Monthly Archives: May 2014

Not Far Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Good for the Mayor, say I; he’s on the right track.

Porterville, CA, Mayor Cameron Hamilton said at a recent City Council meeting that, while he opposes bullying, he thinks it is too often used as an excuse. He added that some people need to “grow a pair.”

Naturally, this has caused outrage on the Left.

Councilwoman Virginia Gurrola…told the mayor, “It’s hard to just ‘grow a pair’ when you’re a 10-year-old girl.”

Surely, Gurrola understands that “hard” means “possible.”

And

Melissa McMurrey…told KFSN-TV that she felt attacked by the mayor’s comments. She said bullies often target young gay people.

Of course. I’m a victim. How dare you challenge my victimhood? How dare you suggest that I might actually just stop being a victim?

Personal responsibility isn’t always easy, and sometimes some folks, especially our children, need help. Despite that, though, personal responsibility matters, and it’s not something that can be wished off onto others. Self-defense is a personal obligation, not solely a thing to be used to create a burden on others.

Not even by our children. That’s what parents are for, and that’s what parents need to do a better job of teaching, right from the start—some at teaching their bully child to stop bullying, and others at teaching their bullied child how to counter the bully.

Rule of Law

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier I wrote about government and free speech regarding a Wall Street Journal op-ed about the FCC’s proposed interference with the business of the Internet.

Buried near the end of the op-ed, though, was a remark that needs greater notice than was present in the piece.

Mr Wheeler’s FCC claims “there are no rules on the books to prevent broadband providers from limiting Internet openness by blocking content or discriminating against consumers and entrepreneurs online.”

The WSJ denied the charge,

But this is false. …the Federal Trade Commission already has ample authority to go after businesses that mistreat customers, online or off[]

but that’s beside the point.

We’re not Europeans. Neither are we, generally, Progressives. We have no need of a government’s rule to tell us every jot or tittle of what we are permitted or not permitted to do. We are American citizens; we are fully capable of deciding for ourselves, in the absence of the “guidance” of our Betters, what we might do or not do.

Ukraine and Energy

Posted on by
2

America’s booming natural gas production could help Ukraine keep the heat and lights on amid Russia’s latest threat to cut off supplies, if the US cuts through troublesome red tape, lawmakers said. … The U.S. has port facilities that turn natural gas into liquid for export and more are under construction, but shipping to any country not bound by a free trade agreement with the US requires a federal permit. Since 2011, DOE has approved six [count ’em] applications for permits to export natural gas to non-free trade agreement nations, but Ukraine is not one of them. … [The] “Domestic Freedom and Global Prosperity Act”…would grant immediate approval of the 24 pending applications currently filed with the Department of Energy…. “This would send the clear signal that we are serious about enlarging the scope of natural gas exports, and immediately undercut Russia’s dominance,” [Congressman Fred (R, MI)] Upton said. “Russia has chosen to wield its energy resources as a geopolitical weapon to inflict harm on others. As the world’s emerging energy superpower, America has a newfound responsibility to help our allies.”

There are a lot of logistics problems along this path to work out, but that puts a premium on getting started; these problems cannot be allowed to serve as excuses for not bothering. Again.

On top of that, we also need to stop sending signals and start sending stuff—like oil and gas, like weapons, like intel, like…—to Ukraine, as well as sending oil and gas to Germany and the rest of the EU.

Government and Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

This time in the milieu of the Internet. And it’s not good, if the FCC’s latest “rule” proposal is allowed to stand.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler went ahead with his proposal on Thursday to give his agency the power to decide whether the terms and prices of broadband Internet services are “reasonable.” That’s bad enough as political discretion, but according to dissenting Commissioner Ajit Pai, regulators from every state will also be able to get into the act.

Government, once again, is deciding that it’s better suited to determine what a proper business arrangement is than the participants in the business. Only this time, since it’s the Internet that’s at stake, and the Internet plays such an enormous role, not only in business per se, but in speech of all forms—political, business, communication of innovations, the list goes on—the FCC is plainly inserting itself into the business of government determiner of what appropriate speech is.

If this rule stands, government will be able to pass on the Internet-based “business arrangements” regarding, oh let’s say, a documentary called Hillary: The Movie. Worse, it’ll be able to do this, not overtly because it objects to the politics of the movie, but more sotto voce, under the guise of objecting to the appropriateness of the business arrangements surrounding its Internet distribution. And by allowing the States to get in on the censorship, the FCC is looking to broaden government…management…of permissible speech.

The Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed points out a myriad of other objections to this harebrained scheme of the FCC, but this will do for this post.

Another Correct Court Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

And, again, it comes in the area of free speech.

The 7th Circuit has ruled in Wisconsin Right to Life State v Timothy Vocke, a Wisconsin case concerning the permissible State government-imposed limits on political speech that Wisconsin’s law and a host of implementing rules are unconstitutional.

The Court’s unanimous ruling held, among other things, that

  • the state’s corporate-speech ban is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling
  • the cap on the amount a corporation may spend on fundraising for an affiliated political committee is unconstitutional
  • the lengthy disclaimer requirement under state Government Accountability Board’s regulation is unconstitutional as applied to 30-second radio ads and ads of shorter duration
  • the statutory definition of “political purposes,” section 11.01(16), and the regulatory definition of “political committee,” GAB § 1.28(1)(a), are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in the sense meant by federal court precedent.

This also is likely to cut the underpinnings out from beneath the Democrats’ secret John Doe investigations of exactly these sorts of organizations, which Star Chamber “investigations” are centered on exactly these now acknowledged to be unconstitutional grounds.

The ruling can be seen here.