We don't need another private equity deal that could lead to higher food prices for consumers. The @FTC is right to investigate whether the purchase of @SUBWAY by the same firm that owns @jimmyjohns and @McAlistersDeli creates a sandwich shop monopoly. https://t.co/mAFuuFYA5A— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) November 26, 2023
Christian Britschgi discusses Senator Elizabeth Warren's latest demonstration that there's no business that's safe from her regulatory demands: Elizabeth Warren Wants the Government To Investigate America's 'Sandwich Shop Monopoly'. The private equity company Roark Capital is the villain of the piece, and (of course) the Joe Biden/Lina Kahn FTC is also investigating the dire threat of Big Sandwich.
Roark already owns the sandwich-serving chains Arby's, Jimmy Johns, McAlister's Deli, and Schlotzky's. Warren said that adding Subway to that list could create a "sandwich shop monopoly."
The senator has made a career of crusading against such "monopolies," regardless of how monopolististic they actually are or beneficial to consumers they might be. (Witness her war on Amazon-branded chargers.)
Her attack on America's alleged "sandwich shop monopoly" scores new points for pettiness. It also shows just how broad (and therefore meaningless) the word "monopoly" has become in modern political discourse—and at Lina Kahn's FTC.
Fun libertarian fact: according to their website Roark Capital is actually named after Howard Roark. That, all by itself, probably drew the ire of Lina Kahn and Elizabeth Warren.
Also of note:
"See what you made me do?" Patterico has a long article at his substack looking at a "growing trend": DARVO: The "Real Victims" and the Suckers Who Fall for Their Con.
DARVO? It stands for "deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender." A "growing trend" among evildoers, to be sure. But what's worse is the trend growing in tandem: people increasingly buying it.
Patterico provides plenty of examples. One is the people ripping down posters of October 7 Israeli kidnap victims.
It’s pure anti-Semitism, as far as I can tell. There seems to be no valid justification for it whatsoever. It’s just an act of evil, and I take my hat off to those who have been relentlessly filming the cretins doing it and making them famous.
So, of course, you know who the real victims here are, right?
Of course: according to pro-Palestinian activists, the Real Victims are the people taking down the posters.
In lieu of peace and neighborliness, Bandaid’s posters have added fuel to the culture war over the war in Israel, thanks in part to a Twitter account called Stop Antisemitism. In the weeks since they were created, the posters have expanded to billboards, LED signs on trucks, and projections on buildings—and have shifted from an advocacy project to a polarizing symbol that has turned neighbors against each other and incited widespread harassment.
Now some are wondering if the posters are being strategically placed to entrap those who tear them down, many of whom support the Palestinian people.
Ah yes, the ancient doctrine of “entrapment” surely fits this scenario to a T, does it not? These poor harmless individuals were lured—almost against their will, one might say!—into taking the perfectly understandable, nay, all but irresistible action of tearing down posters publicizing the plight of completely innocent hostages victimized by Hamas on October 7 and beyond.
Patterico's piece is partially paywalled, which is probably best for the blood pressure of Donald Trump fans.
More shameful behavior. The WSJ editorialists say that Democrats Want ‘Conditions’ on Israel.
Israel agreed on Monday to a two-day extension of its truce with Hamas to gain the release of more hostages, a priority of President Biden. But another idea is gaining ground among Democrats that is more dangerous: condition U.S. aid on how Israel conducts its war of self-preservation.
The stipulation is said to be merely that Israel follow international law. But since Israel does follow international law, and the U.S. already can withhold foreign assistance on human-rights grounds, the condition is unnecessary—but not harmless. During wartime, it would signal to Israel’s enemies that the U.S. has gone wobbly on the campaign to destroy Hamas.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on the Middle East, made positive noises about the idea Sunday. “We regularly condition our aid to allies based upon compliance with U.S. law and international law,” he said, adding, “I think that you can defeat Hamas without this level of civilian casualty,” which he calls “unacceptable.”
Chris Murphy was one of the cheerleaders of the Biden Administration's Afghanistan withdrawal debacle. Maybe he's not the best person to give advice to a civilized country on dealing with an implacable barbaric foe on their border.
He would no doubt deplore further blood shed by Israeli citizens as a result of his "conditions". That would be done from warm safety, thousands of miles away from the carnage.