Tag Archives: responsibilities

A Right to be Racist

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Biden administration’s farm loan relief program that the Department of Agriculture had set up to provide loan relief to black and brown farmers while explicitly excluding white farmers.

Recall further that

Judge William Griesbach found in an order issued Thursday [10 Jun] that the white farmers “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim” that the US Department of Agriculture’s “use of race-based criteria in the administration of the program violates their right to equal protection under the law.”

The Ag Department rejects that ruling:

We respectfully disagree with this temporary order and USDA will continue to forcefully defend our ability to carry out this act of Congress and deliver debt relief to socially disadvantaged borrowers.

Here are Progressive-Democrats forcefully defending their self-created right to be racist in their governance of our nation.

This is despicable, and it needs to be remembered throughout the fall of 2022, and beyond.

Coalitions, the G-7, and NATO

Posted on by
Reply

In an editorial in which The Wall Street Journal‘s editors went on at length about President Joe Biden’s (D) meeting(s) with the leaders of the other nations of the G-7, there was some discussion about the G-7’s final communique, in which the G-7 had pretty words about the need do some things about some conditions and to do them together.

The subtext of those meetings, though, was this.

The nations of the G-7 want the coalition to act together, but they emphasize the “together” part while deprecating the “act” part. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has bought into that cynical vapidity.

Further, when Biden gets to Brussels, he’ll see most of the NATO member nations celebrating the United States being back. Back to being most of those nations’ NATO treasury and blood bank while they continue to decline to commit their own money and blood for mutual defense. Here, those nations emphasize “defense” while deprecating “mutual.” Unfortunately, the Biden administration will actively celebrate that version of “back.”

Blatant Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

Or blatant aiding and abetting. Or both. Here is the critical part of how things went down in the JBS Corporation hacker attack and JBS’…surrender…to the hackers:

After identifying the incursion early on Sunday, May 30, JBS said it alerted US authorities…. By that afternoon, the company had concluded that encrypted backups of its data were intact, said Andre Nogueira, chief executive officer of JBS USA Holdings Inc.

Then

Tuesday evening, progress getting JBS’s systems back online using its backup data made Mr Nogueira confident enough to issue a statement announcing that the majority of JBS plants would be operational on Wednesday, June 2.
The company’s consultants had continued negotiating with the hackers. Though forensic analyses by JBS and its specialists showed that no customer, supplier or employee data had been compromised, Mr Nogueira said, the cybercriminals claimed they had captured some.
JBS’s cybersecurity experts warned that the attackers may have left themselves some way to pry back in. After JBS negotiators and the hackers arrived at an $11 million sum….

Promptly getting back on the air with sound backups, JBS unharmed even if sorely inconvenienced, Nogueira continued negotiating with the hackers, and ultimately, Nogueira paid off anyway. And all, apparently, because the hackers claimed to have gained “some” data and that, according to his consultants, maybe—maybe—the hackers had left a back door for later use.

Never mind that the hackers claimed, after payment, that no, they didn’t have any stolen data. Who can trust the words of criminals? Never mind that, payment or not, the hackers’ back door remains—if it exists at all. Where’s JBS’ IT? Where’s JBS’ training—with enforced sanctions—of its employees regarding phishing and malware in general?

Then there’s this bit of cynicism:

The cost of the attack, he [Nogueira] said, would be immaterial to JBS….

Except for the part about Nogueira has made JBS an open target for further hacks, and their costs. Never mind the exposure Nogueira’s behavior has created for other businesses by demonstrating that such hacks actually work with impunity and as revenue-generators for the criminals (and political gain-generators for their State sponsors). Never mind, either, the costs this particular hack imposed on JBS’ customers and on the company’s suppliers.

St Louis Fed Fails

Posted on by
Reply

The St Louis Federal Reserve Bank is busily going woke (my term, not Belongia’s and Ireland’s). They describe the following failure of the St Louis Fed:

The Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis is in the early stages of creating an Institute for Economic Equity “to support an economy in which everyone can benefit regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or where they live,” with an emphasis on “economic outcomes experienced by historically marginalized groups.”

This is a two-pronged failure, and a double disaster if it comes to fruition. By its own description, the St Louis Fed’s IEE is racist and sexist at its core. Beyond that, by pushing outcomes rather than opportunities, the IEE is fundamentally socialist.

And what does the drive to create such an office say about the St Louis Fed’s president and board members?

Aiding and Abetting

Posted on by
Reply

In response to the ransomware attack against JBS USA Holdings that briefly disrupted some of the company’s Australian and American operations, JBS paid the hackers $11 million—more than twice that paid by Colonial Pipeline in its cowardly reward to its attackers.

JBS paid those $11 million dollars in its own craven reward for its own privilege of having been hacked.

In many—most?—milieus, aiding and abetting a criminal in the performance of the criminal’s activities is a felony.

It needs to be one here, too. Rather than compensating ransomware hackers—which compensation is directly, if not solely, responsible for the current sharp rise in ransomware attacks—these criminals need a different sort of reward, one that withdraws current criminals from the board and that discourages others from deciding to play.