The State of the Union
I realized where this speech was going early in the night, during the section on economics and tax cuts. Donald Trump said that Americans were going to be seeing more take-home pay as a result of Congress' having passed tax cuts. Democrats sat on their hands rather than applaud Americans having more take home pay.
There are a lot of summaries of all the things that Democrats refused to applaud going around this morning. Some of them are things you'd have thought they'd applaud even if it meant giving a moment of credit or sunshine to a President they'd prefer wasn't there. Black and Hispanic unemployment being at record lows, for example: that seems like a good thing no matter who gets the credit for it.
Other things are more damning admissions. Some of these continue this morning. You can see, in the moment, a representative storming out of the chamber to protest a chant of "USA! USA!", even though you'd think such a display of patriotism unsurprising at a political event discussing the state of the American union. Still, passions run high in the moment. What is harder to understand is a considered statement by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says that the repeated use of the word America is 'exclusionary.'
Vox, which is tasked with making the speech look as bad as possible, can be forgiven for trying to paint the speech as 'lacking solutions for America's problems.' In fact a good part of the speech was about celebrating solutions for America's problems that have already been achieved, such as robust economic growth and the end to stagnation caused by over-regulation and high taxes. But it's their job to write that piece, and anyway by 'solutions' they mean 'government programs' (of which I thought there were actually far too many in last night's speech, but community standards differ). But how to explain them deciding to paint the story of a North Korean's defiant search for freedom and dignity as 'scary'?
In this speech as in any speech, there's plenty of room for disagreement on policy. It is surprising to see the opposition decide instead to oppose prosperity, the defiance of tyranny, or the celebration of America itself.
There are a lot of summaries of all the things that Democrats refused to applaud going around this morning. Some of them are things you'd have thought they'd applaud even if it meant giving a moment of credit or sunshine to a President they'd prefer wasn't there. Black and Hispanic unemployment being at record lows, for example: that seems like a good thing no matter who gets the credit for it.
Other things are more damning admissions. Some of these continue this morning. You can see, in the moment, a representative storming out of the chamber to protest a chant of "USA! USA!", even though you'd think such a display of patriotism unsurprising at a political event discussing the state of the American union. Still, passions run high in the moment. What is harder to understand is a considered statement by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says that the repeated use of the word America is 'exclusionary.'
Vox, which is tasked with making the speech look as bad as possible, can be forgiven for trying to paint the speech as 'lacking solutions for America's problems.' In fact a good part of the speech was about celebrating solutions for America's problems that have already been achieved, such as robust economic growth and the end to stagnation caused by over-regulation and high taxes. But it's their job to write that piece, and anyway by 'solutions' they mean 'government programs' (of which I thought there were actually far too many in last night's speech, but community standards differ). But how to explain them deciding to paint the story of a North Korean's defiant search for freedom and dignity as 'scary'?
In this speech as in any speech, there's plenty of room for disagreement on policy. It is surprising to see the opposition decide instead to oppose prosperity, the defiance of tyranny, or the celebration of America itself.
Individuality and opportunity: Japan v. U.S.
Another AEI article this mornings looks at national differences in survey responses to questions about attitudes toward risk and reward. Among smaller differences on subjects like overall happiness, hard work, and competition, the author notes:
the data shows that 79% of Americans believe that they have some control over their lives — this over twice the 37% rate among those in Japan.
* * *
[R]espondents were prompted with “Adventure and taking risks are important to this person; to have an exciting life.” Only 9% of Japanese agreed with this idea compared to 35% of Americans — a huge difference and one which suggests that the Japanese are deeply risk averse. Similarly, respondents were asked about the idea, “It is important to this person to think up new ideas and be creative; to do things one’s own way.” This is another variant on the question of one’s proclivity to focus on the collective or the individual. Once again, a substantial difference emerged with 40% of Japanese believing in individuality and creativity compared to a far greater 67% of Americans.
When economic migration stops
An American Enterprise article discusses what makes Americans stay in economically declining areas instead of seeking a better life in booming areas. The author focuses on barriers to entry and barriers to exit. Among the barriers to entry are occupational licensing:
The kind of heroic work of Morris Kleiner and others has shown that more than a quarter of all workers need licenses to work. People don’t move across state lines at the same rate as you’d expect, so moves in-state are much higher than moves across state in licensed industries compared to comparable unlicensed industries. And this makes it harder to move. If you want to be a lawyer in California, it’s hard to move there. You have to take a whole new bar again. It’s costly.
We also put limits on leaving. So if you’re a public worker, that’s 13% of the US economy, moving your pension is very difficult. You’re locked in until it vests. Moving public benefits can be really difficult. So if you’re a worker in Michigan and you want to move to Texas, there’s a law that you may lose your Medicaid. And you may lose your Medicaid because it is less generous in Texas, but you also may lose your Medicaid because just the paperwork is really difficult.
The fact that we subsidize homeownership so much limits mobility because you have to sell your house and there can be lock in. There are a whole variety of other policies that have the effect of making it costly to move.
Shooting With Your White Friends
It's good to have friends. I guess what we think of as 'the gun culture' does look a little intense from the outside, though.
Also Not How This Works
What is the legally binding force of a bill that is approved by one committee in one house of Congress, never by the rest of the Congress, and never signed by the President?
And what is this all about?
Things are not unconstitutional just because you disapprove of them, and they aren't necessarily illegal either. Those words mean things.
UPDATE: On 'private bills,' see discussion in comments.
The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill on Jan. 18 that asked the Department of Homeland Security to review Othman Adi’s case, placing a six-month stay on his deportation. ICE defied the legislation.That sounds like a request. A request can be ignored or denied, but not 'defied.'
And what is this all about?
Facing a deport order since 2009, he was spared under President Barack Obama’s administration, thanks to a private bill passed in the House of Representatives. President Donald Trump did away with that provision..."A private bill"? What on earth is a private bill? What does the author imagine its legal force to be?
Things are not unconstitutional just because you disapprove of them, and they aren't necessarily illegal either. Those words mean things.
UPDATE: On 'private bills,' see discussion in comments.
And Now for Something Compeltely Different
So. I have ended up following the big Japanese Sumo tournaments--my cable company offers the English language version of the NHK, the Japanese National Broadcasting company, and the NHK runs a half-hour show of highlights from each tournament's day.
You can easily google the details if you wish, Sumo is a simple sport, really.
Anyway, This tournament, or Basho, was won by a wrestler from Georgia. (Georgia in Caucasuses, not the other Georgia), Of the 40 or so 'Top Division' wrestlers, less than 10 come from out of Japan, and most of them are from Mongolia. I know of one from Bulgaria, one from Brazil, and this guy, who goes by the name Tochinoshin. He suffered a bad knee injury in 2013 that nearly ended his career, but he came back from the lowest ranking back up to the top Division and this tournament he triumphed.
Match starts about the 5 minute mark, but its worth watching the whole thing. The guy talking at the start is in Japan and is a serious Sumo fan, so his commentary is enlightening.
So long, McCabe
Some perspective on the FBI bigshot the president was mean enough to fire today, just before he qualifies for full retirement. Per Mollie Hemingway, McCabe approached White House chief of staff Reince Priebus in February 2017 to tell him "everything" in an explosive NYT piece was "BS." The story, which alleged that Trump campaign operatives had had multiple contacts with Russian intelligence, was being aired nonstop on nearby TV sets. Priebus gestured toward them and asked whether the FBI would repeat publicly McCabe's private denial. McCade answered that he would have to check. Comey called later to confirm, suggesting he might be able to clear it up in upcoming Senate Intelligence Committee briefings. Shortly thereafter, CNN reported that
the FBI rejected a White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump’s associates and Russians known to U.S. intelligence.
"Obstruction"
I am trying to decide how seriously to take the obstruction of justice narrative that is being prepared on the left. I keep trying to think, 'How would I feel about this story if Barack Obama were the President who wanted his Attorney General to prevent prosecutions of crimes by his cronies?' I don't have to use my imagination very much here because, of course, that was exactly what happened with Barack Obama, his attorneys general, and his cronies.
Ultimately I think this has to be a Congressional responsibility to investigate and pursue, because the AG isn't independent enough -- and probably shouldn't be independent of the elected official over him. On the other hand, it really was maddening to see the IRS used to target conservatives, watch them destroy evidence and lie to Congress, and never face any consequences.
What's to be done about this issue? Destroying Trump doesn't fix it. Electing another Clinton sure wouldn't fix it either. It's a structural issue that I don't know that I see much way around if the Congress won't assert itself.
Ultimately I think this has to be a Congressional responsibility to investigate and pursue, because the AG isn't independent enough -- and probably shouldn't be independent of the elected official over him. On the other hand, it really was maddening to see the IRS used to target conservatives, watch them destroy evidence and lie to Congress, and never face any consequences.
What's to be done about this issue? Destroying Trump doesn't fix it. Electing another Clinton sure wouldn't fix it either. It's a structural issue that I don't know that I see much way around if the Congress won't assert itself.
Where is the FBI in the Constitution?
This argument comes from a well-educated and experienced woman; nevertheless, it's very odd.
The FBI works for the Attorney General, who works for the President. It's an executive department, and what the Constitution actually does say about the Executive Branch is that its power is invested in a President. Though by law Presidents have to run certain appointments by the legislature, usually the Senate, that does not mean that those appointees draw their power from Article I. They're Article II officials, exercising delegated authority.
So what, exactly, is the subversion of the Constitution that is supposed to be taking place? If the legislature wants to investigate and/or impeach the President, they have Article I authority to do that. It's not obviously a power that is wisely invested in an Article II bureaucracy in any case. Nor would I want the Constitution to set up an 'independent' police agency that could not be constrained by elected officials; especially not a secret police.
The author seems to want exactly that.
Where is my Congress? This is the urgent question posed by these outrageous attempts by the president to subvert the constitution.... Congressional Republicans who stick by Trump and protect him will be remembered as the villains of Washington’s unfolding drama. They are the ones enabling an epic White House end run around the constitution.What does the Constitution say about the relationship between the FBI and the President? Nothing, since the Founders would never have contemplated establishing an organization like the FBI. The Constitution doesn't even mention the Attorney General, although that office is nearly contemporaneous: George Washington signed the law into effect creating the office. That law says that the President shall choose the Attorney General, provided that the Senate confirms him; it does not give the Attorney General independence from the Executive branch, nor divide his office between the Executive and the Legislature.
The FBI works for the Attorney General, who works for the President. It's an executive department, and what the Constitution actually does say about the Executive Branch is that its power is invested in a President. Though by law Presidents have to run certain appointments by the legislature, usually the Senate, that does not mean that those appointees draw their power from Article I. They're Article II officials, exercising delegated authority.
So what, exactly, is the subversion of the Constitution that is supposed to be taking place? If the legislature wants to investigate and/or impeach the President, they have Article I authority to do that. It's not obviously a power that is wisely invested in an Article II bureaucracy in any case. Nor would I want the Constitution to set up an 'independent' police agency that could not be constrained by elected officials; especially not a secret police.
The author seems to want exactly that.
As the Republicans continue their campaign to discredit the FBI, it’s important to remember a piece of history. Without Deep Throat, the Washington Post’s secret source, the Watergate scandal might never have been exposed. Deep Throat, we learned in 2012, was Mark Felt, the No2 official at the FBI.This is meant to be the model of what right looks like? Oath-breaking leaks from the secret police, protected from accountability by un-elected journalists? Even if it happened to work out well one time, it's hardly a model I'd invest much faith in.
The budget is broke
An unusually thoughtful article about the Congressional budget process from some months back.
There's also an amusing discussion in McArdle's comment session in this week's article about the furious effort by Blue States to find a way around the tax bill's impact on their SALT deductions. After the crowd discussed the inability of a state (unlike a city or county) to file for bankruptcy, and how you can default all you like but there's no bankruptcy court to issue an order discharging all your public and pension debt, a reader pointed out that debt arising out of an insurgency need not be honored. That led to a discussion of the practical value of ginning up an insurgency for the purpose of obtaining debt relief.
There's also an amusing discussion in McArdle's comment session in this week's article about the furious effort by Blue States to find a way around the tax bill's impact on their SALT deductions. After the crowd discussed the inability of a state (unlike a city or county) to file for bankruptcy, and how you can default all you like but there's no bankruptcy court to issue an order discharging all your public and pension debt, a reader pointed out that debt arising out of an insurgency need not be honored. That led to a discussion of the practical value of ginning up an insurgency for the purpose of obtaining debt relief.
Too Good to Check
Conservatives lean right because they're so much prettier than liberals.
I mean, possibly. But I'll wager that if you study the development of conservative/liberal attitudes, a lot of it depends on personality traits that are set before attractiveness becomes a big deal -- by childhood, I mean, rather than later in life when one becomes physically mature. That's not to say that ideas don't change. We all know people who become liberal in college under the academic and social pressure; we all know people who trend conservative once they get out in the world and see how badly liberal ideas work out in practical terms. Others double down because they become attached to structures that reinforce liberal or conservative ideas.
Still, a lot of the basics are there from the beginning.
Also, I note that the researchers have a clear cognitive bias that is evident in their description of conservatives as having a 'blind spot that leads them not to see the need for more government.' That treats the need for more government as a fact, rather than an opinion. Conservatives are thus supposed to be flawed, even mentally disabled, because they cannot see a thing that is really there. They've just had it so easy that it's crippled their minds.
Is it true that the easier one's life, the more likely one is to be a conservative? Not obviously. Justice Clarence Thomas grew up in a shack insulated with newspaper, his family's sanitation being an outhouse shared with neighbors. It's not hard to name others whose conservatism arose in difficult circumstances; nor is it hard to name celebrities with easy lives who are lefties. Celebrities tend to be attractive, too; not always, but it correlates strongly.
So, my sense is that this study is probably not very valuable. It's still fun, though.
The scholars said hot people lean towards the right because they grow to develop a blind spot that leads them to not see the need for more government support or aid in society - a core liberal value.
They add that attractive people don’t face the same hurdles as others as their attractiveness gains them more attention and they are more successful in social situations. Their lives are generally “easier,” the pair claim.
I mean, possibly. But I'll wager that if you study the development of conservative/liberal attitudes, a lot of it depends on personality traits that are set before attractiveness becomes a big deal -- by childhood, I mean, rather than later in life when one becomes physically mature. That's not to say that ideas don't change. We all know people who become liberal in college under the academic and social pressure; we all know people who trend conservative once they get out in the world and see how badly liberal ideas work out in practical terms. Others double down because they become attached to structures that reinforce liberal or conservative ideas.
Still, a lot of the basics are there from the beginning.
Also, I note that the researchers have a clear cognitive bias that is evident in their description of conservatives as having a 'blind spot that leads them not to see the need for more government.' That treats the need for more government as a fact, rather than an opinion. Conservatives are thus supposed to be flawed, even mentally disabled, because they cannot see a thing that is really there. They've just had it so easy that it's crippled their minds.
Is it true that the easier one's life, the more likely one is to be a conservative? Not obviously. Justice Clarence Thomas grew up in a shack insulated with newspaper, his family's sanitation being an outhouse shared with neighbors. It's not hard to name others whose conservatism arose in difficult circumstances; nor is it hard to name celebrities with easy lives who are lefties. Celebrities tend to be attractive, too; not always, but it correlates strongly.
So, my sense is that this study is probably not very valuable. It's still fun, though.
I certainly don't
Mea culpa. I never make this connection at all:
“Few white people make the connection between their attraction to yoga and the cultural loss their ancestors and relatives experienced when they bought into white dominant culture in order to access resources,” they write.I can't even sort the sentence out. One of the things I like best about white dominant culture is its persistent nagging to watch your pronoun precedents.
With enemies like these, who lacks friends?
The man the academic left loves to hate:
"[I]nstinctively, I knew I would like to find out about anybody described as dangerous by the trade paper of American higher education...."
Listen to the Mouse
Headline #1: "'America No Longer Matters.' Davos Isn't Worried About President Trump."
Headline #2: "Here’s How and Why Trump’s Going to Blow Up the Foundations of Davos."
"The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it."
-Paul-Muad'Dib
UPDATE: Headline, NYT: "Trump Arrived in Davos as a Party Wrecker. He Leaves Praised as a Pragmatist."
Headline #2: "Here’s How and Why Trump’s Going to Blow Up the Foundations of Davos."
-Paul-Muad'Dib
UPDATE: Headline, NYT: "Trump Arrived in Davos as a Party Wrecker. He Leaves Praised as a Pragmatist."
Good Article on the FBI
At the Hill, Sharyl Attkisson argues that it's time for some sunlight.
[T]he Department of Justice has officially warned the House Intelligence Committee not to release its memo. It's like the possible defendant in a criminal trial threatening prosecutors for having the audacity to reveal alleged evidence to the judge and jury.I think they actually view a secret police targeting conservatives as highly desirable, rather than it merely being that they lack curiosity.
This is the first time I can recall open government groups and many reporters joining in the argument to keep the information secret. They are strangely uncurious about alleged improprieties with implications of the worst kind: Stasi-like tactics used against Americans. “Don’t be irresponsible and reveal sources and methods,” they plead.
As for me? I don’t care what political stripes the alleged offenders wear or whose side they’re on.
Finexit
A young populist candidate running for "Finland First" is worrying members of the EU.
She claims the EU has turned “Finland into its province” and has railed against the country’s political elite, who she argues do not represent the working class.I had a good friend in Finland at one time. They had, and I believe still have, mandatory military service and I knew him during his stint in their army. Their proximity to Russia makes it a wise policy to have a fully-trained militia that can be readily armed as needed.
Huhtasaari has also demanded more immigration controls and has campaigned in favour of a burka ban – a far cry from Finland’s traditionally subdued politics.
Eight Illustrated Philosophical Thoughts
Colorful illustrations of several thought experiments. These are mostly presented for fun, with their meanings sketched rather than argued over tooth-and-knife (as is more customary among philosophers).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)