Links and Minifeatures 06 27 Wednesday

Senate Republicans Block Labor Bill

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would allow labor unions to organize workplaces without a secret ballot election.

The article makes it plain who the reporter favors:

Unions complain that employers have greater access to workers during secret ballot campaigns and claim that corporate threats, intimidation and eventual firings have become common for union activists. By dragging out the election process, companies often succeed in wearing down union enthusiasm, they add.

No mention whatsoever of the fact that employers aren't the only ones known for intimidation. Without a secret ballot, the boss fires you if you vote "yes", and the Union goons kneecap you if you vote "no."



I know that I have spoken of transparency here in the past. As an ideal situation, transparency is great. However, requiring transparency for the individual workers while allowing the powerful employer or union to remain masked in their activities is a recipe for misery. I'll support individual election vote disclosures when the everything undertaken by the union or the employer (or their respective representatives) is equally available.



**********



Not a good sign for the Iranian regime: Iran fuel rations spark anger, pump stations burn



The central quote:

Despite its huge energy reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity and must import about 40 percent of its gasoline, a sensitive issue when world powers have threatened new U.N. sanctions in a row with Tehran over its nuclear program.

Good to see totalitarian regimes can be as stupid as democracies. We haven't built any refineries in thirty years either.



Gateway Pundit has photos and more.



**********



Liberals vs. Free Speech



Too much generalization to be taken as evidence, yet symptomatic of a real problem. Arguing with the opposition is the sign of a strong rational argument. Conceding the opposition has some points, while maintaining that your own outweigh them, is the sign of a strong rational argument. Suppressing or trying to suppress the opposition, or the opposing argument, is a sign of fear or facism. In either case, those advocating censorship of opposing ideas are indicating that they cannot outargue the opposition rationally.



Yes, people make stupid decisions. That's part of it being a free country. In fact, being able to make stupid decisions is a requirement of it being a free country. But people must be free to commit the stupidity and discover that it was a stupid decision on their own.



And every once in a while, that stupid decision turns out, upon experimentation, not to have been so stupid after all. In fact, it turns out that the "crazy" act was a better way of solving the problem. The fact that we have the economic and political freedom to allow a minority to risk stupidity in order to discover a better way of doing things is one of the central reasons why democracy beats totalitarianism, and why the free market beats central planning every time.



I may occasionally advocate the idea that someone censor themselves, and I heartily believe that divulging information that harms American troops is treason and worthy of punishment up to and including death, but one can make political and economic arguments without endangering our defenders. No matter how stupid certain politicians and talking heads are, so long as they don't endanger the United States by divulging classified information, they must be free to argue their case.



On the same subject, Captain's Quarters has a word on resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine as a cover for a partisan attempt to destroy the opposition.



Michelle Malkin has the political play by play



**********



Victor Davis Hanson on civilization



**********



Wizbang on both what the real problem is with healthcare and why we don't want it run by the government.



**********



Shots Across the Bow on the immigration bill. Adult Language Advisory applies.



If you want the text of the bill, it's here in searchable format



**********



Iraq the Model with some good news that those who are rushing to declare the surge a failure should read.



**********



Finally, something directly real estate related: A cogent, well made argument for repealing real estate licensing requirements



I agree more than I disagree. When I came to this business from financial planning, I was shocked at the lies that get routinely told by some practitioners. Things that would have the practitioners in federal prison if they were in the financial planning industry are completely legal in real estate and mortgage. Not that the financial planning industry doesn't have its issues, chief among which are the impediments to practitioners showing or advertising the actual benefits of their expertise.



Real Estate brokerages control the industry, and through them, the regulators. It is to their benefit to have a large supply of agents while constricting the alternatives for the public. Hence, the current low bar to entry. Unbelievably, even the state exam for California, one of the more difficult, requires only basic four function mathematical competence!



A low bar to entry is no bar to entry, particularly with such high dollar values. I'm not certain that outright repeal is the best answer, but the information clearinghouses that would spring up (analogous to Underwriter's Laboratories) would be far superior at protecting the consumer to the current set up. A very long way from perfect, as I have detailed in Relying Upon Reputation: There Are No Silver Bullets, among other places, but better than the current system.



(Searchlight Crusade is not such a clearinghouse. The emphasis here is on detailing what good practice is and is not and why, so that you can judge for yourselves by the evidence of your experience. I do not remember that I have ever pointed a specific finger for good or ill at anyone in the industry here, only at the advantages and disadvantages of certain practices.)



The only alternative that I can envision is making the real estate license curriculum a lot more difficult. Even the hardest possible curriculum, however, would provide no protection against intentional malefactors. Basically, I would like to remove any possible defense of ignorance from all licensees while dramatically streamlining the disclosures process so that all major issues that should stand out, have to, rather than the current process which is so driven by fear of lawsuits that major problems get hidden behind trivial ones, obscuring the real interests of consumer.