Author: admin

So what’s the alternative?

Not teach math? What rubbish:

White privilege bolstered by teaching math, university professor says

Instead of worrying about how those with math skills have an advantage (or “privilege”, as per the author) over others, let’s make teaching math our highest priority so that we all have sufficient math skills.

I don’t want to pull everyone down to the same level so that we can all fail together; I want to pull everyone up to that we can all prosper. That’s what a mathematics education can do for our citizens.

Another one bites the dust

Hartford, Ct is on the verge of default.

The story is a familiar one: cave in to pubic union demands for more pay and benefits (so you get the union votes), then borrow money to pay for it so you don’t have to tax your citizens (so you keep the public’s vote, too). You get all the votes, but eventually the chickens come home to roost.

Well, at least they can’t blame this mess on the Republicans: Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 18:1 in Hartford County, and not a single member of the current city council is a Republican.

Go figure.

Political double-speak

When Hillary Clinton was asked if she would return or donate the money she  received from Harvey Weinstein during her last campaign (as Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren have said they would do), she made an interesting statement:

“What other people are saying, what my former colleagues are saying, is they’re going to donate it to charity, and of course I will do that,” she said on CNN. “I give 10% of my income to charity every year, this will be part of that.” (emphasis mine)

So is anyone else thinking that this means she’s actually not giving it back, since she’s giving no more than she normally would? Think about it…

It’s chess, not checkers…

As I’ve said before, the Democratic politicians – while I do not agree with many of their policies – are sharp strategists; much more so than their Republican counterparts. The Democrats are playing chess, while the Republicans play checkers.

One example is in how DC politicians are handling a recent 2nd amendment setback in the federal courts. To prevent a Supreme Court mandate that might decimate their gun control efforts, DC politicians have decided not to appeal a federal court opinion that the DC rule requiring “good cause” for the issuance of a concealed carry permit is unconstitutional. This leaves open the door to revisit the issue when a more gun-control-friendly Supreme Court is empaneled.

Republicans beware; the Democrats are playing the long game.

King me, Senator.

Social media and censorship

I predicted earlier (here, here) that social media moguls would use their platforms to steer opinion by limiting speech. Here is an example where a social media company has allegedly attempted to limit speech directly associated with a political campaign. If this doesn’t raise your eyebrows, then you haven’t been paying attention.

Now, to be completely honest, I don’t particularly agree with this candidate’s views. But their views are not my concern; what is my concern is that this social media firm appears to be silencing politicians with whom it disagrees. Bear in mind that even if you do agree with this company’s alleged attempts to censor this particular political speech, keep in mind that next time it might be your opinion that is quashed.

This would not be a problem if it were not for the success of these social media platforms. They have become the de facto means of communication for so many that their importance in the communication of ideas cannot be underestimated. To be fair, the social media companies are within their rights to take such action: the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to free speech, but not a platform from which to speak. You truly only have free speech in a venue that you control. However, the use of these social media systems to disseminate opinion and information has become so ingrained in our society that I would argue that such systems are simply a service, and as such cannot discriminate based on content. Let me elaborate a bit more…

A physical media publisher seeks out those who produce works that they want to publish. They publish books/magazines/etc under their own brand label, and as such what they publish affects the opinion of that brand. Such companies should be allowed to pick and choose the authors they wish to represent. However, a simple printer does not suffer the same association with the content they print. What they print is branded by the author and their material, without regard for the printer in any way. For that reason the printer should not be allowed to refuse to print materials based on content. Just as a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, neither should a printer be able to refuse to print invitations for such a wedding (or announcements, or photo books of wedding photos, etc.). We can have a long argument about whether or not freedom of association allows such discrimination, but for now let’s assume it does not (we’ll wait for the final court say before commenting more on this topic…).

Social media sites are nothing more that digital printers. No one associates the content of a <insert social media site name here> posting with the social media site; instead, they associate the contents only with the author. The social media site is free to post its own opinions on any number of topics (including their opposition to particular posts) and make known that these are their opinions, but Joe Blow’s post about their political beliefs are just that – their political beliefs. Only a simpleton would assume that the independent posts of an individual would represent the opinion of the social media company that hosts this site along with the sites of millions of others.

When social media platforms seek to limit particular political speech, they are interfering with our political process. We should raise our voice loudly to protest such actions whenever they occur.

Domestic terrorism and gun laws

I realize that the immediate tendency when faced with a horrific example of domestic terrorism involving firearms is to renew efforts for their ban. However, we should stop for a moment and consider whether or not this will have any noticeable impact on such events or will only undermine the freedoms we enjoy under the Constitution.

Assuming that criminals and terrorists are law-abiding citizens who will honor more restrictive gun laws is a flawed premise. For example, the Paris massacre of 130 people on November 13, 2015 resulted from an extensive use of firearms  – even though France has some of the most highly restrictive gun laws in the world. We should also consider that acts of domestic terrorism are seldom preventable by removing one method of attack: a truck was used to kill 84 and injure 202 people in Nice, France on July 15, 2016; the Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 and injured 680 in April of 1995;  and almost 3000 people were killed and countless others injured during the 9/11 attacks where 2 planes were used to destroy the Twin Towers in NYC. These alternative methods using trucks, bombs and planes were just as effective, if not more so, than firearms.

If someone wants to kill a lot of people, restricting the freedom of law-abiding Americans will have little impact. Let’s instead for the moment look for ways to help the survivors of this recent tragedy, then later look for common-sense solutions that address the root causes of violence that are at the core of these attacks.

Let’s blame the oil companies…

San Francisco, CA has decided to sue the big oil companies for damages they expect to incur from the use of fossil fuels. Well, I’ve got news for you idiots: Fossil fuel production by oil companies is not the driving force behind global warming. Burning fossil fuels by your citizens, however… that’s another story.

To blame the oil companies for producing a product that the public demands is absurd. If you want to reduce the impact of fossil fuels, then get your citizens to stop using such fuels. There is nothing preventing you from passing laws to forbid the use of these fuels (except, maybe, your re-election campaign).