Category Archives: Uncategorized

A Thought on a Mayor’s Statement

Posted on by
Reply

What Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake actually said:

It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.

What she said she meant in the next day’s press conference:

I was asked a question about the property damage that was done, and in answering that question I made it very clear that we balance a very line between giving protesters—peaceful protesters—space to protest. What I said is, in doing so, people can hijack that and use that space for bad.

That’s an entirely legitimate reading of her initial statement: “In the course of,” not “by deliberate, separate decision.”

I think there are a number of factors in play that led to the NLMSM’s distortion (in my view) of Rawlings-Blake’s original statement:

  • the mayor’s fatigue—a thin read; leaders aren’t supposed to be tired, but the fact is, they’re human
  • losing sight of the fact that whatever she says will be presented in sound bites—no matter the difficulty of acting on that recognition while speaking extemporaneously
  • the NLMSM’s interpretation also is plausible
  • nevertheless, the NLMSM’s routine distortion of politicians’ statements in order to generate “a unique slant” about which to write, or because it has personal axes to grind
  • coupled with the NLMSM’s decision to take such a shocking statement (under their interpretation) at face value rather than first questioning whether an American city’s mayor actually could mean such a thing
  • the NLMSM’s haste to be first in the news cycle

It didn’t help that the Detroit police official interviewed so extensively, especially on Fox News, and so many other allegedly responsible public officials who were interviewed apparently took the mayor’s words under the NLMSM’s interpretation at face value rather than themselves asking whether a mayor really could intend such a thing.

Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

…especially, the aim of those clauses of the First Amendment, free political speech.  Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, had this to say in striking down aggregate limits to political contributions:

There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. Citizens can exercise that right in a variety of ways: They can run for office themselves, vote, urge others to vote for a particular candidate, volunteer to work on a campaign, and contribute to a candidate’s campaign. This case is about the last of those options.

And

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades—despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.

And [bold added, italics in the original]

The Government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance.  We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption—quid pro quo corruption—in order to ensure that the Government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.  For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental interest this Court accepted as legitimate in Buckley.  They instead intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise “the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”

What he said.  The Supremes’ ruling can be seen here.

A Thought on the Syrian Opposition

Posted on by
Reply

Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren (for a few more days), has one, which he offered in an interview with the Jerusalem Post:

The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran. … We understand that they are pretty bad guys.  Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut.  And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc.  That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria.  With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.

Would that our own national leadership, including a President who’s a better policy guy than his policy guys, had such clarity of thought.

In Which The Swiss Government Votes for National Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

Switzerland’s lower house of Parliament voted 123-63 against the measure [to let Swiss banks otherwise violate Swiss banking laws to give up data demanded by the US], which would have enabled many of the Alpine nation’s banks to sidestep the Swiss banking secrecy laws and start handing information to the US Department of Justice about any past help they may have given to Americans hiding undeclared wealth in Swiss accounts.

Those lawmakers were worried about, among other things,

the heavy-handedness of the US effort to have them sign off on legislation that might have exposed the country’s banks and bank employees to legal hazards.  Lawmakers had also raised concerns about the lack of detail in the plan regarding potential fines for banks that would have opted to participate.

Peter Kunz, Professor of Business Law at the University of Bern, disagreed:

This is the major problem.  Swiss banks, and banks in general, need some certainty in their business—and right now no one really knows what’s going to happen.

I disagree with the good professor.  To the extent there is uncertainty, it’s in the Swiss government’s behavior.  With this rejection, Swiss banks remain free to obey Swiss law without fear of retaliation, which would not have been possible under the proposed law.  That law would have subjected Swiss banks to the vagaries of American law.

This may be more coming down the pike.

Senior officials from Germany, France, Japan and the European Commission have expressed deep concern to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the Fed’s proposed new regulatory regime for foreign banks under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

This is what concerns them:

the Fed proposes to require over two dozen foreign banks to move their U.S. broker-dealer and other nonbranch operations under separately capitalized, intermediate holding companies that would be subject to U.S. bank capital requirements, liquidity buffers and single counterparty credit limits.

…

For purposes of complying with the Fed’s higher capital requirements under Section 165, U.S. bank holding companies would be allowed to take account of their global consolidated operations. Foreign bank-owned IHCs would not—which means that capital held at the foreign bank parent level would not be available to support U.S. operations. This would tilt the competitive playing field against foreign bank-owned broker-dealers, and it is a glaring violation of long-standing principles of equal national treatment.

Sovereignty—what a concept.

Memorial Day Celebrations

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve posted this annually; this year with a modification.

Enjoy this holiday.  Take the time to kick back, relax from the hard work you’ve been doing, and just goof off for a bit.

While you’re doing that, though, do something else, also.  Invite that veteran in your neighborhood, who came back from his service wounded or maimed, and his or her family, to your celebration.  Invite the family in your neighborhood whose veteran was killed in his or her service to your celebration.  They need the break and the relaxation and the support, also.  And they’ve earned your respect and remembrance.

To which I add this, excerpted from Alex Horton’s remarks on the significance of the day to him and his:

I hope civilians find more solace in Memorial Day than I do.  Many seem to forget why it exists in the first place, and spend the time looking for good sales or drinking beers on the back porch.  It’s a long weekend, not a period of personal reflection.  At the same time, many incorrectly thank Vets or active duty folks for their service.  While appreciated, it’s misdirected.  That’s what Veterans Day is for.  Instead, they should take some time and remember the spirit of the country and the dedication of those men and women who chose to pick up arms.  They never came home to be thanked, and only their memory remains.

 

h/t Spirit of Enterprise