Category: General

Here’s an interesting read re: Citizens United.

It’s hard to believe that popular left-wing propaganda still claims this was a bad decision by the Supreme Court. In reality, it was the only decision they could make; the alternative would have been to set up a government bureau whose function was to determine who could speak. Now THAT would have been a bad decision….

It’s one thing to protest by voluntarily leaving a space to highlight your value; it’s quite another to be told you need to leave a space to highlight the value of others.

A professor at Evergreen College in Washington state pointed that out, and has been the object of student protest ever since:

“On a college campus, one’s right to speak— or to be —should never be based on skin color.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – voluntary or mandatory segregation – under any circumstances – will not cure racism. It will only make more racists.

An interesting quote in the aftermath of the Manchester bombing [Fox News]:

The father of the alleged terrorist said that his family “aren’t the ones who blow up ourselves among innocents.”

“We don’t believe in killing innocents. This is not us,” he said.

They don’t believe in killing innocents?? Doesn’t this mean that they are fine with killing others?

I find it interesting that the alleged bomber traveled from Libya only days before the bombing (Libya is one of the countries on Trump’s travel ban).

Recently, Twitter co-founder Evan Williams is alleged to have apologized for Twitter’s involvement in the election of Donald Trump. Pulling from this Fox News article:

“It’s a very bad thing, Twitter’s role in that,” he said. “If it’s true that he wouldn’t be president if it weren’t for Twitter, then yeah, I’m sorry.”

Williams said that he was wrong for thinking that the world would be a better place if there was a platform for everyone to freely speak and exchange ideas.

Note that last sentence, and realize fully what it means: Free speech is bad, since it gives voice to those with whom you do not agree. But isn’t that the point of free speech?

I’m shocked by this attack on free speech, even coming from the left. However, it should also serve as a warning that we need to be on our guard so that people like Williams don’t take our freedom of speech by controlling the means of speech (in this case, Twitter).

It is unfortunate, but our education system is heavily biased towards an extreme left-wing political position. The result is less of an education than an indoctrination into “democratic” socialism. I guess this is what happens when the unions run our education system.

Think not? Think again; here is a recent example of this bias:

Dare to include a single quote attributed to Donald Trump in your yearbook, and they are all recalled and destroyed.

Fill the yearbook with student-led hate speech about Trump – including the comment “I would like to behead him” – and they are distributed to all.

I am an avid fan of the Cato Institute, but in this case I must disagree with their opinion. Their position that a printer should be allowed to refuse to print messages with which they disagree, for instance on religious grounds, is misguided.

In this case a simple service provider – someone who prints messages on T-shirts – claims the right to refuse service to those with whose message they disagree. Cato likens this to the case of someone forced to display a state motto (on a license plate) with which they disagreed (Wooley v. Maynard, 1977). The idea behind Wooley v. Maynard is that the display of the message by someone could be construed as a form of support for the message; after all, how many people place bumper stickers on their cars that contain messages with which they disagree? In that case the assumption of agreement is at least possible (although improbable, given the obviously forced nature of the display).

In this case the printer has no association with the printed product other than having manufactured them per order. They are not a publisher, with whom the message might be associated upon distribution. Neither are they or their organization a part of the message, nor are they required to display the message in a manner that would associate them with it in any way. There are no reasonable free expression concerns; the message is not associated with the printer.

However, the impact of supporting such selective business practices could have wide and serious implications.  I can see such a practice being used for far more sinister discrimination efforts. What if a printer in the deep south decides that the message contained in a flyer promoting the vote, aimed at minorities, is disagreeable? What if a printer decides that the person running for office has a disagreeable message; can they refuse to print campaign literature or flyers for that person? And who would decide what was objectionable, and therefor who could run for office?

There are also economic issues to consider. For instance, specialization of labor permits much higher productivity levels, which works in part because a limited number of individuals (as it turns out, exactly as many are needed – at least in a capitalist system) exist to fulfill a particular need. What would happen if those people refused to fill that need for specific individuals? Now additional people people and resources will be needed to fulfill that need, reducing the efficiency of industry and capital.

Unless the work of the vendor clearly and convincingly associates the product with the vendor, then no free speech or free expression concerns exist. A vendor who offers a simple service to the public should make the service available to all without restriction.

Sorry, Cato. On this one we must disagree.

Here is a really interesting account of how academia has abandoned free speech in favor of “correct speech”, i.e.: speech that they approve.

And they call Trump a fascist…

Bakery workers at New York City’s Tom Cat Bakery are being asked to produce proof of the right to work in the U.S. or face  losing their jobs and being deported. Why? Because it is alleged that some of them provided false employment documents when they were hired.

Obviously, those here illegally don’t want to (or cannot) provide the required documentation. They call it bullying by the Trump administration; others call it enforcing the law. In any event, they are protesting the absurd requirement that they be legal workers.

“…I never expected this was going to happen,” (which of course means it shouldn’t) said one worker, a native of Mexico City who admits that he’s not legally entitled to work in the United States. Even so, this worker purports to have provided work documents to obtain his current job.  So let me see if I have this right: not only is he here illegally, he’s working illegally (preventing someone else who is a legal resident from working) and using false documents to do so (identity theft)?

No wonder they are protesting.

Let’s say you call a company to ask information regarding one of their products, or perhaps to avail yourself of some information to which they are privy. That company is able to note that you called, what you called about, and to provide that information to others – free of charge or for a fee.

However, if the phone company – as an intermediary providing telecommunications network services – wanted to collect information of that call and to sell that information to others, there would be a riot. That’s because U.S. Code Title 47 § 222 states:

Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.

Note that this is because they are a telecommunications network provider. You are not communicating with them; you are only using their services to communicate with others. They have no right to the information from those calls, or that the calls were even made, except as needed for their internal billing and marketing needs. This data is protected by law because it can contain highly personal data. For instance, say you were calling psychiatrists as a the result of a particularly difficult set of events in your life. Would you want the telephone company to sell that information to your employer, competitor, or ex-spouse? I think not.

Now, image that your  Internet service provider (essentially a communications network provider, similar to the phone  company) wanted to sell information on your web browsing habits, including the exact web sites you access and when/how long you visit. This would be akin to the phone company selling lists of the calls you made. Well, that is exactly what the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) want to do – and the government is going to help.

The Obama administration (of which I was not particularly fond) approved an FCC rule for ISPs that would require they have specific customer approval to release such information – the same as for telephone companies. However, the Republicans in congress have drank the Kool-Aid offered by ISPs that hold since Google is not subject to such a rule that they should not be subject, either. However, the comparison is apples to oranges; Google provides a service to which customers connect and use, while the ISPs simply makes the connection for you (like the telephone company). In this case the ISP to telephone company analogy holds; the information on your network usage – just as the phone calls you make – should be held as private data and not be resold.

Congress has passed – and President Trump is expected to sign – a resolution overturning this Obama-era rule. The resolution would lets ISPs sell your very personal web browsing data without so much as telling you, let alone getting your permission. This is wrong, and should not be allowed. Take the time to protect your online privacy and send a quick note to President Trump indicating your desire that he veto this resolution/rule reversal.

You can start here.