Category Archives: regulation

But We Need to Take your Guns Away

Posted on by
Reply

A bad guy armed with a shotgun walked into a Florida store with the intent of robbing it. And bragged about being “from Chicago” in the process.

I got a big (expletive) (expletive) gun, but I’m not from around here is what I’m saying. I’m from Chicago bro.

Then, as paraphrased by Fox News, this armed thug

 ask[ed] the employee what kind of weapon he is holding.

Which the employee showed him, whereupon the thug left.

The Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, the county where the attempted armed robbery occurred, has the right of it [emphasis added]:

He then fumbles for words, resorting to meaningless babble about being from Chicago. Words seem to fail you when your felony attempt is thwarted by lawful and righteous force.

But the Progressive-Democratic Party and its (what has become) mainstream Leftist supporters want us all disarmed. The store’s employee should have been left unarmed, helpless, and possibly murdered during the course of this robbery attempt.

Right Idea, but…

Posted on by
Reply

…details in the implementation will matter, also. Competition always drives costs to a level approaching the cost of production, and that’s to the good, not only of consumers but for competitors and others looking to enter the market, as well.

However.

On Monday, [Congresswoman and MD Mariannette (R, IA)] Miller-Meeks along with three of her colleagues introduced a bill titled the “Biologics Competition Act,” which seeks “to evaluate the process by which interchangeable biological products are approved to be used in pharmaceuticals.”
“So in essence, what we’re trying to get is biosimilar drugs that are the same chemically—that they have an equivalency to let those be prescribed as generic drugs, which would bring down the cost of medication[.]”

There’s a reason generics, in general, are delayed in getting authorization to be marketed: to allow the drug’s initial developer(s) time to recoup the costs of development and to begin realizing profit, and thereby encourage further drug development.

Such permission delays would need to apply to the biosimilar drugs, too. With a fillip: defining how much change is necessary while remaining biosimilar without leaving the required change so trivial that the new drug is an outright plagiary with only a token item grafted on.

That may well be the eye of a needle—passable, but with difficulty, especially when trying to write down a specific law. Worth going for, though, absolutely.

Progressive-Democratic Party Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

There is a bill, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, wending its way through the Senate that’s intended to let local news outlets band together to get enough scale to negotiate with Big Tech social media on a less uneven footing for payment from those outlets for their use of content that is taken by those social media and republished.

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) proposed an amendment that would plainly and explicitly prohibit[] payment negotiations from including discussion of content moderation—i.e., that would bar Big Tech from engaging in its penchant for censorship during payment negotiations. Cruz’ amendment wouldn’t even ban content moderation altogether, just during those content payment talks.

The Progressive-Democratic Party Senators voted it down. They blocked even this limited ban on Big Tech censorship.

Senator John Kennedy (R, LA), even as he is a sponsor of the basic bill, is on the right track.

Mr Kennedy said in a statement that he doesn’t understand why Democrats have a problem with the Cruz amendment.

­The Progressive-Democrats want to continue censoring the information us average Americans will be permitted to have. That’s why they have a problem with the Cruz amendment.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) has a counter, she claims.

Ms Klobuchar countered that the bill already contained several protections to make sure it is content-neutral and doesn’t allow discrimination.

This is disingenuous. Were she serious about content neutrality—were she serious about no censorship—Klobuchar wouldn’t be opposed to a clear, simple ban on that along with, or replacing, her claimed protections.

Surveillance States

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what New York and California are becoming, only instead of using cameras, they want to use our banking institutions.

Visa Inc, Mastercard Inc, and American Express Co should begin tracking gun sales and flagging suspicious purchases to law enforcement, similar to how financial institutions look out for money laundering, the attorneys general of New York and California said.

And

The three leading credit-card companies should take a front-line role in trying to prevent mass shootings and reduce the risk of gun trafficking, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both Democrats, said Friday in a letter sent to the companies.

Because honest Americans buying firearms are similar to money launderers: buying guns is inherently suspicious, claim these Progressive-Democrat AGs and their States’ governments.

On the other hand, in pressing for this government-mandated financial institution surveillance, California and New York Attorneys General Rob Bonta and Letitia James (both Progressive-Democrats) wrote,

If tracking MCCs could stop just one mass shooting or derail one gun trafficker aiming to flood the streets with guns, the change would be justified.

Do they mean, for instance, then-US Attorney General Eric Holder’s Operation Fast and Furious, which ran guns to Mexican drug cartels?

States Aim to be Zero-Emissions in their Cars by 2035

Posted on by
Reply

California has decided to ban all ICE car sales in the State by 2035—in the name of only zero-emission cars being allowed to be sold.

Never mind that it’s an impossible task, or that California, Washington, and Massachusetts are deceiving all of us and themselves with their claim of and demand for zero-emissions in cars sold in those States. This is, to use the technical term, a crock. Zero-emission cars are an impossibility, and it will be an impossibility for the foreseeable future of human history.

Mining for the raw materials for the batteries for these cars, and mining for the metals and other minerals that go into making any car, is not zero-emission: it takes energy to do all of that, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Shipping those raw materials to processing plants takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Processing that raw material into the components—batteries, car parts, wiring for the cars—takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Shipping those finished components to the final assembly plants takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Delivering those finished cars to their dealers for sale takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

The energy for charging and recharging the batteries in those “zero-emission” cars takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Expanding the electric grid and building out a national network—or even just a city-wide network—of charging stations takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

And getting the raw materials, components, assembly, shipping along the way to get the components for the grid build-out and to get those recharging stations—see above.

And that’s just a high-level view of the energy requirements for producing electric cars. Electric cars are not at all zero-emission vehicles.