Tag Archives: politics

That’s One Spin

Posted on by
Reply

The DC Circuit Court has denied Anthropic’s appeal of a DoD decision to cut the company out of Defense contracts as a security risk to Defense supply chains. Meanwhile a Northern District of California Federal court judge has upheld Anthropic’s appeal on free speech grounds. This, of course, creates a split of sorts that, ultimately, the Supreme Court will need to resolve, unless the 9th Circuit overrules the District judge wih a ruling that substantially aligns with the DC Circuit.

What’s interesting, though, is Computer & Communications Industry Association CEO Matt Schruers’ characterization of the split.

The DC Circuit’s denial will prolong ambiguities regarding whether political considerations can drive federal procurement[.]

This is Schruers’ conclusory characterization centered on his preferred outcome. It couldn’t possibly be the California district judge’s ruling that is prolonging ambiguities.

The Strait and Victory

Posted on by
Reply

There is a two week cease fire more or less in progress in the US-Iran portion of the US/Israeli war against Iran, one that is subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has not done so.

On Wednesday [after the cease fire nominally went into effect], Iran told mediators that it would limit the number of ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz to around a dozen a day and charge tolls. The Iranian navy also told ships anchored nearby that they still needed Iran’s permission to cross the strait. “If any vessel tries to transit without permission, [it] will be destroyed,” according to a recording reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The White House is insisting that what the Iranian personnel say in public is radically different from what they’re saying in private. Either way, though, those are just words. Actions matter, and so far those actions include a lack of tanker and cargo ship movement through the strait beyond a few that have paid as much as $2 million in protection money to the Iranians. That’s not a COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING.

Meanwhile, Iran is attempting after the fact to alter the terms of the cease fire to include Lebanon and Israel’s campaign against the Iranian terrorist surrogate Hezbollah. That that’s a separate matter is unimportant to Iran as its personnel, once again, welch on an agreement, tap things along, and stall, stall, stall.

That Iran’s military capacity has been devastated is true enough.

…strikes destroyed roughly 80% of Iran’s air defenses, more than 1,500 targets, as well as more than 450 ballistic missile storage facilities and 800 one-way attack drone storage facilities. The operation has also decimated Iran’s defense industrial base, Caine said, including shattering more than 80% of its missile factories.

But those numbers are just the modern body count, and they’re just as meaningless without context. How do those losses compare with what Iran started with? How many of those missiles, rockets, drones, and launch systems does it have left? How many of those small boats? How much of its industrial base is left?

The current situation seems similar to that of the Rome-Carthage wars, particularly the second one. From Adrian Goldsworthy’s The Fall of Carthage:

Despite their appalling losses, the string of humiliating defeats, the defections of some Italian allies, and the continuing malevolent presence of Hannibal’s army in Italy, the Romans simply refused to come to terms with the Carthaginians…. They were then able to beat the enemy on every other front and force the undefeated Hannibal to evacuate Italy…. The Carthaginians expected a war to end in a negotiated peace. The Romans expected a war to end in total victory or their own annihilation, something which no contemporary state had the resources to achieve.

We’re not dead yet, say the Iranian negotiators, so we haven’t lost.

It’s time for them to die.

ACLU Exposes Its Intrinsic Racism

Posted on by
Reply

Janai Nelson, ACLU President, made the organization’s, and her own, racism plain in her Sunday letter to The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section, a letter in which she accused DoJ’s Assistant AG of its Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon of

undermin[ing] the rights she was appointed to protect. In a case before the Supreme Court, the department under her leadership filed an amicus brief arguing that Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Constitution. Her position on this issue would limit voting rights for black Americans by making it incredibly difficult for black voters to elect their candidates of choice.

Nelson is ignoring her BFF’s and favorite Progressive-Democrat ex-President. then-Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama’s statement at Party’s 2004 Convention:

[T]here’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

Especially that last: There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. Race doesn’t matter in this nation, for all that bigotry (hold up a mirror facing you, Ms Nelson) still exists here. There are only citizens of the United States.

I repeat the relevant clause of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, even though that’s lost on an entity and its chief for whom our Constitution has no meaning:

No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There’s not a black voter and white voter and Latino voter and Asian voter; there’s the United States of America voters. Gerrymandering by race is racist at its core.

Nelson would have a stronger case were she to argue that that same 14th Amendment clause makes gerrymandering on the basis of political party unconstitutional. It’s instructive, though, that she chose race as the core of her special-treatment-by-gerrymandering argument.

This

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline and the lede:

Diplomacy failed to stop Pyongyang from getting the bomb. Trump didn’t make the same mistake.

And

President Trump decided to use military force to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon after diplomacy failed. This was a choice, as critics are quick to note, and a risky one. But the strangely forgotten US experience with North Korea suggests the alternatives were even riskier.

Nothing more to add; it’s hard to get any clearer.

On Trump’s Budget Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has submitted his budget proposal for the next year to Congress, and on its surface, it does little to address the current large budget deficit and its attendant borrowing on top of the current national debt. It does, though, seriously plus up defense spending, with its request for $1.5 trillion for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

There are a couple of ways to think about that. One is to deal with the threat to our economy, and so to our national security, of that burgeoning debt resulting from the continuing large deficit by raising taxes (as Progressive-Democratic Party politicians demand to do, especially on those Americans of whom they so vociferously disapprove) or by cutting spending (as budget hawks in the Republican Party demand to do).

Raising taxes, though, hurts all of us, not just those Evil Rich. Taking money away from the folks who make it and put it to gainful use reduces private economy investment and innovation—things us citizens do far better than even the most well-meaning government ever can—and that drop negatively impacts business competitiveness, expansion, and jobs, each of which hurts all Americans who are not part of the Evil Rich cohort.

Cutting government spending, on the other hand, always is a very good way to help our economy since it takes government competition for resources and more direct inputs to production out of the competition among businesses for those same factors, which puts downward pressure on prices that both businesses and consumers face. The cuts do, though, reallocate lots of jobs away from politicians’ districts and toward more efficient locations for the work, with efficiency defined by the businesses themselves rather than government politicians.

The other way to think about the budget with its deficit and attendant borrowing is articulated quite clearly by Trump:

We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.

Indeed. We can’t protect our economy and its health, much less reduce deficits and borrowings, if we can’t defend our nation and instead have our futures dictated to us by our enemies—as the People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping has committed himself to doing.

The answer writes itself, as anyone to the right of the Progressive-Democratic Party can see: plus up our defense spending, cut Federal spending everywhere else, and either cut taxes further or at least leave them alone.