Spoiling For A Fight

What To Do About The French
French labor unions and business leaders struck a deal on Friday to overhaul swaths of France’s notoriously rigid labor market, moving to tame some of the most confounding rules in the 3,200-page labor code as the country tries to increase its competitiveness and curb unemployment. (NYT, 1/11/2013)

Well we enjoyed reading that even the French realize that stultifying labor regulations destroy the ability of businesses to compete. 

France has asked U.S. officials to speed drones and other surveillance equipment to support a French military campaign in Mali against rebel groups, some with links to al Qaeda, senior Western officials said. (WSJ, 1/11/2013)

We will admit that some cynicism creeped in when we saw that the French now want US support in a conflict that is important to their national interests.


Guns And Money...And Lawyers
We quote below extensively from a New York Times article from January 11th which included a varied discussion centered on gun control and related issues.

First this:
Game makers have spent more than $20 million since 2008 on federal lobbying, and millions more on campaign donations. Mr. Gallagher’s group, the Entertainment Software Association, has five outside lobbying firms to push its interests in Washington. And the industry has enjoyed not only a hands-off approach from Congress, which has rejected past efforts to toughen regulations, but also tax breaks that have spurred sharp growth. Game makers even have their own bipartisan Congressional caucus, with 39 lawmakers joining to keep the industry competitive.

The NRA has been the recipient of withering scrutiny and criticism as have politicians aligned with it. We are thrilled to see the Entertainment Software Association at least get mentioned. And who would have guessed at their kid gloves treatment (including the tax breaks) from a compliant Congress? We call out Democrats and Republicans who have looked the other way as video game makers have systematically poisoned the minds of America's youth. 

Then this:
The industry’s biggest political asset may be the 2011 ruling by the Supreme Court that found restrictions on the sale of video games to be unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, wrote that evidence linking games to violence was unpersuasive and that games had the same legal protection as violent literary classics like Grimm’s Fairy Tales or “Snow White.”

We are big fans of Justice Scalia and do not know the legal arguments of the 2011 ruling. Nonetheless, we were very disappointed to see this.

And finally:
In the 2011 rampage in Norway that killed 77 people, for example, the gunman played Call of Duty six hours a day to practice shooting. In the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, which killed 12 people, the two teenage gunmen were said to have been obsessed with a game called Doom, featuring bloodshed and explosions. There have been reports that Mr. Lanza, 20, the Newtown gunman who killed himself after his rampage, liked World of Warcraft and other violent games, as do many young men. James E. Holmes, 25, who is accused in last summer’s massacre at a theater in Aurora, Col., was a fan of the same game.

Lately we have been watching Piers Morgan on CNN rant on about guns in America. One of his tactics is to ask his (gun rights) guests which weapon was used in each of the past shootings. The answer is the AR 15 which for Morgan is seeming proof that the shootings are a result of the availability of this particular weapon and banning it would end the killing. It's typical Liberal logic with just a dash of English snobbery thrown in. A better approach would be for Morgan to quiz executives and lobbyists representing the video games makers: what game did Klebold play? did Holmes play? did Lanza play?


Particulars
The committee is particularly struggling to bring in corporate money after Mr. Obama’s announcement last month that he would accept contributions from businesses, a change from his position in 2009. A list of donors posted by the Presidential Inaugural Committee on Jan. 4 includes just a handful of business donors. (NYT, 1/11/2013)

Technically, is it a "change" or a "flip-flop?"

And what about this inauguration? What did Liberals say when W was re-elected? We'll update it for 2012:

Isn't it unseemly to have a gala inauguration when American troops are in harms way?
Isn't it unseemly to have an expensive inauguration when millions of Americans are out of work?
Isn't it unseemly to be asking business to pay for the inauguration when you have spent the past four years demonizing it?