There’s a doctored video on Facebook that purports to show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) drunk—or in the aftermath of a mild stroke, or…—, it’s been up for several days, and it’s well-known to have been doctored.
Of course, Progressive-Democrats are in an uproar over it and over Facebook’s refusal to remove the video altogether, even though the company has flagged it and downgraded, based on evidence of the video’s faked nature, its rate of appearance in user news feeds. I disapprove of the video, also, but only because there are plenty of things over which to criticize Pelosi and her fellows without making stuff up, too, and the fakery reduces the overall credibility of those with legitimate criticisms. However, I don’t want it taken down; that would be rank censorship.
Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D, CA) wants to further erode Federalism in our nation’s structure and have the central government pass on certain kinds of State laws before those laws can be…permitted…to take effect. Harris’ position and proposal is well summarized in the sub-headline of the article at the link:
The Democratic presidential hopeful wants the Justice Department to review state laws restricting abortion before they would take effect
The one being sabotaged here is between Facebook and the FTC over the FTC’s proposed settlement of Facebook’s “mishandling” of consumer privacy data, including surrendering millions of consumers’ personal information to Cambridge Analytica.
FTC Chairman Joseph Simons has the (Republican) votes he need to impose the settlement, from the FTC’s perspective, on a 3-2 partisan vote. He’s quite rightly trying to get at least one of the Progressive-Democrats on the board to vote with him, but they’re bleating that a $5 billion fine and other controls don’t go far enough.
This is naked obstruction, though, based on a cynically manufactured beef.
[O]n May 1, New York’s state Senate voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off.
If Governor Andrew Cuomo signs this bill, he’ll effectively be using New York’s unemployment-insurance program to subsidize union strikes, upending the balance of power between workers and management.
Union strikes are little indistinguishable from extortion, except that they’re legal. They’re used to threaten a company’s ability to function—to survive—unless they surrender to union demands. “Nice little business you got here. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”
On Fox News‘ Claremont, New Hampshire town hall with Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg Sunday, Buttigieg had this to say about abolishing our Electoral College.
“States don’t vote, people vote. …if we’re going to call ourselves a democracy,” the US should move to a popular vote system.
When the moderator, Chris Wallace, asked further about that, particularly comparing the voice of small States like New Hampshire with large States like California, Buttigieg gave an unresponsive answer about how New Hampshire wouldn’t be harmed by abolishing the Electoral College because New Hampshire is one of the first-to-vote-in-primaries States.
The Liberal, Living Constitution, wing of the Supreme Court is up in arms over losing a case with precedential implications. The proximate case concerned Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt, in which the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that held that States are not required to grant legal immunity to other States in interstate lawsuits. I won’t go into that because that’s not the crux of the matter.
Instead, that Liberal wing, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, objected to the precedent reversal not on its merits or on the merits of precedent overturning/preservation, but on the premise that overturning this precedent would lead to overturning the abortion ban restrictions in Roe v Wade.
Or, perhaps they’ve been routed by the forces of Government Knows Better.
This incident occurred last January, but there’s no evidence since that the Brits—their government, anyway; there are pockets of concern, as this incident also indicates—have regained their spine.
A man has been fined after refusing to be scanned by controversial facial recognition cameras being trialled by the Metropolitan Police.
The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods.
San Francisco is about to ban the use of facial recognition by city agencies.
I agree with the sentiment.
However, good luck enforcing this sort of ban. There’s also a general ban on lying under oath, but in the end, all perjury laws can do is attach liability to the lie; they can’t prevent the lying. The primary difference is that lying under oath is easier to detect than is using facial recognition, and so the ban on lying under oath is easier to enforce.
The Chinese Communist Party, through its provincial organ in Henan Province, says so.
The Hebi Municipal Radio Administrative Bureau [hosted] a presentation titled “Christianity’s Enormous Harm on China’s Security,” to party members in the city of Hebi….
Instructive title, that. The seminarists insisted that the “correct view” is that Christianity (and, I suppose, religion generally), are bent on undermining the Communists’ rule. Never mind that “render unto Caesar” bit.