefully undefined, that—inequality of outcome? of initial opportunity? of…?—of whatever seems convenient to the politician, apparently) and of “institutional failures,” the California Assembly has chosen to expand those failures, to strengthen the prejudice, by reverting to those inherently bigoted programs.

My irony alarm is sounding.

And the Assembly as a whole is proud of its bigotry.

“American Retreat from Europe”

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Mac Thornberry (R, TX), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, has misunderstood the American situation in Europe. In his Thursday Wall Street Journal op-ed, he asserted that

press reports surfaced of a proposal, backed by some in the administration, to withdraw a significant number of troops from Europe….

His piece went on in that vein.

Thornberry is badly mistaken along a number of dimensions.

First, the alleged withdrawal of troops is from Germany, not from Europe.

More than that, though, Germany along with the majority of NATO members have demonstrated that they have no interest in defending themselves or each other—for starters, they’ve all welched on their own commitments to spend even minimally—a whole 2% of their national GDP—on NATO capability.

We can’t force those nations to defend themselves, nor should we spend American treasure or risk American blood trying. Poland and the Baltics do have such an interest, and that’s where our troops should go. All of those currently stationed in Germany should go, not just the token 9,500 currently being bandied about by “reports” for withdrawal. Apparently, too, at least some of those supposed to be taken out of Germany would be slated for Poland.

Overarching all of that is this. Germany isn’t upset over the 9,500 American troops supposedly to be withdrawn from the country. Germany is upset over the loss of all those millions of American dollars being spent on the German economy by the tens of thousands of American dependents of those soldiers, as well as by the soldiers themselves.

Timidity, or What’s the Point?

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union is claiming to be dismayed with the People’s Republic of China and with Russia over their

“targeted” campaigns to spread health hoaxes and false information about the [Wuhan Virus].

In a “statement,” the European Commission wrote

Foreign actors and certain third countries, in particular Russia and China, have engaged in targeted influence operations and disinformation campaigns in the EU, its neighborhood, and globally….

And

a “massive wave” of health care hoaxes, false claims, online scams, hate speech, and COVID-19 coronavirus conspiracy theories circulating on social media platforms—as well as attempts by foreign actors to insert themselves in domestic EU issues.
“Such coordination [by third country actors] reveals an intention to use false or misleading information to cause harm[.]”

Strong words, it would seem, and maybe the EU is finally starting to stand up against such misbehaviors.

Not so much.

The Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell

assured China’s foreign minister that the bloc “is not going to embark on any kind of Cold War with China.”

Never mind that the PRC has been waging its Cold War for a long time.

Just…never mind, I guess.

Progressive-Democrats Sue

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats, in particular the Democratic National Committee the Arizona Democratic Party, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, are suing the

Arizona secretary of state and a gaggle of county officials over a rule in the state that automatically rejects mail-in ballots without signatures, whereas voters whose mail-in ballot signatures do not match their voter registration are given five days to remedy the situation.

This might seem, superficially, a valid beef.

However.

Mismatched signatures and missing signatures aren’t close to the same thing. Voting monitors are not handwriting experts; it’s easy for them to mistake signatures and think there’s a mismatch.

It doesn’t take a handwriting expert to see the difference between a signature and no signature at all.

Nor would it be difficult functionally to stuff ballot boxes with deliberately pre-marked and unsigned ballots followed by operatives of any party using the “remedy” facility to sign those ballots—with no proof available that the Johnny-come-lately signers actually are the ones who filled in the ballots. Or even that each ballot was individually marked by separate individual voters.

The parties to the suit claim, with wide-eyed innocence, that automatically rejecting those unsigned ballots would disenfranchise voters. This is nonsense. Allowing these pre-marked, unsigned ballots to be signed later, with no way of knowing that the signer is the person who voted a particular ballot—and only that ballot—would disenfranchise the legitimate voters by having their votes diluted, if not canceled altogether, by all those illegitimately cast false votes.

The DNC, ADP, DSCC suit can be read here.