A Little History to Soothe the Savage Beast

Jerrold Nadler (D,NY) on MSNBC, Jan. 09, 2019

The Democrats in charge of the House side of Congress, and their long media retinue, are in high dudgeon over the Mueller Report and the whole Russia mirage.  Their epileptic seizures could be calmed by the application of a little history.

A huge part of the problem is their hatred of Trump which has deluded them into going whole hog on the Trump Manchurian candidate story.  It was always an illusion, but illusions must be kept alive in the quest for power.  Remember John C. Calhoun’s twisted logic in defense of slavery to keep the slavocracy in power in the South?

Remember the 1934 persecution-by-prosecution of William Insull – the man, more than any other, responsible for the creation of the nation’s electrical grid in the 1920’s – by FDR’s Justice Department as the scapegoat for the Depression and to further FDR’s grand scheme to place the economy, and much of life, under bureaucratic control?  If you’re interested, after a 7-week trial, it took a jury only 2 hours to acquit Insull and his 16 co-defendants of all charges.

Examples abound.

Insidious illusions will be always, like the poor, with us, especially if power is at stake.  For the Resistance true believers, Trump has to be guilty for him to be dethroned.  Belief cometh before proof.  So, Nadler and company are issuing subpoenas and contempt charges like a mad counterfeiter, as the media ballyhoo the latest round as Fort Sumter.

But what of Eric Holder?

AG Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress, June 2012.

Obama’s AG refused almost any information and documentation on the DOJ’s still-murky 2010 Fast and Furious operation.  17-21 Democrats in 2012 joined Republicans in approving civil and criminal contempt charges against Holder.  The story barely lasted one news cycle in the mainstream media.  That’s because contempt of Congress claims are essentially censure votes.  These aren’t “contempt of court”.  If anything, the targets are holding in contempt the excitable and riled partisan majority in the House.

And there are differences in the Barr and Holder cases.  Barr released the whole report with the exception of parts falling under long-established rules and laws, like Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) 6(e) regarding the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.  The law’s secrecy mandates were recently confirmed by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (McKeever v. Barr).

The Dems are trying to hang their hat on the exceptions to non-disclosure, but that would stretch “intelligence” and “counter-intelligence” officials to include power-hungry politicos and their staffs as they distort jury deliberations for political ends.  How long would it take for the pipeline to the WaPo and NYT to be turned on and the mud to flow?

By the way, the full unredacted Mueller Report is available to selected House members at the DOJ’s skiff, if they want.  But they don’t want.  They want power and that means Trump’s scalp.  This isn’t about the truth.  It’s about naked, raw power.

In contrast, Holder ignored and dissed Issa’s House Oversight Committed request for information.  Barr gave to Congress and the public almost the whole thing.  Holder is free to go on the lecture circuit and bash anyone with a “R” after their name.  Barr is daily pilloried on CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the brooding media big sisters.  Go figure.

In some cases, we may have to wait for the afterlife to get justice.  Humanity’s “crooked timber” holds sway in this life.  In the meantime, a little bit of history may help us get beyond the worst that lies within.

RogerG

Sports is Increasingly Soiling Itself with Partisan Politics

Alex Cora speaks to the press about the boycott before Monday’s game in Baltimore.

I just learned in “Axios AM” of the Red Sox partial boycott of the traditional White House visit to celebrate their World Series championship.  Let’s be clear: I have my concerns about Trump, but admittedly even more so with the radical lefty lurch of the Democratic Party.  Let’s be clear: I have my concerns about organized partisan political acts by athletes.  Alex Cora, the manager, and some of the players say that they won’t attend.  Well, now I have another team who has muddied itself with partisan politics to avoid.  When will this stop?

Of course, Axios couldn’t help but portray the spat in skin color terms … and so do the boycotting players.  The poison of reducing moral claims to melanin counts, cultural identities, and ritual assertions of victimhood has penetrated the locker room.  Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.

It’s disgusting.  I’m reminded of an audience’s shout to singer James Taylor when he got political: “Shut up and sing!”  A parallel?

RogerG

Another Dose of Citified Leftism

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Missoula, Mt.

Mark Zuckerberg in April of 2018 was quoted as saying before Congress that Silicon Valley is an “extremely left-leaning place”.  I would take it further.  Any of the deep blue dots on the election map are, by definition, “extremely left-leaning place[s]”.

Today, almost any large institution or organization in our densely-packed urban nodes is likely to be an “extremely left-leaning place”.  An example would be our tech giants like Google (or Alphabet, Inc).  Daily, we are exposed to the socio-political biases of these “extremely left-leaning place[s]”.  The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) in Montana was recently confronted with it. (see here)

Google employees at the Mountain View, Calif., headquarters.

The RMEF had been running ads on Google for years.  In April, they were email notified by a Google employee that it would be no more.  It seems that Google has a policy against hunting.  Somebody apparently did a Google search on the RMEF.  The RMEF quickly appealed to the Montana congressional delegation and the rejection was reversed.

Whether Google has a policy in opposition to hunting isn’t the pertinent question.  Our gaze should be directed at the Google workroom.  What’s happening in there?  I suspect, with good reason, that they have an “extremely left-leaning” population at work.  To them, nature is a Disney cartoon; hunting is cruelty; and we should all be vegan anyway.  Hippie food stores and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation don’t go together.

Just another reminder that urbanity-as-in-citified is synonymous with eco-zealotry, gender fluidity, and Bernie bros/gals.

RogerG

A Pet Peeve

College student doesn’t recognize Ronald Reagan.

This has happened more than a few times in my 30-year teaching career.  As part of a broader discussion, a kid will define a “conservative” as one who opposes change.  That’s not the end of it.  What follows is a train wreck of logic.  Diving deeper, we find that the kid is hung up on the root “conserve”, which to the student means to stand athwart “change”.  And “change” is synonymous with “reform”.  And “reform” is “good”.  That’s etymology, or a loose rendering of it.  When did etymology become a substitute for philosophical reasoning?  Somehow it has for the masses of the young passing through our schools into adulthood.

To set the record straight, “conservative” is one of many philosophies – in common usage, call them ideologies – that have bounced around our world for the past few centuries.  Other modern examples would be “liberal”, “progressive”, and “Salafist Islam”.  A philosophy/ideology is a simple set of judgments on how the world works.

The terms are also labels.  What fits under the label can change over time.  A “conservative” of 16th century England would support the aristocracy and a Catholic-style Church of England (High Churchmen in the parlance of the day).  However, by the 19th into the 20th centuries, “conservative” came to be defined by the liberty agenda of Locke, Burke, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, the now-defunct British Whig Party, and our founding fathers.  Amazing as to what a few centuries can do.

If “conservative” can be defined by a liberty agenda, what of “liberal” and “progressive”?  It’s easy to knock these two things out since they have morphed into the same thing.  A “progressive” (or modern liberal) begins with an unexamined, unacknowledged, and unstated assumption about history.  For them, the past is deficient, the present is an improvement, and the future is an advance on an inferior present.  An appropriate progressive metaphor for the human experience would be a chairlift up a ski slope.  It’s the unstated view of History curriculums in our schools, and part and parcel of the Obama rhetoric of being “on the right side of history”.

Some serious implications soon follow.  For instance, who is the most capable of ferreting out the trajectory?  Academics, of course.  They, the knowledgeable, have the wherewithal to peer into the past and present and guide us onto the true path of human betterment.  It’s the dawn of the administrative state and diminishment of the rough-and-tumble politics of popular sovereignty.  Now, the way is laid open for an academically-trained civil service to guide and direct us.  Say goodbye to the citizen republic, guns, and the spontaneous order of free markets.  Life is reduced to the prescriptions of empowered social technicians.

The administrative state.

The Soviets tried to do the same thing on meth.  It was called central planning.

“Science” is the buzzword. Science is, indeed, a great thing … but not when a little bit of it is extrapolated into airy historical predictions and social abstractions.  Take for instance Marx’s “scientific socialism” and “dialectical materialism”.  Take for instance the Green New Deal. At this point, “science” is no different from religious mysticism.  The conclusions are no longer tethered to Earth’s gravity but have zoomed past the asteroid belt.

So, what do we have?  We have one line of thought rooted in a firm grasp of human nature with all its flaws.  Does the Old Testament sound familiar?  Out of the idea comes the rule of law and constitutional republics as checks on the evil men and women can do.  By contrast, the other reasoning means reform, reform, and more reform.  Everything is turned topsy-turvy forever, and all under the direction of a set of planners with the latest zeitgeisty truths-of-the-moment.  Be prepared to constantly queue up for shortages will be the afterbirth.

The Soviet Union in its latter days suffered from a birth dearth (and still does) and plague of alcoholism.  I don’t think that the rule of dogmatic, degreed social managers comports well with our nature.  The planners, as it turns out, have the same flaws as the rest of us.  A social miasma will descend on life.

Please, take me somewhere else.

RogerG

Biden Bends a Knee at the Altar of Saint Anita

Anita Hill testifies at the Senate confirmation hearings of Judge Clarence Thomas. 1991.

Please read Mollie Hemingway’s piece in The Federalist, “Joe Biden on Anita Hill in 1998: ‘She Was Lying’”.  At the time in 1991, there was good reason for 58% of polled Americans believing Clarence Thomas and 24% Anita Hill.  All this is forgotten in the recent resuscitation of Anita Hill as the patron saint of #MeToo.  The history of the time paints a radically different picture, and exposes Joe Biden to the charge of craven political groveling.  Ironically, the lightweights of deep thought on The View brought it to light.

Joe Biden with the ladies on The View, Friday, 4/26/19.

Hemingway compares Biden’s comments on The View with Sen. Arlen Specter’s account from his 2000 memoir.

Sen. Arlen Specter on the Judiciary Committee from 2007.

Specter (deceased in 2012) and Biden were on the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the 1991 Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court.  Specter quotes the Biden of 1998 contradicting the Biden of 2019.  The 1998 Biden confessed to Specter, “It was clear to me from the way she was answering the questions, [Hill] was lying”.  The 2019 Biden confessed to leftie high priestess Joy Behar, “I believed her from the beginning”.

So, we have A and not-A, matter and anti-matter, and I still don’t know how to bring the two together without exploding.

Anita Hill receives counsel from Charles Ogeltree while testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October, 1991. (Greg Gibson/AP)

Hill’s liberal beatification doesn’t come out of this unsoiled either.  Her answers before the committee on cross-examination were, to put it mildly, disturbing, even to those anxious to “Bork” Thomas.  She tried to deny prior complimentary comments of Thomas that were corroborated by multiple witnesses.  She denied that she knew one witness who said that Hill’s charges “were the result of Ms. Hill’s disappointment and frustration that Mr. Thomas did not show any sexual interest in her”.  Later she was forced to admit that she knew the witness after others were willing to come forward with confirmation.

The contradictions don’t stop with denials of knowing people.  Her statements before the committee were far more colorful and dramatic than those given to the FBI, something she had trouble explaining.

Then she was asked about a USA Today article that described an arrangement proffered to her by a Senate Democratic staffer for her to make a deposition against Thomas and it would be discreetly divulged to Thomas resulting, presumably, in him asking to withdraw his nomination, all done with anonymity for Hill.  It’s a repeat of the 1987 play against Reagan’s nomination of Judge Ginsburg.  She denied any knowledge of the offer and became evasive.  This is what prompted Biden in 1998 to confess to Specter that she was lying.

Robert Bork at his Supreme Court confirmation hearing on September 18, 1987. (CNP/Getty Images)

Remember, the Thomas nomination came just 4 years after the Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg fights.  The Democrats were beginning the slide into the political tar pits for Supreme Court nominations.  What worked against Ginsburg was redeployed against Thomas and later against Kavanaugh.

Sen. Joe Biden confers with Sen. Edward Kennedy. Kennedy would lead the fight to defeat the nomination of Robert Bork.

Anita Hill isn’t a saint.  The 1998 Joe Biden was correct in catching the putrid smell of her testimony.  The 2019 Joe Biden shows another side of the man. He’s a craven politician.  If he has to be a SJW (social justice warrior), he can do that.

Joe Biden ain’t “lunch-pail Joe” since the real lunch-pail Joes are the “basket of deplorables” to today’s “woke” Democratic Party.  Call him shape-shifter Joe.

Kudos to Mollie Hemingway for removing the vail obscuring both the real Joe Biden and the real Anita Hill.

RogerG

A Tale of Two Articles

Lesson: Fashionable ideas frequently fall into the category of “too good to be true”.

Compare Amy Harder’s Axios piece from yesterday, “The key to unlocking wind and solar: Making it last”, and Michael Shellenberger’s Forbes article from 2018, “We Don’t Need Solar And Wind To Save The Climate — And It’s A Good Thing, Too”.  The former is a puff piece about another alleged “breakthrough” for solar and wind energy.  The latter is a healthy splash of cold water on the whole ploy.  In today’s media, almost anything chic among the beautiful people, popular with the rulers in deep blue states, championed in thousands of public service ads, and exalted in high school science fairs, should be taken with a ton of salt.

Here’s a few takeaways from the analysis:

* Solar and wind, especially solar, have always been on the cusp of the next will-o’-the-wisp big breakthrough since the 19th century.  Shellenberger recounts the history; Harder unwittingly provides another example.

* Solar and wind are expensive.  They sound like a great idea since the sun shines and the wind blows without our help.  Check out the electricity rates of countries who have bought into solar and wind.

* The environmental damage of wind and solar is immense.  They use up and mar vast tracts of the landscape, disrupt and threaten the natural flora and fauna, and the production of their devices begets toxic wastes and land scarring.

* Nuclear is an obvious alternative but gets no mention in the rush to the solar-and-wind utopia. It’s better, more efficient, more cost effective, produces no CO2, and recycles much of its waste.  What’s there not to like … if we can look away from the scowls of the beautiful people?

The China Syndrome (1979), directed by James Bridges. Shown from left: James Hampton, Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas.

The real world can’t be boiled down to Sierra Club talking points.  I wish that our media would stop repeating them and our kids weren’t taught the baloney.

RogerG

The Bribery-fest: The Democrat Saga to Capture the White House 2020

Senator Kamala Harris in Houston on Saturday, March 23, where she unveiled early portions of her first policy rollout, a federal investment in teacher pay. (Larry W Smith/EPA, via Shutterstock)

It’s a good thing that the Democrats have hung their hat on Abortion Unlimited.  At least they’ll be consistent.  If you want to abort an economy, vote Democratic.  There is a difference between the two abortifacients, though.  Aborting a baby is intentional.  Aborting an economy is a minor matter to Democrats in the quest for power, instill economic vengeance, and funnel bennies at public expense to their political allies.

Take Kamala Harris’s latest bribe to the biggest gorilla of campaign deep pockets: the teacher unions.  Sorry, it ain’t Big Oil or the NRA (#262 and #500 respectively in the rankings).  The deepest of deep pockets belongs to Fahr, Inc. (read Tom Steyer) and NEA/AFT, teammates in bankrolling Democrats.  To cement the incestuous relationship, she wants a nationwide 23% increase in teacher pay (according to a CNN analysis).  What teacher wouldn’t be willing to punch her ticket to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?  But forget about paying for it.

Not to be outdone, Elizabeth Warren wants to bribe millennials – the most “educated” (?) generation in history (meaning the possession of paper, mostly empty, credentials) – with free college and forgiveness of college debt.  The whole bribe is to be financed by a wealth tax.  Recall, the excise is an old and failed one.  12 European countries had it, and dumped the silliness due to capital flight.  Little revenue and a stagnating economy resulted.  In her zeal to out-bribe Harris, she could care less.

The rest of the Dem herd will either outbid or bellow “me too”, as in the Green New Deal Stalinism.  Like the greenie idiocy, a few party kooks announce the insanities and the ambitious adults jump on board.  Amazing!  Their bribes and the government takeover of most of life will do nothing but import Stalin’s economy.  A vote for a Dem is a vote for Gosplan.

The old Gosplan Building in Moscow; today, the home of the State Duma. It was from this building that the Bolshevik “best and brightest” attempted to manage the entire economic life of the country.

RogerG

Burden of Proof Be Damned

Attorney General Barr at press conference annoucing the release of the Mueller Report, April 18, 2019.

The Mueller Report is out.  Does it really matter?  No.  Partisans with no “reasonable cause” will still invent cause to pursue their political opponent.  They’ll grasp at any straw to continue the inquisition.  Burden of proof be damned.  The entire course of western civilization is to be turned upside down to get Trump.  That’s it in a nutshell.

There’s a reason for those with the power to take your life or freedom to meet the decency of a burden of proof when they make claims against a person.  Yet, political and media partisans hang their hat on minor and loosely related evidence and even the absence of evidence.

That’s right, the absence of evidence.  The “We cannot reach conclusions” or “We cannot charge” is morphed into “cause” by political partisans to pursue the accused that can’t be accused.  Read the last bit of that sentence again. This is ludicrous.

In other words, “innocent till proven guilty” means something … or is supposed to.  If you can’t prove a charge, then the actions at the root of the accusation are treated as if they didn’t happen.  It’s up to the authorities to prove their case, not the accused to prove they didn’t do it.

The citizen’s right to silence is related.  The target of the charge doesn’t have to say anything.  He or she can just sit there quiet as the people doing the accusing are expected to make the case.  If they can’t, then nothing happened regarding the accused.

That’s our law, and keeps us from exercising Stalin’s show-trial style of justice.  It’s how we avoid the last moments of Bukharin, Kamanev, and Zinoviev beginning with a long walk down a lonely basement corridor and ending with a bullet to the back of the head.

RogerG

The Sledge-Hammer Method of Watch Repair

Poached elephant tusks in Kenya.

Gun bans and heavy regulation are well-intentioned, but as effective as repairing a watch with a sledge hammer.  Another case in point: Kenya’s wildlife has experienced a catastrophic decline despite national gun bans and extensive regulation (see here).  A minuscule ownership rate of 1.5 guns per 100 people hasn’t stopped the poisoning and poaching of some of Africa’s signature wild animals into near extinction, as mentioned in a “60 Minutes” story of 2009 and in National Geographic Magazine (Aug. 2018).

Poisoned young male lion in Kenya. (National Geographic Magazine)
Kenyan elephant killed by poison arrows.

People get guns, illicitly or otherwise.  And if people can’t get their hands on one due to the expense or regulation, they turn to poison.  It’s cheap and effective.  The only problem is that the neurotoxins move down the food chain to scavengers like lions, leopards, elephants, birds, and people.  At least a bullet is limited to the target.

A Kenyan vulture who died after eating poisoned carrion.

What’s the moral of the story?  People who are motivated to kill won’t be dissuaded by a gun law.  They’ll still kill, but mostly with other means that are cheaper and with broader ill-effects.  So, we attempt to solve one problem by creating bigger ones.

People can be very dangerous without guns.  Timothy McVeigh didn’t need an assault rifle to kill 168 and injure hundreds more in the Alfred P. Murrah Bldg. in Oklahoma City.  Weaponizing fertilizer in a garage was all that was necessary.  Tomorrow is the sad anniversary.

Alfred P. Murrah Bldg., Oklahoma City, after McVeigh’s bomb.

9/11 proved that box cutters and hijacked airliners can be homicidally effective.

Stripping the population of guns won’t settle your problems.  It won’t even come close.  One solution to assist our overburdened police officers would be to deputize the law-abiding with open-carry and accessible ccw laws.  Just a thought.

If it’s the safety of your kids in school that worries you, harden them.  Sadly, we live in a time when our society is getting ragged.  Civil society’s little platoons of civilization are in decline.  Many of those very same kids, if they survive the abortion gauntlet, are born into an increasing array of chaotic home environments.  Now that doesn’t bode well, with or without more gun laws.

RogerG

You Don’t Get Jobs from Poor People

An Amazon warehouse.

I was listening to Pandora’s “Cool Crooners” station this morning.  A thought occurred: What makes Frank Sinatra, Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, Dean Martin, Nat King Cole, and Tony Bennett, among others, stand head and shoulders above your uncle Fred who just so happens to have a good voice as he works at being a very good CPA? Is their success an accident?  Certainly, many factors account for their fame, but in the hustle and bustle of life they congealed into excellence.  They had a special talent.

Joseph Schumpeter, Austrian economist

What’s this got to do with economics?  A lot.  The economist Joseph Schumpeter made it abundantly clear.  The economy rides on the backs of a few very talented risk takers, whether it be Henry Ford or Jeff Bezos.  The accomplished few weren’t just a collection of lucky mediocrities.  At the core, this is a remarkably different story than the one peddled by the Democrats.

To justify their love of the state – the key plank of Progressivism – the Dems have convinced themselves of the bottom-up falsehood.  In a nutshell, their favorite suggestion for the economic riddle is to confiscate from the rich, deposit the takings in the government, and then have public employees scatter a portion of the proceeds to the hoi polloi.  Leaving aside the absorption of a sizable slice of the booty by a hungry bureaucracy and the political chicanery that is endemic to government, the gimmick remains pure, unadulterated economic nonsense.

It’s as if the Dems will create jobs by punishing job-creators.  That’s right, they believe that they can confiscate from the people making thousands of jobs and expect the poorer rungs to more than take up the slack with their limited and desperate consumer spending.  The rich guy and gal (or the 38 other genders) can’t help creating jobs, even if they fritter away their gains on yachts, private jets, and California coastal real estate.  Talk to the guys and gals building the mansions, making the yachts and fancy jets, or the hirelings who maintain or captain them.  How many jobs can we expect from a Section 8 housing recipient?

Section 8 housing recipient

Let’s face it, the donkey party isn’t about economic sense.  They’re all about class identity – as well as the other identities on their long scroll – and class victimhood.  They’ve got too much Marx rolling around in their heads.  In the end, the scheme won’t pencil out.  These materialist levelers forget that the economic pie isn’t a static thing.  Yes, some peoples’ slice grows bigger than others, but in reality, all slices expand.  That’s the beauty of a growing pie.  The pie is dynamic, not static.

The Lefty alternative is like what happens when the Chinese bound the feet of young girls.  Everything gets mangled.  Specifically, it’s a mad scramble to take as much for yourself from the only treasure chest in the room.  The government becomes the weapon to wield against your rivals.  In the end, you’ll find the chest empty, and more than that.  It just got smaller.

Now you end up like North Korea.  What rich person – you know, the guy or gal who made all those jobs possible in the first place – will wait around for Bernie Sanders, et al, to confiscate their gains?  The Sanders crowd will only be able to do it once.  The next year, the successful are gone –- along with the jobs.

The UK called it the “brain drain” of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Many talented Brits escaped their country’s King Kong taxman by fleeing to the US.  The Beatles even made a song about it (George Harrison’s “Taxman”).  Nancy Pelosi and company want to replicate the Labor Party’s economic reign of terror.

For Trump’s America, the proof is in the pudding. CBO numbers on the post-Republican tax cut economy are out.  The tax cuts are a financial winner; unemployment is at historic lows (for all of the Democrats’ favorite identities); GDP is growing faster than Paul Krugman’s reputation is declining; wages are rising; and corporate profits are bountiful enough to demand more workers – i.e., more jobs and higher pay – and pay more lucrative dividends.  Either way, it all adds up to an economic renaissance.

It’s the same playbook of the 1946/1948 Republican Congresses, JFK, and Reagan.  The only response of the Democrats is the caterwauling about the filthy rich, with their emphasis on “filthy”.  They deserve to be relegated to the place that used to be reserved for the psychotics, but, today, congregate in the tent cities of the Dems’ strongholds in the LA-to-Seattle corridor.

RogerG