Philavore

So, the so-called "Liberal Media" is getting all persnickety about the passage of a bill by the Massachusetts State House that would restrict the collective bargaining rights of local government employees. As Massachusetts is a Blue State, folks are getting all "Et Tu Brute?" on the issue.

I have no problem calling myself a socialist yet despite my affinity for the likes of Marx and William Morris, I believe the conflation of labor unions with public sector unions serves to undermine the legitimacy of labor unions.

For one, public sector unions have a tendency to do things like this.

No to mention, public sector unions facilitate the power of "moneyed interests." Why?

"A blowout at a natural gas well in rural northern Pennsylvania spilled thousands of gallons of chemical-laced water...

Officials advised the farmer on whose land the well was drilled that his cattle could no longer drink from the stream."

From henceforth, the cattle shall drink bottled water.

Boy would I love to get a copy of the contract between the farmer and Chesapeake Energy. The damages clause ought to make a fascinating read.

Not too long ago, I suggested that the conflation of labor unions with municipal unions serves to undermine the legitimacy of unions generally.

Now comes word that AFSCME DC 33 and Local 22 have voted to endorse Milton Street for Mayor.

Turns out I was wrong. Municipal unions can undermine the legitimacy of labor unions without the help of any intellectual sloppiness.

So, the budget battle.

Seems as if the penultimate reason both parties have settled upon to justify why, despite their ideological preferences, they cannot bring themselves to allow the government to shut down is the effect a shutdown would have on our soldiers. Seems as if the fact that our soldiers may miss a paycheck or two was more than either party could stomach.

I'm a cynic and nothing brings out my raging cynicism more than when a politician invokes the best interest of our soldiers.

When journalists wring their hands about their precarious fate, I can't help but take pleasure in observing that their present circumstances was brought about by their own sloth. Take Stu Bykofsky.

The fact that this guy is considered one of Philadelphia's leading columnists speaks to just in what low esteem his employers hold their readers. Consider his most recent work - "Bike lanes are coming. Can you guess where?"

Cater to the lowest common denominator?

Check.

Construct an "argument" based upon logical fallacies?

Check.

One of my favorite factoids of all time... once upon a time, applicants to the Pennsylvania Bar were required to meet the following requirements:

"No person shall be registered as a student at law for the purpose of becoming entitled to admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court until he shall have satisfied the State Board of Law Examiners that he is of good moral character, and shall have passed a preliminary examination upon the following subjects: (1) English language and literature; (2) Outlines of universal history; (3) History of England and of the United States; (4) Arithmetic, algebra through quadratics, and plane geometry; (5) Modern geography; (6) The first four books of Caesar's Commentaries, the first six books of the Aeneid, and the first four orations of Cicero against Cataline."

Admittedly, 110 odd years later this member of the PA bar has no clue whether the subject of "wage slavery" was included among "the first four orations of Cicero against Cataline."

Guess I have some reading to do.

Continuing on my recent infatuation with "Stupid People Making Good Marks" and "Our age is being marked by a pervasive and inveterate sloppiness," I'd thought I'd comment of a recent hubbub that has erupted in response to certain comments made by Leonard Weaver, a former fullback for the Philadelphia Eagles. I refer to him as a "former" fullback because as a follower of the Eagles, I know that last season he suffered what in all likelihood was a career-ending knee injury that will all but guarantee that he will never again be the recipient of a paycheck for his on field activities.

So what exactly did Weaver say that has caused this growing hullaballoo? As reported by CSNPhilly, Weaver said the following with regard to the current stalemate between NFL owners and players:

"We as players want to make a statement that you know what, we love playing for you all, we love your owners, you know? We love you guys very much, but at the same time we need to see some equal opportunity here and stop treating us basically like Adrian Peterson said, like slaves."

Apparently folks take offense at a professional athlete - who, like a modern-day gladiator slave, may be cast aside by his owner as soon as his economic usefulness expires - invoking "slavery" to describe his economic condition. Problem is that the folks taking offense at Weaver's comments are not just wrong, they are demonstrating abject ignorance. Their reaction demonstrates just how successful our country's predator class has been in its quest to destroy what was once the U.S. of A.'s greatest generator of economic wealth - it's educational system.

From Tony Wikrent's Real Economics:

"the conservative attack on education is actually a quite coherent part of conservative ideology. To understand this, you first have to understand that the conservative ideology is intended to create a society based on strict class lines."

Be sure to read the entire post. The bit about John Adams and the Massachusett's constitution is particularly instructive.

Amid the stupendous wealth of NYC, comes the following news as to just how far our society has sunk. From the NYTimes:

"About three-quarters of the 17,500 freshmen at [CUNY's] community colleges this year have needed remedial instruction in reading, writing or math, and nearly a quarter of the freshmen have required such instruction in all three subjects. In the past five years, a subset of students deemed 'triple low remedial' - with the most severe deficits in all three subjects - has doubled, to 1,000.

The reasons are familiar but were reinforced last month by startling new statistics from state education officials: fewer than half of all New York State students who graduated from high school in 2009 were prepared for college or careers, as measured by state Regents tests in English and math. In New York City, that number was 23 percent."

Every once in a very long while, someone lands upon this site. Pretty much universally as a result of googling some obscure subject (typically some iteration of "hypothetical con law essay").

When they do, the rudimentary tracking software installed on this site usually tells me the search terms that led them here.

Recently, someone googled "fracking liability" and they eventually landed on my post titled "The Limited Liability Problem (We were AIG before we were AIG)."

Out of interest (and a little boredom), I proceeded to google the same terms. This little backwater is way down the list but the first item turned out to be fairly interesting.

It is the video of Stephen A. Dvorkin of the law firm of Dickstein Shapiro addressing some question related to the enforceability of insurance policies purchased by corporations involved in hydraulic fracturing. The video is provided without any context other than the fact that it was taken at the Munk School of Global Affairs Program on Water Issues Public Forum University of Toronto on October 14, 2010. There are two other parts to the video (which I have not yet watched).

Despite the lack of context, I found his response to be of interest because, in it, he contemplates that companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing may not be able to procure private insurance because the event they are seeking to insure against, environmental disaster, is for all practical purposes may be known to occur. And even if such companies are successful in passing off some of the risk of their conduct on to a third party, such companies will still face a significant risk that such policies will be unenforceable for the same reason.

He explains:

"One of the most famous defenses, one that is most likely to be invoked, is that the companies involved is hydraulic fracturing expected or intended the harm that occurred when they bought the policy. Insurance is supposed to cover risk, not a certainty. If it was known that harm was ongoing at the time that you bought the policy, you may not be covered for it."

So, not only is there a significant risk that they need to insure against, that risk is further compounded by the risk that their insurance policy will not be enforceable? And companies still have an economic incentive to engage in hydraulic fracturing??? Kind of puts the whole "We were AIG before we were AIG" thing in perspective.

The video is embedded in the full post.