Fire the Strikers

I hate extortion in any form.  

Thus,  I've never been a fan of workers going on Strike.  This is especially true for people who work in government or other public service jobs.   Refusing to do the job should result in termination.  Period.

Strikes cause  the wrong people to suffer. The  people who are hurt most by strikes are usually innocent victims:  travelers, students, patients, etc.   Ironically, those who suffer the effects of the strike will have such enmity for the strikers that they will blame the (non)workers rather than the company.  The long term effect of strikes is counterproductive.  I don't travel to France anymore; one reason is that I cannot count of a vacation that won't be ruined by striking workers.  

Currently sanitation workers normally serving 14 communities in Massachusetts  are on the umteenth day of a strike against Republic Services.  A messy situation indeed.   If I were running the company, I would tell the workers, "Show up tomorrow, ready to work or you will be fired."    Let the workers go somewhere where they can get a better deal.  

The competition for good workers should be enough to make the company offer a decent deal to its workforce.   A company has no inherent obligation to its workers other than to pay them the agreed upon wage for their labor.  Benefits were invented to make a company more competitive to the labor market;  they do not add to profits (which, after all, is the fundamental reason for a company to exist)

Let me be clear that I am not complaining about the union trying to obtain equity for workers to earn a decent wage in a safe environment with reasonable benefits.  

Ronald Regan handled a very dicey situation when air traffic controllers went on strike,  He fired the strikers and forbade them being rehired.  Yes, there was some brief interruption in service, but the planes did not fall from the sky.

So, like Regan, my solution is to fire the workers who don't show up.  Then the company can hire people who do want to work for that level of compensation.  

Yes, that could allow for some of the abuses that greedy bosses have always been prone to.  That is the province of laws, enacted by elected representatives, rather than self-serving union management.  Most high level union executives make more than $500K per year).

Cuts in Medical Research

 I'm sure there are some wasteful practices and efficiencies that the current administration could be investigating in the awarding of grants for medical research.  But what we are seeing is a spiteful chainsaw approach to a vital science that has resulted in numerous discoveries that have led to  treatment and prevention of deadly diseases. 

Instead of  doing the hard work of investigating  government spending with rigor and method, the current stance looks for  quick results that it can crow  about  (dollars allegedly saved).  The mindless hacking away has been disastrous,

Look at some recent events:

    -All but 28 of the 350 Nuclear scientists responsible for keeping track of weapons had to be rehired after it became clear that their work is vital to national interests.

    -Hundreds s of FAA employees in support and safety-critical roles were fired in early 2025.  Already understaffed, Air Traffic Controllers are stressed even more, leading to a noticeable uptick in  incidents at airports, especially for small craft.

    - FEMA didn't answer calls for help following  the Texas floods because Christy Noem did not approve of contract renewals.  

Ask your AI about other decisions by Trump's loyal but inexperienced staff that have had unintended consequences.

Now the Trump claque is going after medical research grants with bazookas and flame throwers.

The Boston Sunday Globe highlights this in an article* that ran today:  Miracle drugs like OPDIVO and Keytruda wouldn’t exist without government-funded research. These immunotherapies have transformed cancer treatment, offering hope and extended life to patients with previously untreatable conditions.   These breakthroughs have been lifesaving—for me and so many others who rely on Cancer therapy. That’s why I take personal offense at attacks on legitimate medical research. Science saves lives. Undermining research puts us all at risk.  You included, gentle reader.  

It's pretty obvious that the Big Ugly Bill that the Republicans just passed will benefit the richest donors with tax cuts, at the expense of important programs and services for the poor and middles and "others".  

We've come to expect that typical Conservative indifference to the suffering of lazy, stupid  poor people, but when it comes to cutting medical research, we are not just talking about unfortunate, sick indigents. The 2% also get Cancer and other deadly diseases.  No amount of money can buy a cure that doesn't exist.  

See you in Hell, everyone who voted for that Bill -- and for Trump.   You voted for people to die, instead of helping them.  By the way, What's that thing on your face? 

*Boston Sunday Globe Ideas 7-13-25

Lying Under Oath

 At  his confirmation hearing to become Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged not to remove the existing members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Kennedy assured Senator Bill Cassidy that he would maintain the ACIP “without changes”

However, that promise was broken when he dismissed all 17 sitting members of the committee and appointed a new panel, many of whom have histories of vaccine skepticism.

For me, this raises a question:

If it turns out that a nominee lied at their confirmation hearing, shouldn't they be un-confirmed and resubmitted for a vote to that subcommittee?

If so, perhaps we need to look at some recent Supreme Court appointees as well.

If not, what is the point of the confirmation hearings?