≡ Menu

Some Links

Clayton Baker decries “the crucifixion of Kulvinder Kaur.” A slice:

Dr. Kaur faces imminent financial ruin at the hands of the Canadian court system, which has imposed a punitive $300,000 ‘cost order’ upon her, due by the end of March 2024. This is in addition to other legal expenses she has incurred since the beginning of the Covid lockdowns. Dr. Kaur’s cardinal sin was speaking out against the harsh lockdowns imposed upon citizens of Ontario, where she practices medicine, treating mostly immigrant families and other poor members of the population.

Stanford epidemiologist and Great Barrington Declaration co-author Jay Bhattacharya recently interviewed Dr. Kaur on his Illusion of Consensus podcast. I encourage readers to watch this interview. It is compelling for a number of reasons, not the least of which is this: Kulvinder Kaur comes across as the most modest, sincere, and likable person imaginable – quite literally the last person who would invoke the ire of any honest organization, and quite possibly the first person you would want as your personal physician.

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board is rightly critical of the newly announced antitrust case against Apple. Three slices:

The Justice Department on Thursday unveiled its long-mooted antitrust suit against Apple, and don’t smile—Apple’s main alleged victims are giant tech and financial companies. The lawsuit is trying to force changes in antitrust law that Congress hasn’t passed, and the alleged benefits to consumers aren’t obvious.


Start with its complaint that Apple’s alleged monopoly is retarding tech innovation. Over the last decade the number of paid developers on its app stores has soared by 374% to 5.2 million. During this time, Apple has introduced AirPods, Vision Pro headsets and new Apple Watch health functions such as an ECG monitor and fall detector. Yet its closed system hasn’t prevented other companies’ products, such as Shokz bone-conduction headphones or Google’s automated car service Waymo, from advancing.


Some in Congress want to rewrite antitrust law to require Big Tech companies to become inter-operable. This would create headaches for manufacturers and developers that would slow innovation. But Congress hasn’t passed legislation, so DOJ wants courts to order inter-operability. DOJ essentially wants Apple to be open-source and inter-operable like Google’s Android system. If customers want that, they can buy Android phones, which make up the other half of the U.S. market.

Read DOJ’s lawsuit closely, and Apple’s main alleged victims appear to be big banks, credit-card companies and Big Tech rivals. Apple’s digital wallet allows “users to make in-person payments by tapping their device on a payment terminal rather than tapping or swiping a physical credit card,” DOJ says. Oh no—an Apple innovation competes with Visa.

Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel explains some of the political ramifications of the Biden administration’s subservience to authoritarian environmentalists – specifically here, the insistence on regulating petroleum-powered vehicles off of the streets. Two slices:

It’s a tailor-made issue for Donald Trump, a perfect summation of his opponent’s radicalism. His campaign immediately trashed the rule as a diktat that will “force Americans to buy ultra-expensive cars they do not want and cannot afford while destroying the U.S. auto industry.” Just wait until he gets around to the bumper-sticker formula: “They’re coming for your truck.” An energy trade group has already been up with ads making that point in swing states, calling on Americans to reject Biden’s “EPA car ban.”


Today’s Democratic Party is entirely dedicated to the proposition that all Americans should be told how to live. Yet rarely are its leaders so baldly open with their intentions. Mr. Biden has helpfully clarified that this election will directly decide what choices—if any—Americans have going forward. That’s a powerful club to hand the opposition.

Nicholas Anthony warns of the restrictive financial policies of expansionary government.

“‘Emergency’ spending is out of control” – so explains Eric Boehm.

My intrepid Mercatus Center colleague, Veronique de Rugy, reminds us that, in practice, there is no such thing as industrial policy not infected by politics. A slice:

And if you believe that the politicization of industrial policy will only afflict the leftist industrial policy, I have a subsidized bridge to sell you.

Vero also endorses Scott Lincicome’s wise proposal for how to deal with subsidies dispensed by foreign governments.

John O. McGinnis ponders Steven Breyers’s “problematic ‘pragmatism.'”