Important headlines for March 2nd
Bottom Line: These are stories you don't want to miss and my hot takes on them...
Hot Take: Being both a libertarianish conservative in South Florida and a pragmatist I don't expect to find public officials I see eye-to-eye with often if ever. Most of the time I find myself voting for officials that I disagree with the least and I'm accepting of that reality. I love South Florida and the politics are part of the package. What I do demand in local public officials is:
C. Willingness to discuss ideas they might not agree with
In the Tri-County area Alberto Carvalho is one of the few high profile officials who checks all boxes. South Florida's school systems are among the most complex to manage in the country. Carvalho has been highly competent in a region that, in my opinion, is often lacking altruistic public officials - let alone transparent, competent and accountable ones. He would have been extremely difficult to replace and Miami-Dade is fortunate not to have to attempt to for the foreseeable. In fact, Palm Beach County which has the least transparent, accountable and altruistic school-superintendent I've had had the misfortune of covering is in the process of being replaced.
It's my hope that the county identifies someone with half of Carvalho's character. It'd be a major upgrade.
- Conservatives Are Using the Courts to Destroy Unions E.J. Dionne, Washington Post
Hot Take: This really deserves to be in the absurd bin but the topic is an important one that I've wanted to address but haven't due to the cycle. In any other circumstance being forced to join an organization beyond your will and being forced to pay that organization for the ability for you to continue to work would be considered organized crime. In actuality there's little difference in tactics between the mafia and many of the largest labor unions - except that through political corruption in many parts of the country the thugs that run the unions were legitimized by the thug politicians they bought off to legitimize them.
In the United States of America, it's beyond offensive and any level of intellectual acceptance that you should ever have to join a labor union to obtain employment. It's even more offensive that you would then be forced to pay off a union even if you don't adhere to it. That's what's on the line in the Supreme Court. Yet in the demented reality of some, like this columnist at the Washington Post, the fact that labor unions support Democrats well over 90% of the time with the confiscated money is just too much for them to concede without selling out every degree of perceived integrity in the process. I've waited for this type of ruling for a long time. This issue is what literally drove my father south from New York in the 1970's. There's a reason that the south has flourished in recent decades while the northeast's economy peaked on a relative basis decades ago and a lot of it is intertwined with the corrupt politicians purchased by the corrupted labor unions. The least someone should be able to do is work without being part of the problem. The only union related issue that's more significant than this one is the issue of public sector unions. I still marvel at how public employees have been allowed to collectively bargain against the taxpayers that they work for and maintain the ability to then funnel money into political campaigns that are responsible for the contracts. Sanctioned corruption at its finest but that's for another day.