Category: General

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…

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.

Here’s another discussion about the impacts of rent control. I could not have said it better.

We Can’t Reduce Housing Costs by Wishing for Rent Control

Even the venerable ACLU can’t catch a break on a college campus.

Free Speech Advocate Silenced

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…

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.

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.

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).