by Corbin K. Barthold, Law & FreedomJanuary 9, 2025.
Extract:
Now lawmakers, both state and federal, are going the other way. They introduce, support, and (so far only at the state level) introduce bills that would impose age verification requirements on social media platforms and adult websites. Current online age verification techniques erode digital privacy by creating vectors for discovering users’ identities and snooping on their browsing habits. Online age verification laws increase the likelihood that we will one day actually have a Bork Tapes-style scandal.
The purpose of online age verification is to protect children. But online age verification only works if everyone does it. On the Internet, no one knows you’re an adult until you prove it (as far as possible; all online age verification systems can be gamed). To determine your age, you must provide some form of personal information, which puts it at risk of disclosure. Online age verification laws thus burden adults’ First Amendment rights by hindering their ability to anonymously post and view material on the Internet. (They often burden First Amendment rights of children(Also, for example, by excluding all minors from online spaces, high school students are old enough to gain access.) The courts have issued an injunction string by premature command prevent such laws from coming into effect.
New York TimesJanuary 7, 2014.
A tribute to some courageous people, in particular a couple with 3 children. If they had been caught, they might never have seen their children for more than an hour at a time until their children were teenagers or even adults.
In this video you will learn about COINTELPRO.
by Liz Wolfe, RodeJanuary 9, 2025.
Extract:
In 2017 and 2018, as wildfires raged across the state, many insurers drastically reduced their coverage. Those wildfires had cost them a total of $23 billion, about twice as much as the companies had collected in premiums during that same period, and many of the companies decided that some of these places were simply too expensive to insure.
After all, premiums are not arbitrary; they reflect the risk. Teams of actuaries spend a lot of time trying to understand what prices they can offer homeowners in a particular area. Unfortunately, in California, the insurance commissioner, an elected official, Ricardo Lara-must approve premium increases. Lara generally will not approve high premium increases, leading to the predictable outcome of insurers pulling out. Something that Lara also tries to ‘fix’ through government coercion.
“For the first time in history, we are requiring insurance companies to expand where people need help most,” he said announced last month. “Major insurance companies must increase the number of comprehensive policies in wildfire-affected areas, equal to no less than 85% of their statewide market share,” he continued.
Yes, you got this right: He thinks that bullying private insurers into covering expensive wildfire-prone areas (rather than allowing them to accurately assess the risk) will result in better coverage for homeowners . Look forward to, if it gets expensive enough, State Farm and the like withdraw completely from the entire state. Lara, despite his own overconfidence, cannot make the financial matters work. (Somehow many progressives can’t understand this cycle of cause and effect.)
For more information on price controls, see Hugh Rockoff, “Price Controls,” in David R. Henderson, ed., The concise encyclopedia of economics.
by George F. Will, WashingtonPostJanuary 8, 2025.
Extract:
Nippon has promised to pay $5 billion more than the company’s market capitalization. And to keep US Steel’s headquarters in Pittsburgh. And to give $5,000 bonuses to the company’s steelworkers. And to honor all union contracts. And to have the US government reject any reduction in US Steel’s production capacity. And to spend $2.7 billion to modernize what Biden misleadingly calls “this vital American business,” which has withered due to reliance on U.S. government tariffs, subsidies and “Buy American” rules.
by Ilya Somin, RodeJanuary 8, 2025.
Extract:
Yesterday the House of Representatives passed the Laken Riley Act (LRA).by 264 votes to 159. This legislation – named after a student murdered by an undocumented immigrant – is often the case sold by advocates as a tool to combat murderers and sex offenders. In reality, it focuses on detaining undocumented immigrants accused of theft-related crimes, including petty crimes. It also includes a Trojan Horse provision that makes it easier for states to challenge a variety of programs that make legal migration easier. This policy is unjust and is more likely to hinder than help real crime fighting.
The key provision of the Laken Riley Act requires mandatory federal detention of any undocumented immigrant who “is accused of, arrested for, convicted of, admits to having committed acts, or admits to having committed acts constituting the essential elements of any burglary, theft, theft. or shoplifting.” Note that the provision is triggered by mere arrest or indictment, and no further proof of guilt is required. Moreover, even the smallest forms of theft, burglary or shoplifting qualify. If a migrant is arrested on suspicion of stealing a dime or a paperclip from a store, that is enough to trigger mandatory detention. Ditto if he or she is accused of even the smallest theft-related offense.
Two notes:
First of all, it’s a shame that Ilya fell into the trap of calling an illegal alien “undocumented.” ‘Undocumented’ is the current euphemism for ‘illegal’. Euphemisms that distort should be avoided. I wouldn’t be surprised if many illegal aliens have documents such as birth certificates. They simply do not have the legally required document.
Second, I remember reading someone, a congressman or an expert, saying that it is usually a bad idea to vote for a piece of legislation named after someone. This is a good example.
by Matthew Rozsa, RodeJanuary 10, 2025.
Extract:
Even if Trump utterly fails at these geopolitical gambles, the fact that he’s trying to see it in the first place shows his hand. In his second term, Trump plans to use his executive power to expand America’s global empire. By contrast, Cleveland spent his second term trying to roll back America’s then-nascent imperialist ambitions—and did so without flinching when real force in our foreign policy was needed.
The standout story from Cleveland’s presidency concerns Hawaii. When he returned to office in 1893, Cleveland was greeted with a treaty submitted to the Senate for the annexation of Hawaii. Newspapers across the country waxed poetic about how the American flag would soon wave in the Hawaiian breeze, but few journalists questioned the official story about how this land had come into our possession. They were told that the Hawaiian natives had voluntarily betrayed their own monarch, Queen Liliuokalani, by replacing her rule with that of white foreigners (mainly Americans).
Cleveland suspected there was more to it. He knew that sugar plantation owners and other wealthy business interests were suspicious of Liliuokalani, who wanted to reduce foreign influence in her country. When those Americans learned that she was planning concrete policies to achieve this goal, American lawyer Sanford Dole and US Secretary of State to Hawaii John Stevens led a conspiracy to dethrone her. By the time Cleveland took office, they had succeeded (with the unwitting help of American locals who believed they were receiving support from Washington) and were only waiting for Senate ratification of an annexation treaty to complete their plot.
Note: The accompanying photo is by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI.