A Method of Identifying Acceptable Views

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Thursday Notable & Quotable contains an excerpt from a Times Literary Supplement piece in which the piece’s writer recounted a classroom incident in which he had touted a free market society and the instructor had written on his paper, “Are you Margaret Thatcher?” and left the paper ungraded. The classroom boy was mortified.

[T]he comparison shocked me into a more thoughtful politics and provided an early lesson: if you don’t like the fact that you share a view with someone objectionable, consider revising that view.

And

That doesn’t mean that every person with [fill in that disagreeable person’s identity] views endorses those links, but some soul-searching is surely called for.

Of course. It isn’t the merits of the message that’s important; rather, it’s the merits of the person carrying that message.

This is what has passed for teaching our children for too many years.

“Ukraine Needs a Guarantee from NATO”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline of Andrew Michta’s op-ed in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. Michta is the George C Marshall European Center for Security Studies’ College of International and Security Studies Dean in Garmisch, Germany, so he would seem to speak with some knowledge.

His piece objected to the EU’s emphasis on fast-tracking (to the extent it really is) Ukraine’s membership in that body at the expense of guaranteeing Ukraine’s security by bringing it into NATO’s defense perimeter if not actually into NATO (which Michta favors).

He’s ignoring reality here, though, and so to borrow a term from a cable advertiser, Nonsense.

Guarantees of Ukraine’s security are as worthless today as they were with the Budapest Memoranda and the Minsk Protocols.

What Ukraine needs is stepped up transfers of serious weapons, ammunition, and supply—including air- and missile-defense systems, armor, and increased supply of HIMARS, including the full-range missiles that nation currently is denied.

Full stop.

EU membership and even NATO “security guarantees” can follow only on Ukraine’s successful defeat of the barbarian’s invasion and the permanent ejection of the barbarian from that nation. Absent that, there will be no nation to bring toward the West; it will have been utterly destroyed by the barbarian, which is the avowed goal of the Vladimir Putin.

Rent Control Fails Again

Posted on by
Reply

And so does the St Paul, MN, city council, sort of.

Last November, the city’s voters passed a rent control law that caps annual rent increases at 3%. Then reality intruded, and the City Council was forced to attempt corrective actions.

The City Council noted in its reform bill that, “according to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there have been only two hundred (200) residential building permits in Saint Paul through April of 2022, compared to 1,391 at the same point in 2021.”

That drop occurred as immediately as any economic reality can—beginning just two months after the cap was passed.

The City Council’s corrective actions are limited to

  • a 20-year rent-control exemption for new residential properties and some apartments that participate in government affordable-housing programs
  • after a tenant leaves or is evicted with just cause, landlords will be able to raise rent by 8% plus inflation
  • property owners can…apply to St Paul for an exemption to the 3% rent cap if their property taxes go up or if there are “unavoidable increases” in maintenance and operating costs, including increases owing to inflation

In truth, this may be all the City Council can do to…modify…the will of the city’s residents. To get serious correction to this rent control fiasco, the question really needs to be resubmitted to those residents.

If those voters reaffirm their position on rent control, we’ll all know what those worthies truly think about housing and access to it by those in the lower economic tiers of the city.

Snowflakes

Posted on by
Reply

A New York University chemistry professor—at NYU after four decades at Princeton—has been fired because his students, many of them doctor wannabes, circulated a petition complaining about how hard his class was. Their petition read in pertinent part,

We are very concerned about our scores, and find that they are not an accurate reflection of the time and effort put into this class….

Neither should grades be a reflection of the time and effort; they should be a reflection of actual performance and learning. Imagine a patient whose illness was prolonged, or who was maimed, by a botched treatment being told “So sad, but I tried really hard.” Or the survivors of a patient who died from that botched treatment being told, “Too bad, but I put in a lot of time on your son.”

The seemingly unjustified firing because some precious snowflakes didn’t want to work is not the only problem here, though. The other problem is NYU itself.

I wouldn’t hire anyone who had New York University on his resume. NYU appears unconcerned that its graduates cannot think critically, or that its graduates are afraid of the hard work the real world contains, even as it appears to take student whining seriously. NYU graduates would seem to be a waste of any enterprise’s payroll.

Truss’ Tax Cut “Fiasco”

Posted on by
Reply

UK Prime Minister Liz Truss withdrew her plan to reduce the Brits’ top tax bracket from 45% on annual incomes above £150,000 (roughly $169,000) to 40% amid a panicky self-serving outcry from the liberal Labourites and too many entrenched pseudo-conservatives among the Tories. The rest of her tax reduction and energy subsidy package seems to remain intact.

In the scheme of things politics, though, it seems to me that withdrawing that top tier tax cut is a small price to pay in order to get the rest of the tax cuts to pass. And it may be (though I frankly doubt it) that Truss deliberately overbid her tax cut package in order to allow herself be talked down a little bit to get to a package that could pass after her concession but that could not pass had she made her bid from the jump without the cut from 45%.

Regardless, the biggest error, and one that no one in Socialist Great Britain is decrying, is that enormous energy subsidy to businesses and households, ostensibly to help them pay for skyrocketing energy costs. Sure, the subsidy is supposed to be sunsetted after two years, but most of us know how well sunsetting works with subsidies.

Instead, the subsidies will serve only to maintain the current sky high energy prices to the end users and to consumers in all economic strata, all of whom must buy food, and housing, and transportation—all of which depend on energy.

The smarter way to reduce those energy costs would have been to push further deregulation of British domestic fossil fuel energy production and delivery. Truss is moving to allow fracking to resume, but that’s only a start.