A Foolish Question

In a piece about British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s new Brexit architect Dominic Cummings, a question was raised that’s central to the next three months of Great Britain’s future and perhaps to its future’s subsequent years.

The question now is whether he [Cummings] will steer the Johnson government toward swallowing a compromise divorce deal with the EU or prepare it to quit with no deal at all.

This is a foolish question. Not only are they not mutually exclusive, they must be done in parallel—or rather the better question must be done in parallel with the no-deal: steering the matter toward a better compromise from the EU.

The no-deal departure, fully set up, is the only lever the Brits have against a mendacious Brussels.

Bigotry or Cowardice

You decide.  In connection with a UEFA Europa League qualifying match between Israel’s Maccabi Haifa and RC Strasbourg, in Strasbourg, France, the French police barred the Maccabi fans from waving the Israeli flag or wearing club or Israeli paraphernalia in the area around the stadium.

Because of, claimed the police,

fears of violence following anti-Semitic actions against fans of the Israeli club.

On top of that,

Just 600 Haifa fans were allowed into the Stade de la Meinau for the match.

In other words, the Strasbourg police either restricted the Israelis out of bigotry, or they surrendered to anti-Semitic terrorist wannabes.

It was only after extensive objections from the Israeli government and the Maccabi fans that the police relented. Sort of.

…fans could now wave the Israeli flag inside of the venue starting around 6:30 p.m. local time. However, the restriction was kept in place outside the stadium and on the streets of Strasbourg[.]

Either way, this stinks. And restrictions of any sort never should have been retained. It never should have happened, and it mustn’t be allowed to happen again.  Nor bigotry nor cowardice can be allowed to prevail.

One More Reason

…to be clear and overt in our support for the Republic of China.

We sailed a guided missile cruiser through the international waters of the Taiwan Strait last Wednesday, and the People’s Republic of China objected.  Then it threatened.

China said it would take all necessary military measures to defeat “separatists” in Taiwan.

This comes, also, after the PRC threatened military action against the people of Hong Kong because they’ve been uppity enough to insist that the PRC honor its commitment to Hong Kong’s (semi-)autonomy IAW its handover agreement with Great Britain.

All this adds to the necessity of selling the RoC anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems, modern combat aircraft and ground combat equipment, and brokering deals between the RoC and Israel for the latter’s Iron Dome and Arrow systems.  And systems designed specifically to defeat amphibious and airborne invasion attempts.

We’re already in the processing of selling them $2.2 billion worth of arms, but that should be only a start.

Warrant-Proof Encryption

Attorney General William Barr, in front of the International Conference on Cyber Security at Fordham University, said that

“warrant-proof” encryption was “enabling dangerous criminals to cloak their communications and activities behind an essentially impenetrable digital shield.”

Of course.  And the FBI, in the aftermath of a mass-shooting in California a while back, (in)famously said that it needed Apple to crack the lock on one of the murderer’s smartphone so they could read it, insisting they were helpless without Apple’s cracking (and they demanded then, too, that Apple install encryption backdoors on its commercial cell phones).  Then the FBI hired a third party, which cracked the encryption forthwith.

And before that, crime investigations were hindered by lack of fingerprints because the crooks wore gloves.  Until DNA technology and testing opened other avenues of identification.  With search warrants required before that DNA could be sought out from individuals so that crime scene deposits could be matched.

And before that wired messaging, done privately, hindered crime investigations until wire tapping technology opened that for investigation.   With search warrants required before wire tapping could be done.

It’s always an arms race between the bad guys and the good guys.  And the good guys always win in the end, because they’re always able to get the better technology.

This time, The Wall Street Journal says, is different, though, via its subheadline at the link:

[Barr] offers no clear path forward

Of course, there is a clear path forward: get a warrant.  Do old-fashioned detective work.

And: hold onto that communications device. There’s no such thing as unbreakable (and so warrant-proof) encryption, there’s only encryption that can’t be broken today.

Gun Registration (Control)

The New Zealand government, enthusiastically led in this by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, intends to create a law requiring New Zealanders to register with the government the gun licenses they have and the guns they have.  This new…law…also is intended to make it harder to get, and keep, a gun license.

Other provisions of the thing include

  • establishment of new licensing for around 260 shooting clubs and ranges
  • expansion police authority to confiscate weapons if an individual shows (government defined) warning signs
  • require a separate license to purchase ammunition

Ardern, et al., claim that this thing is intended solely to “stop weapons falling into the wrong hands.”

Right.  Today, the “wrong hands” is terrorists and mass-shooters.  Sadly, “wrong hands” works out to whatever Government decides is wrong.

But, wait—this is New Zealand.  No worries.  No.  This is New Zealand today.  What about tomorrow’s government? Or the government the day after tomorrow?

These folks choose not to say what their limiting principle is.