Couldn’t Possibly Be

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that more than 3 million folks once getting “Federal food aid” have stopped getting that aid. This is due, primarily, to tighter work requirement restrictions:

Under the new rules, able-bodied adults aged 18 to 64 without children under 14 must work, volunteer or participate in approved job-training programs for at least 80 hours a month. The previous age limit for work requirements was 54, and allowed exemptions for adults with children under 18.

Naturally, the Left is engaging in its manufactured angst over this.

Colleen Heflin, a professor at Syracuse University who studies food insecurity, said larger state drops like Arizona’s were “beyond anything we’ve ever seen.” Heflin said she was concerned it would result in vulnerable Americans not getting enough to eat.
“These large state drops in SNAP caseloads represent a fundamental restructuring of the food-assistance safety net,” she said. “We should expect to see a surge in food insecurity and its related negative consequences at new levels.”

Of course. The large drop couldn’t possibly be an indication of the bloat in the program and the number of ineligible folks taking the aid “beyond anything we’ve ever seen.”

And there’s Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy Professor, who accidentally let that cat out of the Leftists’ bag:

Most of the people who are getting food stamps are needy. When you’re cutting that many people, you’re probably cutting into some people who really do need the benefits.

It certainly should be “most,” and it should be far more than just that. Only cutting “some” who really need the benefits is a strong indicator of the amount of bloat that’s been present.

The Rogue United Nations

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors opened their Friday editorial with this:

[Y]ou can always count on the United Nations to rehabilitate a rogue. So it did on Monday by granting the Islamic Republic [of Iran] a leadership role at a conference on nuclear nonproliferation.
You can’t make this up, and with the UN you never need to.

 The leadership role?

The global body chose Iran as one of the 34 vice presidents to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I’ll elide the idiocy of a committee so large and so bloated with feel-good title inflation as to have 34(!) vice presidents.

The larger matter is this. While the editors are correct to characterize Iran as a rogue nation, they’ve missed the beam in their own eye: the UN is, itself, a rogue entity, no longer serving to work toward/preserve peace and comity among nations as it was—however naively—created to do. Instead, it routinely gives high level voice to the very kind of political entities it was intended to corral.

In the end, the only reason to continue the expense of providing facilities in New York City for the UN’s headquarters is the wisdom of the old adage of keeping one’s enemies closer.

Louisiana Primary Elections

Posted on by
Reply

Louisiana’s Republican Governor Jeff Landry has canceled the State’s upcoming primary elections in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v Callais, which struck down Louisiana’s Congressional district map as unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered. A Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Congress, Lindsay Garcia, and voter Eugene Collins (whose presence appears to be nothing more than a device to give Garcia standing to sue) has sued to stop the cancelation.

They also called on refraining “from disenfranchising any qualified Louisiana voter or de-listing any qualified candidate in any contest on the May 16, 2026 or June 27, 2026 ballot.”
“It cannot conduct a primary under a remedial map that does not yet exist, in a remedial proceeding that has not yet begun, before a court that does not yet have jurisdiction,” the suit reads.

Far more importantly, though, the State cannot conduct a primary under a map that is unconstitutional and so unusable. No voter is disenfranchised by canceling the present elections; they would, however, be wholly disenfranchised by their voting based on an illegal district map. Nor are any existing candidates delisted, except by being left to campaign in an illegally drawn district via an erroneously listed ballot.

None of the candidates of any of the parties know, at present, who their constituents are, and even more important, none of Louisiana’s voters know, today, who their prospective Representatives might be. The ones cannot campaign effectively, and the others cannot vote effectively.

It’s necessary that the State’s primary elections be held in abeyance until a usable district map is put in place. Once the new map is in place, all of the existing candidates, along with any new candidates who might appear, will remain eligible and listed on the ballots—just on the correct ballots. All of the voters will know the legal district in which they’ll vote, and they’ll know who their prospective Representatives will be.

The Progressive-Democrat’s suit is without merit and should be dismissed promptly as the apparen stall effort that it is.

A Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Last year, a People’s Republic of China-owned and -operated mine in Zambia had a catastrophic failure of a mine tailings wall, creating an environmental disaster for Zambian citizens.

[A] tailings dam owned by Sino-Metals collapsed and unleashed toxic sludge into the Kafue River, farmlands along the river valley are scorched, hundreds of people lack a source of clean drinking water and residents continue to live on land contaminated with heavy metals.

The Zambian government meekly aided the PRC and its mine operators in covering up this disaster, trying to hide it from the public. To hell with its own citizens who still are paying with their health and their lives for the failure, now of their own government in addition to that of the PRC and its mine operators.

According to a US House Select Committee on China,

The Zambian government, which owes $6.6 billion to the Chinese government and Chinese lenders, has held back from pressing Sino-Metals over the disaster, fearing retaliation from China….

Retaliation. Here’s an alternate solution: cancel the contract with Sino-Metals and all other PRC “investments” and “loans” in Zambia, declare the $6.6 billion debt reclassified as the PRC’s and Sino-Metals’ debt to Zambia for the cleanup, and dare the PRC to retaliate in any material way.

No actual dollars would flow from this, but two salutary things would result: Zambia would be freed from a debt it never should have taken on in the first place—PRC terms are notoriously usurious and are designed for to force default and confiscation of the collateral (here, the mine itself) put up for the loan. Zambia also would be out from under the PRC’s thumb and free(r) to trade its wealth of natural resources to more honorable nations under more equitable terms.

Whose Fault is That?

Posted on by
Reply

The woman’s plaint opens with a catalog of online and personal device reminders of her daughter’s death in February 2024:

MY CAR’S BLUETOOTH asks if I’d like to connect to “Miranda’s iPhone.”
Facebook pings me with “memories”: photo carousels of my adult daughter and me on a beach or posing for goofy selfies.
Miranda’s name appears on my list of “favorite” numbers on my phone. A shared streaming account offers recommendations that cater to Miranda’s high-low tastes: a historical drama, and the new season of “Real Housewives.”
Then there’s my Amazon account, which lists Miranda’s shipping address in Brooklyn.

Then she wrote

Every time her ghost pops up on a device, my heart is ripped anew.

And

OUR ONLINE PROFILES outlive our physical bodies. We can pack or give away possessions, but the tech gods preserve the digital lives forever of those we’ve lost.

However.

My sympathies for the woman’s loss of her daughter, but really, whose fault is it that all of that personal information was put into the Internet cloud in the first place? Whose fault is it that these data were not deleted from the cloud—or from the contact list she still has loaded into her car—some time after she laid her daughter to rest, but instead were left scattered about among the cloud and her devices these 14 months after her daughter’s death?

And: the despicable behavior of AT&T in the face of a court order and of Apple’s and Alphabet’s differing decisions to censor what information each would release in the face of a court order, notwithstanding, the decision to give up the court fight was this woman’s alone, even though she was making progress on the matter.

Again, my sympathies for the woman, but she doesn’t get to hide behind her grief to duck responsibility for her own decisions and actions.