Murthy Murthy me...Things ain't what they used to be...

The U.S. Supreme Court ought to start publishing their rulings on toilet paper.

When they get things right, it's only by accident. Last week, we discussed the court's recent ruling that rightly requires investors in foreign corporations to pay taxes like everyone else, but that was one of very few constitutionally sound decisions they've made lately. Even then, I think they only got it right because they happened to stumble into it. Regarding almost everything else these days, they just completely ignore elementary law that we learned in 7th grade civics class.

Their ruling this week in Murthy v. Missouri is one of the most outrageously bad decisions in the court's history. This case was prompted by the Biden administration colluding with social media sites to censor content such as COVID "misinformation." Much of the "misinformation" that was censored was actually true. The Twitter Files prove this.

It is folly to characterize those who fought the White House on this as "right-wing." If you support government censorship like this, you're not a progressive. Period. This is what right-wing dictatorships do. You expect to see something like this under totalitarian butchers like Emmanuel Macron. You don't expect to see it in a democracy. Yet the whiny nerds at Vox produced a lengthy article attacking judges who opposed this censorship as "right-wing."

That was even after right-wing Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the Supreme Court opinion in Murthy v. Missouri that allows this censorship. Vox is siding with some of the most right-wing Justices in history, yet is accusing everyone else of being "right-wing." Vox also laughably claimed that those who opposed the censorship were actually suppressing the White House's free speech rights - not the other way around. Vox also said the First Amendment does not bar the government from asking social media sites to remove content. Yes it does, you idiots.

This ruling came even after every lower court - without exception - ruled against this suppression of free speech.

What's the Supreme Court's "reasoning"? They said it was because those who fought against this censorship lacked standing, but as hard as we try, we cannot follow this contorted line of thinking. In fact, those who were censored were no longer the plaintiffs by the time the case reached the Supremes. The case started out as Missouri v. Biden but was later retitled as Murthy v. Missouri. So the actual plaintiff was Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who the victims were fighting against. If the case was thrown out, it should have been because Murthy lacked standing to sue those who were censored.

The Supreme Court is a rogue court. There are some issues where the Constitution leaves absolutely no wiggle room. This is one of them. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights were not created by people. They are natural rights. That's what "inalienable rights" means. Every current member of the Supreme Court has at some point recently placed either political alliances or weird legal theories ahead of real law.

But in this constitutional republic, real law takes precedence over the bizarre opinions of a few unelected dictators in black robes. Some things in the Constitution have to be interpreted, but there is no ambiguity that such government collusion with social networking sites violates free speech. Absolutely zero. The Supremes' ruling in Murthy v. Missouri is George W. Bush-level stuff.

Kentucky colleges raise tuition

A market system is full of vagaries and inequalities, but it's the economic model that we've been force-fed for almost everything we do. If you're in a position that you qualify for some program like medical benefits, you'll find that works better than leaving everything up to the market. But market economics are likely the reason you ended up poor enough to qualify.

Along with our commitment to civil liberties, our interest in economic justice is one of the reasons we dissent from COVID tyranny, but that's another topic altogether.

When I started college, I planned to major in broadcasting. Everyone tried to discourage me, saying there wasn't enough of a "market" for broadcasters. My response was always the same: Who cares? A few people even said I shouldn't qualify for any sort of financial aid unless I majored in something "marketable", but that argument is ridiculous on its stupid face.

Market hawks hounded me about my choice for a major. So I should be allowed to hound Kentucky colleges about the all-important "market."

There's a crazy little thing called supply and demand. In this decade, academia has destroyed their own credibility. As a result, colleges and universities all over America - maybe the world - faced a steep drop in enrollment in the early 2020s. They wanted to turn schools into prisons, and lots of our young people just weren't having it. For the most part, the enrollment decline wasn't the students' fault. There were a few students who demanded more fascism, but they came from trust fund backgrounds, and their peers didn't give a shit what they thought. When I was in college, nobody would have put up with it, period.

Demand among students for a college education has dropped. So tuition should become cheaper, right?

Well, welcome to Kentucky. In Kentucky schools, market economics is like the fourth 'R'. But not when schools actually have to follow it themselves. Accordingly, the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education has just increased tuition at most state colleges and universities - despite less demand.

This is one of a series of episodes in recent days that shows that Democratic corruption has gone past the point of no return. We can safely say they're even more corrupt than the Republicans now, even though the GOP is also far from innocent. Unlike 20 years ago when the state was mired in Republican corruption, the Democrats run Kentucky now. This is on you, Dems.

Dear Democrats: Get your corruption out of my state. The North Carolina State Board of Elections would be happy to have you if you want to be corrupt.

Higher education has become a money pit rather than a serious academic institution. It's one of the biggest scams in the country. I'm also sick of their smug attitude and disproportionate amount of power.

Lockdowns are for the birds

My newest Substack entry reports that new lockdowns are already in the works for bird flu:

https://open.substack.com/pub/bandit73/p/lockdowns-are-for-the-birds

Supremes uphold tax on foreign income

There's a consensus that the rich haven't been paying their fair share in taxes. One of few good things in the otherwise miserable Trump tax law of 2017 is a onetime tax on dividends made by shareholders in foreign companies. Before that tax was enacted, companies could dodge American taxes by parking their profits outside the country.

A couple in Washington state launched a bizarre court challenge against that tax after they had to pay taxes on their investments in India. They said the tax was unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is ridiculous because the Sixteenth Amendment specifically authorizes an income tax.

After losing in lower courts, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supremes have now ruled 7-2 against them. Right-wing Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas were the only dissenters.

The lawsuit was actually frivolous. I remember when the far right accused everyone of filing frivolous suits, but this is about as frivolous as it gets - with the exception of well-funded suits filed against state governments and schools by those claiming COVID restrictions weren't draconian enough.

Sports of all sorts

My latest Substack entry is a brief account of idiotic attempts to enforce mask mandates at school sporting events:

https://open.substack.com/pub/bandit73/p/sports-of-all-sorts

Schools and masks: a bad mix

I've been building up to this entry for months, and it's a long one. My latest Substack entry finally deals at length with the unparalleled evil of mask mandates in schools:

https://open.substack.com/pub/bandit73/p/schools-and-masks-a-bad-mix

It's against the law, revisited

I have a new Substack entry that's a brief look at politicians issuing COVID mandates in violation of state laws that explicitly banned them:

https://open.substack.com/pub/bandit73/p/its-against-the-law-revisited

More Reagan extremism

Forty years after the Reagan regime, we're still being forced to recap all the ways Rappin' Ronnie failed America and stole from workers.

He supported right-wing dictatorships abroad. He cut Social Security by raising the retirement age - a change that is now taking effect (which our "leaders" refuse to fix). And he added special new taxes on service workers who weren't making much money to begin with.

Most Americans who aren't in service jobs and don't have to rely on tips had thought that tips were not taxed. But it turns out they are. Donald Trump is making an issue of it, though I doubt he'll do anything about it if he wins - especially after his tax increase on the working class in 2017. But who started taxing tips in the first place?

I'll give you 3 guesses: Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan, and Ronald Reagan.

Reagan began taxing tips even as he began giving handouts to the rich.

Why does every city and town have some road or public landmark named for Reagan? He was the worst President in history not named Bush, yet historical negationists treat him as a god.

A person bubbled at New China Buffet

Today at New China Buffet, some woman bubbled.

Yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip, mum-mum-mum-mum-mum-mum, get a job!

My latest Substack entry is about how allegedly "progressive" lockdown advocates use extreme rhetoric that makes them sound like what they claim to oppose:

https://open.substack.com/pub/bandit73/p/yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-mum

Philly mayor breaks agreement with homeless advocates

The worst big city mayor in America strikes again!

Back in 2020, the city of Philadelphia reached an agreement with advocates for the homeless that said a "village" of tiny homes would be constructed on a city-owned parcel. But - after taking office at the start of this year - Mayor Cherelle Parker decided to unilaterally scrap this agreement.

There is now a plan to build a drug treatment center there, but even the optics of this plan aren't as bad as the act of taking away the tiny homes that were promised. No plan has been put forth to build the homes elsewhere after Parker's right-wing dictatorship scrapped the original plan.