Tag Archives: political parties

Racism in School Admission Selection Criteria

Posted on by
Reply

The advocates for Harvard and the Federal government in defending Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s racist selection criteria—all in the name of diversity and equity, understand—both said that they saw no end to their use of race in their selection criteria. Our Progressive-Democratic Party President Joe Biden, through his Solicitor General, doesn’t even see a need to end racism in admission selection criteria.

Seth Waxman, Harvard’s advocate, admitted that the school is trying hard to get to a race-neutral future but sees no end in sight for preferences.

Sure they’re trying to put an end to it. Or to something.

Waxman went further, rationalizing

Harvard’s use of race by saying it is merely one of many “tips” that the school uses in making judgments about whom to admit—like whether a student is the child of an alumnus, or an athlete. …”just as being, you know, an oboe player in a year” when the school orchestra needs an oboe player “will be the tip.”

Chief Justice John Roberts commented on the disgusting nature of that:

We did not fight a Civil War about oboe players. We did fight a Civil War to eliminate racial discrimination.

Biden was even more explicit:

Elizabeth Prelogar, the US Solicitor General…said using race the way the schools do could continue as long as their interest in diversity is “compelling.”

This disdain for the ability of some groups of Americans to compete, and so to maintain the need explicitly to protect those groups, is straight out of the philosophy of Roger Taney, and it’s shameful.

Faint Praise

Posted on by
Reply

The headline and subheadline said it all in their summary of President Joe Biden’s (D) speech in his supposedly stump speech in Pennsylvania:

Biden spends little time talking about Fetterman during Pennsylvania rally
President Biden uses just one segment of Pennsylvania speech to praise Senate candidate John Fetterman

Biden went down to Pennsylvania and stumped—at least that’s what Fox News generously called it—for that State’s Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senate, John Fetterman in these last days before the election.

…but [Biden] made only brief mention of the lieutenant governor, instead making an impassioned plea to choose between “two vastly different visions of America.”

That’s damning by faint praise. Not even the fabulist Biden could come up with more than a sentence or two with which to tout Fetterman and Fetterman’s policies.

There’s a hint in there, somewhere.

Another Power Grab

Posted on by
Reply

This one by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A proposal under consideration by the agency would generally require brokers to route small investors’ market orders into auctions, where trading firms would compete to execute them, people familiar with the matter said. …
Brokers would have a way out. Instead of sending the orders to auctions, the brokers could attempt to have them filled at the midpoint price or better, the people said.

And

The proposed midpoint requirement and auctions would apply to market orders. Commonly used by small investors, market orders are instructions entered through a brokerage to buy or sell stocks at whatever their current market price is.

This sounds good, but in reality, it’s a solution for a nonexistent problem.

I’m one of those poor, downtrodden small investors, and my broker already uses a price improvement procedure whereby my market orders are routed to the trading house that offers the best execution price—which is the price shaded above the mid-point toward the buy price if I’m selling and below the mid-point toward the sell price if I’m buying. I’m already getting a better price than the mid-point.

My broker isn’t alone, either; most brokers offer/provide that procedure: it’s a means of competing for the small investors’ business.

But wait—don’t those trading houses pay the brokers for the orders to be routed to them? Why yes, yes they do. And those trading houses compete among themselves for the brokers’ business, which means the brokers get a range of trading houses from which to select the best price improvement for their customers.

The SEC’s…proposal…is just another exercise in power for the sake of power being carried out by SEC Chairman Gary Gensler.

Progressive-Democrat Lies

Posted on by
Reply

These two are especially egregious in this final runup to voting in two weeks.

The first is by Joe Biden, our Progressive-Democrat President:

The most common price of gas in America is $3.39, down from over five dollars when I took office[.]

No, the most common price of gas in America as of the week ending January 25, 2021, the week Biden was inaugurated, was $2.39 [hit the full history XLS link for “U.S. Regular Gasoline Prices*(dollars per gallon)”, and select Data 3 in the resulting spreadsheet]. (Lots of good data on the US Energy Information Administration site.) Biden knows the actual price of gasoline, both then and now.

The second is by Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan’s Progressive-Democrat Governor. In last Tuesday’s debate with Republican gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon, Dixon said Whitmer kept Michigan schools closed longer than any other State. Whitmer claimed

That’s just not true…. Kids were out for three months.

Whitmer made that claim even knowing that tens of thousands of Michigan’s students still can’t get in-person/in-school learning in the present school year, which has been in progress for two months.

In fact, Whitmer didn’t even recommend, much less require, schools open for in-person learning until March 2021, a year after she ordered schools closed in March 2020. In March 2021, also,

23% of Michigan schools were fully in person, compared with 47% in Ohio, 54% in Wisconsin, and 76% in Indiana.

Those three surrounding States were reopening, strongly, for in-school learning. Whitmer knew this at the time she made her claim, even as she tried after the debate to weasel-word her answer:

[Whitmer] referred only to her or her Health Department’s orders in making the “three months” statement.

Never mind that she took no overt countervailing action for that subsequent year and more.

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.