As with Britain, so with the USA???

 

So-called "welfare" payments (including entitlement programs, disability funding, and a host of other benefits) have all but crippled the British economy.  Here's how the Wall Street Journal views Britain's current crisis.

Disability payouts are no longer just for those most in need; they have become a financial crutch for a large swath of the population as wages stagnate and prices rise. 

It’s blowing up Britain’s welfare bill, hamstringing its politicians and imperiling its long-term financial stability.

Some seven million people—more than 10% of the population—now claim at least one or more sickness or disability benefits. The numbers are growing fastest among working-age people who should be powering the country’s economy, surging more than 60% in the past six years to 4.7 million from 2.9 million in 2019.

. . .

Many of the newer disability claims are for mental-health issues like depression, anxiety and ADHD, which can be harder for the government to verify than a physical disability. Between 2017 and 2025, disability claims for cancer doubled. But benefits claims for all psychiatric issues surged fourfold.

One benefit, created to help those with disabilities be more mobile, allows people to give up part of their welfare cash handout in return for a new car lease every three years. It now accounts for around one in every seven new car sales in the U.K. Among those who got new cars last year: 40 people whose primary medical condition was tennis elbow, 50 with wheat intolerance and 320 with dyslexia, according to government figures.

The scale of the payout has become a scandal. No other western country has seen such a rise in disability claims. In the U.S., the number of people getting federal disability payments has fallen in the past 15 years. The most recent figures show some 10.6 million working-age people in the U.S. claimed one or both main Social Security programs for people with a disability, in a country with a population five times bigger than the U.K.

There's more at the link (may be paywalled).  Whether the British economy (indeed, the British nation as we know it) can survive this ever-increasing burden remains to be seen.  Anytime any politician or party talks about reducing welfare expenditure, the beneficiaries of such welfare rise up in vehement, vocal opposition:  so the politicians dare not touch the subject, for fear of never being elected again (and/or of being un-elected as soon as the next election comes around).  The whole nation is caught in that trap.  Can't afford to pay for the benefits, and can't afford to cut them.

In the USA, the federal government has done a lot to cut back on entitlement spending, as the last paragraph above shows.  However, many states have implemented their own entitlement programs.  For example, a couple of weeks ago it was revealed that California is spending up to $11 billion every year on benefits for illegal aliens, who are not entitled to federal benefits at all.  "All told, a family of five in California with two illegal-alien parents, two US-born children and one illegal-alien grandparent can receive public services worth more than $100,000 per year."  That's just one state, out of 50 in the Union.  How many others are taxing their citizens - and claiming refunds from Washington D.C. - to run their own such programs?  How much is it costing us, the taxpayers of this country?

The mainstream media is strangely silent about such matters, even when they're exposed through other sources.  Anyone would think that the media wants to grow the "dependent economy" at the expense of the market economy, and make taxpayers liable to support the millions who don't pay taxes.  There's a word for that.  They call it "socialism".

If you pay taxes, remember on November 3rd, and vote accordingly.

Peter

The Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal claims yet more victims

 

Thanks to the damage wrought to its finances, the Fresno Diocese of the Catholic Church has just told its pensioners that they're screwed - financially, this time.

Retired Fresno Diocese employees will no longer receive retirement benefits starting next year.

Hundreds of former employees are now left scrambling over what to do with their financial future now up in the air.

In a letter to retirees last month, the diocese said the retirement plan was frozen at the end of June.

The church says they contributed the agreed-upon amount negotiated in employee contracts,

But the diocese says Christian Brothers Services, the company responsible for managing the money, is the reason there isn’t enough to continue payments.

The diocese says it explored legal options to transfer the money into a retirement plan of their own. But said that plan would not be possible with the church filing for bankruptcy.

The church is facing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit involving more than 150 claims of sexual abuse by members of the clergy.

There's more at the link.

I don't have to tell you how sick to my stomach this news makes me feel.  I've written extensively about how I experienced the clergy sex abuse scandal, and how it's almost destroyed the faith of countless good people (see the partial list of my articles on that subject in the sidebar, particularly this one).  This is just the latest episode in a very sordid story.  However, the fact that the Fresno diocese is willing to throw their pensioners to the wolves - people who devoted years of their lives, if not their entire working career. to the service of the Church - is the clearest possible indication that many of the hierarchy are still protecting their own backside(s) (collectively and individually).  They don't appear to really, truly care who else suffers, just as long as their positions are protected.  The Fresno diocese's attitude - and remember, actions speak louder than words - appears to be, "Are our retirees going to starve, or be unable to pay their medical bills, because we've stopped paying their pensions?  Well, let them!  We have more important uses for that money!"

Analyzing the overall situation, the National Catholic Reporter didn't mince its words.

The legal processes accomplish what they are designed to do, exact a bit of retribution on behalf of victims. They do not, however, restore or transform survivors. They don't erase haunting, debilitating memories. And they do little to address the most searing questions for which the faithful still await an answer: How did this happen? How could the chief shepherds allow the most vulnerable in the flock to be preyed upon?

As Charles Nadeau, a court-appointed representative of survivors, explained: "Bankruptcy is not inherently unjust ... But when applied to clergy sexual abuse, it risks becoming something else — a substitute for moral accountability."

The San Francisco Archdiocese, faced with a $359 million settlement to hundreds of victims of sexual abuse by clergy, explained that its distribution of financial pain among its parishes was essential to "enabling our local church to emerge from bankruptcy and move beyond this difficult chapter in our history."

The wish to "move beyond this difficult chapter," entirely dependent on heavily taxing those who had nothing to do with creating the problem, is a telling sentiment.

. . .

... it wasn't "the church collectively" that did this. It was the clerical/hierarchical culture. That culture has yet to collectively square up with the reality that the abuse crisis in the church was a betrayal of the community at a sacramental level. It is a level of betrayal that can't occur in any other circumstance.

. . .

The cold reality is that the laity are left to foot the bill, financially and otherwise, for the depraved behavior of their bishops. They are left with struggling parishes, diminished resources for ministry, and the church's loss of credibility in the wider culture.

We know now that the coverup was not the work of an isolated bishop; it was not the province of liberals or conservatives. It was the result of a hierarchical culture that had developed in a way that allowed its members to think they were above reproach or accountability for even the most egregious behavior.

. . .

The bishops need ... a full-on, uncompromising, unadorned examination of the sinful and criminal activity of their predecessors, of the culture they've inherited that allowed such sin and crime to fester for so long.

Again, more at the link.

I get very angry when I hear anyone claiming to speak with or from the "moral authority of the Church".  Christ has all the moral authority there is, in this world and the next.  However, his Church on earth has, through the actions (and inactions) of its leaders, effectively so betrayed his moral authority, been so derelict in its duty to the people of God, that for many of the faithful, it has abrogated any claim to represent him.  Millions (literally) have left the Church over this crisis, and millions more will doubtless follow suit, unless and until its leaders "clean house".  So far, they've signally failed to do so.

May Almighty God have mercy on all our souls . . .

Peter

Verily, the mind doth boggle...

 

Believe it or not, this is a genuine e-poster from an outfit calling themselves Mainebreastfeeds.  Click the image for a larger view.

The caption is "National Breastfeeding Month", but the subtitle below it is "Celebrating trans lactation, two-spirit and chestfeeding".  Needless to say, "breastfeeding" and "chestfeeding" are not interchangeable terms (except in the sick minds of those who conceived this travesty)!

I imagine that for most normal people, that image is about as stomach-turning as one could wish.  It makes a mockery of natural breastfeeding, and is medically and physically impossible as well.  I find it nauseating.

I think anyone holding such views, or supporting those who hold them, should have their sanity examined as soon as possible.  That may be the only benefit to such arrant nonsense - to expose those who are, mentally speaking, three or four cents short of a nickel.

Peter

Why are they still wearing badges and carrying guns?

 

A gentleman (?) named Jamarcus Oneal Spates was arrested by a gaggle of Houston police officers on Monday.  It's not clear why so many of the officers were involved, or why they took such extreme precautions, but be that as it may . . .

On-duty uniformed officers arrived and attempted to stop the vehicle with Spates inside, the release states. HPD alleges Spates refused several commands to exit the vehicle.

The responding officers said they shot at Spates after they attempted to move toward the vehicle and saw him open the driver's door of the vehicle and extend his arm "in a shooting position," according to HPD's account. A bullet "grazed" Spates, the release said.

There's more at the link.

A bullet "grazed" Spates.  One bullet.  ONE SINGLE BULLET.

How many rounds were fired by all those officers to obtain just one slight, non-disabling injury to the suspect?  See (and hear) for yourself.

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?????

All those bullets flying around, and the suspect was grazed by just one of them.  Where, pray tell, did the rest of the bullets go?  How many nearby buildings, vehicles, trees, etc. were struck as well?  Oh - and what about innocent bystanders?

That's just about the most sickeningly incompetent firearms handling I've ever seen from uniformed cops.  I've no idea how many rounds were fired in all, but I won't be surprised to hear it was a hundred or more . . . AND ONLY ONE STRUCK ITS TARGET, AND EVEN THEN, ONLY JUST!!!

What's the point of issuing firearms to police at all, if that's the way they're going to handle them in a crisis situation?

No handgun bullet is a very good fight-stopper compared to a rifle or shotgun.  We know this.  It's been common knowledge for years.  However, even a handgun will stop a fight quickly enough if a bullet hits the target's central nervous system - i.e. the brain or the spine.  A penetration of the heart and/or circulatory system will take a bit longer - up to 30-60 seconds for the suspect to "bleed out".  However, if all the bullet does is "graze" the suspect's arm, it's not going to do one single damned thing to stop him.  It may make him lose his temper, but that's about all.

(As the late, great Jeff Cooper used to say about the [infamously puny] .25 ACP round:  "Carry a 25 if it makes you feel good, but do not ever load it. If you load it you may shoot it. If you shoot it you may hit somebody, and if you hit somebody, and he finds out about it, he may be very angry with you."  Considering the lack of success of those police officers, armed with [comparatively much more powerful] 9mm handguns, shotguns and at least one AR-15 rifle, they may as well have been carrying .25 ACP pistols instead!)

I'd take away the badges of the whole lot of them, and send them all for remedial firearms training.  I'd refuse to re-issue their badges unless and until they passed a truly practical, useful firearms test, such as the qualification for a basic handgun certificate from Gunsite or Thunder Ranch or equivalent shooting schools.  Can't do that?  Then you can't carry a gun to defend the public, because you're more of a danger to them than you are to the criminal!

Sheesh . . .

Peter

Adventures with medicine, part XVIII and counting...

 

Regular readers will recall my misadventures with medical bureaucracy in May, and the follow-up (mis)adventures last month.  Yesterday, Tuesday, most of the results came together, with moderately satisfactory results and a certain amount of pain.

My new CT scan images and analysis were ready, and my pain management specialist (who made the necessary arrangements for them) discussed them with me.  There appears to be more going on "over my head" than I'd been made aware . . . it appears possible that the original surgery, twenty-two years ago, might have been - how shall I put this? - sub-standard.  Nobody used the word "malpractice" - perish the thought!  After all, given the passage of time, that probably couldn't be proved.  Nevertheless, it may be one of the reasons why two neurosurgeons, a neurologist and an orthopedic surgeon had all been noticeably reluctant to commit themselves to a potential solution to my problems.  Armed with this (strictly unofficial and off-the-record) information, I'm now in a position to ask very blunt, pointed, direct questions when I see the new neurosurgeon, and apparently he's one of the few doctors who's willing to answer such questions appropriately.  The next couple of months should be interesting . . .

That said, I had my second caudal epidural injection yesterday morning.  The first one (in March) gave me 2+ months of moderate pain relief, so I'm hoping the second one will be at least as useful.  That, plus wearing a back brace for all walking and driving, will hopefully keep me mobile enough to see the new neurosurgeon in Dallas before the end of August, and (with his help) develop a plan for short- to medium-term treatment in preparation for surgery.  It's a slow, painstaking process, but as I've been told repeatedly, spinal surgery is one of those "measure ten times, cut once" solutions that one daren't rush or mess up.

Right now I can't feel anything in my lower back, the result of the anesthetic used to perform the injection into the spinal cavity.  By Wednesday morning I'll be feeling it again, I'm sure.

Peter

I'm not a happy Safelite customer right now

 

I'm extremely fed up with Safelite, the windshield replacement people, at present.

I called them last week to replace my vehicle's windshield after a large crack developed.  They handled the initial appointment, insurance issues, etc. without difficulty.  However, when the technician arrived at our home to do the installation, we noticed immediately that the replacement windshield was much, much thinner glass than the factory original.  I queried this, but the installer assured me it was just as good as the original.

He took a couple of hours to replace the windshield, then left.  Less than an hour later, I stepped outside to find that a crack had developed in the center of the new glass, from top to bottom - worse than the initial crack I'd asked Safelite to repair.  Irritated (to put it mildly), I called Safelite at once, but could not get a human being on the line at all - everything was referred to their app or their Web site.  I was eventually able to get an appointment for "warranty service" last Saturday morning.

Lo and behold, on Friday afternoon Safelite canceled the Saturday appointment, with no explanation given.  We had to drive through the weekend in a vehicle whose windscreen I didn't trust not to develop further cracks.  At any rate, yesterday morning I had a call from their technician (at last).  He proceeded to inform me cheerfully that they couldn't replace my replacement windshield immediately, because the glue they used had to dry for at least a week before it was safe to remove it.  Why that information couldn't have been provided last week, instead of making, then canceling, an appointment for work they knew they wouldn't be able to do for that reason, I do not know.  Grrrr!

I pointed out that my wife and myself were leaving for Libertycon on Wednesday, and that the delay would mean we'd have to hire a vehicle for the journey, because I certainly wasn't prepared to trust their cracked windscreen to remain intact over a few thousand miles.  I informed him that I expected Safelite to pay for the hired vehicle, because it was due to their botched repair and delays in fixing it that the hire was necessary.  He told me that Safelite would not cover that cost, as it was their policy never to do so.  We'll see about that.  If necessary, Small Claims Court, here we come!  I think he passed that on to his bosses, as I had a couple more calls later yesterday all trying to tell me that Safelite wasn't responsible for any further expenses.  We'll find out.

Anyway, today I have to pick up our hired vehicle, hoping against hope that we can get the size we need at an affordable price.  We've had good results from Enterprise, so we'll be using them again.  Tomorrow it's off to Chattanooga with a carful of family, friends and luggage, to catch up with friends we haven't seen for some considerable time.  Meanwhile, my vehicle will just have to bask in the North Texas sunshine, waiting for our return before the repairs can proceed.

I'm not impressed by Safelite so far.  We'll see whether they can regain my trust and my future business, or whether it will be better to look elsewhere.

Peter

More adventures in the medical world, and some light relief

 

You'll recall my adventures with medical bureaucracy last month.  My pain management specialist very kindly agreed to prescribe another myelogram for me.  The first appointment was canceled on the morning of the procedure by the hospital, because they "had the wrong paperwork" and couldn't proceed without correction.  Turns out the problem was one single word that had not been inserted into the relevant form:  and without that one single word, everything ground to a halt.  At any rate, the missing word was duly provided, and a new appointment was made.  This morning it's off I go to the hospital again for another lumbar puncture, a CT scan, and sundry X-rays.  Hopefully this will be enough to persuade the medical bureaucracy to let me proceed to the next step.

(Why is it that medical bureaucrats and departments can't talk to each other?  I've already electronically checked in to the hospital, and provided my co-payment, and confirmed date and time.  Despite that, I received no less than five e-mails, text messages and phone calls, all reminding me to be at the hospital on time, and do all the pre-procedure processing I've already done.  Do these people have nothing better to do but to waste their patients' time with all this duplication of effort?  And what does it add to our costs as patients to have to pay for it all?)

I'm thoroughly frustrated with the hospital before I even show up there.  To cheer me up, and spare you from listening to my complaints, here's some light relief from Stephan Pastis.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.

And, to compare and contrast two of our largest states:

There.  A midweek humor break to relax me before getting poked, prodded and photographed, inside and out.

Peter

Not your average pizza joint

 

Foxes In Love strikes again!  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the cartoon's Web page.

In my younger days (much younger...) I can recall competing with my squad mates to see which of us could come up with the most revolting combination of pizza toppings.  Needless to say, we never actually ordered them, but it had its lighter moments.  Limburger and pufferfish, anyone?

Peter

Adventures with medical bureaucracy

 

Last Friday I mentioned that my blog post that day would be abbreviated due to a medical appointment.  I duly attended it, and it accomplished what I wanted.  I asked about alternative neurosurgical practices, since I'm not happy with the one I've been using, and the doctor referred me to another neurosurgeon in Dallas for further investigation.  (It seems the problem is to decide precisely what surgery I need:  to fuse two or three more vertebrae in addition to the existing pair, or to remove the latter and encase my entire lumbar spine in a sort of metal cage to stabilize the whole area.  There appears to be serious disagreement over which approach would work best, so I've asked for a second opinion from a more professional professional, if you know what I mean.)

So far, so good . . . but then I called the new doctor's office to set up the appointment.  The conversation went something like this.

Me:  I've been referred to Dr. X for further investigation of my spine injury.  You should have been sent my medical history, copies of X-rays and myelograms, and all that stuff.

Doctor's nurse:  Let me check . . . Yes, we have those.  You'll have to get another myelogram, though, because the previous one was done more than six months ago.  Dr. X won't see you until the new results are available.

Me:  Er . . . this is a problem.  A myelogram is a very expensive and complex procedure.  I can't just ask for it as a private patient:  I have to be referred for it by a doctor.  However, if Dr. X won't see me, he can't issue the referral;  and my local general practitioner certainly can't do so, because it's a specialist procedure.  I can't ask for a referral from my previous neurosurgeons, because I'm moving on from them.  What now?

Doctor's nurse:  I'm afraid that's Dr. X's protocol.  He won't see you without an updated myelogram.

Me:  Well, his protocol has just run headlong into medical bureaucrats, and I'm pretty sure they're going to win.  You're asking me to do the impossible.

Doctor's nurse:  I'm sorry, but my hands are tied.  You're going to have to find some other way to get that myelogram.

Me:  Hangs up, bites tongue, bangs head against brick wall, etc.

I checked with my general practitioner, and sure enough, they can't refer me for a myelogram because it's a specialist procedure, outside their area of competence.  The neurosurgery practice that ordered the previous myelogram has no good reason to order another one.  After all, I'm going to see one of their competitors for a second opinion,  so they'll expect the new doctor to prescribe whatever tests he thinks are necessary.  They're not going to do it for him.

"Laugh!", they said.  "Things could be worse!"  So I did.  And they were.

Oh, well.  This, too, shall pass . . . I just need the administrative equivalent of an enema for the bureaucrats, to make sure it does!

Peter

Another perspective on the latest Trump assassination attempt

 

A little late, perhaps, but worth repeating nonetheless.  From Peter Girnus, "a senior coordinating producer for the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner".

I was backstage at the Washington Hilton when the shots were fired.

The first thing I heard was not the gunfire. It was glass.

A champagne flute hit the floor of the International Ballroom at approximately 9:47 PM. Then a second. Then the sound that I have since been told was a 12-gauge shotgun, which from inside the ballroom sounded like a heavy door slamming in a parking garage. Then the Secret Service moved. They moved the President, the Vice President, the First Lady through the east corridor in under ninety seconds, which is protocol, which is practiced, which is the one part of the evening that worked exactly as it was designed.

Everything else was improvised.

I know this because I ordered the wine. 94 tables. Two bottles per table. 188 bottles of a Willamette Valley pinot noir that the Association selected in February after a tasting committee spent three meetings debating between Oregon and Burgundy. Oregon won. The budget was $14,200. I signed the invoice. I can tell you the vintage. I can tell you the distributor. I can tell you the per-bottle cost because I negotiated it down from $89 to $76.

What I cannot tell you is how 147 of those bottles left the building during an active shooter evacuation.

I can tell you what I saw. A correspondent from a network I will not name picked up two bottles on her way to the east exit. Full bottles. One in each hand. She was wearing heels and she did not spill. A man in a tuxedo tucked one inside his jacket the way you'd shoplift a paperback at an airport bookstore. A woman picked up a bottle, looked at the label, put it back, and took a different one.

She checked the vintage. During an evacuation. That's editorial judgment under pressure.

. . .

2,600 guests were directed to the exits by Secret Service agents, one of whom had just taken a shotgun round in his ballistic vest and walked to the ambulance on his own feet.

The agent's vest costs approximately $800. The wine that left the building was worth $11,172 at Association cost. At restaurant markup, roughly $29,000. The guests saved more in wine than the vest that saved the agent.

That's priority.

. . .

I have produced eleven of these dinners ... I have never, in eleven years, seen a guest leave a $76 bottle on the table during an evacuation. I have also never seen a guest check the label first. Both observations are consistent. The bottle is worth taking. The evacuation is worth surviving. The instinct is to do both simultaneously.

188 bottles placed. 41 recovered. 147 unaccounted for. One agent shot. Zero guests injured. Zero bottles broken.

A free press for a free people. The press is free. The wine was $76 a bottle. They took it anyway.

There's more at the link.

Mr. Girnus' post on X (formerly Twitter) has so far attracted over 4,000 replies and comments.  Click over there to read them if you're interested.  I particularly liked his reply to one comment:

They took the wine at a pace that suggested familiarity with hotel evacuation corridors. That's not elite behavior. That's logistics under pressure. I've seen worse at a Marriott fire alarm in Phoenix.

Word!

Needless to say, my opinion of most alleged journalists has not been improved by this fiasco . . .

Peter

So much for the work ethic

 

I was both sympathetic and very annoyed to read a woman's account of how she set about demonstrating that her job was meaningless.

It was around then, as the company went through various rounds of restructuring, that I developed a nagging suspicion that my role was irrelevant and futile ... No one – my new manager included – really knew what my role was meant to entail. I looked at what I was doing day to day, hour to hour, and looked at what everyone else was doing, and it all started to feel like a convoluted farce.

So, I decided to conduct an experiment. Out of protest, I resolved to stop working and to see how long it would be before anyone noticed.

. . .

This was in the era before working from home, so I knew I’d have to go to my office each day and at least appear to be working.

I quickly realised, though, that there is no greater ruse in a modern office than the spreadsheet.

People walk past, see all that small text and columns, and just assume you’re working. What was I actually doing? Meticulously planning 10 months of travel: day-by-day itineraries, budgets, where we’d stay, what trains to get, things to see. My now-husband and I had always planned to travel; I was simply using company hours to prepare for it.

Of course this involved a lot of Googling, so I always had a page that looked like work ready, so that I could minimise my travel research quickly. I’d angled my monitor, but I was lucky to be sat in front of a window, away from any footfall, so it was rare that anyone saw my screen.

To leave a paper trail – so that if anyone asked, I could point to tasks I’d completed – I’d send a couple of emails during the week. I’d pad the basic questions about some account or other out with extra thoughts, so that it seemed like I’d considered the subject at length. Sometimes I’d create a document based on whatever was exchanged in the email. Other times, I might even turn the email contents into a PowerPoint presentation. With about 15 minutes of effort, I would have earned my crust.

If I hadn’t done even that, half an hour before my weekly one-to-ones with my manager I would spend 15 minutes knocking up a page of something, typically a presentation with figures I knew he wouldn’t bother to follow-up on. Then I’d deliver my updates in a convincing tone, using the appropriate buzz phrases. “I’m making great progress... the stakeholders are on board…”

My manager would nod: “That all sounds great! Carry on.”

In that way, I did no work for an entire year. The experiment ended not because anyone exposed my idling, but because I finally left.

There's more at the link.

She doesn't appear to have worried at all that it might be unethical to take an honest day's wage for a dis-honest day's work.  That was the infuriating part.  On the other hand, there was also sympathy for working in such a meaningless, dead-end environment (which I experienced more than once during my years in the business world - not to mention the military).  On average, I'd say that the companies and institutions where I worked probably had a good 30% of staff who were basically redundant, hindering the company rather than helping it, soaking up resources that could have been better applied elsewhere.

I remember when Elon Musk took over Twitter.  I understand he shed about 80% of its workforce, some through being dismissed, others through encouraging them to leave through buyout offers, and not a few resigning in outrage that the left-wing ethos of the company was being stripped away.  For a couple of years Twitter was in financial difficulties, but it bounced right back, and is currently profitable - but still a much smaller company in terms of headcount.  What were those people doing who were removed?  How could Twitter have justified keeping them on the payroll when clearly it could have functioned - and is now functioning - just fine without them?

I suppose part of the problem is that too much of one's corporate status is dependent on how many people and/or functions report to you.  The more people a given level of management supervises, the more senior it's deemed to be, and the greater the rewards and incentives offered to its manager(s) to hire even more and expand even further.  Very few companies seem to value managers who reduce headcount and economize on corporate resources.

On the other hand, small companies seem much more focused on their purpose.  Every employee has to contribute measurably to their success, financially or otherwise.  If someone's a freeloader, he or she will be identified much more quickly as such, and probably shown the door within a matter of weeks.  That's as it should be.  A small company doesn't have the accumulated resources to carry unnecessary bodies with it.  It has to be lean, mean and economical, because its proprietor's income is utterly dependent on himself and his small group of workers.  Any loss of focus will cost money out of his pocket - a very good incentive to keep a tight rein on outflows.

I guess there are too many companies who end up with employees like the author above, but tolerate them for all the wrong reasons.  We really need to have concrete, specific ways to evaluate how every job contributes to the mission of the company/department/etc.  If your output can't be measured, how do you know you're doing something worthwhile?  And how do you know that about those who work for you?

Peter

Stand by for the next Shifta War...

 

I note that the Kenya-Somalia border is to be reopened.

Kenya's border with Somalia will re-open in April almost 15 years after it shut because of attacks by Islamist militant group al-Shabab, President William Ruto has announced.

Based in Somalia, the group has masterminded a series of deadly assaults in Kenya including one on a shopping centre in the capital, Nairobi, killing 67 people in 2013 and one at a university in Garissa two years later killing 148.

The plan has been announced before, in 2023, but further attacks postponed the arrangements.

Ruto said the intention to re-open two crossings follows years of security assessments, adding that there will be a heavy deployment of security forces to ensure the move does not compromise safety.

There's more at the link.

I think this is a terrible idea.  That part of Africa - northern Kenya, eastern and northern Uganda, southern Sudan, Ethiopia, and of course Somalia - has been home to the so-called Shifta bandits for generations (of whom Al Shabab is nothing more or less than a recent reinvention of the wheel, with a religious gloss overlaid on their traditional barbarism).  The current disastrous situation - almost a genocide - in southern Sudan is just the latest atrocity in a region that's been soaked in blood for centuries.  It's family against family, clan against clan, tribe against tribe.  The so-called Shifta War was fought there in the 1960's, and despite "official" peace agreements, has never really stopped.

I spent time in the area many years ago, trying to arrange mission convoys for various church groups, getting food and medical aid to mission stations that desperately needed it.  I think my convoys were the only ones that usually got through, because I made sure to hire the meanest, most vicious Shifta bandits I could find as convoy guards against their fellow scumbags.  They would be well paid, but only after the convoy got through and returned safely.  Things got "sporty" on occasion, but my guards usually justified their cost and then some.  Sadly, some mission groups decided that my methods were insufficiently Christian, and had to stop.  (It's odd that most of their aid convoys never made it more than a few miles from their depots before being raided and robbed blind.  They were regarded as "soft targets".  My convoys were not!  I think they felt I was making them look bad to their NGO sponsors.)

There are many other places like this around the world.  Western news media seldom have anything worthwhile to say about them.  They quote government ministers or spokesmen who proclaim that everything is sweetness and light, while on the ground it's "the strong survive" and devil take the hindmost.  Shifta country is one of the worst . . . and now they want to reopen a border between two of the worst-affected parts of Shifta country.

I already know what the result is going to be.

Peter

The danger of unrealized tax gain

 

Fellow blogger Mr. Garabaldi, writing at My Daily Kona, warns of the real dangers of so-called "unrealized tax gains".  We're seeing this pop up in almost every progressive, left-wing-oriented government and political party.  They want to tax you on any gain in value of any property you own, whether or not you've cashed in that value by selling it.

You buy a Pokémon card for $50.

Someone offers you $500 for it. You say no. You love that card. You're keeping it.

The government says: "Cool, but that card is worth $500 now. You owe us $100 in taxes."

You: "…I didn't sell it."

Government: "Don't care. Pay up."

You don't have $100 lying around. So you're forced to sell the card you love just to pay a tax on money you never received.

Next month? That card drops back to $50.

Your card is gone. Your money is gone. And the government shrugs.

That's a wealth tax on unrealized gains. They don't pay you back the tax...

There's more at the link, including more examples.  Recommended reading.

What this is, of course, is an all-out drive to reduce or even eliminate private property, by forcing us to rent what we use, or rely on government to provide it, because it's no longer affordable to buy it.  It's a growing movement, particularly in Europe, but also in progressive-left states in the USA like California.  Essentially, it embodies the World Economic Forum's oft-repeated mantra that "You'll own nothing and be happy".  Personally, I can't think of many things that would make me more unhappy than that!

Peter

"Pay up, peasant! Your betters need your taxes!"

 

Has any city made you feel really unwelcome?  I submit this booking from a New York City hotel certainly does that for me.

What's next - a charge for breathing city air?  Another tax for using water to flush the toilet?  One gets the feeling one is being financially raped to benefit the city.  In that case, why go there at all?

Ye Gods and little fishes . . .

Peter

Taxes in California

 

Yesterday reader Paul M. made this comment on Larry Lambert's blog.  He's referring to California taxes.

‘Tax us to death’…saw this:

Payroll taxes, Building Permit Tax
, CDL license Tax
, Cigarette Tax
, Corporate Income Tax
, Dog License Tax, 
Federal Income Tax
, Federal Unemployment Tax, Fishing License Tax
, Food License Tax
, Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
, Gross Receipts Tax
, Hunting License Tax, 
Inheritance Tax
, Liquor Tax
, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax
, Medicare Tax
, Personal Property Tax
, Property Tax, 
Real Estate Tax
, Road Usage Tax
, Recreational Vehicle Tax
, Sales Tax
, School Tax, Social Security Tax
, State Income Tax
, State Unemployment Tax, Telephone Federal Excise Tax
, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes, 
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, 
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
, Telephone State and Local Tax
, Telephone Usage Charge Tax
, Utility Taxes
, Vehicle License Registration Tax
, Vehicle Sales Tax
, Watercraft Registration Tax
, Well Permit Tax
, Workers Compensation Tax.

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

When you lay it all out like that, it's a breathtaking tax burden, isn't it?  That list isn't even comprehensive:  it doesn't include firearms taxes, ammunition taxes, and regulatory fees for this, that and everything else.  Now they want to add a wealth tax on top of it all!  They say it'll be a one-time tax, but if you believe that . . .

I wondered for a brief moment why any sane California taxpayer would vote for a government that robs them blind like that, but then I realized that most sane California taxpayers probably don't vote for those measures.  Taxpayers who've drunk the liberal/progressive Kool-Aid do;  but they're not the biggest margin of support.  The people who don't have to pay those taxes, but who benefit from the money they bring in, are mostly the ones who vote for them (and the politicians who impose them).

Peter

A criminal investigation I'd like to see to start 2026 on the right note

 

This headline yesterday boggled my mind.

DOJ's Inventory Of Unreleased Epstein Files Soars To 5.2 Million Pages

Remember February 2025?

Today, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, in conjunction with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), declassified and publicly released files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his sexual exploitation of over 250 underage girls at his homes in New York and Florida, among other locations ... Attorney General Bondi requested the full and complete files related to Jeffrey Epstein. In response, the Department received approximately 200 pages of documents...

I don't know what bureaucratic battles Attorney General Bondi has had to fight with an entrenched anti-Trump Justice Department and a Deep State dedicated to fighting him and his minions at every turn.  Her public statements have all been along the lines that she's going to (and wants to) release all the relevant documents.  She may be the victim of bureaucratic sabotage, more sinned against than sinning . . . but her public image has become one of ineptitude, incompetence and waffling.

Who hid the existence of so many documents from her, and why?  Where were they kept, and why were they not catalogued in the FBI's systems so that they could be readily made available?  Why have we found out about them only in dribs and drabs, never all at once so that we knew the scale of the problem?  In particular, why has it taken almost a year to uncover the existence of this latest, massive "document drop"?

I understand that most, if not all, of these documents are coming out of the Justice Department's Southern District of New York.  If that's the case:

• Who was/is responsible for reporting their existence when the Attorney General of the USA demanded that information?
• Who has signally failed in their duty to obey the orders of their ultimate superior and deliver the documents in a timely and usable fashion?
• Why has he/she/they not been at least administratively disciplined, if not criminally charged, for their dereliction of duty?  And why has the Southern District not been cleaned out wholesale, top to bottom, and more reliable personnel appointed to it?  If a major division of a large private corporation had behaved in this fashion, you may be sure heads would have rolled a long time ago!

Attorney General Bondi's credibility has been severely affected by failures to charge various individuals and address known issues over the past year.  The latest development over the Epstein documents threatens to completely derail her government career.  She may become poisonous to the political touch for her supporters.

WHY IS NOTHING BEING VISIBLY, IMMEDIATELY DONE, OPENLY AND WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION, TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE ONCE AND FOR ALL?

One hopes the President will act swiftly to address the matter.  These problems are doing him no favors at all, and are tarnishing his administration as a whole.  What's more, many of us who supported him want - demand - answers now.  We're tired of waiting, and see no good reason why we should wait.  If there's nothing to hide, why is it being so carefully - and so successfully - hidden?

Peter

Bloody cheek!

 

If Greenpeace wanted to make at least half of America fighting mad, it's chosen a good way to go about it.

A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group’s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. Energy Transfer is asking the North Dakota Supreme Court to block the activist group’s attempt to end-run the U.S. legal system. If Greenpeace’s efforts succeed, they would harm much more than the pipeline company. They’d open the door for activists to torpedo other American critical infrastructure projects under European law.

. . .

The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation. The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.

Greenpeace’s case isn’t an ordinary appeal, in which a party asks a higher court to review a lower court’s application of the law. Rather, Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to reassess the merits of the North Dakota case under Europe’s sweeping anti-Slapp directive. The case marks the first attempt to apply the law “extraterritorially” to stymie a lawsuit brought in a country outside the European Union.

If the European directive achieves this reach, it would extend the EU’s regulatory imperialism to the political and social spheres where Europe and America follow starkly different legal norms: In a nutshell, Europe’s speech rules are based on values, while America’s are based on rights.

. . .

Under the EU directive, courts can award damages to parties that have been subjected to “abusive court proceedings,” including those involving “an imbalance of power between the parties” or “excessive” claims.

Greenpeace claims in the Dutch lawsuit that the financial resources of Energy Transfer constitute an “obvious” imbalance of power and that the company’s demands for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages are “clearly excessive.” But the rule of law is based on whether the parties acted within their legal rights, not on whether they happen to run a successful business like Energy Transfer that is seriously affected by a shutdown in operations. If Greenpeace succeeds, expect other activist organizations to incorporate in Europe so they can wiggle out of liability by invoking the EU’s loosely drawn “abusive court proceeding” standard against U.S. companies.

There's more at the link.

I don't know whether the European Union envisaged its anti-SLAPP law being used in this way, to undercut and nullify the duly constituted courts and legal system of a nation that's not a member of the Union.  Nevertheless, it was worded loosely enough that Greenpeace sought to take advantage of it.

What happens if the Dutch court rules in Greenpeace's favor?  For a start, no US court will issue an order making the Dutch ruling binding under US law.  That right does not exist in terms of our constitution.  So, let's say the US court goes ahead with its proposed ruling, and orders Greenpeace to pay damages.  What if Greenpeace refuses, citing the Dutch court's ruling?  If the US government sues them in a US court to recover the money, they'll simply file another Dutch lawsuit in retaliation.  If the US does nothing, our laws will quite obviously no longer be adequate protection for our constitutionally enshrined property rights - and that will open the door to a Pandora's box of litigation, countersuit and wealthy lawyers.  What if the US tries to sue Greenpeace in a European court?  What if the latter rules that the US has no standing to do so, not being a member of the EU?

This is an appallingly complex can of worms.  What it might lead to is anybody's guess.  However, one thing I'm sure of:  from now on, if I come across anything Greenpeace wants, or motivates, or works towards, I'm going to oppose it.  I'll even donate to their opponents, whether or not I agree with their perspective.  Try to thwart our laws, would they, without so much as a "By your leave" to the American people?  To hell with them!

Delenda est Greenpeace!

Peter

Electoral fraud that preceded the election: hijacking the 2020 census

 

It seems that the 2020 census deliberately mis-apportioned state populations, which in turn led to mis-allocation of electoral seats per state.  Nice when you can fix the results before the election even begins!

Redistricting is a sum of blocks. Distort the blocks, and you distort the districts, the legislatures, and the House. This practice is not merely bad policy; it is plainly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Department of Commerce v. House of Representatives (1999) made clear that statistical sampling for apportionment is illegal on statutory grounds. Abowd’s algorithmic manipulation is statistical sampling by another name, an unlawful substitution of estimated data for an actual enumeration required by the Constitution.

The proof arrived in March and May of 2022 when the Bureau’s own quality checks exposed a lopsided pattern. Fourteen states had statistically significant coverage errors, eight with overcounts and six with undercounts. The tilt was unmistakable. Democratic-leaning states were widely overcounted. Republican-leaning states were widely undercounted. Florida’s undercount was roughly three quarters of a million people. Texas’s undercount was on the order of a half million. Minnesota and Rhode Island kept seats they would have lost under an accurate count. Colorado gained a seat it did not deserve. Florida and Texas each missed multiple seats they should have gained. Analysts estimate the net effect was a shift of nine House seats away from Republican-leaning states and toward Democratic-leaning states. The Electoral College moved with them. More than $86 billion in federal formula funds followed.

. . .

The stakes are immense. The Census Bureau’s operations across a decade cost taxpayers on the order of $25 billion. Citizens paid for accurate data and received a noisy approximation that tilted representation and shifted money. Republican states are projected to lose almost $90 billion in federal funds across the decade as a result of the miscounts. Democratic states are projected to gain $57 billion. This is not a rounding error. It is a reweighting of national political power and public finance by mathematical fiat.

There's much more at the link.  It provides graphic evidence of what I can only presume is Deep State manipulation of our electoral machinery, to give their approved candidates and causes a built-in advantage even before a single vote is cast.  That situation still exists, and will govern national elections for the next half-decade or more until a new census can re-calculate our population and fairly apportion its distribution.  It means President Trump is fighting a built-in, institutionalized disadvantage in every election he and his party fight.

Food for thought.  Remember to get out and vote today!

Peter

President Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize

 

I've been getting awfully fed up with the brouhaha over whether President Trump should/should have/ever will win the Nobel Peace Prize.

In the first place, previous winners of the Prize have comprehensively dishonored and discredited it merely due to their inclusion on the winners' roster.  Lawdog puts this nicely in perspective, so I won't repeat the details here.

My main objection is simply that the Nobel committee has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they're merely a collection of politically correct idiots.  I remember how disgusted I was when former President Obama received the award.  He had done (and has never done) anything even remotely justifying his receiving it.  He was (and remains) a political hack, a tool in the hands of those manipulating him, and they never allowed him to achieve anything positive.  It was a cretinous move to award him the Peace Prize, because anyone with a couple of working brain cells to rub together could figure that out for themselves;  and if he had any personal integrity at all, he should have refused the Prize, to demonstrate that he wasn't completely a puppet of outside forces.

Since his acceptance of the Peace Prize, it's been irredeemably dishonored in my eyes, and in the eyes of many around the world.  I don't want President Trump to be awarded the Peace Prize, and if he is, I want him to refuse to accept it.  Why would anyone with any self-respect want to be numbered among a bunch of losers like that?

Peter

Yet again, grievous moral sin hides behind legal smokescreens to avoid responsibility

 

Regular readers will know of my own struggle with the clergy sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.  I've documented it in some detail (see the sidebar for links).

Now comes news that the Catholic Church has once again chosen to behave like a business organization rather than as the Body of Christ on earth, as it is called to be.

On October 1, 2020, with sexual abuse lawsuits piling up, the Rockville Centre diocese filed a “voluntary petition for reorganization” under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

“This decision was not made lightly,” said Bishop John O. Barres in a statement at the time. And perhaps that is true. But as a legal strategy it was a no-brainer, since its primary effect was to undermine the purpose of the Child Victims Act. Bankruptcy gave the diocese the upper hand, while the victims became creditors who will be lucky to get a fraction of what a jury might have awarded them.

As of July, 41 Catholic dioceses and religious orders have used Chapter 11 filings to deal with the decades of horrific crimes committed by thousands of priests. Those filings have stopped lawsuits in their tracks and forced victims to accept pennies on the dollar, a Free Press investigation has revealed. To put it bluntly, long after the Church looked the other way at clergy sexual abuse, it has now found another way to deprive the victims of justice: the bankruptcy courts.

It has long been standard practice for companies facing massive numbers of lawsuits—for manufacturing asbestos, say, or marketing OxyContin—to file for bankruptcy. A Chapter 11 filing does not require companies to be insolvent; they simply need to show “financial distress,” allowing them to restructure their debts while continuing to operate.

Chapter 11 shuts down all litigation, halting discovery, the process by which litigants gather documents and witness testimony to support their claims. It prevents additional lawsuits from being filed. It eliminates jury trials and instead shifts the ongoing cases to federal bankruptcy court, where any settlement requires a process of mediation between the bankrupt company’s lawyers and lawyers for the creditors. That mediation often takes years. Although additional claims can be made, they too are routed to the bankruptcy court, where claimants fill out standard claim forms rather than filing lawsuits.

Early on, said Marci Hamilton, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania who represented abuse victims in many early clergy sex abuse cases, dioceses used some unorthodox defenses to wriggle out of their obligations to sexual abuse victims. “They argued that it was unconstitutional for them to have to provide discovery,” she recalled. “It was unconstitutional to interfere with any kind of exchange between a bishop and a priest. They called it the formation privilege. And they argued that you couldn’t punish them for doing nothing but forgiving. Because forgiveness was what their faith required.”

In court, recalled Hamilton, “I dismantled all those arguments.”

But when states began passing laws like the Child Victims Act—ultimately, 21 did so, as did the District of Columbia—many dioceses decided that their best course of action was to adopt the bankruptcy playbook.

“It was a brilliant tactic because the bankruptcy system makes it about saving the debtor,” Hamilton said. “So they were able to flip the lawsuits from the victims being at the center of it, to them being at the center. And the victims just became collateral damage.”

In New York alone, nearly 5,000 people claiming to have been abused by clergy or staff came forward during the two-year exemption period from the statute of limitations. In September 2019, just one month after abuse victims were allowed to file lawsuits, the Rochester diocese sought Chapter 11 protection. Rockville Centre was second. Overall, six of the state’s eight dioceses have filed for bankruptcy. (The only ones that haven’t are the Archdiocese of New York, based in Manhattan, and the Diocese of Brooklyn.)

“Bankruptcy eviscerates the whole architecture for ferreting out the truth,” Paul Mones, a plaintiff’s lawyer who has represented dozens of victims in Rockville Centre diocese cases, told me. “By removing cases from the civil justice system, there is no cross-examination of church hierarchy, and all the ways to tease out the injurious behavior of church abusers gets whitewashed. It’s all about how much money the entity has to distribute, and nothing else. Lawyers are reduced to being financial managers.”

There's more at the link.

I think this is utterly horrendous in moral terms.  The Church claims to be the Body of Christ, yet uses completely non-Christian secular tactics to avoid accepting responsibility for the damage it has done to so many people.  Personally, I don't care if bankruptcies were to reduce the Church to meeting in private homes and hired halls, giving up all its luxurious properties and accumulated assets.  Isn't that what the early Church did?  Isn't that how it took root and grew?  However, the Church has become utterly focused on itself as a business.  Its bishops (and, to a certain extent, their subordinate clergy) see themselves as "defending the Church against secular attack" when, in fact, they are focused on defending the Church's assets - not its teachings, not its eternal mission, and most certainly not the victims of evil acts on the part of some few of its ministers and other members.

Every time I read reports such as this, I quail inwardly.  Every Catholic - every Christian - knows the judgment that awaits all of us, when we must give account of our lives to the Righteous Judge.  How is it even possible to think of justifying such attitudes and actions to Jesus Christ?  "Oh, I saved your Church a few million dollars, by denying justice to a few of its victims."  How many bishops and priests dare to think of trying to excuse that to the Christ who said, "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

I have committed many sins in my life, and I'll have to accept responsibility for them when my turn comes to face the Judgment . . . but I do most sincerely thank God that I won't have to account for that sort of sin.  The thought of trying to plea-bargain my way out of that is just too ghastly to contemplate - and, absent the most radical repentance and conversion, I doubt very much that it will succeed.

Peter