Not from "The Onion"

"The Labor Department, after years of battling Wall Street and the insurance industry, issued new regulations on Wednesday that will require financial advisers and brokers handling individual retirement and 401(k) accounts to act in the best interests of their clients."
                                              --"U.S. Reins In Advice-Givers on Retirement"

What a concept!  Financial advisers legally required to provide advice that serves the people to whom the advice is given!

This could start a societal revolution!  Imagine if professionals everywhere were required to do the jobs for which they have been hired!  No more firefighters committing rampant acts of arson, nor librarians ferociously guarding stacks of books from the depredations of hordes of eager borrowers!  Dare we dream of a world in which doctors no longer walk around decapitating their patients? Or where bus drivers don't deposit passengers at the base of impassable mountain trails?  (Well, except for the Greyhound Impassable Trail Limited, for which such behavior would be thoroughly acceptable.)

Reading this news, I even find myself optimistic that the Senate will do its job when it comes to, say, confirming judicial nominees.  Although that's probably too fantastical a concept to be seriously considered.

Abortion Logic

The degree of difficulty involved in getting an abortion in Texas has reached Olympic diving levels, thanks to a number of laws placing onerous requirements on abortion providers.  Lawmakers disingenuously claim that these laws actually protect women, requiring, for example, that doctors who perform abortions at small clinics have admitting privileges at hospitals and that the clinics themselves conform to rigorous hospital-like standards that actually have nothing to do with providing safe abortions.  These laws don't seem to have any practical effect, other than putting abortion clinics out of business--which is of course what they we're designed to do. If state lawmakers really wanted to improve the safety of women seeking abortions, they could simply, for example, provide additional funds to abortion clinics, but that obviously will never happen.

What I find particularly galling about these laws is that they force women determined to get an abortion to undertake arduous journeys--sometimes of hundreds of miles--to find one of the few clinics that remain open in Texas. An article in today's paper tells of a woman who actually flew to California to have an abortion because she couldn't get an appointment at an overbooked Texas clinic.  She considered herself "lucky" that she was able to take out a high-interest loan to get the procedure done. And she's kind of right, as any number of women don't have the same resources. So in other words, these "protective" laws force women who lack the financial resources to get an abortion to, perhaps, carry a pregnancy to full term--because raising a child obviously poses a much smaller financial burden, right?

Take Donald Trump... Please!

Trump enthusiasts and apologists--as well as people who can't stand the man and are just trying to comprehend his rise--often explain his appeal by saying that he is "funny."  I suppose he is, in the same way that fart jokes are funny--they're amusing once in a while, but they do get tiresome and repetitive.  And an appreciation for fart jokes is not the kind of thing most people take pride in.  A recent instance of Trumpian "humor" features The Donald splashing his adoring audience with a water bottle and yelling, "It's Rubio!"--a reference to his rival's well-documented thirstiness during a response to a State of the Union Address.

I doubt Trump's acolytes realize the irony in celebrating their idol's "sense of humor," while demonizing President Obama--arguably the funniest man ever to occupy the Oval Office.  Love him or hate him, few would dispute that the guy has great comic timing.  But more importantly, we are selecting a president, right, not a comedian-in-chief.  And if we are electing a comedian, we can certainly do better than Trump, right?  Jon Stewart must be itching for a new gig by now, no?

Trumped

Today, in honor of Black History Month, a staff member at my college gave a presentation on Liberia.  The presentation was well-attended and thorough and interesting.  At one point, the presenter showed a slide explaining that, in the heyday of colonialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Liberia and Ethiopia were the only two African nations not annexed, colonized, or otherwise exploited by Western powers.  Instead of finding this inspiring, however, all I could hear was Donald Trump's voice in my head, saying, "That's disgraceful! Disgraceful! Now if I had been president back then, we woulda had one-hundred percent colonization of Africa!  Am I right?  It woulda been unbelievable!"

This campaign is really getting to me.

Apple Nitpicking

Apple CEO Tim Cook this week published an open letter in which he condemned a court order requiring Apple to "unlock" an iPhone that belonged to one of the perpetrators of last December's San Bernardino massacre.  Apple claims that requiring the company to create a "back door" to hack into the device represents some unconscionable violation of privacy rights.  And while in general I find it heartening that the tech colossus has such a passionate regard for customer privacy, I'm frankly bewildered by Cook's response.  Am I missing something?

People have a right to privacy.  But privacy, like any other right, has limits.  Police or other government agents may not come into my home and search it--unless they have a warrant expressly allowing them to do so.  Law enforcement agents may tap phones and read text messages, as long as, again, they convince a judge that such intrusions are necessary.  How is this case any different?  A judge has signed an order allowing law enforcement to overrule an individual's right to privacy--and frankly, since the owner of this particular iPhone was killed after his attack, I doubt he's particularly concerned with his right to privacy anymore.  (And on a visceral level, I feel he forfeited that right when he and his wife decided to gun down a dozen innocent people at a Christmas party, but that's kind of beside the point.)

Apple, I think, claims that the request is unreasonable because it is forcing the company to create a mechanism--which doesn't currently exist?--to compromise its own security systems.  They claim that this mechanism could then allow others to hack other iPhones.  Which I guess is a legitimate concern, but does anyone believe that hackers aren't already trying to figure out ways to hack iPhones?  If Apple engineers do create this workaround, will we all really be so much less safe than we are now.

Another objection I've heard is that, if the US government can compel Apple to unlock its technology, then what's to stop other governments from requiring such accommodations.  Well, nothing, I guess.  But, what's your point?  Governments enforce laws.  If Apple operates in a country, it is subject to the laws of that country.  Like any "citizen" (corporations are people, right?), Apple can dislike the laws and can use its considerable financial and political muscle to advocate for changes to those laws--but it can't simply disregard the laws.  And this is true whether we're talking about US law or the laws of other countries.

Finally, some have suggested that Apple simply cannot bypass the encryption standards it has programmed into its devices--that is, that they don't have the technological capacity to do so.  I believe the technical term for this response is "bullshit."  I don't believe for one second that Apple engineers could not figure out a way to unlock an iPhone.  Put it this way: If some evil genius creates a virus designed to target and destroy Apple's internal networks, and if the only way to prevent the release of this virus was to crack open the evil genius's iPhone, I suspect the good men and women at Apple would figure out a way to do so.

I have the same basic concerns as anyone else over the tendency of government agencies to intrude into the lives of private citizens.  But as long as the government is playing by the well-established rules of law, then corporations have no excuse not to play by the same rules.

Don't People Even Know How to Obstruct Anymore?

What is wrong with Mitch McConnell?  OK, let me be more specific.  What was Mitch McConnell thinking when he declared that the Republican-controlled Senate would not so much as consider confirming anyone President Obama nominates to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court?  I understand partisan politics, and I get that McConnell wants to fire up the conservative base, particularly in an election year.  But still, the man has been a politician for years: Does he not understand the basics of politics?  Has he become so unhinged by eight years of Obama-hatred that he cannot remember them?

Look, all McConnell had to do was provide a simple disingenuous sound bite: "We are all shocked and saddened by the sudden death of Justice Scalia.  Now is not the time to discuss the politics of selecting his replacement.  In due time, after the President selects a nominee, the Senate will hold thorough hearings to determine this candidate's qualifications for this vital position."  Anyone with a basic grasp of American politics circa 2016 would translate this as, "No way in hell will we confirm whatever Commie Pinko Muslim-sympathizer Comrade Obama has the nerve to send our way."  And we could all get on with our lives, avoiding at least one political kabuki dance.

But no.  McConnell decides that the way to handle the situation is effectively to say, "Mr. President, we advise you not to do your job."  The paleoconservatives rejoice McConnell's sticking it to the man while everybody else erupts in outrage or, at best, shakes their heads and wonders what the heck is happening.  I mean, does McConnell--or any Republican senator--think that telling Obama not to nominate someone will convince Obama to, y'know, not nominate someone?  Sure, that person may face an uphill--or impossible--battle; sure, the Senate may reject even the most qualified nominee--as is, technically, their right; but to declare yourself opposed to acting in accordance with the most basic reading of the Constitution you claim to revere seems to be displaying hypocrisy for no good reason.

I suppose Obama could totally call their bluff by nominating, say, Jeb Bush!.  Not like he's going to be president or anything.  And since the Senators promised not to hold hearings, what harm would be done.  I kinda think he should go ahead and nominate Trump.  He's ultimately not much worse than Scalia, and arguably better on the social issues.  I kid, of course.  He should really just nominate himself.  Let Biden take care of the country for the last few months until Hillary gets into office.

In Which We Are Disturbed by Our Reputation

Today at a meeting, I was sitting next to the president of my college, i.e, my boss. The main topic of the meeting was upcoming construction projects on campus. As the district's facilities manager began his presentation, he explained that what he was going to show us were preliminary plans, that we shouldn't consider these set in stone, and that we could assume changes would occur as the project progressed.  In conclusion, he said, "Nobody here has crystal balls." Without so much as a pause, the president turned to me and said, "Whatever you're about to say, DON'T SAY IT!"

I didn't realize she knew me so well!