Month: November 2017

A racist rant

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.

I’m tired of being right…

I predicted earlier that the government, barred by the first amendment from limiting speech, would use the threat of regulation to force social media sights to do their bidding instead. Unfortunately, I was right – this is exactly what they are attempting to do. It’s covered well in this Cato Institute editorial by John Samples so I won’t bore you with the details here – read it for yourself instead.

Thank you, Jeremy Hunt

A voice of reason rings out among the partisan, acrimonious rhetoric regarding race:

Demonizing white people doesn’t improve race relations

While I am sure that Jeremy and I have different views on many subjects, I feel that I could have a constructive conversation with him regarding those differences. That’s how it’s supposed to be; civil discourse is the true purpose of free speech.

Magic?

Ballou High in Washington, DC had a first in 2017 – the school had a 100% graduation and college acceptance rate. This transformation, however, may not be the achievement it appears. In 2016, only 3 percent of Ballou students tested met city-wide reading standards, and virtually none met corresponding math standards. Such a significant transformation borders on the magical – or was it something else?

An interesting article on NPR casts a shadow on this achievement of Ballou High School.  It also raises an important question: Are we really helping disadvantaged youth by allowing them to graduate from high school when they have not actually earned the diploma? When students of color (in 2013, Ballou was reported to be 99% African-American) are presented to the world as competent by virtue of their successful graduation, but upon closer examination are found to be clearly not competent, how do you think this will impact the view society has of these students? What are the odds that these views will be extended to characteristics of race (intentionally or otherwise)?

While lowering the bar may help graduation rates, it is a disservice to the students and will only provide fodder for racists. Let’s raise the bar instead, and give students the real tools they need to succeed in today’s world.

Scorched earth tactics at the CFPB

OK, so the outgoing director of the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) Richard Cordray, who holds a position appointed by the President of the United States,  has decided that he has the authority to appoint his own successor. Really?

Here’s how it works: On his last day in office Cordray appointed his Chief of Staff, Leandra English, as deputy director of the agency. English is now claiming that the Dodd-Frank Act has a provision that requires the deputy director to become acting director if the director position is vacant.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m still going to call bullshit (big time) on this absurd claim. Here’s the relevant text from the Dodd-Frank Act:

(5) DEPUTY DIRECTOR.—There is established the position of Deputy Director, who shall—

(A) be appointed by the Director; and

(B) serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director.

Note that the text of the Act does not appoint the deputy director as the director; it simply allows the deputy to act on behalf of the director if the director is unavailable. It does nothing to stop the appointment of a new director – interim or otherwise – by the President of the United States. Once the new director is appointed they effectively relieve the “acting” director of their temporary director functions.

The willingness to make such absurd arguments in an attempt to disrupt the operation of our government shows the disdain that these people and their brethren have for our fragile democracy. Their actions undermine the stability of our country and erode the legitimacy of our government, and should be recognized as the acts of a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum when they do not get their way. Their actions should be remembered as such at election time.

Gun (pronounced “people”) Control

That didn’t take long.

Gun control pundits, in the aftermath of the Rancho Tehama shooting, are already calling for more gun laws (here and here, for example). They seem not to notice that the shooter resided in California, a state with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. In addition, the shooter was alleged to have been indicted for assaulting his neighbors and was under a restraining order – both conditions for which California generally precludes the possession of firearms by the accused. What additional gun law do they expect to pass that would have prevented this tragedy?

The truth is that gun control advocates want a complete ban on firearms and their nation-wide confiscation. That is their ultimate goal. However, this will also remove a significant protection afforded the people against an overbearing and tyrannical government – a protection that makes possible every other freedom we enjoy. Only when the people have the means to resist their government does the power truly reside with the people. Only then are their freedoms secure.