Tag Archives: government

Cynicism

Posted on by
Reply

Hong Kong Chief Executive and People’s Republic of China Senior Employee Carrie Lam claims that her Extradition to the PRC Bill is “dead.”

However, the subheadline says it all:

We hope people will not read a different meaning just because we are using a different word

She continues, after all, to refuse to explicitly withdraw her bill.  “Trust me.”

The people of Hong Kong are right to be…skeptical.  Lam really does need to go, as do most of her subordinates down through several layers of her hierarchy, but PRC President Xi Jinping is unlikely to permit it.

Is Renault a Useful Business Partner?

Posted on by
Reply

When Fiat-Chrysler offered a merger deal with Renault, Renault’s subordinated partner, Nissan, expressed reluctance unless its subordination to Renault could be revised upward at least somewhat so that it could have a greater voice in the resultant combined company.

Note, though, that the French government is a major shareholder of Renault, and the government has a virtually controlling number of seats on the Renault board: Nissan was—and is, given subsequent events—subordinate to the French government as much as it is to its nominal business…senior partner.

The French government interfered with the offer, and it dithered and stalled, and finally Fiat-Chrysler lost patience and withdrew its offer.

Any possibility of the offer being revived (Nissan’s reluctance was not a block) has been dashed, though, by the French government’s effective refusal to discuss Nissan’s future role.

President Emmanuel Macron urged the French car maker to focus on generating cost savings with its partner Nissan Motor Co, rather than reshaping their 20-year alliance.

As he arrived in Japan for the G-20 discussions—conveniently local to Nissan—Macron flat refused to discuss the matter.

Mr Macron told reporters in Tokyo, where he is on an official state visit ahead of the G-20 summit, that discussing the shareholdings was “off topic.”
“We need to focus less on politics, less on finance, and more on industry,” he said.

That’s the flimsiest of excuses.  Its implication that Macron is unable to do two things in the same time frame is an insult to our intelligence.

Is Renault a useful business partner?  It may well be from a business perspective.  The heads of Fiat-Chrysler certainly thought it could be, and the heads of Nissan plainly were willing to consider the matter seriously.

However, from a political perspective, as long as the French government is involved with Renault in any way other than as a customer, Renault has no possibility of being anyone’s useful business partner.  The government-run company just isn’t worth the trouble.

“Radical-Right” and the Left

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Post ran a panic-mongering op-ed about the Supreme Court last week.

Last month, the new conservative majority—being driven by Justices Neil M Gorsuch and Brett M Kavanaugh—signaled that this change is coming. In overruling a 40-year-old precedent governing how state governments can be sued, the new court majority, all of whom pledged reverence for precedent during their Senate confirmation hearings—sang a different song: “stare decisis is ‘not an inexorable command,’ … and is ‘at its weakest’ when interpreting the Constitution.” This was the second time in less than a year that the conservative majority has tossed aside decades-old precedent.

Thus screamed the WaPo in its terror.  Never mind that reverence for precedent is not blind adherence to it, no matter how wrong the precedent.  The Brown example the paper so piously cited elsewhere in its op-ed was itself an overturning of an 80-year-old precedent, that of Plessy.  Never mind, more importantly, that as Justice Clarence Thomas has said on many occasions, the primary precedent in all of American jurisprudence is the text of our Constitution.

And this “fear:”

….race-conscious programs in employment and admissions that are now pervasive could be forbidden.

The op-ed’s author wrote that with no trace of irony.

“Race-conscious” programs are by definition racist; that they’re pervasive just means that the evil is far too ubiquitous.  They should be forbidden, and the sooner and louder the better.

And this:

The past decade has seen a conservative court slow further social progress….

That’s entirely appropriate, it’s regrettable that this was even necessary, and it’s further regrettable that court-imposed “social progress” was only slowed and not halted altogether.  Social progress—whatever that is—is a political matter, to be furthered or opposed only by the political arms of our government.  Courts have no legitimate role in political matters; this is made clear in that primary precedent’s Article I, Section 1.

The paper headlined its op-ed thusly:

We need to prepare for a complete reversal of the role the Supreme Court plays in our lives

I certainly hope the Court reverses course; I certainly hope the Court goes back to applying the Constitution and the laws as they’re written, instead of in accordance with the “philosophies” of the likes of Thurgood Marshall—”I make my ruling and expect the law to catch up”—and Ruth Bader Ginsburg of living Constitution, amend it from the bench according to a judge’s personal view of society, ideology.  I certainly hope the Court reverses its role in our political lives and absents itself from it.

It’s illustrative of how dangerously far left the Left has gone when simple adherence to the Constitution is radical-right.

Socialism

Posted on by
Reply

It seems Amazon has teamed with another company to create and issue a credit card that would be issuable to Amazon’s Prime members. It doesn’t matter what the purpose and parameters of the card are—they’re legal under existing law.

But none of that matters.  Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and his trophy BFF, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY), object to the card because it doesn’t suit their requirements.  And since they object, they’ve vowed to destroy the card, should Sanders be elected President.

It doesn’t matter what their objections are; Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez intend to use Government power to destroy a private enterprise’s product because that product wouldn’t fit their government’s purpose for private enterprise products.

Sanders pretends his ideology, his policy, is democratic socialism.  No, this example of his is straight up socialism.  In particular, it’s the fascism subset of socialism, since Sanders would presume to have government impose its production policy on a private enterprise.

The sad—and dangerous—thing is, Sanders knows this distinction full well, even if Ocasio-Cortez might not.

Rule By Law

Posted on by
Reply

The House Progressive-Democrats insist that they, in the words of Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D, MA),

will not allow this president and his administration to turn a blind eye to the rule of law[.]

Current House rules regarding subpoenas issued to Executive Branch personnel that those personnel do not comply with must go to a full House floor vote in order for enforcement in Federal court to be sought.  That’s not fast enough or powerful enough to suit the Progressive-Democrat leadership.  It also exposes Progressive-Democrats from competitive districts to the risk of losing in the 2020 election.

Under their proposed new rule (scheduled for vote Tuesday), committee chairmen can seek court enforcement without even a committee vote, much less an ensuing floor vote.  They would only need to get the agreement of a small group of House leadership: the Speaker, the Majority and Minority Leaders, and Majority and Minority Whips.

Guess which way those votes will go.

Changing the rules solely for the purpose of achieving a narrow partisan end is not the rule of law that McGovern so piously claims to want.  It’s naked rule by law.  It’s what tyrannies do.