A Latino Migration?

Posted on by
Reply

It’s a distinct possibility, and it would be IMNSHO a good thing. William McGurn had some thoughts on this, citing a recent mayoral election in McAllen, TX, in which a Republican was elected for the first time ever. McGurn also noted that, in the 2020 Presidential election, nearby Zapata County voted Republican for the first time in 100 years when the county picked Warren G Harding. McGurn suggested that these might be the harbinger of a Latino migration from the (Progressive-)Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

Then McGurn offered some statistics from a National Republican Senatorial Committee survey of Latino likely voters in battleground states. Even accounting for the obvious potential of bias in the survey, the numbers are suggestive.

Asked to choose between two possibilities—Some people say free-market capitalism is the best form of government because it gives people the freedom to work and achieve and Other people say that socialism is the best form of government because it is more fair and equitable to working class people, 63% of respondents opted for the former, and only 17% went for the latter.

Other outcomes of the survey:

  • 67% are “very concerned” their kids “won’t have the same opportunities me and my family came here to find”
  • 58% said too many people in America are happy not to work and “just live off government assistance”
  • 80% percent agree that “public schools are failing”
  • 67% agree that too many Americans “are losing our traditional values centered on faith, family and freedom”
  • 57% “oppose Democrat efforts to pack the Supreme Court with liberal judges”
  • 72% agree “we should do what is necessary to control our southern border”
  • 65% oppose the Democrats’ “bill that would make voter ID illegal”
  • 50% agree that “many of the policies that Democrats say help all minorities actually end up hurting Hispanic families”

Even given the strong potential for bias in the survey, one aspect of its importance, McGurn noted, is that it was conducted during campaign season when then-candidate Biden was overtly pretending to be politically moderate.

A Question

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal had one regarding the several bills the Progressive-Democrats are taking up in the Senate now that Congress has returned from its extended long weekend vacation.

Will Senate Democrats be able to gain bipartisan support for any of their new initiatives?

The answer, of course, is No. Senate Progressive-Democrats aren’t interested in bipartisanship, so they aren’t looking for any. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and many of his fellow Progressive-Democrats have made this clear with

some Democrats…call for pressing ahead without Republicans. Democrats could pass tax and spending legislation with a simple majority, using a process called budget reconciliation….

And

Mr Schumer has made it clear Democrats are ready to go it alone if necessary on legislation, bringing bills to the floor that don’t have enough support to pass under current rules.

That’s an effort to put the Republicans on the record as voting against Progressive-Democrat priorities, but more importantly, it’s a move to discipline the few Progressive-Democrats who aren’t sufficiently far Left, pushing them to support ending the Senate’s filibuster.

The Progressive-Democrat “negotiations” in the Senate and the White House that are currently going on are a sham, just Progressive-Democrats filling a square to manufacture campaign talking points.

The Biden Oil Price Spike

Posted on by
2

President Joe Biden (D) has killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, is blocking oil production from Federal lands, killed oil production in northern Alaska, is working to kill fracking altogether, is working to kill American oil (and natural gas) production, and has given the go ahead to Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline. In sum, he’s actively working to kill American energy independence.

All of that is driving up American citizens’ energy costs, and that is reflected in the market’s anticipation of spiking oil costs. Here are a couple of graphs illustrating that. They illustrate the expectation that oil will soon cost $100/barrel, after several years of $50-$65/barrel. The first presents the spike since the start of the year in the number of West Texas Intermediate $100/barrel futures contracts against a current $70 price.

This graph reflects the price of a $100/barrel call option on WTI for delivery in December this year and next.

The expectation of actual market pricing of $100 is rising, also, sharply enough to drive up the price of the option.

This is what expert traders (some of whom are trading on the trends themselves and not on underlying oil prices, to be sure) are seeing as the future price of oil for our citizens. Even if oil settles out at its current price of $70 or just a little higher (and the anticipations turn out to be overstated), this current price represents a sharp increase over the last several years, when Government wasn’t moving so zealously to restrict our nation’s oil supply.

This is what Biden has wrought for our nation’s energy supply and cost of energy.

Talking

Posted on by
Reply

James Baker III had a very good op-ed in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal. Most of what he wrote was very sound.

However, there’s this:

many Americans had grown weary of being “talked at” rather than “talked to.”

Not exactly. “Talked at” and “talked to” are much more closely allied with each other—making plain, as they do, that the talk is purely one-way, with input from us Americans being undesired—than with the talk that most (not merely many) Americans actually prefer—being talked with.

An Inappropriate Judicial Question

Posted on by
Reply

The Apple-Epic trial has gone to the jury (in this case, the judge, the matter being a bench trial). This case centers on the level of commissions Apple charges app developers for marketing their apps in Apple’s App Store and whether those app developers can, under Apple’s rules, market their products/collect revenue for their products through other venues as well as the App Store—vis., in-app advertising.

In the course of the trial, the presiding judge—the “bench”—US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, has asked an inappropriate question.

…confronted Mr Cook [Apple CEO] with survey data that, she said, indicated that 39% of developers were either very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with Apple’s distribution services. “How is that acceptable?” she asked.

There is much to decry about Apple’s business practices, particularly with its App Store.

In particular, one would think those survey results to be unacceptable, to developers, users, even to Apple.

However.

The question is a business matter, solely among Apple, its customer/developers, and the market in general. It is not at all a judicial matter, and it is completely out of place and inappropriate for a judge to ask in a courtroom.