Author Archive: Stephen Green

HMM: U.K. Government ‘Extremely Concerned’ by Reports of China Detaining Hong Kong Consulate Employee.

PLUS: Crew Describe Climate of Fear at Cathay After Hong Kong Sackings.

Cathay, founded by an American and an Australian during British rule in 1946, was caught in the middle of the crisis 11 days ago, when China demanded it suspend staff involved in the protest movement.

The firm agreed, firing two pilots, but has since been plunged into turmoil after CEO Rupert Hogg was replaced last week.

Another pilot, Jeremy Tam, who is also a pro-democracy lawmaker, said on Tuesday that he and others had quit the airline as the internal political pressure was intolerable.

“That (China’s aviation regulator) has reached into Hong Kong and directly pressured a local airline is undoubtedly ‘white terror’,” he wrote on his Facebook page, using a popular Hong Kong expression used to describe anonymous acts that create a climate of fear.

“There have been resignations from frontline staff to the company’s CEO because of this political trial.”

The airline confirmed Tam was no longer an employee and said it could not comment on internal staff matters. China’s aviation regulator has not responded to Reuters’ requests for comment.

It looks like Beijing is trying to make examples of a few, trying to scare the rest of Hong Kong back into line. But the protests — already more than four months old — are probably too big for that.

Beijing can’t cave to Hong Kong without risking increased dissent on the mainland, but can’t pull off another blacked-out Tiananmen massacre because a few million smartphones would record the carnage.

It’s a helluva fix they’re in, and it couldn’t be happening to a nicer bunch of thugs.

CHRISTIAN TOTO: Why ‘Hot Air’ Is a Chilling Assault on Free Speech. “The drama, set in the world of conservative talk radio, is the Left’s latest broadside on the First Amendment.”

I was going to use an “I’m so old, I remember when the Left at least gave lip service to free expression” gag, except that really is a long time ago now.

UBER WHISTLEBLOWER: Autonomous Vehicles Need New Safety Metrics, Aren’t Really Any Safer.

In his study, he alleged that too many automakers and tech firms rely on misleading benchmarks, reframing setbacks, and focus too much on the amount of testing vs technological progress.

“The miles per disengagement metric is a bad metric for measuring progress and is not meaningful in terms of safety. Companies inflate their miles per disengagement to appear further along and use their own absurd definitions of what a disengagement is — effectively erasing thousands of safety-related disengages. Companies that report their disengages honestly appear much further behind. Furthermore, this metric incentivize safety drivers to not disengage in unsafe situations,” he said. “Relying on the wrong metrics or not looking at real data has unfortunately propelled us into the realm of safety theater — meaning creating the illusion of safety instead of actually delivering on safety.”

With Congress likely to move ahead with legislation regarding the safe deployment of self-driving vehicles as early as next month, we’re past due for a critical analysis of the technology. Unfortunately, most of the data given to legislators is coming from tech firms and auto giants with an interest in playing up the positive aspects. A common chorus is that AVs will save anywhere from 3,000 to 37,500 American lives per year. However, it rides on the presumption that they’ll be more effective than human drivers, something that has yet to be proven.

I don’t think autonomous driving falls under the old “[BLANK] of the future — and always will be” gag, but it sure isn’t coming as soon as some had indicated.

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEF: Frauds Investigating the Frauds – Gov. Stacey Abrams Edition. “The same crowd that has just spent three years telling us that Boris and Natasha swayed an American election using Facebook is now incredulous that the infinitely more powerful — and blatantly liberal — Google could pull this off.”

That’s different because shut up.

OUCH: When Will the Boeing 737 Max Fly Again? Not This Year.

Having the FAA approve the software fix isn’t the only headache for Boeing and the aircraft’s operators, the European Aviation Safety Agency also needs to approve the fix, as do other regulators, which means the path back into service is still not straightforward. And that is only step one. Do passengers even want to fly this plane again? Ryanair has already repainted and quasi-rebranded it’s Max aircraft to the 737-8200, removing the word Max.

Airlines were so proud to display the most fuel efficient model in their inflight magazines as they took delivery from 2018, however, will their now be a subtle re-entry into service, taking the opposite path where airlines don’t want passengers to actually know the 737 variant they are sat inside is indeed a Max?

Boeing squandered an awful lot of trust, and really, that’s what keeps a manufacturer’s planes in the air.

JEFF GOLDSTEIN: The post I’d hoped I’d never have to write.

As many of you know, my oldest son, Satchel, had a rare form of brain cancer, which — thank god — he’s had successfully treated. He’s fine, though he has to take a regimen of medicine every day to replace pituitary function, having lost his pituitary gland during the surgery.
…
Bottom line is this: we need to somehow get out from under our medical debt, which we put on credit cards mostly, so that we’re able to wait out the sale of our house and not have to declare bankruptcy.

This site of course doesn’t have the readership it once did, as many of my former readers have moved on to new places and new things. But if my long-time readers and friends can possible help us out and would ever be inclined to do so, I ask that you please do so now — and pass the word along to others you think might be able to help.

Read the whole thing, and if you can, maybe chip in. I’m on my way over to PayPal to do just that.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): I just made one of my larger blogger donations.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MR. PRESIDENT: Did Bill Clinton See This Coming? “Today, as he marks a birthday he might once have doubted he’d have, Clinton’s name means something different than it did 20 years ago, particularly among Democrats. Nearly all the two dozen 2020 candidates vying for the party’s nomination would likely hesitate to accept his open endorsement.”

Obamaism was the party’s rejection of Clinton’s DLC-style centrism, and whatever could be said is happening now is the party’s rejection of Obamaism.

Or to coin an Instaphrase, the Montagnards always turn on the Girondists.