Reciprocity

It will come as a surprise to most Americans under the age of 50, given the trajectory of modern history courses, that in the mid to late 1800's there were two very famous British politicians who dominated their era. William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli were, like their contemporary, Abraham Lincoln, accomplished orators. I was reading this article when a quote from Disraeli came to mind.

He said, of Gladstone, "Nothing delights me more than the sight of an unsophisticated rhetorician intoxicated by the exuberance of his own natural verbosity."

From the story;

 "A GOP congressman asked why men should have to pay for maternity care, and this woman’s response is now resonating across the country.

Barbara Rank, 63, wrote to her local newspaper, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald, after Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) made the comments at a town hall last Monday.

 Blum said he’d voted in favor of legislation that repeals and replaces major parts of the Affordable Care Act to “get rid of some of these crazy regulations that Obamacare puts on […] such as a 62-year-old male having to have pregnancy insurance.”

Sounds like a pretty crazy regulation to me too. Always has. In fact I wrote about just that aspect of Obamacare years ago. My conclusion was that any system that requires such an artifice to maintain its solvency cannot last for long. Looks like I was right.

Ms. Rank, however, has another take on the subject which is what led me to remember Disraeli's quip.

 " Rank explained how the lawmaker’s comment had caused her to rhetorically ask herself “why should I pay for a bridge I don’t cross, a sidewalk I don’t walk on, a library book I don’t read?”

Because of civic duty and, more importantly, reciprocity. All of us help pay for the bridges you do cross, the sidewalks you do walk on and the library books you do read. Which is why you are asked to help pay for ours, the ones you don't use in the cities you don't live in.

As in Disraeli's observation, she has been carried away with the exuberance of her own natural verbosity.

“Why should I pay for a flower I won’t smell, a park I don’t visit, or art I can’t appreciate?” the retired special education teacher continued. “Why should I pay the salaries of politicians I didn’t vote for, a tax cut that doesn’t affect me, or a loophole I can’t take advantage of?”

The answer is, of course, the same as the one above. Reciprocity and civic duty.

I am not sure why she thinks a loop hole, also known less pejoratively as an itemized tax deduction, somehow costs her something.

The story states that Ms. Rank is a retired school teacher. She is only 63. These teachers must have a pretty good pension system. I wonder who pays for that.

Given her former profession I thought I would ask a question in a format she is no doubt familiar with.

Which of these things is not like the others?

A) Parks, B) Roads, C) Bridges, D) Sidewalks, E)  Health insurance and F) Libraries.

Right you are! Gold star smiley faces for all! E is unlike all the others. There is no reciprocal benefit to the 62 year old man forced to pay for maternity coverage. He is simply forced to pay money for something it is entirely impossible for him to use, regardless of where he lives, for the benefit of someone else. It is simply a taking with no benefit.

Not the way America is supposed to work.

Apocalypse Trump

As you have no doubt noticed there is an apocalyptic story about President Trump just about every day. As you have also no doubt noticed, these stories contain very little in the way of facts.

Today Yahoo "News" (quote marks are mine) treated us to this howler:

The Comey memo was also about Trump’s request to arrest reporters. Journalists call it ‘crazy and scary.’

 

Only two small problems, again. No memo and no named source. Other than that, its totally credible. Well, no, it isn't.

Perhaps there is a memo, I guess we'll see. Seems to me that whoever leaked this could easily have made a copy of the "memo" available. After all, according to the NYT story Yahoo "News" relies on,

"The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter." If it isn't classified why not share it? As any 10 year old knows, because it either doesn't exist, doesn't say what the leaker claims it does, or the leaker is daring Trump to release the recordings of his conversations with Comey Trump referred to so they will know whether the tapes exist. Much better to know that before hand than risk being exposed for what they are if they publish the memo.

Curious indeed. If you read the NYT story you can see the methodology. An anonymous source reads from a "memo" the NYT cannot see. The NYT sees no problem here. In fact, the story extrapolates from the "memo" no one has seen.

Here is one of my favorites.

"The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia."

What "documentation"? No one has seen any such documentation but extrapolating damning conclusions from a document they don't have and have never seen is no stretch at all when President Trump is involved. And they wonder why Trump hates them and makes no secret of it.

President Trump vowed to "drain the swamp" that is Washington D.C. The swamp creatures are fighting back in unprecedented style.

Bureaucrats, prime stakeholders in the swamp, are leaking details of every meeting Trump has. Main stream media, also prime stakeholders in the swamp, continually print stories based on absolutely nothing but "unnamed sources" referring, to but never producing any "documentation".

This, from a recent Washington Post story, is, I think, a record for anonymous sourcing.

"But the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans, paint a conflicting narrative centered on the president’s brewing personal animus toward Comey. Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to candidly discuss internal deliberations." Emphasis added.

So, "more than 30" eh? Well, how many actually or are the reporters unable to count that high? What possible reason could the writers have for not including the actual number? Many possibilities. None of which reflect well on the reporters, their editors or The Washington Post. Chief among the possibilities is that there were not 30 sources but they admired the effect the inclusion of the number had on the story's claim to legitimacy.

Then there is this; "Many of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity..."

"Many"? There is not a single named "source" in the story as it relates to the leak. Why not include a quote from someone who didn't insist on anonymity?  Because none of the quoted, attributed sources, were among the leakers. They were just offering opinions. Why include such dissembling? Because they are not writing a news story. They are trying to destroy the presidency of the man who vowed to make them play by the rules.

They are protecting their turf and will not give up easily.

Do not believe anything they say about President Trump. Not a thing. Their purpose is to persuade the President's supporters to abandon him. We won't. If any of his other supporters are anything like me, the behavior of the press and the bureaucrats simply confirms that Trump is and was right. These people are much more interested in taking him down than they are in reporting the "news".

One thing I find puzzling. Do they really want a President Pence? Hillary he is not.

Unbiased Journalism

I mentioned in the previous post that despite the dire warnings of a constitutional crisis in the wake of President Trump's firing of James Comey, there is no constitutional crisis.

There is another crisis, in my opinion. It has been a problem since Mr. Trump's election.

Mainstream journalism, while contemptible for its cheer leading tenor during Obama's reign and Hillary's campaign, has evolved into a new role.

They seem to see their job as being supportive of anyone the President criticizes.

Senator Richard Blumenthal weighed in on the Comey affair.

 “What we have now is really a looming constitutional crisis that is deadly serious,” Blumenthal said on CNN’s “New Day.” “Because there is an investigation ongoing.” 

Very restrained of him. The crisis is only looming. Of course, there is always "an investigation ongoing". In fact, I would be shocked if there were not thousands of investigations "ongoing".

The Donald, being The Donald took to Twitter to remind us that Blumenthal lied on many occasions about having served in Vietnam and that Blumenthal should be the subject of an investigation.

Yahoo "News" (quotes are mine) quickly leapt to Mr. Blumenthal's defense publishing the article linked above under the headline:

Trump falsely claims Sen. Blumenthal devised ‘one of the greatest military frauds in U.S. history'

Their problem is not that Mr. Blumenthal is a self-aggrandizing serial liar. No, of course not.

The real problem is that President Trump exaggerates, not that Blumenthal is a disgrace. 

I have mentioned before the analysis that his critics take him literally but not seriously. His supporters take him seriously but not literally. The critics keep proving the point.

Not being content with just asserting that there have been bigger frauds than Blumenthal in US military history, Yahoo goes on to try and even the playing field for Mr. Blumenthal.

"And during the Vietnam War, Trump avoided the draft by receiving five deferments, including one for what he described as bone spurs in his heels."

So Donald Trump had five deferments,  just like Blumenthal! Indeed. Not.

Trump never pretended to have been in combat which is the source of Trump's contempt for Blumenthal.

 

James Comey/Updated

Well! President Trump has finally fired FBI Director James Comey.

Is this a manifestation of Trump's well known (to the left) penchant for totalitarianism?

Has he unleashed his inner Hitler/Mussolini/Pol Pot/Stalin/Attilla the Hun?

Maybe, but in a good way.

I wrote at some length last July about Comey's non-indictment indictment of Hillary Clinton. His explanation was complete nonsense in my view and that of many others more qualified to opine on the matter than I. He should long since have been fired.

I find myself wondering how the left is going to play this. They have a conundrum to deal with.

When Comey let Clinton off the hook he was the greatest, sharpest, most honest guy in the world. When he put her back on the hook briefly, at the end of October, he was the worst miscreant ever to work in Washington. When he promptly took her off the hook, again, he resumed his pedestal. But then she lost. Oh my. Comey's pedestal was promptly blown up.

But wait, there's more! He testified to Congress that some Trump people might be in the FBI's cross hairs over contacts with Russia. The pedestal was not resurrected but he was relieved of perennial villain status.

Now he has been fired. Are they shameless enough to set their hair on fire, again over Trump's megalomania?

I don't know but it should make for enjoyable entertainment.

Update:

Hair is on fire! It is the Saturday Night Massacre all over again! A Constitutional Crisis!

Except for the part where it is neither.

The Saturday Night Massacre  occurred on October 20, 1973. Congress had appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Watergate burglary. The ensuing investigation led to Richard Nixon's resignation from the presidency.

The statute creating the special prosecutor stated that he could not be fired except for cause and classified him as a justice department employee, not a political appointee. President Nixon demanded his Attorney General fire the SP without cause. The AG refused and resigned. Nixon then demanded that his assistant AG fire the SP. The AGA also resigned. The rest is well known history.

James Comey served at the pleasure of the President and could be fired for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all. Thus, no comparison at all to the SNM, as in, none.

Constitutional crisis? Apparently these people are not terribly well acquainted with the Constitution. The Director of the FBI is a political appointment of the executive branch. As such, as mentioned above, the President can fire him for any reason or no reason at all, at any time.

Billions of bytes are being deployed in the attempt to create the impression that the reason for the firing is that Comey's probe into Russian/Trump campaign collusion was getting too close to the President and had to be stopped.

There is a quite plausible, although less exciting, alternative explanation.

The Deputy AG, to whom the FBI Director reports, was only confirmed to office by the Senate on April 26, 2017. He then proceeded with his review of those for whose performance he is responsible. Unsurprisingly he found Comey's performance wanting, (agreeing with many Democrats' assessments, well, until they changed their minds en masse yesterday) and issued his report to the AG recommending he be fired. AG Sessions approved the report and informed the President. The President fired Comey.

The end.

Good Faith, Health Care Edition

I have written before of the critical role good faith plays in any meaningful discussion. I have written before that there does not appear to be any good faith on the left. They keep proving me, unfortunately, correct.

The House passed an Obamacare reform act last week. The world ended.

Courtesy of Senator Kamala Harris (D CA) this gem of lie..

"If you're one of the up to 129M people who have a pre-existing condition, share your story with me today & I’ll RT some throughout the day."

As the Senator (and former Attorney General of California) must know most
Americans get their health insurance through their employment. Consideration of pre-existing conditions has been unlawful in group policies for over 30 years, as she also surely knows.

The subject of the legislation she is vilifying is Obamacare. How many people are insured by Obamacare? Well, according to the Senator's home state paper of record, The L.A. Times, as published on March 29th of this year,


 

That is correct, 9.1 million people. Perhaps each of those 9.1 million has 14,175,824 pre-existing conditions, thus her 129,000,000. Probably not.

She isn't done yet. As the chart above makes clear, 290,200,000 Americans have health insurance. I'm guessing, since the entire population of the country is about 330,000,000 that at least a few of the 290,200,000 are not in the top 5% income wise, the privileged few, in other words. There are, by definition, no more than 16,500,000 people in that cohort. Probably far fewer since there are about 73,000,000 minors in the US and few of them are likely to have achieved top 5% income status on their own.

" Health care should not be a privilege for a few, but a right for all. The bill that passed earlier today won’t do that." Says the Senator. Indeed, says I, and thank goodness it isn't a "privilege for a few". Is it a right then? No. Just another service we buy or receive in some other manner.

Not to be outdone, a writer named Joan McCarter published a well informed piece under the following headline,

House Republicans vote to sentence millions of Americans to death

By Joan McCarter  

Thursday May 04, 2017 · 11:19 AM PDT

As you can imagine it is replete with nonsense. Have a look if you have the stomach for it.
If you do you will notice that  every link supporting her hysteria is to a left wing or far left wing publication or organization. The definition of living in a bubble.

She ends the piece with this bit of hilarity.

"Here’s another consequence: we will make the political life of every Republican who voted for this a living hell."

It would be nice if we could actually discuss things with the left but it seems to be impossible, so bereft of good faith are they.

Received Wisdom

Received wisdom is defined by some as "knowledge or information that people generally believe is true, although in fact it is often false".

There seems to be a lot of that going around on the left these days although to be fair it is my opinion that received wisdom has been their most frequent source of information for quite some time. 

We all know that republicans are in favor of dirty air and water. No word on where we would get our clean air and water.

Republicans want to take "health care" away from poor people.

Perhaps a more elaborate example is in order.

Illegal immigrants are just hard working souls looking to improve their lot in life (most are, I think) and they contribute a lot more in taxes to the country than the value of the benefits they consume. Not according to this extensive study by the Heritage Foundation. 

Some disagree with the Heritage Foundation. It is obvious, however, that they are just being deceptive in support of their received wisdom. Reading the following paragraph carefully exposes the game.


"Citizen children of illegal immigrants -- often derogatorily referred to as "anchor babies" -- do qualify for social benefits. Also, undocumented immigrants are eligible for schooling and emergency medical care. Currently, the average unlawful immigrant household costs taxpayers $14,387 per household, according to a recent report by The Heritage Foundation. But in its 2013 "Immigration Myths and Facts" report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says most economists see providing these benefits as an investment for the future, when these children become workers and taxpayers." (Emphasis added.)

Did you notice that the statement in support of illegal immigrants was missing an important qualifier? That $14,387 is an annual number. According to the Heritage report linked above there were about 3.7 million illegal immigrant households in the US when the report was compiled. That would be a cost of $53,231,900,000 per year. Every year.

Those anchor babies are going to have to be awfully productive if the "investment" is going to pay off. It would take 2,129,276 anchor babies earning enough to result in them paying $25,000 per year in taxes to repay one year's worth of "investment". Let's assume that a family earning $100,000 per year would pay $25,000 in taxes. According to this analysis, fewer than 7% of American families earn between $100,000 and $120,000 per year. Good luck with that investment. About 4 million anchor babies were born between 2000 and 2013.

So, the Chamber of Commerce, a very big booster of open borders and amnesty, agrees with the Heritage numbers but tries to wiggle out of that corner by calling the costs investment rather than what they are, expenses, and conflating illegal immigrant households with an anchor baby with those without. But the left, most of whom will never have seen or heard of the Heritage study, will just repeat the mantra and call you a racist and/or xenophobe if you attempt to dissuade them.

The transmission of received wisdom has, in my opinion, reached previously unknown levels.

Immigration and Dishonesty

I have written before about the difficulty of having any meaningful discussion with the left because they are so dishonest.

An opinion piece that appeared in the Arizona Republic this past Sunday is an excellent example of dishonesty masquerading as the truth. Due to my inability to disable an ad blocker I can't link directly to the piece. Sorry. Easy to find at azrepublic.com if you wish to read it, "Deporting the "dreamers" deports America's Honor". That headline is what caught my attention. I rarely read anything she writes, it is all so predictable.

Linda Valdez is the author. She is a reliable lefty and a member of the Republic's editorial board.

She tells the story of Juan Manuel Montes, a "Dreamer" who she claims was deported for no reason at all and uses this supposed deportation as a hammer to bludgeon those of us who disagree with her position with shame. We are mean, nasty, evil people.

I smelled a rat. We do not deport people for no reason, particularly "Dreamers", so I did some looking around.

In typical lefty style she omitted the actual reason the young man finds himself stuck in Mexico. It was, according to that well known right wing rag, CNN, this:

" The problem, though, is on the part of the story both sides agree on: Montes tried to sneak back into the US on February 19 and was caught by Border Patrol. DACA requires individuals to get pre-clearance to leave the country, and so Montes' re-entry then showed he had left without authorization and voided his status, DHS said." (Emphasis added)

So, he broke the rules and paid the price. All as it should be. If Ms. Valdez is capable of feeling shame, this would be a good time. Her dishonesty harms her cause.

This and That #2

Courtesy of Instapundit:

#FAKENEWS: Trump Trance Strikes Again: Trump Says ‘Senate Rules,’ Left Hears ‘Constitution.’ “You know, I’m honestly starting to think that Trump has actually driven a lot of people to madness.” Well, to be fair, most of them were close enough to walk. (Emphasis is mine)

Never, ever trust a bureaucracy. This story is an excellent example of bureaucrats putting the lives of children at risk rather than putting their own budget at risk.

The issue is lead in the drinking water in New York city schools.

Reading the story it becomes clear, although never stated, that in advance of testing for lead in the water the authorities were apparently told how they could fudge the tests to ensure a passing grade outcome and they did! The people in charge of the education of children would prefer to run the risk of poisoning them rather than spend the money required to fix their plumbing. Unsurprisingly the authors of the article never bother to make the connection or even ask who is responsible for this. After all, it is the New York Times.

But, don't worry, "...the Education Department said there had never been a known case of lead poisoning traced to drinking water in schools."

Via Charlie Martin at PJ Media a real howler in Trump Derangement  Syndrome:

"President Trump Declares Loyalty Day: Collapse of Democracy Imminent"

Of course the left went bonkers throwing around their favorite Trump is Hitler memes. I have mentioned before that the left seems not to have any knowledge of history, American or otherwise. Turns out, in Mr. Martin's telling, that Loyalty Day wasn't created by President Trump the fascist after all!

 

 

 And then there is this, also courtesy of Mr. Martin:

"Oddly, it wasn't fascist last year: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/27/presidential-proclamation-loyalty-day-2016 … https://twitter.com/InxsyS/status/858405848724492289 …

1:28 PM - 29 Apr 2017

Presidential Proclamation -- Loyalty Day, 2016

LOYALTY DAY, 2016 - - - - - - - BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION  

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

 

Ubiquitous Robots

A month or so ago I had a long conversation with a relative by marriage who I have interacted with about 10 times over the 30 years or so we have been acquainted.

I have always thought he was very smart and the conversation did nothing to change my mind.

He is working on a book, a policy statement really as I understand it, with the goal of providing a pathway to constructive and productive living in the coming era of ubiquitous robots.

He asserts that without strong leadership and intervention by scientists, including psychologists (not scientists, in my opinion), many young westerners will be without jobs in the relatively near future.

I was somewhat disappointed that a person as smart as he is (something of a scientist himself) would still be in thrall to the Wilsonian notion that well educated people should be given the reins of power so that they can shape the rest of us into a productive society. This sort of thing has never turned out well. The remnants of this "progressive" thinking are still haunting us today, 100 years later, in the form of credentialism, which I have written about before.

There is another school of thought about the impact of ubiquitous robots on employment and it is very positive.

While the potential problem described is the same, our young workers will have to have more skills in order to have meaningful employment in the robot era, the prescription on the right to address the issue is not a cohort of technocrats issuing directives from on high but the marketplace rewarding those who acquire the right skills.

The marketplace is rarely wrong. Among its most endearing features is that when errors occur the market itself forces corrections, when it is not interfered with by the credentialed. The "New Coke" fiasco of the 1980's is one high profile example of the market being allowed to do its job. Every business that fails and almost every one that succeeds are proof of the market's limited fallibility. It does not reward failure and does not wait long to make its conclusions felt.

The automaker bailouts of 2008 are examples of the credentialed interfering with the marketplace. Chrysler, which was bailed out in the 1970's, had to be bailed out again. General Motors was bailed out as well. GM will go broke again too, just as soon as it uses up the advantages that the cancellation of 60 billion dollars of debt produced. That is a lot of advantage so it will take a while but will certainly happen.

The mortgage debt bailout of 2008-9 had the predictable and undesirable effect of prolonging the agony for years. Arguably, it still is. The credentialed again stepped in to prevent the market from correcting its error.

Markets correct errors quickly and completely if they are allowed to function. The market will solve any employment problems caused by ubiquitous robots and we will all be better off for it, if it is allowed to function.

Unfortunately humans often react poorly to the immediate pain of market-style corrections and if we all cry loudly enough the credentialed will step in to ease our pain.

What they fail to understand, or choose to ignore, is that humans do not learn meaningful lessons from being forgiven our transgressions. If there is no pain associated with our misdeeds the odds of our repeating them are markedly higher. Without being made to feel the consequences of our actions we soon forget that we did anything wrong or stupid at all. Human nature never stops working.

Immigration

I have written about the illegal immigration crisis we face several times.

There is a second, possibly more urgent problem in the same field. The legal immigration of people who have no interest in democracy and no interest in assimilating to western culture.

An opinion piece published in the Canadian Jewish News came to my attention recently. I can't find it on line so can't link to it.

The author is Dr. Sima Goel, a chiropractor in Montreal. She is also the author of "Fleeing the Hijab,: A Jewish Woman's Escape from Iran".

In the piece I refer to she writes of her escape from Iran as an 18 year-old "Over 30 years ago".

Her story is remarkable to those of us who have had the good fortune to be born into modern western democracies.

She is concerned that Canada is becoming unwelcoming to immigrants "...some of whom have different attitudes toward women, health care and child rearing."

The implication is (she never states it clearly) that her concern is that we are not welcoming to Muslims.

She says " I was entitled to live life as I chose, to adapt and modify my ways to the Canadian ethic". Later, "We have no right to impose our values on other Canadians, but we do share the common ethic of respect and tolerance."

"Are we afraid of these new immigrants," she asks?

Well, if I am correct and she is talking about the latest wave of Muslim immigration the only answer to the question is no, emphatically.

Have you noticed that the left (I am willing to bet she is on the left) tends to try to shame those of us who disagree with them into silence by using loaded terms like "afraid"? Opposition to the admission to our countries is fear of the other, they say. Not a good quality.

As usual, the reason for the taunt is an inability to otherwise support her position.

She has apparently failed to notice that an enormous proportion of the Muslims we are admitting have no intention of modifying their ways to "the Canadian ethic".

In fact the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world prefer sharia law to any other system according to a poll conducted by the left of center Pew Foundation.

"The survey involved a total of more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages." That is a very substantial sample.

Dr. Goel I am not afraid of immigrants. I have no interest in granting residency to immigrants who have no intention of adopting western ethics. They have every intention of altering the demographics of the west and then installing their preferred regime.

Offering the tolerance and benefits of western society to those who will take advantage of that tolerance and those benefits to make sure they eventually disappear is just stupid.

Those of us who oppose such idiocy are not afraid. We are willing and able to see the truth and act upon it.

This and That

Steven Hayward at Powerline occasionally publishes posts titled "Loose Ends" full of tidbits that have accumulated over time.

I have decided to do a similar thing using the title "This and That", a phrase I often use interacting with my immediate family.

So here is the first post in what will become a series.

I am traveling without my laptop so writing on an iPad. My skill set is such that I am not willing to try and install links so you are going to have to accept my assertion of facts unsupported. Or not.

I speculated a few weeks ago that Obama, ignoring the tradition that former presidents remain out of sight for a while following the end of their term, would be running a parliamentary system style shadow government constantly attacking the Trump administration.

For a few weeks after the inauguration I read similar speculation here and there.

Now Barry seems to have disappeared. I am hoping the reason is that he can't peek out of his bunker for fear of being caught up in the Susan Rice, NSA surveillance mess. I guess we'll see.

Mrs. Clinton opined a few days ago that misogyny was "absolutely" one of the reasons she lost the election. She is probably correct. She is such an abhorrent and corrupt harridan that she even managed to turn large numbers of women into misogynists.  
 
I am familiar with the notion of anti-Semitic Jews but have never heard of a female misogynist. Good job Mrs. Clinton, you have created a new subspecies.

You may have noticed that we bombed the Syrian air base thought to be the source of the chemical weapons Syria used a few days ago. Jim Geraghty of WSJ's The Morning Jolt summed things up, with respect to Russia's reaction best, I think.


"Somebody didn't get their money's worth out of election meddling".

Mr. Trump Does Washington

Last Friday the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, pulled the American Health Care Act from consideration. He knew he didn't have the votes to pass it. The press and pundits generally considered it a yuuuuge failure for Mr. Ryan and President Trump. They are half right, better than their usual score. Mr. Ryan has indeed suffered a huge failure.

I wrote of Trump's inaugural speech on January 20,

"I thought it particularly comical when the camera showed Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell smiling, clapping and nodding vigorously. They appear not to understand that they are part of the problem and will either acquiesce to the new regime or be driven from office."

Having given a lot of thought to the AHCA situation it occurs to me that the President played it perfectly. He let Ryan lead with his chin. If the bill passed, Ok, another promise kept, if imperfectly. If not, the defeat was Ryan's. Another win-win.

There is another element to the equation, I think. Ryan has been neutered. He took on a job for the President, no doubt confidently assuring the neophyte Trump of success and thoroughly botched it. He cannot any longer present himself to Trump as the Washington insider who knows which levers to pull and buttons to push. He will, from now on, be told what to do and how to do it by the White House.

Mitch McConnell is next on the list and the Gorsuch nomination, if botched, will do for him what the AHCA did for Ryan.

As things stand, to the best of my knowledge, a Democrat filibuster is a possibility. If that occurs McConnell will be expected to press the button on the nuclear option. I don't think he will. He is an old timer with a lot invested in the Senate and will be loath to undermine his beloved institution and his buddies. Outrage and derision will follow.

A failure to use the nuclear option will neuter him just as Ryan's failure has neutered him.

Two veteran legislators, much too deferential to Democrats and government business as usual will be toast. Donald Trump will be in charge.

Happily Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees is long and excellent. The next one will be confirmed, on way or another. McConnell will have no choice but to press the nuclear button in round two.

Don  Surber is a writer whose work I have come across quite frequently. I find him generally to be thoughtful, smart and well informed. Yesterday he wrote,

"However, I realized it was a negotiating ploy to get a better deal. Not only that, but I realized by calling for the vote, President Trump had usurped House Speaker Paul Ryan's power."

Followed by a Trumpism,

"Negotiations 101: The best deals you can make are the ones you walk away from...and then get them with better terms."

Indeed.

The Narrative

I have written several times about the frustration of dealing with the Emperor's New Clothes era in which we live. I have suggested that this frustration on the right has led to the election (for which I am grateful) of Donald Trump. For years black has been white and white black depending on the narrative being spun by the mainstream media, democrats and far too many republicans.

False narratives are pervasive and, for far too many people, persuasive. "Hands up, don't shoot" is among the most famous and destructive. Donald Trump as, variously, Hitler, racist, anti-Semite, serial fabulist and tax evader among the most recent.

Jon Gabriel of Ricochet produced a very helpful chart to help us properly classify the news regarding violent crime as it is now reported.

Enjoy!

Science

Over the years I have saved many articles that have caught my attention. I go through them every so often to see how they read years into the future. I have referred to a number of them in other posts. One of my favorites is this one.

I have written before of my extreme skepticism with respect to the horrific outcomes projected for man made climate change. It occurs to me that if you did not live through the 1970's (there are fewer and fewer of us around these days!) you might not understand the source of my skepticism.

I offer a few quotes from the linked article as proof that the scientific community is often wrong in its evaluation of current conditions and almost always wrong about extrapolating their conclusions into the future. None of this seems to prevent many of them from continuing to opine and extrapolate. Worse still, none of this seems to prevent a credulous press from amplifying their statements. Keep in mind that these quotes are from 1970, the birth year of Earth Day.


“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

No doubt you recognize the construction of the opening phrase. The age-old appeal to authority. I imagine you have also heard that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is a man made problem. There is a small problem with that assertion. It is not true.

What is true is that a review of some 12,000 papers on the subject of climate showed that only 33% of them suggested a reason for climate change. 97% of those asserted that the cause was man. So, now we are down to 97% of 30%, 29.1%. Quite a different number than 97% .

Let's go get more of that 70's wisdom.

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Watt also predicted that,

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

 And, from the ever reliable Sierra Club ,

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director 

If you follow the link immediately above you will see that they have not mended their
Malthusian ways. 

I don't think I have ever seen an acknowledgment from any of these people that they have ever been wrong about anything.

Be skeptical of those who assert our imminent destruction. Their assertions seem, curiously, almost always to be attached to pleas for money. I can't imagine why.

President Trump Does It Again

I have mentioned before that I have been thoroughly enjoying watching Mr. Trump bait the left. In an earlier post or two I borrowed a phrase from Powerline's John Hinderacker to the effect that being a liberal means you don't ever have to learn anything. Well, they are certainly proving him right again.

As everyone on the planet now knows, DJT launched a series of tweets on Saturday morning claiming that Obama tapped his phones during the elections. Predictably the left has set their hair on fire over this one.

There are so many stories on the subject that it is difficult to chose one to link to so I will stick with Mr. Hinderacker .

As you read the details of the various stories a very insightful comment from, if I recall correctly, Glenn Reynolds , is useful to explain what is going on here.

What Mr. Reynolds said, more or less, is that Trump's critics take him literally but not seriously and his supporters take him seriously but not literally.

We know, despite the aggressive wording of his tweet, that he did not mean, literally,
that Obama tapped his phones. To us it is perfectly clear that he means the Obama administration, in one form or another, did.

The press, meanwhile, is dealing with his tweets as though he meant, literally, every word in them and is trying desperately to disprove a case that Trump never intended to make, which is a very difficult thing to do.

Great fun indeed.

Why Hillary Lost

She lost because she is so thoroughly off-putting and corrupt that she couldn't even manage to attract the votes of large numbers of women.


"However the biggest surprise of 2016 probably relates to gender. The first major party female candidate for president, running against a notorious misogynist, captured the Democrats’ lowest share of female voters since 2004."

Indeed.

The Chick-fil-A effect Updated

 3/8/2017

Looks like we have done it again!

 In 2012 the President of Chick-fil-A expressed his disapproval of same sex marriage. The left erupted in outrage. Boycotts were declared. The chain was declared unwelcome in San Francisco, Chicago and elsewhere.

The link above spends a great deal of time detailing the outrage, loss of corporate partnerships and generally vilifies the company. Below is the last entry in the very long piece and, of course, my point.

"Financial effect

Sales increased after the controversy. According to news coverage following the controversy:^[71]

Chick-fil-A's sales soared 12 percent, to $4.6 billion, in 2012. The good fortune follows several years of impressive expansion and strong sales, which have pushed the privately held company's valuation north of $4.5 billion, making billionaires out of its founders ... These latest sales data are just further proof that all that negative coverage didn't hurt demand for chicken sandwiches among Chick-fil-A's core consumers.

— Joe Satran, The Huffington Post"

The Huffington Post, which I referenced recently is a lefty outlet. Note how the author attempts to minimize what really happened to boost sales.  It is not "that negative coverage didn't hurt demand". Negative coverage put a rocket under demand as those of us who were fed up with the oppression of the PC culture quietly, but effectively, neutered it.

Among the most important factors that gave us President Donald Trump is the corrosive effect on our civilization of practitioners of political correctness who try to shame and/or outlaw any opinions inconsistent with their own.

The left is at it again, in spades. Boycotts of Trump brands and particularly Ivanka Trump brands are under vicious PC attack everywhere. Her brands have reportedly discontinued by several major retailers including Nordstrom and Sears/Kmart.

Meanwhile, her perfume brand has leaped to #1 at Amazon. The Chick-fil-A effect is underway, and will, no doubt, continue.

It is worthwhile noting, in my opinion, that at the time of their kerfuffle, Chick-fil-A was a significant contributor to organizations opposed to same-sex marriage and the expansion of LXQXWZ or whatever it is, "rights". Being a responsible, law abiding corporate citizen, the company stopped donating to most of those organizations after the Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage.

A Plausible Explanation

Like most of us I have been aware of the Dilbert cartoon series for a long time. I have read it occasionally and, for the most part, have not understood its appeal or even its point.

Thanks to the Instapundit I have been treated to a series of links to the web site of Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, since President Trump began his run for office. I have linked to him before.

His explanations of how Trump accomplished his amazing political feat have been fascinating to me.

I watched the President's press conference on Thursday for a little while. I was mostly impressed. I stopped watching at the point that he said, and I paraphrase, "No matter what I say today all the news tomorrow will be about me ranting and raving. I am not ranting." Taking his bait, as usual, this was Friday's Huffington Post cover for their reporting.





I mentioned above Mr. Adams fascinating explanation of Trump's success. In this post Mr. Adams provides a plausible explanation for another phenomenon, that apparently sane and intelligent people people can come away from the same experience with two completely different interpretations of what occurred.

With reference to HP's complete failure to predict Trump's success and the fact that they saw an entirely different press conference than I did he writes:

"When reality violates your ego that rudely, you either have to rewrite the movie in your head to recast yourself as an idiot, or you rewrite the movie to make yourself the hero who could see what others missed".

Read the whole thing.

History? Don't know any

Via Paul Mirengoff at Powerline I accessed  this story of an argument between an anti-Trump conventional media reporter (is there another kind) and a Trump staffer.

The reporter told a tale of abuse at the hands of the staffer. Apparently the exchange was taped and the tape is unkind to the reporter's version of events.

The reporter asserts that the making of the tape, without her knowledge or approval was "Nixonian". She is correct, but not in the way she thinks.

Nixon did indeed surreptitiously tape all conversations in the Oval Office and elsewhere in the White House and at Camp David for a couple of years. He had every right to do so, as did the person who did so in this case.

What the complaining reporter meant by her claim of "Nixonian" actions was that the taping was illegal and big brotherish.

What she failed to understand is the real Nixonian aspect of the event.

The taping of the exchange is her undoing, just like it was Nixon's.

Respect for Women

I have heard all I can stand about the Republican war on women, Trump's bad behavior toward women and men's misogynistic impulses.

The real war on the dignity and image of women is being waged by women.

What is more damaging to the dignity and image of women, Trump's potty mouth and boorish actions or this?





Lady Gaga (pictured above), Miley Cyrus, the Kardashians and their entire reality show and performers cohort, who appear to be in constant competition to see how much they can resemble a real live hooker, are a far more serious stain on the dignity and image of women than poorly behaved men could ever be.

Warren Buffet on Immigration

I have mentioned the legendary investor Warren Buffet before. It was in the context of him trying to persuade us that our income tax regime is wildly skewed in favor of the "rich" and that the "rich" should pay more taxes. He tried to make the case that his assistant who makes about $100K per year pays more taxes than he does. It is probably true, but it does not do anything in  furtherance of his point. His comparison, as I explained, was apples to oranges. (You will have to scroll to the last entry on the linked page to read the post.)

I mention in the post that, in my opinion Buffet is a liar.

He has recently sought fit to opine on the current hot-button issue of immigration.

Here too Buffet is being deceptive. He says, " “Well, immigration, this country is built on it. I always say to people that are anti-immigration, ‘let’s put it in retroactively.’ And everybody leaves,” the 86-year-old billionaire said on a panel with his friend Bill Gates on Friday at Columbia University in New York."

Do you know, or have you ever known anyone for whom you have any respect at all who is anti-immigration? I didn't think so. I haven't either. So why does he misrepresent the issues?  Why would the other panelists or audience members not point out that the issues actually being discussed are illegal immigration and immigration from failed Muslim states so we could hear Buffet's opinions on the actual issues? I don't know either.

I find it impossible to believe that he does not know what the issues actually are. I think he is doing what liberals always do. Ridicule people who don't agree with them in the hope of embarrassing them into silence.

You want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump.

False Comparison. How and Why They Do It.

On January 26, 2017 Dan Levine of Reuters wrote a piece entitled, "In Trump Era Democrats and Republicans switch sides on states' rights".

"States' rights" is described in Black's Law Dictionary.

" Under the Tenth Amendment, rights neither conferred on the federal government nor forbidden to the states".

He describes the situation using Scott Pruitt's position as Attorney General of Oklahoma arguing against Obamacare compared with his likely positions with respect to EPA regulations to make his case.

"...He was part of a coalition of Republican attorneys general fighting President Barack Obama's health law - better known as Obamacare - based on a core party principle: that states' rights trump federal powers, and that programs like Obamacare represent a radical overreach by the federal government.

Now, as Trump looks to undo Obama's legacy and begin constructing his own, Pruitt and other administration Republicans are showing little interest in protecting states' rights. Instead, they are embracing sweeping new environmental, health care and immigration policies that are to be imposed on all states."

That last sentence is extremely  important and indicates that Mr. Levine either does not understand the concept of states' rights or he chooses not to understand it in furtherance of his narrative.

Read this again carefully:

"...coalition of Republican attorneys general fighting President Barack Obama's health law - better known as Obamacare - based on a core party principle: that states' rights trump federal powers, and that programs like Obamacare represent a radical overreach by the federal government."

Apparently Mr. Levine thinks that a core principle of the Republican Party is "that states' rights trump federal powers". Really? A quick look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment might be in order.

The actual "core principle" is that the federal government ought not to expand beyond the powers conferred on it by the Constitution. In the quite widely disseminated opinion of every Republican I have ever heard on the subject, Obamacare is indeed a "radical overreach by the federal government" and rolling it back is entirely consistent with the protection of states' rights. 

The administration will not (and proclaims it very loudly, I'm surprised Mr. Levine hasn't heard about this) be imposing new environmental, health care and immigration policies on the states in violation of the states' rights principle. They will be rolling back environmental and health care policies that violate states' rights in those areas.

For reasons best known to Mr. Levine he believes that immigration law is a power to be exercised  by the states. It is not. To argue otherwise would be to suggest it reasonable and appropriate to have as many as 50 different immigration regimes. Ridiculous on its face. A quick look at Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution might help.

He may recall Arizona's efforts to gain control of its southern border. Arizona's argument was not that it was within the state's rights under the Constitution to assert control over the border. The argument was that the federal government, having completely failed to carry out its obligations with respect to the border, had forfeited its constitutionally mandated jurisdiction over it and Arizona had to step in to protect its sovereignty.

So the "how" is by misunderstanding, misinterpretation, mendacity or some combination of the three.

The "why" is to provide cover for Democrats who have long abhorred the notion of us yokels in the hinterlands making any decisions for ourselves. (New York abortion laws for Mississippi anyone?) Since "everyone" is changing sides there is no shame in it. 

They are suddenly embracing the concept, see sanctuary cities . To be fair, there was a time when Democrats fully embraced the notion of states' rights. That was in 1860 when they wrongly and unreasonably asserted the states' rights defense in support of slavery and secession. 

Welcome back.

More winning! And more winning!

Now here is some more excellent news.

Now here is some excellent news:

"More than 7,000 refugee applicants entered Canada in 2016 through land ports of entry from the United States, up 63 percent from the previous year, according to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)."

Just more winning courtesy of Donald Trump.

According to Reuters these hapless refugees are fleeing a "worsening climate of xenophobia".

Really odd language for a "news" story to use, don't you think?

 Courtesy of Merriam-Webster

Definition of xenophobia

1. :  fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign
   
   
   
   
   So, based on nothing more than their own prejudices, these self-righteous hacks proclaim us to be xenophobes, because every one knows we are a hateful bunch who discriminate against everyone who is not white.

Fake News?

On January 26 The Washington Post's Josh Rogin wrote this,

"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior Foreign Service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era." (Emphasis added)

Yikes! What a catastrophe. Well, no, not quite a catastrophe, more like a big fat nothing burger. Just more of the same exaggeration, hysteria and misleading nonsense that Trump has inspired in the left.

Here, courtesy of Yousef Munayyer is the State Department's organizational chart:


The names circled in yellow are those who resigned. Looks like there are one or two high ranking State Department officials left, doesn't it?

"Whether Kennedy left on his own volition or was pushed out by the incoming Trump team is a matter of dispute inside the department." Really?

"The State Department said that the four officials had submitted their resignations at the start of the new administration, as is standard practice with all political appointees throughout the executive branch of the government."

Actually, this is just a reporter covering his rear. All political appointees tender their resignations at the end of a presidential term. Whether and when those resignations are accepted is a decision left up to the administration. The resignations were accepted. Routine, unless a Republican is President. In that case it is an unprecedented catastrophe.

"“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry.

Maybe.

If these people had been doing their jobs properly they should have very well trained subordinates ready to step up. Shouldn't they?






The press release below explains the reality which is, business as usual. Do not take at face value a word you read about Republicans in the Washington Post or New York Times. Ever.

About That Travel "Ban"

As I read all the hysteria regarding the temporary ban on US entry for people (mostly Muslim) from seven countries with serious Islamic terror issues, I notice that those objecting most loudly are actually missing the point.

Some, like Charles C.W. Cooke, a writer at National Review, are green card holders. I think he is from England (I can't find the link to his piece on the subject, sorry.) He describes the excruciating process one must follow to get a green card. He is correct. I remember it well even though I went through it over thirty years ago.

The implication of his piece is that green card holders have been thoroughly vetted and enough is enough.

Here is the problem as I see it. The people being targeted are not from England or Canada (like me) but from wildly unstable places with very uncertain record keeping regimes and notoriously corrupt governments. Our government has, in my opinion, no credibility on the subject of the admission of Muslims to this country.

I am sure the victims of the Boston Bombers and the San Bernadino shooter don't find the government credible. I know I don't. Trump made it plain during the campaign that he certainly doesn't. Those events, among others, would never have happened had the vetting agencies done their jobs in any competent way. People died, people were physically maimed for life. I can't imagine the psychological impact of having been a survivor of such catastrophes.

This is a temporary pause to fix our systems. That it temporarily inconveniences some people is unfortunate. One thing is certain. The one or two or three people coming here with bad intentions will not be here anytime soon. I never did agree with Obama's suggestion that we can absorb a few hits in the interest of political correctness, as he wanders about in armored cars surrounded by heavily armed people dedicated to his survival. What a pompous coward.

There are a lot of people complaining that the roll out of the policy was botched. Maybe, I don't know. I find I don't actually "hear" most of the critics, the din is so constant and loud.

Of course, that may just be exactly what Trump had in mind.

Scott Adams the creator of Dilbert, among other things, has demonstrated great insight into Trump's thinking over the last 2 years or so. I invite you to read this.

Good Job Mr. President

Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I have written before about my reluctant vote for him and subsequent approval of his appointments.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he appears to have meant what he said all through the campaign and then during the post-election period.

He has barged into the lions' den and informed the lions that they are being evicted, he, having already evicted both of America's political dynasties.

"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.

And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."

I did not  expect anything so aggressive. Obama looked as though he was trying not to throw up when congratulating Mr. Trump after the speech. Everything in the speech was a complete repudiation of him and his policies. Bill Clinton looked furious.

I thought it particularly comical when the camera showed Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell smiling, clapping and nodding vigorously. They appear not to understand that they are part of the problem and will either acquiesce to the new regime or be driven from office.

The pitchforks have been delivered, let the stable cleaning begin.

Other People's Money

Every weekday I receive Jim Geraghty's National Review "Morning Jolt" via email.

Today's version examines some of our Obama experiences. He includes this:

"As Matthew Fleischer wrote in the Los Angeles Times in 2013, “Most young, middle-class Americans I know are happy that millions of previously uninsured people will receive free or heavily subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act. We just didn’t realize that, unless we had health insurance at work, we’d be the ones paying for it.”"

The never ending lamentation of the left. More stuff for everyone! Find someone else to pay for it!

Lefty's are always very generous...with other people's money.

Obama

I have written often of my complete disrespect for the soon to be ex-President.

His thin skinned narcissism, disdainful attitude, apparent lack of any knowledge of history and tenuous relationship with the truth are legendary. His legacy will consist simply of his betrayal of our allies and his serial lies to the American public. Well, his enabling of a nuclear Iran might figure in there as well if the new administration and Israel are unable to effectively counter his egregious policy.

I had written last summer of my concern that there would be no Presidential election in 2016. Happily I was wrong.  I remain concerned that the inauguration may still be postponed by some artful maneuvre on Obama's part, but the concern is a small one.

What I am more concerned about is that his decision to live in Washington post-presidency actually means that he intends to run a shadow government in opposition to the Trump Administration.

In the parliamentary political system that dominates the countries that were part of the British Empire, the "loyal opposition" appoints members of their party(s) as a "shadow cabinet" whose members are tasked to examine and critique the Government Ministers of each department.

We have a history of relatively quiet (at least for a respectable period of time) ex-Presidents. It is something of a tradition. Of course we have a lot of traditions that Obama actively disrespects. The Rule of Law, for example.

How many unlawful orders did Obama issue with respect to illegal immigration? I don't know. One is enough to demonstrate the point.

How many times did he amend the Obamacare act without benefit of Congressional action? I don't know. At least five.

The rule of law is, in my view, the most fundamental tradition of the United States. A President with no respect for it is a serious problem. Normalizing that lack of respect produces very predictable results. Sanctuary cities anyone? Check. A weaponized IRS. Check, got that too. A Justice Department whose chief meets secretly with the husband (a former President himself, found guilty of perjury) of a woman under investigation by the FBI? Check.

Convening a shadow government to relentlessly attack his successor will be no great surprise coming from Obama. A truly awful American with no respect for anything or anybody but himself.

Cuba

Obama's betrayal of the people of Cuba in favor of their dictators is business as usual for him as we all know, to our profound regret. What did he get for America in exchange for abandoning the Cubans stuck on that prison island? Nothing, as far as I can tell. About the same as he got from Iran for releasing them from their sanctions regime. Well to be fair, he seems to think that this betrayal of America, Israel and the entire Middle East, will come to be viewed as a great diplomatic triumph, burnishing his "legacy". Right.

In his usual manner, he did though, accomplish something for himself:

"The decision, formalized in a joint statement issued by both governments Thursday, comes as Obama tries to cement his historic opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba and one week before President-elect Donald Trump takes office."

Yes, no problem sentencing Cubans living in that giant prison to life there, he has "cemented his historic opening...". A complete disgrace.

Of course, giving everything away for nothing is Obama and his administration's preferred negotiating strategy. In fact, they are also willing to give away things that belong to others, including their lives: