Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Elon Musk Knows How to Fight the Federal Government
Regulators despise him. Stakeholders love him. Fans of space exploration laud him. And innovators—well, it depends on whether you see electric cars as an inevitable part of the future, or an irresponsible and impractical development.
Very few people are indifferent to the workings of Elon Musk.
The main reason I want to celebrate Elon Musk is that he isn’t afraid of anyone, at least not in the federal government. He has repeatedly pushed back on, insulted, ignored, and refused to comply with federal regulators. Some people would say that he can afford to be incorrigible with his remarkable ventures, wealth, and success. On the other hand, there are many corporate CEOs who have caved into regulators who mainly seem to want to flex their muscles, exert stifling control, and make life difficult for risk-takers.
Musk has scuffled with the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Security and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. We could debate whether these agencies have had legitimate concerns, but Musk is making a critical point: you’d better have good reasons for slowing him down or he will stonewall, criticize or ignore requests.
* * * * *
Elon Musk sets an outstanding example for corporate America to stand up to totalitarian forces and not to cave into the federal government. He is an iconoclast; his politics are all over the place. But he is very clear on his overall mission: to break boundaries and push ahead with every bit of his being—and to hell with the powers-that-be.
As we watch corporations supposedly stand up for the American people, we choke at their duplicity, ignorance, and disingenuousness. They don’t even care for their shareholders anymore; their priorities are virtue signaling, and as long as the Left dictates their agenda, they will foolishly comply. As businessmen, these CEOs aren’t obligated to defend America, but they are naïve enough to believe that if they walk in lockstep with the Left, they will be safe from criticism and retribution.
They have no clue that when the Left has used and abused them, those CEOs will be chewed up and spit out.
* * * * *
Elon Musk is also sending a message to everyday Americans, those of us who live ordinary lives and might think we have no power to make a difference.
We are lying to ourselves.
Each of us has an obligation—to our country, our communities, our families, and friends—to protest the lies and misrepresentations of the Left. We must support each other in taking a stand, for speaking out and refusing to bow to the arrogant and deceitful Left. More and more we are realizing that the consequences we might face if we speak out are inconsequential, compared to what we have to lose as a people.
May we have just an ounce of the boldness that Elon Musk demonstrates every day, and speak out against tyranny and oppression.
Published in Domestic Policy
The “classic example” there is for an autonomous car to drive YOU off a cliff because the only alternative it can see is colliding with a car that carries a family, and they’re more important than you.
I tried going without autocorrect for a while, because it drove me nuts. But it turns out that my ability to type with my thumbs is so poor, that having autocorrect on was actually better than turning it off.
Have you driven a car that autocorrects your driving? I have. It’s fantastic.
I bet you guys still balance your checkbooks, too.
Musk is a farmer – he just farms credits and government subsidies better than anyone else.
On the other hand, he is doing some amazing things.
I’m not really talking about rational choices. I’m talking about the car making decisions that overrule a competent driver.
You got it right the first time “OK, boomer.”
What’s a checkbook?
He is. I’m just not sure I should be paying him to do them.
What car? How did it autocorrect?
I once rented a car that had cruise control. I wondered time after time why the car lost power and slowed down to five or ten miles below the speed limit. Then I realized that it was pacing a car in the same lane a mile ahead. In my old cars, cruise control would let my car approach a car ahead, and then I would change lanes to pass it. Not so with the modern autocorrected driving.
That applies in the example too. It’s entirely possible that a driver who’s actually there, could see an alternative better than going off a cliff.
Seems like a nice feature in the right neighborhoods.
Well the other problem here is that driving the car off the cliff is an extreme example that we are unlikely to see in the real world. I suspect that most of the time, in a situation where some kind of crash is imminent, the car is going to stop or slow down. Not drive off a cliff in order not hit someone.
I mean, you guys can nay say all day long. But these problems will get sorted out. They will because they always do. And what becomes mainstream probably won’t be what we think it will be. But it’ll be better than what we have.
I don’t agree that everyone riding around in self-driving cars would be better than what we have now, no matter how good the technology might get.
And I’ll point out again, George Jetson drove his own space-car!
I see Jane, Judy, and Elroy. I forget the dog’s name.
Astro.
The speed limit was 65 or 70 or so, on the interstate.
At least some banks still return checks, the last one I had was Compass Bank. That’s been a while ago, and maybe they don’t still do that.
But having a photocopy of a written check doesn’t show that it was paid. That’s why you need the “cancelled” version with the recipient’s signature, deposit info, etc.
The banks that don’t return physical checks, keep images of them online. Rather than making a copy of the check when written, you should print off the images of the check – front and back – from your bank’s online service after they come through. Then you will have actual proof of payment, not just proof of written.
We once had our bank pay the wrong amount on a check. It was written for the correct amount, but the bank didn’t pay it all. That took some straightening out.
Yes, the endorsement on the back etc would show those details. Just having a photocopy of the original check, doesn’t.
One time I was readying to sue someone and I went to the bank to get a copy of the cancelled check. It took a while but I finally got a copy of the front of the check. So I asked for the back as well, and after some surly argument from the manager, I got a copy of the front and back of the check on a single piece of paper, but the endorsement was a rubber stamp without a signature, and the manager had marked out the receiving account number below the endorsement. So I had to ask again, and she was even more pissed and argued with me that that was private. I said how can I prove that the right guy actually got the money unless I have the account number that is was deposited to? But eventually I got the copy of the cancelled check with the number and the signature on it of the bank manager. It took about an hour I think.
Needless to say I cancelled my account there.
The person who got the check got your account number, it’s right there on the check; it’s only obviously fair that you get their account number too.
Was that the argument you used?
I said I was taking the guy to court and I needed to prove that he was actually the one who received the money; how do I prove that someone else didn’t get hold of the check, forge the endorsement and deposit it in another account? The guy might deny receiving it and I couldn’t prove otherwise.
Did you have a subpoena? Did they give you a business records affidavit? I don’t know other states but in Texas without the business records affidavit the copy you asked for is inadmissible hearsay.
That’s a good practical reason, but if they still refused it should work to point out that THEY got YOUR account number.
I don’t think he would need a subpoena for his own record.
Well, I didn’t know that. I suppose. But this was just preliminary before going to the lawyer. But my real exasperation has to do with checks once being considered contracts, but not anymore. I’ve always been led to believe it was accepted in a court of law. What was paid was the consideration, and what was put in the memo space was the service or product. As it happened the guy quit his pilot’s job and took off for Alaska. And the cost of the lawyer would have been more than a full recovery of damages. I was just cheated a little. But his silent partner was majorly defrauded.
Does anyone go to Alaska to get away from just ONE legal problem? Maybe, but it would have to be a BIG one.
A check was never a contract. It might have been evidence of a contract, but it is not the contract itself. A contract is an offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual agreement to be bound by the agreement. There are different kinds, but that’s a good start. The check would only be evidence of the consideration. A contract need not be in writing in unless required by the statute of frauds or other statute such as the uniform commercial code (usually $500 or more).
So to prove you had a contract you would typically need something in writing and an exchange of consideration. The check is not necessarily a contract itself, because a check rarely would have the terms of a contract on it, and even if it did refer to the terms, the terms would likely be too vague to be the entire contract.
He mentioned needing it to prove something, and I inferred that meant he needed it in court.