Monthly Archives: July 2023

Misguided

Posted on by
Reply

A Federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction (meaning the matter must still go through the courts before anything becomes final) barring the Federal government from communicating with social-media companies with a view to influencing what those companies post or allow to be posted on their sites.

Some on the Left are objecting.

Some legal scholars have been skeptical that…courts could intervene without chilling legitimate government speech about controversial matters of public interest.

“Some legal scholars” are cynically distorting the situation. There is nothing in the judge’s ruling that bars government speech about controversial matters of public interest. The “government”—i.e., the men and women in government—remains entirely free to speak on any matters it wishes, and in any venue it wishes. The “government,” however, may not seek to tell—or even to try to influence—private enterprises what they might post or not post, or allow or not allow to be posted, on their sites.

The government has a plethora of outlets of its own: the White House, for instance, the Senate, and the House all have their own Web sites, as do each of the several Federal Departments and agencies, and every Congressman in the Congress. And many of those Congressmen hold aperiodic town halls to talk directly with their constituents—all of them should, and those meetings should occur more frequently—but that’s the Congressmen’s choice. Nothing bars any Congressman from doing any of those direct-to-constituents conversations as often as a Congressman might wish.

Furthermore, the judge noted in his injunction that

The Court finds…that a preliminary injunction here would not prohibit government speech.

And

A government entity has the right to speak for itself and is entitled to say what it wishes and express the views it wishes to express. The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech.

At bottom, and especially in light of that last—and the plethora of legitimate government outlets for its own speech—the answer to speech with which government disagrees is not to bar the speech (outside of deliberate and overt incitement to riot), but to answer it with their own speech.

The judge’s preliminary injunction ruling can be read here.

Useful, but Insufficient

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden administration is looking to restrict—but not block—Peoples Republic of China companies from accessing American cloud-computing services.

That’s a useful move, to the extent it actually comes to fruition and to any meaningful extent, but it’s not enough by itself, or even against the backdrop of existing restrictions on technology exports to the PRC.

Some are concerned, though, that this could further strain relations between the world’s economic superpowers.

[The Peoples Republic of China] set export restrictions on two minerals the US says are critical to the production of semiconductors, missile systems and solar cells….
The minerals—gallium and germanium—and more than three dozen related metals and other materials will be subject to unspecified export controls starting August 1, Beijing’s Ministry of Commerce said Monday.

The particular PRC response just shows the importance of us moving our supply chains completely out of the PRC, and it emphasizes the shamefulness of American company managers for their slowness in making the necessary adjustments in their businesses.

Beyond that, we need to stop this foolish call and response method of restrictions on technology exports to the PRC. We need to apply the restrictions faster and deeper than they can respond. Simply doing tit-for-tat moves lets the PRC adapt and respond, especially to respond with more pain inflicted on us than would be the case if we stayed solidly inside their Do Loop.

The PRC’s response looks more like escalation than tit-for-tat. They’re already moving to get inside our Do Loop while the Biden administration tiptoes around.

Those concerned need to identify the war—and the PRC is inflicting war on us, even if it’s not, yet, kinetic—in which one side suffers no consequences during the war. Of course friendly-side damage needs to be minimized, but wars are won by inflicting more pain on the other side than that other side is willing to suffer than that other side can inflict on the one compared to the one’s pain tolerance.

Nor is it enough simply to restrict our technology exports/transfers to the PRC to tech that’s our second tier/prior generation technology. Our exports/transfers—to the extent we make any at all—needs to limited to what would constitute the PRC’s second tier/prior generation technology. If our own such tech is ahead of the PRC’s, those exports still would enable the PRC’s catchup and gaining superiority.

“I Don’t Understand”

Posted on by
1

Andy Kessler’s op-ed in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal centers on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, Kessler’s putzing around with a variety of firearms at a Nevada firing range, and his assessment of the effect of Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of an individual’s right to keep and bear any of a variety of Arms on the national firearm debate.

The importance of that debate is summarized in Kessler’s statement about having an AR-15, but which he implied was about a much broader matter:

…I still don’t understand why you would want to own one.

It doesn’t matter a whit that Kessler doesn’t understand. He’s only a journalist, though, and his level of understanding also is not all that important.

Far more importantly, is the fact that it’s the individual’s right to keep and bear; us American citizens, individually or as groups, do not require a government permission slip to do so, and that makes a government man’s level of understanding of the matter irrelevant, except to the extent that man attempts to act on his level and therewith move to restrict our individual right.

The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, along with recent Supreme Court acknowledgments, make all of this crystalline, and they make the government man’s move to act on his level of understanding unconstitutional.

Reparations—Punishing the Children and their Mothers

Posted on by
Reply

The California Reparations Task Force has hit a new low with its reparations…foolishness.

The California Reparations Task Force is asking the Democrat-controlled state legislature to eliminate interest on past-due child support, as well as any back child support debt for Black residents of the state.

And this:

[T]he group claimed “discriminatory” laws “have torn African American families apart,” and that one effect of that is the “harms” caused by “the disproportionate amount of African Americans who are burdened with child support debt.”

This is just wholly irrational. Discriminatory laws have not torn any families apart, African American or otherwise. Divorce tore the families apart—whether because of misbehaving husbands or wives or simply because of their incompatibility. Aside from that, when the mother gets custody, child support gets paid by the husband because the husband is—was—most often the major or sole source of the family’s income.

In addition to that, the burden from child support debt is due to that debt, and the burden of its not being paid is borne by the child(ren) and the single mother.

And this bit of foolishness so blatant that it has to be dishonesty:

[T]he 10% interest the state charges on back child support “hinders” their ability to finance further education, attend job training, find employment, and maintain housing because of the legal consequences of not paying such debt.

This gives no consideration whatsoever—deliberately so, apparently—to the barriers (not mere hindrance) not paying such debt inflicts on the child(ren)’s and single parent’s ability to finance any education, attend any job training or internship or apprenticeship, find any employment—summer or part-time for the child(ren) who’s old enough, or any level of employment including full-time for the single parent—or maintain, or even get, housing.

And this:

[T]hose who owed child support had lower incomes than “the typical California worker” and that such interest required a larger portion of their income to actually pay the debt.

What a tear-jerker. Never mind that the single mother who’s owed the child support has even lower income than the deadbeat dad who owes it.

This nonsense hurts black children and their single mothers far more than it helps black deadbeat dads. Never mind asking why the CRTF wants to help deadbeat dads in the first place. The CRTF doesn’t care: it’s all about reparations for the sake of reparations. And the money.

This is one way to monetize the bigotry.

“Not a Normal Court”

Posted on by
Reply

With the Supreme Court having struck down affirmative action as unconstitutional, a reporter asked President Joe Biden (D), on his way out from his Friday press conference in which he objected to the ruling, a reporter asked him whether he thought the Court was now a “rogue court.”

Biden answered:

This is not a normal court[.]

It’s not normal for Justices of the Supreme Court to adhere to the text of our Constitution. It’s not normal for Justices to adhere to their oaths of office in which they swear to support and defend our Constitution rather than amend it from the bench.

This is the view of Progressive-Democratic Party politicians: our Constitution is merely suggestive, and should be ignored at convenience.