Monthly Archives: October 2022

A Raise in Pay

Posted on by
Reply

Chicago’s Progressive-Democratic Party Mayor, Lori Lightfoot, is at it again, this time in an obviously self-serving way.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot on Wednesday proposed an ordinance giving the office of the mayor an annual inflation raise capped at 5%.

Wow.

There are two reasons for an organization giving a pay raise to an employee. One is that the organization is doing better than in the past and is expected to continue at that increased level. This often garners pay raises for all employees, from the top to the bottom.

The other reason is that a particular employee has done especially well and can be expected to continue performing at that level, or the raise is granted after a period of exceptional performance to encourage the employee to continue at the elevated level.

The organization known as Chicago is a failed city. The tip of that failure:

  • violent crime in her city has increased 37% over 2021
  • the murder rate, in particular, is skyrocketing, even compared to 2021, which itself was up markedly over 2020
  • motor vehicle thefts to date are up 74% compared to the same period in 2021
  • major companies fleeing the city

There is no reason to expect this performance trend to do anything other than to worsen. The organization of Chicago is not doing well enough for across the board pay raises, much less for the Mayor or for anyone in the mayor’s office.

Lightfoot is the city’s MFWIC, and not only is the city’s failure her fault by dint of her role as the one in charge, the city’s failure is a direct result of her policies and behaviors. Lightfoot, in particular, deserves no pay raise.

Beyond that, in no way at all does anyone running this organization deserve automatic pay raises, which are independent of performance.

National Digital ID

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate’s Progressive-Democratic Party-dominated Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (as are all Senate and House committees in this Congress so dominated) passed out of committee a plan to impose a national digital ID system for US citizens—the better for Government tracking of its subjects.

Supporters claim that such national IDs could be

the key to unlocking access to financial services, various government benefits and educational opportunities, as well as a number of other critical services.

What they ignore is that such things also could be key to freezing those same items when they’re held by those of whom Government disapprove—just as the Progressive-Democrat-run IRS targeted conservative political action entities, and as the Progressive-Democrat DoJ is (still!) targeting mothers who object to school board wokeness as domestic terrorists, and as the Progressive-Democrat-dominated FBI still is targeting Trump-supporters, and as the Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is naming half of us average Americans pseudo-fascists.

Jay Stanley, a Senior Policy Analyst for the ACLU on national digital IDs:

…digital IDs could prove to be a privacy nightmare. “But digital is not always better—especially when systems are exclusively digital.”
“There’s a reason that most jurisdictions have spurned electronic voting in favor of paper ballots, for example,”

That’s the best purpose that a national ID could serve—and it’s anathema to individual liberty. But it’s part and parcel of Party’s avowed purpose of “fundamentally transforming America.”

No.

We already have a national ID. It’s our passports. The critical difference is that generation of and possession of a passport is strictly voluntary and done solely on the initiative of each individual American citizen.

What’s next from the Progressive-Democrats? Internal travel documents? They tried that, after all, in some areas at the height of the Wuhan Virus situation, barring travel unless the traveler could present suitable vaccination papers to relevant authorities.

“Biden Forgets….”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editors are busily making excuses for President Joe Biden’s (D) performance as President, which office he gained after 40 years in Federal public office, including 8 as the No. 2 in the White House.

Mr Biden was clearly confused about a basic question of law with major fiscal and constitutional implications. It’s disconcerting that he doesn’t even seem to know how major policy decisions were made in his own Administration only weeks ago.

The Editors are too anxious to lay Biden’s…misspeaks…off to a declining mental capacity.

Readers, though, shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Biden is the leader of the political party that holds itself and its members out as so much better, so morally superior, so much smarter than us average Americans, denizens of flyover country and pseudo-fascists that we all are.

Contrary to the Editors, Biden is fully aware of what he’s doing and saying, and he does and says them on purpose, out of that self-asserted superiority and contempt for the rest of us. He knows full well the policy decisions his Administration made and still makes—that he made and still makes; he is the one in charge.

Biden also is fully aware of the relationship between his decisions and our Constitution; he simply doesn’t care. He shares the same disdain for our Constitution that his party has held at least since Woodrow Wilson.

There are no excuses.

Rule No. 4.

A Question

Posted on by
Reply

Pope Francis has renewed an…agreement…between the Vatican and the People’s Republic of China that allows appointment of Catholic Bishops in the PRC, so long as the PRC’s government men approve of the candidates and their appointment. Nominally, the Pope has veto authority over the nominations, but it’s the PRC government men who nominate. Since 2018—when the agreement was signed—there have been six bishops ordained, and 40 dioceses still have no bishop. That’s how well this arrangement is working.

Despite that, the Holy See Press Office had this:

The Vatican Party is committed to continuing a respectful and constructive dialogue with the Chinese Party for a productive implementation of the Accord and further development of bilateral relations, with a view to fostering the mission of the Catholic Church and the good of the Chinese people[.]

Furthermore, Pope Francis views [the agreement] as a necessary compromise to keep Chinese Catholics united. But how is treating Chinese Catholics differently from all other Catholics in any way unifying? How does that continued separation of Chinese Catholics from the Universal Church in any way support either the Church’s mission or the spiritual welfare of ordinary Chinese?

Here’s Another Thought

Posted on by
Reply

Two in a week. Settle down.

NASDAQ is (rightfully) suspicious of small-cap companies domiciled in the People’s Republic of China listing their IPOs on NASDAQ’s exchange. The one-day spikes in share prices followed quickly by nearly total collapse of those share prices in so many of the IPOs is what’s drawn attention. For instance:

Shares of more than 20 recently listed companies have risen over 100% on their first day of trading. They include Hong Kong-based fintech company AMTD Digital Inc, which briefly jumped over 320-fold after its July listing, and Chinese garment maker Addentax Group Corp, which rose more than 130-fold on its market debut in August. The two stocks have since lost more than 98% of their value.

As a result, NASDAQ has stopped approving PRC small-caps for listing, for the time being. Which brings me to my thought.

Don’t list any companies domiciled in the PRC on any American exchange, and encourage the other nations in the OECD to do the same. After all, at least since the PRC’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, those PRC companies are too closely tied to the PRC’s intelligence community, and as such, they have no legitimate business raising money through any nation’s stock or bond exchanges other than their own.