Category: General

Celebrities are threatening …

… to move to Canada to protest the immigration policies of Donald Trump. My response: Good luck; Canada’s immigration policies are stricter than our own. For instance:

  • You need a medical exam from a certified professional before you can be considered for immigration. AIDS, cancer, diabetes – good luck! They don’t want you becoming a medical burden on the rest of the Canadian public.
  • You had better be fluent in either English or French – and yes, you will be tested. Spanish? Nope… English or French only.
  • Ever worked illegally in Canada? Sorry…. ineligible! No amnesty in Canada.
  • No needed labor skills (they have a list!)? No professional license? No master’s degree or higher? Good luck!
  • Ever been convicted of  a crime, such as murder, manslaughter, theft, assault, robbery, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or drug possession? Sorry; rejected! ( I guess that whole drug possession thing will probably knock a lot of them out of the running… Snoop Dog and Willie Nelson come to mind…)

Frankly, I say good riddance. If you’re not willing to be part of the solution then you’re part of the problem. Besides, we already have too many spoiled and overpaid actors here; let Canada have a few.

The “popular vote”

Hillary supporters have been busy pointing out that Hillary won the popular vote, and therefore should be president. However, this is a rather ludicrous argument since no one was trying to win the popular vote. It’s like saying you picked more apples than anyone else at an apple pie baking contest; while you need to pick some apples to make the pie, the total number of apples picked is simply not relevant to the contest at hand and you’ll win no prizes for your effort.

The point I am trying to make is that the candidates campaigned specifically to win an electoral vote contest, not the popular vote, and each used a strategy designed to meet that objective. If the contest had been to win the popular vote, then the candidates would have used a different campaign strategy. Given Trump’s successes where he did campaign, there is every reason to believe that he would have been just as successful in a popular vote contest using an appropriate strategy.

Complaining about how many apples your candidate picked at a pie baking contest – well, that’s just a waste of time now, isn’t it?

Do you remember ….

… when Republicans took to the streets after Obama’s election in ’08, rioting and smashing car windows, burning the President-elect in effigy, firebombing vehicles, and blocking freeway traffic?

Yeah, me neither. That’s because it didn’t happen.

The links above are all about Hillary supporters protesting Trump’s successful bid for President. Nothing like a burning car to make your point; I wonder how that vehicle owner will get to work tomorrow? It would be ironic if the car belonged to one of the protesters…

California’s quasi-mandatory retirement savings plan

California has passed Senate Bill 1234, the “California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program“. It is a quasi-mandatory retirement plan that requires payroll deductions into a state-managed retirement fund. On the plus side, it does give a retirement plan option to California employees that do not benefit from an employer-offered plan. On the negative side, it’s nanny-state run amok. I am always concerned whenever the state wants to manage any aspect of my life – particularly when it is done ostensibly for my benefit – but I see numerous other potential issues, including:

  • This program allows the state to transfer management to CalPERS, and they do not have a stellar record. As of 2016  CalPERS is only 77% funded – a 23% shortfall.
  • This will create a large source of management fees; how can we be assured that there won’t be corruption in the investor selection process? Remember, with your own retirement account *you* find the investment company; in this case you give the money to the state and *they* find the investment company.
  • The management board is responsible for outreach efforts, which will be made at the expense of the fund. This will increase total plan costs over other, competing plans.

These are just the tip of the iceberg; there are just too many things wrong with this plan for me to list. Read more about other opinions on this new law here, here, here, and here.

Transparency? We don’t need no stinkin’ transparency!

The FBI release of long-overdue FOIA files on the controversial Clinton pardon of Marc Rich has caused a stir. Marc Rich was under indictment for income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and prohibited arms trade with Iran. He did not stand trial, instead fleeing to Switzerland to avoid prosecution. His ex-wife became a substantial contributor to Clinton causes, and lobbied for her ex-husband’s pardon. On his last day in office, Clinton granted their wish.

The Clinton campaign is obviously upset at having this information released, as reminding voters of this pardon will once again shed light onto the pay-for-play politics that the Clinton’s have embraced during their tenures in public office (someone should also add nepotism, and point out that Clinton pardoned his half-brother for drug charges as well). However, what is more telling is the statement the Clinton campaign made regarding this release:

“Absent a (Freedom of Information Act) deadline, this is odd,” Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted.

What I believe Fallon is saying with this statement is that a Clinton administration would not release FOIA files until they absolutely had to under the law, at the legal deadline. This is a continuation of the lack of transparency we have seen under the Obama administration, noted here, here, and here (compare to the Obama administration’s statements on transparency here).

Is America really ready for 4 more years of missing, altered, or denied information?

But what if they are right…?

A recent article from CNN asserts that Fox news viewers see the world differently, and (in my opinion) attempts to paint them in a negative light.  However, the examples they use to criticize Fox viewers neglect one critical point: What if they are right? What if America is going in the wrong direction? What if America is not in the midst of the economic recovery the government keeps assuring us is ongoing? What if Hillary Clinton is not the ideal candidate that some would like you to believe?

What should we think when a local government passes a law that takes away your right to negotiate an employment contract directly with an employer? Seattle, Washington did just that with their Secure Scheduling Ordinance. This new law requires a collective bargaining agreement – whether or not you agree with union policies and politics – to achieve flexible hours that a worker might desire or need.

What should we think when companies leave the country – either physically by moving production or logically by “inversion” – at ever increasing rates to avoid some of the highest business tax rates in the world? What should we think when the politicians claim that the solution is to make new laws to force them to stay while raising their taxes even higher? How is this any different than erecting the Berlin Wall to prevent the mass exodus of working-class citizens from East Berlin after WWII? So it’s OK when the “wall” only affects businesses?

What should we think when a leading presidential candidate states that they want to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United – even though the ACLU agrees that the Supreme Court got it right? (Citizens United was less about campaign money than it was about whether or not the government should be allowed to determine who can speak; imagine what a crooked politician could do with that power!)

Interestingly, CNN chose not to be critical of MSNBC viewers – even though in many cases they held views just as extreme as FOX viewers but in the opposite direction. For instance, 85% of Fox viewers believed that the Wikileak emails raise conflict of interest concerns for Clinton, while only 15% of MSNBC viewers took the same position.  In another example, 83% of Fox viewers leaned towards voting for Trump, while 94% of MSNBC viewers leaned towards Clinton. So it’s OK to be extreme, so long as CNN agrees with your position?

Frankly, the CNN critique of Fox viewers might just be due to jealousy. After all, as CNN noted in the article, 270 out of 1000 poll respondents (the single largest share) stated that they trusted Fox most out of the networks queried; CNN garnered only 154.

Go figure.