The AP reported here on the number of meetings that HRC had with "...people outside of government". More than half of them were Clinton Foundation donors, according to the report.
The implications are clear that either:
a) If you want to meet with the Secretary of State to pitch your case you need to donate to the Clinton Foundation and/or,
b) If you are already a donor you can demand access in exchange for an undertaking to keep donating.
In either case, as is so often the case with the Clintons, the whole thing stinks.
Scott Johnson, one of the proprietors of the Powerline, blog writes today of a telephone interview HRC did with Jake Tapper of CNN last night. UPDATE: It appears that the interview was with Anderson Cooper, not Tapper
Mr. Johnson writes, correctly in my view, that HRC's attempt to explain all these meetings with donors away as innocuous is "pathetic".
It is actually an excellent example of the Clinton method. Here is the gist of her explanation as reported by Mr. Johnson.
“I know there is a lot of smoke, and there is no fire. This AP report?
Put it in context. This excludes nearly 2,000 meetings I had with world
leaders, plus countless other meetings with U.S. government officials
when I was secretary of state. It looked at a small portion of my time,”.
In time honored Clinton fashion she did not answer the obvious question of the appearance of impropriety. She answered a question that was never asked. I don't recall any commentators wondering why she was wasting her time with these meetings. They want to know why they happened at all.
The answer is unfortunately obvious to anyone with eyes and the willingness to see what is before them. The woman is hopelessly corrupt.
As Mr. Johnson says of her explanation, " One doesn’t need to be a genius to see through it." I guess I just proved his point!
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Black Lives Matter, Again
I have written about the BLM movement before . I have also proposed a way to address the real problems that plague so many in the black community .
Today, through Instapundit.com, I came across this bit of nonsense. It includes this hilariously self-righteous self-parody:
"I think there are several police officers who are good people."
Several? Wow, how thoughtful of you. There are more than 900,000 law enforcement officers in the USA. Nice to know that "several...are good people".
How does any publication allow such a spectacularly stupid sentence to appear in print?
I don't know.
Today, through Instapundit.com, I came across this bit of nonsense. It includes this hilariously self-righteous self-parody:
"I think there are several police officers who are good people."
Several? Wow, how thoughtful of you. There are more than 900,000 law enforcement officers in the USA. Nice to know that "several...are good people".
How does any publication allow such a spectacularly stupid sentence to appear in print?
I don't know.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
Socialism Again, Again
I have written before about socialism and its utter failure every time it is tried. I devoted a post to it on June 12, 2016 if you would like to have a look. I can't link directly to it.
This 2013 Salon article written by David Sirota was brought to my attention recently. I can't remember where it was linked and apologize for being unable to attribute it properly.
Mr. Sirota wrote,
"No, Chavez became the bugaboo of American politics because his full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism at once represented a fundamental critique of neoliberal economics, and also delivered some indisputably positive results. Indeed, as shown by some of the most significant indicators, Chavez racked up an economic record that a legacy-obsessed American president could only dream of achieving."
Mr. Chavez's legacy doesn't look too good today. I can't find any recent articles by Mr. Sirota on the subject. Sean Penn has been pretty quiet too.
Time, as they say, tells all. Mr. Chavez and his hand picked successor ran into Margaret Thatcher's Law: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
From the Los Angeles Times (via Powerlineblog.com),
"But 2006 also was the year that President Hugo Chavez nationalized 10 of the 16 privately owned sugar refineries and turned them over to worker cooperatives, part of his “21st Century Socialism” agenda. After taking office in 1999 and until his death in 2013, Chavez also seized thousands of acres of sugar cane plantations and made them communal properties.
Comradely gestures to be sure, but sugar production has rapidly declined ever since the seizures. In May, scarcities got so bad that Coca-Cola temporarily suspended production of its popular line of soft drinks, saying it couldn’t buy enough supplies of the industrial sweetener."
The LAT article documents the complete wrecking of Venezuela's private economy through nationalization. For "nationalization", read, the taking "of other people's money".
The money runs out every single time and then you get the partially shared misery which is the real promise of socialism. The elites of socialist countries never participate in the misery. To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com, in free market systems the rich become powerful. In socialist systems the powerful become rich.
As I posted this past June:
"Take a close look at any socialist country and what you find, once the veneer has been removed, is a kleptocracy. The rich and connected become richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disappears.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192933/Hugo-Chavez-s-ambassador-daughter-Venezuela-s-richest-woman-according-new-report.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/fidel-castro-lived-like-king-cuba
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/north-korea-luxury-goods_n_4808823.html"
I keep writing about the disaster that is socialism because I think it is important that it be described as what it is, not what Mr. Sirota and so many people on the left want it to be. It is a very seductive ideology. What decent person would not prefer that poverty cease to exist, that everyone has everything they need and a lot of what they want?
None. Trouble is, as I have explained before, socialism relies on the unicorn that is the expulsion of human nature from the economic equation. As Venezuela's unfortunate citizens have shown us again, human nature is immutable and cannot be ignored. Socialism cannot work. I wrote, in the June 12 post,
" Why? Because socialism cannot co-exist with human nature. It is counter-intuitive to a human not to take advantage of every opportunity to improve the quality of his own life. Thus, every socialist regime becomes brutal when persuasion is insufficient to suppress human nature and people refuse to countenance the shared misery absent coercion." Forced labor is now on the agenda.
Even the fervent Socialist, Bernie Sanders is not immune to the demands of human nature.
http://www.people.com/article/bernie-sanders-600k-summer-home-vermont
Socialism in action as opposed to in thought.
This 2013 Salon article written by David Sirota was brought to my attention recently. I can't remember where it was linked and apologize for being unable to attribute it properly.
Mr. Sirota wrote,
"No, Chavez became the bugaboo of American politics because his full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism at once represented a fundamental critique of neoliberal economics, and also delivered some indisputably positive results. Indeed, as shown by some of the most significant indicators, Chavez racked up an economic record that a legacy-obsessed American president could only dream of achieving."
Mr. Chavez's legacy doesn't look too good today. I can't find any recent articles by Mr. Sirota on the subject. Sean Penn has been pretty quiet too.
Time, as they say, tells all. Mr. Chavez and his hand picked successor ran into Margaret Thatcher's Law: "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
From the Los Angeles Times (via Powerlineblog.com),
"But 2006 also was the year that President Hugo Chavez nationalized 10 of the 16 privately owned sugar refineries and turned them over to worker cooperatives, part of his “21st Century Socialism” agenda. After taking office in 1999 and until his death in 2013, Chavez also seized thousands of acres of sugar cane plantations and made them communal properties.
Comradely gestures to be sure, but sugar production has rapidly declined ever since the seizures. In May, scarcities got so bad that Coca-Cola temporarily suspended production of its popular line of soft drinks, saying it couldn’t buy enough supplies of the industrial sweetener."
The LAT article documents the complete wrecking of Venezuela's private economy through nationalization. For "nationalization", read, the taking "of other people's money".
The money runs out every single time and then you get the partially shared misery which is the real promise of socialism. The elites of socialist countries never participate in the misery. To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com, in free market systems the rich become powerful. In socialist systems the powerful become rich.
As I posted this past June:
"Take a close look at any socialist country and what you find, once the veneer has been removed, is a kleptocracy. The rich and connected become richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disappears.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192933/Hugo-Chavez-s-ambassador-daughter-Venezuela-s-richest-woman-according-new-report.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/fidel-castro-lived-like-king-cuba
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/north-korea-luxury-goods_n_4808823.html"
I keep writing about the disaster that is socialism because I think it is important that it be described as what it is, not what Mr. Sirota and so many people on the left want it to be. It is a very seductive ideology. What decent person would not prefer that poverty cease to exist, that everyone has everything they need and a lot of what they want?
None. Trouble is, as I have explained before, socialism relies on the unicorn that is the expulsion of human nature from the economic equation. As Venezuela's unfortunate citizens have shown us again, human nature is immutable and cannot be ignored. Socialism cannot work. I wrote, in the June 12 post,
" Why? Because socialism cannot co-exist with human nature. It is counter-intuitive to a human not to take advantage of every opportunity to improve the quality of his own life. Thus, every socialist regime becomes brutal when persuasion is insufficient to suppress human nature and people refuse to countenance the shared misery absent coercion." Forced labor is now on the agenda.
Even the fervent Socialist, Bernie Sanders is not immune to the demands of human nature.
http://www.people.com/article/bernie-sanders-600k-summer-home-vermont
Socialism in action as opposed to in thought.
Sunday, August 07, 2016
Human Nature, Again
I have long advised that policies and philosophies that ignore human nature are bound to fail. If your goal is to persuade those with a surfeit of the laziness component of human nature to become productive members of society, removing work requirements from welfare programs is not going to help you achieve your goal.
This fact, proven many times over, has been ignored by liberal policy makers many times over.
This article is just the latest in an endless supply of examples of the immutability of human nature. Add a work requirement to a welfare program and watch two things happen.
First, participation plummets.
"Maine, one of the most proactive states in reinstating work requirements for food stamps, saw its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents decrease by 80 percent within just a few months after re-establishing the work requirement."
Second, those forced to work or starve find work and end up much better off than they were while accepting the unrestricted handouts.
"The Foundation for Government Accountability identified that nearly 60 percent of Kansans who left the food stamp rolls following the establishment of food stamp work requirements found employment within 12 months and, “their incomes rose by an average of 127 percent per year.”"
Once more with feeling:
"One nice thing about being a liberal is, no one expects you to learn from experience."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/what-happens-when-liberal-heroines-crumble.php
This fact, proven many times over, has been ignored by liberal policy makers many times over.
This article is just the latest in an endless supply of examples of the immutability of human nature. Add a work requirement to a welfare program and watch two things happen.
First, participation plummets.
"Maine, one of the most proactive states in reinstating work requirements for food stamps, saw its caseload of able-bodied adults without dependents decrease by 80 percent within just a few months after re-establishing the work requirement."
Second, those forced to work or starve find work and end up much better off than they were while accepting the unrestricted handouts.
"The Foundation for Government Accountability identified that nearly 60 percent of Kansans who left the food stamp rolls following the establishment of food stamp work requirements found employment within 12 months and, “their incomes rose by an average of 127 percent per year.”"
Once more with feeling:
"One nice thing about being a liberal is, no one expects you to learn from experience."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/what-happens-when-liberal-heroines-crumble.php
Peace Loving "Palestinians"
I am no fan of the New York Times. The ethics of the editors appear to be almost entirely situational, they change opinions without ever acknowledging the change, those of their "reporters" almost non-existent, they will "report" almost anything their liberal friends tell them.
Occasionally they surprise us. This is one of those times.
"In an effort to appeal to Palestinians ahead of hotly contested elections, the party of President Mahmoud Abbas listed one of its main achievements as having “killed 11,000 Israelis.”"
The NYT and every other main stream newspaper have been telling us for years how Abbas is a "moderate". I guess this is the proof. His opponents have probably killed more of us.
To any of you who believe that there is any current path to a two-state solution, please stop talking and try thinking until you have something to say that is worthy of discussion.
The leadership of the "Palestinians" is divided between awful (Fatah in the West Bank) and worse (Hamas in Gaza).
Then there is Israeli leadership. I am an acquaintance of one opinion shaper in Israel. Donniel Hartman is president of the Shalom Hartman Institute. I attended a private meeting with him in 2013 during which he lamented that we should be doing more for the "Palestinians" and our failure to do "more" is one reason for the continuing troubles. He failed to define "more".
I am reading his latest book, "Putting God Second, How To Save Religion From Itself". It contains at least one example of the moral relativism (I am only on page 43 of 170) that results in a belief that the reason the people who have sworn to kill you and all your brethren and brag of their buddies killing 11,000 of you, is that you didn't do enough for them.
"As more and more people are being killed daily in the name of one god or another, I often wonder about the religious sensibilities of these pious perpetrators of murder and pain." P.43
To my knowledge there is only one god in whose name "more and more people are being killed daily". His name is Allah, his prophet is Mohamed and if you publish a funny picture of Mohamed you will be threatened with death and, perhaps, killed .
To borrow Rabbi Hartman's construction: I often wonder about the rationality of intellectuals who seem unable or unwilling to understand the obvious.
Occasionally they surprise us. This is one of those times.
"In an effort to appeal to Palestinians ahead of hotly contested elections, the party of President Mahmoud Abbas listed one of its main achievements as having “killed 11,000 Israelis.”"
The NYT and every other main stream newspaper have been telling us for years how Abbas is a "moderate". I guess this is the proof. His opponents have probably killed more of us.
To any of you who believe that there is any current path to a two-state solution, please stop talking and try thinking until you have something to say that is worthy of discussion.
The leadership of the "Palestinians" is divided between awful (Fatah in the West Bank) and worse (Hamas in Gaza).
Then there is Israeli leadership. I am an acquaintance of one opinion shaper in Israel. Donniel Hartman is president of the Shalom Hartman Institute. I attended a private meeting with him in 2013 during which he lamented that we should be doing more for the "Palestinians" and our failure to do "more" is one reason for the continuing troubles. He failed to define "more".
I am reading his latest book, "Putting God Second, How To Save Religion From Itself". It contains at least one example of the moral relativism (I am only on page 43 of 170) that results in a belief that the reason the people who have sworn to kill you and all your brethren and brag of their buddies killing 11,000 of you, is that you didn't do enough for them.
"As more and more people are being killed daily in the name of one god or another, I often wonder about the religious sensibilities of these pious perpetrators of murder and pain." P.43
To my knowledge there is only one god in whose name "more and more people are being killed daily". His name is Allah, his prophet is Mohamed and if you publish a funny picture of Mohamed you will be threatened with death and, perhaps, killed .
To borrow Rabbi Hartman's construction: I often wonder about the rationality of intellectuals who seem unable or unwilling to understand the obvious.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Islam, again
I have linked to Andrew McCarthy of NRO before. He recently wrote about Islam and why our policies with respect to identifying the problems it has and dealing with them have been such a failure.
He has more than a passing familiarity with Islam and its practitioners having been the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York when the "Blind Sheik" tried to take down the World Trade Center in 1993 . The "Sheik" and his minions remain in jail.
In his recent article he makes a distinction that I think is very important and had not previously occurred to me.
"...it should by now be perfectly obvious that that there is no “Islam,” at least not if we are talking about a monolithic belief system. There are sects of Islam, all vying for supremacy in what is, in the main, a conquest ideology — with the various splinters having very different ideas about what conquest entails, and with no papal analogue to impose order by decreeing orthodoxy and condemning heterodoxy."
He has more than a passing familiarity with Islam and its practitioners having been the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York when the "Blind Sheik" tried to take down the World Trade Center in 1993 . The "Sheik" and his minions remain in jail.
In his recent article he makes a distinction that I think is very important and had not previously occurred to me.
"...it should by now be perfectly obvious that that there is no “Islam,” at least not if we are talking about a monolithic belief system. There are sects of Islam, all vying for supremacy in what is, in the main, a conquest ideology — with the various splinters having very different ideas about what conquest entails, and with no papal analogue to impose order by decreeing orthodoxy and condemning heterodoxy."
His context for this assertion is the vacuousness of our current administration and its unwillingness to identify the problem. Some major Islamic factions are our enemies and ought to be identified as such. Claiming, as Mrs. Clinton did in the immediate aftermath of the Nice massacre: "Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful
and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism." is just wrong.
Major factions of Islam are our adversary and we would do well to understand this as clearly as Mr. McCarthy does.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
Affirmative Action
As I shake my head in confusion at the policy decisions being made in the name of equality I tend to make predictions. I often wonder if my predictions will be accurate.
Men in the ladies' room? An obviously terrible idea fraught with entirely predictable danger.
ObamaCare? An idea so bad it is impossible to understand how anyone with a brain could think it a good idea.
Abandoning, for whatever high-minded set of ideals, the incredibly successful criminal law and policing regimes of the past twenty-five years, is an astonishingly stupid idea. Crime rates are a fraction of what they were in the 1990's. No, we have not accomplished this by incarcerating an entire race of people. Any guesses as to what happens now?
Treating college students like precious snowflakes in order to cushion them from the devastating blow of hearing something they find insulting.
The list goes on and on. Most of them are so obviously wrongheaded to me because they defy human nature. I described my thoughts on human nature here (scroll to the 2nd post).
I often wonder whether my analyses are correct and look for evidence that they are, or not, in an effort to stay honest and avoid confirmation bias.
I am joined by multitudes in concluding that Affirmative Action programs in higher education were always a bad idea. Some people knew just how counter-productive they
would be from the start. One man predicted, in 1969, exactly where we would find ourselves as a result of installing Affirmative Action programs. His name was Macklin Fleming and at the time he wrote his incredibly prescient letter he was a Justice on the California Court of Appeals.
He was writing the Dean of Yale Law School (his alma mater) about the school's announced intention to admit 38 black students who could not qualify under the school's normal standards.
The letters between the Dean and Fleming, as well as analysis can be found here .
I will share some excerpts taken from the link.
"If in a given class the great majority of the black students are at the bottom of the class, this factor is bound to instill, unconsciously at least, some sense of intellectual superiority among the white students and some sense of intellectual inferiority among the black students... The fact remains that black and white students will be exposed to each other under circumstances in which demonstrated intellectual superiority rests with the whites.
...No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards."
Exactly what has occurred. Re-segregation. It is inconceivable to me that a large number of people, including those promoting the policy, were not able to see its short comings and pitfalls. They subscribed to it anyway.
Their complacency was probably a combination of fear of being judged racist and the "hope" that their good intentions would usher in their desired result. "Hope" as we all know, is not a strategy. Human nature, while ameliorable, in my opinion, simply cannot be ignored. Ignoring it is just a short-cut to ensuring its assertion and the failure of the preferred policy.
Men in the ladies' room? An obviously terrible idea fraught with entirely predictable danger.
ObamaCare? An idea so bad it is impossible to understand how anyone with a brain could think it a good idea.
Abandoning, for whatever high-minded set of ideals, the incredibly successful criminal law and policing regimes of the past twenty-five years, is an astonishingly stupid idea. Crime rates are a fraction of what they were in the 1990's. No, we have not accomplished this by incarcerating an entire race of people. Any guesses as to what happens now?
The list goes on and on. Most of them are so obviously wrongheaded to me because they defy human nature. I described my thoughts on human nature here (scroll to the 2nd post).
I often wonder whether my analyses are correct and look for evidence that they are, or not, in an effort to stay honest and avoid confirmation bias.
I am joined by multitudes in concluding that Affirmative Action programs in higher education were always a bad idea. Some people knew just how counter-productive they
would be from the start. One man predicted, in 1969, exactly where we would find ourselves as a result of installing Affirmative Action programs. His name was Macklin Fleming and at the time he wrote his incredibly prescient letter he was a Justice on the California Court of Appeals.
He was writing the Dean of Yale Law School (his alma mater) about the school's announced intention to admit 38 black students who could not qualify under the school's normal standards.
The letters between the Dean and Fleming, as well as analysis can be found here .
I will share some excerpts taken from the link.
"If in a given class the great majority of the black students are at the bottom of the class, this factor is bound to instill, unconsciously at least, some sense of intellectual superiority among the white students and some sense of intellectual inferiority among the black students... The fact remains that black and white students will be exposed to each other under circumstances in which demonstrated intellectual superiority rests with the whites.
...No one can be expected to accept an inferior status willingly. The black students, unable to compete on even terms in the study of law, inevitably will seek other means to achieve recognition and self-expression. This is likely to take two forms. First, agitation to change the environment from one in which they are unable to compete to one in which they can. Demands will be made for elimination of competition, reduction in standards of performance, adoption of courses of study which do not require intensive legal analysis, and recognition for academic credit of sociological activities which have only an indirect relationship to legal training. Second, it seems probable that this group will seek personal satisfaction and public recognition by aggressive conduct, which, although ostensibly directed at external injustices and problems, will in fact be primarily motivated by the psychological needs of the members of the group to overcome feelings of inferiority caused by lack of success in their studies. Since the common denominator of the group of students with lower qualifications is one of race this aggressive expression will undoubtedly take the form of racial demands–the employment of faculty on the basis of race, a marking system based on race, the establishment of a black curriculum and a black law journal, an increase in black financial aid, and a rule against expulsion of black students who fail to satisfy minimum academic standards."
Exactly what has occurred. Re-segregation. It is inconceivable to me that a large number of people, including those promoting the policy, were not able to see its short comings and pitfalls. They subscribed to it anyway.
Their complacency was probably a combination of fear of being judged racist and the "hope" that their good intentions would usher in their desired result. "Hope" as we all know, is not a strategy. Human nature, while ameliorable, in my opinion, simply cannot be ignored. Ignoring it is just a short-cut to ensuring its assertion and the failure of the preferred policy.
Learning Nothing from Experience
"One nice thing about being a liberal is, no one expects you to learn from experience."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/what-happens-when-liberal-heroines-crumble.php
John Hinderaker, the author of the quote above, has a nice habit of often getting things just right.
I have written a couple of posts about socialism recently. In all of those words I never came close to the clarity of Mr. Hinderaker's brief statement.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/research-review-universal-preschool-may-do-more-harm-than-good
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/what-happens-when-liberal-heroines-crumble.php
John Hinderaker, the author of the quote above, has a nice habit of often getting things just right.
I have written a couple of posts about socialism recently. In all of those words I never came close to the clarity of Mr. Hinderaker's brief statement.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/research-review-universal-preschool-may-do-more-harm-than-good
Friday, July 15, 2016
The Curious Case of James Comey and Donald Trump/Updated
On Tuesday July 5, 2016, FBI Chief James Comey gave a speech. As many others have
mentioned, there seemed actually to have been two, unconnected, Comey
speeches.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
The first speech gave us a detailed description of lawless activity clearly in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence* permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (Emphasis added) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Comey, in the first speech, characterized Clinton and her associates as having been "extremely careless" in their handling of her emails in general and classified ones in particular. As far as I know "extremely careless" is not a legal term, although "carelessness" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary in part as,
"...The careless person is the person who does not take the care he ought to take: never mind whether he felt careful. He can be held to be negligent in making a perfectly honest mistake". Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, P. 205. (Emphasis in the original).
When used by an experienced lawyer like Mr. Comey, it may or may not be a euphemism for gross negligence. From all I have read and from my own viewing experience I had the impression that he intended it to convey the depths of his contempt for Clinton and company's disregard for the norms of behavior in the handling of state secrets.
The reason for his use of the expression in lieu of gross negligence became clear to me in the second speech, the one that said, essentially, nothing to see here. Had he used "gross negligence" in the first speech he would have materially reduced the already limited coherence of drawing the no prosecution conclusion in the second. An already incoherent conclusion would have been rendered more incoherent.
As you can see from the statute above, the intentions of the subjects being investigated have no relationship to the breaking of the law in subsection (f). This contrasts (f) with (a) and (b) which require intent as part of the crime.
In his second speech Comey said:
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Far more authoritative voices than mine have called foul on this. It just doesn't ring true. Andrew McCarthy at NRO http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437643/fbi-director-james-comey-testimony-clinton-defense-crumbles-under-scrutiny
demolishes Comey's assertions in detail.
We are left to wonder why Mr. Comey, of apparently spotless reputation, chose to humiliate himself in this manner.
None of the wondering leads anywhere we want to go.
The presidential election of 2008 ushered in, in my opinion, our Emperor's New Clothes era (ENC). Mr. Comey continued it, in grand style, with his speech.
We elected a black President, have had two black Attorneys General, a black man sits on the Supreme Court, a black man heads Homeland Security, we have dozens of black mayors, congresspersons, thousands of black state legislators, city council members and judges (I found no firm figures but extrapolated from this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/29/1372225/-Just-how-many-elected-officials-are-there-in-the-United-States-The-answer-is-mind-blowing )and descend into racial chaos because we are racists.
We know we are not racists and the evidence is everywhere and overwhelming, but, we must admire the ENC. Among the most overwhelming evidence we have of this is that at 13.125% of the population, black people cannot elect anyone without a great deal of help from us racists. source
We are told of a great new deal with Iran that will stop them from building a nuke, but we aren't allowed to see the whole deal...because it is so good. But, we must admire the ENC.
UPDATE: Now we know that the part we weren't supposed to see will allow Iran to halve, to six months, the time it will take them to build a bomb when the deal expires . Who could have guessed?
We are told how brilliant our President is but we cannot see his college transcripts...because they are so great. ENC.
Unemployment is at pre-2008 levels Hooray! Not! ENC source
Everybody knows that right-thinking Americans have always supported gay marriage, and not agreeing makes you a neanderthal.
Right. source Note the relationship between Obama's change of heart and the 2012 election. ENC.
The list goes on forever. Black is white, white is black. ISIS is not an Islamic organization. We are not sure what motivated Mateen. Hillary didn't do anything she should be prosecuted for and, according to Mr. Comey, a statute that says gross negligence is the required level of responsibility to complete the crime doesn't really mean that.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. I am, at the moment, an extremely reluctant supporter. Among the reasons for my reluctant support is that I can't take being told black is white and white is black anymore.
As I have written before, good luck to all of us.
*Gross Negligence is defined in part as ...A conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, P. 1057
A lot has been written about conservatives' discomfort with the threshold of gross negligence as sufficient for a criminal conviction. The reason for the discomfort is the exploding number of new crimes being minted by government agencies. Using gross negligence as the replacement for criminal intent places ordinary citizens in jeopardy.
Hillary Clinton is not an ordinary citizen. She signed several documents confirming that she understood the rules. She was grossly negligent in carrying out her duties and should be prosecuted for that malfeasance.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
The first speech gave us a detailed description of lawless activity clearly in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence* permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (Emphasis added) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Comey, in the first speech, characterized Clinton and her associates as having been "extremely careless" in their handling of her emails in general and classified ones in particular. As far as I know "extremely careless" is not a legal term, although "carelessness" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary in part as,
"...The careless person is the person who does not take the care he ought to take: never mind whether he felt careful. He can be held to be negligent in making a perfectly honest mistake". Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, P. 205. (Emphasis in the original).
When used by an experienced lawyer like Mr. Comey, it may or may not be a euphemism for gross negligence. From all I have read and from my own viewing experience I had the impression that he intended it to convey the depths of his contempt for Clinton and company's disregard for the norms of behavior in the handling of state secrets.
The reason for his use of the expression in lieu of gross negligence became clear to me in the second speech, the one that said, essentially, nothing to see here. Had he used "gross negligence" in the first speech he would have materially reduced the already limited coherence of drawing the no prosecution conclusion in the second. An already incoherent conclusion would have been rendered more incoherent.
As you can see from the statute above, the intentions of the subjects being investigated have no relationship to the breaking of the law in subsection (f). This contrasts (f) with (a) and (b) which require intent as part of the crime.
In his second speech Comey said:
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Far more authoritative voices than mine have called foul on this. It just doesn't ring true. Andrew McCarthy at NRO http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437643/fbi-director-james-comey-testimony-clinton-defense-crumbles-under-scrutiny
demolishes Comey's assertions in detail.
We are left to wonder why Mr. Comey, of apparently spotless reputation, chose to humiliate himself in this manner.
None of the wondering leads anywhere we want to go.
The presidential election of 2008 ushered in, in my opinion, our Emperor's New Clothes era (ENC). Mr. Comey continued it, in grand style, with his speech.
We elected a black President, have had two black Attorneys General, a black man sits on the Supreme Court, a black man heads Homeland Security, we have dozens of black mayors, congresspersons, thousands of black state legislators, city council members and judges (I found no firm figures but extrapolated from this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/29/1372225/-Just-how-many-elected-officials-are-there-in-the-United-States-The-answer-is-mind-blowing )and descend into racial chaos because we are racists.
We know we are not racists and the evidence is everywhere and overwhelming, but, we must admire the ENC. Among the most overwhelming evidence we have of this is that at 13.125% of the population, black people cannot elect anyone without a great deal of help from us racists. source
We are told of a great new deal with Iran that will stop them from building a nuke, but we aren't allowed to see the whole deal...because it is so good. But, we must admire the ENC.
UPDATE: Now we know that the part we weren't supposed to see will allow Iran to halve, to six months, the time it will take them to build a bomb when the deal expires . Who could have guessed?
We are told how brilliant our President is but we cannot see his college transcripts...because they are so great. ENC.
Unemployment is at pre-2008 levels Hooray! Not! ENC source
Everybody knows that right-thinking Americans have always supported gay marriage, and not agreeing makes you a neanderthal.
Right. source Note the relationship between Obama's change of heart and the 2012 election. ENC.
The list goes on forever. Black is white, white is black. ISIS is not an Islamic organization. We are not sure what motivated Mateen. Hillary didn't do anything she should be prosecuted for and, according to Mr. Comey, a statute that says gross negligence is the required level of responsibility to complete the crime doesn't really mean that.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. I am, at the moment, an extremely reluctant supporter. Among the reasons for my reluctant support is that I can't take being told black is white and white is black anymore.
As I have written before, good luck to all of us.
*Gross Negligence is defined in part as ...A conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, P. 1057
A lot has been written about conservatives' discomfort with the threshold of gross negligence as sufficient for a criminal conviction. The reason for the discomfort is the exploding number of new crimes being minted by government agencies. Using gross negligence as the replacement for criminal intent places ordinary citizens in jeopardy.
Hillary Clinton is not an ordinary citizen. She signed several documents confirming that she understood the rules. She was grossly negligent in carrying out her duties and should be prosecuted for that malfeasance.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Black Lives Matter. Problem solved.
Monday, July 04, 2016
The Declaration of Independence
Thanks to Scott Johnson at Powerline http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/07/the-eternal-meaning-of-independence-day-2-2.php the following passage from Calvin Coolidge's July 4, 1926 speech has once again been brought to my attention. This time I was actually paying attention.
I will reproduce the section that Mr. Johnson displays in his post with several additions of emphasis.
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
Could there be a clearer statement of the truth?
I will reproduce the section that Mr. Johnson displays in his post with several additions of emphasis.
"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."
Could there be a clearer statement of the truth?
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Clintonworld
The AP reports that Bill Clinton had a private meeting with Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States. https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-lynch-met-privately-phoenix-airport-133019729--election.html
Yes, the woman who will ultimately decide the fate of HRC. She also happens to be the woman who will certainly be out of a job if HRC does not win the Presidency and, given the often reported hostility between the Obama and Clinton camps, would probably have been out of job even if HRC did win. I wonder how Bill made her the offer she couldn't refuse and what it consisted of. His mega billion dollar foundation might be a perfect soft landing, if the investigation finds nothing to prosecute. On the other hand, it may have included keeping her AG spot if HRC wins. Of one thing I am absolutely certain; grandchildren did not enter into the conversation.
We have all heard of the importance of politicians, judges and other government employees avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
I can think of few more perfect examples of the appearance of impropriety than a 30 minute private meeting between the nation's top law enforcement official and the husband of the subject of at least one of her agencies' investigations. It has been rumored (unconfirmed as far as I know) that the Clinton Foundation is also under investigation.
Looking around for definitions and examples of the appearance of impropriety I came across this http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impropriety
The definition is not unusual. It does have a bonus feature;
" Associated concepts: crime, violation"
Yes, associated indeed. A certainty in this case.
The mainstream media has been working overtime to spin this as no big deal but there are some dissenters this time. Some lefties for whom this is just too much water to carry. http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/mika-rips-media-blackout-on-clinton-lynch-meeting-people-too-afraid-to-talk-about-the-truth/
It is a big deal. All the participants in the meeting, by virtue of allowing it to take place, have clearly demonstrated their complete contempt for all of us. They are above the law, and they know it.
It is truly sad to be able to write the previous sentence in the United States of America and know that it is a common sentiment, not some conspiracy freak nonsense.
Yes, the woman who will ultimately decide the fate of HRC. She also happens to be the woman who will certainly be out of a job if HRC does not win the Presidency and, given the often reported hostility between the Obama and Clinton camps, would probably have been out of job even if HRC did win. I wonder how Bill made her the offer she couldn't refuse and what it consisted of. His mega billion dollar foundation might be a perfect soft landing, if the investigation finds nothing to prosecute. On the other hand, it may have included keeping her AG spot if HRC wins. Of one thing I am absolutely certain; grandchildren did not enter into the conversation.
We have all heard of the importance of politicians, judges and other government employees avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
I can think of few more perfect examples of the appearance of impropriety than a 30 minute private meeting between the nation's top law enforcement official and the husband of the subject of at least one of her agencies' investigations. It has been rumored (unconfirmed as far as I know) that the Clinton Foundation is also under investigation.
Looking around for definitions and examples of the appearance of impropriety I came across this http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impropriety
The definition is not unusual. It does have a bonus feature;
" Associated concepts: crime, violation"
Yes, associated indeed. A certainty in this case.
The mainstream media has been working overtime to spin this as no big deal but there are some dissenters this time. Some lefties for whom this is just too much water to carry. http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/mika-rips-media-blackout-on-clinton-lynch-meeting-people-too-afraid-to-talk-about-the-truth/
It is a big deal. All the participants in the meeting, by virtue of allowing it to take place, have clearly demonstrated their complete contempt for all of us. They are above the law, and they know it.
It is truly sad to be able to write the previous sentence in the United States of America and know that it is a common sentiment, not some conspiracy freak nonsense.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Gun Control
As everyone but the dead knows, the Muslim Orlando Massacre has made a lot of news.
As the left fulminates and plays hide the bean, professing to be confused about the registered Democrat Muslim murderer's motives, the usual dishonest gun control debates are front and center again.
The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own guns for the primary purpose of defending ourselves from the government.
The amendment was enacted in 1791. At that time, except for cannons and explosives, guns used by the military and police were, as far as I can tell, the same as those owned by citizens. One could argue that at that time gun ownership was an effective method of defense against governmental tyranny.
In 2016 (and long before) we are no longer effectively armed to defend ourselves from the government. Despite hysterical and disingenuous arguments to the contrary, it is already illegal for citizens to own automatic weapons. We can only own single shot weapons. That is not the case for our federal agencies.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund
While armed to the teeth federal agencies are a problem they are not, in my opinion, the primary problem with respect to defending ourselves against a tyrannical government.
This is http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html
It is impossible for citizens to defend against even local governments now.
We have already been effectively disarmed and have been for quite some time.
As I said in my previous post, "Good luck to all of us".
As the left fulminates and plays hide the bean, professing to be confused about the registered Democrat Muslim murderer's motives, the usual dishonest gun control debates are front and center again.
The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own guns for the primary purpose of defending ourselves from the government.
The amendment was enacted in 1791. At that time, except for cannons and explosives, guns used by the military and police were, as far as I can tell, the same as those owned by citizens. One could argue that at that time gun ownership was an effective method of defense against governmental tyranny.
In 2016 (and long before) we are no longer effectively armed to defend ourselves from the government. Despite hysterical and disingenuous arguments to the contrary, it is already illegal for citizens to own automatic weapons. We can only own single shot weapons. That is not the case for our federal agencies.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund
While armed to the teeth federal agencies are a problem they are not, in my opinion, the primary problem with respect to defending ourselves against a tyrannical government.
This is http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html
It is impossible for citizens to defend against even local governments now.
We have already been effectively disarmed and have been for quite some time.
As I said in my previous post, "Good luck to all of us".
Friday, June 24, 2016
Election 2016
I have mentioned to a few family members and friends over the last few years that I believe a series of events may unfold that will culminate with the 2016 Presidential election postponed and Obama continuing in office for an indefinite period of time. This notion did not result from anything other than Obama's re-election in 2012 and my assessment of his character and actions.
As the election approaches I am, to my amazement, beginning to think I may be on to something.
I believe the disclosure by the AP that Clinton hid 75 meetings with donors and other private individuals during the time she was SS will prove to be the last straw for her. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article85708367.html On top of the ever uglier mess her email issue is becoming, this latest is just not tolerable and even she will not be able to overcome it.
Over the last few months I have been thinking about scenarios in which Trump disappears from the race. Among the triggering events I have been considering is his assassination. Apparently someone tried just that a few days ago. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-assassination-attempt-las-vegas-224643
It will take a while for HRC to give up, but I don't see how, even in 2016 America, she can hold on for long.
So, it's September, she is indicted or forced out of the race by a combination of humiliation and ill-health, Trump is killed.
Obama, as he has demonstrated constantly, has reached the reasonable conclusion that, except for the Supreme Court, no one has the nerve to stop him and the Court has no power of enforcement. He is not constrained by the Constitution. He has nothing but contempt for it. http://www.sunbeamtimes.com/2016/02/15/obamas-contempt-for-constitution-disqualifies-him-on-supreme-court-appointment/
That being the case he will declare a state of emergency and halt the election.
Sounds crazy, doesn't it. I know. On the other hand, look around you. It seems that every federal government agency is armed to the teeth. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund
Democrats in the House of Representatives are staging an illegal sit-in. Apparently they are so far gone that the irony of using a 60's style civil rights type sit-in to promote their intention to gut the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments has not occurred to them. Nonetheless, whatever their tactics, these are elected members of the US House of Representatives and they want the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments vitiated. They will certainly not complain should Obama put another tear in the Constitution. I think they might welcome it, makes accomplishing their goal that much easier.
The country's legions of social justice warriors, minted during Obama's reign, are on a rampage, intent on destroying every vestige of our history on the theory that the people, white men, almost exclusively, who are responsible for the most astonishingly successful culture in human history, are bad. The President is in their corner. Yes, I know.
Local police forces are now armed with military weapons. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html Why do they need these? I don't know why either. Read the whole thing.
Good luck to all of us.
As the election approaches I am, to my amazement, beginning to think I may be on to something.
I believe the disclosure by the AP that Clinton hid 75 meetings with donors and other private individuals during the time she was SS will prove to be the last straw for her. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article85708367.html On top of the ever uglier mess her email issue is becoming, this latest is just not tolerable and even she will not be able to overcome it.
Over the last few months I have been thinking about scenarios in which Trump disappears from the race. Among the triggering events I have been considering is his assassination. Apparently someone tried just that a few days ago. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-assassination-attempt-las-vegas-224643
It will take a while for HRC to give up, but I don't see how, even in 2016 America, she can hold on for long.
So, it's September, she is indicted or forced out of the race by a combination of humiliation and ill-health, Trump is killed.
Obama, as he has demonstrated constantly, has reached the reasonable conclusion that, except for the Supreme Court, no one has the nerve to stop him and the Court has no power of enforcement. He is not constrained by the Constitution. He has nothing but contempt for it. http://www.sunbeamtimes.com/2016/02/15/obamas-contempt-for-constitution-disqualifies-him-on-supreme-court-appointment/
That being the case he will declare a state of emergency and halt the election.
Sounds crazy, doesn't it. I know. On the other hand, look around you. It seems that every federal government agency is armed to the teeth. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund
Democrats in the House of Representatives are staging an illegal sit-in. Apparently they are so far gone that the irony of using a 60's style civil rights type sit-in to promote their intention to gut the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments has not occurred to them. Nonetheless, whatever their tactics, these are elected members of the US House of Representatives and they want the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments vitiated. They will certainly not complain should Obama put another tear in the Constitution. I think they might welcome it, makes accomplishing their goal that much easier.
The country's legions of social justice warriors, minted during Obama's reign, are on a rampage, intent on destroying every vestige of our history on the theory that the people, white men, almost exclusively, who are responsible for the most astonishingly successful culture in human history, are bad. The President is in their corner. Yes, I know.
Local police forces are now armed with military weapons. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html Why do they need these? I don't know why either. Read the whole thing.
Good luck to all of us.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Socialism, Again
The 2nd link below is to an AP story about Cuba which was brought to my attention by this Powerline post http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/cuba-is-cursed-all-right-by-socialism.php.
The AP article's headline referring to Cuba's Curse is, of course, unintentionally hilarious. As John Hinderaker points out the article never does mention the real source of the curse. He is not so reluctant.
"Left unexplained is why a planned socialist economy couldn’t get along without foreign subsidies...Funny, too, how Cuba’s socialist benefactors bite the dust one after another."
http://www.tbo.com/ap/cuba/cuba-hopes-detente-will-finally-break-curse-on-investment-ap_cuba-news6be9b13d4e134a73a4297afa5aa40328
Before anyone launches the US economic embargo argument as the source of the curse please keep in mind that the embargo prevented Cuba from trading with one country on earth. That left about 191 others it could trade with (the UN currently has 193 members).
Socialism fails every single time it is tried. This has been pointed out by far more authoritative sources than me.
I will mention again that the Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are free market economies with very generous welfare regimes.
"The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5]
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]Emphasis added)
Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.[8] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a system to replace capitalism.[9] (Emphasis added)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Someone should bring this to Bernie's attention.
I think it worth noting that Israel tried socialism too. The Kibbutz regime of co-operative farms failed completely. I had the opportunity to visit the remnants of one two years ago. They failed for the same reason socialism always fails. It is inconsistent with human nature. Human traits are, in my experience, quite evenly divided among any group of humans.
Socialism quite naturally appeals to those with a surfeit of the laziness trait, a considerable number of the total of any human group. After all, what could be better than being licensed to do as little as possible to provide for one's self and be fully provided for by the effort of others.
The others, the productive people seduced by the nobility of the socialist ideology, play along for a while, suppressing another common human trait, self-interest. Until they get fed up watching the lazy live off their effort.
In uniformly socialist countries, once the productive get fed up with watching the lazy live off their effort, a police state develops to coerce the productive into cooperating with the authorities. USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela. It never ends well.
Happily, at least in this respect, Israel was a hybrid. Now it is not.
The AP article's headline referring to Cuba's Curse is, of course, unintentionally hilarious. As John Hinderaker points out the article never does mention the real source of the curse. He is not so reluctant.
"Left unexplained is why a planned socialist economy couldn’t get along without foreign subsidies...Funny, too, how Cuba’s socialist benefactors bite the dust one after another."
http://www.tbo.com/ap/cuba/cuba-hopes-detente-will-finally-break-curse-on-investment-ap_cuba-news6be9b13d4e134a73a4297afa5aa40328
Before anyone launches the US economic embargo argument as the source of the curse please keep in mind that the embargo prevented Cuba from trading with one country on earth. That left about 191 others it could trade with (the UN currently has 193 members).
Socialism fails every single time it is tried. This has been pointed out by far more authoritative sources than me.
I will mention again that the Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are free market economies with very generous welfare regimes.
"The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5]
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]Emphasis added)
Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.[8] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a system to replace capitalism.[9] (Emphasis added)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Someone should bring this to Bernie's attention.
I think it worth noting that Israel tried socialism too. The Kibbutz regime of co-operative farms failed completely. I had the opportunity to visit the remnants of one two years ago. They failed for the same reason socialism always fails. It is inconsistent with human nature. Human traits are, in my experience, quite evenly divided among any group of humans.
Socialism quite naturally appeals to those with a surfeit of the laziness trait, a considerable number of the total of any human group. After all, what could be better than being licensed to do as little as possible to provide for one's self and be fully provided for by the effort of others.
The others, the productive people seduced by the nobility of the socialist ideology, play along for a while, suppressing another common human trait, self-interest. Until they get fed up watching the lazy live off their effort.
In uniformly socialist countries, once the productive get fed up with watching the lazy live off their effort, a police state develops to coerce the productive into cooperating with the authorities. USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela. It never ends well.
Happily, at least in this respect, Israel was a hybrid. Now it is not.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Socialism
Among our many older friends of long standing is a very smart (as an objective matter), funny and socialist lady. It is my experience that socialists can be very smart. It is also my experience that they tend to be ill-informed and/or choose to ignore the catastrophic shortcomings of their creed by virtue of their complete inability or unwillingness to perform any sort of analysis. They also tend to be multi-millionaires, as is our friend. This last has always puzzled me.
This lady recently underwent hip replacement surgery. She lives in a socialized medicine jurisdiction, Canada.
My wife called her last week to see how she was getting along. In the lady's usual, humorous way she described a post surgical interaction with one of her socialist (naturally) grandchildren. Apparently the grand daughter was outraged that our friend jumped the queue and had her surgery before less well connected Canadians would have.
The grand daughter wanted her granny to share the misery of her socialist sisters and, had she the influence, would have forced her granny to wait, in misery. Her own grandmother. Shared misery is, after all, what socialism always results in. See Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, the former Soviet Union etc. (Please note that the Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are free market economies with generous welfare regimes, as is Canada.)
This story also highlights another ubiquitous aspect of socialism. The connected do not actually live under the socialism they prescribe for everyone else. They jump the queue.
Why? Because socialism cannot co-exist with human nature. It is counter-intuitive to a human not to take advantage of every opportunity to improve the quality of his own life. Thus, every socialist regime becomes brutal when persuasion is insufficient to suppress human nature and people refuse to countenance the shared misery absent coercion. Cuba and North Korea are giant prisons, as was the USSR. What else do you call a place, no matter how large, that one is forbidden to leave without the blessing of the authorities?
There have been a few individuals in human history who appear to have been able to overcome human nature in some respects. Jesus and Mother Theresa come to mind. I know, small list.
Take a close look at any socialist country and what you find, once the veneer has been removed, is a kleptocracy. The rich and connected become richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disappears.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192933/Hugo-Chavez-s-ambassador-daughter-Venezuela-s-richest-woman-according-new-report.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/fidel-castro-lived-like-king-cuba
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/north-korea-luxury-goods_n_4808823.html
This lady recently underwent hip replacement surgery. She lives in a socialized medicine jurisdiction, Canada.
My wife called her last week to see how she was getting along. In the lady's usual, humorous way she described a post surgical interaction with one of her socialist (naturally) grandchildren. Apparently the grand daughter was outraged that our friend jumped the queue and had her surgery before less well connected Canadians would have.
The grand daughter wanted her granny to share the misery of her socialist sisters and, had she the influence, would have forced her granny to wait, in misery. Her own grandmother. Shared misery is, after all, what socialism always results in. See Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, the former Soviet Union etc. (Please note that the Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They are free market economies with generous welfare regimes, as is Canada.)
This story also highlights another ubiquitous aspect of socialism. The connected do not actually live under the socialism they prescribe for everyone else. They jump the queue.
Why? Because socialism cannot co-exist with human nature. It is counter-intuitive to a human not to take advantage of every opportunity to improve the quality of his own life. Thus, every socialist regime becomes brutal when persuasion is insufficient to suppress human nature and people refuse to countenance the shared misery absent coercion. Cuba and North Korea are giant prisons, as was the USSR. What else do you call a place, no matter how large, that one is forbidden to leave without the blessing of the authorities?
There have been a few individuals in human history who appear to have been able to overcome human nature in some respects. Jesus and Mother Theresa come to mind. I know, small list.
Take a close look at any socialist country and what you find, once the veneer has been removed, is a kleptocracy. The rich and connected become richer, the poor poorer and the middle class disappears.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192933/Hugo-Chavez-s-ambassador-daughter-Venezuela-s-richest-woman-according-new-report.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/fidel-castro-lived-like-king-cuba
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/north-korea-luxury-goods_n_4808823.html
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Censorship Continued/Updated
Yesterday I wrote about MSNBC's censorship of a Tea Party photo in order to show the opposite of what it really was. (Reminds me of a saying I attribute to a much admired family friend of long standing; "He is such a liar even the opposite of what he says isn't true!")
You may have read about the Ben Rhodes interview published in the New York Times Magazine last week http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=2.
It has caused a stir quite amusing to those of us not on the political left. In essence Rhodes, a top aide to Obama, proudly confirmed what many of us already new. The Obama Administration peddles lies to an ill-informed (according to Rhodes and me) White House press corps which then dutifully publishes the lies. There are many unamused lefty reporters in Washington and New York. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/with-rhodes-as-my-witness.php
A lot of the article revolves around the Obama/Rhodes strategy for selling the Iran nuclear agreement to us. In that regard a Fox News correspondent, James Rosen, comments on his involvement with the issue. At a press briefing on that agreement he had questioned a State Department spokesperson on one of the issues touched on in the article. His report is below.
Toward the end of the report he shows us that the State Department has disappeared his portion of the briefing. For the authoritarians running the country at the moment, making unpleasant and embarrassing questions disappear is standard procedure.
You may have read about the Ben Rhodes interview published in the New York Times Magazine last week http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=2.
It has caused a stir quite amusing to those of us not on the political left. In essence Rhodes, a top aide to Obama, proudly confirmed what many of us already new. The Obama Administration peddles lies to an ill-informed (according to Rhodes and me) White House press corps which then dutifully publishes the lies. There are many unamused lefty reporters in Washington and New York. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/with-rhodes-as-my-witness.php
A lot of the article revolves around the Obama/Rhodes strategy for selling the Iran nuclear agreement to us. In that regard a Fox News correspondent, James Rosen, comments on his involvement with the issue. At a press briefing on that agreement he had questioned a State Department spokesperson on one of the issues touched on in the article. His report is below.
Toward the end of the report he shows us that the State Department has disappeared his portion of the briefing. For the authoritarians running the country at the moment, making unpleasant and embarrassing questions disappear is standard procedure.
https://youtu.be/YZMrCh74zQI
Sometimes even totalitarians have to acknowledge popular outrage. The video has been restored to the State web site
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/05/10/the-curious-case-of-the-missing-state-department-tape/
"The Obama administration's Stalinist-level propaganda never looked so obvious and incompetent. No wonder the beltway media (AKA the White House "echo chamber") is hopping mad. No, not at Ben Rhodes, the White House's Chief Propagandist, but at David Samuels, the NYT journalist who brought this all out and made them all look like such willing dupes"
Sometimes even totalitarians have to acknowledge popular outrage. The video has been restored to the State web site
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/05/10/the-curious-case-of-the-missing-state-department-tape/
"The Obama administration's Stalinist-level propaganda never looked so obvious and incompetent. No wonder the beltway media (AKA the White House "echo chamber") is hopping mad. No, not at Ben Rhodes, the White House's Chief Propagandist, but at David Samuels, the NYT journalist who brought this all out and made them all look like such willing dupes"
Coming to America
Courtesy of mind-numbingly stupid "progressives" who are determined not to see the obvious, this lovely demonstration of Muslim sensitivity and love of freedom:
https://youtu.be/_TaLiHll0Ag
https://youtu.be/_TaLiHll0Ag
It may well be that there are Muslims willing to live and let live. I do not see how, given the orthodoxy of their religion, but I am told they exist. Unfortunately, if they do exist, they are neither the face nor the dominant element of their religion.
From all I have seen and read, Islam and freedom, as we understand it, are mutually exclusive.
Monday, May 09, 2016
An Essential Explanation
My complaints about the censorship of the news by "news" organizations have been frequent. I have read countless articles claiming that both sides of the political isle complain that the news is slanted in their opponents direction so things must, after all, be in balance and my complaints are nonsense. Nonsense.
I have mentioned Bill Whittle before. A brilliant guy, in my opinion. His clip below illustrates a routine example of censorship by a "news" organization which succeeds in using a picture to convey exactly the opposite of what it conveyed, pre-censorship.
(The photo in question was also used by countless other outlets including, if memory serves, a Newsweek cover.)
My reflex had always to give the benefit of the "good intentions" doubt to those who are found to be stretching the rules. The transgressions of "progressives" over the last thirty years or so (by which I mean since I have been paying attention) have eroded that instinct to the point of erasing it. They do not have good intentions. They do not operate in good faith, as I have mentioned before. Perhaps they never did.
It is impossible for me to believe that the MSNBC reporters discussing the Tea Party in the clip below did not know what the picture in question showed before it was censored. No good intentions. No good faith.
The censorship is not the most important part of the clip below. The most important part is Mr. Whittle's explanation of the how and the why.
Enjoy.
I have mentioned Bill Whittle before. A brilliant guy, in my opinion. His clip below illustrates a routine example of censorship by a "news" organization which succeeds in using a picture to convey exactly the opposite of what it conveyed, pre-censorship.
(The photo in question was also used by countless other outlets including, if memory serves, a Newsweek cover.)
My reflex had always to give the benefit of the "good intentions" doubt to those who are found to be stretching the rules. The transgressions of "progressives" over the last thirty years or so (by which I mean since I have been paying attention) have eroded that instinct to the point of erasing it. They do not have good intentions. They do not operate in good faith, as I have mentioned before. Perhaps they never did.
It is impossible for me to believe that the MSNBC reporters discussing the Tea Party in the clip below did not know what the picture in question showed before it was censored. No good intentions. No good faith.
The censorship is not the most important part of the clip below. The most important part is Mr. Whittle's explanation of the how and the why.
Enjoy.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Cultural Appropriation
I wrote recently about White Privilege and explained what I think it is and why I think it exists. A parallel lament from our perennial whiners is "Cultural Appropriation", a phenomenon that posits that a person should not use the foods, clothing or other things from cultures he is not a part of. For example, not long ago a free yoga class at University of Ottawa was cancelled by the administration after complaints were received that the instructor was white, not Indian. http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2015/11/23/university-distances-itself-from-yoga-controversy.html
So it goes with any number of things. White people wearing dreadlocks? Sorry, no. White people owning restaurants selling non-white ethnic foods, er, no.
What progressives (white and non-white) seem to be doing is rebuilding walls between identifiable groups and promoting de-facto segregation. There are now "safe spaces" on university campuses where whites are not welcome. Yes, really. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3xhafz/oberlin_student_radicals_demand_racially/
I find all this very confusing. The same people who have promoted multiculturalism now seem to want to segregate cultures. I thought we were supposed to learn from our exposure to other cultures. After all, every culture is of at least equal value and people, particularly white people, need to learn from all the other much more enlightened cultures that abound on earth. I will confess that I have never understood what I was supposed to learn from an ill-educated Somali shepherd other than how to be a shepherd. Not one of my goals. Oh well.
Bill Whittle is, in my opinion, a brilliant and enormously talented man who has done us all the good turn of producing a video on the subject of cultural appropriation.
Enjoy.
https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/appropriate
So it goes with any number of things. White people wearing dreadlocks? Sorry, no. White people owning restaurants selling non-white ethnic foods, er, no.
What progressives (white and non-white) seem to be doing is rebuilding walls between identifiable groups and promoting de-facto segregation. There are now "safe spaces" on university campuses where whites are not welcome. Yes, really. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3xhafz/oberlin_student_radicals_demand_racially/
I find all this very confusing. The same people who have promoted multiculturalism now seem to want to segregate cultures. I thought we were supposed to learn from our exposure to other cultures. After all, every culture is of at least equal value and people, particularly white people, need to learn from all the other much more enlightened cultures that abound on earth. I will confess that I have never understood what I was supposed to learn from an ill-educated Somali shepherd other than how to be a shepherd. Not one of my goals. Oh well.
Bill Whittle is, in my opinion, a brilliant and enormously talented man who has done us all the good turn of producing a video on the subject of cultural appropriation.
Enjoy.
https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/appropriate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)