Category: Politics

“Nothing is free”

I applaud efforts to lower the costs of life-saving insulin for diabetic patients, but I am appalled at the notion that this will fix the problem or be paid for by anyone but the general public. According to this NPR article:

“Insurance companies will have to absorb the balance…” [of insulin costs]

If the public is so stupid as to believe that the costs of this legislation will be borne by insurance companies, and not passed on to consumers in the form of higher insurance rates, then our public school system needs to be replaced. In addition, this legislation will do nothing to prevent the high costs of insulin; it will just force the rising costs onto others.

Don’t get me wrong; this is in part how insurance works. It distributes risk, and as a result some pay more and some pay less relative to the services received, but all are protected from catastrophic risk. What I object to is a politician claiming credit for this change – a change that doesn’t really fix the root problem (which is the lack of competition among insulin manufacturers/suppliers).

Read this legislation for what it is: political propaganda, at our expense. A politician has claimed to “fix” something by forcing the costs onto us, the the public.

Please vote this idiot out of office at the next election.

Preparation, or indoctrination by terror?

Schools have increasingly been implementing mass shooting protocols and drills, ostensibly to protect school children by preparing them for such an event. But are these really for the benefit of the student, or are they instead an attempt to sway future voters by indoctrination through terror? With some of these drills using plastic “bullets”, simulated gunfire and fake blood, one has to wonder – particularly given the low probability of such an attack.

Since 1999, there have been 11 mass school shootings in the US (as of 4/2019), involving the deaths of 127 people. These are sad statistics, but do they warrant terrorizing students with fake mass shooting drills? Some have wondered whether these drills will have a greater overall negative impact than not.

There are approximately 84000 public schools in the United States; this amounts to a 1 in almost 8000 chance of having a school shooting at any given school over the last 20 years and a one in approximately 150,000 chance in any given year. In addition, with approximately 55 million kindergarten through 12th grade students in the U.S. the odds of being shot in a mass school shooting in the last 20 years is roughly one in 433,000, and in any given year less than 1 in 8 million.

One has to wonder what is the end goal of those who would subject students to the terror of active shooter drills, particularly when there are much more likely and serious issues to address. For instance, 382 teenagers died in 2016 as the result of traffic accidents where the teenage driver had a BAC level of 0.08 or greater; this amounts to 3 times as many killed in 1 year as the result of alcohol than those killed in all the school shootings over the last 20 years. Even though these accidents have a much greater impact on the lives of students, authorities don’t run simulations of accidents or force students to attend faux funerals for the mock dead.Why, then, do they stage fake active shooter drills?

So I ask again – what is the purpose of these simulated mass shooting drills? To truly protect our students, or to precondition future voters against 2nd amendment rights? You must decide for yourself; I have already come to my own conclusion.

Indoctrinating students is wrong

A teacher in Houston gave his seventh grade students an assignment that allegedly appeared to disparage President Trump – much to the chagrin of some parents.

The school district says this has matter has been settled without specifying what – if any – disciplinary action has been taken. I wonder what disciplinary action would have been taken if this teacher had instead done the same with respect to a liberal candidate?

Trump-related school assignment prompts anger, death threats against Houston-area teacher: report

Side-stepping the Electoral College

Colorado Joins Compact to Give Its Electoral Votes to the Popular Winner

How is this constitutional? Any legal scholars out there who can explain this?

Here’s my problem with this scheme: The electoral votes of a state should reflect the votes of the citizens of that state. With this law as defined in Colorado and many other states, their electoral votes can reflect the votes of other states. Can you imagine a scenario where the state voters support candidate “A”, but the state electoral votes go to candidate “B”? And how is that any better than the problems with the existing system, where candidate “A” wins the popular vote but candidate “B” wins the election?

Another “sin” tax?

According to NPR, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others are calling for “sugary drink” taxes as a way to reduce sugar consumption by youths. They cite data showing that sugary drinks are the cause of some health problems as justification for such taxes.

The efforts outlined in the NPR article suggest that lawmakers take action absent voter approval. Why not put it to the voters, along with an education campaign? Interestingly, if the voters approve then why can’t they make the choice themselves to simply avoid sugary drinks without a law, without another tax? Alternatively, if the goal is reduced consumption then why not make such drinks illegal? Wouldn’t that be more effective? Or is the true purpose a tax revenue stream, paid for by those who can least afford it?

The Declaration of Independence proclaims our right to the pursuit of happiness; it does not define the government (or anyone else) as its arbiter. The government should stay out of our personal decisions – including what we decide to consume.

Problems with “H.R.1 – For the People Act of 2019”

This post by Walter Olsen at Cato (via Overlawyered.com) gives a synopsis regarding some of the problems with this legislation:

H.R. 1, political omnibus bill, passes House

Don’t be fooled by political rhetoric; any attempts to limit speech will reduce your freedoms, not increase them. The chilling impact of this legislation on some speech should not go unchallenged.

Bill Maher is (in my opinion) an idiot

Bill Maher has been busy bashing “red” states as envious of their “blue” state counterparts

Here’s some select quotes from Bill regarding blue vs. red state inhabitants:

“The blue parts of America are having a big prosperity party while the big sea of red feels like their invitation got lost in the mail…”

“The fly-over states have become the passed-over states, that’s why red state voters are so pissed off. They don’t hate us, they want to be us.”

Did you know that many of your “blue” states, Bill, have a large population of “red” people? For instance, in one of the “bluest” states – California – likely voters are split along political ideology as 38% liberal, 28% moderate, and 34% conservative. That’s an awful lot of “red” in a so-called “blue” state.

We are much more like a collection of states and/or geographic regions that have attained some shade of purple rather than being purely “red” or “blue”. Some states are slightly more blue than purple, some slightly more red, but all simply a shade of purple.  To insinuate that there are only “blue” and “red” states attempts to divide us by highlighting our differences; viewing the states as shades of purple will instead bind us by underscoring are similarities.

Thanks for reminding us all why we don’t watch your show, Bill…

This tactic is getting old

Sometimes, one side of an argument tries to make a claim that is absurd so as to make the other side look bad or evil. Frequently, it’s annoying. Here’s one example:

Father of woman who joined ISIS sues Trump administration, seeking daughter’s return to US

In this article the father’s lawyer against the government is cited as stating:

“When the Constitution ceases to rule, then it’s rule by tyranny,” Swift, director of the Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America, told the newspaper Thursday.

The implication is that the government – represented by President Trump and Secretary Pompeo – is acting contrary to the Constitution and is thus tyrannical. It is a claim heard frequently with this administration; however, it is not always the case. The government is acting precisely with respect to the Constitution and laws of the United States: their position is that the woman is not a citizen by virtue of her father not having been under the jurisdiction of the U.S. at the time of his daughters birth. This is a valid exception to the birthright citizenship awarded others born in the United States.

The issue is not whether the government is violating the constitution or U.S. law; the issue is a question of fact whether or not the father was in the United States as a foreign diplomat at the time of his daughter’s birth. It is a valid question that will need to be taken up by a court of competent jurisdiction. Until then there is no basis for the “…rule by tyranny…” claim.

If at some point a court rules in favor of the father, and after all appeals are exhausted the government still refuses entry to the daughter, then we can talk about charges of “tyranny”. However, until then such talk is merely rhetoric meant to inflame the senses and the masses. I only ask that you be critical thinkers and not fall for such demagoguery, and treat those that spew such nonsense as the self-serving agitators that they are.