Bayou Renaissance Man

Michael Z. Williamson, friend, author, blogger, knife vendor and all-around good guy, has written a magnificent rant about the trials and tribulations of dealing with military administration - and administrators.  I've never served in the US military, but my memories of the South African military pretty much match his, and I spent a while giggling (unhappily) over the memories his article brought back to mind.  It's a lengthy rant, and will take some time to read in full, but if you're a veteran of military service, you'll appreciate it.

Getting Some Old Military Frustrations Down On Paper

Click over there and have fun!

Peter

Four days after the assassination attempt on President Trump, there's still an awful lot of smoke blocking our view of the fire.  Unfortunately, that's likely to be the case for months to come.  The fact that the would-be assassin was allowed to get "danger close" and fire several shots is an indictment in itself of the US Secret Service and every other agency involved in providing security that day.  It was an unconscionable failure of policies and systems that should have been so well-rehearsed that they were almost on autopilot.  We've had so much experience of providing security to high-risk targets that this should have been a no-brainer.  Clearly, it wasn't.  Heads should roll at the highest level, and if any element of Diversity-Equity-Inclusion and other progressive buzzword policies can be shown to have contributed to the failure, it/they should be discarded at once and all concerned re-trained using more realistic, real-world-applicable frameworks.

Will that happen under President Biden?  Oh, hell no.  Might it happen under President Trump if he's re-elected, and if he stays alive (despite all the Secret Service, the FBI and other agencies can do) until he takes office?  You bet your life!  I daresay there'll be (metaphorically) a swinging sword scything its way through Washington DC, and it'll likely start with those agencies and people who failed so abysmally last Saturday.

I'm having fun watching the Democratic Party almost fall apart under the strain of deciding what to do next.  I'm pretty sure President Trump boosted his electoral chances very highly through surviving the attack;  most political commentators appear to agree.  That means any potential candidate to replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket has to face the very real possibility that he/she will be almost guaranteed to lose, all other things being equal (which they seldom are, of course).  That might spell political disaster for their future career.  To run and fail is much worse, in terms of future electoral optics, than to withdraw from the race out of "loyalty for the incumbent", appear to give him as much support as possible, then commiserate with him over his failure as he heads for the old age home.  Most potential Presidential candidates among the Democrats understand that very well.  I daresay they're now pushing for a Biden/Harris ticket in the confident expectation it'll fail, leaving the way open for one of them to replace it in future.

As for President Trump;  he continues to be the motivating spark trying to light a fire in the Republican Party.  I've been very disappointed in the Republican convention so far.  There appears to be a general lack of enthusiasm, drive and energy.  It's largely the same old, same old pious political platitudes.  Trump's selection of J. D. Vance as his vice-presidential running mate interests me very much, for a number of reasons.

1. Vance, like Trump, has for most of his life been outside electoral politics.  He only entered the Senate two years ago.  Prior to that, he made his own way in life, and comes from what many call the "underclass" of society.  He's a self-made man, in that sense.  That means he understands President Trump, and the two will probably work well together.
2. Vance is young enough (almost 40) to have decades left in his political career.  If he and Trump do a good job, he might be elected as President for one or two terms when Trump finally lays down the gavel.  However, would this be best for him?  He'd end up in his early 50's as an ex-President with very little to do.  He's unlikely to take well to that;  he'll be young and energetic enough to want to do more, but what is there that can compare to the Presidency?  It'll be interesting to watch how this works out.
3. I think it's very worthwhile to analyze those who are opposed to Vance's selection, and their reasons for their position.  He seems to be annoying all the right people!  As one source put it:  "If Mitt Romney doesn't like J. D. Vance, then J. D. Vance was the right choice."

One thing I must say, very vehemently, is that I'm sickened and disgusted by those who latched on to the fact that Vance's wife is of Indian descent (although born here in the USA).  So what?  Does her race make any difference to whether or not she's a good person?  They also object to the fact that she's Hindu, while her husband is Catholic.  It's their business to make that work for their family, not ours.  Leave them alone to do so!  Racism is still alive and well in the USA, and to see it so nakedly on display in the disparaging comments made about Mrs. Vance is nauseating.  I know some few of my readers are among those raising such objections, which saddens me.  I can only suggest that if they feel that way, they shouldn't be reading my blog either, because there's no place for such attitudes here.

In closing, let me repeat that I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat.  I'm genuinely independent in my thinking, and will always support the best candidate for a given position rather than a political party.  (Yes, that means I might vote for a Democrat over a Republican if the former candidate warranted it, and/or the latter candidate was a particularly poor politician.)  However, in the present situation in this country, there's only one side that appears to be trying to restore genuinely constitutional government;  what President Abraham Lincoln famously summarized as "government of the people, by the people, for the people".  I may not agree with every position taken by that party, but its foundation(s) is/are solid in that sense (unlike their opposition).  Therefore, that side, and its candidates, gets my vote.  We'll "sweat the petty stuff" later.

Peter

I note that a proposal to limit the speed of large trucks has been put off until next year.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will delay a potential rule on speed limiters for heavy-duty vehicles once again — this time postponing rulemaking to May 2025, according to a regulatory agenda.

. . .

The proposal seeks to cover interstate commercial vehicles weighing 26,001 pounds or more equipped with an electronic engine control unit capable of governing the truck, whereby the device would restrict the equipment to “a speed to be determined by the rulemaking,” per the updated agenda.

The issue has drawn critics and supporters. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has said such limits would disrupt traffic flow and lead to more crashes. The Truckload Carriers Association noted room for flexibility with the devices, suggesting 65 mph or 70 mph restrictions and a need to reexamine policy every five years.

There's more at the link.

On the face of it, it sounds like a useful idea.  I've been passed by, and have had to avoid, fast-moving 18-wheelers, and I'm sure many of us have been scared by them on the roads too often for comfort.  However, this is yet another "thin end of the wedge" issue.  If, after a year or two of limited truck speeds, some unelected bureaucrat or progressive-left pressure group claims that lower limits have been a success from a safety perspective, and that therefore lighter vehicles should also be limited in their maximum speed . . . how will that be countered?

I can think of a few good arguments against it:

• In an emergency - for example, if you want to get someone to the hospital in a hurry - a speed-limited vehicle may prevent you arriving there in time to save the victim.
• Sometimes you need speed to get out of the way of a fast-moving hazard (for example, a vehicle barreling along a roadway out of control).  If you can't go faster than your vehicle's speed limiter allows, you may not be able to avoid the resulting accident.

Also, what happens when speed limits are arbitrarily lowered due to external pressures?  As an example, consider the National Maximum Speed Law passed in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis, leading to  Sammy Hagar's famous protest that "I can't drive 55!"  The lowered speed limit was extremely unpopular among almost all motorists, and was abandoned as soon as feasible;  but we don't know whether that outcome would be permitted this time around.  The Karens in our administrative state would doubtless do all they could to grab, and hold onto, yet another way to control us.

Vehicle speed limiters are now mandatory in all European Union nations.  How soon until we face the same official mandate?

Peter

UnHerd has produced a masterly analysis of the trap into which government spending and subsidies has led much of American life today.  Here's an excerpt.

Democrats and Republicans alike, under the cover of good intentions, have been passing laws that undermine the economic well-being of American families. Even more disturbing, these policies have created a whole new class of robber barons, who rely on government policy to enrich themselves. But these new robber barons aren’t railroad tycoons or rapacious oil companies. Indeed, many of them are non-profits: they include universities and hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, K-12 school districts, and real estate investors.

. . .

This is how it works: Claiming to be the guardian of “quality”, policymakers put up barriers to entry, making it extremely costly, for example, to launch a new university or hospital. This is the restriction of supply. At the same time, in the name of “helping” consumers, they push billions of dollars into student loans or healthcare payments. This is the subsidisation of demand.

. . .

... all of the universities, including elite colleges in the Ivy League, have reaped billions of dollars in economic rents — excess profits — from student loan programmes, even as the value of many of their degrees has fallen dramatically.

At the same time, the universities operate an accreditation system which makes it extraordinarily difficult and costly to launch a new university that might compete with them. In fact, you usually can’t get your new university accredited until four-to-six years after you open. That means that your first students aren’t eligible for federal student loans — their subsidies — until you get your accreditation. It’s a huge handicap for anyone who wants to disrupt the current oligopoly of higher education.

These dynamics play out in all of the most important sectors of our economy. In healthcare, new hospitals in many states have to apply for a “certificate of need”. Often that certificate has to be signed by the other hospitals in the area — in other words, their potential competitors. Meanwhile, federal and state governments flood the healthcare system with subsidies that increase demand and drive prices up: almost 50% of health care spending comes from governmental entities in the US.

In housing, similarly, we restrict supply by making it harder and harder to build new units, especially in city centres where demand is the highest. Meanwhile, we subsidise demand by providing government-guaranteed mortgages and by offering huge tax breaks for anyone who purchases real estate, especially investors.

And in K-12 education, school districts around the country are trying to stamp out charter schools, which increase supply, while at the same time arguing for higher and higher per-pupil spending. The cost to educate one child for one year has increased 173% (adjusted for inflation) since 1970, and half the kids still can’t read.

The pathologies of these sectors all follow similar patterns. Politicians proclaim their desire to “protect” quality and “help” consumers. Industry lobbyists step up to write bills that restrict supply and subsidise demand. Prices go up. Providers become more and more reliant on the government for their profits. Consumers become more and more reliant on the government to afford homes, healthcare, and schools. Instead of investing in innovation, providers spend their money on political donations and lobbyists. Politicians become dependent on those donations. Consumers demand more and more help because prices are going up, and they’re getting ripped off. And the beat goes on. “It really is a self-reinforcing process,” says Kling. “People don’t understand that the subsidies drive up prices, so they keep demanding more.”

There's more at the link.

To all those negatives, add two more:

1. All those subsidies and other government programs add layer upon layer of bureaucrats to government to administer them.  In other words, government becomes a fulfilment machine rather than an administrator.  More and more of its money is spent on such subsidies and fulfilment programs rather than on the business of government.
2. The level of government involvement in such programs affects how government governs.  Lower-level governments - e.g. town and city councils - don't have enough money to subsidize such programs, so they push it up to state level.  State legislatures don't have enough money either, so they put pressure on their congressional representatives and Senators to get that money from the federal government.  The feds duly provide it, but have to increase taxes and/or borrow more money to pay it;  and they also have to hire more bureaucrats to administer it.  The state governments also need more staff to administer where the money comes from and where it goes, expanding state government.  Finally, at the "coalface" where the money is paid out, more government staff are needed to administer, account for and report back on how it's used.

The only way to stop this perpetual motion machine is, of course, to take away many of the things it currently does that were never envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  They'd be horrified if they saw the myriad things on which the federal government spends its money, things that were never envisioned in or authorized by the constitution, but which now consume the vast majority of government income and effort.

The problem, as always, is this:  how do we break the cycle?  If we cut off the subsidies, those deprived of them will scream blue murder, and vote against the politicians who acted responsibly by terminating them.  That means the politicians dare not tackle the monster they've helped to create.  Argentina is trying to do so by dismantling whole swaths of its national government, but that's because the problem had grown so great there that the state had become a behemoth that was strangling the country as a whole.  President Milei has only just begun the job, and there's no guarantee his opponents - now united against him - will allow him enough space and time to finish the job.  I wish him every success, but the odds are against him.

Do we have a President Milei who can do the same for us?

Peter

I had to do a double-take when confronted with this report from Britain.

Ford could resort to limiting the sales of its petrol cars in the UK, as it struggles to meet the electric car sales targets laid down in the government’s Zero-Emissions Vehicle Mandate.

Introduced at the start of this year, the ZEV mandate requires manufacturers to ensure that a minimum percentage of their overall sales are battery-powered, or face fines of up to £15,000 for every ICE car sold over the limit. This year, the target is set at 22 per cent, however, while EV sales continue to grow due to fleet demand, private buyers are proving reluctant to make the transition and EV targets are looking hard to meet.

. . .

[Ford's] European boss of its ‘Model e’ electric car division, Martin Sander, told the Financial Times’ Future of the Car Summit: “We can’t push EVs into the market against demand. We’re not going to pay penalties. We are not going to sell EVs at huge losses just to buy compliance. The only alternative is to take our shipments of [engine-powered] vehicles to the UK down, and sell these vehicles somewhere else”.

Sander warned that the impact of such a move could mean inflated prices for traditional petrol and diesel cars if consumer demand for ICE engined vehicles can’t be met by potentially limited supply.

There's more at the link.

So a bureaucratic edict founded in "junk science" and hotly disputed by engineers and scientists will result in would-be motorists not being allowed to purchase the vehicles they want, but rather forced to buy alternatives that are less fit for purpose, a great deal more expensive (and polluting) to produce, and requiring extremely expensive battery replacement after a relatively short time in use.  Doesn't that demonstrate the brilliance and ingenuity of bureaucrats?  "If we can't change people's taste in cars, we'll simply force a third party (i.e. vehicle manufacturers) to deprive them of the opportunity to exercise that taste.  That'll show them!"

What's even nicer for them, said bureaucrats are unelected, not subject to public scrutiny in their work, and insulated against kickback from the electorate they're supposed to serve and protect.  This policy is like an automotive version of the famous "Yes, Minister" comedy clip.

Or, there's the old saw from the early days of the computer revolution (which I was taught as an entry-level programmer back in the 1970's):  "If builders built buildings the way programmers write programs, then the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization."  I daresay bureaucrats double the destruction factor!

Bureaucrats.  Parasites.  But then, I repeat myself . . .  Sadly, we have too many of them in America.  It's one area where Britain and the USA are proudly emulating one another in grinding their citizens' faces into the administrative mud.

Peter

A few years ago I wrote an article titled "The FBI can no longer be trusted in any way, shape or form".  Given the latest news about the shenanigans of the General Services Administration, I'm thinking that warning should be applied to the entire federal bureaucracy, not just the FBI or the Justice Department.  Second City Cop reports:

So the feebs brought along props, used them in "evidence" photographs, then leaked the photos to the media. Laughable. And now it turns out that all those boxes of "classified" documents were:

• actually in the possession of the General Services Administration;
• packed by the GSA;
• delivered to Trump by the GSA;
• who then "tipped off" the feebs about supposed "classified" info.

. . . 

Even a third-world banana republic is more competent framing people that this outfit.

There's more at the link, including a link to another article providing further details.

I hope there will one day be an in-depth investigation into any and every government employee, department, agency and entity involved in the ongoing quasi-legal persecution of President Trump, with condign punishment meted out to everyone responsible for such shenanigans.  That's unlikely to happen under a Democratic Party administration, but there's always a chance that might change - one way or another.

Peter

I note with some bemusement that Italian bureaucrats are at it again.

Italy’s Ministry of Health has banned “puppy yoga” classes, saying only adult dogs should take part in order to protect the health of animals as well as the safety of attendees.

In a note circulated on 29 April, the ministry said it was aware that organisers often "borrow" puppies from breeders.

But because puppy yoga "improves wellbeing" it should be considered as a kind of "animal assisted therapy" - which by law can only be carried out by fully grown animals.

Puppy yoga typically involves puppies roaming freely around a yoga class and sometimes being incorporated in yoga poses, or a yoga class followed by playtime with the puppies.

There's more at the link.

Puppy yoga does seem to be a thing, judging by the number of videos of it on YouTube.  However, it also appears to be attracting questions, if not criticism.  Therefore, I'd like to offer some of our Texas critters to be used instead of puppies in yoga classes.  For example:

• Razorback hogs:  Usually a cross-breed between escaped domestic hogs, wild pigs and Russian  boars, the latter introduced in the 1930's by "sportsmen" wanting a wilder, tougher animal to hunt.  (Idiots!)  Guaranteed to make any yoga class an uplifting experience, as students climb the walls to get away from them.
• Skunks:  Particularly during February, which around here is known as "Suicidal Skunk Season" due to their habit of wandering out into the road at that time of year, getting run over, and leaving an unmistakable smell for miles and miles on local roads.  The odor of sanctity, it ain't!  Repeated application of students' deodorant to the animals may improve things.  Then again, maybe it won't.
• Armadillos:  Probably the safest animals in a yoga class.  When they curl themselves into a ball, they can be rolled up and down the floor, making avoidance techniques an interesting addition to the standard stretches.
• Grackles:  They'll add a definite musical (?) dimension to the class, as well as redecorating the studio (and the students) with artistic splotches and stripes from on high.

Readers are invited to suggest in Comments below their preferred animal contributions to yoga classes.  We'll send the lot to the Italian bureaucrats responsible for this ruling, and let them decide what's best for their needs!

Peter

I can get behind President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador whole-heartedly.  We recently discussed his crackdown on narco and gang violence in his country, leading to his re-election with an overwhelming majority of the vote.

His next step?

The 'unapologetic dictator' and 43rd President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele launched an anti-corruption investigation into the entire executive branch of his government. Just like Anil Kapoor-starrer Bollywood movie 'Nayak', the businessman turned politician ordered every single official to gather in an assembly, where he announced the decision to inquire them for bribery. The move is seen as a strike against graft back home in the Central American nation.

The video of Bukele asking the Attorney General to investigate the entire executive branch including the cabinet members for corruption has gone viral online. The faces of the officials sitting and gathered at the assembly could tell that they were shocked and taken aback by the move.

There's more at the link.  You'll find a video recording of President Bukele making his announcement here.

I love it!  It would be marvelous if we could do the same thing in Washington D.C., not to mention every one of our fifty State capitals.  The only problem would be to find enough uncorrupted investigators to do the work!

Peter

I've written extensively about the Catholic Church's clergy sex abuse scandal in these pages.  As regular readers will know, the way it was mishandled led me to withdraw from that Church's ministry.  Today's discussion will discuss the latest development in that scandal.  A word of warning:  I remain Christian, and will provide a believer's perspective on the issue.  If you're not Christian and/or not a person of faith, you might prefer to skip this article.

A report from New York illustrates the core of the Catholic Church's problem, which is with us still, and will be unless and until the hierarchy of the Church returns to its joint and several roots and remakes itself in Christ's image, instead of the world's.

On Tuesday, [the New York State] Appellate court’s First Department reversed a ruling dismissing Chubb insurance’s assertion that its policies did not cover child sexual abuse claims that church leaders enabled and covered up for decades... Chubb insured the Archdiocese of New York, which serves 2.5 million Catholics, and its affiliated parishes and schools between 1956 and 2003.

. . .

The appellate court’s decision affirms Chubb’s position that it shouldn’t have to defend the Archdiocese if the organization “had knowledge of its employees’ conduct or propensities,” the company said in a statement.

“The Archdiocese must now disclose what it knew and when it knew about child abuse perpetrated by priests and employees,” the company contended. “That disclosure is critical to determining whether the [Archdiocese of New York’s] knowledge and cover-up precludes coverage.” 

The Archdiocese called the ruling “disappointing” and “wrongly decided,” claiming, “If allowed to stand, the decision will permit insurance companies to evade the contractual obligations of the policies they issued.”

There's more at the link.

The last paragraph cited above illustrates the core of the problem.  The Archdiocese of New York is not responding to the news as a body of faith, as the Body of Christ on Earth.  It's responding as a business organization, just another corporate entity talking to the courts and other corporate entities on their terms.

This is not what the Church is called to be.  It's definitely not Biblical, it's not Godly, and it ignores the calling of Christ for His church to be His bride.

There are those who'll say that of course the Church must respond to corporate issues in a corporate way;  that to do otherwise would be nonsensical.  However, think about it.  Did Christ ever tell His apostles to establish a corporation?  Hire lawyers and managers and administrators, and actually use ordained ministers of faith in those occupations, rather than as messengers of the Gospel?  What's the priority here?

Bob Mumford, a Pentecostal evangelist, once defined secular humanism as "what you get when the world evangelizes the church".  That was a prophetic definition, IMHO, and we see its results in far too many Christian churches today.  They are run as businesses rather than houses of faith;  secular corporations rather than guardians and beacons and emissaries of Christ's truth.  Christ told us to "preach the Gospel to all nations" - not erect corporate entities that would administer the secular possessions of the Church while, effectively, relegating her Divine mission to second place (if that).

That's also what gave rise to the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal in the first place.  Seminaries were allowed to become secular in focus, concentrating on psychology, sociology, anthropology and other approaches to human life instead of inculcating the transformational, transcendental calling of Christ to his followers in their students.  Worse, the seminaries were staffed by those who shared that perspective, including many who were morally degenerate.  Anyone not sharing it was either not appointed to the staff, or removed as quickly as possible.  Furthermore, students were selected for the seminary according to their conformity with secular perspectives and liberal/progressive "spirituality", and again, those who did not demonstrate this were quickly removed.

For a thorough discussion of those issues, see the book "Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church" by Michael S. Rose, published in 2002.

The book documents everything that I've said about seminaries, and goes into a lot more detail.  It might as well be sub-titled "How Satan Subverted Future Priests", because that was the net effect of such policies on so many students for the priesthood.  I suppose we'll never know how many potentially holy, faithful and apostolic priests we lost thanks to those policies.  I'm betting it was a bunch, and then some.  Even worse, American bishops did nothing to stop this corruption.  It was their responsibility under Canon Law:  indeed, even when the seminary/ies in question were run by religious orders, and nominally not under local episcopal control, the local bishop could have suspended the sacramental faculties of professors, reported the matter to Rome and demanded action, and taken other steps to ensure orthodoxy of teaching.  As far as I'm aware, none did.  I would not like to stand in their shoes at their Judgement . . .

(It's with considerable pleasure that I recently read complaints from some liberal and progressive sources that most priests being ordained today are orthodox in their faith and loyal to the traditional spiritual and theological teaching of the Church.  I hope they're right.  If so, I guess it's the Holy Spirit restoring the church and her clergy to what they should be.)

So, the secular approach to the world epitomized in the Church's seminaries carried over to (and may even have originated in) the Church's administration.  Almost every bishop and his deputies (the Vicars General and Chancellors of dioceses, and other positions) were focused on the Church as a business, as a corporate entity, rather than the Church as the living body of believers.  They spent their time in meetings, writing memoranda, allowing accountants and lawyers to "help them" to conform the Church's structure and administration to "good business practices" - without considering their real and primary calling.  That calling became subordinated to their jobs . . . and that's why things went so appallingly wrong with the Church and some of her clergy.

We see precisely that approach reflected in the Archdiocese of New York's statement after the New York appeal court's ruling:

“If allowed to stand, the decision will permit insurance companies to evade the contractual obligations of the policies they issued.”

Not one word about whether or not the Archdiocese knew about any of the claims over which it's being sued.  It did, and we know it did, because that's come out in innumerable reports over the more than two decades that this scandal has been in the public eye.  Chubb is absolutely correct to try to avoid the costs of those claims, as the appeals court has just ruled.  Its insurance policy/ies contained a liability clause:  in so many words, if its clients knew about a potentially harmful or dangerous situation before the incident(s) occurred, and did nothing to prevent or avoid it, their insurance cover was/is forfeited.  That's a stock-standard clause in any and every liability insurance policy I've ever read.  (I might add that I hold a Master's degree in business, and was a manager and company director before I was ordained a priest, so I know what I'm talking about.)

That's also demonstrated in the public reactions of the Catholic Church in America when the clergy sex abuse scandal broke.  They instantly went into a defensive huddle and called in lawyers, psychologists, public relations specialists, and a host of other secular disciplines to help craft a defensive strategy.  Few if any bishops publicly accepted responsibility for the catastrophe, and those that did . . . well, let's say I doubt that all of them meant it whole-heartedly.  Considering the "inside information" that many priests heard at the time, that was not the impression we gained at all.  Indeed, the national programs implemented to "resolve" the issue reflected that insincerity.  Not a single one of the measures proposed and enforced did anything to deal with the roots of the problem.  Instead, they had the effect of making priests feel that their own bishops considered them to be the source of the problem, and that they were seen as guilty until proven innocent!  I've discussed in depth my reactions to the bishops' measures in an earlier article, so I won't repeat them here.

So now we have the Archdiocese of New York protesting because its former insurer is insisting on enforcing the liability clause(s) in its contracts.  As far as I'm concerned, the Archdiocese appears to be trying to force Chubb to pay for its debts and liabilities, despite the Church having failed to keep its side of the bargain.   To me, that's not only legally wrong, but morally as well.  We know the Archdiocese knew more about these scandals than it ever admitted, until it was forced to acknowledge at least some part of that knowledge in previous court proceedings - yet even now, it's trying to avoid acknowledging that reality by simply refusing to talk about it.  Honesty?  Moral uprightness?  Acknowledging sin?  Where are those Gospel realities in the arguments of the lawyers for the Archdiocese?  Non-existent.

As far as I'm concerned, if the Archdiocese of New York is forced to declare bankruptcy and sell off its physical assets, that might even be a blessing.  Perhaps then the Archdiocese and its priests could get back to living and preaching the Gospel, in season and out of season, rather than focusing on banks and lawyers and accountants and insurance policies more than they focus on the mission God has given them.

Peter

A Canadian town has plumbed new depths in the bureaucratic curtailment of individual rights and freedoms.

A Canadian town in the Gulf of St. Lawrence has become the first municipality in the country to officially require a QR code to enter and leave.

Officials say that the requirement of a QR code to enter or leave the archipelago Îles-de-la-Madeleine will only be for tourists, while residents will be required to show their driver’s licence to enter or leave.

The decision to require a QR code and identification for the municipality’s 12,000+ residents came after the municipal government announced they would begin charging all visitors who come to Îles-de-la-Madeleine $30, something which hasn’t gone down well with the locals or their family members who visit them.

Of the many concerns, one that officials sought to address was ensuring that visitors had paid their fees before leaving, hence the introduction of a mandatory QR code to leave the islands. If you don’t pay, you can’t get the QR code and won’t be able to leave.

This was initially intended for residents, too, but following an outpour of criticism, officials backed down and now say that residents only have to show their driver’s licence.

Residents, however, aren’t happy about this either, saying it’s absolutely ludicrous to have to prove their identity whenever they want to leave their homes and go to other places within their own country.

Many have also stated that this is an attack on their Charter Rights, which officials have denied.

There's more at the link.

I can't for the life of me figure out how any city council can dictate to residents and visitors whether or not they may enter and/or leave.  Just who the hell do they think they are?  What happened to individual rights and freedoms?  Where and how do some bureaucrats get the idea that they can be petty dictators like this?  Who gave them the right to insist that the rest of us are at their beck and call?

It's quite amusing to contemplate what would happen in my northern Texas town were our Mayor and Council to try anything similar.  The result would be a short, sharp and somewhat profane discussion between them and the citizens, followed by the use of rails, tar and feathers to indicate to them that they should consider rapid relocation elsewhere.  The local cops certainly would never dream of trying to enforce such an ordinance.  They want to go home after their shifts . . . and they know just how many townsfolk would object, ballistically, to any attempt to apply such restrictions.

Perhaps a bunch of us should plan a visit to Îles-de-la-Madeleine - without bothering to get the QR code on our phones, even if we agree to pay the fee - then dare the local cops to do something about it.  That might make for pay-per-view-level entertainment on local channels.

Peter

It seems the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF for short) is bound and determined to put every single firearms transfer through a formal registration process, whether justifiable or not.

The ATF’s background check rule redefines the word “sale” so that private sellers who receive services or barter in exchange for a gun are required to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

. . .

... pages 26-27 of the rule equates “pecuniary gain” with “profit,” opening the door for the ATF to redefine the word “sale” so as to require a NICS check when a private seller is “bartering” over a gun.

Beginning with the last paragraph on Page 26 and reading into the first paragraph of page 27, the reader sees clearly that the ATF is defining the terms:  “Defining these terms to include any method of payment for a firearm would clarify that persons cannot avoid the licensing requirement by, for instance, bartering or providing or receiving services in exchange for firearms with the predominant intent to earn pecuniary gain even where no money is exchanged.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb commented on the ATF rule, saying, “This is a continuation of the Biden war on guns. It is another attempt to get around Congress to make new laws without congressional approval.”

There's more at the link.

Never in previous American history has such registration been necessary.  I entirely agree with Mr. Gottlieb:  the ATF is trying to effectively make a new law, which is the prerogative of Congress alone, by arbitrarily redrafting its regulations under existing law to such an extent that they actually change that law.  This is unconstitutional, to say the least:  yet, under the Biden administration, such bureaucratic shenanigans have become routine.  One hopes the Supreme Court will eventually get around to striking down this latest example of ATF overreach.

Nevertheless, the bureaucrats can't close every door.  I note, for example, that to give someone a firearm one has already owned for some time as a gift (where no money or other compensation, in cash or in kind, changes hands) is still entirely legal, and does not require a background check.  I would imagine that if Joe Bloggs gives John Smith such a gun as a gift one month, and John Smith gives Joe Bloggs such a gun at a suitably later date (so that there's no obvious link between the gifts), that would still be arguably outside the new regulations.  Furthermore, if one does not receive any "pecuniary gain" for a firearm by selling it (in other words, for less than one paid for it), I would imagine that would be a suitable defense against any charge under these regulations (assuming, of course, that one did not do so regularly, thereby "conducting a business" in the trade in firearms according to the bureaucratic definition).  In the old days, that used to be more-or-less loosely defined as selling more than five firearms per year.  Now, who knows?  The regulations have not yet been tested in actual court cases.  I imagine that can't be far away.

There's also the question of "swap meets", which have been conducted for some time.  A group of friends might get together and swap firearms with each other, so that two people might swap identical models of (say) Glock pistols, each ending up with a gun that was not registered in their name.  Doing that once would still leave a traceable chain, in that a rigorous investigator might uncover links between the two individuals, and be able to follow them;  but if a gun has been swapped several times between different people on different occasions, it becomes very hard to trace everyone who's owned it since its original owner bought it.  I suspect that will be declared illegal under the new regulation, in that the ATF will probably argue that receiving an identical gun in exchange for one's own constitutes "pecuniary gain" (even if that can't be measured in dollars and cents, because no money or other "trade goods" has changed hands).

Older regulations are likely to cause some problems, and raise legal questions.  For example, it used to be entirely legal (according to the ATF's own official instructions interpreting the law, which many of us have saved in downloads and screen shots) to buy a firearm to give as a gift to someone else, and put oneself down on the ATF's Form 4473 as the actual owner or purchaser of that firearm.  Yes, they said that in black and white, and it was in effect for years.  That advice is no longer to be found on the ATF's Web page - but it has never been formally withdrawn.  I suspect it will be an interesting moment in court (if the agency chooses to pursue the issue) when the accused points out something like this:

"I did something that was entirely legal under a previous ATF interpretation of the law, but am now charged with a crime for doing exactly the same thing under a later ATF interpretation.  The underlying law has not changed - only the official interpretation and regulation.  It makes no sense for conduct under the same, unchanged law to be legal one day, and illegal the next.  That is nothing more or less than an arbitrary bureaucratic decision.  It is not a change in the law."

I'm sure we'll see and hear a great deal more about this in future.  Meanwhile, if it's important to you to own a firearm or firearms that have not been officially linked to your name through a background check, you have only a very short time available (before the new regulations are implemented) in which to buy it/them from a private seller without going through the official background check process.

Peter

Comparing fast food prices in California and a neighboring state, Arizona, is an eye-opener.

The recent minimum wage hike in California has sparked a debate on its impact on consumer prices. Critics of the wage increase have argued that it would not lead to higher costs for consumers. However, a comparison of prices at a popular fast food chain, @Arbys, reveals a stark reality.

A classic roast beef sandwich, a staple item on the menu, is priced at $5.59 in Arizona. The same sandwich costs a hefty $9.24 in California. This significant price difference clearly demonstrates the effect of the minimum wage increase on consumer wallets.

. . .

To verify the price difference, one can simply download the @Arbys app and start an online order, then switch locations from Arizona to California. The stark contrast in prices is undeniable and raises concerns about the affordability of goods in the state.

There's more at the link.

Here's a selection of headlines from just one newspaper over the past couple of weeks about how the minimum wage hike in California is affecting fast food outlets.

Do you get the impression that California's legislators and administrators don't actually give a damn about the impact of their decisions and policies on the lives of ordinary Californians?  I sure do!

The question is, when will ordinary Californians do something about it?  I hope it's soon, for their sake . . . otherwise their state is going to have slid so far down the slippery slope to failure that there may be no climbing back up again.

Peter

As a former prison chaplain, with a fair amount of experience in dealing with US inmates (including the most dangerous, high-security variety), I was flabbergasted to read this report.

As part of [prison] reforms, which are based on Norway’s model, California’s prisons are moving away from punishment and toward rehabilitation, education, and re-entry.

The transformation dovetails with a decade of sentencing and parole reforms as authorities move to depopulate and close facilities statewide.

But the reality inside California’s prisons, insiders say, is increasingly dangerous for both inmates and staff.

In the first six weeks of 2024, there were six homicides in California prisons, according to the corrections department. Five were inmate-on-inmate homicides and one involved a correctional officer shooting an inmate to prevent him from fatally stabbing another inmate.

Additionally, an Epoch Times review of the department’s statistics reveals a dramatic increase over the past several years in total incident reports, as well as in important categories including assault and battery on inmates and officers, use of force, and sexual assaults.

. . .

Patrick “Jimmy” Kitlas, who began serving a life sentence in 2007 and is now eligible for parole, told The Epoch Times by phone that there have been many “really sweeping and drastic” policy changes—but they are often contradictory or not implemented.

“This place has definitely become a less structured, a less secure, and a much more violent place,” he said from San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, where he’s been since 2015 ... A new policy will often hit inmates and staff at the same time, he said, resulting in chaos.

“No one ever seems to really have a firm grasp of where the policy came from, what its purpose is, and how is the best way to implement it—which is super dangerous,” he said.

There's more at the link.

I have no problem with Norway's prison reforms:  indeed, in that country, for its particular society, they seem to be working very well.  However, US prison inmates are not Norwegians!  They have a radically different culture, often formed in what are effectively inner-city ghettoes, with a heavy emphasis on gangs and violence.  What idiot thought that a program or policy that worked for relatively well educated first-world-oriented Norwegians would automatically be effective when applied to relatively poorly educated gang-bangers from a ghetto or poverty-stricken South American country?

Some truths apply almost universally.  For example, I was able to understand and work with American prison gangs because of many years of experience with African tribes.  The tribal mindset, culture and structure carried over almost entirely to the gangs I encountered, so approaching them as if they were tribespeople paid dividends in getting through to them and gaining their trust.  However, I never made the mistake of assuming that because they resembled tribes, the gangs were as trustworthy as (some) tribes.  If a gang-banger wanted to be admitted to a prison program, one's first task was to find out what he expected to get out of it.  All too often it was to use it as an avenue to communicate with his homies outside the walls, or have things smuggled in to him, or get him closer to another inmate whom he wanted to blackmail, or assault, or even kill.  Believe me, we're very careful about that aspect of prison work!

I'll bet a pound to a penny that many of those who've signed up for these reformist programs in California see them as nothing other than a "soft touch".  Others will be using them as an avenue to continue their criminal careers.  (Don't forget, in prison, virtually all the inmates are predators:  but we've removed them from open society where there are lots of victims for them to predate.  Since they haven't changed their nature, they still predate, but now it's on each other and on the staff:  and since there are so many predators concentrated in one small place, the problem is intensified.  See my memoir about prison ministry for examples.)

I'm not surprised Norwegian policies are failing in California, because California inmates have very different backgrounds, education and cultures to Norwegian inmates.  End of story.

Peter

I'm hugely enjoying how a mistake has backfired on the person who made it.

A "woke" bureaucrat at the Veterans Administration decided, apparently on her own initiative and without consultation, to get rid of a famous photograph titled "VJ Day in Times Square", an icon of American victory in World War II.  (Click any image below for a larger view.)

Military Times reports:

The ban was announced internally at VA medical facilities late last month in a memo from RimaAnn Nelson, the Veterans Health Administration’s top operations official. Employees were instructed to “promptly” remove any depictions of the famous photo and replace it with imagery deemed more appropriate.

“The photograph, which depicts a non-consensual act, is inconsistent with the VA’s no-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment and assault,” the memo stated.

“To foster a more trauma-informed environment that promotes the psychological safety of our employees and the veterans we serve, photographs depicting the ‘V-J Day in Times Square’ should be removed from all Veterans Health Administration facilities.”

There's more at the link.

When the news broke yesterday, it took only a matter of minutes for the head honcho of the Veterans Administration to reverse his underling's decision.  I'm sure he recognized the storm of anger and disgust from outraged veterans that was about to break over his head, and wanted to stop it before it started.

The tweet that broke the story was time-stamped 7.24 AM yesterday.  Mr. McDonough's reply, above, was time-stamped 9:03 AM.  That must be some sort of bureaucratic record, to squash an out-of-line deputy so publicly and so bluntly in so short a time.  I think the VA brass were scrambling on this one, to try to salvage their public image.

No word yet on Ms. Nelson's future career prospects with the VA, but if I were in her shoes, as soon as I saw my boss's response, I'd have been sending out my resumé far and wide - and praying that someplace more "woke" than the VA would have a slot for me.

I'm sure not many of my readers wish her well in her job search.  Her decision was one of the most stupid and ill-advised I can ever remember hearing about from a senior administrator.  Fortunately for the VA, her boss wasn't as stupid.

Peter

Courtesy of Borepatch, I came across this utterly ridiculous city budgeting and expenditure procedure in San Francisco.  It's worth watching if only for the comedy value - and because it's better to laugh at it than cry about it.

The problem is, all that bureaucracy and paperwork offers immense opportunities for graft and corruption.  The powers that be can simply hide their monetary peculations in the mass of documentation and required procedures, making it very difficult (if not impossible) to prove what they're up to.

Sometimes they don't even bother to hide it, because they know they'll get away with it.  The latest example comes from New York City.

Earlier this month, The Post broke the story that Mayor Adams is giving out pre-paid cash cards to migrants.

. . .

This debit-card program — if you read the actual contract — has the potential to become an open-ended, multi-billion-dollar Bermuda Triangle of disappearing, untraceable cash, used for any purpose.

It will give migrants up to $10,000 each in taxpayer money with no ID check, no restrictions and no fraud control.

Why give debit cards out?

When The Post exposed the mayor’s debit-card program earlier this month, the mayor’s office spun it as a money-saving program, to solve a problem: migrants staying in hotels don’t eat all their food.

. . .

It wouldn’t be that difficult for the city to solve this problem: on-site city auditors could refuse to pay for meals that are objectively inedible, with visible mold, for example, or with expired labeling.

Instead of assuring that its existing no-bid “emergency” contractor fulfills its duty to provide edible food, however, the Adams administration has solved its problem by retaining a new no-bid “emergency” contractor — to provide a service with far more scope for waste, fraud, and abuse than stale sandwiches: giving out potentially billions of dollars of hard cash, few questions asked.

There's more at the link.

The article includes an analysis of why the Mayor gave the contract for administering the program to a single, new-on-the-block vendor with no competitive bidding process.  The entire affair stinks to high heaven of corruption and fraud . . . but will anything be done about it?  No.  It's just New York City politics and wheeler-dealing at work - and to hell with ratepayers' money.  (That being the case, how many migrants do you think will end up with $10K each, versus how much of that $10K will be eaten up by "expenses" or "administrative fees" or "community service costs"?  And how much will end up as donations to local politicians' "re-election campaigns"?)

Friends, this is what life is like in left-wing-dominated cities.  They're all like that.  I don't know of a single one that could be described as honest, above-board and incorrupt in its dealings.  If you do, please let us know in Comments.  (Republican-controlled cities aren't much better, of course;  they're just - usually, but not always - more careful in how they skim off the graft.)

I've said for years that you need to get out of big cities.  This is just one more reason to do so.

Peter

I'm a bit mind-boggled that Metro Transit in Minneapolis found it necessary to post on social media unusually detailed instructions about what is, and is not, acceptable and/or legal behavior by its customers.  For example:

One fare = one seat.  Your bag belongs on your lap, not taking up the seat next to you.

Interfering with the operator / movement of vehicle.  Do not bother the operator or hold up vehicles. They're trying to get you to your destination safely and on time. This includes holding doors open on trains.

Vandalizing / littering.  Respect your bus stop, station, bus, or train by putting your garbage in appropriate containers. Vandals who are caught damaging transit property can be arrested. 

Threatening / spitting on others.  This applies to your behavior with transit personnel as well as with fellow riders.

Pooping or peeing.  Transit property is not a public restroom. 

Sexual assault.  Sexual contact without consent is forbidden.

Flammable or other hazardous items.  Metro Transit prohibits flammable, explosive, radioactive, and hazardous items onboard. This includes gas-powered scooters, car or motorcycle batteries, and gasoline/fuel containers.

There are more rules at the link.

What sort of society do we live in (or, rather, do they live in up in Minneapolis) that it's even necessary to post these rules?  When I was growing up, I was expected to use public transport (buses and commuter trains) without supervision as soon as I reached the equivalent of Grade 6.  So was almost every other kid I knew.  Nobody had to teach us rules like that, because our parents had already done so (and many more) in unmistakeable and thoroughly enforced ways.  If I'd been stupid enough to poop or pee on public transit (except in medical emergency, of course), I'd have got a hefty clip over the ear from the conductor, probably a few more from fellow passengers, and an almighty beating from my father as soon as he learned about it!  And as for "sexual contact without consent" . . . that would have landed me in jail, then in juvenile court, right smartly - that is, if I'd survived my parents' punishment for daring to even think about such a thing!  (We also didn't have to worry about running into such behavior from others while using public transport.  They'd have received an immediate "educational beatdown" from most other adults in sight if they'd tried!)

When I read that list, I could only, very humbly and sincerely, thank God that I don't live in a place where such rules of conduct have to be spelled out.  Such expectations certainly would not have to be spelled out here, because many of those living in my area would take immediate and strong action if they saw anyone violating such strictures.  Enforcement authorities would be needed only to clean up the mess!  We're fortunate enough, in this part of the world, to live in a frequently self-correcting society.  That's one of the reasons I like it here.

Peter

New York City mayor Eric Adams displays utter mathematical innumeracy.

Mayor Eric Adams expects the city will spend roughly $10.6 billion to care for migrants over the three-year period ending in June 2025. The city spends an average of $352 per night to care for each migrant family, city budget officials said.

I blinked when I read that, did a double-take, and read it again.

Friends, $352 per night amounts to an annual sum of $128,480.  Let me put that in words:

One hundred and twenty-eight thousand, four hundred and eighty dollars.

That's what New York City is spending per migrant family - just one of them - every year.

How many of us - or, rather, our households/families - earn $128,480 every year?  I suspect not very many of us . . .  If we earned that much, I reckon we'd be able to pay for housing, furniture, clothing, food, transport, and anything else we needed, even budgeting carefully in an expensive place like New York City.

How about New York City abandons the entire effort to shelter migrants, fires every city or state employee involved in it, cancels all the contracts with hotels and others, and simply hands over to each migrant household a cash amount of one hundred thousand dollars per year, to live there and pay their own way?  The migrants would doubtless be very happy, and the city would save millions!  The ratepayers would object, but they're already being fiscally raped to a greater extent than that by the city's current policies.  It's just that most of them haven't noticed it among all the other demands on their money.

(To those who object that such a cash hand-out would merely attract a lot more unwanted migrants to flock to New York City:  those of us living elsewhere think of that as a feature, not a bug!)

Progressive-left budgeting at work.  Sheesh!

Peter

That appears to be the motto of many so-called "blue" (i.e left-wing/progressive) states in America.  Two recent headlines demonstrate it.

Blue States Just Can’t Stop Taxing

The latest Census Bureau data on population changes in America should have been a wake-up call to lawmakers in blue states and cities. The Census data provide even further evidence that “soak the rich” tax policies have incited a blue-state meltdown.

California, New York and Illinois all lost the most population last year. These states have nearly lost a combined 5 million people over the last decade. California and New York could both lose another three congressional seats by the end of the decade, and Illinois another two.

Did I mention that these are the three states with the highest taxes?

Is this just a coincidence?

Democratic governors evidently think so. This year, seven blue states are pursuing even higher tax rates on the top 1% of earners, despite the evidence that these policies are detrimental to their citizens.

. . .

Meanwhile, Jonathan Williams, the chief economist at the American Legislative Exchange Council — an association of more than 2,000 conservative state legislators — reports that eight red states are cutting income taxes including Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and West Virginia. Oklahoma is set to cut rates this year to as low as 2%. Several of these states now have flat taxes, not multiple tier “progressive” rates. Every state on this list is a red state, except Connecticut.

What does all this mean? The blue-state deep thinkers can’t see that their “progressive” tax systems are bleeding their states dry. Or they don’t care.

Law banning plastic bags in blue state backfires as plastic consumption skyrockets

New Jersey’s single-use plastic bag ban has proved unsuccessful in curbing plastic consumption, with a new study showing that plastic use has tripled.

Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ) signed a bill that set the bag ban into motion in May 2022 in an effort to address plastic pollution, and he said it “will help mitigate climate change.” The ban, which was the strictest of its kind at the time, restricted retail and grocery stores from providing customers with single-use plastic bags and prohibited grocery stores larger than 2,500 square feet from giving customers single-use paper bags ... The law also banned polystyrene foam food takeout containers and single-use plastic straws unless a customer requests one. 

Shoppers resorted to reusable bags ... However, this surge in reusable bags has created its own sort of environmental problem ... A new study by Freedonia Group on Jan. 9 shows that the plastic bag ban the governor touted as “the strongest bill of its kind in the U.S.” has produced the opposite effect. New Jersey residents have used three times the amount of plastic, consuming 53 million pounds of plastic before the law and 151 million pounds after, according to numbers reported by Fox News. 

“Most of these alternative bags are made with nonwoven polypropylene, which is not widely recycled in the United States and does not typically contain any post-consumer recycled materials. This shift in material also resulted in a notable environmental impact, with the increased consumption of polypropylene bags contributing to a 500% increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to nonwoven polypropylene bag production in 2015,” the study reported. 

New Jersey is not the only state to implement plastic bag bans to help the environment. Twelve others, including Vermont, Oregon, California, and Colorado, have single-use plastic bag restrictions.

Now, if only we could stop migrants from those states to more sensible ones from taking with them the attitudes that ruined their states of origin in the first place . . .  Why do so many of them arrive in their new homes, loudly celebrating leaving behind all those restrictive, counterproductive, overbearing state policies, and then vote for people who want to introduce the same problems to their new states?

This gets tiring, to say the very least . . .  It's no wonder some of the road signs show evidence of that.

Peter

Following our reality check about inflation last week, Schiff Gold looks at inflation "on the street", as opposed to government statistics, and finds nothing to cheer about.

Inflation is dead!

At least that’s what you would think if you listen to government officials and talking heads in the financial media.

So, how is this victory over inflation working out for the average person?

Not so great.

Based on official CPI data, price inflation has cooled somewhat, although it remains far above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. That hasn’t stopped President Biden and most of the mainstream financial media from declaring victory over rising prices. Biden even suggested that companies should start cutting prices since inflation is falling.

It’s important to remember that even if we believe the government numbers and price inflation is cooling, that doesn’t mean consumers are getting any relief.

Prices are not falling. They’re just going up slower than they were six months ago.

And those price increases are cumulative. Since January 2022, prices have risen 9.7% based on the CPI. And the CPI is designed to understate rising prices.

In other words, we’re all still coping with much higher prices no matter what the latest CPI report says. And the suffering is far worse than sterile BLS reports indicate.

This becomes clear when we go out in the real world and stop listening to news people spouting government numbers ... real-life price inflation is far worse than the official numbers indicate.

There's more at the link.

The article goes on to cite the well-known example of inflation from the movie "Home Alone" - read it at the link if you haven't already heard it.  Because it relies on official inflation rates, it obviously underestimates cost increases;  but the numbers for the period 2022-2023 are much closer to the truth.  The article points out:

In 2022, that same basket of groceries would have cost around $44.40 based on a shopping trip by a West Virginia mother. That’s a 123.9% increase. (Keep in mind prices vary somewhat depending on the store and location.)

This year, Kevin would have to fork out a whopping $72.28 for his provisions at a Chicago store. That’s another 62.8% increase in just one year.

62.8% increase in a single year?  What was I saying earlier about a "mere" 30% inflation?  I may have to adjust my estimate . . . Obviously, part of that enormous rise is the difference in prices between West Virginia and Chicago, but that can't begin to account for all of it.  One year, and almost a two-thirds increase in the cost of the goods in question.  Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Why does the "official" inflation rate differ so much from what you and I experience every day at the supermarket?  For a start, remember that in calculating the core CPI, economists deliberately exclude the cost of fuel and food.  They claim there are good reasons for this;  that by excluding them, they get a better picture of the overall cost of living without the elements that most often exhibit major fluctuations.  I'm sure that's very nice for them.  On the other hand, we poor schlubs in suburbia have to spend our money on what we actually need to keep our families running.  I have yet to encounter any family that doesn't need fuel and food on a daily basis.

As for overall (rather than just core) CPI, economists have a nasty habit of assuming the value of certain things, or assigning a weighting to them, in proportion to what they consider a fair and balanced calculation.  Sadly, their weighting often bears little or no relationship to reality.  You can see the Bureau of Labor Statistic's weighting at this Web page, in the first column headed "Relative importance Oct. 2023".  A few examples:

• "Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs" are weighted at 1.794 out of a total of 100;  in other words, rounding it up, 1.8%.  I defy any non-vegetarian American family to spend only $1.79 on those products, out of every $100 they spend on food every month.  If you're lucky, that will buy less than half a pound of ground beef, or two-thirds of a single chicken breast.
• Motor fuel is weighted at 3.531.  Show me the family that spends only $3.53 out of every $100 of their monthly budget on gasoline for the family car.
• "Medical care services" is weighted at 6.339.  If that's a percentage out of every $100 spent by a family every month . . . see how big a single bottle of aspirin you can buy with that much.  Go on.  We'll wait.

When one cites examples like this, people immediately object, claiming that a "weighting" isn't the same as spending that much in dollars and cents every month.  I (dis)respectfully disagree.  Go read the BLS's spreadsheet for yourselves, and make up your own mind on whether it's even remotely possible that it can produce an accurate reading of consumer inflation.  Compare its numbers to your own monthly expenditure.  It's not pretty.

In so many words, the "official" rate of inflation is a sham, a fake, and a public lie.

Peter