People are stupid…

…and many vote.

Picture this: A fictional (but not as fictional as you might presume) politician takes the podium and says:

“If you elect me, I’m going to have the government borrow money in your name. We’re going to keep some of the money to fund programs and jobs to reward our friends and family with overpaid positions, but we’ll send some of it to you. Now, you’ll be on the hook for the full loan amount, even though you’ll only receive part of the proceeds. But don’t worry; we intend to tax your neighbor to make most of the payment (Shhh! Don’t tell them until after the election!). In any event, you’ll have money in your pocket now if you vote for me.”

How many of you would vote for a politician under such a promise? How many of you won’t realize that they’ve said the same thing to your neighbor, who is expecting you to make the payments on this loan? How many (or few…) would laugh this moron off of the stage?

Well, we’ll find out soon. President-elect Biden just made this promise to the residents of Georgia in an attempt to win two critical Senate runoff elections there:

“If you send Jon and the Reverend to Washington, those $2,000 checks will go out the door,” Biden said Monday while campaigning in Atlanta on the eve of the election. “It’s just that simple. The power is literally in your hands.”

Sadly, our education system has failed to teach citizens the basics of economics. Given the lopsided representation of the political parties in the education system (by a 2:1 margin), maybe this deficit in knowledge is by design? Unfortunately, the promise of other people’s money will probably win the Georgia senate races for the Democrats.

Banana Republic

Now, to be fair, the headline is a little misleading. It’s people associated with SIlicon Valley companies that are the sources, not the companies themselves.

Silicon Valley companies top list of sources for Ossoff donors

The problem with local elections is that they allow non-local money. Why should people from outside of Georgia be allowed to contribute to the campaigns of senatorial candidates in Georgia? The better question is: why would they want to?

The answer to the latter question becomes evident with a little thought:

Washington Examiner writer Tim Carney, who noted the Silicon Valley donations on Monday, argued that Ossoff’s win would grant the tech hub “its own senator, even if he’ll nominally be representing Georgia.”

If you’ve bought a Senator, does it really matter where they are or who they are supposed to represent? If the politicians in wealthy strongholds like Silicon Valley decide they need Georgia’s senate votes to implement their liberal agenda, what would stop them from asking their constituents to pour money into the campaign coffers of the desired Georgia candidates? But who would these candidates really be representing if they win?

Senators are supposed to represent their state and its residents – not special interests from outside the state. We need to put an end to donations from outside of each candidate’s district or state.

China’s experiment in capitalism

An interesting read from National Review:

The Bill Is Coming Due for China’s ‘Capitalist’ Experiment

Could nationalization of foreign assets be coming, for the benefit of domestic investors? I doubt it. When this happens (like in Venezuela) the economy collapses. Maybe China could pull it off with of the massive internal economic engine they’ve built using foreign intellectual property investments. Maybe not…

Finally; a law we need

Surprise emergency medical bills can be alarming. There is little as unfair as discovering your in-network hospital used out-of-network providers while you were under anesthesia.

The New Year Will Bring More Transparency In Hospital Prices

I’m not for control of hospital prices (unless they are publically-funded), but I think it is perfectly reasonable to force hospitals to disclose their prices before you use their services.

Forced internment

From the law makers in New York state: A416, a law to forcibly detain those deemed by the governor to be a risk to public health. Here’s the critical section of this proposed law (emphasis mine):

2. Upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a case, contact or carrier, or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease that, in the opinion of the governor, after consultation with the commissioner, may pose an imminent and significant threat to the public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality, the governor or his or her delegee, including, but not limited to the commissioner or the heads of local health departments, may order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons by issuing a single order, identifying such persons either by name or by a reasonably specific description of the individuals or group being detained. Such person or group of persons shall be detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his or her delegee and complying with subdivision five of this section.

Here are my problems with this proposed law:

1) The “…clear and convincing evidence…” component is troubling; clear and convincing to whom?

2) The condition to enable detention, “…severe morbidity or high mortality…”, is troubling because these words are undefined. COVID-19 is most likely the disease lawmakers had in mind in writing this new statute, and it is certainly more deadly than the flu, but it’s death rate is not what many would consider “high” for the general population. In any event, leaving the definition of these terms in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats may not be the best idea. With lax definitions such laws become ripe for abuse.

3) Ouch! This proposed law allows the “…detention…of a group of such persons…” by government order without any real due process. The potential for abuse here is incredible. If most protestors at a demonstration were not wearing COVID-19 mandated masks, could you detain them all – effectively curbing their freedom of speech? I wonder: if liberal and conservative protestors clashed in New York, and neither side wore masks, who do you think would go to jail/detention under this new law? All by a single order of the governor…

4) Also troubling: detention at a medical facility “…or other appropriate facility…” (i.e.: jail?). Who decides what is “appropriate”? More partisan bureaucrats appointed by the governor?

I understand the need to protect public safety, and I’m not saying such a law can’t be a practical necessity. What I am saying is that a law such as this, where the defining conditions and location of internment are arbitrary, can be abused. Such laws need to be narrowly tailored and highly refined to prevent their arbitrary application against political foes.

More fear mongering by NPR

NPR has once again taken an opinion piece and presented it as a news article. Their purpose: promote fearmongering by implying that the current Supreme Court is intent on destroying a woman’s right to choose.

Supreme Court’s New Supermajority: What It Means For Roe v. Wade

 Here are some choice excerpts from the article that may be of interest:

In 1973, when the court issued its landmark Roe v. Wade opinion, the vote was 7-to-2, with five Republican-appointed justices in the majority. But since then, the court’s composition has moved inexorably to the ideological right, with the court’s three newest justices appointed by President Trump.

I’d like to point out that six of the justices on the court in 1973 were nominated by Republican presidents – just as on the court today. Five of these Republican-appointed justices  – along with 2 Democrat-appointed justices – supported a woman’s right to choose in the Roe v. Wade decision. The dissent consisted of one each Democrat and Republican appointed justices. What this shows is that a conservative majority does not necessarily mean an end to Roe, nor does a liberal majority ensure its  survival. But why let that stop NPR from claiming otherwise?

On the Supreme Court, however, the centrist conservatives are gone, replaced by justices more passionately opposed to the notion of a constitutional right to abortion.

The centrist liberals have disappeared, too, thanks to Obama appointees Sotomayor and Kagan. Did you expect the next Republican president to respond to Obama’s appointments by nominating centrists? We reap what we sow, and when the shoe is on the other foot you should expect actions in kind.

Among constitutional scholars, there are basically two schools of thought. Many expect the court to systematically hollow out Roe v. Wade, not explicitly overturning it but leaving it a right on paper only.

I disagree. I’m sure there is some constitutional scholars out there that might have a another school of thought – perhaps that Roe v. Wade would be left undisturbed, or that abortion rights might find a better avenue for constitutional support. Even Justice Ginsburg thought that equal protection was a better justification for abortion rights than the due process tack taken by Roe v. Wade.

With respect to pending appeal cases that might impact Roe v. Wade, the fearmongering continues with unsupported claims and insinuations:

Some of those appeals in the lower courts have remained undecided for as many as 2 1/2 years, suggesting that some conservative-dominated lower courts are slow-walking cases in hopes of a dramatic change in abortion rulings from the Supreme Court.

Really? NPR thinks that there was a conspiracy among federal appeals court judges to delay cases until Trump could make a third appointment to the Supreme Court? That these delays could not have had anything to do with the backlog created by the COVID-19 pandemic? I think you’ve gone off the deep end here, NPR…

I have no problem with NPR presenting their opinion on a subject, but I do have a problem when they present it as fact rather than the op-ed that this is. Shame on you, NPR, for once again lowering the bar on journalism just to suit your political agenda.

Safe enough to vacation, but not work?

Chicago teachers don’t want to return to school during COVID? Maybe they’d prefer to continue vacationing in Puerto Rico on the taxpayer’s dime:

Chicago Teachers Union leader under fire for pushing remote schooling while vacationing in Caribbean

Here’s the most interesting quote in this article from the vacationing union leader in question, Sarah Chambers, with respect to her willingness to risk COVID infection to vacation  but not to teach:

My doc said it’s extremely unlikely for me to get Covid again since I had it so badly,” she continued.

So she can justify vacation travel because her risk of re-infection is low, but Chicago taxpayers can’t use that same justification in asking her to return to the classroom? Where’s her empathy for all the people who can’t go to work because their children aren’t in school, people who – unlike many teachers – aren’t paid when they don’t work?

I hope you all realize soon that the teachers and their union are only out for themselves, and couldn’t care less about you or your children. The union is just another special interest group, wielding votes and political power to spend public money for their own benefit.

Racism by any other name…

Lake Superior State University has published its list of words to be banished in 2021. Yeah, I’ve never heard of this school either, but cancel culture and censorship tends to make one famous.

But it’s not so much the list itself that peaked my interest as it is the explanation for certain words being on the list. Here’s an interesting snippet from a Fox News article regarding the list:

The university also wanted to banish the term “Karen,” which “began as an anti-racist critique of the behavior of white women in response to Black and Brown people,” but has now been turned into “a misogynist umbrella term for critiquing the perceived overemotional behavior of women,” the announcement said.

Anti-racist? Are you kidding me? “Karen” is a derogatory term applying only to people of a certain race; that’s the very definition of racist. Worse, it’s a racist word contrived for revenge as a form of retaliatory racism. If this word must be on your “list” place it there not only because it is misogynistic, but because it is racist, too.

Acceptance of retaliatory or revenge racism will never take us in the direction we want to go; it will only expand the void between us and make racists out of everyone.

Oh – and banning words is stupid. Really.

Lies, damn lies, and the political op-ed

Many political op-eds are worthless partizan rhetoric meant to benefit politicians, not the people. Want proof? Check out this opinion piece in the Washington Post by Sean Perryman, a candidate for lieutenant governor in Virginia:

Virginia should repeal right-to-work for good

In his opinion article Perryman bashes Virginia’s right-to-work laws in favor of forced union membership, making claims that – in my opinion – are patently false or have nothing at all to do with right-to-work. Note, too, that no where in his opinion does he clearly call out what Virginia’s right-to-work laws actually say – probably so as to not confuse his readers with the truth.

For instance, Perryman claims that:

“…these laws prohibit or severely limit the ability of labor unions to represent workers in collective bargaining and to fight for decent pay, better conditions, retirement, insurance, and leave for sickness or vacation.”

But that’s not what they do at all. Here’s part of the actual text from Virginia’s right-to-work laws:

§ 40.1-58. Policy of article.
It is hereby declared to be the public policy of Virginia that the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or nonmembership in any labor union or labor organization.

So, from a worker’s perspective, the law grants a worker the freedom to choose whether or not they will join a union. Without such a right-to-work law, workers can be forced to join a labor union and pay dues as a condition of employment – no matter how the worker feels about the labor union’s effectiveness, value or political activities.

Here’s another component of Virginia’s right-to-work laws:

§ 40.1-61. Employers not to require abstention from membership or officeholding in union.
No person shall be required by an employer to abstain or refrain from membership in, or holding office in, any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment.

So not only do Virginia’s right-to-work laws protect a worker from forced union membership, they at the same time protect union workers from employer interference in union membership. Sounds pretty fair to me – it places the decision of union membership right where it belongs, with the worker.

So why do unions – and by extension some politicians – want to end right-to-work? It’s because right-to-work laws prevent the unions from forcing workers to join and pay dues as a prerequisite to having a job. These laws also prevent a 50.1% majority of workers from deciding that the other 49.9% must union pay dues, and through those dues support union causes or politicians that these workers might not want to support. Instead, right-to-work laws force unions to provide services to members of such value that they are willing to pay the union for its work. Such laws also force unions to use their political expenditures to represent all of their members – not just those of the majority or the union’s own causes. In short, right to work laws increase the freedom of workers while at the same time preventing a union from collecting what amounts to a “protection fee” for the mere privilege of working in a particular firm or industry. They does not impede union membership in any way, except that it prevents the union from forcing membership upon unwilling employees.

Don’t believe the hyperbole of partisan politicians. They are not interested in what is best for you (freedom); they are only interested in what is best for them (votes and campaign contributions).

Oh – and please support right-to-work laws in your state (and country!).