People are stupid…

… and taxpayers doubly so.

Queen Kathy of New York has seen fit to charge fossil fuel companies for being “major polluters”. She goes on to state:

“For too long New Yorkers have borne the costs of the climate crisis, which is impacting every part of the state.”

Never mind that the energy companies she seeks to penalized are producing exactly what the customers desire – fuel to power their cars, heat their homes, and run their televisions. Never mind that the energy companies are not burning the fuel and generating the “climate crisis” of which Hochul speaks; no, that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the people who are demanding and using the energy.

So why is Hochul not blaming global warning on the people actually burning the fuel – i.e., the consumer? Oh, wait – she is! She’s just not telling them. Just who do you think will pay these new fees – the oil executives? Their stock holders? Or the consumer? Yeah; that’s what I think, too.

Such laws always seem to tout a dubious public good, ex: for the children, for the environment, for the homeless, etc. But in reality these laws are nothing more than a “stupid tax” to fuel a slush fund for political pet projects, financed by people far too stupid to realize that it is they who are footing the bill. You’d think people would have learned from California’s treatment of PG&E (Remember the wildfire costs levied against PG&E, leading to some of the highest energy costs in the nation?).

In the words of Forrest Trump [sic]: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

Proof?

I found this article interesting because it seems to prove that affirmative action simpy doesn’t work. Read the article, then I’ll explain:

Black enrollment at Harvard Law tanks by more than half after affirmative action ruling

The article cites a New York Post story:

“Harvard Law enrolled 19 first-year Black students, or 3.4 percent of the class, the lowest number since the 1960s, according to the data from the American Bar Association. Last year, the law school’s first-year class had 43 Black students.”

But here’s the problem: affirmative action in school admissions, where race is considered as a factor in admissions, did not produce increased levels of competency in the black student applicants. This seems contrary to presumed goal of equalizing the participation and competency of African-Americans in the education system for professional fields. If it had, then we would expect the current crop of black applicants to Harvard Law to compete equally with applicants of other races. Instead we find – 50 years later – that without consideration for race black students do not compete on an equal footing with other applicants.

How can this be? Why are black Harvard applicants not competing at an equal level with other applicants when race is not considered (or known) in the application process after more than 50 years of affirmative action? Can it still be racism, or is there another explanation?

I’ve discussed this before, but it’s worth bringing up again so here we go: affirmative action produces a separate class of applicants that only have to compete with each other and not the general population. The result is that affirmative action does not eventually produce equality by forcing people to compete on the same level; it only produces a racial caste system for education. Affirmative action will never result in equality; it will only lead to different classes of capability segregated by race. This will, as expected, increase racism – not defeat it.

It is time for affirmative action to end. It has not, nor will it ever, work. It’s time to correct the root causes – not pretend that they don’t exist. Only then will true equality be possible.

Uh… wait a sec…

So a bizarre allegation is floating around conservative web sites that the Biden administration is considering pre-emptive blanket pardons for possible Trump retaliation targets. A couple of concerns….

1) If they didn’t commit a crime, then why would they need pardons?
2) If they accept the blanket pardons, isn’t this an admission of guilt?
3) Isn’t this just a political ploy to suggest people need protection from Trump?
4) Isn’t this the kind of totalitarian act that the Democrats feared of Trump?

Sadly, it’s the liberal’s fear of having done to them what has been done to Trump that is fueling their concerns. They never thought they’d lose power after Trump, and so didn’t fear retribution. But karma – well, it’s a bitch….

To be frank, I would have pardoned Hunter for the gun charge. Yes, he’s guilty, but these charges are generally reserved for cases where the gun results in harm to another. However, he would be on his own for the flagrant violation of our tax laws. I pay my taxes on time, Hunter, and you should too (or go to jail!). But now he’s also off-the-hook for sex trafficking charges, which should piss off women everywhere.

The best thing Biden can do now is to also pardon Trump. Then he’d at least be able to argue that it was all for putting an end to the “lawfare” that has been a hallmark of his adminstration. Unfortunately, the far left liberals would never allow Trump a walk (they fully expect to get another bite at him in 2029). It’s too bad; it would be best for the country if lawfare came to an end. But as we’ve seen for the last four years, the far-left democrats know what’s best for you (whether you agree or not)… you just need to shut up and fall in line.

“One of us… One of us…. One of us…”

Or maybe instead:

“Not one of them… Not one of them… Not one of them…”

🙂

Proof of citizenship required for Disney cruise…?

“…Guests using a birth certificate as citizenship documentation are reminded that only an original state-issued birth certificate is acceptable  …   Guests 16 years of age and older are also required to present a physical government-issued photo ID…”

Disney Cruise Line no longer accepting photocopies of guest birth certificates

Really?!? You need to prove citizenship with state-issued documentation for a Disney cruise, but not to VOTE??!

The undemocratic Democrats

Just because something has “democrat” or “democratic” in its name does not make it so. Dare I remind you of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany)? Or how about the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea? Hardly great examples of democracy in action. And neither is the upcoming Democratic National Convention to coronate Queen Kamala.

The “democratic” party likes to play themselves off as the saviors of our democracy, claiming that a vote for the other side is a vote to dismantle democracy. And yet they go to great lengths to control for whom you are allowed to vote. How is it “democratic” when the only choice you have is the one they select for you?

Democracy is voting for Joe Biden in a primary election to determine the Democrat party candidate; anti-democracy is the Democrat party realizing that the candidate you selected can’t win, and replacing them with someone instead selected by party officials alone.

So next time the Democrats claim that a vote for the opposition means the end of democracy…. well, think again.

Of course…

…it’s the fault of the voters that Kamala Harris is unelectable… they are simply not good enough to elect a black, female president. Yeah; that’s the ticket… it has nothing do do with her ineptness:

Jen Psaki says Kamala Harris is best alternative to Biden but worries America too ‘sexist and racist’

I’ve heard this argument before, when discussing the failure of socialist governments. In such cases (as told by the socialists) it’s the people who failed, not socialism. The people simply weren’t “good enough” citizens for socialism to succeed.

Such is the fate of Kamala Harris – the people simply aren’t “good enough” to elect an incompetent political figurehead –  no matter her sex or race. Thank Dog…

I wanna be a felon….

…because then gun laws won’t apply to me, and I’ll have a new Mercedes GLS450 to drive away from my shootings:

Gunman kills 1, injures 4 at Nashville coffee shop on Easter Sunday

Tell me again which gun law would have prevented this shooting? Because none of the current laws seemed to have any effect. After all, CRIMINALS BY DEFINITION DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! Want proof? In this case the offender is alleged to be a felon and should not have had access to a firearm at all, let alone carry one – and yet he did so anyway.

Laws meant to reduce crime in which a firearm is used should be narrowly tailored towards criminals and their conduct, but have little to no impact on law-abiding citizens. Targeting guns or law-abiding citizens rather than criminals simply won’t work.

Laws that incarcerate criminals who have an ongoing history of violence might be a better way forward.  For instance, if a violent felon is subsequently convicted of firearms possession – a clear indicator of ongoing, violent tendencies – perhaps they should be removed from society permanently. I think such a law would have a much larger impact on so-called “gun violence” than a law requiring non-criminal citizens go through a background check to purchase ammunition – and probably have fewer Constitutional hurdles as well.

Common sense gun law: A law that incarcerates criminals rather than law-abiding gun owners.

A very slippery slope

I have a real problem with the slippery slope(s) created by the whole E. Jean Carrol v. Donald J. Trump case. As much as Trump is a tool, I find that this cases raises serious legal concerns regarding free speech. It also suggests that the legal system is an appropriate tool to bring down political foes that you can’t otherwise beat at the polls. Taken together, this is some seriously worrisome sh*t!

Short background (from a CNN article):

Carroll alleged Trump raped her in the Bergdorf Goodman department store and then defamed her when he denied her claim, said she wasn’t his type and suggested she made up the story to boost sales of her book. Trump denied all wrongdoing.

Here are my concerns, in no particular order:

1) Trump is entitled to claim his innocence
Ms. Carroll is cited as having claimed that Trump raped her. Trump is entitled to make a claim of innocence; doing so does not defame the claimant. Neither does voicing an opinion suggesting someone is not your type, or voicing an opinion on possible alternate motives for the allegations. Readers or witnesses to his claims of innocence can decide for themselves whether or not the allegations are true.

What’s next? Are convicted criminals civilly liable to witnesses or victims if they continue to assert their innocence? Even if they are eventually cleared of the crimes of which they are convicted?

2) A second case between these two was made possible as a result of a New York “look-back” law that allowed sexual assault victims to sue in civil court – no matter how much time had passed since the alleged assault.

Statute of limitations are designed to protect a defendant from stale claims, where delays may have have eroded the defendant’s ability to collect evidence for their defense. Such “look-back” laws are troubling because they favor the plaintiff while severely disadvantaging the defense. How do you defend yourself against a claim that allegedly occurred 20+ years ago? How do you gather evidence for your defense when no physical evidence or records remain? How do you begin to gather evidence when your accuser doesn’t even have to definitively state in their claim when the alleged event occurred?

In a volatile case involving a polarizing public figure, such cases will boil down to the local jury pool and their perception of each litigant – or worse, the latest public outrage  (in the case, the “anyone but Trump” and “me, too” movements). With little if any possibility of collecting physical evidence or eyewitnesses due to the time that has passed, the case will fall to the testimony of the more publicly-favored  litigant. This is patently unfair to the defense in this case, and the reason that such stale claims are generally barred by a statute of limitations.

3) In the second case the jury found that Ms. Carroll had been sexually assaulted, but not raped. Doesn’t this make Trump’s claims that she lied about the rape true (under the law), if only in part, and thus not defamation? Doesn’t any reputation damage due to Trump now denying her claim of rape fall to Carroll for having made the claim?

4) The trial judge allowed hearsay evidence (what the plaintiff had allegedly told others who were not direct witnesses), and also testimony by others regarding past unproven allegations (from 40 years prior) unrelated to this case. Given the severe disadvantage already placed on the defense (due to New York’s “look-back” law and the plaintiff’s inability to even define when the alleged attack occurred), such testimony was inappropriate and unduly prejudicial.

So, in short:

i) No one should be denied the right to assert their innocence – even if the defendant is guilty, and even more so when the allegations are rejected by a jury. Such assertions should be protected speech, and not actionable as defamation.

ii) Speaking personal opinions, or opinions on alternative theories for an accusation – particularly political theories – should also be protected speech.

iii) “Look-back” laws that allow civil litigation for long-past allegations should recognize the hardship they place on a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Evidence rules should be held to the highest standard to minimize the unfair impact such law have on the defendant.

I don’t care whether you love or hate Trump. I want you to think instead about the precedence it sets when someone can make an allegation against you, 20+ years after the alleged act. Think about you being denied the right to dispute the allegations because your denial causes the claimant “reputational harm” – even when at least part of the allegations are found lacking by a jury. Think about your trial, where physical evidence collection and witness development is impossible due to the extreme passage of time, and where the evidence presented consists largely of hearsay or the unproven allegations by others in unrelated matters. Think about your trial in a venue where the majority of the voters (the source of the jury pool) voted against you in the previous election.

This case never should have made it to court – and particularly not in an anti-Trump venue like New York.

Taxes are taxes…

…whether they are federal or local. Same pocket gets picked in the end: yours.

So my question is this: If the open border crisis is “…crushing city budgets…”, leading to demands for federal aid, why should we believe that shifting the costs to the federal government won’t just crush their budget instead? Is it really any different if the money comes from federal taxes rather than local taxes?

Denver mayor pleads for nationally coordinated effort on migrant crisis as city nears ‘breaking point’

The real solution is to enforce federal immigration law and stop illegal immigration. How about we try that instead of breaking our federal budget, eh?