Tag Archives: politics

European Union Sanctions on Russia

Posted on by
Reply

Another round is in the offing, possibly this week or next. And there’s this hopeful claim of the EU:

EU officials say privately and publicly that the sanctions are inflicting serious damage on Russia’s economy and military….

No doubt sanctions are an important part of a necessary “all of the above” suite of moves to support Ukraine in its defense against the barbarian. But are they strong enough themselves? Will the new round be materially stronger?

After all: how many battalions have the sanctions forced Putin to withdraw from Ukraine? How many battalions have the sanctions in concert with other moves forced the barbarian to withdraw?

Zero.

The pain inflicted on the barbarian isn’t enough. It needs to be orders of magnitude stronger. The sanctions have to be orders of magnitude stronger. The only places in the world with which the barbarian should be allowed to do business of any sort are withing Russia and with the PRC, northern Korea, and Iran. And those need to be tightened down, also.

Shameful

Posted on by
2

The subheadline has the question:

Why is Joe Biden skipping Shinzo Abe’s funeral in Japan?

Never mind that Japan has been a staunch ally of ours since the middle of the last century. Never mind that Abe has been a staunch ally of ours his entire time in office and during his nominally retired years.

The other members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue—the Quad—are going to be there to pay their respects.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese are set to attend the ceremony alongside Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

Regardless of all of that, our President Joe Biden (D) stiffed Abe, and our ally Japan, at his funeral. Biden couldn’t be troubled to make the trip and attend. Instead, Biden sent Vice President Kamala Harris (D), tsar of everything in the Biden administration and doer of nothing, to take up that space.

Cashless Bail and Flight Risk

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois has passed its cashless bail law, euphemistically styled the SAFE-T Act (Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act—how cute, how misleading). This is a law that will allow lots of suspects accused of violent crimes to walk without even needing a hearing—an Illinois magistrate can simply release the suspect, functionally, on his own word that he’ll appear in court when called to do so.

Supporters of the law, set to take effect at the beginning of next year, point out it does not prohibit detention and that anyone deemed a flight risk can be detained.

This is as cynical as it is disingenuous.

The degree of flight risk isn’t the only factor that should be used in assessing bail amounts; it isn’t even the most important. What’s central to bail consideration, or should be central, is the nature of the crime alleged and the degree of risk to the people in the local community from having the accused walking free among them.

A man accused of a violent crime needn’t flee in order to commit (further) violent crimes; indeed, most crimes (like politics) are local. And now he has a collection of targets in the local area against whom to commit further violence: witnesses against him, and their families.

Journalists Deceiving

Posted on by
Reply

Project Veritas lost a case brought by Democracy Partnerships in the DC District Court, with the jury awarding $120,000 to the consultancy. The firm had been targeted by PV, and recordings made by an undercover PV operative strongly indicated that DP was engaged in efforts to incite violence at rallies for then-President Donald Trump in the final weeks of the 2016 Presidential campaign.

The DC jury, made up of residents of Washington, DC, decided that

the actions of the former operative…breached a fiduciary duty to the consulting firms and amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation….

Project Veritas has said it will appeal; founder James O’Keefe saying in part

The jury effectively ruled investigative journalists owe a fiduciary duty to the subjects they are investigating and that investigative journalists may not deceive the subjects they are investigating.

I generally agree with what Project Veritas does, discovers, and publicizes.

However.

Not here. No one should be able to deceive anyone; although in most cases, that’s a moral limit, not a legally actionable one.

There’s a fine line here regarding investigative journalism. Going undercover isn’t deception unless the operative openly lies about who he is or what he’s doing. Letting the target draw a wrong conclusion, though, is on the target: do a better job of vetting. The “fiduciary duty” is the target’s as part of its own decision to spend money.

Beyond that, though, deception is what journalists do far too routinely, especially to their readers and viewers. PV needs to do better in its defenses.