Tag Archives: political parties

The Right Answer

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t often agree with Mark Zuckerberg, but in this case, I do, to the extent he has the courage of his words. The European Union’s Internal Market Commission has fined Meta $1.3 billion for the crime of sending the data its Facebook facility collects on European citizens to servers in the US.

The ruling raises pressure on the US government to complete a deal that would allow Meta and thousands of multinational companies to keep sending such information stateside.
Tech companies have been especially vulnerable to regulatory scrutiny absent such a deal. But most large international companies rely on a relatively free flow of data across the Atlantic….

No, the “pressure” applied is only what Biden and his staff choose to feel. Instead, this would be a good time for Biden and his to act like they care more about what benefits America than about what benefits other polities. The vast majority of those large international companies are, after all, American companies, and the requirement to keep that kind of data on EU servers is nakedly aimed at our companies. Apparently, the Commission thinks that EU companies are unable to compete without anchors tied around our companies’ ankles.

Zuckerberg is on the right track. In addition to appealing the Commission’s order (Meta must stop sending information about European Facebook users to the US and delete data already sent) and fine, he says:

Meta has said in securities filings that if ordered to suspend transfers, it may have to stop offering services in the EU….

All of our transnationals should take that tack. If the EU wants to compete only on the race to regulatory control, it should be left to play by itself. The race to be the most controlling administrative state is one our nation should happily lose.

This is where Biden backstops Zuckerberg. We’re waiting.

And one more, separate, thing. Biden also could backstop all of our transnationals and all of our domestic companies by getting the Federal government out of the business of spying on American citizens and rifling through private papers stored on American soil. On that, the EU has a valid beef.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

In an attempt to extort concessions from us and to drive a wedge between us and the Republic of Korea, the People’s Republic of China has banned certain local firms in key information-infrastructure industries from buying computer chips from the American company Micron Technology.

The next two largest chip manufacturers after Micron are the RoK’s Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, each with chip factories in the PRC. The wedge is the effort to get those two to sell into the PRC in place of Micron.

The RoK, though, along with Samsung and SK Hynix would do well to take the hint from the PRC’s attack on Micron, especially given the near dependence of the RoK on the PRC market. They’re even more exposed to PRC extortion than we are, and what the PRC is attempting against Micron, it can attempt against Samsung and SK Hynix and against the RoK’s overall trade relations with the PRC.

They would be well disposed, as would we, to cut economic ties with the PRC and eliminate that avenue of extortion.

A Progressive-Democrat’s Proposal to Combat Shoplifting

Posted on by
Reply

At first glance, this looks like progress after California’s decision to completely condone decriminalize shoplifting if the amount stolen was less than around $1,000 on any single hit. But in reality, it’s just more progressivism.

New York City’s Progressive-Democrat mayor Eric Adams thinks it’s good to deal with shoplifters in the city whose mayoral mansion he occupies in this way, among others:

  • train the shoplifting victim’s employees to de-escalate
  • put kiosks in shoplifting victim stores so shoplifters, at the start of their spree, can call social service
  • allow shoplifters to avoid prosecution or incarceration by “meaningfully” engaging with those services

Unfortunately, this is just more Progressive-Democrat coddling of criminals; it’ll have no useful effect on shoplifting—or on any other NYC crime.

Reparations and Bargaining

Posted on by
Reply

California’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom convened a “Let’s Give Reparation Payments to the Government-Favored” task force. Kenneth Blackwell exposed part of the purpose in his recent Fox News op-ed.

The idea was simple: the task force would deliberate, generating regular headlines, and then eventually propose something. Either the proposal would be feasible, in which case Black Californians would get some nominal amount of money and Newsom could claim a “win,” or it would be outlandish, in which case legislators would balk and Newsom would claim that he had done everything in his power to correct historic injustices.

The intent is in that “either” part: the proposal would be feasible, in which case Black Californians would get some nominal amount of money. In the so-far realization, California citizens identifying as black and having lived in the State for a nominal period would get hundreds of thousands to perhaps millions of taxpayer—fellow citizens’—dollars, ostensibly because of the sins of a century-and-a-half ago and the claimed continued failures ever since.

That’s the strategy, and it’s a standard bargaining technique. Open with a high bid, let yourself get talked down to a lower amount—this charade is far from played out—and walk away with something that you didn’t have any of at the start. And in the present case, still don’t deserve.

The current phase is epitomized by one California citizen’s mantra: Our vote is for sale. No reparations, no vote. Selling their civic duty to the highest bidder.

Each is an example of the cynicism of the Left and its Party.

A Telling Graph

Posted on by
Reply

This one via The Wall Street Journal in an article positing three scenarios regarding our economy and the existing debt ceiling negotiations. The graph, which the WSJ sourced to the Bipartisan Policy Center, is especially dispositive given the backdrop of Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden refusing to negotiate over an already House-passed bill that raises the ceiling along with some initial, and small, spending reforms. That backdrop also includes Biden’s, his Progressive-Democratic Party Congressional cronies’, and journalism’s shrill panic-mongering over default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.Notice that. Interest on our nation’s debt is tiny compared with the revenue flowing in for June; that means there’ll be no default if Biden and his Treasury Secretary obey our Constitution, the latter which makes the situation plain in the Preamble to Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….

There’s also plenty of revenue with which to make the scheduled principal payments on our debt. In addition to the lack of default, there’s provid[ing] for the common Defence: DoD, military salaries , and veterans’ benefits together, along with Homeland Security, are similarly tiny compared to the revenue coming in. Biden’s lies about cutting those veterans’ benefits in particular are exposed. Then there’s the general Welfare: these comprise the biggest share of that revenue—and there’s plenty of revenue with which to cover Medicare and Social Security as scheduled and with which to make the Medicaid transfers to the States.

The hard numbers will vary from month to month, but the revenues will be there to make the Constitutionally required payments.

What’s necessary to resolve the current situation are two things: Republicans need to stand firm on passing a debt ceiling increase only with spending reforms in order to reduce the need for future ceiling increases (along with, separately and subsequently, passing out of the House, where such things originate, a budget that reduces spending in the out years. There’s no need to wait for Biden’s foolishness of a sham budget proposal, ever), and for Biden and his Party cronies to get serious about negotiating specifics within that framework instead of blindly following an angry old man’s stubbornness.