Executive order time!

Last Friday's overturning of Roe v. Wade and the failure of Congress and the Biden regime to rectify Friday's decision is further proof that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can be trusted. More and more evidence of this has been piling up regarding other issues lately. For example, President Biden recently appointed an advocate of cutting and privatizing Social Security to the Social Security Advisory Board. But it seemed like a goal of protecting Roe v. Wade was the only thing the Democrats still had going for them – and now they've blown that too.

The Democratic-led Congress recently had a chance to codify Roe v. Wade by passing a new federal statute. Yet somehow they failed to pass this bill.

Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision, and – like it or not - the legal basis for the 1973 ruling is pretty solid. Roe v. Wade is predicated on the Constitution's right to privacy – a right that should be unassailable. Not everyone liked Roe v. Wade, but the legal reasoning for the ruling is ironclad.

Because Congress has failed to do its job and has not codified Roe v. Wade, can the President do anything? You bet! Odds are that he won't, but he surely can.

In the early 1960s, civil rights activists rightly urged President John F. Kennedy to issue an executive order to ensure that public accommodations could not discriminate on the basis of race. They said such an order would simply enforce protections that already appeared in the Constitution. In fact, Kennedy did issue Executive Order 10925, which said government contractors could not engage in racial discrimination.

An executive order to uphold Roe v. Wade would simply enforce constitutional protections that are supposed to already exist. For as long as anyone can remember, overturning Roe v. Wade was a goal of many abortion rights foes, so I'm sure abortion rights supporters had already drafted what an executive order might say in case it was overturned.

So why hasn't Biden issued an executive order? If I was President, I would have had one ready by the end of last Friday.

Over the past couple years, we've seen that unelected agencies – including some that are part of the Biden administration - think they can issue orders to enforce laws that do not even exist. So why won't an elected President issue an order to uphold the Constitution's right to privacy, which actually does exist?

Now it's clear that the Democrats are going to fight as hard to protect Roe v. Wade as they have for civil liberties in general, education, peace, a living wage, and single payer healthcare. In other words, they won't fight for it at all. An online comment said the Democrats' electoral strategy is to let bad things happen, campaign on fear of worse things happening, let worse things happen, campaign on fear of even worse things happening, let even worse things happen, and so on. Lately, the Democrats have directly instituted some of the worst things themselves. The main point is that the Democrats are already raising money off of Roe v. Wade being overturned. They let it happen and not be rectified, and now they're fundraising off of it. They failed, yet they want to be rewarded for it.

The reason the Democrats haven't codified Roe v. Wade is that they'd no longer have anything to run on.

More people are now seeing this for the con that it is, but the major parties are such cults that it has taken much too long for most folks to realize what a grift they are.

Meanwhile, Biden has now made a deal with Republicans to appoint a right-wing lawyer who defended a highly questionable Kentucky anti-abortion law to a federal judgeship.

Putting the wind in the Windy City!

Some of you may know that I went to the Chicago roadmeet over the weekend.

Some of you may also know that bunker blasts are uproarious beyond all description.

To the surprise of nobody, several air biscuits were detected throughout my trip. But I also plan on putting out the next ish of The Last Word soon, and perhaps it shall include more detail of these hilarious trouser sneezes!

Needless to say, Greyhound bungled things as it always does, but what's a mere mortal to do? Stink?

Dear Supreme Court

Not your call.

The end.

Heroes or zeros: you decide!

I'd like to introduce you to a character we call the outlaw hero.

Some popular culture in my day prominently featured outlaw heroes. Some of the things they did might have been slightly outside what the law would permit, but they at least had a strong sense of what was ethically right or wrong. They often fought against a corrupt official regime. In that universe, the outlaw heroes were the good guys, and the public officials they fought were the bad guys.

People sometimes do things that at first appear to be bad, but some say we just don't know the whole story. On April 7, 2020 – when we were deep in the throes of pandemic martial law – I saw a woman and teenage girl shoplift orange juice from Circle K. I wrote a little vignette about the event for The Last Word, and I put out a short text blast making light of this episode. But I received several replies on Facebook saying the shoplifters may have actually been not villains, but heroes. What if this was a family down on their luck – with their livelihoods destroyed - and they needed nourishment for themselves or a very ill family member? I know losses from shoplifting add up, but what if the teenager – who would have died without proper nutrition - someday becomes a great doctor who finds a cure for cancer?

I know there's a lot of "what ifs" about a lot of events. What if I grew up just a few miles away from where I did, placing me in a better school district? What if I never accidentally discovered WCLU? What if Ronald Reagan never got elected?

On the other hand, even if the shoplifters were suffering hard financial times, was Circle K really the right target? That's like if your boss doesn't pay you, so you go out and rob a bank. The wrong party is being punished.

Or is it? Are we thinking of Circle K as a person or a large corporation? Since it's the latter, is it part of the same system that has subjected the public to economic ruin? Is Circle K powerful enough that it could have helped prevent the collapse of our economy? In 2020, I was unaware that Circle K had been the defendant in at least 2 wage theft suits over the previous few years, but corporations in general commandeer much of our political and economic system.

Many Americans admired the gangsters of the 1930s, thinking they were just fighting the forces that caused the Great Depression. Actually, most of these gangsters were dangerous criminals who would gun down anyone who got in their way. But real outlaw heroes are not violent gangsters. They have standards that reflect solid ethical values.

Do small-time shoplifters and their ilk possess a sly, mischievous charm that makes them true freedom fighters who challenge the system's impenetrable corruption? Or are they just plain old criminals who are worthy of being shunned? You be the judge!

Oscar appeared on 'Hee Haw' ('Sesame Street' Wednesday)

You probably thought 'Sesame Street' was 'Sesame Street' and 'Hee Haw' was 'Hee Haw'. In other words, the 'Sesame Street' universe was completely independent of the 'Hee Haw' universe.

But did you know that back in 1981, Oscar the Grouch appeared on 'Hee Haw'?



"Hey folks! It's Oscar the Grouch from 'Sesame Street'!" As if there's an Oscar the Grouch from '60 Minutes'?

The ol' Osk is cool!

Insurance racket discriminates against renters (a blast from the past)

This is a story we've had backlogged since 2016, but do you think things have gotten any better since then? Spoiler: they haven't.

A report by the Consumer Federation of America revealed that people who rent their home pay up to 47% more for car insurance than homeowners. The study covered 10 American cities.

This analysis used a persona to obtain insurance quotes from several major car insurers. It discovered that renters paid an average of 6% more for basic liability coverage than homeowners. And that includes data from Oakland, which was governed by a California law that was supposed to ban insurers from using homeownership as a factor in determining the cost of auto insurance. In the 9 cities besides Oakland, Liberty Mutual charged an average of 19% more to renters. Allstate increased rates 19% for renters in Tampa. And in Louisville, Farmers increased rates by a staggering 47%.

This is of course a form of classism. I don't even need to tell you that part. And there's no evidence that any state has done a damn thing to rein it in since then. You can bet your bizcream that – if anything – states have actually dug in on enforcing insurance mandates, especially against the working class. I damn sure haven't seen any sign that they've done anything to stop renters from being charged higher rates.

In fact, I think it's classism for the sake of classism. Insurers discriminate just because they feel like it – not because they actually believe that any data justifies it.

Inequitable transportation can kill

It's mind-blowing not only how much America's passenger transportation system has declined but also how little you hear about it.

In just the past few months, I've learned more and more about how deep the conspiracy runs, and how much our schools, legal establishment, and others have connived to worsen the inequity that plagues not just schools but also transportation. In most of America, there used to be better access to local and intercity mass transit. But while this access has declined, the financial and other investments needed for personal vehicles has soared. It's not just the skyrocketing gas prices (which the government won't do shit about) but other factors too.

With personal cars out of reach for more and more, our rulers should at least do more to serve people who use mass transit. And it should be done so in a way that is equitable.

This is underscored by a story from suburban Buffalo some years back. A Buffalo area mall did not allow buses from predominantly Black neighborhoods to drop off passengers there. Because of this, a woman who worked at the mall couldn't take a bus, and ended up being struck and killed by a dump truck on her way to work. This resulted in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the mall – and the mall rightly lost. The woman's 4-year-old son received that money.

Believe it or not, the accident occurred not in the Jim Crow era, but in 1995. And access to transportation has declined even more since then.

We knew before then that America's overlords are experienced at classism and credentialism. But this story proved they're guilty of racism as well. Next time someone accuses you of being a "class reductionist" who doesn't care about racism, sexism, or any form of discrimination other than classism, notice how little they've done to fight racism. In 1995, I tried hard to alert readers to stories of injustice of all forms, and it got me expelled from college and later arrested. What were shitlibs doing in 1995?

Teacher throws hockey stick at student

I've written about abuse like this for decades, and everyone just denies it. Frankly, I'm sick of this shit. But this time, it was caught on video.

In Princeton, Minnesota, back in March, a teacher threw a hockey stick at a 2nd grade student. The hockey stick hit the boy in the face and knocked out a tooth.

The assault has now come to light as the school district has been trying to get the community to rally around the teacher. The teacher was apparently forced into retirement, but the district posted a congratulatory message on Facebook. Furthermore, the school failed to make a police report, and there has been no criminal investigation.

Abuse by a school employee...check. School district trying to rally support for the offending teacher...check. Lack of police investigation...check. The only thing that's changed in 40 years is that now it's caught on video. And that still didn't change the outcome.

Big South Forkyyyyy...

Although rain tried to destruct my April trip to the Big South Fork region in Tennessee and Kentucky, the event still yielded 61 photos of a Roads Scholaring or closely related interest!

So read 'em and peep...

http://bunkerblast.info/roadpics/bsf22a.html
http://bunkerblast.info/roadpics/bsf22b.html
http://bunkerblast.info/roadpics/bsf22c.html

Want an arts grant? Better toe the party line!

There's a scandal brewing in the arts world, and the media is of course sweeping it under the rug.

It has been revealed that agencies that dole out grants for the arts have been discriminating against venues and works that do not act as a pipeline for official propaganda. Many venues need grants just to survive, and they've become captive to the party line.

Some of the funding received by art museums and performance halls is contingent upon them hosting events that support the official narrative and imposing COVID restrictions on patrons.

Furthermore, independent music recording acts have been denied grants because their songs openly oppose war and the hated "new normal." The thought police has shut out whole new kinds of music, while established broadcasters get handouts and are allowed to buy up more and more stations.

Meanwhile, Broadway theater – already awash in dough - received tens of millions of dollars in bailout money from American taxpayers as compensation for its refusal to reopen as normal after the pandemic. Broadway's choice to not reopen normally prevented or discouraged attendance. Each play that was affected could apply for up to $10 million. In other words, Broadway got free money from the taxpayers for its pro-war stance and support of lockdown culture – while dissenting works were denied funding.

Predictably, the media hasn't covered this sorry episode at all.