Thy name is TikTok. India has banned TikTok along with a potful of other PRC apps on national security—cybersecurity—grounds. In response, TikTok’s CEO Kevin Mayer said that

Chinese authorities had never requested the data of their Indian users, and even if they had, the company wouldn’t comply.


“Never requested” is a cynically offered non sequitur. Not having been asked is entirely separate from never will be asked.

It’s more serious than that, though. The People’s Republic of China enacted a law in 2017 that requires all PRC-domiciled companies to comply with PRC intel community requests for information. Not “pretty please,” not “strongly encouraged.” It’s “stand and deliver, stand in violation of law.”


There’s cancelation and there’s cancelation.

The Left is busily canceling folks and institutions over historical transgressions—nearby or old, real or perceived, major or minor—including canceling heroes of the fight to end slavery because they were flawed. Why, then, are they so studiously not working to cancel the symbols of the Democratic Party, the leaders and other prominent members of that party, and the party itself? After all, it’s the Democratic Party that

  • actively fought for slavery anti-bellum and created the KKK post-bellum
  • moved to enact gun control laws explicitly to keep blacks unarmed and helpless against continued depredations

Racism in the White House

And Sexism. That’s what Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential nominee Joe Biden is promising for us if he’s elected.

No, this isn’t about his sexist promise that he’ll have only a woman for Vice President, rather than the most qualified person, who might happen to be a woman, nor is it his strong leaning that the woman must be black, not—again—the most qualified person, who might happen to be black (and/or a woman).

This is about Biden’s promise of who he’ll nominate for Supreme Court Justice.

I have—we are putting together a list of a group of African-American women who are qualified and have the experience to be in the court.

A Judicial Error

The Supreme Court has ordered a restructuring of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: its single director, removable only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, among other things, was an unconstitutional abridgment of Executive Branch authority.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, said that the

setup meant the CFPB’s director was unaccountable to the executive branch, creating an unconstitutional diminishment of presidential power.
“The CFPB’s single-director structure contravenes this carefully calibrated system by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one[.]”

And then,

An Efficient Labor Market

A writer, published in Wall Street Journal‘s Letters, responded to the idea that emphasis on education credentials over actual experience averred that the emphasis isn’t at all misplaced.

It’s more likely that there is a limited number of high-wage jobs available and that the market has efficiently set the wage based on the supply/demand curves.

This is a remarkably ill-informed claim, assuming as it does that we actually have an efficient market in labor.

Such a market cannot exist, though, in an environment where unions have monopoly power over labor in the industries in which they operate, nor can it exist in an economy with such widespread minimum wage mandates.

A Judicial…Misunderstanding

The Supreme Court has struck Louisiana’s abortion law that required doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital before they could be permitted to carry out abortions. The ruling was by a 5-4 vote; the five hung their ruling on the Court’s 2016 Whole Woman’s Health decision holding that there were “no medical benefits” to such a requirement, and so “a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy” was circumscribed.

One of the five was Chief Justice John Roberts.

Here’s his rationalization for his vote:

A Winning Strategy

Congressman Andy Biggs (R, AZ) suggested one for President Donald Trump a couple days ago, and it’s as simple and elegant as President Ronald Reagan’s regarding winning the Cold War with the Soviet Union: we win, they lose.

He just needs to be Trump, and the campaign guys need to let him be Trump.

True enough. However, the Trump he needs to be—and soon—is the Trump he was in the fall of 2016—toned down rhetoric, including on Twitter, and talking extensively about the future and his policies for making the future occur, rather than solely negative attacks on the opponent.

Running Mate

I wrote earlier of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s promise to pick a woman running mate and the implications of such a promise.

Now we have this.

…some Democratic women are urging Mr Biden’s campaign during phone calls, at fundraisers and in writing to be part of history…by selecting the first black woman as a vice-presidential running mate.

For instance, this from House Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Karen Bass (D, CA):

It would be energizing and exciting for there to be an African-American woman on the ticket. If there is not an African-American woman on the ticket, I think people will be disappointed.

Becoming Happy

It’s what Thomas Jefferson said a while ago:

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.

If the people become happy, though, they—we—would have little need for so large a government. And that would put a lot of bureaucrats, and most importantly, politicians out of business.

That is what today’s Progressive-Democrats and too many establishment Republicans fear, even above fearing failing our nation—being unnecessary.

Speech and Private Enterprise

Some companies are reaching the conclusion that it’s become necessary to pull advertising from Facebook over the latter’s mishandling of speech, if in many cases they’re misapprehending the types of speech being abused.

The WSJ article at the link led off with this:

Facebook Inc said it would start labeling political speech that violates its rules and take other measures to prevent voter suppression and protect minorities from abuse.

Pick one. Suppressing political speech is suppressing voters.

Furthermore, Zuckerberg is hardly in a position to define “abuse;” his censorship is itself abuse.