Tag Archives: politics

Henry Stimson Has Returned

Posted on by
Reply

As Herbert Hoover’s Secretary of State, Henry Stimson shut down the department’s cryptanalytic office saying, “Gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail.”  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, apparently in much the same vein, did Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and innumerable others a solid by not maintaining American secrets, choosing instead to use an unsecured privately administered personal email server in her private residence.

Now we get Barack Obama’s CIA Director.  John Brennan now says that the CIA shouldn’t be viewed as an espionage agency; indeed,

I don’t support government spying….  We don’t steal secrets….   We uncover, we discover, we reveal, we obtain, we elicit, we solicit.  All of that.

This is yet another episode in Obama’s American Retreat.

Is the Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

…above the law, or do they just think they are?

Seven congressional Democrats, including the ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, have written to the State Department and Intelligence Community watchdogs demanding that their investigations of Hillary Clinton’s private email be “impartial, independent and diligent.”

From their letter, signed by, among the five, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA):

Based on public reports and communications from your offices to Congress, we have serious questions about how this review is being conducted….  Already, this review has been too politicized. We are relying on you as independent inspectors general to perform your duties dispassionately and comprehensively[.]

And

Classification determinations are complex, subjective, often in dispute between different agencies, and are not normally within the purview of Inspectors General[.]

Because one of their own and her staff are being investigated for their complicity in mishandling classified information.  Can’t have that.  Never mind that the IGs agree that classification determinations aren’t within their purview.

The Intelligence Community Inspector General has not determined whether the Clinton emails contained classified information,” the source said.  “Recent sworn declarations from the CIA said the emails contained classified information when they hit Clinton’s server.  The ICIG was passing on the CIA’s findings, and was not the decision maker.  This is also true with the NGA (national geospatial) and other agencies.

The Democrats in Congress know this, of course, hence my question.

There’s lots more in the linked article; RTWT.

Tax Dollars

Posted on by
Reply

Yours, and mine, at work. The paper from which the following excerpt was taken (h/t The Wall Street Journal) was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Ice is not just ice. The dominant way Western societies understand it through the science of glaciology is not a neutral representation of nature. The feminist glaciology framework draws attention to those who dominate and frame the production of glaciological knowledge, the gendered discourses of science and knowledge, and the ways in which colonial, military, and geopolitical domination co-constitute glaciological knowledge. Even in a globalized age where the place of women and indigenous people has improved markedly in some parts of the world, masculinist discourses continue to dominate, in subtle and determinative ways. Feminist glaciology advocates for a shift of preoccupations in research, policy, and public perceptions from the physical and seemingly natural, to a broader consideration of “cryoscapes,” the human, and the insights and potentials of alternative ice narratives and folk glaciologies.

The critique and framework outlined here illuminate experiences and narratives that emerged historically but remain potent today. Public discourse on the cryosphere continues to privilege, quite explicitly, manly endeavours and adventures in the field, and those who conduct their science in the manner of masculinist glaciologists and other field scientists of decades and centuries past….

The call for a feminist glaciology is not limited to ice and glaciers, but is a larger intervention into global environmental change (and especially climate change) research and policy.

Those were your tax dollars, and mine. Yeesh.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to reduce investments in the PRC: it’s getting harder to get the money back out, this time from foreign exchange controls designed to be limits on how much money in yuan can be exchanged for other currencies, like the US dollar, the British pound, and the Japanese yen.

China’s foreign-exchange regulator in recent months has deployed a new system to monitor individual purchases of foreign funds and has asked banks to reduce foreign-currency transactions. It has summoned bankers to its offices to give guidance and has grilled them when foreign-exchange activity spikes, according to executives at Chinese and foreign lenders.

Nice little bank you got there….

But it’s more than just threats; the government controls are having material impacts on business’ ability to do straight-up cross border business.

A European chemicals manufacturer recently faced delays in Shanghai in obtaining US dollars, threatening its deadline for an overseas licensing payment. The Bank of Tianjin is having trouble getting funds from mainland investors for a planned Hong Kong public stock offering. A water-treatment company struggled to withdraw $2,000 for an engineer to travel to the US.

And

[Hong Kong law firm Harvey Law Corp Managing Partner—Worldwide, Jean Francois] Harvey said a Chinese client is having problems wiring $15 million to a Hong Kong company that for two years has been helping it buy equipment for a South American factory. “There’s no indication that the money will go through,” he said, “and we heard from our client that it was due to restrictions on money transfer.”

It goes on from there.

Stability vs Prosperity and Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

It appears that Mark Carney, Bank of England Governor, prefers stability at the expense of British prosperity and national sovereignty. He said last Tuesday that

uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the coming referendum on Britain’s future in Europe is already being felt in financial markets, and that a vote in favor of leaving could cause a short-term hit to the wider economy.

A possible departure represents “the biggest domestic risk to financial stability,” Mr. Carney said, with potential consequences for Britain’s balance of payments with the rest of the world, its housing market, foreign investment and its banks.

“It is a risk to domestic financial stability, and it has some potential to amplify pre-existing risks to financial stability[.]”

Of course things will be turbulent during the transition from EU member, subject to lots of EU regulation that runs contrary to British law or what the Brits would prefer to be British law (things like being required to spend British taxpayer money as benefits to non-citizens and to non-citizen family members not even resident in Great Britain—Prime Minister David Cameron’s tentative agreement with the EU is only a temporary measure).

Don’t want the uncertainty of the outcome of the referendum? Then Carney should get behind the exit and reduce the uncertainty.

What would the British get from leaving the EU? Quite a lot. London’s financial district would be free to operate on free market principles, not EU rules. Great Britain’s tax laws would be set according to what’s good for Brits and British business and for attracting foreign businesses and investment, not according to protecting precious continental jurisdictions from the evils of tax competition. Great Britain’s private enterprises would be free to operate in accordance with British law and not EU regulation.

What would the British lose from leaving the EU? Those impediments. Not much else.

Staying in the EU would provide a strong measure of economic stability; those rules are established and well understood. But that stability is only intermediate; the EU will dissolve in the foreseeable future. The current refugee flow crisis is not the threat, though, for all the press it’s getting. No, the threat is exactly what the British would be avoiding if they succeed in leaving: economic dissolution. That threat was made manifest by the Panic of 2008 and emphasized by the Greek default crisis. These exposed the utterly differing and irreconcilable economic philosophies of the constituent members.

The transition ensuing from that dissolution will be far more destructive than any sneezes from a Brexit in the next couple of years.