Category: General

This is a funny read from The Grumpy Economist on how progressives might push for universal food, aka “single payer food”.

This goes well with one of my previous rants, found here.

 

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.