Libertarian: Bernie Confused on Amazon
“Bernie Sanders thinks Amazon warehouse jobs are soul-crushing, backbreaking, and exploitative,” but “is adamantly opposed to automation that eliminates these undesirable positions,” wonders Reason’s Christian Bryczgi.
Sanders criticized a New York Times article about Amazon’s plans to automate up to 75% of its fulfillment center operations, tweeting, “AI and robotics must benefit workers, not the top 1%.”
“Some might argue that this is just one example of how robotics and AI can benefit workers, because it “allows warehouse workers to move on to less demanding jobs in other sectors,” Brichugi said.
“Indeed, it is likely that it is the general, slow and steady substitution of labor and capital that has automated the countless dangerous and menial jobs that once dominated the economy and replaced them with ‘safer, higher-paying jobs.’
Centrists: Stopping the Rise of Political Violence
“We live in an era of political violence in America,” the Free Press editorial board warns.
Tuesday brought news that Christopher Moynihan, a participant in the January 6 riot, had been “arrested on charges of threatening to kill House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.” The day before, a “28-year-old Texas man” was “arrested for making death threats” against a “Florida conservative media member.”
“Mr. Moynihan already had a history of political violence that was forgiven and subsequently pardoned by the president,” it said, sending “exactly the wrong message.” And Democratic leaders have “long called Trump an authoritarian.”
When a politician suggests that he will destroy American democracy, the logic is that he should be stopped by any means necessary.
Healing “the divisions that plague this country” requires “vocally resisting calls to political violence and always refusing to participate in anything like it.”
Conservatives: Forgiving stinky cryptocurrencies
Chinese-born Canadian billionaire Zhao Changpeng, who was sentenced to four months in prison for felony money laundering, reportedly lobbied President Trump for a pardon, prompting National Review’s Jim Geraghty last week to murmur that “a pardon is here.”
White House press secretary Caroline Levitt suggested the charges were part of Biden’s war on cryptocurrencies, but prosecutors will argue they are a “war on fraud” and against companies that facilitated “financial transactions between criminals, terrorist groups, and hostile nations,” including “al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, ransomware hackers, and child porn enthusiasts.”
“I’m sure the fact that Zhao Changpeng’s company is helping put billions of dollars into the Trump family coffers has nothing to do with the fact that he just received a full pardon,” Geraghty quipped. “This administration will defend law and order!”
Middle East Desk: Freeing Barghouti = Inciting Terrorism
Commentary’s Seth Mandel pointed out that “Israel’s idea is gaining support” for Israel to free imprisoned Palestinian terrorist leader Marwan Barghouti and replace Mahmoud Abbas as head of the Palestinian Authority.
Huh? This only makes sense “if the West is looking for someone to start an intifada.” Although Barghouti has “not actually renounced violence,” he has “made clear his determination to ‘focus’ violence on Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.”
What sets him free is “not thinking outside the box, but the box office itself.” Barghouti is “not a man of peace or a man of the people.”
He “represents everything that the Palestinians must leave behind if they are to develop a serious national politics: the cult of personality and terrorism that led them here.”
From right: Exploring nonprofit organizations and political violence.
The Wall Street Journal’s Scott Walter decried the Trump administration’s decision to focus on “those who enable violence” and “whether nonprofits and their donors are accountable,” slamming “political violence as a deadly problem.”
Of course, “neither the donor nor the donor should be subject to criminal prosecution for their speech.” However, “nonprofit organizations that enjoy tax privileges may lose those privileges if they support illegal activities.”
However, while criminal prosecution of nonprofit organizations and their donors “faces a much higher bar,” such prosecutions “are not necessarily unreasonable under current law.”
Regardless of the outcome of the federal investigation, “left-wing nonprofits and donors should honestly consider whether they have the same respect for nonprofit and criminal law.”
— Edited by Post Editorial Board
