Day: December 22, 2017

The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 and the Breakdown of the Black Family


Conservatives tend to regard the growing trend of single-parent families as an issue of personal responsibility, but what if the liberals who blame society are partly right? What if they can point their finger to a bill sponsored by two Republicans and signed into law by a Republican president?

Prior to the 1930s, the labor force participation rate for black Americans was roughly equal to that of whites. Following passage of the first federal minimum wage in 1931, these rates started to diverge, and from the 1950s to the present, national black unemployment has remained at double the rate for whites. This is not surprising: Minimum wage restrictions discourage businesses from hiring workers who are regarded as “less marketable” due to either their lack of experience or societal prejudice.

The impact of minimum wage on worker participation depends on how much it exceeds market-based wages. This in turn varies from state to state. Since information on the size of this gap is not easily available, the state “regulatory environment” as determined by Forbes magazine can serve a more comprehensive means for estimating of overall administrative barriers to job growth (including minimum wage).

To detect the effect of the regulatory environment on black Americans I limited the data to states with significant black populations because these states are more likely to provide a representative sample for this group. Based on this sub-sample the line representing blacks is noticeably steeper than the line representing whites (Fig. 1). This means that the “employment gap” between blacks and whites widens as state regulations become less conducive to business.

Fig. 1: Based on data from Forbes (2016), the  U.S. Census Bureau (2015), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) as cited by Thomas C. Frohlich in 24/7 Wall Street. 24/7 Wall Street.

Federal expenditures to states obscure the effect of overregulation because federal jobs and grants can make up for the lack of private investment. For example, despite having one of the worst regulatory environments in the U.S. (ranks 48 out of 50), the state of Hawaii has one of the lowest unemployment rates. Does this mean that federal “investments” are a good strategy for narrowing the employment gap? Not really: Large federal expenditures are justified in regions with an extensive military infrastructure (like Hawaii or Guam), but spending for the sole purpose of “economic stimulus” is a zero-sum game that worsens the national debt while adding nothing to the national economy. Hence, to more accurately detect the effect of regulatory environment on states, it is necessary to limit the sample to states with less federal land because these states rely less on federal employment and control more of their own resources.

When the sample is limited to states with minimal federal land, the line representing black unemployment becomes much steeper (Fig. 2). On the right side of the graph the average employment gap between blacks and whites is 8 points. On the left side the gap is only 3.5 percentage points (Fig. 3). For the state of Indiana, the gap is a mere 2.5 points. During this time the governor of Indiana was Mike Pence.

Fig. 2: Based on data from Forbes (2016), from U.S. Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Census Bureau (2015), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) as cited by Thomas C. Frohlich in 24/7 Wall Street.

Fig. 3: Based on data from Forbes (2016), from U.S. Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Census Bureau (2015), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) as cited by Thomas C. Frohlich in 24/7 Wall Street.

If equality is so important to progressives, why is the right side of the graph dominated by states that have voted Democratic since 1992?

Rep. John Lewis recently cancelled his scheduled appearance at the opening of a civil rights museum upon learning that Donald Trump would be attending. On his own website, the 1960s civil rights veteran denounced Trump’s policies as “hurtful” and “an insult” to the people portrayed in this civil rights museum. Since Trump has neglected to burn incense on the altar of diversity, how have black Americans faired under the Trump administration?

Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, black unemployment in September reached its lowest point in 17 years. It may get even better given the unprecedented rate at which this president is undoing the burdensome regulations of the Obama administration. If you are among those who condemn the congressional Republicans who did not let Obama raise the minimum wage to $10 per hour, then you should do your homework on Davis-Bacon.

The Davis-Bacon Act was co-sponsored by Sen. James J. Davis (R-PA) and Rep. Robert L. Bacon (R-NY) and signed into law by president Herbert Hoover in 1931. According to the Foundation for Economic Education this law was originally designed to protect white workers from competition, presumably from the minorities who worked for lower wages. You may dispute the law’s intent, but you cannot wish away data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A chart from Heritage Foundation shows how the percent of black children born out of wedlock started rising steadily after 1940, when it was originally 15%. Today it is over 70%. If this is a “legacy of slavery” why were there less single mothers during the era of Jim Crow? If this was precipitated by a “brain drain” of black professionals during desegregation, why did this trend begin thirteen years prior to Martin Luther King’s march on Washington? Could it be the drug trafficking, or might this be a just symptom of the chronic unemployment in these communities?

The steady trend towards single-parent households started within the decade that followed the Davis-Bacon Act. I doubt this is a coincidence, because few things are more damaging to a man’s self-respect than undermining his means to make an honest living.

But what about those generous social benefits in New England? Is being chronically unemployed in Rhode Island preferable to being “stuck” in a low-wage job in Nebraska? Which option is more “hurtful” and “insulting”? Which is a greater barrier to success and personal fulfillment?

If my children ever regard the first option as remotely preferable I will have failed in my role as a father.

Antonio Chaves teaches biology at a local community college. His interest in economic and social issues stems from his experience teaching environmental science.

Conservatives tend to regard the growing trend of single-parent families as an issue of personal responsibility, but what if the liberals who blame society are partly right? What if they can point their finger to a bill sponsored by two Republicans and signed into law by a Republican president?

Prior to the 1930s, the labor force participation rate for black Americans was roughly equal to that of whites. Following passage of the first federal minimum wage in 1931, these rates started to diverge, and from the 1950s to the present, national black unemployment has remained at double the rate for whites. This is not surprising: Minimum wage restrictions discourage businesses from hiring workers who are regarded as “less marketable” due to either their lack of experience or societal prejudice.

The impact of minimum wage on worker participation depends on how much it exceeds market-based wages. This in turn varies from state to state. Since information on the size of this gap is not easily available, the state “regulatory environment” as determined by Forbes magazine can serve a more comprehensive means for estimating of overall administrative barriers to job growth (including minimum wage).

To detect the effect of the regulatory environment on black Americans I limited the data to states with significant black populations because these states are more likely to provide a representative sample for this group. Based on this sub-sample the line representing blacks is noticeably steeper than the line representing whites (Fig. 1). This means that the “employment gap” between blacks and whites widens as state regulations become less conducive to business.

Fig. 1: Based on data from Forbes (2016), the  U.S. Census Bureau (2015), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) as cited by Thomas C. Frohlich in 24/7 Wall Street. 24/7 Wall Street.

Federal expenditures to states obscure the effect of overregulation because federal jobs and grants can make up for the lack of private investment. For example, despite having one of the worst regulatory environments in the U.S. (ranks 48 out of 50), the state of Hawaii has one of the lowest unemployment rates. Does this mean that federal “investments” are a good strategy for narrowing the employment gap? Not really: Large federal expenditures are justified in regions with an extensive military infrastructure (like Hawaii or Guam), but spending for the sole purpose of “economic stimulus” is a zero-sum game that worsens the national debt while adding nothing to the national economy. Hence, to more accurately detect the effect of regulatory environment on states, it is necessary to limit the sample to states with less federal land because these states rely less on federal employment and control more of their own resources.

When the sample is limited to states with minimal federal land, the line representing black unemployment becomes much steeper (Fig. 2). On the right side of the graph the average employment gap between blacks and whites is 8 points. On the left side the gap is only 3.5 percentage points (Fig. 3). For the state of Indiana, the gap is a mere 2.5 points. During this time the governor of Indiana was Mike Pence.

Fig. 2: Based on data from Forbes (2016), from U.S. Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Census Bureau (2015), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) as cited by Thomas C. Frohlich in 24/7 Wall Street.

Fig. 3: Based on data from Forbes (2016), from U.S. Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Census Bureau (2015), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) as cited by Thomas C. Frohlich in 24/7 Wall Street.

If equality is so important to progressives, why is the right side of the graph dominated by states that have voted Democratic since 1992?

Rep. John Lewis recently cancelled his scheduled appearance at the opening of a civil rights museum upon learning that Donald Trump would be attending. On his own website, the 1960s civil rights veteran denounced Trump’s policies as “hurtful” and “an insult” to the people portrayed in this civil rights museum. Since Trump has neglected to burn incense on the altar of diversity, how have black Americans faired under the Trump administration?

Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, black unemployment in September reached its lowest point in 17 years. It may get even better given the unprecedented rate at which this president is undoing the burdensome regulations of the Obama administration. If you are among those who condemn the congressional Republicans who did not let Obama raise the minimum wage to $10 per hour, then you should do your homework on Davis-Bacon.

The Davis-Bacon Act was co-sponsored by Sen. James J. Davis (R-PA) and Rep. Robert L. Bacon (R-NY) and signed into law by president Herbert Hoover in 1931. According to the Foundation for Economic Education this law was originally designed to protect white workers from competition, presumably from the minorities who worked for lower wages. You may dispute the law’s intent, but you cannot wish away data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

A chart from Heritage Foundation shows how the percent of black children born out of wedlock started rising steadily after 1940, when it was originally 15%. Today it is over 70%. If this is a “legacy of slavery” why were there less single mothers during the era of Jim Crow? If this was precipitated by a “brain drain” of black professionals during desegregation, why did this trend begin thirteen years prior to Martin Luther King’s march on Washington? Could it be the drug trafficking, or might this be a just symptom of the chronic unemployment in these communities?

The steady trend towards single-parent households started within the decade that followed the Davis-Bacon Act. I doubt this is a coincidence, because few things are more damaging to a man’s self-respect than undermining his means to make an honest living.

But what about those generous social benefits in New England? Is being chronically unemployed in Rhode Island preferable to being “stuck” in a low-wage job in Nebraska? Which option is more “hurtful” and “insulting”? Which is a greater barrier to success and personal fulfillment?

If my children ever regard the first option as remotely preferable I will have failed in my role as a father.

Antonio Chaves teaches biology at a local community college. His interest in economic and social issues stems from his experience teaching environmental science.



Source link

Stopping the Muslim Brotherhood's Strategic Plan to Infiltrate America


Few Americans are aware of America’s largest terrorist prosecution in U.S. federal court, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, et al. During the trial, in November of 2008, the government presented evidence that the Holy Land Foundation and five defendants provided approximately $12.4 million in support to Hamas and its goal of creating an Islamic Palestinian state by eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad:

“In August of 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver was Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in Chicago in connection with fundraising for Hamas. The FBI’s Washington Field Office subsequently executed a search warrant on Elbarasse’s residence in Annandale, Virginia. In the basement of his home, a hidden sub-basement was found; it revealed over 80 banker boxes of the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.” One of the most important of these documents made public to date was entered into evidence during the Holy Land Foundation trial. It amounted to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Plan in America and was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

From the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, the innocuous-sounding “Explanatory Memorandum” explained how the Muslim Brotherhood sought to extend sharia into the United States and Canada. Another document referenced from the U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation trial was an undated paper titled “Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan.” It specified the five phases of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in North America.

Phase One: Phase of discreet and secret establishment of leadership.

Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities. Establishing a shadow government (secret) within the Government.

On October 30, 2008, candidate Barack Obama famously exclaimed, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Candidate Obama gave specific guidance for staffing his administration, captured in an email from September 2008, advisers would choose Arab Muslims over Arab Christians for the top jobs.

While the Obama transition team aimed to hire Muslims “for the top jobs,” President Obama directed his cabinet and political appointees to develop and implement “Muslim Outreach” programs. He told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his highest priority should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science… and math and engineering.” President Obama announced plans for the first ever federally funded Muslim outreach program. The program would be available nationwide for all elementary school students grade K-12. The program was designed to educate children about the fundamentals of the Muslim religion and Islamic belief. When CIA Director John Panetta visited Dearborn, Michigan he too was complying with the directives of President Obama. Panetta articulated he wanted to boost CIA recruitment efforts in Arab and Muslim communities.

With the election of President Obama in November 2008 and his Muslim Outreach initiative, exemplified by his Cairo “A New Beginnings Speech” at al Azhar University, the Obama administration officially extended a welcome to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Investor’s Business Daily provided a chronology of events, “How the CIA Helped the Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrate the West.” The Muslim Brotherhood’s star was rising and became a partner in the Obama White House. The crown jewel of Muslim Brotherhood influence was the fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt during the Arab Spring of 2011. The White House fully supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohamad Morsi, for president.

Another cabinet member, Secretary Hillary Clinton, stressed her belief that “we must increase outreach not simply to American Muslims, but to Muslims around the world.” Secretary Clinton’s right-hand aide, Huma Abedin, may have been the go-to person for the State Department’s “Muslim outreach” programs. It is noteworthy that Huma Abedin and her family have strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and promoted a hardline Islamic ideology. For 12 years, Huma Abedin, edited a radical Muslim publication that blamed the U.S. for September 11, 2001. Syed Abedin, Huma’s father, outlined his Muslim Brotherhood view of sharia law and how the Western world has turned Muslims “hostile.”

During her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and her minions found ways to remove sensitive and highly classified information from State Department offices. The public became aware that Secretary Clinton eschewed the State Department’s classified and unclassified email systems for a private “homebrew” and off-site email server. When Mrs. Clinton stepped down from her post, she was likely under investigation by the FBI for her role in the Clinton Foundation, along with espionage, and the destruction of her official records and emails.

FBI Director Comey held a press conference on July 5, 2016. “We did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

There were a substantial number of members of Congress and the intelligence community that Hillary Clinton should have been charged for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. During the third presidential debate nominee Trump announced the Clinton Foundation was “a criminal enterprise” and “She shouldn’t be allowed to run. It’s — she’s guilty of a very, very serious crime.”

Whether there is intent to harm the United States or not, the essence of espionage is to remove classified documents out of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, a SCIF, and put them into the hands of “someone not authorized to receive them.” While there were over a thousand secret or higher classified documents on her private server, Mrs. Clinton disclosed that her aides had deleted more than 33,000 emails that she deemed “personal.” When Mrs. Clinton stepped down from her position, Huma Abedin was allowed to take five boxes of “physical files” out of the State Department that include records described as “Muslim Engagement Documents.”

The history of the Obama administration is one rife with connections to or with the Muslim Brotherhood and the preferential hiring of Muslims “for the top job.” Some WikiLeaks emails describe that sensitive and top-level government positions were to be filled by Muslims. Would they have questionable loyalties to the United States? After the disgraced David Petraeus was removed from his position as CIA Director, one of the FBI’s former top experts on Islam announced that President Obama’s pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, had converted to Islam years ago. Apparently, everyone in Washington knew it but it was never reported. John Brennan was full of surprises after becoming CIA Director. During an interview, John Brennan clearly stated that he voted for the Communist Party candidate, Gus Hall, for President of the United States.

What was in Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails? Correspondence with Barack Obama under an alias? Correspondence with Clinton Foundation members and donors? Correspondence with Vladimir Putin or other Russian politicians? My money is on correspondence with the Muslim Brotherhood. The assured election of Hillary Clinton was to be the third term of Barack Obama, as Barack Obama and his minions worked tirelessly to fulfill the dictates of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan to infiltrate the American government. What is more “fundamentally transforming” for the United States than an open-door policy for the immigration of Muslims, or the infiltration of Muslims in the government? Also remember, Barack Obama also reversed President Bush’s policy and removed the FBI from conducting surveillance on mosques.

Once Donald Trump was elected, was it reasonable to expect that all of Obama’s strategic work to “transform the United States of America” through “Muslim outreach” or “Muslim engagement” programs as well as to facilitate the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy of phased infiltration of Muslims into government would be systematically undone through a complete rejection and reversal of President Obama’s policies?

Isn’t that what we are seeing today? 

Few Americans are aware of America’s largest terrorist prosecution in U.S. federal court, U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation, et al. During the trial, in November of 2008, the government presented evidence that the Holy Land Foundation and five defendants provided approximately $12.4 million in support to Hamas and its goal of creating an Islamic Palestinian state by eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad:

“In August of 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver was Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in Chicago in connection with fundraising for Hamas. The FBI’s Washington Field Office subsequently executed a search warrant on Elbarasse’s residence in Annandale, Virginia. In the basement of his home, a hidden sub-basement was found; it revealed over 80 banker boxes of the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.” One of the most important of these documents made public to date was entered into evidence during the Holy Land Foundation trial. It amounted to the Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Plan in America and was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

From the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, the innocuous-sounding “Explanatory Memorandum” explained how the Muslim Brotherhood sought to extend sharia into the United States and Canada. Another document referenced from the U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation trial was an undated paper titled “Phases of the World Underground Movement Plan.” It specified the five phases of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in North America.

Phase One: Phase of discreet and secret establishment of leadership.

Phase Two: Phase of gradual appearance on the public scene and exercising and utilizing various public activities. Establishing a shadow government (secret) within the Government.

On October 30, 2008, candidate Barack Obama famously exclaimed, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Candidate Obama gave specific guidance for staffing his administration, captured in an email from September 2008, advisers would choose Arab Muslims over Arab Christians for the top jobs.

While the Obama transition team aimed to hire Muslims “for the top jobs,” President Obama directed his cabinet and political appointees to develop and implement “Muslim Outreach” programs. He told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his highest priority should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science… and math and engineering.” President Obama announced plans for the first ever federally funded Muslim outreach program. The program would be available nationwide for all elementary school students grade K-12. The program was designed to educate children about the fundamentals of the Muslim religion and Islamic belief. When CIA Director John Panetta visited Dearborn, Michigan he too was complying with the directives of President Obama. Panetta articulated he wanted to boost CIA recruitment efforts in Arab and Muslim communities.

With the election of President Obama in November 2008 and his Muslim Outreach initiative, exemplified by his Cairo “A New Beginnings Speech” at al Azhar University, the Obama administration officially extended a welcome to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Investor’s Business Daily provided a chronology of events, “How the CIA Helped the Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrate the West.” The Muslim Brotherhood’s star was rising and became a partner in the Obama White House. The crown jewel of Muslim Brotherhood influence was the fall of the Mubarak regime in Egypt during the Arab Spring of 2011. The White House fully supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohamad Morsi, for president.

Another cabinet member, Secretary Hillary Clinton, stressed her belief that “we must increase outreach not simply to American Muslims, but to Muslims around the world.” Secretary Clinton’s right-hand aide, Huma Abedin, may have been the go-to person for the State Department’s “Muslim outreach” programs. It is noteworthy that Huma Abedin and her family have strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and promoted a hardline Islamic ideology. For 12 years, Huma Abedin, edited a radical Muslim publication that blamed the U.S. for September 11, 2001. Syed Abedin, Huma’s father, outlined his Muslim Brotherhood view of sharia law and how the Western world has turned Muslims “hostile.”

During her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and her minions found ways to remove sensitive and highly classified information from State Department offices. The public became aware that Secretary Clinton eschewed the State Department’s classified and unclassified email systems for a private “homebrew” and off-site email server. When Mrs. Clinton stepped down from her post, she was likely under investigation by the FBI for her role in the Clinton Foundation, along with espionage, and the destruction of her official records and emails.

FBI Director Comey held a press conference on July 5, 2016. “We did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

There were a substantial number of members of Congress and the intelligence community that Hillary Clinton should have been charged for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. During the third presidential debate nominee Trump announced the Clinton Foundation was “a criminal enterprise” and “She shouldn’t be allowed to run. It’s — she’s guilty of a very, very serious crime.”

Whether there is intent to harm the United States or not, the essence of espionage is to remove classified documents out of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, a SCIF, and put them into the hands of “someone not authorized to receive them.” While there were over a thousand secret or higher classified documents on her private server, Mrs. Clinton disclosed that her aides had deleted more than 33,000 emails that she deemed “personal.” When Mrs. Clinton stepped down from her position, Huma Abedin was allowed to take five boxes of “physical files” out of the State Department that include records described as “Muslim Engagement Documents.”

The history of the Obama administration is one rife with connections to or with the Muslim Brotherhood and the preferential hiring of Muslims “for the top job.” Some WikiLeaks emails describe that sensitive and top-level government positions were to be filled by Muslims. Would they have questionable loyalties to the United States? After the disgraced David Petraeus was removed from his position as CIA Director, one of the FBI’s former top experts on Islam announced that President Obama’s pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, had converted to Islam years ago. Apparently, everyone in Washington knew it but it was never reported. John Brennan was full of surprises after becoming CIA Director. During an interview, John Brennan clearly stated that he voted for the Communist Party candidate, Gus Hall, for President of the United States.

What was in Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails? Correspondence with Barack Obama under an alias? Correspondence with Clinton Foundation members and donors? Correspondence with Vladimir Putin or other Russian politicians? My money is on correspondence with the Muslim Brotherhood. The assured election of Hillary Clinton was to be the third term of Barack Obama, as Barack Obama and his minions worked tirelessly to fulfill the dictates of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan to infiltrate the American government. What is more “fundamentally transforming” for the United States than an open-door policy for the immigration of Muslims, or the infiltration of Muslims in the government? Also remember, Barack Obama also reversed President Bush’s policy and removed the FBI from conducting surveillance on mosques.

Once Donald Trump was elected, was it reasonable to expect that all of Obama’s strategic work to “transform the United States of America” through “Muslim outreach” or “Muslim engagement” programs as well as to facilitate the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy of phased infiltration of Muslims into government would be systematically undone through a complete rejection and reversal of President Obama’s policies?

Isn’t that what we are seeing today? 



Source link

US-LIFESTYLE-APPLE.jpg

iPhone X racism row; Face ID fails to distinguish between Chinese users…


Apple has been accused of racism, amid reports that the Face ID authentication technology on its new iPhone X is failing to distinguish between Chinese users.

A man from Shanghai bought his wife the new gadget soon after it was released last month, but she was shocked to discover it could be unlocked by her teenage son.

The man, identified only by his surname Liu, phoned Apple’s customer service hotline to report the problem.

“Our son was using it and didn’t know the password”, he said, according to Shandong TV Station .

He was told it was an isolated case and was due to the fact his wife and son look very similar. However, Apple has reportedly launched an investigation into the Liu family’s claims.


This is not the first reported incident of Chinese users being able to unlock each other’s iPhone Xs.

Last week, AsiaOne reported that a woman from Nanjing discovered her colleague was able to unlock her phone using Face ID.

When Madam Yan first called Apple’s hotline to complain about the problem, the customer service representative told her it was “impossible”.

However, when pair took the phone to the store to prove what had happened, they found they could unlock all the phones in the store.



“We look quite ordinary. What if someone picks up my phone and opens it?” said Madam Yan’s colleague, Madam Wan.

“Then they could buy stuff through my phone and make payments. We don’t have any sense of security.”

Apple claims the probability that a random person in the population could look at your iPhone X and unlock it using Face ID is approximately one in a million. However, there are some caveats.

If you have a twin or a sibling who looks very similar to you, the probability of a false match is higher.


It is also higher for children under the age of 13, because their distinct facial features may not have fully developed, according to Apple.

The company claims to have worked with people all over the world to ensure the product accessible to people of different ethnicities.

“We worked with participants from around the world to include a representative group of people accounting for gender, age, ethnicity, and other factors,” said Cynthia Hogan , Apple’s vice president of public policy for the Americas, in October.

“We augmented the studies as needed to provide a high degree of accuracy for a diverse range of users.”



Source link

The #MeToo Tipping Point


The cultural and overall societal impact of the deluge of sexual assault and harassment accusations has only just begun to be realized.  Already, careful observers – both men and women alike – are noting that the broad and fuzzy definition of “harassment” can encompass behaviors previously considered routine flirtation and will obliterate the good manners of gentlemen who compliment women.  This new spate of redefining acceptable behavior continues to complicate relationships between men and women during an era when the uncertainties and overturning of tradition have already made male-female interactions not just problematic, but precarious.  Dating is increasingly rare – almost nonexistent – anymore, and men are left bewildered about how or whether to express interest in any woman for fear of offending her.  Employers are wondering whether it is worth the risk to hire women for high-level positions, for which daily consultations and occasional out-of-town travel are de rigueur.

The inescapable conclusion is that women are going to be the losers big-time in this cultural transformation.  Feminism promised women that adopting the behaviors of men (good, bad, and ugly) would yield an equal playing field.  Instead, in the workplace women shed their true feminine power to reach for the brass ring, only to discover that this new world reduced them to mere sexual objects who had to “play along” to get in the door of top-floor suites.  On campus, they gave up courtship and romance only to discover that they were viewed, in the words of Tom Wolfe’s I Am Charlotte Simons, as sexual “dumpsters.”  Now marriage rates are abysmally low, and young women who cohabit give up their best years to guys who are happy to have them foot the bills and do the chores before ending up, after several years of sexual and financial freeloading, marrying someone younger and “hotter.”

Many of us are wondering if this sexual climate will lead to a new Victorian era, where chaperones will be necessary to protect women from male predators and immunize men from female predators.  When the pendulum has swung so far, it must swing back.  It remains to be seen just how far it will travel towards stricter rules and more traditional standards of male-female interaction.

Have we seen the last of the “anything goes” era?  Will we, once again, recognize female vulnerability and the dangers posed by an alcohol- and drug-soaked culture?  Certainly, men in public positions must be searching their memories, wondering if they have overstepped any boundaries or put themselves in a situation where some woman can make accusations that could destroy their families, careers, and standing in the community.

In the world of no-fault divorce, men were already leery of the risk of marriage.  But now, if we accept that a woman can make accusations about events in the dimly remembered past and be believed without question, with no way to establish who is telling the truth, it is a fearsome world for men.  In such a climate, men are at the mercy of any woman with a grudge; a political agenda; or the desire for a little cash, some attention, or 15 minutes of fame.  In such a world, a man would be foolish to ever show interest in a woman or put himself in a vulnerable situation.

Ultimately, women are losers because they will be avoided both personally and professionally.  Men lose, too, because they have to protect themselves in every encounter and never be alone with a woman.  Even then, under the right circumstances or for the right sum, some women will be willing to concoct a plausible story of harassment or abuse.

If Anita Hill’s far-fetched and devious imaginings can be construed as evidenced of abuse in spite of all evidence to the contrary, no man is safe.  I had newly arrived in D.C. when that trial was televised on PBS.  I was not alone in being stunned and appalled to hear the distortion in Nina Totenburg’s reporting.  She made no attempt to accurately report what happened; instead, she editorialized to portray Anita Hill as a victim.  Things have gradually escalated since then until the current tsunami of women coming before television cameras to sell their stories, both real and imagined­­.  In today’s climate, the woman is supposed to be believed regardless, resulting in men, justly and unjustly, losing their reputations and their jobs.

Feminism relentlessly peddled an unreal utopia where women could be safeguarded merely by their right to “just say no” and where men are required to get “consent” at every stage of pursuit.  At the same time, the culture has created an environment where girls get tipsy before going to a bar where they get drunk enough to have the courage to get in a stranger’s car or go to an unknown guy’s room.  The next morning, in best-case scenarios, when the guy doesn’t even remember her name or acknowledge her when they pass on campus, she feels (rightly) used and abused!  In worst-case scenarios, she contracts an incurable (yes, incurable) STD, or is brutally assaulted or raped, or ends up murdered at the hands of a serial sex offender.

The good news from all the attention on harassment and sexual assault is that men must clean up their act; they can no longer get away with a “Harvey” move.  Perhaps we have finally reached a tipping point, where lewd jokes and vulgar comments are once again considered ill mannered in “ladies'” presence.  Better still, we have spotlighted the long-term impact when some brute abuses or assaults a woman.

I’m not at all sure that we have learned that we cannot continue to lump together all complaints into a generic category of abuse, where no distinction is made among offensive language, sexual harassment, and physical assault or rape.  Nor am I sure that we have made the connection between alcohol and these offensive acts (though some corporations have chosen to ban alcohol from office parties).

In short, as a society, either we’ll acknowledge the need for a saner approach to harassment, abuse, and assault or we’ll have to return to the Victorian practices of chaperones, some sort of neo-patriarchy, and a return to restrictions on women’s freedom and autonomy.

The cultural and overall societal impact of the deluge of sexual assault and harassment accusations has only just begun to be realized.  Already, careful observers – both men and women alike – are noting that the broad and fuzzy definition of “harassment” can encompass behaviors previously considered routine flirtation and will obliterate the good manners of gentlemen who compliment women.  This new spate of redefining acceptable behavior continues to complicate relationships between men and women during an era when the uncertainties and overturning of tradition have already made male-female interactions not just problematic, but precarious.  Dating is increasingly rare – almost nonexistent – anymore, and men are left bewildered about how or whether to express interest in any woman for fear of offending her.  Employers are wondering whether it is worth the risk to hire women for high-level positions, for which daily consultations and occasional out-of-town travel are de rigueur.

The inescapable conclusion is that women are going to be the losers big-time in this cultural transformation.  Feminism promised women that adopting the behaviors of men (good, bad, and ugly) would yield an equal playing field.  Instead, in the workplace women shed their true feminine power to reach for the brass ring, only to discover that this new world reduced them to mere sexual objects who had to “play along” to get in the door of top-floor suites.  On campus, they gave up courtship and romance only to discover that they were viewed, in the words of Tom Wolfe’s I Am Charlotte Simons, as sexual “dumpsters.”  Now marriage rates are abysmally low, and young women who cohabit give up their best years to guys who are happy to have them foot the bills and do the chores before ending up, after several years of sexual and financial freeloading, marrying someone younger and “hotter.”

Many of us are wondering if this sexual climate will lead to a new Victorian era, where chaperones will be necessary to protect women from male predators and immunize men from female predators.  When the pendulum has swung so far, it must swing back.  It remains to be seen just how far it will travel towards stricter rules and more traditional standards of male-female interaction.

Have we seen the last of the “anything goes” era?  Will we, once again, recognize female vulnerability and the dangers posed by an alcohol- and drug-soaked culture?  Certainly, men in public positions must be searching their memories, wondering if they have overstepped any boundaries or put themselves in a situation where some woman can make accusations that could destroy their families, careers, and standing in the community.

In the world of no-fault divorce, men were already leery of the risk of marriage.  But now, if we accept that a woman can make accusations about events in the dimly remembered past and be believed without question, with no way to establish who is telling the truth, it is a fearsome world for men.  In such a climate, men are at the mercy of any woman with a grudge; a political agenda; or the desire for a little cash, some attention, or 15 minutes of fame.  In such a world, a man would be foolish to ever show interest in a woman or put himself in a vulnerable situation.

Ultimately, women are losers because they will be avoided both personally and professionally.  Men lose, too, because they have to protect themselves in every encounter and never be alone with a woman.  Even then, under the right circumstances or for the right sum, some women will be willing to concoct a plausible story of harassment or abuse.

If Anita Hill’s far-fetched and devious imaginings can be construed as evidenced of abuse in spite of all evidence to the contrary, no man is safe.  I had newly arrived in D.C. when that trial was televised on PBS.  I was not alone in being stunned and appalled to hear the distortion in Nina Totenburg’s reporting.  She made no attempt to accurately report what happened; instead, she editorialized to portray Anita Hill as a victim.  Things have gradually escalated since then until the current tsunami of women coming before television cameras to sell their stories, both real and imagined­­.  In today’s climate, the woman is supposed to be believed regardless, resulting in men, justly and unjustly, losing their reputations and their jobs.

Feminism relentlessly peddled an unreal utopia where women could be safeguarded merely by their right to “just say no” and where men are required to get “consent” at every stage of pursuit.  At the same time, the culture has created an environment where girls get tipsy before going to a bar where they get drunk enough to have the courage to get in a stranger’s car or go to an unknown guy’s room.  The next morning, in best-case scenarios, when the guy doesn’t even remember her name or acknowledge her when they pass on campus, she feels (rightly) used and abused!  In worst-case scenarios, she contracts an incurable (yes, incurable) STD, or is brutally assaulted or raped, or ends up murdered at the hands of a serial sex offender.

The good news from all the attention on harassment and sexual assault is that men must clean up their act; they can no longer get away with a “Harvey” move.  Perhaps we have finally reached a tipping point, where lewd jokes and vulgar comments are once again considered ill mannered in “ladies'” presence.  Better still, we have spotlighted the long-term impact when some brute abuses or assaults a woman.

I’m not at all sure that we have learned that we cannot continue to lump together all complaints into a generic category of abuse, where no distinction is made among offensive language, sexual harassment, and physical assault or rape.  Nor am I sure that we have made the connection between alcohol and these offensive acts (though some corporations have chosen to ban alcohol from office parties).

In short, as a society, either we’ll acknowledge the need for a saner approach to harassment, abuse, and assault or we’ll have to return to the Victorian practices of chaperones, some sort of neo-patriarchy, and a return to restrictions on women’s freedom and autonomy.



Source link

skynews-theresa-may-stanislav-yezhov_4189106.jpg

UK: May 'aware' of reports about Russian spy in No 10…


Theresa May has said she is “aware” of claims that a Russian spy who visited Downing Street has been arrested in Ukraine.

The Prime Minister made the admission in a news conference in Poland a day after a picture emerged on social media showing the man in Number 10.

He has been named by Sky’s Alistair Bunkall as Stanislav Yezhov, the official translator for the Ukrainian Prime Minister.

(L-R) Volodymyr Groysman, Stanislav Yezhov and Theresa May
Image:
Mr Yezhov in No 10 with Mr Groysman and Mrs May. Pic: Ukraine government

Ukraine’s security service, the SBU, says he was recruited by the Russians while working abroad.

He previously served in the Ukrainian Embassy in the United States.

Stanislav Yezhov
Image:
Mr Yezhov in a photograph taken last Christmas in Kiev

Bunkall said he was told Mr Yezhov was in the room with Theresa May for private bilateral talks last July because the Ukrainian PM does not speak good English.

“Bilateral meetings are an opportunity for leaders to be frank and honest with one another in a way they wouldn’t be in public. I understand Theresa May and her Ukrainian counterpart discussed sanctions against Russia and British military support to Ukraine, amongst other things.

“It’s not inconceivable that Theresa May revealed how far Britain was or wasn’t willing to go in its support for Ukraine. This sort of detail could be very valuable to Moscow,” he said.

Mrs May, when asked if she was concerned about reports of a Russian spy she was photographed alongside in Downing Street, said: “I’m aware of the reports in relation to the Ukrainian individual who attended Downing Street earlier in the summer.

Theresa May greets Ukraine Prime Minister, Volodymyr Groysman, outside No 10
Image:
Theresa May pictured with Volodymyr Groysman outside No 10 in July

“The action that has been taken is a matter for the Ukrainian authorities.”

The Kyiv Post, Ukraine’s main English language newspaper, said Yezhov had been detained on suspicion of espionage for Russia on Wednesday.

He has served as the deputy head of the protocol for the Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.

The SBU has opened a case investigating whether he has committed treason after he is suspected of collecting inside information about the activities of Ukrainian cabinet ministers.

He also previously worked for Ukraine’s Slovenia embassy and ex-President Viktor Yanukovych, who was ousted in the Ukrainian revolution of 2014, amid allegations of political corruption.

The Ukrainska Pravda news agency claimed government sources said Yezhov had been under surveillance for months.

The meeting that Mr Yezhov attended to translate involved discussions on “the importance of maintaining sanctions on Russia to keep up political pressure until the full implementation of the Minsk Agreement” and “the importance of improving the capability of the Ukrainian armed forces”, Downing Street said.

It came as the Press Association reported bizarre scenes in the Commons earlier when a mystery man was ejected from the public gallery for “filming and taking pictures” during a debate on Russian interference in UK politics.

A spokesman for Theresa May said he was unable to talk about “security matters”.

But he added: “Security in Downing Street is kept permanently under review. On what was discussed at the meeting that the PM had with her Ukranian counterpart, we did a readout at the time, which is in the public domain.”



Source link

Obamanet vs. Net Neutrality


On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal another Obama legacy: the Orwellian-named “Open Internet Order” FCC-15-24, or Obamanet. Prepared by far-left groups and Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google and a member of Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it was adopted by Obama’s FCC in February 2015. The repeal goes in effect in sixty days after official publication unless it’s held up in courts. Howls from the left sound as if a horde of demons is being doused with holy water while the broad public, including many conservatives, is confused. Most people mistakenly believe that Obamanet protected some “net neutrality” (in quotes because the term appeared only in 2003 and the meaning has been changing). On the contrary, Obamanet canceled net neutrality. Conservatives think that the order was redistributing wealth from those who created the internet infrastructure to Obama and Al Gore’s cronies in Silicon Valley. This is correct, but just scratching the surface.

Obamanet has probably been the worst violation of freedom of speech and religion that this country has ever known. The confusion is excusable. The Obamanet order was rewritten secretly after a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking presented an entirely different proposal. Like ObamaCare, Obamanet was extremely lengthy and sprawled on 300+ pages (the original 2005 FCC policy statement, establishing net neutrality as FCC policy, was only three pages long). And there was a repetition of the “We [need] to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it” (Nancy Pelosi about ObamaCare) moment. But unlike ObamaCare, Obamanet was presented as a small regulation that was intended to preserve what already existed. Furthermore, Obamanet exploited the technical nature of the subject not understood by commentators, most of the public, and even legal experts. And it received wall-to-wall support from the “tech” monopolies in Silicon Valley that benefited from it.

Obamanet banned freedoms in the name of “protections.” Its language is directed at ISPs, but the target is all citizens, especially children. One of the banned things is family-friendly internet access.

“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.” (Obamanet, para 112)

Parental control software (like Net Nanny, CyberSitter, Cyber Alert, etc.) that users install on their computers at home has very limited effectiveness today. Children can bypass these controls by bringing outside tablets in (a new tablet can be purchased for $40, a used one might be free) and connecting to their home wi-fi. Frequently, children also have better computer skills than their parents and can disable filtering at home. The only reliable option is network side filtering, which Obama’s FCC has banned (possibly even before 2015). Thus, Obamanet has exposed children to pornography, child predators, and drug dealers. Not surprisingly, PornHub, Netflix, Google, YouPorn, and the new Democratic Party became excited and came forward in force to protect Obamanet. This is a partial list of the most aggressive Obamanet defenders.

I could not find a family-friendly broadband ISP in the US. For comparison, large U.K. internet providers provide family-friendly access as a default option, and most families keep it. (The U.K. ISPs do that on demand from the government. I don’t suggest implementing that in the U.S. Also, different families have different filtering needs in accordance with their religious views. But the government has absolutely no authority to forbid it).

Obamanet has also dispensed with the freedom of speech, and turned Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and few other Obama/Al Gore cronies into internet gatekeepers. Our internet usage is comparable to visiting a physical bookstore or library. If we look at booksellers prior to the rise of Amazon, we’d notice many kinds of stores carrying different books that cater to their target audience. For example, a bookstore in Berkeley has a different selection from a bookstore in a pious Tennessee town. Big chains carry a broad selection of books to cater to broader clientele. There are also religious bookstores, and, conversely, there are adult bookstores. These are expressions of the freedom of speech. An equivalent of the Obamanet in the physical world would be a rule that regulates any business that moves books as common carriers. The Obamanet order says:

“any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service” (para 21), or in the provision of “any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of [broadband Internet access]… or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this Part” (para 25).

Bookstores fall under similar definition of the common carrier. Under Obamanet equivalent, every bookstore must carry all books equally (within their physical capacity). Church bookstores must carry porn and books of all other religions, and must display them equally without discrimination. Old ladies in Tennessee must browse through bookcases of Marxist writings and porn. If they bring to the bookstore their grandchildren, their only way to protect them from pornography is to cover their eyes. It is hard to imagine such rules in the real world, even with Bill Ayers’ friend as president. But similar internet regulations glided in easily, partly because of the technical nature of the subject.

Notice the asymmetry: an adult store can function even if it’s ordered to carry religious literature, but a religious store cannot carry porn, and will likely close. A large chain can continue operating with porn and commie/nazi filth alongside normal books, but it would lose most of its conservative, intellectual, and freedom-loving customers. It would have to adapt to what clientele is left. The management might even mistake the tastes of the remaining customers for the choice of the public, and act accordingly. This is what happened to the internet (and not only the internet) when Obamanet took it over. But I don’t intend to blame Obamanet for everything that has been done to this country since February 2015 or even November 2008. It’s just one factor among many.

Contrary and opposite to the media’s claims, the Obamanet order explicitly canceled net neutrality, which had been an FCC regulatory policy since 2005. Obamanet allowed cable companies to set a usage cap and not to count its own content toward this cap. Internet usage grows very fast, and a usage cap which seems reasonable today would become low tomorrow, all but totally restricting the subscriber to the provider’s own or affiliated content. The Obama’s FCC intended to consider such plans, “based on the facts of each individual case,” which meant to be based on relations between the cable company and the Obama administration. From the Obamanet order:

“Sponsored data plans (sometimes called zero-rating) enable broadband providers to exclude edge provider content from end users’ usage allowances… allowing service providers to pick and choose among content and application providers to feature on different service plans… we will look at and assess such practices under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard, based on the facts of each individual case, and take action as necessary.” (para 151-152)

The posturing of the Obamanet supporters as defenders of a little guy against big and bad cable companies is completely fake. Obamanet does not harm them. Even paid prioritization of internet traffic (as described in the “fast lane/slow lane” commercials) is banned only conditionally. The order contains a promise to waive the ban on a whim:

“The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.” (para 130)

Although the Obamanet order came suddenly, it was just a last step in the series of Obama’s regulations intended to silence opposition on the Internet.

Leo Goldstein has 20+ years of experience in positions ranging from software engineer to chief technology officer in internet technology companies. He used to devote most attention to opposing climate alarmism, until discovering that similarly irrational agendas and their agents have spread all around us and are connected to former bastions of rationality — Silicon Valley and prestigious academic institutions. 

On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal another Obama legacy: the Orwellian-named “Open Internet Order” FCC-15-24, or Obamanet. Prepared by far-left groups and Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google and a member of Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it was adopted by Obama’s FCC in February 2015. The repeal goes in effect in sixty days after official publication unless it’s held up in courts. Howls from the left sound as if a horde of demons is being doused with holy water while the broad public, including many conservatives, is confused. Most people mistakenly believe that Obamanet protected some “net neutrality” (in quotes because the term appeared only in 2003 and the meaning has been changing). On the contrary, Obamanet canceled net neutrality. Conservatives think that the order was redistributing wealth from those who created the internet infrastructure to Obama and Al Gore’s cronies in Silicon Valley. This is correct, but just scratching the surface.

Obamanet has probably been the worst violation of freedom of speech and religion that this country has ever known. The confusion is excusable. The Obamanet order was rewritten secretly after a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking presented an entirely different proposal. Like ObamaCare, Obamanet was extremely lengthy and sprawled on 300+ pages (the original 2005 FCC policy statement, establishing net neutrality as FCC policy, was only three pages long). And there was a repetition of the “We [need] to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it” (Nancy Pelosi about ObamaCare) moment. But unlike ObamaCare, Obamanet was presented as a small regulation that was intended to preserve what already existed. Furthermore, Obamanet exploited the technical nature of the subject not understood by commentators, most of the public, and even legal experts. And it received wall-to-wall support from the “tech” monopolies in Silicon Valley that benefited from it.

Obamanet banned freedoms in the name of “protections.” Its language is directed at ISPs, but the target is all citizens, especially children. One of the banned things is family-friendly internet access.

“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.” (Obamanet, para 112)

Parental control software (like Net Nanny, CyberSitter, Cyber Alert, etc.) that users install on their computers at home has very limited effectiveness today. Children can bypass these controls by bringing outside tablets in (a new tablet can be purchased for $40, a used one might be free) and connecting to their home wi-fi. Frequently, children also have better computer skills than their parents and can disable filtering at home. The only reliable option is network side filtering, which Obama’s FCC has banned (possibly even before 2015). Thus, Obamanet has exposed children to pornography, child predators, and drug dealers. Not surprisingly, PornHub, Netflix, Google, YouPorn, and the new Democratic Party became excited and came forward in force to protect Obamanet. This is a partial list of the most aggressive Obamanet defenders.

I could not find a family-friendly broadband ISP in the US. For comparison, large U.K. internet providers provide family-friendly access as a default option, and most families keep it. (The U.K. ISPs do that on demand from the government. I don’t suggest implementing that in the U.S. Also, different families have different filtering needs in accordance with their religious views. But the government has absolutely no authority to forbid it).

Obamanet has also dispensed with the freedom of speech, and turned Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft and few other Obama/Al Gore cronies into internet gatekeepers. Our internet usage is comparable to visiting a physical bookstore or library. If we look at booksellers prior to the rise of Amazon, we’d notice many kinds of stores carrying different books that cater to their target audience. For example, a bookstore in Berkeley has a different selection from a bookstore in a pious Tennessee town. Big chains carry a broad selection of books to cater to broader clientele. There are also religious bookstores, and, conversely, there are adult bookstores. These are expressions of the freedom of speech. An equivalent of the Obamanet in the physical world would be a rule that regulates any business that moves books as common carriers. The Obamanet order says:

“any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service” (para 21), or in the provision of “any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of [broadband Internet access]… or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this Part” (para 25).

Bookstores fall under similar definition of the common carrier. Under Obamanet equivalent, every bookstore must carry all books equally (within their physical capacity). Church bookstores must carry porn and books of all other religions, and must display them equally without discrimination. Old ladies in Tennessee must browse through bookcases of Marxist writings and porn. If they bring to the bookstore their grandchildren, their only way to protect them from pornography is to cover their eyes. It is hard to imagine such rules in the real world, even with Bill Ayers’ friend as president. But similar internet regulations glided in easily, partly because of the technical nature of the subject.

Notice the asymmetry: an adult store can function even if it’s ordered to carry religious literature, but a religious store cannot carry porn, and will likely close. A large chain can continue operating with porn and commie/nazi filth alongside normal books, but it would lose most of its conservative, intellectual, and freedom-loving customers. It would have to adapt to what clientele is left. The management might even mistake the tastes of the remaining customers for the choice of the public, and act accordingly. This is what happened to the internet (and not only the internet) when Obamanet took it over. But I don’t intend to blame Obamanet for everything that has been done to this country since February 2015 or even November 2008. It’s just one factor among many.

Contrary and opposite to the media’s claims, the Obamanet order explicitly canceled net neutrality, which had been an FCC regulatory policy since 2005. Obamanet allowed cable companies to set a usage cap and not to count its own content toward this cap. Internet usage grows very fast, and a usage cap which seems reasonable today would become low tomorrow, all but totally restricting the subscriber to the provider’s own or affiliated content. The Obama’s FCC intended to consider such plans, “based on the facts of each individual case,” which meant to be based on relations between the cable company and the Obama administration. From the Obamanet order:

“Sponsored data plans (sometimes called zero-rating) enable broadband providers to exclude edge provider content from end users’ usage allowances… allowing service providers to pick and choose among content and application providers to feature on different service plans… we will look at and assess such practices under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard, based on the facts of each individual case, and take action as necessary.” (para 151-152)

The posturing of the Obamanet supporters as defenders of a little guy against big and bad cable companies is completely fake. Obamanet does not harm them. Even paid prioritization of internet traffic (as described in the “fast lane/slow lane” commercials) is banned only conditionally. The order contains a promise to waive the ban on a whim:

“The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.” (para 130)

Although the Obamanet order came suddenly, it was just a last step in the series of Obama’s regulations intended to silence opposition on the Internet.

Leo Goldstein has 20+ years of experience in positions ranging from software engineer to chief technology officer in internet technology companies. He used to devote most attention to opposing climate alarmism, until discovering that similarly irrational agendas and their agents have spread all around us and are connected to former bastions of rationality — Silicon Valley and prestigious academic institutions. 



Source link