For the education bureaucracy, it's a matter of trust.

 A matter of discussion I’ve had many times, “Who does a bureaucracy work for?” In this case, who does the public school system work for? It’s  not who most people think. 

It’s not the students. They are the consumers of the efforts of the public school system, a (hopefully) good education. It’s not necessarily the parents. Not knocking them, an involved parent is a critical part of the education process. Mom and dad review their child’s efforts, insure they do their homework, support the educators in their works. Teamwork. 

The public school system, like every other public bureaucracy, works ultimately for the taxpayer. I say that because the taxpayer is the one paying the bills for the service, be it police, fire, roads, or education. I paid school taxes for over a decade before I became a step-father and had two girls enrolled, so I was supervisor of the school system. As such, the taxpayers have every right to see how that money is being used. 

I saw this article a few weeks back in the Houston Chronicle, and I’m not sure to find this an example of bureaucratic arrogance, or just incomprehension of the facts. 

Senate bill that cedes school library control is overkill

By Sara Stevenson

Sara Stevenson, a former middle school librarian, was Austin ISD’s first Librarian of the Year in 2013.

What is it that motivates school librarians? As a former middle school librarian, I can tell you it’s that moment of connection when you find the right book for the right child…

Unfortunately, Senate Bill 13, which aims to protect students from “harmful materials,” replaces the judgment of the school librarian with the authority of something called a local school library advisory council. This committee, appointed by the school board, must consist of at least five members, a majority of whom are volunteer parents who do not work for the district, but may also include non-voting educators, community members and even clergy. Its purpose is to approve all library books purchased or donated, classroom books, and even books weeded from the collections. The list must then be sent to the school board for approval. The council is required to meet only twice in a school year.

Yes Ms. Stevenson, volunteer parents, non-voting educators, community members and even clergy are all stakeholders in the education of the children. In case you missed it, they are your boss. I get that a lot on the street, but let’s go on. 

That means it’ll take ages to get new books on the shelves — and that’s a problem. When a new book in a popular series is coming out soon, kids check every day: “Is it here yet?” Because my district trusted my professionalism, I had the freedom to order that book so that it arrived on publication day…

You did, as did others. Bureaucrats abused that privilege by putting into schools’ books inappropriate for children, such as publications pushing LGBTABCDEFG etc. to six-year-olds. Senate Bill 13 is not a perfect solution, but it would be unnecessary if schools, libraries, etc. concentrated on reading, basic science, mathematics, etc., and not teaching about (not sure if this is the current number) 72 genders. 

…If the local school library advisory council and then the school board must approve every book on each school’s book orders, and the lists must be posted for thirty days before books can be purchased…

Senate Bill 13 throws a wrench in the library book acquisition system...

…The law requires little of these councils of parent volunteers, other than that they meet at least twice a year. In contrast, Texas requires school librarians in Texas to hold a master’s degree, have at least two years of teaching experience, and be trained in collection development. Librarians know intimately their school’s students, the community, the teachers and the curriculum. That allows them to make the best choices.

My grandmother was a public librarian for years and only a high school graduate. She also knew to segregate children to age appropriate reading material. As a first grader, you got Cat in the Hat, not mommy porn or other explicit material. Also you don’t know what’s best for students. It’s the parents, and you have no business saying you do. 

Ms. Stevenson, recently parents discovered school bureaucrats telling children they can change their “gender,” name, pronouns, and what restroom to use. School officials said they are under no requirement to tell the parent, much less ask. They seem to forget parents are responsible for child upbringing, not bureaucrats, elected or not. Yes, they are. Those are not their children, but the parents kids. Also, if a school has money to purchase a breast binder for an adolescent girl, they have too much money. 

Other problems, in the aftermath of the COVID epidemic, millions of parents actually saw what children were being taught in school and were horrified. Transgenderism is not something for a first grader, but many educators thought to. Basic mathematics have been around for thousands of years, but educators believe this is outdated and requires “New Math,” or “friendly numbers”:

Say you want to add two-digit numbers. The old-school way millennial parents were taught involved putting one on top of the other and carrying, if necessary. Now, students are encouraged to rethink how they arrange the numbers. Moldavan gives the example of 41 + 29. You could rewrite 29 as 30, which is a rounder, "friendly number." Then, you turn 41 into 40 (also "friendly"). You've subtracted 1 from 41, and added 1 to 29, so that cancels out. And now you have your product: 70.

No, we want elementary students to be taught basic mathematics, as well as English reading, comprehension, and grammar, as this is the building blocks of future learning. Whatever the subject (history, science) being able to read, write and comprehend the English language is critical. That is what the customers of the public school system require, the taxpayers, whether they have children enrolled or not. 

Though the requirements of an advisory council and waiting period may not be too onerous in a small Texas district, it will be nearly impossible for large districts to comply...

And it demands that we put a lot of trust on the handful of parents on the committee — but not on students’ parents in general. Since parents are overwhelmingly the most important influence in a child’s life, why don’t schools suggest that concerned parents talk with their children about what books they’re reading and checking out? Who knows your child better than you do?

You don’t say the parents need to be concerned with what their children are reading. Looks like a lot of them are, as well as other issues in public schools. Yes, it’s a matter of trust, to borrow the words from Billy Joel. The education bureaucracy, particularly in large city schools, has shown itself unworthy of the trust of the public, or parents. You and other bureaucrats needs to relearn that, which is not easy. I don’t know the author, but he said it well, “Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.” That is your challenge. Good luck.

Where the Constitution is silent...

One of the points I've learned is almost six decades on this Earth is any bureaucracy, no matter how well planned or executed, has only one purpose. To insure its own existence. An interesting concept put forth by commentator Mark Levin in his book The Liberty Amendments is to sunset every federal agency every five years. These departments and agencies would have  them justify their existence and organization to the Congress at regular a  regular interval. 

Too much you think? Well, in the lead up to New Year's 2000, we spent a fortune on preparing for the end of days because of software issues in computers. The world did not end on 1/1/00, but the federal department that oversaw Y2K prep until 2017.

I found this article interesting about the Supreme Court reviewing the power of federal agencies to interpret federal law. A major issue with the bureaucracy is they can put out regulations with the power of law, but there is little or no legislative oversight, and if you get called inot a labor court or other hearing, you are guilty until you prove your innocence (slight exaggeration).

From today's Washington Post: 

Supreme Court divided over whether to curb the power of federal agencies

Ann E. Marimow

A divided Supreme Court debated whether and how to curtail the power of federal agencies Wednesday, with liberals urging the court to defer to the judgment of government experts and conservatives saying courts should not automatically favor government regulators over private companies, industry or individuals in litigation...

The high court was considering challenges to federal rules requiring commercial fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors. But the court’s decision has the potential to limit the flexibility of federal agencies to regulate vast swaths of American life, including the environment, financial markets, public health and the workplace.

Conservatives have long targeted the framework set in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council because it requires judges to defer to the reasonable interpretation of federal agency officials charged with administering ambiguous federal laws....

On Wednesday, Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch, both nominees of President Donald Trump, took turns peppering the Biden administration with skeptical questions as Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar defended the Trump administration initiative — and the longstanding Chevron precedent.

(Justices Brett) Kavanaugh said Chevron has allowed federal agencies to flip flop and impose new rules each time a new administration takes over, leaving judges with little choice but defer to the changing interpretations of agency officials.

“Something needs to be fixed here,” said (Justice Neil) Gorsuch, who has previously called for overturning the precedent.

I see the issue with the Chevron case, and Justice Gorsuch is right, the bureaucracy is going far beyond what this ruling meant, IMHO. But I really find this interesting:

The court’s three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — expressed concern about shifting power to unelected judges to make technical and scientific policy decisions when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear.

“Judges should know what they don’t know,” Kagan said.

Jackson said she is worried about "courts becoming uber-legislators.”

Justice Kagan is worried about judges ruling on what they don't know! Justice Kagan, you voted in Dobbs v Jackson that the opinion of seven lawyers in black robes should overrule the citizens and governments of the fifty states, in violation of the 10th Amendment. Justice Jackson, that is exactly what you wanted when you voted against the Dobbs decision. And let's not forget Justice Sotomayor saying courts of appeal set government policy. 

Ladies, it's not that you don't the judicial branch making policy or policy decisions, taking the legitimate decision from the legislative. You only want that with your preferred legislative policies. 

Sorry, a major effort of the next Republican administration is to continue the work of the Trump presidency in appointing judges that will interpret the Constitution, and, in the wise worlds of the late Judge Robert Bork, "...where the Constitution is silent, leaves the policy struggles to Congress, the president, the legislatures and executives of the 50 states and to the American people . . . ."

Seditious Bureaucrats

This was in  National Review and I find it interesting:

Striking against the Federal Government Is a Felony

Al-Monitor reports that “federal employees across nearly two dozen agencies plan to walk off the job Tuesday to protest the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza war.” They have organized a group called “Feds United for Peace” and are coordinating the walkout to occur on the 100th day since Israel began its operations in Gaza. “One of the walkout organizers said that rather than quit, they felt ‘a moral obligation and a patriotic duty’ to influence change from inside,” the story says...

From the original story:

US government employees plan walkout over Biden’s Gaza policies

Organizers of the effort told Al-Monitor they expect hundreds to join in their walkout after securing commitments from individuals at 22 federal agencies.

WASHINGTON — US federal employees across nearly two dozen agencies plan to walk off the job Tuesday to protest the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza war, according to organizers of the dissent effort who spoke to Al-Monitor. 

The group — calling itself Feds United for Peace — consists of dozens of government employees who will be observing a “Day of Mourning” to mark 100 days of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The organizers, who are choosing to remain anonymous, say they expect “easily hundreds” of others to join in their walkout after securing commitments from individuals at 22 federal agencies. 

According to a list obtained by Al-Monitor, those include the Executive Office of the President, the National Security Agency, the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs as well as US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Naval Research Laboratory. 

Others expected to join in the protest work for agencies including the Food and Drug Administration, the National Park Service, the Federal Aviation Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. 

The planned walkout reflects mounting anger among US officials over the Biden administration’s refusal to call for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, where health officials in the Hamas-run territory say more than 23,000 people have died in three months, most of them civilians. The United Nations estimates that around 85% of the population — some 1.9 million Palestinians — have been displaced. 

One of the walkout organizers told Al-Monitor their initiative “grew out of a collective desire to do what we could to influence the Biden administration’s policy on this issue…” 

Now one of the facts people, particularly regressive on the left is they are filled with Anti-Semites. They want an immediate cease fire that will leave Hamas still functional, not held to account for their actions in the attack, and still a threat to Israel. Exaggeration? Again, from Al-Monitor: 

Two US officials, including one working in the State Department bureau that oversees arms transfers, have publicly resigned in protest. Josh Paul, who served as the director of congressional and public affairs for the department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, cited the administration’s “blind support for one side” as being among his reasons for leaving.

One of the walkout organizers said that rather than quit, they felt “a moral obligation and a patriotic duty” to influence change from inside. They blamed the White House for policy decisions they lament, including the obstruction of cease-fire resolutions at the United Nations and weapons sales to Israel that have bypassed Congress… 

…Asked if they tried to address their concerns internally, they said, “Unequivocally, the answer is yes…”  

Two points I would like to make from these “concerned staffers.” One, their strike is illegal. from National Review:

5 U.S.C. § 7311 makes it illegal for federal workers to go on strike: “An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States . . . if he . . . participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States.”

18 U.S.C. § 1918  proscribes the penalty: “Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.”

So yes, they are breaking the law. Not that they will have any worry about loosing their job or pay. With President O’Biden in the White House, they will not face  any serious consequences. Now I was an officer of the United States for 23 years, and if I went on strike, it would be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The specific terms are Mutiny and Sedition. The penalty is a bit stricter than  18 U.S.C. § 1918. From Article 84 UCMJ Mutiny or Sedition:

(a)Any person subject to this chapter who—

 

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

 

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

 

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

 

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Weakness invites more disruption. If we had a president in the White House right now, he would handle this quickly. He should tell every one of these idiots they are not going to be paid for this event, you have until 900am Eastern time to return to your post, or you will be terminated, and banned from future federal employment. See Reagan with the Air Traffic Controller strike in 1981.

 

Another point that must be made. These minor bureaucrats do not make government policy. They are there to execute the policy set by the Executive and Legislative branches. They can raise their concerns as allowed, but they cannot go on strike against it. A point made to the man who swore me into the Army, “At some point you may have an order you cannot, in good conscious, obey. Your choice, either obey the order, or resign.” So “Feds United for Peace,” actually seditious bureaucrats, make your choice. Follow your lawful government policy or resign. 

It’s The End Of The Web As We Know It…(And) I Feel Fine.

During a speech about the economy, then President Obama said (with a straight face, shows he is an accomplished sociopath) “When it comes to regulation, we prefer a light hand.” Ranks up there with, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…” 

In the latter part of the Obama years, he inflicted upon one of the most active parts of the economy, the Internet, Net Neutrality. Supposedly it would ensure all users get equal access to the Web, without throttling, blocking, etc. for their points of view. That’s not how it worked out. 

 

On June 11, 2018, the new FCC Chairman under then President Trump announced the end of Net Neutrality. And the usual suspects screeched the “wild wild web” with unlimited free expression was over, people (primarily leftists) would not be able to get viewpoints out or sell items on the market. 

 

As usual, their disastrous predictions didn’t come to fold. 

The Death of the Internet, Five Years Later

Ajit PaiJune 11, 2023 

…In January 2017, times changed with the new Trump administration. The new president designated me chairman of the FCC shortly after Inauguration Day. In May of that year, we proposed to repeal these regulations. In December, we voted to do so. And on June 11, 2018 — five years ago today — that repeal took effect.

Going only on press coverage, social media, and political rhetoric, you would have been justified in preparing for civilization’s demise.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) proclaimed, as did “news” outlet CNN, that this was “the end of the Internet as we know it.” Not to be outdone, a columnist at the New York Times moaned that “the freewheeling internet has been dying a slow death,” and that repealing net neutrality rules “would be the final pillow in its face.” The Senate Democratic Caucus’s Twitter account proclaimed, “If we don’t save net neutrality, you’ll get the internet one word at a time” — putting each word on a separate line to emphasize the danger. Famed telecommunications regulatory experts like anonymous street artist Banksy and Silicon Valley representative Ro Khanna predicted that internet applications would become pay-per-view, with consumers having to pay $1.99 per Google search or to purchase them in packages. And for good measure, multiple U.S. senators called the decision “un-American…”

Read the rest of the article, it’s funny. 

So, what has happened over the last five years. The only person I’ve known kicked off a social media platform is the former president who pushed to remove “Net Neutrality,” Donald Trump. Twitter still hosted the Iranian terrorists in Tehran, and domestic terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Plus being used by criminals for illegal activities, like flash mobs. So how has the general public fared without “Net Neutrality?” Pretty well all in all. 

“…In an era defined by the paranoid style of American political argument, it may not surprise you to learn that they were not. In fact, they were diametrically wrong. The evidence is indisputable today that in the five years since the FCC’s decision to repeal net-neutrality regulations went into effect, American consumers are benefiting from broadband networks that are stronger and more extensive than ever. According to independent measurement service Ookla, average fixed broadband speeds in the U.S. are 287 percent faster today than they were in June 2018 (269.28 Mbps download speeds today versus 93.98 Mbps in 2018). Average mobile broadband speeds have increased even more, at 570 percent (156.51 Mbps versus 27.47 Mbps). Millions more Americans have access to the internet today compared with 2018, thanks in large part to private investment in digital infrastructure.

And on top of that, consumers are benefiting from more choice than in 2018. Indeed, competition has not just increased but transformed since then. Residential fiber deployment hit an all-time high last year. Wireless companies like T-Mobile are providing high-speed 5G fixed wireless service to millions of customers. Companies like Starlink are launching low-Earth-orbit satellites to support residential-broadband service, especially in harder-to-reach rural areas. And cable companies are expanding their footprint and upgrading their systems to enable much faster speeds.

The contrast between America’s broadband consumers and their European counterparts during the Covid-19 pandemic is telling. Americans with internet access largely were able to rely on broadband networks to do videoconference calls, stream in high-definition, and otherwise stay connected. Abroad, however, a key European commissioner felt compelled to ask streaming services to throttle video content to standard definition. Why? Because he feared that otherwise digital “infrastructures might be in strain.” I’d argue they were “in strain” partly because the European Union has had quite strict net-neutrality regulations that meaningfully undermine the incentive for investment in high-capacity broadband infrastructure. Fortunately, neither I nor any other public official in the United States had to make a similar request, then or since…”

The bureaucracy has no desire for efficiency, and competition will always improve goods and services.  Iron sharpens iron, to use an expression. And this is not the only example of the Federal Communications Commission throttling success and improvement. 

I’m almost 60, and I remember having one phone company for my service, and having to change my phone number when I moved across town. Today many people don’t have home phones, only cell phones, and they take them from one state (or country) to another, keeping the same phone number for decades. But this is a relatively new phenomenon. What took so long? I’ll give you three guesses, but you will need only one. 

For decades the FCC put a stranglehold on use of the digital broadcast band, from not allowing competition in local markets on radio to refusing sales to communications companies for services. If you want an excellent example, many people believe the first mobile phone was used in 1973, a Motorola DynaTAC 8000X in New York City. While it was the first handheld phone, the first cellular phone call was made on June 17, 1946. Granted, it was a car phone that took up half a trunk, it was an analog mobile phone. Just as we were coming out of World War II.

Why did it take ages to get to handheld phones? The FCC would not sell digital bandwidth to this startup company, and it died. There was a similar blocking of the FM (frequency modulation) by the FCC. We could have “FM…for a better sound all around decades before the 70s. 

If you want an excellent review of the FCC and it’s incompetence, read The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technology, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone, by Thomas Hazlett (where I got the information on the 1946 phone, among other facts). Goes over one failure after another, and how many politicians bought out the FCC staff to ensure their radio stations, etc. would not face competition. Thankfully the FCC is more business friendly than 100 years ago. And more business means more competition and better goods and services for the consumer.

Why do we have to keep relearning this? As long as the politicians and the bureaucracy control a valuable commodity, it will not be used efficiently. Hopefully we can keep the FCC from screwing up use of the digital spectrum any more.  

Diversity of skin color...

Or diversity of opinion. Which would be better?

I've found this article a few months back and it was interesting. One of the quotes attributed to my favorite general, Patton, "If everyone's thinking alike, nobody's thinking." Now every since "diversity," and "multiculturalism," became the watch words in education, government and business, the people pushing quotas have moved forward. I recall back in the 70s, the left openly said they wanted quotas for minorities and women. Seeing Americans favor merit and qualifications over quotas, they changed the names to diversity and multiculturalism.

Now one thing I do miss from the Trump administration is T-Rex, Rex Tillerson at the State Department. Foreign Policy, Foreign Affiars, etc were horrified that he was not filling every position. He was giving the bureaucracy something needed for decades, a diet. Foggy Bottoms has needed a downsizing for ages. Too many bureaucrats, and they will find something to do. And it will be stupid and painful.

For example, here is the latest from Foreign Policy. Oh, the horror!

State Department Struggling on Diversity, New Report Finds

The most comprehensive study to date shows that State has in some ways become less diverse than it was in 2002.

The U.S. State Department’s efforts to increase diversity in its ranks have fallen short and in some cases resulted in an actual decline in the percentage of women and ethnic and racial minorities employed there, according to a new study from a U.S. federal watchdog...

...The study appears to contradict statements from senior State Department officials. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, along with his predecessors, touted the importance of recruiting a pool of talent for the State Department that extends beyond white men, who have dominated the institution for most of its existence. In an email to employees in November 2019, he said the department was “building an increasingly diverse team,” saying diverse candidates applying for the two fellowships aimed at recruiting racial and ethnic minorities—the Charles B. Rangel International Affairs Fellowship and the Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship—had doubled from 844 to more than 1,600 applicants.

In September 2018, then-Policy Planning Director Kiron Skinner said in an interview that “given some the trends in the U.S. against diversity—especially racial diversity—the State Department is doing much better.” Skinner, one of the most senior-ranking African American women in the Trump administration, was removed from her post in August 2019.

Senior State Department officials have repeatedly said in public that they are prioritizing diversity at the department and that it is a work in progress. The State Department has several long-standing initiatives to do so, including a diplomat-in-residence program in which ambassadors serve as recruiters at universities, and an emphasis on recruiting from historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving universities...

The diversity problem predates this administration, but some State Department officials fear it’s getting worse.

The proportion of women working at the State Department slightly decreased during that time period, from 44 to 43 percent of State’s overall full-time workforce. Women’s promotion rates compared with their male counterparts were lower in the civil service and higher in the foreign service.

The proportion of African Americans working at the State Department fell from 17 to 15 percent between the 2002 and 2018 time period of the study—though the overall number of employees increased from 16,570 to 22,806. The proportion of African Americans in the foreign service increased only from 6 to 7 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2018. The proportion of African American women at State overall decreased from 13 to 9 percent and within the foreign service increased from 2 to 3 percent.

I find this interesting. In the time the number of women and minorities were "declining," the agency was on a hiring binge. And the four Secretaries of State were, in order, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice (they served under George W Bush, not a government cutting conservative), Mrs. Bill Clinton, and John F Kerry (Under the quota king, Obama). Now the stats don't discriminate between Bush and Obama years, but knowing how the Democrats are, it is likely more of the growth occurred after 2009. So how is it Obama let this happen?

Possibility, a lot of younger minorities, coming from the bureaucracy feeding colleges, didn't want to serve in a Republican administration in general, and under Trump in particular. Then there is the practical hiring freeze at State by Tillerson.

Whatever the cause, I'm not overly concerned. I'm not worried of diversity of skin color, I'm worried about diversity of opinion, thought, capability, education, and qualifications. And hopefully Secretary Pompeo insures he is served by thinking people who remember, they served the United States, not the United Nations.

Again, thank you Mr. Justice Thomas

My favorite SCOTUS associate justice since the passing of the late, great Antonin Scalia, and a very close second to that great man during their joint service on the court. As I've grown older, I've become more libertarian in my views on a number of matters, and this is one of them, use of private property. Fourteen years ago, in a constitutional abortion of law that rivals Plessy v. Ferguson, and the Obamacare rulings, the court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London, a city could take citizen's private property for reasons other than a legitimate community need (e.g. a road, bridge, or school). The City of New London could seize the land, then sell to a second private interest to increase the tax revenue. In a nation where the federal government owns over a quarter of the land mass of the nation, this should give us pause. The constitution was established to insure the government would not infringe on the rights of the citizen. We see encroachment every day.

But here we see a great ruling, and a great concurring opinion from Mr. Justice Thomas. From Reason.com:

Clarence Thomas Benchslaps the Federal Government in a Property Rights Case

“Our role is to enforce the Takings Clause as written.”

Property rights advocates scored a significant victory today when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1985 precedent which had forced property owners whose land is taken by the government to seek just compensation in state court before they are permitted to file a constitutional case in federal court. According to the 5–4 majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts in Knick v. Township of Scott, "the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it."

The case centered on a local Pennsylvania ordinance requiring that all cemeteries "be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours." In 2013, Scott Township sought to enforce this ordinance against Rose Mary Knick, whose property, as the Court described it, "includes a small graveyard where the ancestors of Knick's neighbors are allegedly buried. Such family cemeteries are fairly common in Pennsylvania, where 'backyard burials' have long been permitted."

Knick objected to this government taking of her property. But under the Supreme Court's 1985 precedent in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, she was barred from going straight to federal court. "If a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation," Williamson County said, "the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the [state] procedure and been denied just compensation." In its ruling today on behalf of Knick, the Supreme Court struck down Williamson County.

In addition to being a victory for property owners, Knick v. Township of Scott is also notable for featuring some sharp words from Justice Clarence Thomas directed at the federal government. As Thomas noted in a concurring opinion, the U.S. solicitor general filed an amicus brief in the case which argued that "the failure to provide contemporaneous compensation for a taking does not violate the Fifth Amendment if the government has provided an adequate mechanism for obtaining just compensation."

What's wrong with that? Here is a sample of Thomas' rather pointed rebuke to the federal government:

The United States…urges us not to enforce the Takings Clause as written. It worries that requiring payment to accompany a taking would allow courts to enjoin or invalidate broad regulatory programs "merely" because the program takes property without paying for it. According to the United States, "there is a 'nearly infinite variety of ways in which government actions or regulations can affect property interests,' and it ought to be good enough that the government "implicitly promises to pay compensation for any taking" if a property owner successfully sues the government in court. Government officials, the United States contends, should be able to implement regulatory programs "without fear" of injunction or invalidation under the Takings Clause, "even when" the program is so far reaching that the officials "cannot determine whether a taking will occur."

In short, Thomas exhibited exactly zero patience towards what he called the federal government's "sue me" stance. If Knick v. Township of Scott "makes some regulatory programs 'unworkable in practice,'" Thomas declared, "so be it—our role is to enforce the Takings Clause as written."

And there is the rub for libtards. The constitution says what it means, and means what it says. It has evolved over the years, often in the manner it should be changed, the legislative or amendment process. But often, especially since the FDR years, by courts or departments "finding" or "creating" laws, rights, etc. It's good to see someone explain to the bureaucrats they are not omnipotent.

Last year I posted on how I mailed my copy of My Grandfather's Son to Mr. Justice Thomas and he returned it signed. It still in a distinguished group of books on my bookshelf, the ones I have autographed. I regret I did not do this with Mr. Justice Scalia, but life goes on. Mr. Justice Thomas, I know your intellectual and court compatriate is looking at you from the heavens and saying, "Well done pal!"

The real inventor of the Internet is a little put off by what his invention has become...

Two decades ago then Vice President Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet on this CNN  interview. His exact words, at 00.52 of this video, is "...I took the initiative in inventing the Internet..." One of the many delusions this man has inflicted the American people with over the decades. To be more accurate, the Internet is the descendant of the ARPANet, a Department of Defense project to secure networks in case of a nuclear attack.

Time went on, the World Wide Web was invented 30 years ago Tuesday, and the inventiveness of mankind has been shown incredibly. Look at the changes in business, medicine, expanded education, etc. that have happened because of a free people took something and ran with it. The Internet, to a much greater degree of the space program, has revolutionized life in the modern world with spinoff technology, and the ingenuity of people literally around the world.

Before you say, "No kidding Sherlock," I was drawn to the statement of the real inventor of the Internet (the World Wide Web to be exact) on the Internet’s birthday, and how it shows bureaucratic-industrial complex thinking:

Tim Berners-Lee on the Internet’s 30th B-Day: ‘Whoops! The Web Is Not the Web We Wanted. The World Wide Web, now ubiquitously known as the internet, turns 30 today. And, just like most growing things, the technology infrastructure that powers almost every communication and work tool we use has changed beyond even its very inventor’s recognition. “Whoops! The web is not the web we wanted in every respect,” said British computer scientist Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who built the first version of the World Wide Web in 1989, at the “Web@30” conference at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) on Tuesday. For the past decade, Berners-Lee has published an open letter every March 12, taking the WWW’s anniversary as an opportunity to voice his opinions and concerns on the emerging issues facing our increasingly internet-reliant society. His past talking points included the dominating power of supersize tech companies, misinformation and intrusion to privacy. This year, outside his regular annual writing, the 63-year-old scientist made an onstage appearance at his old employer, CERN, to reiterate the idea of the “Contract for the Web,” a framework to govern the use of the internet he first proposed in November 2018. “The Contract for the Web is about sitting down in working groups with other people who signed up, and to say, ‘OK, let’s work out what this really means,'” Berners-Lee said. The Contract for the Web seeks a collaboration among governments, companies and citizens. Under the framework, governments are tasked to ensure the internet’s availability to every one and its respect to privacy; on the premise of privacy protection, companies are to make sure that the internet is affordable and prioritize the public good over profit when developing new technology; and finally, citizens should respect “civil discourse” when using it..."

Government’s should be “tasked to ensure the internet’s availability to every one and its respect to privacy…”  Mr. Berners-Lee, were you concerned when the previous presidential administration had the National Security Administration commence saturation monitoring of both the Internet and phone communications in the United States? You do know the US government is building a facility to store this information in Utah, with a reported five zettabytes of storage capacity? In more understandable English, that is five trillion gigabytes of storage. And that is just the start.

One of the facts of digital voice communications is a computer can scan countless communications, looking for words, phrases, or specific voices, which is the purpose of this facility. Even if it is used for the War on Terror, or other “legitimate” functions, can you be sure it will not be used for other, less legitimate, efforts?. Do you recall the FBI used a false affidavit to secure a warrant from the FISA court to conduct monitoring on the now President of the United States? If a president can be targeted by the intelligence bureaucracy, how can Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public stand against them?

“…on the premise of privacy protection, companies are to make sure that the internet is affordable and prioritize the public good over profit when developing new technology…”

Sir, profit drives the public good, in case you haven’t noticed recorded history. At the beginning of the Internet era, few companies offered access to it, and the cost were prohibitive. Remember CompuServe and AOL? In 1990, CompuServe was charging five dollars an hour for dial up Internet service! AOL came in and challenged them, offering service at 2.95 an hour. AOL later acquired CompuServe, offering package deals of $20.00 a month for unlimited dial up service. Did the US government need to do that Mr. Berners-Lee? No, the bureaucracy needed to get the living hell out of the way. If the FCC was in charge of the Internet in the late 80s (Say a “Net Neutrality” in an earlier form) we would still have dial up modems for our service.

Exaggeration? Slightly, but there is no question the government has hindered the use of the digital spectrum over the decades. May I recommend you read The Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technology, from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone, by Thomas Winslow Hazlett. Question, when was the first mobile phone call made? Most people believe it was on April 3, 1973, when Motorola’s Marty Cooper called Bell Lab’s Joel Engle in New York. While it was the first time a handheld device was used, the first mobile call, or better put, car phone call, was made in 1946!

The General Mobile Telephone Service was an analog telecommunications system that would allow a person to make a call from inside an automobile, with a limited area to a tower. You needed to use an operator for any “long distance” call. Was this Verizon or ATT on an iPhone, no. But it was the first step. And it was killed largely by the lack of useable bandwidth being licensed by the FCC (Hazlett, 2017). Bag and hand held phones started to come into the limited use in the 1970s, more common use in the 1980s, but one can only speculate on how much sooner mobile phones would have come on the market without the great “assistance” of the Federal Communications Commission and other parts of the federal bureaucracy.

Finally sir, your comment on the content of the Internet is the most troubling, “…and finally, citizens should respect “civil discourse” when using it..." Mr. Berners-Lee, what is civil to you may be obscene to others. A member of the Black Lives Matter movement may accuses police officers of killing unarmed black males at an excessive rate compared to white males. Is it “uncivil” when another person points out most black males are murdered by other black males, and in a given year police shoot and kill 15-20 unarmed black males. While much social media is “civil,” some is a sewer of profanity and extremism (see Twitter). But I would never want to shut down the discussion. Sir, I suggest you remember the wisdom of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in Whitney v. California,1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." The proponents of “Net-Neutrality” should remember that.

One of the many quotes from General George Patton, “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.” The Internet is an incredible example of that. Mr. Berners-Lee, you are the legitimate inventor of it, if any man can make that claim. I suggest to use your considerable influence to insure it grows unmolested by the bureaucratic mindset that has hampered mankind’s progress for eternity. 

A New York official openly admits what's been obvious for decades...

New York is a business disaster.

Back in 1989, my brother, who worked sheet rock and construction, spent the better part of a year in New York City. A hotel needed a complete refurbishing. The hotel hired Bobby's company from New Orleans, moved them up to the Big Apple, housed them, fed them, and paid them a lot more than what they would make in Louisiana. And still the job was done faster and cheaper than with local labor, unionized or not.

Fast forward to current times, the state of New York managed to win the biggest business opportunity since shale oil. The second Amazon.com headquarters was won with a promise of three billion in tax credits. In exchange, Amazon would generate 25-40 thousand jobs, and 27-30 billion in tax revenue. Good bargain, a minimum of a nine to one return on investment. Not for the libtards who infect New York.

When a Democratic official from New York state says is was a cluster f%^& of the first order, you know it's bad. Congratulations Governor Cuomo, you're a bigger laughing stock of a governor than Jerry Brown, Christopher Christie, or Kathleen Blanco. The letter is as good as it gets from a politician. Emphasis mine.

Open Letter From New York State Budget Director Robert Mujica Regarding Amazon

"As just about everyone in this state, if not the country, knows by now, Amazon has terminated its plans to bring its second headquarters to New York State. It is a tremendous loss for New Yorkers and I hope that at a minimum, we understand the lessons learned.

"In my 23 years in the State Capitol, three as Budget Director, Amazon was the single greatest economic development opportunity we have had. Amazon chose New York and Virginia after a year-long national competition with 234 cities and states vying for the 25,000-40,000 jobs. For a sense of scale, the next largest economic development project the state has completed was for approximately 1,000 jobs. People have been asking me for the past week what killed the Amazon deal. There were several factors.

"First, some labor unions attempted to exploit Amazon's New York entry. The RWDSU Union was interested in organizing the Whole Foods grocery store workers, a subsidiary owned by Amazon, and they deployed several 'community based organizations' (which RWDSU funds) to oppose the Amazon transaction as negotiation leverage. It backfired. Initially, Whole Foods grocery stores had nothing to do with this transaction. It is a separate company. While Amazon is not a unionized workforce, Amazon had agreed to union construction and service worker jobs that would have provided 11,000 thousand union positions.

"New York State also has the most pro-worker legal protections of any state in the country. Organizing Amazon, or Whole Foods workers, or any company for that matter, is better pursued by allowing them to locate here and then making an effort to unionize the workers, rather than making unionization a bar to entrance. If New York only allows unionized companies to enter, our economy is unsustainable, and if one union becomes the enemy of other unions, the entire union movement - already in decline - is undermined and damaged.

"Second, some Queens politicians catered to minor, but vocal local political forces in opposition to the Amazon government incentives as 'corporate welfare.' Ironically, much of the visible 'local' opposition, which was happy to appear at press conferences and protest at City Council hearings during work hours, were actual organizers paid by one union: RWDSU. (If you are wondering if that is even legal, probably not). Even more ironic is these same elected officials all signed a letter of support for Amazon at the Long Island City location and in support of the application. They were all for it before Twitter convinced them to be against it.

"While there is always localized opposition, in this case it was taken to a new level. The State Senate transferred decision-making authority to a local Senator, who, after first supporting the Amazon project, is now vociferously opposed to it, and even recommended appointing him to a State panel charged with approving the project's financing. Amazon assumed that the hostile appointment doomed the project. Of course the Governor would never accept a Senate nomination of an opponent to the project and the Governor told that to Amazon directly. The relevant question for Amazon then became whether the Senate would appoint an alternative who would approve the project.

"As newspapers have reported, Amazon called the Senate Leader and asked if she would appoint an alternative appointee who would support the project. The Senate would not commit to an alternative appointee supporting Amazon. That was the death knell. No rational company, or person for that matter, would assume the Senate would flip flop from appointing a staunch opponent of the project to appointing a supporter of the project. It defies logic. However, if that was their plan, Amazon needed a direct representation to that effect from the Senate. It never came. Indeed, to this day, the Senate has never said they would appoint a member who would support the project. Companies assume rational, logical behavior and cannot spend months and millions of dollars on approvals if ultimately the road is a dead end.

"Furthermore, opposing Amazon was not even good politics, as the politicians have learned since Amazon pulled out. They are like the dog that caught the car. They are now desperately and incredibly trying to explain their actions. They cannot. They are trying to justify their flip-flopping on the issue with false accusations that it was a 'backroom deal.' Let's remember that as a condition of the competition, every bid was sealed to prevent governments from altering their bids to be more competitive. Empire State Development supported the numerous local applications in the state who wanted to bid for HQ2, but on the condition that the local elected officials and community supported it, and Long Island City was no exception.

"In working with New York City, we advanced Long Island City's application with the signed support of the area's local elected officials, including State Senator Mike Gianaris and New York City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer. Both Gianaris and Van Bramer flip-flopped on this position after Long Island City was chosen, distorting the facts of the agreement and mischaracterizing the tax subsidies as 'a cash giveaway.' Now that Amazon has pulled out, local politicians are feeling the backlash from the project's previously silent supporters and are dissembling. Local senators' claims that their phone calls were not returned are particularly offensive, given that the local senator was the first person ESD President and CEO Howard Zemsky met with when we made the HQ2 announcement. I also remained in contact with him about the project as the State Budget Director, and he refused to sit on the community engagement board or even meet with Amazon representatives. Efforts were made to address legitimate concerns, all of which were ignored.

"Third, in retrospect, the State and the City could have done more to communicate the facts of the project and more aggressively correct the distortions. We assumed the benefits to be evident: 25,000-40,000 jobs located in a part of Queens that has not seen any significant commercial development in decades and a giant step forward in the tech sector, further diversifying our economy away from Wall Street and Real Estate. The polls showing seventy percent of New Yorkers supported Amazon provided false comfort that the political process would act responsibly and on behalf of all of their constituents, not just the vocal minority. We underestimated the effect of the opposition's distortions and overestimated the intelligence and integrity of local elected officials.

"Incredibly, I have heard city and state elected officials who were opponents of the project claim that Amazon was getting $3 billion in government subsidies that could have been better spent on housing or transportation. This is either a blatant untruth or fundamental ignorance of basic math by a group of elected officials. The city and state 'gave' Amazon nothing. Amazon was to build their headquarters with union jobs and pay the city and state $27 billion in revenues. The city, through existing as-of-right tax credits, and the state through Excelsior Tax credits - a program approved by the same legislators railing against it - would provide up to $3 billion in tax relief, IF Amazon created the 25,000-40,000 jobs and thus generated $27 billion in revenue. You don't need to be the State's Budget Director to know that a nine to one return on your investment is a winner.

"The seventy percent of New Yorkers who supported Amazon and now vent their anger also bear responsibility and must learn that the silent majority should not be silent because they can lose to the vocalminority and self-interested politicians.

"It was wrong to manage this issue as if it were a single legislator's political prerogative on a local matter. This was not a traffic signal or local zoning issue. Losing the Amazon project was not just a blow to Queens County, it hurt the whole State from Long Island to the Capitol Region's nanotechnology corridor to the emerging Panasonic plant in Buffalo, and it was a bad reflection on every single local elected official. Legislators must realize there is a difference between playing politics and responsibly governing.

"Progressive politics and policies have been the signature of Governor Cuomo's administration. No state in the nation has more progressive accomplishments, and being the most progressive state in the nation means having the most stringent and aggressive protections and policies in place. We are proud that our values create a stronger, healthier, fairer work environment, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about how they impact our competitiveness when businesses consider where to locate. We are also proud of the unprecedented investments we make in education, healthcare, infrastructure and housing, but in order to fund them, we need a sustained tax base.

"As the political debate rages in this country, the Governor reminds us of the fact that 'to be a progressive, there must be progress.' The creation of opportunity and jobs is the engine that pulls the train and, as he also often says, 'the best social program is still a job.' Without a tax base we are not financially able to achieve the laudable goals we seek.

"Make no mistake, at the end of the day we lost $27 billion, 25,000-40,000 jobs and a blow to our reputation of being 'open for business.' The union that opposed the project gained nothing and cost other union members 11,000 good, high-paying jobs. The local politicians that catered to the hyper-political opposition hurt their own government colleagues and the economic interest of every constituent in their district. The true local residents who actually supported the project and its benefits for their community are badly hurt. Nothing was gained and much was lost. This should never happen again."

The fact that idiot AOC is now saying we can "invest" (whenever a politician uses that word, watch out) the three billion in housing, teachers, etc, says enough. The woman with a honors degree in economics is too stupid to run a lemonade stand (she fits right in to the Democratic caucus in DC). Liberal politicians never seem to understand, business is in business for business. The extras (thousands of jobs, billions in tax revenue) are a fringe benefit. But work with business, they want to be in business.

But not where the the leadership is openly hostile to them.

Congrats New York. You are like California, a formerly great state for economic activity, now a albatross to America. You have no one to blame but your self, and from the people of this nation, we have only two words: DROP DEAD.