Okay, I’m being the Energizer Bunny of posts today, especially since I’ve been pretty infrequent lately. But this link from Reason was interesting to me, and brings together a couple comments I’ve been making over the past month or so. It juxtaposes the Hobby Lobby decision with a recent law in Georgia requiring businesses to accept concealed carry.
Nevertheless for a certain kind of spouter of partisan talking points, the Supreme Court ruling—that the government could not, in fact, bully people into doing something if those people have religious objections—was more evidence of the “war on women” Democrats plan to keep running on.
Meanwhile in Georgia, a new gun bill that permits lawfully licensed residents to carry their firearms into a wide range of “public accommodations” (like bars) and actual government buildings goes into effect today. Opponents of the bill, generally liberals, tend to be the same people who opposed the Hobby Lobby ruling, while conservatives who applauded theHobby Lobby ruling for protecting religious liberty applaud Georgia’s law for protecting their Second Amendment rights.
I’m a big fan of voting with my feet. I see a lot of people saying that they’re planning to boycott Hobby Lobby because of the recent decision. Hey, that’s their choice. I’d think it a more powerful decision if they’d ever set foot in a Hobby Lobby before, but that’s a different story. Likewise, there are many stores or businesses that I don’t support because of various policies. For instance, I think Nike’s advertising is pretty loathsome, and I haven’t bought a piece of Nike gear for over a decade as a result. That’s my call, and I don’t throw paint at people who choose to wear it, nor do I usually even go out of my way to say that I don’t buy it. It’s my call, and it’s your call. Personally, I’d probably be more inclined to frequent Hobby Lobby, except there’s not one within three hours of me. You make your calls and live with them, I’ll make mine.
Likewise, women are not “trapped” by working at Hobby Lobby. Even if jobs are pretty scarce, I’d imagine that it’s not that difficult these days to find a job around minimum wage at a place that supports 20 types of contraception as opposed to 16 on its health plan. I don’t ever advise quitting a job before one finds a new one, but you get the point. If you don’t like the policies your company keeps, then find a new one.
No matter what, forcing the government — be it the administration, the congress, or the courts — to make your decisions for you ends up making everyone equally unhappy. How ’bout you decide for yourself rather than waiting for your tax dollars to work?
It’s going to be a little more difficult to ferret out which members of Congress are lavished with all-expenses-paid trips around the world after the House has quietly stripped away the requirement that such privately sponsored travel be included on lawmakers’ annual financial-disclosure forms.
The move, made behind closed doors and without a public announcement by the House Ethics Committee, reverses more than three decades of precedent. Gifts of free travel to lawmakers have appeared on the yearly financial form dating back its creation in the late 1970s, after the Watergate scandal. National Journaluncovered the deleted disclosure requirement when analyzing the most recent batch of yearly filings.
“This is such an obvious effort to avoid accountability,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “There’s no legitimate reason. There’s no good reason for it.”
Honestly, I’m not going to get in high dudgeon about it. But it does frost me that pretty much any side of politics is interested in being less transparent rather than more. I doubt this will get a lot of play from either side given the volume of Hobby Lobby that’s going on this week. But I’d hope that a few more people take note and voice at least a little displeasure.
Updated: I saw it tweeted at NRO, and Ed Morrissey is picking it up. Maybe we’ll see some of the news sources start to sniff it more.
In my continuing series of notes about cyber-warfare, here’s another note that modern warfare includes psychological and some actual battle on the net as much as on the ground. From the Register:
“Several new botnets using dynamic DNS have been detected, which might have been used for cyber espionage and targeted multi-staged cyber attacks, reportscyber intelligence outfit IntelCrawler.
IntelCrawler adds that harmful activity is concentrated in four Iraq cities: Baghdad Erbil, Basra and Mosul. A lot of malware is home-brewed and much of it has previously featured in the Syrian civil war, where ISIS has become a key player over recent months. A substantial segment of the command nodes used in the cyber-spying were hosted on no-IP domains that later became the target of a controversial Microsoft-led takedown operation this week, IntelCrawler adds.
If you hang around here enough, you know that cyber-intrusion has gone corporate. You can get malware with 24/7 tech support and affordable monthly maintenance payments. And taking the jihad to the net means that recruits don’t have to have a flair for travel to exotic locales with a penchant for sand, AK’s, and Reaper drones. It appears that some of the recruits are merely providing computer time for the struggle. It wouldn’t surprise me to see some bitcoin mining or trafficking going on to fund the effort to establish a caliphate.
I’m almost concerned that our ideological enemies are getting upper hand in on-the-ground cyber work. While I’m sure that the US has a broad capability, I’m not positive that we’re actually testing the attack side of the systems as much as the terrorist cells, and certainly not as much as China or Russia.
This is more fodder for the future of wars that have very different borders, and the fact that US “soil” is already under sustained attack seems to be regarded pretty lightly by our citizens.
I’m not a fan of the, “corporations are people,” thing. While I support the outcome of recent Supreme Court decisions, I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent that a corporation is a breathing entity. I’d prefer to have the court rule that the owners of a company are people who can govern the company as they see fit.
A personal Mozilla/Firefox vomited their boss out the door. A personal Big Oil company is evil, rather than an entity striving for profits.
So… I’m torn on where to go. I think we need to more collectively view the goals of a corporation, or even a non-profit, for its need to stay in business to accomplish its business goal. I suppose this wouldn’t be an issue of the government of the US hadn’t decided that it was a compassionate entity (thanks, GWB!) that needed to make personal decisions for 300 million people.
When I first saw a headline about a company called MonkeyParking, I figured it was some dumb racist angle, probably because the TV in the background was droning on about the Redskins. Turns out it’s not about racism. It’s about the government seeing someone make money that the government wants to make on its own, but couldn’t figure out how fast enough.
MonkeyParking, the Rome-based startup whose iPhone app is used to auction off public parking spaces in San Francisco, is refusing City Attorney Dennis Herrera‘s order for the company to halt operations here.
In a newly released statement, MonkeyParking CEO Paolo Dobrowolny, derided Herrera’s cease and desist letter as “an open violation of free speech.”
“I have the right to tell people if I am about to leave a parking spot, and they have the right to pay me for such information,” Dobrowolny said.
It appears that the company provides a subscription service where people can alert other service members where they’re about to give up a parking space, and this space would then theoretically be held until the second member showed up to claim it. If you’ve ever tried to park in San Francisco, you could understand why this is such a genius idea. While I can’t say that I’d pay money for it, I’m sure there are plenty of people who absolutely would.
So naturally, if there’s some company making money, some government is going to either want a piece of it or want to take it over. It’s a natural tendency for some flunky in government to begrudge some citizens’ ability to monetize something. Well, guess what, at least one set of citizens is going to fight back. I can’t say how successful they’ll be, but at least not everyone rolls over.
The WSJ has a disturbing report today. Beer prices are at risk of going up. Well, really hop prices, but it’s going to lead to a rise in beer prices. I won’t panic, well, not much.
The article is currently locked online, so I won’t quote heavily here. But I’m obviously not shocked. I live in an area of about 200,000 people, and the hop fest last weekend had 18 breweries of various sizes pouring beer. We affectionately call our area, “beervana.” While that skews my take on the market, I do see that it’s nearly impossible to go anywhere these days and not find a local brew in the stores. Even if the sizes are small, the mass of new brewers is pushing the limits of supply and demand for hops and grains, and this is likely to raise prices on both component and final price.
This is probably a good thing, at some level. It’s going to push the industry to look for new, and better, supply options over time, and it’s all being done without government regulation of components. At least for now. While BATFE definitely crawls all over the back side of the beer and alcohol process, it has not done a lot of stomping on the actual creation side, other than some definition work.
But it will push prices up in the short and likely long term. I’ve been taken aback by the recent increase in prices for both craft and regular beers, and this is likely to only push up farther. Oddly enough, it’s pushed me to go more often for an inexpensive wine for the evening over a nice beer, and that might server to push prices in different directions over time.
And all of this is happening because people make choices based on their wallets, both in the end consumption, and also in the creation of products. I think that’s awesome.
So when the congressional hearings start, don’t expect me to be happy…
I travel pretty extensively for work. I do it in part because it’s necessary, and in part because I live nearly four hours away from my office. I mostly monitor my commutes because I’m conscious of how much travel wears on my body and my household. I don’t begrudge or demean anyone for having to travel for work, and I wonder what in the world some environmentalists (including people in my own company who travel and feel guilty about it) are thinking.
So when a leading environmentalist gets busted for talking out of one side of the mouth… hey, grab the popcorn!
A Greenpeace senior executive commutes to work by plane despite the organisation’s anti-air travel campaign, it emerged yesterday.
Pascal Husting, Greenpeace International’s programme director, has been flying 250 miles between Luxembourg and Amsterdam at the charity’s expense since 2012.
Each trip costs Greenpeace £200 and would generate 142kg of carbon dioxide emissions, according to airline KLM.
This doesn’t seem to me to be like a problem. An executive has to travel to maintain the team integrity. I did that almost every week for two years not that long ago. The funnier part is that Greenpeace has been kvetching about travel by airplane for quite a while, and therefore the guy has to twist himself into a pretzel to explain that it’s not really HIS problem, but EVERYONE ELSE’S problem.
But Mr Husting defended the arrangement and said he would rather not take the journey but it was necessary because the alternative is a twelve hour round trip by train.
He told the Daily Telegraph: ‘I spend half my life on Skype and video conference calls.
‘But as a senior manager, the people who work in my team sometimes need to meet me in the flesh, that’s why I’ve been going to Amsterdam twice a month while my team was being restructured.’
He said that from September he would switch to making the trip once a month by train due to ‘the work of restructuring my team coming to an end, and with my kids a little older’.
Mr Husting’s travel arrangements were revealed just days after Greenpeace was forced to apologise for losing £3million of public donations in an unauthorised currency dealing.
Do you like that last paragraph I threw in for fun? So the organization can’t handle its money, and its executives are double-dealing weasels, but everything is just fine with the organization. Even his boss tried to explain it away. He’s a valuable employee with special circumstances, so the compromise has to be made. That’s great. In any business, I think those types of decisions are made every day. It’s just funny watching this organization whine about every other company making decisions like this when they make the same ones themselves.
So, go ahead, guys. Feel free to hop on that plane to do your business. Just lay off me doing the same, thanks.