An Inapt Analogy

Posted on by
Reply

With friends like this….

I’m a firm believer in tightly secured borders with legal entry points established at one-mile intervals along it and the elimination of visa quotas for those who want to come here legally, whether with a goal of gaining citizenship or just for long-term residency and work—so long as they pass tight vetting procedures.

A Letter to the Editor writer in Monday’s Wall Street Journal tried to make the same point, but his point was, and is, counterproductive.

In saying that demanding specialized skills as the criterion for entry might work for the short-term but was long-term short-sighted compared to a come one, come all (presumably subject to vetting) criterion, the letter writer offered this:

Our nation historically has been more like the Milwaukee Brewers than the New York Yankees.

Well, no.

The Brewers are perennial losers, having never won a World Series and whose last pennant win was in 1982.  That’s not the United States I know.  The Yankees, on the other hand, have 27 World Series titles and 40 pennants.  That, though, isn’t the United States I know, either; although, it’s closer to the mark.

The US benefits from taking on all comers who want to become Americans (not many all-comers stay with either the Brewers or the Yankees), and we also gain from taking on those who have specialized skills that directly and quickly benefit us, whether they want to become Americans or want to be here as long-term residents.

Value of $1 by State and State Government

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a look at the value of a dollar by State and by State governing party for the 10 States with the greatest value and the 10 States with the lowest value.  The value data are from 24/7 Wall Street via Fox Business.

Value of $1 by State and Party in Control
State Value of Dollar Party of Governor Party of House Party of Senate
Top 10
Mississippi $1.16 R R R
Alabama $1.15 R R R
Arkansas $1.15 R R R
West Virginia $1.14 R R R
Kentucky $1.14 R R R
South Dakota $1.13 R R R
Oklahoma $1.12 R R R
Ohio $1.12 R R R
Bottom 10
Alaska $0.95 R D R
Washington $0.95 D D D
New Hampshire $0.94 R D D
Massachusetts $0.93 R D D
Connecticut $0.92 D D D
Maryland $0.91 R D D
New Jersey $0.88 D D D
California $0.87 D D D
New York $0.87 D D D
Hawaii $0.84 D D D

Hmm….

Blowing Up Settlements

Posted on by
Reply

The one being sabotaged here is between Facebook and the FTC over the FTC’s proposed settlement of Facebook’s “mishandling” of consumer privacy data, including surrendering millions of consumers’ personal information to Cambridge Analytica.

FTC Chairman Joseph Simons has the (Republican) votes he need to impose the settlement, from the FTC’s perspective, on a 3-2 partisan vote.  He’s quite rightly trying to get at least one of the Progressive-Democrats on the board to vote with him, but they’re bleating that a $5 billion fine and other controls don’t go far enough.

This is naked obstruction, though, based on a cynically manufactured beef.

Another impediment to the settlement is a textbook example of why Federal agencies ought not be spring-loaded to settle cases with miscreants.  “Settlements,” should be vanishingly rare, and they should occur only after the teeth from a history of court cases have been manifested.  This time, the block is whether

to name Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a respondent in the complaint that would be filed by the agency as part of the settlement. Naming Mr Zuckerberg as a respondent could make him liable for future privacy missteps—and give the FTC leverage if it should seek to remove Mr Zuckerberg from the company’s management in the future.

Whichever party wants this included, it’s an entirely legitimate inclusion.

“Facebook representatives,” though, object, and they say Facebook will not accept a settlement that includes this.

There’s nothing here for Facebook to accept or reject, though. Facebook screwed up with consumers’ private, personal information, and the screwups identified in this putative settlement are just the latest in a long string of such…errors.  That those prior misbehaviors are not part of this case does matter in determining the price to be paid in this instance, but they should inform the FTC’s willingness to go to court rather than itself settle for a settlement.

There should be no settlement on the table or on offer in any guise.  The case should be in the courts, moving apace—the FTC should not allow Facebook’s lawyers to drag things out, and neither should the courts—with a court judgment sought. That judgment should include, at minimum, a company fine of $5 billion or more, Zuckerberg named as correspondent, and Zuckerberg personally fined for his role as the MFWIC condoning, if not actively authorizing, such privacy invasions and sales.

In Which Adam Schiff Demurs

Posted on by
Reply

Last Thursday, President Donald Trump authorized Attorney General William Barr to declassify any documents concerning surveillance of Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign.  Trump also instructed the Intelligence agencies and “the heads of each department or agency that includes an element of the intelligence community” to cooperate with Barr in that declassification.  This exposure of underlying data is something Republicans have been calling for since that surveillance itself was exposed.

Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA) is up in arms over this move.  The

chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the move as an attempt to “weaponize law enforcement and classified information.”

Because exposing inconvenient truths is weaponizing.

Of course, this is the same Adam Schiff who said over a year ago that he had lots of plain, clear evidence of criminal activity done by Trump.  And refused to provide any of it.

So much for Progressive-Democrat calls for transparency.

An Out of Control Supreme Court Justice

Posted on by
Reply

I received this email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee last Thursday [emphasis added].

E —
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a powerful message about reproductive rights that every grassroots Democrat needs to hear:
“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”
E, if you agree with Justice Ginsburg that women should be able to make their own health care choices, add your name now >>
Republican legislatures nationwide have spent the last few weeks passing extreme abortion laws, with the goal of getting the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.
But people are speaking out, fighting back, and holding rallies across the country with a clear message for Republicans: We won’t tolerate these attacks on women’s reproductive rights. As Justice Ginsburg says, women should be able to make their own decisions about their reproductive care.
Add your name now to stand with Ruth Bader Ginsburg if you agree that women should be able to make their own health care choices:
http://www.dscc.org/Stand-With-RBG
Thanks,
Team DSCC

The emphasized quote is what then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg said at her confirmation hearing.

There are a couple of things terribly wrong here. One is the plain pre-judging Ginsburg revealed then, her decision to announce what her ruling would be on any future abortion-related case that might come before the Court.  (Never mind that her pre-determined opinion entirely writes off the human right of a baby to its well-being and dignity, its right to live.)

But the other, even worse, if that’s possible, thing is a sitting Supreme Court Justice actively participating in politics—not in her personal role as citizen, but in her judicial role as Supreme Court Justice (of course, Ginsburg has a history of this with her disparaging statements about then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump).

Ginsburg has permitted a political campaign facility to use her statement in today’s political environment without that quote being noted as from that confirmation hearing.  Ginsburg has permitted the DSCC to imply that this is a current statement and that a sitting Justice has taken sides in a political contest.

That behavior is despicable.