Author: admin

More robots, please…

Job protectionism is not a valid economic system… well, at least not one that will work.

Initially, an objection by Supervisor Norman Yee to delivery robots on San Francisco streets was that they would eliminate delivery jobs. However, protectionism such as this is bad; freeing workers up for other higher-level functions (like designing, building or repairing delivery robots) while automating low-paying jobs and eliminating street traffic results in higher productivity and lower costs for all – a boon to any economy.Unfortunately, things only went downhill from there; later revisions of the proposal went so far as to require that delivery companies “keep a human nearby to monitor the devices and agree to a labor clause protecting their human workers’ right to unionize.” (emphasis mine).

OK – somebody’s got to say it: this proposal is complete lunacy. I just hope that Yee’s constituents are smart enough to see past his short-sighted protectionist legislation.

Californians, or Criminals?

I don’t understand the aim of California’s Governor Brown. Is he out to protect the best interests of Californians, or criminals?

He signs “sanctuary state” legislation designed to protect criminal illegal aliens residing in California – including those who have committed crimes against legal residents of the state. He also makes exceptions in pardon requirements for refugees, waiving the certificate of rehabilitation requirement if they are facing deportation resulting from their criminal activity. How does this protect the citizens of California?

He heads a state with extreme gun laws (supposedly to protect the public), but then he pardons an immigrant facing deportation for weapons violations and other crimes (here and here), ostensibly to aid in their deportation defense. In addition, Brown signed a law allowing judges to override mandatory minimum sentence enhancements for crimes where a firearm is used in the commission of a felony. Wouldn’t enforcement of criminal penalties and enhancements against those who would actually use guns to commit crimes do more good than penalizing law abiding gun owners with onerous regulations and restrictions?

He signed a law that reduces the penalty for knowingly exposing a partner to the HIV virus without disclosing the infection, or knowingly donating HIV infected blood. The crime went from a felony to a misdemeanor, with the possible sentence going from 8 years to only 6 months. How does this protect the innocent victims of these people – victims who are effectively given a life sentence while committing no crime?

How do ANY of these actions by Gov. Brown serve to protect the innocent, law-abiding citizens for California? I’m stumped…

(Editor’s  note: One of the immigrants pardoned was to be deported long ago due to his weapons conviction, but his country of origin would not cooperate with the deportation; authorities were forced to release him into an unsuspecting community. On top of that, Gov. Brown’s pardon might now give that offender the right to once again own firearms. That’s good for Californians, right??)

Santa Cruz reaches for the stars…

Santa Cruz, CA is suing 29 oil companies for the effects of global warming due to fossil fuels.

However, I can’t help but believe that they got it wrong: the global warming effects are from the burning of fossil fuels – not their mining or production. Doesn’t this mean that the users of fossil fuels – including the inhabitants of Santa Cruz – are the true villains? After all, the oil companies would not produce fossil fuels if there were  no demand….

Bring on the robots!

An article on NPR decries the Trump tax plan, claiming that it adds incentive for businesses to increase their use of robots. While they quote some economists who see this as good for American businesses, some also claim that it is bad when it encourages robots at the expense of people. I disagree.

The replacement of workers with robots is always good. Why? Because it allows continued or enhanced production while freeing people to do other work. In short: it increases the potential productivity of the work force. The only difficulty this creates in that new businesses and products have to be developed to put that freed work force productivity to use.

The use of robots would be detrimental in the current tax environment, since new businesses that might use this newly-freed labor are unlikely to be developed in our country. Our 35% corporate tax rate (the highest statutory rate in the free world, according to Politifact) has provided a lot of encouragement for businesses to develop elsewhere. However, Trump’s plan to cut corporate taxes – no matter what the liberal tax-and-spend crowd claims – will provide some incentive for countries to develop businesses here that might employ the labor freed as a result of robot use.

Bring on the tax cuts, bring on the robots, and let’s get productive!

Superdelegates

From NPR:

DNC Group Calls For Drastic Cut In ‘Superdelegates’ As Part Of Nomination Process

These “superdelegates” wield effectively 15% of the votes in a Democratic party primary. This means these unpledged delegates can offset up to 15% of pledged delegates –  delegates assigned to vote for a particular candidate based on the outcome of a primary elections. They can override 15% of your votes! How is this “democratic”?

Note that – according to this Washington Examiner article – the Republican party does not use unpledged delegates; all delegates are bound to vote based on the results of the primary election in their state.  Now that sounds democratic…

Media bias and “fake” news

I am shocked at how blatantly the media can ignore truth to twist the “news” into a negative story about President Trump. I am hopeful that their flagrant abuse of the truth does not fall on deaf (or ignorant) ears.

The latest “fake news” hype involves President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. However, this was not a decision made by President Trump; rather, it was made by a bi-partisan congress under President Clinton in 1995. The “JERUSALEM EMBASSY ACT OF 1995” includes the following text:

The Congress makes the following findings:

... Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

...the United States Embassy in Israel should be estab-
lished in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.

Ever since enactment, presidents have had the option of delaying the embassy move – but this has no impact on the U. S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. 

I hope our people are smart enough to see through the media campaign against an American president for what it is – an attack on democracy. No matter how you feel about the President, no matter your political affiliation, you should demand that news organizations report the news in a truthful and unbiased manner so that you – not the media – can decide what it really means with respect to your support or opposition of the President and his policies.

All I’m asking for is the truth… I can make up my own mind what it means.

A racist rant

Published in the Texas State University newspaper, the University Star:

Your DNA is an Abomination

Many are calling for some sort of action by the university administration against the author,  and also against the editor who allowed the opinion piece to go to print. I disagree with such a general course of action, as it would invariably infringe on their right to free speech.

I firmly believe in the 1st amendment right to free speech; however, this does  not mean that such speech is consequence-free. I hope that students will act accordingly to show their disdain for such racist theatrics, perhaps by reducing newspaper funding or boycotting advertisers.

Edit: A follow-up article has the student body president Connor Clegg calling for the resignation of several editors for the newspaper, and if these resignations are not offered suggests a review of the newspapers funding to divest it of any compulsory student fee components.

In response, the college’s Pan African Action Committee (PAAC) issued a statement on Twitter denouncing Clegg as anti free speech:

“To directly threaten a major publication because of the content of an opinions piece that Clegg happens to disagree with is not only a threat to constitutional free speech as we know it, but also a gesture of censorship reminiscent of an authoritarian regime.”

I would have to disagree with PAAC. I believe that what Clegg is proposing is as much an exercise in free speech as was the newspaper’s original article. What is a true threat to free speech is forcing students to pay (through compulsory student fees) for opinion with which they do not agree. To put in an alternate light: should I be forced to subscribe to a newspaper that prints opinion in contradiction to my own, in effect providing support for that opinion?

Compulsory student fees have no place in the funding of a school newspaper.

I’m tired of being right…

I predicted earlier that the government, barred by the first amendment from limiting speech, would use the threat of regulation to force social media sights to do their bidding instead. Unfortunately, I was right – this is exactly what they are attempting to do. It’s covered well in this Cato Institute editorial by John Samples so I won’t bore you with the details here – read it for yourself instead.

Thank you, Jeremy Hunt

A voice of reason rings out among the partisan, acrimonious rhetoric regarding race:

Demonizing white people doesn’t improve race relations

While I am sure that Jeremy and I have different views on many subjects, I feel that I could have a constructive conversation with him regarding those differences. That’s how it’s supposed to be; civil discourse is the true purpose of free speech.