Costs

In Monday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section, a letter-writer pooh-poohed the idea that the People’s Republic of China might actually invade the Republic of China and reclaim the island of Taiwan.

A decision by Beijing to invade Taiwan would create a major geopolitical crisis for China. Its extensive global trade and investments would be disrupted, creating economic problems. An invasion would result in an occupation. The people of Taiwan have lived in freedom and under the rule of law—they are not about to put on Chinese handcuffs and live in a communist society.

Houlihan made an all-too-common mistake that political and military analysts make in assessing an enemy nation’s motives and goals. Here, he assumed that the PRC cares about costs of regaining and reoccupying the island of Taiwan, just because we would have those concerns. In the end, if the PRC succeeds, it will have destroyed the Republic of China (without the US’ and others’ support, the “people of Taiwan” won’t be capable of resisting PRC handcuffs for any length of time) and regained the island.

And humiliated us, driving us from the western Pacific, opening up the Republic of Korea and Japan—hated enemies—to tacit, if not explicit, control, and putting Southeast Asia, which it has failed repeatedly in invading, under its thumb.

And gained control of the South China Sea shipping lanes, further strangling the RoK and Japan, and inflicting sufficient economic damage on us as to be able to control, in large part, our behavior.

Those may well be goals, in PRC eyes, worth spending a bit of political and economic capital to attain.

The PRC certainly is building, as fast as it can, a military capability designed for the purpose. The PRC also has the stated goal of replacing, in the near-to-medium term, us as the sole world power.

Defunding the Schools

Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) is proposing a stern response regarding schools that cannot reopen because the national teachers unions and the school districts’ associated teachers union locals refuse to send their members back to work. That refusal comes in the face of the fact that it’s safe for schools to reopen and teachers to report for in-person teaching, at the least for grades K-8, because the kids both don’t get sick from the Wuhan Virus, and they don’t spread any Wuhan Virus infection they may be carrying among themselves or to adults.

…I will be filing legislation to hold our nation to that promise [President Joe Biden’s campaign promise to reopen all schools within the first 100 days of his becoming president].
If a school continues to cave to the unions at the expense of their students, they should not receive funding. I propose that if a school refuses to offer students an in-person option by April 30, 2021, 100 days into the Biden administration, that funding should be rescinded and directed to school choice and the reopening plans of schools that are prioritizing their students’ needs.

It’s a necessary step, but it’s one that would hurt the schools as much, if not more, than it would the shirking unions and union members. Thus, it cannot be the only step.

Union locals that won’t send their members back to their jobs, back to the jobs unions insist on controlling, also must be decertified in their school districts, and those teachers who continue to refuse to report for their jobs—their duties—should be terminated for cause (for cause so that these shirkers would be ineligible for most unemployment-related welfare).

Who will teach the kids if the teachers are fired, some might ask. Those some should also ask, who’s teaching the kids now? And, no, virtual teaching for those grades is all virtual and no teaching and a complete failure, even after all these months of teachers supposedly learning how to teach those age groups virtually.

With the shirkers fired, the teaching slots would be free and the districts could call in substitute teachers already on their lists (or remove them from their lists if they refuse to report for duty); hire replacements; reallocate the now unused payroll funds to support home-school pods and individual home-schooling families; in the spirit of Rubio’s proposed reallocation of Federal funds, work with local voucher and charter schools—the list is extensive.

The unions and their members aren’t doing their jobs; they don’t need either compensation or to have those jobs. Of course, taking that necessarily local action requires more courage, more strength of character, than those districts targeted by Rubio’s proposed legislation have been showing—that’s part of the need for his bill.

That’ll be the Day

Ford Motor Co is going to switch to Alphabet’s Android for the software to drive its cars’ displays, beginning in 2023. I can tolerate that, mostly, even if it is Alphabet.

Here’s the kicker, though [emphasis added].

Ford also intends to work with Alphabet Inc’s Google for cloud services to help the auto maker develop in-car features and manage the reams of data streaming from its vehicles.

And

Ford, GM, and others are now working with Google to offer Android as built-in software, a move that allows owners to download apps directly to their vehicle’s tabletlike display….
Auto makers are mobilizing to offer in-car services to customers that would allow the companies to collect recurring revenue streams….

I don’t need tracking software in my vehicles, and I don’t need mechanisms to suck ever more money out of me via my vehicles.

It’ll be a cold day in a warm place before I’ll let any car of mine connect to the Internet.

Full stop.

Bipartisanship the Biden Way

Then-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden campaigned on—bragged about—his ability to work with Republicans, to get bipartisan deals done, because he claimed, bipartisanship was best for the nation.

Here’s an example of that bipartisanship in the true Biden way, centered on the nearly $2 trillion Wuhan Virus “relief” bill the Progressive-Democrats are pushing in Congress. It comes on the heels of Biden’s Monday meeting with 10 Republicans regarding their far cheaper relief proposal, a meeting in which Biden paid lip service to hearing what Republican had to say and to offer. Speaking through his White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, Biden said,

he will not slow down work on this urgent crisis response….

He will not wait on Republicans to get on board with Party requirements. His Unity Platform partner, Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) also has made clear that Party must proceed without Republican input if that slows down the Party virus legislation. Sanders was characteristically blunt:

Well, I don’t know what the word compromise means[.]

Biden, through his equally characteristic silence, shows that he fully agrees with his partner.

On top of that, neither Biden, nor any of his advisors, nor any Progressive-Democrat Congressional powers are willing to explain the urgency behind their $2 trillion virus spending plan, given that the vast bulk of the already passed $900 billion virus spending plan remain unspent, even in some cases unallocated.

A Trump Legal Legacy

Brent Kendall had a piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal, Trump Appointees Poised to Influence Legal Outcomes for Decades to Come, that explored this item. It’s well worth the read.

One statement in particular caught my eye, though.

Republican and Democratic [judicial] appointees often embrace differing legal philosophies that lead to divergent results.

This is at the core of the problem. As our Constitution’s Article I, Section 1 makes clear, there is only one legitimate legal philosophy for judges and Justices. They’re sworn to uphold the Constitution, not some mythical document that better comports with what they want to uphold.

Thus, they must apply the Constitution and the statute(s) before them as they’re written, not as they wish they were written; not as “adjusted” to fit a judge’s personal view of what society needs, as articulated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and acted out by Chief Justice John Roberts; not Thurgood Marshall’s you do what you think is right and let the law catch up.

All of those…philosophies…are political decisions well outside the ken of the judiciary and solely within the scope of the political branches of government and of We the People, who hire and fire those political personages.