Tag Archives: markets

Cowards

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate voted on the Green New Deal, but the proposal, first offered in the House (and yet to be voted on there), failed a cloture vote to let it come to the floor for discussion, debate, and subsequent vote up or down.

The Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the Green New Deal, the ambitious plan to combat climate change proposed by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after what Democrats said was a politically-motivated show vote.
The measure, which needed 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle, failed in a 0-57 vote, with 43 Democrats voting present.

Those 43 Progressive-Democrat Senators without the courage to vote their convictions included Senator Ed Markey (D, MA), the proposal’s Senate cosponsor, along with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) in the House.  Apparently, the Senate cosponsor isn’t serious about his own proposal.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) demonstrated the fundamental failure of the Progressive-Democratic Party with this rationalization:

[W]e are finally talking about the issue, and that is great….

Well, no, the Senate is not finally talking about the issue; 43 Progressive-Democrat Senators hid under their desks during the vote and called “Present,” deliberately blocking the Senate’s opportunity to talk about the issue.

Senators Joe Manchin (D, WV), Doug Jones (D, AL), Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ), and Angus King (I, ME) were the only Progressive-Democrats with the moral courage to vote for cloture, to vote to allow the Green New Deal to be talked about on the floor of the Senate, in full view of Senators’ constituents.

Running Away

Posted on by
Reply

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) is terrified of the upcoming Senate vote on her New Green Deal proposal that she has laid before the House.  She has her fear on display in this tweet of hers:

The GOP’s whole game of wasting votes in Congress to target others “on the record”, for leg [legislation] they have no intent to pass, is a disgrace.  Stop wasting the American peoples’ time + learn to govern. Our jobs aren’t for campaigning, & that’s exactly what these bluff-votes are for.

Apparently, Progressive-Democrats’ jobs aren’t for actually voting on the proposals they make.  It seems that Progressive-Democrat proposals aren’t actually serious policy ideas; they’re just virtue signaling.

There’s this, too, from some number of Progressive-Democratic Senators:

Some Democrats said they plan to vote “present” on the resolution to signal their opposition to what they call a “sham” vote….

These guys, if they follow through with just kicking back with their feet up on their Senate desks, will be doing more than just cowering away from being on the record in the man-caused climate debate. They’ll be betraying their constituents who hired them and sent them to the Senate to do more substantive things than just being…present.

Is that why, maybe, that Progressive-Democrat are so terrified of folks actually going on the record on Ocasio-Cortez’ “climate” proposal? Is that why, maybe, that climatistas, including other Progressive-Democrats, are so terrified of differing opinions on the state and trend of our climate—terrified to the extent that they’re trying to make disagreeing with them on climate a crime?

Because they might be found to be who they really are?

Progressive-Democrats Politicizing Banking?

Posted on by
Reply

Who would have thought such a thing?

House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D, CA) has decided to use her committee to go after the hated banking industry.  Congresswoman and Committee member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) has announced

We’re going to hold oversight hearings to make these banks accountable for investing in and making money off of the detention of immigrants[.]

Dangerously, and sadly, the overt intimidation seems to be working.

On February 5 JPMorgan Chase announced it will no longer do business with private prisons. In January Wells Fargo said it would no longer market to private prison companies, aiming to achieve the same objective by attrition.

Never mind that the Progressive-Democratic Party—then just the Democratic Party, with 61 Senators and 292 Representatives in that 95th Congress—politicized, and racialized, banking ‘way back in 1977 with their Community Reinvestment Act.

Today’s bankers are bowing and scraping and showing the same abject cowardice that bankers in the late ’70s and ’80s displayed when those Democrats attacked the banks for being banks—and for concerning themselves with their fiduciary duty to their owners and investors regarding loan risk.

It’s going to be a long two years for the American financial industry and so for our economy.

Alphabet Objects

Posted on by
Reply

Alphabet, through its Google subordinate, objects to the White House’s and JCS’ characterization of it as aiding our enemy, the People’s Republic of China.

An anonymous (perhaps because he’s speaking without Google management’s permission, perhaps because he, or that management, is embarrassed by his claims) Google spokesperson said

We are not working with the Chinese military. We are working with the US government, including the Department of Defense, in many areas including cybersecurity, recruiting and healthcare.

Yet Alphabet has withdrawn Google from working with our defense establishment on drone or artificial intelligence technologies that could be used for active defense of our nation.

On the other hand, Alphabet has engaged Google with the People’s Republic of China for work supporting PRC government censorship via a censored and censorable version of a search engine for use in the PRC.  Alphabet has engaged Google with the PRC for work on aspects of AI—ostensibly for that censorable search engine—that can be used by the PRC’s People’s Liberation Army for its own defensive and offensive operations.

A No-Deal Brexit

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal opined earlier this week that, in the words of the piece’s subheadline,

A no-deal crash out of the EU may be the best outcome now.

The rest of the thing was a string of rationalizations of why this is true, but the heart of the matter is that subhead.

In fact, though, a no-deal departure always has been the best outcome.

A priori because that’s what the Brits voted for in their referendum—they wanted their sovereignty and control of their own borders back. Full stop.

In retrospect because Brussels has acted in bad faith, solely to punish the Brits for their effrontery, ever since. EU leadership, lately in the person of Donald Tusk, has acted in echo of Jacques Chirac’s slam on eastern European nations:

It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet.

There’s no reason at all for the Brits to talk further with the EU regarding the terms of Great Britain’s departure for freedom.

Update: Yesterday, the British Parliament voted against a no-deal Brexit and in favor of going to Brussels and beg for more time to negotiate. What happened to the courage that led Great Britain to build a globe-spanning empire?

Fortunately, Parliament’s move is non-binding. We’ll see whether Prime Minister Theresa May has the courage required to stay with the scheduled date for British departure, currently 29 March.