The Trump administration is working on a deal with the People’s Republic of China to reduce the trade imbalance we have with them (whether the trade imbalance really is a bad thing and whether the PRC is working the deal as hard as the Trump administration are questions outside this post). American farmers would have trouble producing enough to meet their part of the goal, were the deal to go through.
US corn exports could jump from $150 million to about $10 billion annually within a few years if China vastly expanded its quotas and reduced its duties that are as high as 65%, according to one estimate.
The political one I mean, not the technological one. Recall, for instance the San Bernardino terrorist attack, the FBI’s capture of one of the terrorists’ encrypted iPhones, Apple’s refusal to decrypt it (they couldn’t, by their design of the iPhone’s OS), then-FBI Director James Comey’s (yes, that Comey) cynically tear-jerking demand for future such personal device encryption back doors to decrypt at Government convenience, and Apple’s refusal to support development of that.
An expert on the subject—a technological expert I mean, not a political one—thinks he’s solved the problem. His solution is described in a Wired article. This expert thinks he has a way of providing Government “exceptional access” to a private person’s (or private enterprise’s) encrypted cell phone (for instance). His solution, Clear, works this way:
Consider the kerfuffle involving corm farmer subsidies in the form of ethanol mandates and the required use of ethanol by oil refiners as they produce vehicle fuels. The argument is being presented as a choice forced on President Donald Trump in that he “must choose” between the corn farmers and the oil companies as the kerfuffle is solved.
Oil refineries want out of a costly requirement to blend ethanol into the gasoline they produce. Corn growers say the requirement diversifies the US fuel supply, and insist Mr Trump fulfill promises to at least hold the ethanol mandate.
All human beings follow patterns online. You can see what language, content, channel, and people matter to them. You can see which words trigger information seeking, which language is most associated with hate topics or sites, which people are the most important influencers and you can see a range of behavioral characteristics.
…or of intolerance; the two are interchangeable terms in this context. This context is the overreaction of school management and local police departments to remarks concerning “threats” to schools.
Gina Gobert’s 12-year-old daughter was detained overnight at a police station in Oakdale, LA, after allegedly talking to schoolmates about a social-media post she said she received that threatened violence against the school.
School management, it seems, decided the girl had received no such threat and turned her over to the police, who decided to charge the child with “terrorizing.”
Loosely related to a nearby post, now it seems the government is getting worried about the size of the “private” capital market, where folks can place investments in enterprises, particularly startups, without having to go through the public—stock—markets and government regulations that are broadly extensive and deeply intrusive.
The boom is transforming how companies grow, concentrating investing in fewer hands and raising concerns about oversight
The linked-to article’s subhead lays out the whole misunderstanding. Government doesn’t need to be in the business of regulating every little thing we do. We can manage our investments just fine without Government’s “help.” And we can suffer our own outcomes if we choose badly or fortune moves against us despite our otherwise correct decisions.
The EPA has decided to revisit, revise, and lower fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in the US for the model years 2022-2025. The Obama administration EPA had mandated that overall fleet fuel efficiency—averaged across all models of cars built by a manufacturer—be raised to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 from 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016. This would have represented a greater than 50% increase in fuel efficiency in just 10 short years.
Environmentalists are up in arms over the move. Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund President:
The Supreme Court might take up a case involving cy pres, the policy of handing class action suit settlement fund “leftover” money to third parties. It’s especially used where the number of plaintiffs in the class is huge.
In privacy or data-breach cases, where the number of potential plaintiffs reaches into the millions, the majority of a settlement can go to cy pres recipients.
A 2015 class-action settlement involving Alphabet that centered on its Google subsidiary would have led, after the lawyers’ cut, to four-cent checks being sent to each of nearly 130 million plaintiffs, for instance.
The Supreme Court has taken up the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (Nifla) v Becerra, whose proximate subject centers on abortion rights but whose real subject is freedom of speech.
California’s Reproductive FACT Act, the law in question in NIFLA, requires pro-life centers to advise their clients of the availability of abortion centers. This is forced speech, and it destroys the 1st Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech, since speech cannot be freely spoken if it cannot also be freely not spoken. This is as true for factual speech as it is for opinion speech.
Recall Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s warning to illegal aliens in the city for which she’s responsible that ICE officers were coming. Recall further the litany of violent crimes for which many of those warned were previously convicted or accused, and that many of those violent illegals escaped ICE as a result of Schaaf’s warning.
Now we see an outcome of Schaaf’s concern for violent non-citizen criminals.
Three illegal immigrants, who avoided capture after Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on a raid by federal immigration authorities last month, have since been re-arrested for new crimes including robbery and spousal abuse, ICE officials said.