A set of statements that are made by both the most and least privileged people in the world.
Speaking of voting, which they do in passing, Georgia had its non-Presidential primary yesterday. For reasons I have yet to see discussed anywhere, but that I imagine have something to do with a desire to keep turnout low, Georgia held its primary for everything except the Presidential election approximately three months after the Super Tuesday primary. Since many of the elections in Georgia are merely endorsements of the Republican candidate, in many ways yesterday was the most important election day of the year. Incumbents had a very good day, for whatever that's worth in measuring the mood of the extremely small part of the electorate that participated.
I myself even voted for two incumbents, although I otherwise voted only for insurgent candidates. In the Mighty 9th Congressional District, I voted to keep Doug Collins as our representative. Paul Broun's district was combined with the 9th, which meant that he was also running in this district this year. Broun is the 'evolution is a lie from the pit of hell' guy.
Georgia will not be returning him to Congress next year. Doug Collins, who was endorsed by Zell Miller in spite of being a Republican, will be our Congressman instead.
I also voted to retain our current sheriff, who pleases me consistently by not patrolling the Western end of the county where I live. I go months without seeing anyone trying to give me a speeding ticket or otherwise interfere with my day. That election resulted in a runoff, so I shall have to arrange to vote again in July.
DB: Obama Ends Vietnam Tour With Ceremonial Rooftop Helicopter Evacuation
According to Obama, the evacuation ends what had become his 48 hour-long “national nightmare,” although some Vietnamese officials have privately said Obama was politely asked to leave after he and Secretary of State John Kerry had proceeded to raze their hotel room in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."Jenjis Khan," even.
The Weekly Standard on Vince Foster
I'm not sure I agree with their analysis that Trump's play here is inferior to what a "a more responsible opponent" could do. A more responsible opponent could raise the question the Standard wants to discuss, which is whether or not the Clintons behaved improperly in the wake of the death of a friend. There is a classic Clinton two-step dance around such a question: (1) That's a private matter, and (2) "Politics of personal destruction." By election day all anyone would remember is that the responsible opponent made a boorish attack. Trump, on the other hand, will have people remembering that they thought they heard Hillary had somebody killed, but if they think to check the record they'll find that Trump technically said that while it was fishy, it wasn't fair game and he wouldn't raise it as an issue.
All the same, the Standard does bring up an interesting fact I did not know:
And that's really the point: it's why Washington loves her and why Wall Street loves her. She makes the money flow, from the People to the people. From the taxpayer people, that is, to the loyal people. The ones who belong to the club.
The ones who do what they're told.
All the same, the Standard does bring up an interesting fact I did not know:
As if that wasn't bad enough, in 1995 the New York Times reported an aide, Sylvia Matthews, was dispatched to go through Vince Foster's trash:Makes that $75,000 in Justice Department investments seem like a wise use of one's money, if one was a ranking government bureaucrat.The committee also focused today on Mr. Foster's office trash. Members questioned Sylvia Mathews, a former White House aide, in laborious detail about what she had found in Mr. Foster's garbage on the night he died. Other than a few routine documents, the garbage contained nothing that shed light on Mr. Foster's thinking, said Ms. Mathews, who is now chief of staff at the Treasury Department.Miss Matthews is now Mrs. Burwell. That's right: Sylvia Burwell, the current Secretary of Health and Human Services who is now busy sorting out Obamacare's refuse, is the same aide that went through Foster's trash the day he died. Loyalty to the Clintons has a generous rewards program, as the quasi nationalization of health care means that Burwell is now pulling the strings on a sixth of the national economy. And whatever lobbying gig is sure to follow will no doubt be extremely lucrative.
And that's really the point: it's why Washington loves her and why Wall Street loves her. She makes the money flow, from the People to the people. From the taxpayer people, that is, to the loyal people. The ones who belong to the club.
The ones who do what they're told.
Putting Down a Marker
Here's an opportunity to apply a partial test to the idea -- very common on both Right and Left -- that corporations and big banks own the political system. A new poll by the Financial Times shows that these firms have a very clear favorite to win the Presidency: Hillary Clinton.
Now, if she gets elected, that doesn't prove that the banks and corporations own the political system.
If she loses, however, with these figures? We'll have to put aside the notion that banks and corporations are all that influential. 71% of these corporations prefer her on immigration, compared with zero percent preferring Donald Trump. 63% prefer her on trade, compared with zero percent on Trump. And 25% of them prefer her on taxes, the only category she (narrowly) loses to Trump.
She is clearly the candidate of the corporate establishment, as she is the candidate of the political establishment. If she loses, we'll have to accept that Americans are still in charge of our own destiny.
Now, if she gets elected, that doesn't prove that the banks and corporations own the political system.
If she loses, however, with these figures? We'll have to put aside the notion that banks and corporations are all that influential. 71% of these corporations prefer her on immigration, compared with zero percent preferring Donald Trump. 63% prefer her on trade, compared with zero percent on Trump. And 25% of them prefer her on taxes, the only category she (narrowly) loses to Trump.
She is clearly the candidate of the corporate establishment, as she is the candidate of the political establishment. If she loses, we'll have to accept that Americans are still in charge of our own destiny.
Oops!
What a coincidence that this kind of thing keeps happening whenever there's an investigation.
The CIA's inspector general is claiming it inadvertently destroyed its only copy of a classified, three-volume Senate report on torture, prompting a leading senator to ask for reassurance that it was in fact ‘an accident.’”Really, just an amazing series of coincidences. Here's a song from back when it was just the IRS drives:
...[T]he CIA’s “accident” was only the latest in a long rash of “accidental” losses of incriminating information in this administration. The IRS — whose Tea Party-targeting scandal is now over 1,100 days old without anyone being charged or sent to jail — seems to have a habit of ”accidentally” destroying hard drives containing potentially incriminating evidence. It has done so in spite of court orders, in spite of Congressional inquiries and in spite of pretty much everyone’s belief that these “accidents” were actually the deliberate, illegal destruction of incriminating evidence to protect the guilty.
Then there’s Hillary’s email scandal, in which emails kept on a private unsecure server — presumably to avoid Freedom of Information Act disclosures — were deleted. Now emails from Hillary’s IT guy, who is believed to have set up the server, have gone poof.
DB: Sec. Mabus “Just Hates the Navy.”
“Women on submarines?” he asked. “Check. Politically correct renaming of the ranks, check. The USS Carl Levin? Carl is a buddy of mine and I forgot to get him a birthday present. Boom. Name on a ship. And it didn’t cost me a dime.”
The Secretary went on to describe how his favorite activity was throwing a dart at a large board filled with uniform ideas every three months, then forcing the service to add that item to the sea-bag.
“If that’s not bad enough, I actually made them wear water-colored uniforms... Now if someone falls overboard it will actually be harder to find them. And the boot-licking admirals were so eager to please me that they approved it...”
Mabus ended the conference by saying he’s considering making consumption of alcohol at any time a UCMJ offense, and adding “a purple top hat with 13 solid-gold buttons to the uniform list.”
A Good Piece on Anti-Racism
So, we all hate racism. At some point, the efforts to quash racism became racist. I mean this in the sense that they force you to focus on belonging to a race, confronting the fact that you are a member of that race, and then accounting for whatever privileges or violations attach to you because of your membership in that race. This is at best counterproductive because it preserves the idea that "race" is something important. In fact "race" is a fiction dreamed up in the early Renaissance to justify the re-introduction of slavery to Europe. We should be striving to eliminate the concept, not further ingraining it into students.
Here's a piece by David Marcus that takes on the idea that everyone should be made to accept their race and confess their privileges. It's a very solid article on why this approach is backwards, and is actually making racism worse.
It's similar to the way in which the Democratic Party's electoral strategy of focusing on advancing the interests of minorities paved the way for Trump's electoral strategy of consolidating the white vote as a bloc. Indeed, many of the things Marcus warns against are much further along than he himself seems to believe.
Here's a piece by David Marcus that takes on the idea that everyone should be made to accept their race and confess their privileges. It's a very solid article on why this approach is backwards, and is actually making racism worse.
It's similar to the way in which the Democratic Party's electoral strategy of focusing on advancing the interests of minorities paved the way for Trump's electoral strategy of consolidating the white vote as a bloc. Indeed, many of the things Marcus warns against are much further along than he himself seems to believe.
It's Because She Is Spectacularly Corrupt
"Why do people hate Hillary so much?" asks a writer at the Sacramento Bee. He answers: gotta be misogyny.
I wrote about sexism and Clinton back during the 2008 primary, when she was facing some pretty nasty coded attacks from the Obama campaign. At the time, I was trying to be very careful to criticize her policy positions without saying things that would be generally offensive to women.
Yet when I think about why Clinton herself is so particularly offensive, it is a fact about her that the author of this latest piece seems simply to ignore: her and her husband's spectacular corruption. They have vastly enriched themselves through a set of "speaking fees" given by corporations, banks, and governments who either had business before Secretary Clinton or expect to have business before President Clinton. When I say "vastly enriched," I mean that the amount of money is truly incredible.
She is a corrupting influence, too. Her presidential ambitions stand on the concept that the Department of Justice won't accept an FBI recommendation that it indict her for her numerous and manifest violations of the law. And, indeed, it seems likely that they won't -- top Justice Department officials have invested $75,000 in her career by donating to her political campaign this year. What do you suppose those officials expect to receive if President Clinton is elected? High public postings, obviously, from which they will more than recoup their donations. They'll have earned it, not so much for the cash donation as for the 'payment in kind' they will have provided if they succeed in blocking her indictment.
Is there some lurking sexism in the depths of my subconscious that allows me to look on the Clintons with horror while ignoring similar transgressions from others? I don't know -- is there anyone else in government who has personally profited to this degree off the sale of their use of the American office with which they were entrusted? How can we compare such peerless individuals as these two?
UPDATE: David Brooks says it's because she works too darn hard. Maybe she needs better creases on her pants, too.
I wrote about sexism and Clinton back during the 2008 primary, when she was facing some pretty nasty coded attacks from the Obama campaign. At the time, I was trying to be very careful to criticize her policy positions without saying things that would be generally offensive to women.
Yet when I think about why Clinton herself is so particularly offensive, it is a fact about her that the author of this latest piece seems simply to ignore: her and her husband's spectacular corruption. They have vastly enriched themselves through a set of "speaking fees" given by corporations, banks, and governments who either had business before Secretary Clinton or expect to have business before President Clinton. When I say "vastly enriched," I mean that the amount of money is truly incredible.
Mandatory financial disclosures released this month show that, in just the two years from April 2013 to March 2015, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state collected $21,667,000 in “speaking fees,” not to mention the cool $5 mil she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, “Hard Choices.”Bill Clinton's totals since leaving office, just for speaking fees, are over a hundred million dollars according to the first of the two sources I just cited. Much of that money, as much as three-quarters of a million dollars for a speech, came from foreign governments and corporations while his wife was Secretary of State.
Throw in the additional $26,630,000 her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance “honoraria"...
She is a corrupting influence, too. Her presidential ambitions stand on the concept that the Department of Justice won't accept an FBI recommendation that it indict her for her numerous and manifest violations of the law. And, indeed, it seems likely that they won't -- top Justice Department officials have invested $75,000 in her career by donating to her political campaign this year. What do you suppose those officials expect to receive if President Clinton is elected? High public postings, obviously, from which they will more than recoup their donations. They'll have earned it, not so much for the cash donation as for the 'payment in kind' they will have provided if they succeed in blocking her indictment.
Is there some lurking sexism in the depths of my subconscious that allows me to look on the Clintons with horror while ignoring similar transgressions from others? I don't know -- is there anyone else in government who has personally profited to this degree off the sale of their use of the American office with which they were entrusted? How can we compare such peerless individuals as these two?
UPDATE: David Brooks says it's because she works too darn hard. Maybe she needs better creases on her pants, too.
Clarence Thomas Is The Only One Thinking Clearly
In a seven-to-one ruling, the US Supreme Court threw out a Georgia State Supreme Court ruling and granted a new trial to a black man convicted by a jury that prosecutors had carefully constructed as all-white. The sole dissenting voice was Clarence Thomas.
You can imagine the hateful rhetoric that is being poured on his head this afternoon. However, if you follow the link above you can read his dissent. The media reports I read before I found a link to the actual ruling suggested that Thomas sets a ridiculously high bar before he will accept that race has anything to do with a conviction. The argument actually goes something like this:
1) Our laws say that Federal courts should only overturn state courts where there is a clear Federal law issue.
2) The argument being forwarded by the majority is that the racial bias in jury selection is a Federal issue that gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
3) That is only true if there is some reason to think Georgia's courts didn't adequately address the issues of bias in their own consideration of this case.
4) Georgia's State Supreme Court ruled that this jury construction didn't plausibly affect the outcome of this case.
5) They're almost certainly right about that, because the murderer confessed to the murder, as well as to sexually violating his victim before killing her.
Thomas may be the only one thinking clearly about the issues of race in this case. Everyone else is blinded by the fear that America's original sin, racism, may have been a factor in the prosecution's conduct. Thomas is calmly pointing out that there's little doubt that nearly any jury would have convicted him and sentenced him to death.
More to the point, he's right that -- given the facts of the case -- death is the correct penalty for this murderer. The Court is merely delaying the application of justice. They are doing so, as he says, without adequately grappling with the question of whether or not they have any legitimate authority to interfere.
You can imagine the hateful rhetoric that is being poured on his head this afternoon. However, if you follow the link above you can read his dissent. The media reports I read before I found a link to the actual ruling suggested that Thomas sets a ridiculously high bar before he will accept that race has anything to do with a conviction. The argument actually goes something like this:
1) Our laws say that Federal courts should only overturn state courts where there is a clear Federal law issue.
2) The argument being forwarded by the majority is that the racial bias in jury selection is a Federal issue that gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
3) That is only true if there is some reason to think Georgia's courts didn't adequately address the issues of bias in their own consideration of this case.
4) Georgia's State Supreme Court ruled that this jury construction didn't plausibly affect the outcome of this case.
5) They're almost certainly right about that, because the murderer confessed to the murder, as well as to sexually violating his victim before killing her.
Thomas may be the only one thinking clearly about the issues of race in this case. Everyone else is blinded by the fear that America's original sin, racism, may have been a factor in the prosecution's conduct. Thomas is calmly pointing out that there's little doubt that nearly any jury would have convicted him and sentenced him to death.
More to the point, he's right that -- given the facts of the case -- death is the correct penalty for this murderer. The Court is merely delaying the application of justice. They are doing so, as he says, without adequately grappling with the question of whether or not they have any legitimate authority to interfere.
Ten Bikers Suing Waco in Federal Court
I'd expect a lot more of them to file suit if these cases work out, but these do sound like plausible test cases.
I have a feeling Waco is going to end up paying through the nose for its handling of this matter.
The suit, filed by Dallas attorney Don Tittle, alleges unlawful arrest and due process violations and alleges the plaintiffs were arrested with no evidence that they committed any crimes or had any ties to warring biker groups the Bandidos or the Cossacks.Matcek is apparently also a member of BACA, which is a noble organization.
Matcek and Smith are identified in the lawsuit as members of the Line Riders Motorcycle Club, which the suit says has no affiliation with either the Bandidos or Cossacks. Matcek, according to the lawsuit, was running late and was not even at Twin Peaks at the eruption of the firefight, which left nine bikers dead and more than 20 wounded.
Once he arrived, Waco police allowed Matcek, Terwilliger and Smith to take one of their wounded friends to the hospital, the suit says....
The violence resulted in the arrests of 192 bikers — including 15 who later were named in sealed indictments because they were injured and not arrested May 17, 2015 — and the indictments of 154, all on identical first-degree felony engaging in organized criminal activity charges.
I have a feeling Waco is going to end up paying through the nose for its handling of this matter.
A Third Possibility
Vox considers two options for why Donald Trump is now ahead in the polls:
1) It's just a blip because he's locked up his contest and she's still fighting Bernie.
2) It heralds a "nail-bitingly close" election.
Here's a third possibility you haven't considered: maybe she'll perform exactly the way she's performed against every other opponent, and lose ground in the polls more the longer the contest goes on. Clinton was way ahead of Sanders... but has lost ground steadily against him. She was way ahead of Obama in 2008... but lost ground steadily against him. Now that people are thinking in terms of Trump and Clinton, she's fading against him like she fades against everyone.
He's just now starting to turn his guns on her. By November, this may not be close at all.
1) It's just a blip because he's locked up his contest and she's still fighting Bernie.
2) It heralds a "nail-bitingly close" election.
Here's a third possibility you haven't considered: maybe she'll perform exactly the way she's performed against every other opponent, and lose ground in the polls more the longer the contest goes on. Clinton was way ahead of Sanders... but has lost ground steadily against him. She was way ahead of Obama in 2008... but lost ground steadily against him. Now that people are thinking in terms of Trump and Clinton, she's fading against him like she fades against everyone.
He's just now starting to turn his guns on her. By November, this may not be close at all.
How is this a paradox?
I saw this today in an article talking about difficult paradoxes. But I cannot see how this is difficult to grasp.
This statement is, by definition, false. Either he has told a truth at some point in the past, or he is telling the truth now. That does not make this statement a lie, merely false (and provably so). Lies may be true (if I say I have a million dollars when I believe I do not, but upon checking my bank account find that I have won the lottery at some point prior to making the statement unbeknownst to me, then the lie I believed I was telling was in fact a true statement; it does not change the fact that I was lying at the time I spoke it), and truthful statements may be false (again, if I say I have a million dollars, but find out later that at the time I spoke that my wife had spent it all prior to my making the statement, then it is a false statement, but one I did not lie about). I suppose the problem comes from language not being a logical construct where lies must always be false and truthful statements must always be true.
Um, Pope Francis...
Wasn't I just saying something about feel-good Hippie nonsense in the Catholic Church?
Perhaps we should be grateful to hear a Western leader say "It is true that conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam." Also, I understand that the Pope is making nice with Islam because he's trying to forestall the murder of Christians in the Middle East. Still, if it's strange to be unable to distinguish between "a strong government" and a murderous tyranny, it's far stranger to hear the leader of the Catholic Church elide jihad and Jesus. This is "the same idea of conquest"? The very same idea? Are we sure it's even a very similar idea?
Christianity and Islam both have a universal mission. That seems to me to be the end of the similarity of their ideas about conquest.
– The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?Saddam's was "a strong government"? I suppose, if the mark of a strong government is widespread torture, murder, ethnic cleansing, and the terror of the mukhabarat. East Germany was a strong government by these standards.
Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.
In the face of Islamic terrorism, it would therefore be better to question ourselves about the way in an overly Western model of democracy has been exported to countries such as Iraq, where a strong government previously existed. Or in Libya, where a tribal structure exists. We cannot advance without taking these cultures into account. As a Libyan said recently, “We used to have one Gaddafi, now we have fifty.”
Perhaps we should be grateful to hear a Western leader say "It is true that conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam." Also, I understand that the Pope is making nice with Islam because he's trying to forestall the murder of Christians in the Middle East. Still, if it's strange to be unable to distinguish between "a strong government" and a murderous tyranny, it's far stranger to hear the leader of the Catholic Church elide jihad and Jesus. This is "the same idea of conquest"? The very same idea? Are we sure it's even a very similar idea?
Christianity and Islam both have a universal mission. That seems to me to be the end of the similarity of their ideas about conquest.
"The Miscarriage of Justice Department"
A Federal judge grows irritated. Sadly, this is not an isolated issue, but the standard practice of the Obama-era Justice Department. Indeed, it's of a piece with the conduct of many other Obama-era departments.
Valheim Hof
A new temple to Odin has been opened in Denmark, for the first time in nearly a thousand years.
I was talking to a friend of mine who is a Greek neopagan about a festival she attended recently. They apparently elected to "reimagine" the blood sacrifice, instead buying snacks from a local grocery. I found that vastly amusing, as the whole point of the particular ritual they were trying to revive was the blood magic. Apparently the danger of the basic tenets of the faith being overwhelmed by feel-good Hippie sentimentalism is not limited to the Catholic Church.
To the credit of these Odhinnic pagans, they did not omit the blood.
R.I.P. Logic Tobola II (FAIA)
I got to walk around in our new church building this week, the concrete having been poured and made it easier to approach without making the workers too nervous. Every space, every transition between spaces, made me happy. I felt I was in the hands of a talented designer. What I didn't realize is that the architect, Logic Tobola, had just died, or was just dying, of cancer. I can't find his obit up on the net yet, but here is a link to an article about a mobile church he designed for the Episcopal Church in Texas, and here are updated snapshots of our new church. We'll be moving in sometime in July; for the first time I feel it will be an improvement over the charming existing building.
I'm sorry Mr. Tobola won't get to see the finished church, but he did get to tour the construction site a month or so, already in a wheelchair. He loved his work and his church.
I'm sorry Mr. Tobola won't get to see the finished church, but he did get to tour the construction site a month or so, already in a wheelchair. He loved his work and his church.
A Distinct Honor
There's a piece in Vox today about the firing of a Bernie Sanders supporter for using harsh language. That's to one side. What I want to draw your attention to is how the author describes the affair.
Every President since Nixon has had their scandals reported as 'something-gate,' because the Watergate scandal set the standard for Presidential scandals. Clinton has had her share of those these 25 years: Travelgate, Filegate, Emaigate, etc. No more. Now all the scandals attached to her can be called "something-ghazi."
What that means is that Hillary Clinton would be the first President since Nixon to inspire her own scandal-naming convention.
Before even taking office.
That's a real accomplishment.
On one level, this Bruenighazi is exactly what it seems to be, a matter of considerable importance to one family's finances but essentially a tempest in a teapot — a series of personal spats boiling over out of control.Bruenighazi.
Every President since Nixon has had their scandals reported as 'something-gate,' because the Watergate scandal set the standard for Presidential scandals. Clinton has had her share of those these 25 years: Travelgate, Filegate, Emaigate, etc. No more. Now all the scandals attached to her can be called "something-ghazi."
What that means is that Hillary Clinton would be the first President since Nixon to inspire her own scandal-naming convention.
Before even taking office.
That's a real accomplishment.
Cherohala Wedding
My youngest cousin from the generation after mine married this weekend, which occasioned a ride up to the Tennessee River. I brought a tailored suit, a gambler's vest, and black cowboy boots. Turns out I could have swapped out the suit for Wrangler jeans. The groom's wedding party wore boots and jeans, and the ladies all wore boots and dresses.
I should have asked. On the upside the wife said I was the best looking man at the wedding. Of course, she might be prejudiced.
I should have asked. On the upside the wife said I was the best looking man at the wedding. Of course, she might be prejudiced.
The wedding venue, overlooking the mighty Tennessee.
Yeah, he was married in a barn.
The Cherohala Skyway on the ride home.
The Absence of the Gulag is Not Negligible
Another good post from Wretchard.
Cass mentioned the other day that she thinks I'm sympathetic to Sanders. I guess, in a way: I'm not a socialist, and very much not one. On the other hand, he strikes me as basically honest. Being honestly wrong is not as good as being honestly right, especially if you are honestly wrong after a lifetime long enough to have learned better. But the honesty really does matter. My real candidate in this election, Jim Webb, was manifestly warm to him in the Democratic debate. "I don't think the revolution's going to come," Webb said, but he said it to a man he clearly regarded kindly after their interactions in the Senate.
When Wretchard says that the magic of Bernie Sanders is that he might really have illusions, there's something to that. When he talks about the Servile State, and the alliance of the establishments of both parties with this sort of crony capitalism, we know just what he means.
There are not only no perfect choices left, there are no good choices. There is a least worst. No matter what happens in November, at this point, we need to gird ourselves to be in the opposition for another long four years.
UPDATE: EU Court Outlaws Criticism of EU.
Cass mentioned the other day that she thinks I'm sympathetic to Sanders. I guess, in a way: I'm not a socialist, and very much not one. On the other hand, he strikes me as basically honest. Being honestly wrong is not as good as being honestly right, especially if you are honestly wrong after a lifetime long enough to have learned better. But the honesty really does matter. My real candidate in this election, Jim Webb, was manifestly warm to him in the Democratic debate. "I don't think the revolution's going to come," Webb said, but he said it to a man he clearly regarded kindly after their interactions in the Senate.
When Wretchard says that the magic of Bernie Sanders is that he might really have illusions, there's something to that. When he talks about the Servile State, and the alliance of the establishments of both parties with this sort of crony capitalism, we know just what he means.
There are not only no perfect choices left, there are no good choices. There is a least worst. No matter what happens in November, at this point, we need to gird ourselves to be in the opposition for another long four years.
UPDATE: EU Court Outlaws Criticism of EU.
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of European precedents on civil liberties.The law is an ass, and this is a beautiful illustration of why political violence can be eminently justified. For "English Common Law was swept aside," read, "Sweeping Aside the Constitution." It's a violation on a similar scale. If that vacant SCOTUS seat goes left, 'the law' will mostly be a similar exercise in power. That's how close to the edge we are: one seat, already vacant.
Friday Night AMV
Girls. Guns. Oh wait. Magical girls with magical guns.
Gotta work on that aiming though.
Gotta work on that aiming though.
Life in the Bubble
Don't Congressfolk get out and talk to their constituents sometimes? Ever?
“It was a scary situation,” said Boxer, a Clinton supporter. “It was frightening. I was on the stage. People were six feet away from me. If I didn’t have a lot of security, I don’t know what would have happened.”How is it that, representing a state as large as yours in a country as diverse as this, you're so unused to being six feet away from people who disagree with you? Why do you feel you need 'a lot of security' to be close to the people you undertake to represent? Could it be that you aren't really representing them?
Sanders Calls for FOX News Debate before California
“This is the worst-case scenario and the one people feared the most,” said one Clinton ally and former Clinton aide.I'd love to see FOX News moderators get ahold of both of these candidates. But I can imagine the questions for Clinton:
“Unfortunately, he’s choosing the path of burning down the house,” the ally said. “He continues with character attacks against Hillary. He continues with calling the Democratic Party corrupt and he not only risks damaging Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party but he's currently doing it."
Clinton allies say Sanders is only piling on by insisting that Clinton join him for a debate ahead of California's primary on June 7. The debate would be aired on Fox News, a network Clinton supporters see as fanning the flames between Sanders supporters and the former secretary of State.
1) "We've all seen the news reports of the intensity of the FBI investigation into your mishandling of classified information. Some statements claim that they can't prove intent, but there is no need to prove intent under the law. How much longer do you think you can stay out of jail?"
2) "It's great you mention that, because the happier wing of stories about this are coming out of Justice Department leaks. Now it's a matter of record that high ranking Justice Department officials have donated $75,000 to your campaign this cycle, which represents a substantial investment in you. Isn't this proof of the corruption in the leadership of the Democratic Party that Senator Sanders is alleging, and will you call for an independent prosecutor to resolve all questions about your conduct once and for all?"
Yellowstone Grizzlies
Last year I had a chance to see a grizzly bear in Yellowstone. What amazing (and of course quite deadly) animals they are. There are now approximately 700 of them in the park, and that is causing the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider de-listing them as endangered.
Maintaining the health and natural beauty of America's National Parks is one of those few issues I think we should consider amending the Constitution to give the Federal Government power to do. In general I would like to see the 10th Amendment strictly enforced, but America's National Parks are genuine treasures. That includes the wildlife, especially the megafauna. On a 50 mile hike last year in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, on the other side of the country, I had a chance to see all the major species up close and in person: elk, black bear, wild boar, and deer. In Yellowstone, I saw many black bear, the grizzly, and bison. In the Tetons, I saw many more bison, pronghorn, more elk -- a small but significant sense of what this magnificent continent was like when we first encountered it.
So, small government guy that I am, here's one exception where I would consider "new" Federal power -- I mean licensing the power they've already seized for themselves, of course. Our National Parks is one area where the Federal government does a good job that is good for all of us.
Maintaining the health and natural beauty of America's National Parks is one of those few issues I think we should consider amending the Constitution to give the Federal Government power to do. In general I would like to see the 10th Amendment strictly enforced, but America's National Parks are genuine treasures. That includes the wildlife, especially the megafauna. On a 50 mile hike last year in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, on the other side of the country, I had a chance to see all the major species up close and in person: elk, black bear, wild boar, and deer. In Yellowstone, I saw many black bear, the grizzly, and bison. In the Tetons, I saw many more bison, pronghorn, more elk -- a small but significant sense of what this magnificent continent was like when we first encountered it.
So, small government guy that I am, here's one exception where I would consider "new" Federal power -- I mean licensing the power they've already seized for themselves, of course. Our National Parks is one area where the Federal government does a good job that is good for all of us.
Not Quite The Intended Effect
I'm on a bunch of political mailing lists. MoveOn just sent out an email titled, "This man is obstructing the President."
Naturally, I thought immediately of sending whoever it was a nice letter. It turns out the man is Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is problem #1 for getting Obama's SCOTUS nominee approved.
That wasn't a hugely urgent Democratic objective before yesterday's poll showing Trump in the lead in the general, I notice. Indeed, I haven't heard about this issue in a while.
Anyway, if you'd like to send Chuck a nice letter, you can reach him through his webpage.
UPDATE: Make that two polls with Trump out front.
Naturally, I thought immediately of sending whoever it was a nice letter. It turns out the man is Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is problem #1 for getting Obama's SCOTUS nominee approved.
That wasn't a hugely urgent Democratic objective before yesterday's poll showing Trump in the lead in the general, I notice. Indeed, I haven't heard about this issue in a while.
Anyway, if you'd like to send Chuck a nice letter, you can reach him through his webpage.
UPDATE: Make that two polls with Trump out front.
Left v. Left
Slightly left Brookings Institute fellow Robert Kagan: Trump is how fascism comes to America.
Quite left outlet Vox: Nope, you're wrong.
Trump is a much better candidate for a democratic demagogue a la classical Greek thought (which Kagan knows enough about to mention). That's dangerous enough without needing to invoke a more-famously bad model that doesn't really fit.
Quite left outlet Vox: Nope, you're wrong.
Trump is a much better candidate for a democratic demagogue a la classical Greek thought (which Kagan knows enough about to mention). That's dangerous enough without needing to invoke a more-famously bad model that doesn't really fit.
Another Historical Article
From the same source as Tex's, a meditation on the Austrio-Hungarian empire as a multi-ethnic state as it relates to Germany's attempts to absorb mass migration.
DB: "Army Forces Reporters into SHARP Training..."
"...for Constantly Mentioning New Secretary's Sexual Orientation."
But how can you signal your virtue if you don't constantly signal?
From the article: "Meanwhile soldiers have expressed their support, or general indifference, towards Secretary Fanning."
That reminds me of a scene from Philip Caputo's A Rumor of War in which, as a Marine 2nd Lieutenant in Vietnam, he was challenged by a sentry.
But how can you signal your virtue if you don't constantly signal?
From the article: "Meanwhile soldiers have expressed their support, or general indifference, towards Secretary Fanning."
That reminds me of a scene from Philip Caputo's A Rumor of War in which, as a Marine 2nd Lieutenant in Vietnam, he was challenged by a sentry.
Sanders Is Not 'Sabotaging Clinton,' He's Trying to Win
He well might win, if the superdelegates elect to abandon her and swing to him -- which they very well might, given his much stronger showing against Trump, her own terrible performance as a candidate, and her rapidly falling poll numbers.
Now, the superdelegates are chiefly loyal party organizers of just the sort who pulled the Nevada spectacle. Nevertheless, it's still two months to the DNC in Philly. If Clinton falls into a tie (or even below) Trump, and Sanders continues to show strong support, she'll be in a bad position to retain their loyalty.
So, no. This isn't sabotage. It's fair play for the prize.
Meanwhile, if it doesn't work, Trump has already moved to seize Sanders' line that the system is rigged. Every bit of rigging Clinton has to do to claw her way past the DNC is proof that Sanders was -- and, therefore, Trump is -- right about the state of American politics.
If I'm right that Sanders and Trump are aligned in the core logic of their campaigns, Trump could easily land a large part of the Sanders vote. Everybody is talking as if this were the usual left-v-right election. I think it is an 'America-First' v. Globalism election. The real driver is economics, but both Trump and Sanders play out the logic also in their foreign policy. Thus, the Trump campaign may seem like a more natural home for Sanders supporters than the Clinton campaign. Especially for the Sanders voters who are genuinely working class, the elitist, internationalist Clinton may seem like a symbol of everything they resent.
So if you don't want that, vote Sanders. Him getting past the DNC as the candidate is right now the #1 best shot for keeping Trump out of the White House -- just as it is the #1 best shot for keeping Clinton out of the White House.
Now, the superdelegates are chiefly loyal party organizers of just the sort who pulled the Nevada spectacle. Nevertheless, it's still two months to the DNC in Philly. If Clinton falls into a tie (or even below) Trump, and Sanders continues to show strong support, she'll be in a bad position to retain their loyalty.
So, no. This isn't sabotage. It's fair play for the prize.
Meanwhile, if it doesn't work, Trump has already moved to seize Sanders' line that the system is rigged. Every bit of rigging Clinton has to do to claw her way past the DNC is proof that Sanders was -- and, therefore, Trump is -- right about the state of American politics.
If I'm right that Sanders and Trump are aligned in the core logic of their campaigns, Trump could easily land a large part of the Sanders vote. Everybody is talking as if this were the usual left-v-right election. I think it is an 'America-First' v. Globalism election. The real driver is economics, but both Trump and Sanders play out the logic also in their foreign policy. Thus, the Trump campaign may seem like a more natural home for Sanders supporters than the Clinton campaign. Especially for the Sanders voters who are genuinely working class, the elitist, internationalist Clinton may seem like a symbol of everything they resent.
So if you don't want that, vote Sanders. Him getting past the DNC as the candidate is right now the #1 best shot for keeping Trump out of the White House -- just as it is the #1 best shot for keeping Clinton out of the White House.
Don't Bury the Lede
Headline: "Donald Trump Releases List of Supreme Court Picks."
How many paragraphs do you think the NYT needs to fulminate before it tells us even one of the names on that list?
Would you believe five paragraphs?
Here's the list, to spare you reading all about how nobody trusts Trump and the list is meaningless (which you get again in the paragraphs following the list):
How many paragraphs do you think the NYT needs to fulminate before it tells us even one of the names on that list?
Would you believe five paragraphs?
Here's the list, to spare you reading all about how nobody trusts Trump and the list is meaningless (which you get again in the paragraphs following the list):
According to a list released by the campaign, Mr. Trump’s potential nominees include several federal judges: Steven M. Colloton of Iowa; Raymond W. Gruender of Missouri; Thomas M. Hardiman of Pennsylvania; William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin; and Raymond M. Kethledge of Michigan; and several state Supreme Court justices: Allison H. Eid of Colorado; Joan Larsen of Michigan; Thomas Lee of Utah; David Stras of Minnesota; and Don Willett of Texas.It's possibly the most consequential issue of the election. What do you think?
Happy 100th Birthday, Sykes-Picot
On the talking point blaming all the ills of the Middle East on a smoke-filled room that produced Iraq's borders.
Two Small Questions
So there's this article about an Oregon Baptist Church with a sign described as "anti-Muslim."
1) What is the difference between bigotry and orthodoxy? This is the official position of the Baptist church. There's nothing in the sign that isn't completely accurate as a statement of church doctrine.
2) What's the difference between Baptist orthodoxy and Islamic orthodoxy as regards what constitutes bigotry? Muslims officially believe the inverse of this doctrine: that there is no God but Allah, that Muhammad is greater than Jesus (who is merely another prophet, and a lesser one, according to Islamic orthodoxy), and that only the Koran is the direct word of God.
It seems the complaint here is either one of aesthetics or one of etiquette. Maybe it's just rude, or ugly, to point this out. But the only way believing in Baptist orthodoxy is "anti-Muslim" is if being a Baptist is anti-Muslim. If that's the case, than any expression of religious sentiment is a form of bigotry, for 'being a Muslim' is anti-Christian by an exactly similar argument.
Is the only way to be fair to everyone to be an atheist? Or is the argument just that it's fine to believe what you want provided you don't say it out loud?
Pastor Michael Harrington placed the words on the reader board outside Belmont Drive Missionary Baptist Church. On one side it reads, “Wake up Christians, Allah is not our God, Muhammad not greater than Jesus.” On the other side, it says, “Only the Bible is God’s word, ‘holy book,’ Koran is just another book.” ...I have just two questions.
But locals, including the mayor, don’t want to see the signs.
“I was really annoyed and sad,” Hood River mayor, Paul Blackburn, told KATU. “I am annoyed that in this political season there’s a solid case of ugly going on. I think it norms up this kind of behavior like ‘oh it’s okay to be a bigot now.'”
1) What is the difference between bigotry and orthodoxy? This is the official position of the Baptist church. There's nothing in the sign that isn't completely accurate as a statement of church doctrine.
2) What's the difference between Baptist orthodoxy and Islamic orthodoxy as regards what constitutes bigotry? Muslims officially believe the inverse of this doctrine: that there is no God but Allah, that Muhammad is greater than Jesus (who is merely another prophet, and a lesser one, according to Islamic orthodoxy), and that only the Koran is the direct word of God.
It seems the complaint here is either one of aesthetics or one of etiquette. Maybe it's just rude, or ugly, to point this out. But the only way believing in Baptist orthodoxy is "anti-Muslim" is if being a Baptist is anti-Muslim. If that's the case, than any expression of religious sentiment is a form of bigotry, for 'being a Muslim' is anti-Christian by an exactly similar argument.
Is the only way to be fair to everyone to be an atheist? Or is the argument just that it's fine to believe what you want provided you don't say it out loud?
'Crybullies' and the Democratic Party
So, last weekend in Nevada Hillary Clinton supporters used a 'voice vote' to ram through a set of rules and a delegate count out of order with what the majority really wanted, and then refused to pause to actually count the votes. Instead, they declared the results final, gaveled down the session, fled the building, and then called in hotel security and then state police to drive the Sanders supporters away from the scene.
That's bullying. Shout them down, refuse to listen, call in big guys with sticks and guns to shut them up and force them to accept it.
Now comes the crying.
Yet while the charge is audacious enough to come from Clinton and her "unexpected!" allies in the media, it's not plausible. Bernie Sanders hasn't even been rude to Hillary Clinton. His supporters are outraged because they ought to be.
That's bullying. Shout them down, refuse to listen, call in big guys with sticks and guns to shut them up and force them to accept it.
Now comes the crying.
A lot of Democrats don’t want to admit it, but Donald Trump isn’t the only presidential candidate playing with fire and recklessly courting an angry mob.Even if Ms. Lange is reporting honestly, which would be out of line with the history of these 'crybully' movements, who's to say that these threats were from "Sanders supporters" and not Clinton proxies? Clinton's people have a long history here. Her oppo people and astroturf people started the Birther movement, for example. Why not start a "Bernie Sanders is a thug" movement?
For the latest round of curse-word hurling, chair throwing, social-media stalking and conspiracy-theory swapping, look no further than the supporters of Bernie Sanders.
Over the weekend, dozens of Sanders devotees lost their minds after the Nevada Democratic Party, meeting for its convention in Las Vegas, awarded a majority of delegates to front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Convinced that the establishment had rigged the rules and that Sanders delegates had been excluded for unfair reasons, they booed and traded barbs with people on stage, including Clinton surrogate and keynote speaker U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
The convention ended abruptly, descending into chaos that was captured for the world to relive on Facebook and YouTube.
Death threats and vandalism followed, prompting Nevada Democratic Party offices to close on Monday and its chairwoman, Roberta Lange, to release some downright disgusting voicemails and text messages she had received from Sanders supporters. She also reported threats against her grandchildren.
Yet while the charge is audacious enough to come from Clinton and her "unexpected!" allies in the media, it's not plausible. Bernie Sanders hasn't even been rude to Hillary Clinton. His supporters are outraged because they ought to be.
It's Not Easy Being Green
Speaking to reporters, the practitioner of ancient South American religious rituals involving the hallucinogenic ayahuasca plant explained that, while he was ordinarily happy to share his culture’s spiritual wisdom with others, the constant stream of wealthy Silicon Valley executives seeking transcendental enlightenment had become an increasingly loathsome and disheartening part of his occupation.I have to admit that I first heard about it through the Onion.
“These days, I can’t even look at my calendar without cringing—it’s pretty much all tech execs,” said Salazar, adding that he had thought the developed world’s interest in the ayahuasca tea ceremony was generally a positive until it became his full-time job to provide celestial guidance to Bay Area venture capitalists and app founders who had learned about the practice through a Viceland special.
Island Steel Guitar
Starting with the British isles:
But of course the guitar really originates in Hawaii:
But of course the guitar really originates in Hawaii:
There's Almost No Reason for Sanders Supporters to Back Clinton
Salon is worried about the exit polls.
Sanders is a socialist, and Trump is not -- Trump thinks he's going to negotiate a better deal for American capitalists and workers. But neither of them is even a little bit like Clinton. She called the TPP deal "the gold standard," and although she's now trying to walk that back it's clear she's only doing so for electoral reasons. Her real economic policy is to pursue the ends set at Davos. Her foreign policy, likewise, is one of international engagement in pursuit of ends set in Turtle Bay, or at Davos, or by wealthy Persian Gulf sheikhs with money to donate to the Clinton Global Foundation.
Sanders voters are not blind. They can see that, in the essence of political views, Trump is far more like them than Clinton is. Those like Salon who see her as the candidate of compromise are missing the boat. When it comes to this essential core of the campaigns, Trump is the candidate of compromise between Sanders and Clinton. This basic failure to grasp the ground of the campaign suggests that Clinton's people -- and Obama's -- badly misunderstand what is going on before their eyes.
UPDATE: Centrist Democrats sense the coming earthquake, begin talking about being ready to work with President Trump.
UPDATE: Bernie fans put together this video of the fix being in at the Nevada convention.
CBS News reported 44 percent said they’d vote for Trump, 23 percent for Hillary Clinton, and 32 percent for neither. These findings—especially Sanders’ supporters shifting to Trump—seem like a stretch, but maybe they’re not.Trump and Sanders' candidacies are much more alike than different. Both are insurgents, as Salon understands. But Trump and Sanders are also both isolationists on foreign policy. Foreign policy usually doesn't matter much in Presidential elections, but this time the foreign policy views are just outgrowths of the candidates' economic views. Both candidates believe that foreign free trade deals have been too costly to American workers compared with the benefits they spread abroad. Now economic views are usually hugely important in Presidential elections. That their foreign policy lines up with their economic worldviews means that there is a core logic to both of these campaigns that is closely aligned.
Sanders is a socialist, and Trump is not -- Trump thinks he's going to negotiate a better deal for American capitalists and workers. But neither of them is even a little bit like Clinton. She called the TPP deal "the gold standard," and although she's now trying to walk that back it's clear she's only doing so for electoral reasons. Her real economic policy is to pursue the ends set at Davos. Her foreign policy, likewise, is one of international engagement in pursuit of ends set in Turtle Bay, or at Davos, or by wealthy Persian Gulf sheikhs with money to donate to the Clinton Global Foundation.
Sanders voters are not blind. They can see that, in the essence of political views, Trump is far more like them than Clinton is. Those like Salon who see her as the candidate of compromise are missing the boat. When it comes to this essential core of the campaigns, Trump is the candidate of compromise between Sanders and Clinton. This basic failure to grasp the ground of the campaign suggests that Clinton's people -- and Obama's -- badly misunderstand what is going on before their eyes.
UPDATE: Centrist Democrats sense the coming earthquake, begin talking about being ready to work with President Trump.
UPDATE: Bernie fans put together this video of the fix being in at the Nevada convention.
11 Principles For After Blue States Secede
Here's a fellow who is thinking in the right direction, assuming there is any possibility that the blue states will actually secede. Their real interest is in winning a Clinton Presidency, securing a durable Supreme Court majority, and imposing their will on the rest of us forever.
Still, it could happen. If it does, it sounds to me like he's got the right principles for a new America.
And, of course, secession could go the other way too.
Still, it could happen. If it does, it sounds to me like he's got the right principles for a new America.
And, of course, secession could go the other way too.
The governor of Texas sent a harsh letter to US President Barack Obama on Monday, announcing that his state would not only maintain its sanctions on Iran, but strengthen them...That sounds like another Federal lawsuit against another US State is in the offing. Ordinarily I'd say that Texas was in the wrong -- not about the advisability of the Iran Deal, about which Abbott is quite right, but about Texas' power to conduct an independent foreign policy. However, if we're entering the first phases of dissolving the Union, the testing of those boundaries is going to occur. North Carolina is testing them from a place where the Federal government is clearly overreaching its duties. Texas is testing them from a place in which the Federal government is failing its duties. So too were Arizona and the other states involved in the immigration lawsuit, demanding the Federal government enforce its laws and stop preventing them from enforcing the laws as well.
Governor Greg Abbott explained that the letter was in response to a written appeal made by Obama on April 8, requesting that Texas “review” its economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic – as was promised to Tehran in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers reached in July.
“I strongly oppose the Iran deal because it undermines the national security of the United States and its strategic allies abroad – especially our most important Middle East ally, Israel,” Abbott wrote to Obama. “Entering into an agreement with a country that consistently calls for ‘death to America,’ and repeatedly articulates antisemitic policies is short-sighted and ignores geopolitical realities.”
Violence in American Politics
Nevada:
Adryenn Ashley posted several live videos (below) from inside the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas, where arcane secondary rounds of the delegate selection process of Nevada's Democratic caucus erupted into chaos Saturday night. Bernie Sanders supporters demanded 64 rejected pro-Sanders delegates listed in a "minority report" prepared by their campaign be allowed to participate in selecting delegates for the national convention.Atlanta:
State party chair and DNC executive committee member Roberta Lange refused to reconsider their decision not to allow this, adjourned, and fled the building amid a chorus of boos; leaving hotel security and local police officers to handle the angry Sanders supporters.
A casual conversation with other two hotel guests reportedly turned tense when the subject of the Democratic presidential primary was broached. [Hollywood actor Wendell Pierce], an ardent supporter of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, allegedly assaulted a woman and her boyfriend at the midtown Loews Hotel around 3:30 a.m. The alleged incident took place in The Lobby, an open bar sandwiched between the guest check-in desk and a restaurant, and a go-to venue for private receptions and after-work cocktails for Atlanta’s business and entertainment class.Quite a weekend.
The couple, said to be supporters of Bernie Sanders, said Pierce became enraged when the unknown woman declared her support for the Vermont senator. Pierce, who most recently co-starred in the HBO drama Confirmation in the role of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, allegedly pushed a male victim and then “went after his girlfriend… grabbing her hair and smacking her in the head,” according to TMZ.
Ignorance is Not a Virtue, but It Can Be A Defense
President Obama has decided that he is going to take a very active hand in campaigning for his preferred successor.
UPDATE: "[W]atch this 20 second clip from Charlie Rose this week. In it you’ll see two former Obama administration staffers, Jon Lovett and Jon Favreau, laughing hysterically about the “if you like your insurance you can keep it” Obamacare lie they helped perpetrate. This comes on the heels of last week’s New York Times Magazine brutal profile of ‘Obama’s brain’ Ben Rhodes, who masterminded the journalist-spinning tactics that sold the Iran deal, among others."
"In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about. That's not keeping it real, or telling it like it is. That's not challenging political correctness. That's just not knowing what you're talking about. And yet, we've become confused about this."However...
"When our leaders express a disdain for facts, when they’re not held accountable for repeating falsehoods and just making stuff up, while actual experts are dismissed as elitists, then we’ve got a problem."
UPDATE: "[W]atch this 20 second clip from Charlie Rose this week. In it you’ll see two former Obama administration staffers, Jon Lovett and Jon Favreau, laughing hysterically about the “if you like your insurance you can keep it” Obamacare lie they helped perpetrate. This comes on the heels of last week’s New York Times Magazine brutal profile of ‘Obama’s brain’ Ben Rhodes, who masterminded the journalist-spinning tactics that sold the Iran deal, among others."
The High Feast of Pentecost
WHEN Arthur held his Round Table most plenour, it fortuned that he commanded that the high feast of Pentecost should be holden at a city and a castle, the which in those days was called Kynke Kenadonne, upon the sands that marched nigh Wales. So ever the king had a custom that at the feast of Pentecost in especial, afore other feasts in the year, he would not go that day to meat until he had heard or seen of a great marvel. And for that custom all manner of strange adventures came before Arthur as at that feast before all other feasts. And so Sir Gawaine, a little tofore noon of the day of Pentecost, espied at a window three men upon horseback, and a dwarf on foot, and so the three men alighted, and the dwarf kept their horses, and one of the three men was higher than the other twain by a foot and an half. Then Sir Gawaine went unto the king and said, Sir, go to your meat, for here at the hand come strange adventures.
Donald Trump Really Must Not Be President
We have to come up with a way around this, because of course Hillary Clinton also really must not be President -- she is deeply corrupt, and unrestrained by either law or custom. Neither of these figures is even a little bit fit for the office.
Still, these remarks (h/t: Hot Air) remind me of why I turned against Trump back in September. While I am very much not a feminist, I am a gentleman and I cannot abide men who do not respect women. I think it ought to be disqualifying for an office as powerful and important as the Presidency. Of course, I think the Presidency should become much less powerful and important, in which case it would not matter so much. But for now it is, and it does.
May God open a road for us, I pray this Pentecost, and may we be again a nation worthy of such providence.
Still, these remarks (h/t: Hot Air) remind me of why I turned against Trump back in September. While I am very much not a feminist, I am a gentleman and I cannot abide men who do not respect women. I think it ought to be disqualifying for an office as powerful and important as the Presidency. Of course, I think the Presidency should become much less powerful and important, in which case it would not matter so much. But for now it is, and it does.
May God open a road for us, I pray this Pentecost, and may we be again a nation worthy of such providence.
An Analysis
It opens with a metaphysical claim about politics:
Perhaps the most evident sign of civilizational devolution is the inability or unwillingness to acknowledge reality, to come to terms with things as they are, and to oppose the suppression of objectivity and its substitution by fantasy, illusion and wish-fulfillment. The resonating dictum of the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Parmenides from his fragmentary poem On Nature—variously translated as what is, is, and what is not, is not!—sounds like an empty tautology. But it has relevance for our present historical moment, with respect to the cultural and lexical inversions of contemporary thought and discourse. Apart from its metaphysical implications, which we won’t go into here, the Parmenidean maxim expresses the criterion for survival, the need to separate truth (aletheia) from opinion (doxa) and to recognize things as they are if an individual, a culture, a people is to transact successfully with the existing world. But when thought and action come to be governed by the anarchic principle that what is, is not and what is not, is, a process of social, political and epistemological disintegration invariably sets in. This is the condition in which the West finds itself today.Best read alongside this.
Australians
I assume this has something to do with the ready availability of decent drink.
Honestly, all of nature is pretty much about sex. That doesn't mean that you're meant to have sex with it.
Honestly, all of nature is pretty much about sex. That doesn't mean that you're meant to have sex with it.
Statin fail
I've never seen the point in statins and never have taken them. The causal link between cholesterol and heart disease is fuzzy at best. Friends and family have had very unpleasant effects from statins. The science has been too confused to satisfy my medical BS meter.
An Evening Out
I just spent last evening with a British immigrant who has just bought a home here in America, which -- along with his job -- he thinks will establish himself well enough here that he shall remain forever. "Good," I said, "and what are you going to do about Donald Trump?"
"Well, if I must leave again I suppose I shall," he said. "I could probably get you out too."
I answered, "I'm not going anywhere. This is my country, and that is the whole reason I own a rifle."
A third party to our discussion, an American from Omaha, jumped in enthusiastically at this point. He missed, in his enthusiasm, our British comrade wiping away tears.
They cannot see the danger from the left, though neither are even slight friends of Ms. Clinton. The danger from the right occupies all their thoughts, though it is perhaps rather less severe. I don't imagine Donald Trump would be trying to run out British émigrés, and I'm not sure how much I think he'll really turn on Hispanic or Muslim ones. I have a feeling it's all talk with him.
But how nice to see enthusiasm for the rifle. How nice to see even the romance of it. It is worth a few glorious tears. It is the final guarantee of liberty.
"Well, if I must leave again I suppose I shall," he said. "I could probably get you out too."
I answered, "I'm not going anywhere. This is my country, and that is the whole reason I own a rifle."
A third party to our discussion, an American from Omaha, jumped in enthusiastically at this point. He missed, in his enthusiasm, our British comrade wiping away tears.
They cannot see the danger from the left, though neither are even slight friends of Ms. Clinton. The danger from the right occupies all their thoughts, though it is perhaps rather less severe. I don't imagine Donald Trump would be trying to run out British émigrés, and I'm not sure how much I think he'll really turn on Hispanic or Muslim ones. I have a feeling it's all talk with him.
But how nice to see enthusiasm for the rifle. How nice to see even the romance of it. It is worth a few glorious tears. It is the final guarantee of liberty.
Election polling
Michael Barone is one of the few poll analysts I can read with any patience. It's going to be a long season.
I have noticed something else that may be significant in the some recent polls: The number of undecided voters seems to be increasing, rather than decreasing as it tends to do when nominees are determined.
This could result from cross-pressures. Majorities of voters have unfavorable feelings toward both candidates, and probably a record share, about 25 percent, has unfavorable feelings toward both. Apparently some voters are having trouble deciding which repellent candidate to vote for.Bingo. Well, not to exaggerate: I'm not having trouble deciding, just trouble stomaching my decision.
$15 an Hour? How About "You're Fired"?
Carl's Jr. has a plan: automated machines to take your order, and a ten percent discount for using them.
Taco Bell had automated ordering kiosks at the 1996 Olympics. They were awesome, actually, because your order was never wrong. They were simple to operate touch-screens, and you could customize your orders to do all sorts of things without worrying about trying to explain what you wanted to a deaf 16-year-old. Since much of Taco Bell's menu is just different ways of putting together the same basic ingredients, the customization aspect worked very well.
I remember that I was very sad when they removed the kiosks after the Games were over. They represented a real improvement on the Taco Bell experience.
Automation is going to make most human labor obsolete.
Taco Bell had automated ordering kiosks at the 1996 Olympics. They were awesome, actually, because your order was never wrong. They were simple to operate touch-screens, and you could customize your orders to do all sorts of things without worrying about trying to explain what you wanted to a deaf 16-year-old. Since much of Taco Bell's menu is just different ways of putting together the same basic ingredients, the customization aspect worked very well.
I remember that I was very sad when they removed the kiosks after the Games were over. They represented a real improvement on the Taco Bell experience.
Automation is going to make most human labor obsolete.
Eric Blair, Call Your Office
A comment on why World War I games are too hot for the gaming industry, though WWII is one of its staples.
Well, except for flying games. Snoopy and the Red Baron is fun for everyone.
Well, except for flying games. Snoopy and the Red Baron is fun for everyone.
Divergent Interests
The invocation of Trump is just a means of making people excited about reading the article, which is ironic: the real critique is much more interesting than the lazy headline suggests.
This graphic gives a sense of it.
On the one hand, it's difficult to sympathize too much given that tenured academia is deeply insulated from competition compared to almost anyone, anywhere. On the other hand, competition for tenured positions has become very fierce in recent years. That seems to be what is driving this kind of thing.
There's another aspect, too, which is implied by the need to publish unlikely novel results before getting 'scooped.' If you're hanging your hopes on them, it's also necessary to defend their plausibility so you continue to be important as the discoverer of them. Thus, science becomes deformed not only because scientists are inclined no longer to carefully check unlikely results, but also because they have an interest in using anti-scientific strategies to defend implausible results long after they should be rejected. They might use rhetoric to try to silence criticism ("You're just opposed to my results because I'm [insert protected category]!"). Or, as the Michael Mann case suggests, they might even resort to legal strategies to defend highly questionable science.
After all, one's career is at stake. Or one's hope of ever having a career.
This graphic gives a sense of it.
On the one hand, it's difficult to sympathize too much given that tenured academia is deeply insulated from competition compared to almost anyone, anywhere. On the other hand, competition for tenured positions has become very fierce in recent years. That seems to be what is driving this kind of thing.
There's another aspect, too, which is implied by the need to publish unlikely novel results before getting 'scooped.' If you're hanging your hopes on them, it's also necessary to defend their plausibility so you continue to be important as the discoverer of them. Thus, science becomes deformed not only because scientists are inclined no longer to carefully check unlikely results, but also because they have an interest in using anti-scientific strategies to defend implausible results long after they should be rejected. They might use rhetoric to try to silence criticism ("You're just opposed to my results because I'm [insert protected category]!"). Or, as the Michael Mann case suggests, they might even resort to legal strategies to defend highly questionable science.
After all, one's career is at stake. Or one's hope of ever having a career.
Zimmerman Trolls the World
George Zimmerman is auctioning off the gun he shot Trayvon Martin with. Why, you ask?
Is this troll year in American politics? It must be troll year.
Proceeds from the sale, Zimmerman wrote, will be used to “fight [Black Lives Matter] violence against Law Enforcement officers, ensure the demise of [Zimmerman’s prosecuting attorney] Angela Correy’s [sic] persecution career and Hillary Clinton’s anti-firearm rhetoric.”I imagine he'll get a fair amount of money for that piece of junk he was carrying, given how much people will enjoy pulling those particular chains.
Is this troll year in American politics? It must be troll year.
Neutrality
Harvard women's groups claim that gender-neutral rule should be altered to only ban activities by men's groups.
At Harvard University, women are protesting the school's recent move to ban single-sex "final clubs," because the school didn't limit the ban to male clubs...
The Harvard women say that women's groups should be exempted from the new rule, because it was adopted as a response to claims that men-only groups foster rape.
The Citadel: No Hijabs
Needless to say, the decision appears to be leading to a lawsuit.
The woman's family is now considering legal action, citing the fact the Citadel is a public university, said Ibrahim Hooper with the Council on American-Islamic Relations.Not 'better than,' 'different from.' The US military has offered various accommodations. The Citadel never has.
"We believe that it's a constitutional obligation for a public institution to offer religious accommodation to students," he said.
Hooper says precedents for religious accommodation in the U.S. military contradict the Citadel's decision.
"Our U.S. military allows hijabs, beards, turbans, yarmulkes," he said. "It makes you wonder why the Citadel thinks they're somehow better than our nation's military."
Benghazi Again
F-16 pilots: "We were on standby." Turns out there was not the refueling issue that the administration has been claiming prevented sending them, either.
Brazil Says "Bye" To Socialist President
Brazil's Senate has voted to suspend its President from office. She is allegedly planning to step down given the vote.
It turns out this is actually business as usual in Brazil, where almost no Presidents finish their term in office. I have a certain jealousy for their capacity to remove corrupt officials, although not for the apparent surplus of corrupt officials they have to remove. Still, it's not as if we're lacking for them here. We just have less recourse.
It turns out this is actually business as usual in Brazil, where almost no Presidents finish their term in office. I have a certain jealousy for their capacity to remove corrupt officials, although not for the apparent surplus of corrupt officials they have to remove. Still, it's not as if we're lacking for them here. We just have less recourse.
What Are You Talking About?
This guy. I don't know what to say about him.
"All of the men, we're petrified to speak to women anymore.... There is nobody who respects women more than I do."Yeah, that's not true. No part of that is true.
Texas Independence Resolution to Get a Vote
Mother Jones reports.
The Texas Nationalist Movement, once considered a quixotic fringe group, has added hundreds of members in the years since the election of Barack Obama. According to the Houston Chronicle's Dylan Baddour, at least 10 county GOP chapters are coming to the convention supporting independence resolutions. But this will be the first time in the state's 171-year history that they will actually vote on one. It's very unlikely to win. Then again, that's what people said about Donald Trump.
Choctaw Bingo
Speaking of badass Hebrews, if you missed it this week was Holocaust Memorial Day, Israel's version of Memorial Day, and now their celebration of national independence. If you know any badass Hebrews, wish them well.
All Right, Fine
I can see where this is going.
But fine. Rule him not guilty by reason of failure of the government to prove its case. Turn him loose in Georgia. It'll sort itself out.
Attorneys for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are calling on the judge and the entire prosecution team in Mohammed’s military commission at Guantánamo Bay to step down from the long-running case over what a member of the defense team called “at least the appearance of collusion” that led to the government apparently secretly destroying information relevant to the premier post-9/11 tribunal.These trials were always a stupid idea. All the Geneva Conventions required of us was a status hearing, and then we could shoot him as an unlawful combatant.
But fine. Rule him not guilty by reason of failure of the government to prove its case. Turn him loose in Georgia. It'll sort itself out.
Playboy's Guide for Voters
People keep sending me this, so I suppose I'll post it. Appropriate warnings: (a) It's from Playboy, so while there's no nudes there's plenty of profanity. (b) It may make some of you consider becoming Libertarians, though it reminds us that only the Republicans ever even talked about the problem of unconstrained immigration or the morality of abortion.
FBI Director: Yeah, "Security Inquiry" is Not A Thing
Today's good news: Director Comey confirms that this is a criminal investigation.
Yesterday's bad news: The Department of Justice's top employees have donated $75,000 to Hillary Clinton for this year's election.
That's quite an investment in her future.
An independent counsel would seem to be indicated as the only reasonable course of action.
Yesterday's bad news: The Department of Justice's top employees have donated $75,000 to Hillary Clinton for this year's election.
That's quite an investment in her future.
An independent counsel would seem to be indicated as the only reasonable course of action.
A Periodic Table of Mathematicals
Interesting stuff in this article on 'exploring the mathematical universe.'
Taranto on the Race
One of the few things Hillary Clinton has going for her is that she’s inevitable. But for how long? She will win the Democratic presidential nomination barring the unlikely event that we still live in a country governed by the rule of law.
"Justice" in Obama's America
The Department of Same.
In a broader sense, the suit is symbolic of the federal government’s eight-year crusade to decimate any semblance of federalism and streamline progressive morality. The administration ignores state laws that conflict with federal policy when it approves and it sues states when it does not. States that pass law enforcement bills President Obama finds unsatisfactory will see the full force of the Justice Department come down on them. Those with drug legalization laws and immigration laws he does like, even if they conflict with federal law, have nothing to worry about.
Is It That They No Longer Know?
Or is it that they no longer believe in America as the Founders envisioned her?
But what if -- as I have come to suspect -- the problem isn't that they don't know but that they don't care? I suspect they've all heard of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What they want is a Federal government that will solve their problems. That implies a Federal government with all kinds of powers to 'do stuff' that is completely untethered from the Constitution.
The idea of restoring the 10th Amendment, which I think is the only way for an America that has become so morally diverse to survive, that's not important if what you want is a Federal government that will solve whatever problems you have.
Trump voters aren't conservatives because they are progressives. Oh, they're not aesthetically aligned with the progressives who want transgender bathrooms and racial diversity. They're aesthetically quite opposed to all that. But that is a difference about what constitutes a beautiful America. On the question of whether or not the government should have whatever powers it needs to make America beautiful, they're completely on the left.
The answer [to why the majority of Republican primary voters are no longer conservatives] lies in America's biggest -- and scariest -- problem: Most Americans no longer know what America stands for. For them, America has become just another country, a place located between Canada and Mexico.If it is just that they no longer know, then principles-based movements like the ones we've been seeing might fix the problem. The problem is a problem of education. Teach people what the principles were, and why they worked, and why losing them is related to grave tragedies. Then, they will be able to apply the principles themselves and we'll see a political shift toward proper political values.
But America was founded to be an idea, not another country. As former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher put it: "Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy."
But what if -- as I have come to suspect -- the problem isn't that they don't know but that they don't care? I suspect they've all heard of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. What they want is a Federal government that will solve their problems. That implies a Federal government with all kinds of powers to 'do stuff' that is completely untethered from the Constitution.
The idea of restoring the 10th Amendment, which I think is the only way for an America that has become so morally diverse to survive, that's not important if what you want is a Federal government that will solve whatever problems you have.
Trump voters aren't conservatives because they are progressives. Oh, they're not aesthetically aligned with the progressives who want transgender bathrooms and racial diversity. They're aesthetically quite opposed to all that. But that is a difference about what constitutes a beautiful America. On the question of whether or not the government should have whatever powers it needs to make America beautiful, they're completely on the left.
That's A Minor Issue
Hot Air nails the Brady campaign:
The “criminals” earnestly advise against going to certain states with heavy handed gun control laws because it will be so hard for them to obtain weapons and carry out their crimes. With no apparent sarcasm intended, they go on to list California, Connecticut, Maryland and New York as places to avoid. Wait… what?It's as if criminals were getting their guns from black market sources that were never going to perform background checks anyway.
It was only a couple of weeks ago when we covered the five cities which account for a two year spike in gun murders here in a country where crime rates are otherwise decreasing. Two of them were Los Angeles and Baltimore. And New York City isn’t that far behind.
It's As If Strong Controls on Immigration Were Good
Vox explains that the reasons liberals want to move to Canada are the reasons they probably can't.
Canada uses a points system to figure out who qualifies for "Express Entry" — which is the pool employers can use to hire people, and from which the government accepts (some) skilled immigrants who don't yet have job offers. The points system is supposed to score how well you'll integrate in Canada (with factors like language and "adaptability") and how much you can contribute to the Canadian economy (via education, experience, employment, and age).Gee, if only we had some sort of system like that here.
Crucially, if you don't already have a job offer in Canada, it also looks at whether you have enough money saved up to support yourself until you find one. This is where I washed out. I don't have $9,199 US ($12,184 Canadian) in cash savings — and that's the bare minimum to qualify for Express Entry.
Make Them Consider Buying A Ford?
Mark Levin is on point when he criticizes Trump's hypocrisy on free trade. But he loses me here:
Remember, a tariff is really just a tax, the cost of which is imposed on the American people. The higher the tariff, the higher the tax. Imagine what a 45 percent increase in the price of goods made, say, in Japan would do to a middle class family shopping for a Toyota or Honda.Isn't this the whole point of tariffs -- to provide incentives to prefer domestic products? If I understand Levin, he thinks that the middle class family shopping for a Toyota or Honda is just going to pay the higher prices. That's the same sort of error that Congress makes when it assumes that raising taxes won't affect economic activity. Of course it will. In this case, the effect on economic activity is the whole point of the exercise.
Another Principled Argument
I have the same thing to say about it as before. Of course these are the right principles, but a politics of rational principles is the opposite of the direction in which our democracy is rushing.
So We Have That To Look Forward To
Hillary Clinton lays out some of her gun control agenda.
So, the future looks like an end to the gun manufacturing industry, an end to the legal right to keep and bear arms, and an unrestricted right for any ex-girlfriend to send the police to rob you of your arms.
Well, you should be careful whom you date anyway, I suppose: the most important quality in a potential mate is good moral character. Likewise, domestic violence really is a serious problem. Nevertheless, that's a tremendous weight to put on a wholly informal relationship, with no due process beyond her being willing to give a sworn statement against you.
Her proposals include extending the instant background checks indefinitely by changing the amount of time the FBI has on extended checks. She also wants to place new regulations on sales at gun shows and for guns sold online, and she wants to expand the definition of domestic violence to include dating relationships, then use that expanded definition to ban individuals from owning guns.This is just a start. The most important thing for her will be getting a Supreme Court Justice who will overturn Heller, and rule instead that the 2nd Amendment only protects state-run militias and nothing else.
Breitbart News previously reported that Clinton also wants to change our nation’s laws to allow shooting victims and their families to sue gun manufacturers... [t]his action alone would drive gun prices through the roof as gun manufacturers seek ways to raise money to cover court costs incurred via lawsuit after lawsuit when criminals misuse guns. It would eventually drive gun manufacturers into bankruptcy and, finally, into oblivion.
So, the future looks like an end to the gun manufacturing industry, an end to the legal right to keep and bear arms, and an unrestricted right for any ex-girlfriend to send the police to rob you of your arms.
Well, you should be careful whom you date anyway, I suppose: the most important quality in a potential mate is good moral character. Likewise, domestic violence really is a serious problem. Nevertheless, that's a tremendous weight to put on a wholly informal relationship, with no due process beyond her being willing to give a sworn statement against you.
A Female Junior Officer Writes on Military Gender Equality
She is targeting her remarks not at the less than one percent of military women who might enter combat roles -- the figure is her own estimate -- but at the 99% who will not. She has some interesting things to say. I think that, if her peers listened to her and adjusted themselves accordingly, much of this would be less contentious.
Opposition Leader in Venezuela Assassinated
The head of the UNT party was shot dead while traveling in one of Venezuela's western states. The UNT is a collection of labor unions that supported Hugo Chavez. It is not the only labor party in Venezuela, but one particularly tied to the communists.
DB: Congress Cuts Enlisted Pay to Fund F-35 Stereo System
Congress has passed a new law that will cut pay for all enlisted servicemembers by two percent. The money saved will fund a “wicked baller” speaker system for the F-35 Lightning II, according to program managers.
“We were really looking for something that would set the F-35 back another five years,” said program spokesman, Vice Adm. Tom Skazanski. “Now we’ll have to redesign the entire cockpit to fit the system in there, and even then I doubt it will work.”...
The contract was settled after a lengthy bidding war between “Fat Leonard” Francis and an eBay user based out of Azerbaijan. Still, the department does not know where it will get the stock it needs, as most of the technology involved has been obsolete for decades.
Six Principles
Jeff G. at Protein Wisdom -- there's a name that rings a bell, though it's been long enough since I last heard it that I can't remember why -- has a proposal for a unifying set of principles for a new political party. He has brief explanations of what he means by each of the six of them. It's not the worst set of suggestions I've ever heard.
I'll take the liberty of quoting his principles and explanations at length because, after all, he's trying to start a new party and probably wants you to read all of this more than he cares where you read it. Besides, it's a relatively small excerpt of a much longer post.
I don't think the American people want this anymore. We do, of course. But Trump voters don't. And Clinton voters don't. And Sanders voters don't. The Republican leadership in the House and Senate don't -- they're the ones floating the President on TPP and T-TIP, just to point to one way in which they oppose points 5 and 6. The Democrats certainly don't -- they're directly opposed to all of them. With a very few honorable exceptions, the whole elected government plus all the remaining candidates -- and all likely Supreme Court nominees from any of these candidates -- are against these principles. Large parts of the civil service are opposed to most of these principles.
That is not to say these aren't the right principles. It's just to say that there may no longer be any hope of defending them. Democracy has spoken, repeatedly, against everything we believe. It doesn't seem that we're heading down the road toward a new discussion of what principles ought to animate America, either. It seems as if we're headed down a road in which, like Brazil, American voters are chiefly divided by race, with the Republicans under Trump rushing to fulfill on the white side the strategy the Democrats have long leveraged with non-white voters. Clinton voters are cheerful and happy to accept a woman who is demonstrably on the take of what they call "the 1%," and who has clearly violated American law on numerous occasions, provided she'll keep the benefits flowing to their cliques.
American politics seems to be becoming less rational, in other words. It shows every sign of becoming more driven by irrational forces like racial identity -- which, like 'transgender identity,' doesn't even point to anything actually biologically real -- or by naked interest in extracting for one's own a bigger piece of the Federal pie. I doubt the efficacy of a new rationalist attempt to explain political principles and hope people will be persuaded by the arguments.
I wish it were otherwise.
I'll take the liberty of quoting his principles and explanations at length because, after all, he's trying to start a new party and probably wants you to read all of this more than he cares where you read it. Besides, it's a relatively small excerpt of a much longer post.
1) Individual libertyI of course agree with all of these principles. The only problem is that these are -- aren't they? -- the same principles we've been fighting for all along. In 2010, we were making these arguments. In 2004, we were making these arguments. In 1994, we were making these arguments. Today, no candidate for President represents any part of any of these arguments. The three remaining candidates and, I should add, all of the top vote-getting candidates from either party have stood for opposing principles across the board.
2) Federalism and representative republicanism
3) Constitutionalism
4) Judicial originalism
5) National sovereignty
6) Free-market capitalism
These are the foundations of a new and potentially revolutionary party, one that does not react defensively to being principled nor considers “purity” in defense of its core beliefs anything but solid earth upon which to pitch its tent. Anyone can join this party; but to do so they must accept as inviolable the 6 foundational platform items. The price of admission, in other words, is a belief in the social compact upon which this country was founded. Nothing more.
1) Individual liberty: the Constitution exists to constrain government and delineate its proper function. It is a physical realization of the ideas found in the Declaration of Independence, chief among which is the concept of natural rights that government exists to protect but can never remove. These are individual rights. And as such, the perversity of contemporary nationalism — which attempts to homogenize the state around a national government that claims to stand in for a supposed collective will — is rejected. We are a nation of individuals. Not of individuals subservient to a mythologized nation state.
2) Federalism and representative republicanism: Those powers not enumerated as belonging to the federal government belong to the several states. Period. No longer will the states be satellite clients of a federal government whose prime lawmaking function now flows from the Executive branch through an unelected and untouchable bureaucratic apparatus. States and the citizens of those states will choose representatives to speak to their interests. Direct democracy was considered a danger by our Founders and Framers. Our party will hold caucuses, not primaries. We will work to choose those we believe will reflect our interests most rigorously. We won’t be held hostage by open primaries or preference polls open to those swayed solely by name recognition, incumbency, or temporary emotional pique. One goal of the party will be the repeal of the 17th Amendment — a result of a prior populist push that rendered the current Senate redundant. Too, we will use the power of recall to thwart those who wish to run under our brand but then refuse to govern as it demands.
3) Constitutionalism: We are a nation of laws. Equality before the law is a central conceit of Constitutionalism and to the very idea of equality as we understand it. Equality of outcome is anathema to individual liberty as a social project. We are born of the American Revolution, not the French Revolution. We are a propositional nation, not a tribal one. Those beliefs that prove incompatible with the Constitution are to be rejected and never willingly imported: Fabian socialism, Marxism, communism, Maoism, Sharia — these are alien and destructive parasitic political philosophies seeking a host in our body politic, with the long-term hope of hollowing out the host to make of it a puppet disguised in Constitutional garb. Religious freedom is not freedom from religion; tolerance is not a right never to be offended; a well-regulated militia is not a delimiting descriptor but rather an all-encompassing one, etc.
4) Judicial originalism: long-time readers of protein wisdom will know instantly how this plank is perhaps the most crucial in the platform. In the absence of some metaphysical force that can arbitrate all disagreements in textual interpretation, the best we can do is embrace the very model that performs our Constitutionally prescribed lawmaking function: law is written and ratified by a legislature made up of corporate agency that intends; law is therefore to be conceived of as a fixed product of that intention — albeit within the conventional constructs we abide by when it comes to judicial interpretation. To that end, the role of the judiciary is to as closely as possible determine that intended meaning and appeal to it as the fixed meaning of any law. Laws are made by a specific collection of individuals in a specific spatio-temporal context. They mean what they mean, not what they can later be made to imply. Stare decisis is often the bane of judicial conservatism. No more. Deference is given to the Constitution, not to some faulty misrepresentation of its meaning by those inclined toward linguistically incoherent hermeneutics.
5) National sovereignty: We are a nation state. We can and must determine our own parameters for national autonomy. And that determination belongs to the people through their representatives, not a unitary Executive. Thus, we are entitled to control immigration, provide whatever obstacles to it we think in our best national interests, and remove those who have broken our laws — including secreting themselves into the country illegally, whether through border jumping or visa overstays. Our foreign policy will be designed to reflect our national interests. The Reagan model of Kirkpatrick/Weinberg will hold in check the impulse toward Wilsonian democracy projects and neoconservative nation building exercises. But it will also recognize the importance of allies and of American presence in international relations.
6) Free-market capitalism: Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. Ted Cruz at the FTC. This is to be vigorously juxtaposed against the destructive forces of corporatism and crony capitalism preferred by the two major parties, their lobbyists and donors, and influence buyers like Donald Trump. Such “capitalism” is the foundation of liberal fascism, which is the political stage nearly all proto-socialist countries eventually settle into, with government choosing winners and losers, rewarding friends, punishing foes, and using mere caprice to determine policy. It fights to quell competition at the behest of those already at the latter’s top. It is an attempt to kidnap and zip-tie to a radiator the Invisible hand. The idea that Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders might be allowed to dictate where a company settles or whether or not it qualifies for “punishment” is, to put it as clearly as I can, batshit crazy.
I don't think the American people want this anymore. We do, of course. But Trump voters don't. And Clinton voters don't. And Sanders voters don't. The Republican leadership in the House and Senate don't -- they're the ones floating the President on TPP and T-TIP, just to point to one way in which they oppose points 5 and 6. The Democrats certainly don't -- they're directly opposed to all of them. With a very few honorable exceptions, the whole elected government plus all the remaining candidates -- and all likely Supreme Court nominees from any of these candidates -- are against these principles. Large parts of the civil service are opposed to most of these principles.
That is not to say these aren't the right principles. It's just to say that there may no longer be any hope of defending them. Democracy has spoken, repeatedly, against everything we believe. It doesn't seem that we're heading down the road toward a new discussion of what principles ought to animate America, either. It seems as if we're headed down a road in which, like Brazil, American voters are chiefly divided by race, with the Republicans under Trump rushing to fulfill on the white side the strategy the Democrats have long leveraged with non-white voters. Clinton voters are cheerful and happy to accept a woman who is demonstrably on the take of what they call "the 1%," and who has clearly violated American law on numerous occasions, provided she'll keep the benefits flowing to their cliques.
American politics seems to be becoming less rational, in other words. It shows every sign of becoming more driven by irrational forces like racial identity -- which, like 'transgender identity,' doesn't even point to anything actually biologically real -- or by naked interest in extracting for one's own a bigger piece of the Federal pie. I doubt the efficacy of a new rationalist attempt to explain political principles and hope people will be persuaded by the arguments.
I wish it were otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)