From the right: Trump’s Defending Civilization
President Trump’s order mobilizing the National Guard in Los Angeles, cheers City Journal’s Heather Mac Donald, “was clarifying and precise: ‘To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion’ ” against the US government. Trump is delivering on his campaign vow to end “the era of enabling endemic immigration lawlessness,” enflaming Democrats with “rage.” “Apologists for the chaos” claim Trump’s response caused the violence, but the “violence preceded the mobilization.” And “standing by during violence only allows it to spread.” Violence meant to “inhibit the execution of the laws” is “a death knell for civilization.” The prez’s “unapologetic defense of the law this weekend represented liberation from a poisonous set of lies.”
Defense beat: Beware US Drone Vulnerabilities
“Drones have completely upended the economics of air warfare,” but most US “defenses remain focused on traditional threats like ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and hostile aircraft,” warns Jon Gruen at The Wall Street Journal. “Today’s most immediate threats fly much lower. The skies above our stadiums, airports and substations are essentially undefended at ground level.” And “federal law would slow our response” to such an attack, as “local law enforcement is largely powerless to act against a known drone threat” — a problem “bipartisan legislation in Congress” is looking to address. Yet “even if we solve the authority problem, we face a second vulnerability: the lack of industrial capacity to make these drones.” Beware: “We’re unprepared for the next war, and the next war won’t wait until we’re ready.”
Media watch: In the Tank for Hamas
The IDF last month “struck the tunnel under the European Hospital in an attempt to eliminate Muhammad Sinwar, the leader of Hamas,” notes Commentary’s Seth Mandel. But “news agencies insisted Israel was lying about the presence of Hamas leadership or an underground bunker.” And when Israel’s account proved 100% true, “journalists complained that Israel was keeping journalists out of the war zone, a kind of veiled justification for why they keep making up stories. Israel responded by giving journalists a tour of the underground bunker itself.” Sigh. That produced a tendentious New York Times story — “The Tunnel That Leads Underneath a Hospital in Southern Gaza: To Israelis, the location of an underground passageway highlights Hamas’s abuse of civilians. To Palestinians, Israel’s decision to target it highlights Israel’s own disregard for civilian life.”
Eye on Connecticut: Pension ‘Spiking’ Abuse
“Some public sector union abuses” in Connecticut are “more egregious than ever,” grumbles Red Jahncke at The Hill. “State employees are retiring with pension benefits higher than their last salary,” thanks to the practice as “spiking,” where they “work enormous hours of overtime just before retirement” to boost their benefits. A study of the state Department of Correction ID’d workers “with the highest overtime pay” the last five years; those who’ve retired scored pensions paying 138% of their final salary. A “wage freeze” and overtime reform would help. Gov. Ned Lamont (D) needs to “face down the unions” and “actually manage the workforce and clamp down on overtime spiking.”
Libertarian: A Dubious Case for AI Regulation
“Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation,” and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s case against the House-proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation “is no different,” argues Reason’s Jack Nicastro. In a New York Times op-ed, Amodei argued for state-level regulation by raising “tangible concerns,” such as AI being used to help people carry out cyberattacks or to produce biological weapons. “But there’s nothing new about that,” since both organic and artificial intelligence “can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them.” The regulations Amodei wants would “be burdensome” and could make AI models worse. “Beware of calls for AI regulation that will . . . protect incumbent firms’ profits from being bid away by competitors.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board