Tag Archives: politics

Terrorists in the Mix

Posted on by
Reply

CBP agents have caught 70 illegal aliens who are also terrorists on the government’s terrorist watchlist (including one who illegally entered through our northern border). That’s just in the five months of the current fiscal year, and those 70 compare with the 98 caught in the entirety of the prior fiscal year. This year’s pace, according to my third-grade arithmetic, works out to 168 terrorists that might be caught over the full course of this year.

That’s also only the ones we know about. Left uncounted, because unknown, are the number of terrorists in the vast numbers of illegal aliens flowing across our borders that escape CBP capture and detention and those among the vast numbers of illegal aliens flowing across our borders undetected.

Nor do we know how many terrorists are among the illegal aliens that CBP does capture but that the Biden administration orders released under President Joe Biden’s (D) Catch and Release program.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden/Regan Environmental Protection Agency has decided to get into individual municipalities’ business.

For the first time in 26 years, the US Environmental Protection Agency has issued new guidelines for drinking water safety. Municipal utilities will be required to install expensive filtration systems to lower the amount of PFAS in water supplies.

The cost of such “guidelines” will run to billions of dollars just for Illinois’ cities, towns, and villages. Multiply that by all the cities, towns, and villages across the US and our territories—the reach of the EPA—and we get a ton of costs.

PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance) and the related PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) are chemicals that don’t appear to break down in anything approaching a useful time frame, and they are associated with a variety of cancers. That makes it useful to avoid ingesting them or inflicting them on our environment.

However.

While removal of these chemicals is a good idea, doing that alone and at the end of the production-use-disposal chain will cost the relevant jurisdictions vast sums in perpetuity. Too, after the chemicals are removed from our water supplies—what then? What will we do with those now concentrated perpetual chemicals? Nuclear waste at least breaks down after some, often extended, period of time.

Focusing on developing other materials that don’t require these chemicals, at the beginning of the production-use-disposal chain would be initially expensive and long-term far cheaper. But that wouldn’t maintain EPA power.

Whitewash

Posted on by
Reply

It seems the Federal Reserve knew of the risks stemming from SVB management moves as long ago as 2019 [emphasis added].

In January 2019, the Fed issued a warning to SVB over its risk-management systems, according to a presentation circulated last year to employees of SVB’s venture-capital arm….
The Fed issued what it calls a Matter Requiring Attention, a type of citation that is less severe than an enforcement action. Regulators are supposed to make sure the problem is addressed, but it couldn’t be learned if the Fed held SVB to that standard in 2019.
…
Following the 2019 warning, the Fed informed SVB in 2020 that its system to control risk didn’t meet the expectations for a large financial institution, or a bank holding company with more than $100 billion in assets, the presentation to employees at SVB’s venture-capital arm said.

And:

Over time, the central bank issued numerous warnings to SVB, suggesting the bank’s problems were on the radar of the Fed, the bank’s primary federal regulator.

So, what was done by the Fed’s regulators in response to this string of noncompliances?

A central-bank review of its oversight of SVB is due by May.

Will those prior whitewashes be followed up with an official whitewash?

I’m not holding my breath over a favorable outcome, which IMNSHO would include, at the very least, the public firing for cause of the Fed regulator(s) directly responsible for SVB oversight and that individual’s/team’s supervisor. Pour l’encouragement des autres régulateurs.

Public School Ownership

Posted on by
Reply

In an op-ed centered on the question of who owns institutions of higher education like universities, Richard Vedder, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Ohio University, identified seven categories of people who claim ownership of these institutions:

  • The board. Most schools, public or private, are overseen by a legally constituted governing board.
  • The politicians. At public institutions, state government usually is the legal “owner” of the school.
  • The administrators. A school’s president and senior bureaucrats are vested with executive responsibility, which resembles ownership.
  • The faculty. The professors who administer academic offerings and conduct grant-inducing research often feel the school belongs to them.
  • The students. They are a primary reason for the school’s existence and their families pay substantial tuition and fees.
  • The alumni. Graduates constitute the donor base at most private schools and some public ones as well.
  • The accrediting agencies. The federal Education Department charges these bodies with certifying an institution’s right to confer degrees.

I have thoughts.

Board members are charged with organizational governing oversight, but they own nothing, except through personally funded stakes. Board members serve at the pleasure of the school’s owners.

Politicians, acting through the governments of which they’re a part, so long as they’re duly elected or appointed by those duly elected, do act in an ownership capacity vis-à-vis public colleges and universities, and they hire and fire employees like board members—and administrators and faculty—as they see fit. The same capacity is held by private institutions’ owners: partners; private share holders; in the case of publicly traded schools, those shareholders; and religious institutions regarding their parochial schools.

Administrators, like board members, own nothing in their capacity of administrators. They’re employees of the school’s owners, hired to conduct the day-to-day administration of the school within the framework established by the board—and the school’s owners.

Faculty claiming ownership only demonstrate their own self-absorbed arrogance. They’re employees, nothing more.

Students claiming ownership are showing their own, even deeper, obliviousness, an ignorance fostered by those same faculty members. Students are customers of the school. Full stop.

Alumni are even further removed from any trace of ownership, except in the depths of their own fetid imaginations. They’re ex-students, and nothing more, no matter the size of their fiscal donations.

Accrediting agencies claiming ownership is risible on its face. That’s like raters like a Moody’s or auditors like a Deloitte claiming ownership of the companies they’re rating or auditing.

An Attack on Workers’ Rights

Posted on by
Reply

Hypocritically, it’s by the Progressive-Democratic Party, which runs Michigan’s government. That’s the party that claims to champion the rights of America’s workers.

[State] Senate Democrats voted along party lines in support of repealing the decade-old “right-to-work” law in a state long considered a pillar of organized labor.

The State’s House already had passed a substantially similar bill, now the two go to conference to reconcile the differences, then the result will be voted up in both houses and sent to Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) to be signed into law.

Michigan’s workers, for the last decade, had been able to speak for themselves, to join or not join unions, to not pay dues to unions to which they didn’t belong.

The Michigan government is telling those workers they have no voice, and their wishes have no importance. Oh, and pay up, suckers.

So much for workers’ rights when Progressive-Democrats reign in Michigan.