A state’s Senator from New Hampshire, Jeff Woodburn, is proposing new legislation which would ban the sale of Russian alcohol in the State of New Hampshire. Apparently, this will be his own form of “sanction” against Russia for what he perceives to be Russia’s hacking/tampering with the US election of 2016.
This is interesting news to note because, traditionally speaking, sanctions against Foreign Nations are a matter of internal political policy and handed out by the President of the United States, not a State’s Senator – which is not the same as a US Senator.
This headline caught my attention for two reasons. First, I do not think a State Senator can levy International economic trade sanctions and second, this whole Russian thing is really getting out of hand – the Cold War did end a very long time ago and not everyone automatically hates the Russians for being Russians like some older generations do.
Even if “the Russian’s” released information inside the US over the course of the primary season and into the national elections, it was only made popular because “the American” audience consumed it and wanted to read/watch/learn about it. In this way the US public “hacked” itself and regardless, the notion of Russian hacking has already come and gone – we are already past it in 2017.
If there is a lesson to be learned from it all it is that @everyone needs to learn to practice better “cyber security” and no, there is nothing criminal/controversial/taboo about practicing good cyber security – it is actually known about and practiced skillfully by people whom tend to be more intelligent than post – going by IQ points that is.
As for the matter at hand, one could argue that Jefferey Woodburn is over stepping the legal bounds of his jurisdiction as a State Senator, not a Federal official, by attempting to levy international trade restrictions against a foreign Government/Nation – which would interfere with already established international law/policy/contracts/treaties.
Moreover, as for the state of New Hampshire itself, Mr. Woodburn’s actions would negatively impact the NH state economy by taking away from liquor store sales revenue and consequentially, NH State tax dollars.
@ Jeff Woodburn:
Normally a story about booze might not seem like that big of deal, but it does take on a bigger meaning from inside the state of New Hampshire in particular. This is because New Hampshire is actually the most “alcoholic” state in the United States of America, meaning New Hampshire sells more beer/wine/liquor per capita than any other state in the country.
It just so happens that brands like Stoli and Smirnoff, Russian owned, are among two of the most popular and top selling brands in any liquor store – both here in New Hampshire and around the country. As you might imagine, removing any stores top sellers on any item in particular would lower that stores overall sales.
Considering the New Hampshire Government runs these liquor stores and generates tax revenue from the alcohol sold there, Mr. Woodburns law would have a negative impact on the State of New Hampshire itself – by taking away from overall sales at local stores and lowering the tax revenue made available for the states budget.
Mr. Woodburn also happens to be a “Democrat,” which is of consequence to the story no matter what you happen to believe/think about foreign actors influencing our national election in 2016. The fact of the matter is that the rhetoric surrounding this story has divided some people among partisan political lines. For example, I never heard of Jeff Woodburn before reading this headline today, but as soon as I saw it I knew he was a Democrat – get what I mean?
This Content Was Created Under An Alt_Publishers License