Monthly Archives: December 2015

“No Room for Negotiation”

Posted on by
Reply

A French journalist is being tossed out of the People’s Republic of China because she wrote factual articles about the PRC’s behavior in Xinjiang province. Her visa to be in the PRC expires at the end of the year, and the government has told her it will not be renewed.

The proximate cause of her expulsion is an article she wrote noting that the PRC’s expressions of solidarity with France over the terrorist attacks in Paris last month were not motivated by sympathy or shared condemnation of terrorism, but were rather motivated by the PRC’s reach for sympathy for its own behaviors in Xinjiang regarding the generally Muslim Uighur population’s demurral from government mistreatment of Uighurs.

Ms [Beijing-based Ursula] Gauthier said Chinese officials had met her three times to protest over the article and had demanded a public apology each time, without specifying exactly what form the apology should take. She said a Chinese official telephoned her on Friday to demand again that she apologize, publicly acknowledge that China was a victim of terrorism, and distance herself from any organization suggesting her case was a violation of press freedom.

“He said there is no room for negotiation,” she said.

Indeed, there is none. Either there is freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or there is not. There can be no middle ground to be reached through…negotiation.

Update: Corrected an idiotic typo in the first paragraph.  I need a keyboard that types what I mean rather than mindlessly repeating the keystrokes I give it.

It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

…once again, to harass you with my sense of humor. Enjoy. Or suffer.

A librarian is working away at her desk when she notices that a chicken has come into the library and is patiently waiting in front of the desk. When the chicken sees that it has the librarian’s attention, it squawks, “Book, book, book, BOOK!”

The librarian complies, putting a couple of books down in front of the chicken. The chicken quickly grabs them and disappears.

The next day, the librarian is again disturbed by the same chicken, who puts the previous day’s pile of books down on the desk and again squawks, “Book, book, book, BOOK!”

The librarian shakes her head, wondering what the chicken is doing with these books, but eventually finds some more books for the chicken. The chicken disappears.

The next day, the librarian is once again disturbed by the chicken, who squawks (in a rather irritated fashion, it seems), “Book, book, book, BOOK!” By now, the librarian’s curiosity has gotten the better of her, so she gets a pile of books for the chicken, and follows the bird when it leaves the library. She follows it through the parking lot, down the street for several blocks, and finally into a large park. The chicken disappears into a small grove of trees, and the librarian follows. On the other side of the trees is a small marsh. The chicken has stopped on the side of the marsh. The librarian, now really curious, hurries over and sees that there is a small frog next to the chicken, examining each book, one at a time. The librarian comes within earshot just in time to hear the frog saying, “Read it, read it, read it…”

 

When I was a kid, we had a quicksand box in the backyard.

I was an only child…eventually.

 

A chicken walks into a bar. Bartender says, “Sorry, we don’t serve chickens here. Try the place across the road.”

 

An egg walks into a bar, looks around and sees the place is empty. The egg says to the bartender, “Looks like I beat everyone here this morning.” Bartender says, “Not really. The chicken came first.”

 

A square, a triangle, and a hexagon walk into a bar. Bartender says, “Looks like you guys could use a round.”

 

An id, an ego, and a superego walk into a bar. The superego says, “This place is dirty and disgusting! We should be ashamed of ourselves for setting foot in a dive like this!” The ego says, “That’s true, but it’s right next to our bus stop and the prices are very reasonable.” The id says, “Wow, look at the hooters on that waitress!”

 

And finally:

A man walks into a bar and asks the bartender, “Have you heard the joke that doesn’t have a punch line?” Bartender says “No.”

Two Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Thirty-five years ago (nearly two generations ago), the People’s Republic of China government decreed that families in the PRC could have only one child. Ostensibly, this was to reduce population pressures on the country’s ability to feed itself. It’s also had, though, other consequences. One of them is this:

China has the world’s largest population at 1.37 billion, but its working-age population—those aged 15 to 64—is shrinking. The United Nations projects the number of Chinese people over the age of 65 will jump 85% to 243 million by 2030, up from 131 million this year.

That’s a doubling of the old-age population in just the 15 years it’ll take this year’s newly born babies to reach working age. Is the raise in the number of permitted babies per family to two sufficient to alleviate the problems brought on by the shrinking work force, with its reduced ability to produce goods and services, and food; or the problems brought on by a shrinking work force’s ability to pay for, in any way, the growing (relative to the working population as well as in absolute terms) population of elderly?

Many Chinese couples say the cost of having children is prohibitive, and some will opt to have only one child. A previous relaxation of China’s one-child policy did not lead to a significant increase in baby numbers.

“Many” is more than it sounds; it’s a significant fraction of today’s couples.

On top of that, though, most demographers say it takes 2.1 babies per woman (not just to women in marriages) just to maintain a population at a given level for developed nations. That minimum rate rises in less developed nations, as infant mortality rates rise. The PRC’s new limit of 2 babies per family (not all women) doesn’t reach the replacement rate.

Probably the raise in the limit on the number of permitted babies is insufficient.

Another Thought on Encryption

Posted on by
1

Apple’s Tim Cook had one [emphasis added].

On your iPhone, there’s likely health information, there’s financial information. There are intimate conversations with your family or your co-workers. There’s probably business secrets, and you should have the ability to protect it. And the only way we know how to do that is to encrypt it. Why is that? It’s because, if there’s a way to get in, then somebody will find the way in. There have been people that suggest that we should have a back door. But the reality is, if you put a back door in, that back door’s for everybody, for good guys and bad guys.

The Democrat District Attorney for Manhattan Cyrus Vance thinks Government should be in our pockets; he thinks Apple, et al., are undermining Government power.

IPhones are now the first consumer products in American history that are beyond the reach of lawful warrants. The result is crimes go unsolved and victims are left beyond the protection of law. Because Apple is unwilling to help solve this problem, the time for a national, legislative solution is now.

Here’s what our Constitution’s 3rd Amendment says:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner….

Vance just wants to skirt this by quartering virtual policemen in our cell phones. No. Government just needs to go back to doing actual police work, and not rely on such quartering.

Undermining? If anyone is undermining anything, it’s the New York Democrat, who’s undermining individual liberty. This is a clear and present demonstration of why Government cannot be trusted with such a weapon.

Government’s Gotta Regulate What A Man’s Gotta Do

Posted on by
Reply

It is taking home buyers longer to get a mortgage, which some in the real-estate industry say is the result of new federal rules meant to make mortgage terms easier to understand.

It wasn’t broke, and mortgages were moving as much apace as this Obama Recovery permitted, but it also wasn’t regulated. Government abhors a control vacuum.

Mortgages took an average of 49 days to close in November…the longest closing time since February 2013….

That’s only a three day increase over October, but it’s an entirely unnecessary and a completely government caused delay.

The rules…require lenders to give borrowers final terms of a loan at least three business days before closing to ensure they have time to understand the agreement.

Never mind that consumers already can walk away from any purchase contract, including mortgage contracts, within three days after signing—the “cooling off” period.

Advocates for the changes say they are a common-sense response to the housing crisis, during which it became apparent that many borrowers didn’t understand the ramifications of terms such as teaser rates or growing principal balances.

Of course a Liberal will say it’s common sense to regulate. It couldn’t possibly be common sense to educate instead.

The outcome of this demand to regulate anything and everything is more than just a delay in closing. Sales of existing homes have fallen sharply, 10.5% in November, the first month these wonderful new regulations have been in place, compared to October.