Tag Archives: regulation

Panic

Posted on by
Reply

This is what the Left and their Progressive-Democrat governors are panicking over—actual data that give the lie to their claimed need to exercise control over the doings and businesses of their States’ citizens for those citizens’ own good. An exercise that’s actually for the power of that exercise.

The data don’t support their panic-mongering, though. Via a tweet from Carrie Sheffield, a Just the News anchor:

Getting sick is never fun. However, the mortality rate from the Wuhan Virus has always been very low—and getting very lower—for all ages under 70 years. We’ve learned a lot since the virus outbreak last spring, and the mortality rate for that last age group has gotten quite low, also.

Legal in LA

Posted on by
Reply

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón has decided to pick and choose the laws he’ll work to enforce and the crimes he’ll explicitly excuse. Here’s the Directive Gascon issued to the County Prosecutors. This is the opening of his Section I, Declination of Policy Directive [emphasis in the original]:

The misdemeanor charges specified below shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and without conditions unless “exceptions” or “factors for consideration” exist.
These charges do not constitute an exhaustive list

Here are the high points of Gascón’s non-exhaustive list:

  • Trespass
  • Disturbing The Peace
  • Driving Without A Valid License
  • Driving On A Suspended License
  • Criminal Threats
  • Resisting Arrest

Here’s what Angelenos are going to face/have to do as a result of Gascón’s legal negligence:

  • deal with trespassers their way rather than wasting precious minutes calling the cops.
  • auto insurance claims are going to skyrocket, and then so will premiums, from letting anyone, under any circumstance or skill, drive and endanger everyone else, pedestrian and motorist.
  • police will be at increased risk—at least those remaining before he abolishes them—from resisters.

This. Is. California.

 

H/t Bill Melugan, investigative correspondent for FOX 11 Los Angeles.

Wrong Resolution

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Huawei Technologies Co’s Deputy Chair and CFO Meng Wanzhou is facing US criminal wire and bank fraud charges related to her alleged violations of US sanctions on Iran, which she did on Huawei’s behalf. She’s in the middle of extradition proceedings in Canada en route to getting her here.

Now there’s a resolution in the works: DoJ officials are talking about a “deferred prosecution agreement,” in which Meng would admit her wrongdoing in those cases and then be allowed to return to the People’s Republic of China directly from Canada.

This is the wrong resolution. The case should be resolved by bringing her into the US and letting a trial court resolve the matter.

More EU Bad Faith

Posted on by
Reply

Finance operations, a key industry for Great Britain but not so much for the European Union, is being excluded from existing Brexit transition negotiations. That much is on the Brits as well as the EU, but the EU is abusing the mutual error.

In anticipation,

European regulators have demanded banks base certain operations currently conducted in London in the EU post-Brexit. … The EU last week committed to rules governing derivatives that will prevent London-based traders at EU banks from continuing business seamlessly after Brexit is completed on New Year’s Eve.

Derivatives trading is a significant fraction of the Brits’ financial industry, and the new rules prevent even London-based branches of EU banks from trading with UK-regulated firms unless those transactions occur in other jurisdictions recognized by both sides.

As Tim Cant, a London-based Partner at Ashurst Group, notes,

This is part of a wider strategy of moving finance into the EU[.]

It’s also part of the EU’s wider strategy of punishing Great Britain for its effrontery and of warning the more uppity remaining member nations to not even think about doing such a dastardly thing as leaving their Betters in Brussels.

Legalizing Drugs

Posted on by
Reply

The citizens of Oregon have voted to legalize “small amounts” of a variety of drugs—including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and the like.

Others demur from that decision.

I have a larger concern.

For those advocating the legalization of “small amounts” of drugs–whether cocaine, heroine, marijuana, or anything else—a question: what’s your limiting principle? What natural limit–not your well-intentioned promise, or the behavior of those who succeed you—prevents you from increasing the upper limit of “small?”

Absent that limit, the only reasonable limit for legalizing such drugs is Zero. And, given the damage done not just to the user but to others around the user (vis., the damage done the user’s family through the debilitating effects of the addiction even from a “small amount” or the damage done the store employee(s) and customers as the user commits robberies under the influence in his effort to obtain the wherewithal to pay for his next “small amount”), perhaps the optimal reasonable limit should remain Zero.