Government

NPR

|

Supreme Court to hear arguments in a case that could weaken federal rulemaking : NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday that could eviscerate the way the federal government regulates, well, everything. A system in place for decades has governed how judges review curbs on air and water pollution, gun safety measures and workplace protections.

But all of it could be upended by a conservative supermajority on the court at the request of an unlikely set of plaintiffs: a group of herring fishermen based in Cape May, N.J.

Fake news and censorship 🗣✖

|
  • There are some facts that are demonstrably true
  • Facts are different then values and priorities

People should accept demonstrably-true facts but not values and priorities automatically. There should be no censorship of people’s views and priorities, but people should be honest and base their views and priorities on fact not fiction.

  • People sometimes use falsifications to avoid being seen as callous or absurd
  • But also people also use claims of fake news and falsification to downplay valid values and priorities

Sometimes even the most non-partisan fact-checkers can be guilty of calling out legitimate facts based on their own biases. Sometimes something can be true, if in a limited sense. That limited sense should be clearly disclosed, and people’s values and priorities made clear in an honest fashion.

  • Fact-checkers should try understand the values and priorities of those they are trying fact check
  • Fact-checkers should point out misleading statements
  • Fact-checkers should try to explain why the person believes in or is making a misleading statement
  • Fact-checkers shouldn’t be in business of deciding if a policy is callous or absurd

I don’t support censorship, but I do think the public deserves an honest debate from all sides and that perspectives outside of the mainstream should not be suppressed or not allowed to be heard. Just because you disagree with something, or don’t believe it should be taken seriously, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be heard.

The kind of infrastructure I support building 🌉

|

There is a lot of talk about infrastructure. Usually it involves building big highway bridges, wider roads, new electrical lines, or when they want to throw a bone to the greenies, maybe a stark-itect project like five miles of high speed rail or battery electric buses. Stuff that is great for ribbon cutting by the politicians but not really needed.

That’s all fine and dandy but I think the evidence is American infrastructure as it is pretty good today, we don’t need dramatic upgrades. Maybe some hardening to address climate change or integrate more renewable energy into the grid but there is already existing funding mechanisms to address that. Let individual agencies that have their own revenue sources and know best address these concerns – power companies, Department of Transportation and water authorities – not Washington politicians.

What I do think needs more investing in is the truly public infrastructure – things that can be utilized and enjoyed by all in a largely non consumptive fashion – for no charge or fee.

For example:

  • Supporting free, open source development projects. People should have access to quality, professional and free software that allows them to do advanced data processing and all other tasks to expand knowledge, grow their business and improve their quality of life.
  • Online learning – public colleges should put their lectures and teaching materials completely online. Video steaming, web storage are inexpensive these days and while there are costs associated with both generating and hosting such material – the public benefits of greater knowledge and credentialing exceed any taxpayer costs.
  • Public wilderness and forest areas that are largely primative except maybe for necessary roads, parking and primative campsites. Many of these improvements could be funded via timber and mineral extraction fees
  • Public libraries and free Wi-Fi so anybody can access the internet when they are in the public commons.
  • Public data repositories where government data collected in ordinary duties should be easy to obtain, download and process for all purposes public and private without copyright limitations or fees. If the government can help businesses grow by providing free data to them then they should be providing that data rather than collecting licensing fees.

I don’t believe government should be funding for profit or fee based institutions. Roads have the gas tax, power and water utilities have ratepayers fees. Many developed parks have user fees – if you pay to get in then the government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing them.

Let fee institutions decide what they should invest in not Washington Bureaucrats. Keep public funds for public purposes.

“It isn’t nice.” – Malvina Reynolds

|

Democracy is messy. A little civil disobedience is part of protest, it helps raise awareness. Managing protests can be hard especially when emotions are high. Police have a tough job figuring out how much disorder to allow but protests are much better managed today then 50 years ago – fewer people are injured, less property damaged, less people arrested.

I would rather see some windows broken, some traffic stopped on highways or train tracks and some disorder in general if that’s what it takes to increase awareness of community problems. We can’t back away from our constitution or the first amendment just because we don’t like the message of the protestors. Glass can be replaced but our constitution can’t be.