What Does Biden Want?

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is continuing to dictate to Ukraine how it must fight its war against the barbarian invasion, an invasion that the barbarian chieftain Vladimir Putin has said in so many words is to erase Ukraine altogether and fold the geographic territory into Mother Russia. Biden’s diktats go so far as to tell Ukraine what targets it may not aim for: targets located inside Russia, targets like fuel and ammunition depots, bases and camps where Russian units gather preparatory to crossing into Ukraine to reinforce the barbarian hordes already present killing, destroying, raping.

Biden claims to be concerned about Putin’s response were American weapons used against targets inside Russia.

The Biden administration’s fear is that Vladimir Putin will escalate if Kyiv strikes Russian territory with missiles and drones bearing a “Made in the USA” logo. Mr Putin delights in spreading such fear.

Never mind that

Russia targets anything it wants in Ukraine—from military to civilian targets, from power plants to railway lines….

Biden doesn’t want Ukraine to strike back with American weapons.

Here are two such sanctuary areas, areas where Putin is massing his hordes and their ammunition, fuel, and other consumables just across the border opposite Kharkiv and in Belarus near Kyiv. Biden is desperate not to have Ukraine preempt this escalated invasion by hitting the hordes and their supplies before they can jump off.

This isn’t about Biden’s infamous timidity when it comes to Russia. It’s actually a matter of his not wanting Ukraine to be successful in its war for survival against the barbarian. He clearly does not want Ukraine actually to successfully defend itself.

On the contrary, Biden desperately wants to protect Russia as a sanctuary against Ukraine responses to the barbarian’s assault and atrocities.

Because he’s really that fearful? Or because he wants Russia to win after bleeding Ukraine dry?

Rights

Posted on by
Reply

The ongoing dispute between the actress Scarlett Johansson on the one hand and OpenAI and its MFWIC Sam Altman on the other highlights a broader problem concerning rights, property, and rights in property.

The dispute itself concerns Altman’s attempt to get Johansson to participate in and lend her voice to OpenAI’s development of a talking assistant, ultimately named Sky. Johansson declined to participate, Sky was developed and offered to the public—and Sky sounds remarkably like Johansson.

[Johansson’s agent and of Artists Agency co-chairman Bryan] Lourd and the actress spent the morning fielding calls and emails from friends and associates, some of whom worried that OpenAI had simply appropriated Johansson’s voice without permission.

And

Emails to the actress from friends and associates streamed in asking if she’d participated in the OpenAI project.

The question extends far beyond this glorified NIL dispute, though.

Altman says that

Artists should also be able to opt out of allowing AI systems to mimic their work….

And in Tennessee,

Governor Bill Lee (R) signed into law the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Securities (ELVIS) Act in March, which makes people’s voices protected personal rights.

No. Altman is dead wrong. Artists—and anyone else—should not have to affirmatively act to opt out of anything. Those who want to use an attribute of someone, their voice, their likeness, their DNA, should have to convince that someone to opt in.

The Tennessee law is on the right track, but it stops woefully short. People’s voices, or any other of their attributes, are not personal rights to be protected, or not, by the vagaries of government.

These attributes are not merely a facet of a person’s civilly-granted property. People’s attributes are their personal property, imbued in them by their Creator, an aspect of their unalienable Right to their pursuit of Happiness. Here’s John Adams:

All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

A person’s personal attributes are inextricably intertwined with—unalienable from—those certain rights that are essential to our lives and our liberties. Technological advances have no impact on that beyond enhancing that person’s own Happiness.

That understanding badly wants renewal today.

Memorial Day Celebrations

Posted on by
1

I first posted this in 2012.  It bears repeating.

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.

Mt Soledad Memorial

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 America

Too Bad, So Sad

Posted on by
Reply

Ford is having trouble peddling all the battery cars and trucks it has committed itself to manufacturing in response to Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s functional battery car mandate, a mandate centered on ruinous tailpipe emission limits he’s put together via his EPA. So far this year alone, Ford has lost $1.3 billion, or roughly $132,000 on each battery car or truck it has sold.

Ford’s competitors aren’t in such dire straits, having eschewed such a foolish commitment. Ford’s answer, though, isn’t to wise up and walk away from that commitment. Instead, it’s intervening in a 25-State law suit in the DC Circuit that’s trying to eliminate the rule forcing those tailpipe limits. Ford is defending the limit in its effort to force its competitors into the Ford boat. In its filing, Ford claims that

Ford has taken steps to transform its business to ensure compliance with stricter emissions standards. Ford is investing billions in electrification efforts [and it] has a critical interest in ensuring that a level regulatory playing field applies to the entire industry.

Never mind that the regulatory playing field would apply levelly across the entire industry if the tailpipe emission limits were rescinded.

No. Too bad. Ford’s bad choices in no way obligates its competitors to follow along, nor does it obligate us average Americans to pay for Ford’s folly.

Trust

Posted on by
Reply

Harvard’s governing body, the Harvard Corporation, has overruled the recommendation of the school’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences to confer graduation on 13 students who were suspended over their participation in riots protests in support of Hamas as Israel committed the heinous sin of defending itself against Hamas’ war of extermination against Israel. Harvard Corporation has decided not to allow the 13 to graduate—at least not yet. Both the students and the FAS have chosen, so far, not to go through the school-mandated process of appeal of the suspensions, which could result in one or some (or all) of the suspensions being lifted, thereby allowing those students to graduate.

Then, there’s this response by Steven Levitsky, Professor of Government in the FAS:

I would expect a faculty rebellion, possibly a faculty rebellion against the entire governance structure, because there’s already a fair amount of mistrust toward the Corporation to begin with….

Trust is a two-way street. It’s not possible to trust faculty members who so openly support terrorists and who so openly disdain Israel and, apparently, Jews in general. And who appear to disregard school procedure when the procedure becomes inconvenient. If there is the faculty rebellion, the participants will be self-identifying as ready for termination for cause. Hopefully, the Harvard Corporation will have the moral, as well as legal, courage to carry out the firings promptly.