Helping the Poor

For John, BLUF:  Notwithstnding the beliefs of AOC, et al, there is no free lunch, or as The Little Flower, upon becoming Mayor of New York, said:  "È finita la cuccagna!".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Who should pay for the Living Wage?

Here are the bullet points:

• Many employers simply can't afford another hike in the Living Wage
• Most minimum wage workers are not in poverty - so help should be targeted on those who are
• Bankers and footballers should pay for the minimum wage hike, not struggling small businesses

From CapX, by Mr Sam Dumitriu, 30 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

It will have escaped no one’s notice that the UK is in an employment crisis.  In the OBR’s Central Estimate, unemployment is set to rise to record levels, surpassing even the peak of joblessness in the 80s.  At the same time, social distancing measures have hit productivity hard.  It’s not their fault, but a waiter is simply less productive in a world with the Rule of Six, Tier Two measures, and general customer unease about eating out.

To his credit, Rishi Sunak has been willing to act to protect jobs.  At first with furlough and now with the recently expanded Job Support Scheme.  But both policies are premised on employees working fewer hours.  They’re badly suited to, for example, pubs who need more staff on call due to the switch to table service but are still seeing fewer customers through the door.

Labour markets, like all markets, are governed by the laws of supply and demand.  When workers become less productive, demand for them falls.  The typical consequence of a drop in demand is a fall in price.  Think of how you can pick up bargains in the January sales when consumer demand inevitably slumps.  But this isn’t possible in all markets.  In labour markets, wages are sticky.  Unlike petrol prices, wages don’t change daily in response to shifts in demand.  Employers are hesitant to slash wages as it can damage employee morale and attract bad press.  On top of that, bosses are legally prevented from employing any worker for less than the National Living Wage.

The article is worth the read.  And the source is an alternative worth sampling.

Regards  —  Cliff

Ahistorical

For John, BLUF:  There are those who ignore history, and are thus forced to repeat it, and those who deny what they know about history, and re thus stumbling into even worse situations.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

“Not Pro-Black”: Wisconsin Students Unanimously Vote To Remove Lincoln Statue As Racist

From the Jonathan Turley blog, by Blogger Jonsathan Turley, 30 October 2020.

Here is the lede:

We previously discussed the effort at the University of Wisconsin-Madison to have the famous statue of Abraham Lincoln removed as racist. The student government has now voted unanimously in favor of a resolution that calls for the removal of the Abraham Lincoln statue on campus. The students declared that the president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, advocated for the 13th Amendment, and led the war against the South and slavery was “not pro-Black” and a “remnant of White Supremacy.” That would likely have come as something of a surprise to John Wilkes Booth.

So, the students agree with Actor John Wilkes Booth—"Sic semper tyrannis"?

If you follow Blogger Rod Dreher, you may see the University as a whirl pool, sucking folks down, and requiring a resistence movement to retain what is good from Western Civilization, including the idea of moral progress.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Misidentifying the Problems

For John, BLUF:  The kidnap plot against Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer seemed, initially, to swirl around the rhetoric of President Donald Trump, only to find that the plotters disliked President Trump just like they disliked Governor Whitmer, making the two elected officials like peas in a pod.♠  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Alleged Whitmer Kidnap Plotter Wanted to Hang Trump, Other Republican Politicians

Here is the sub-headline:

This man is the second one in the plot who hated Trump. I bet the others hated Trump and Republicans.

From Legal Ibnsurrection, by Ms Mary Chastain, 29 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

An unsealed FBI search warrant revealed that Barry Croft, who allegedly wanted to kidnap Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, wanted to hang President Donald Trump and other politicians.

The search warrant gave the FBI permission to search Croft’s Facebook account:

"Left" and "Right" have become worthless terms.  We need better terms to be able to understand each other.  Here is how Day by Day handled this label issue today.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I am shocked, shocked, to find the Mainstream Media actually published, early on, these smears against President Trump.  They are, after all, being soooo careful about not publishing the evidence against Mr Hunter Biden.

Stacking the Court

For John, BLUF:  Is there nobody who can see and talk about long term consequences of short term pleasures.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Conservative Journal Review, by Writer G. McConway, 27 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

The confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett has encouraged Democrats to show their true colors.

Republicans used changed rules that Democrats put in place to push through Obama nominations, and now they are furious and acting as though it was Republicans that changed the rules.

Now, House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and her band of corrupt Democrats are vowing revenge.

So, if Candidate Biden wins and Congress goes for "Court Packing", what is the natural limit, as, over time, power switches back and forth between parties.  That is, how big can the US Supreme Court grow?  There is no limit in the Constitution.  I would assert that there is no limit.  Once unleashed, it could double in thirty years.

This could change my mind on term limits.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Implications of Your Vote Across Government

For John, BLUF:  The tensions are high and it seems there are a lot of Citizens who are hard over with regard to the present political scene.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

PRUDENTIAL VOTING IN BAD TIMES

Here is the sub-headline:

I am not a doomist.  There are reservoirs of goodness in the American people -- including a sense of mutual obligation I've witnessed many times during the pandemic.

From The Boston Pilot, by Columnist George Weigel, 28 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Sixty years ago, Father John Courtney Murray, SJ, published what I regard as the finest Catholic analysis of American democracy ever penned:  "We Hold These Truths -- Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition."  In recent decades, Father Murray has been accused of being an uncritical celebrant of the United States.  That unjust charge is decisively refuted by the most pungent sentence in "We Hold These Truths," which I shall cite in a moment.

In his wide-ranging book, Murray examined the deterioration of the moral and cultural foundations of American public life, a process he thought had been underway for some time.  Mainline Protestantism could no longer help buttress those foundations; its doctrinal and moral confusions were part of the problem, not the solution.  Nor could the country rely on its great centers of higher education for cultural ballast; the prestige universities, Murray wrote, had abandoned the classic philosophical and moral traditions of the West, settling comfortably into the dual ruts of pragmatism ("What's right is what works") and utilitarianism ("What's good is what's useful").  The notion that freedom was having the right to do what we ought -- meaning that genuine freedom is always tethered to truth and ordered to goodness -- was being supplanted by the thin and dangerous notion of freedom as willfulness.

What would happen, Murray asked, if those baleful tendencies won the contest for American culture?  What would happen if Americans decided that democratic self-governance was simply a matter of political and legal machinery, rather than the cultural accomplishment of a virtuous people?  If Americans decided that truth and goodness had nothing to do with politics and law?  If Americans, no longer believed that the laws we make are under the judgment of the moral law written on the human heart?  What would happen, Murray warned, was not going to be pretty:  ". . . The noble many-storeyed mansion of democracy will be dismantled, levelled to the dimensions of a flat majoritarianism, which is no mansion but a barn, perhaps even a tool shed in which the weapons of tyranny may be forged."

I think the author has a point.  We are very divided as a people and neither side needs to feel it can crush the other under its heel.  That means strategic voting.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Aftermath of the General Election

For John, BLUF:  Just as we weren't prepared for the yezr 2020, it appears we are not prepared for the next year, 2021.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Sorry, there will be no return to normalcy under Joe Biden

Here is the sub-headline:

Biden becoming president will not make COVID-19 disappear and return the country back to normal. Just vote for whatever form of abnormal you prefer.

From UASA Todzay, by Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 27 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

As the presidential campaign enters its final phase, one of the messages of the Biden campaign is that putting him, a 47-year veteran of national politics, into the White House will return us to something approaching normal.  With Biden in charge, all the Trump craziness will expire, and things will be safe, sane and familiar.

In fact, there’s no chance of this happening.  If Biden wins, things won’t go back to “normal.”  You probably won’t even hear less from Donald Trump.  And in a lot of areas, like foreign policy, it turns out the establishment’s version of normal wasn’t all that normal anyway.

I think the Professor is on to something.  COVID-19 is unlikely to be going, and Candidate Biden seems to confirm that with his promise of a dark winter.♠  Are protests in the streets likely to go away any time in the near future?♥  Even if the Democrats win the White House and both houses of Congress, the changes favored by Blzck Lives Matter/ANTIFA will not come about on 21 January 2021.

It doesn't matter who wins and is eventually inaugurated, we face protests and disruptions.  While a lot of the media is filled with stories of President Trump not leaving office if he loses the election, there are also problems of factions not being will, or even able, to accept a victory by the Republican Ticket.  How far will President Trump's opponents go to place Candidater Biden in office?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  On the other hand, my Friend, John McDonough, of City Life Show fame, claims it will all disappear on 4 November (of this year).
♥  And not all of those protests are all that peaceful.  And there is a cost to less than peaceful protests, such as chain stores (e.g., Walgreens) pulling out of ceretain areas.

Recalling Your Vote

For John, BLUF:  If you decide you don't like your early (Mail In) Vote, in at least seven states you can reverse what you think of as a mistake.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Clawing back votes: 7 states allow voters to resubmit ballots

Here is the sub-headline:

New Hampshire allows people to vote again in person on Election Day if they wish to change their absentee votes

From Fox News, by Reporter Audrey Conklin, 16 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Seven states allow voters to resubmit mail-in ballots after they have already sent them in to be counted, according to 37 out of 50 state election officials who responded to inquires from Fox News.

The laws allow residents in seven states who have already voted for select candidates by mail to change their minds, usually within a specific time frame after the first ballot has been cast. In some states, voters can resubmit ballots several times.

• In Arkansas, voters can resubmit absentee ballots up to two times.
• Connecticut voters may withdraw previously submitted absentee ballots from their town clerks until 5 p.m. on the Friday before Election Day.
• Voters in Delaware can contact their county elections office if they wish to make a change to their submitted absentee ballots.
• In Michigan, voters wishing to change their mail-in ballots must submit written requests to their city or town clerks.
• In Minnesota, voters can change their absentee votes as long as they do so at least 14 days prior to Election Day.
• Wisconsin voters can resubmit mail-in ballots if they do so on time.
• The process is a bit trickier in New Hampshire, where those who voted by mail can vote again if they show up to a polling place within the first hour it's open or before their absentee ballots are processed.

In the meantime, in Massachusetts, you can track the status of your Mail In Ballot on the Commonwealth Secretary of State Website, HERE.  I checked and my ballot has been "Acceptted".  When a Mail In Ballot arrives at the City's Election Office the White Envelope is opened and the Election Worker checks for a correct signature.  If not it is put aside.  A letter is sent out to the voter, and it is annotated on the website above.

Check your Mail In Ballot status.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

COVID-19 Reaches Beyond the Illness Itself

For John, BLUF:  Five or ten yers from now, when we look back on the statistics, we may find that the ripples went around the world in areas bigger than COVID care.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Birth rates will drop, people will stay single for longer and women will sexualise themselves more: Scientists predict how society will change in a post-COVID world

Here is the sub-headline:

• A multidisciplinary team of experts reviewed 90 studies to make their forecasts
• The team predict various social impacts — even among those not infected
• Gender inequality could rise due to lockdown, as could social conservatism
• The ongoing pandemic is a 'worldwide social experiment', the researchers said

From The Daily Mail, by Reporter Ian Randall, 23 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus four:

Psychological fallout from the pandemic will cause birth rates to drop, people to stay single for longer and women to sexualise themselves more, experts have predicted.

Experts from the US reviewed 90 studies to help them predict how COVID-19 could shift social behaviours and gender norms — even among those not infected.

They expect planned pregnancies to decrease in response to the global health crisis as people defer marriage and kids, leading some nations' populations to shrink.

Drops in birth-rates will have cascading impacts on society and economics, affecting such things as job opportunities and support for elderly populations.

Furthermore, the unequal division of the extra household labour brought by lockdown could see gender inequality rise and foster more social conservatism.

COVID-19 is not just about the Virus.  It is also about how it is impacting social life.

And, it is about what other required medical actions are being ignored, including heart and cancer treatments.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Future of the US Supreme Court

For John, BLUF:  More on messing with thew structure and orientation of the US Supreme Court.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Harvard lawprof Noah Feldman answers no to the question "Does the Supreme Court really need reform?"

From Althouse, by Retired Law Professor Ann Althouse, 25 October 2020.

Here is the lede, a para from Bloomberg:

"It’s worth remembering that the undoubtedly conservative Supreme Court that has existed over the last 30 years give us [sic] gay rights, gay marriage, and now statutory protection for the rights of trans people.  The same court has chipped away at affirmative action, but has not (yet) eliminated it.  Ditto for abortion rights.  Yes, it eviscerated the Voting Rights Act, but in a way Congress could repair if it so chose.  In fact, in the almost 90 years since Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president, the Supreme Court has been better for liberals than for conservatives.  That could change, to be sure.  But Democrats need to think hard about the dangers of changing a Supreme Court that has, in many instances, advanced the causes of equality and justice even when most of its members were self-described conservatives appointed by Republicans."

This is about the nomination and expected confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court, to replace the recently passed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Professor Althouse does a good job of quickly reinforcing the points made by Harvard Professor Noah Feldman.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Political What If

For John, BLUF:  What happens if Candidate Joe Biden drops out for one reason or another?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If one is doing long term planning it is usually helpful to plan out branches and sequels.

Here are definitions for the terms branches and sequels:

1. Branches provide a range of alternatives often built into the basic plan. Branches add flexibility to plans by anticipating situations that could alter the basic plan.  Such situations could be a result of adversary action, availability of friendly capabilities or resources, or even a change in the weather or season within the OA.
2. Sequels anticipate and plan for subsequent operations based on the possible outcomes of the current operation—victory, defeat, or stalemate.

As we look at the political landscape we see out there the question posed by last week's article from The New York Post.  There is a chance the revealed EMails are authentic.  There is also a small, but greater than zero, chance that the EMails released point to Candidate Biden being unacceptably compromised with regard to one foreign power or another.

This, in turn, leads to the question of if Candidate Biden is sufficiently compromised that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) feels it must replace him on the ticket before the 3 November General Election.

A momentous step, replacing Candidate Biden shouldn't be that hard mechanically, in that all of us who vote are voting for a slate of Electoral College Electors.

But, who would be the replacement?  Would the DNC just fleet up the Vice Preidential Candidate, Sentor Kamala Harris?  Is there an alternative, such as Senator Bernie Sanders, or an outlier, such as Governor Andrew Cuomo?

Then the DNC has to make this all copacetic with the various states.

Then the DNC has to socialize this with the voters.  That will require a major advertising effort. There are less than two weeks left.

Then the People vote.  The question is, what if one voted early for Candidate Biden, but doesn't wish for that vote to transfer to the new DNC Candidate?  Will it be possible for those early voters to call back their vote and substitute a new ballot?  Or, will they be disenfranchised?  A major monkey wrench in the works would be some court ruling that all votes cast before the switch are invalid and need to be done over?  Ouch!

It is all verey unlikely, but good planning requires that it be a branch considered.

As an aside, Congress decides the date of the election.

Regards  —  Cliff

Streisand Effect

For John, BLUF:  Sometimes the knee jerk reaction is not the best in a sticky situation.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

MIT:  Twitter Ban ‘Nearly Doubled’ The Visibility Of Hunter Biden Laptop Story

From Wired, by Ms Emily Zanotti, 19 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

Twitter’s crackdown on a controversial New York Post story that “purported to show new emails from Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, about his business dealings while Joe Biden was the vice president in the Obama administration,” “nearly doubled” the story’s visibility and triggered the so-called “Streisand Effect,” amplifying the Post’s claims, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a high-profile media intelligence firm.

“When Twitter banned, and then unbanned, links to a questionably sourced New York Post article about Joe Biden’s son Hunter, its stated intention was to prevent people from spreading harmful false material as America heads into the final stretch of the election campaign,” MIT’s Technology Review reported Monday.  “But thanks to the cycle of misinformation—and claims from conservatives that social-media platforms are deliberately censoring their views—Twitter managed to do the opposite of what it intended.”

In fact, Twitter’s efforts triggered a massive spike in interest in the story.  “According to Zignal Labs, a media intelligence firm, shares of the Post article ‘nearly doubled’ after Twitter started suppressing it,” MIT noted.

The incident was a real-time example of what Zignal Lab’s calls the “Streisand Effect” — a “social phenomenon that occurs when an attempt to hide, remove or censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing that information, often via the Internet,” according to Wikipedia.  The name comes from singer Barbra Streisand’s efforts, in 2003, to suppress a photo of her Malibu, California, residence over security concerns.

That is the good news.  And why we have to fight every attempt to "control" the World Wide Web.

As to the issue of if The New York Post was spreading false information, evidence indicates that this Hunter Biden EMail trove is being verified as true from more than one source.

For those who think they are not getting the full sweep of information when they do on-line searchs, consideration might be given to replacing the "Google" Search Engine with an alterntive, such as "DuckDuckGo" or "Bing" (a Microsoft alterntive).  And, there are others.

It may be interesting to follow the Senate Hearings on Twitter's intervention in the Election Campaign.  Don't expect much from the House of Representatives.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Notes on Voting and Elections

For John, BLUF: 

V O T E !

---

And here is some good advice:

In democracies, a peaceful transfer of power has two elements:  The loser concedes without violence, and the winner accepts without vengeance.

Jill Lepore

But, while you are voting in the Lowell, Massachusetts, please consider the following write-in votes. And don't forget to color in the oval at the write-in line.  Your vote is not valid without the oval being colored in.

       

Why?  Because it takes FIVE Valid Write In Votes for the Election Folks to count the votes, and it would be good to find out (1) if the system works and (2) if there are voters willing to buck the trend of Democrats running and winning.♠ ♥

(US) Representative in Congress
      Clifford R Krieger

(Commonwealth) Councillor
      George Anthes

(Commonwealth) Senator in General Court
      Kamara Kay

(Commonwealth) Representative in General Court
      Martin David Burke

(Commonwealth) Register of Probate
      Martha Howe

Three important points for Mail In Ballots:

1. Make sure you fill in all the ovals for those you wish to vote for, but no more.
2. Put your ballot inside the manila colored envelope and seal it.  If you have any doubt, use tape (Scotch Tape) to seal the flap.
3. Be sure to sign the manila colored envelope.

If these seem like picky points, remember, if this kind of strict requirements were being done in some Republican Party dominated state it would be called Voter Suppression.  So, rejoice that you live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Given the current imbalance of Parties in Massachusetts, even Democrats doing the suggested Write Ins won't impact the outcome.  Everyone who reads this blog could vote for me and Lori Trehan would still win.
♥  Yes, as a Registered Republican, as a member of the Ward 1 Republican Committee in Lowell, I am embarrassed that we don't have candidates in the races listed.

Suppressing the Bad News

For John, BLUF:  Washington does not speak with a single voice, so who to believe?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

DNI Ratcliffe Debunks Adam Schiff's Latest Russia Conspiracy Theory Regarding Hunter Biden

From PJ Media, by Writer Tyler O'Neil, 19 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus four:

Democrats have been working overtime to discredit the newly released emails ostensibly showing that Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to an executive at the corrupt Ukrainian gas firm Burisma one year before Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian president to fire a prosecutor investigating Burisma.  On Sunday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) cooked up yet another Russia conspiracy theory in order to dismiss evidence of Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s corruption.  On Monday, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe debunked Schiff’s claim.

Schiff, notorious for pushing the narrative that Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, seems intent to vindicate his Russia conspiracies.

“We know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin,” Schiff said on CNN.  “That’s been clear for well over a year now that they’ve been pushing this false narrative about this vice president and his son.”

Ratcliffe emphatically denied this assertion.

“It’s funny that some of the people who complain the most about intelligence being politicized are the ones politicizing the intelligence,” Ratcliffe quipped.  “Unfortunately, it is Adam Schiff who said the intelligence community believes the Hunter Biden laptop and emails on it are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.”

In choosing between Representative Adam Schiff, originally from Framingham, Massachusetts, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, and Director of National Intelligence John Radcliffe, one might ask who is most partisan, or one might ask who has access to the latest intelligence product.  In terms of partisanship I think Rep Schiff has the lead.  On the other hand, Director Radcliff is the one with a string of intelligence assets.

This all from a New York Post article last week, talking about incriminating EMails from Vice President Joe Biden's Son, Hunter Biden.  The article, titled "Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad", was banned for almost a week by Twitter.

The larger issue for Americans may be the action that Facebook and Twitter took to suppress information on one candidate during an active election campaign.  We, as Americans, can survive corrupt politicians, but we might not be able to survive the loss of the free echange of information inherent in a Free Press.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Is Mass Murder Out of Control?

For John, BLUF:  .  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Comparing the Global Rate of Mass Public Shootings to the U.S.’s Rate and Comparing Their Changes Over Time

From SSRN, by Researcher John R. Lott, 28 September 2020.

Here is the Abstract for a longer paper from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN):

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the United States.

Over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, our list contains 2,772 attacks and at least 5,764 shooters outside the United States and 62 attacks and 66 shooters within our country.  By our count, the US makes up less than 1.13% of the mass public shooters, 1.77% of their murders, and 2.19% of their attacks.  All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population.  Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.  Out of the 101 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 66th in the per capita frequency of these attacks and 56th in the murder rate.

Not only have these attacks been much more common outside the US, the US’s share of these attacks has declined over time.  There has been a much bigger increase over time in the number of mass shootings in the rest of the world compared to the US.

This is inconvenient.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pig in a Poke

For John, BLUF:  The Democrats are all over the map with regard to policy positions..  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden says voters ‘don’t deserve’ his stance on packing Supreme Court

From The New York Post, by Reporter Mary Kay Linge! 10 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Voters don’t “deserve” to know Joe Biden’s stance on packing the Supreme Court, the Democratic nominee said this week.

In a prickly interview with a Las Vegas news station Friday, the Biden doubled down on his refusal to say whether he supports expanding the highest court in the land to more than nine justices.

“This is the number one thing that I’ve been asked about from viewers in the last couple of days,” began KTNV’s Ross DiMattei.

“Well, you’ve been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans,” Biden sarcastically responded.

“Don’t the voters deserve to know where you stand on …” DiMattei continued.

“No, they don’t deserve,” Biden snapped. “I’m not going to play his game.”

You are just the Voter, you don't deserve to know the positions of the candidates.

Court Packing is a way of diluting the powers of the US Supreme Court.  It is a way to get around the US Constitution.  When someone says that President Trump is not following the US Constitution, think of his opponent, Vice President Joe Biden, not being willing to take a position on the size of the US Supreme Court.  Is it because he has no position or because he is affraid to offend different constituencies within his own party?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Making Sport of the Press

For John, BLUF:  It doesn't help us pull together when the Press is classifying us in different groups and then dismissing some of those groups.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The Blaze, by Reporter Breck Dumas, 9 October 2020.

Here is the key paragraphy:

"So, let us brace ourselves," he continued, saying, "The task is two-fold: the terrorist Trump must be defeated, must be destroyed, must be devoured at the ballot box, and then he, and his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators, and the Mike Lees and the William Barrs, and Sean Hannitys, and the Mike Pences, and the Rudy Gullianis and the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has destroyed by turning it over to a virus."

I expect that if Vice President Joe Biden is elected President and Mr Keith Olbermann is appointed as our local Gauleiter I will be one of those "prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society.

From where do we get such people?  How do we manage to raise them?  And why don't they realize that your typical sentence should not exceed twenty words?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Seemingly Never Ending Probe

For John, BLUF:  Leaking and smearing are as old as the Republic.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Barr tells Republicans Durham report won't be ready by election

From Axios, by Writer Alayna Treene, 9 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Attorney General Bill Barr has begun telling top Republicans that the Justice Department’s sweeping review into the origins of the Russia investigation will not be released before the election, a senior White House official and a congressional aide briefed on the conversations tell Axios.

Why it matters:  Republicans had long hoped the report, led by U.S. Attorney John Durham, would be a bombshell containing revelations about what they allege were serious abuses by the Obama administration and intelligence community probing for connections between President Trump and Russia.

If it doesn't come out soon and President Trump loses in November, will it then ever come out?

This matters because we don't need forces behind the secene putting out false stories and suppressing information.  Today I read an article, " INSIDE JOB:  THE CHALLENGE OF FOREIGN ONLINE INFLUENCE IN U.S. ELECTIONS" (War on the Rocks).  The author did point out that in the last 75 years the United Sttes has interfered in more foreign elections that has the Russia/Soviet Union combnation.  This was not a shock to me, but it should help others put election interference into perspective.  It means it is on the nation holding an election to protect itself.  nAlthough it is fair to say that elements within the target ntion were looking for our help.

It was interesting that the article goes on to say that information purloined from campaigns should not be allowed.  Specifically, the article talked about information taken from the Democratic National Committee by with the Russians or Wikileaks.  Unmentioned was the possibility that it was an inside job.  That someone working for the DNC spirited the information away on their own.  The reason this is important is that it is possible it wasn't foreign intervention at all, but, rather, an inside job.

The article then goes on to condemn this leaking of information from a campaign and talks about how The Washington Post is looking to prevent that kind of thing in the future.  Which raises the question as to what kind of leaks are acceptable to the Press?  Did The New York Times go too far in disclosing President Trump's tax returns?  Did the press go too far in being a conduit for FBI Director James Comey's leaks regarding Russiagate?  What is the acceptable limit?

In answer to the earlier question about the Durham Report coming out if President Trump loses, the answer is no, unless someone leaks it, and even then it depends upon to whom they leak it.

Regards  —  Cliff

Attack on the Governor

For John, BLUF:  I admit that is campaign year is as disappointing as 1964.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Biden Blames Trump for Gretchen Whitmer Kidnap Attempt, Without Evidence:  ‘Why Can’t the President Just Say Stop?’

Here is the sub-headline:

Former Vice President Joe Biden blamed President Donald Trump on Thursday for a foiled kidnapping plot by a group of extremists who intended to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

From Breitbart, by Joel B Pollak, 8 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Though it did not name a specific political ideology, the FBI’s criminal complaint alleges that the members of the group “talked about creating a society that followed the U.S. Bill of Rights and where they could be self-sufficient.”  Two apparently met at a Second Amendment rally.

One member of the group, Brandon Caserta, was seen in an online video in front of an anarchist flag.

Not just Vice President Biben, but also Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer is point to the President.  Is this to say the FBI, and DOJ, is in the hands of the Democrats, protecting a Democratic Party Governor from the evil Republicans?  I hope not.

Looking three dimensionally, don’t Far Left and Far Right bend back and touch, sort of like a wrist band or bracelet?

The difference between the Nazi crowd and the Communist crowd wasn’t the number killed, but the number of Jews killed.  The Nazis killed more Jews because they believed Margaret Sanger.  The Communists killed more Ukrainians (and others) because—food.

The inability to distinguish between Anarchists and other political philosopies is not helpful.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The VEEP Debate—Justice

For John, BLUF:  The Blog Author is a former law professor.  She is level headed and middle of the road.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Was there any discussion of "systemic racism" during the debate?

From Althouse, Professor Ann Althouse, 8 October 2020.

This is a longish analysis of one part of the Wednesday Vice Presidential Debate.  Senator Kamala Harris is first up with a question on if the late Breonna Taylor, a 26 year old emergency room technician in Louisville:  "was justice done?"  In this exchange Vice President Mike Pence did the response.

I will not draw conclusions for you, but it is an interesting analysis.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Adjusting As We Learn

For John, BLUF:  We still don't fully understand COVID-19, and thus are current actions may, as we learn more, turn out to be wrong.  In the mean time wear your mask and keep your distance and wash your hands frequently.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A Failed Experiment

Here is the sub-headline:

The lockdowns must end.

From City Journal, by Reporter John Tierney, 7 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

Lockdowns are typically portrayed as prudent precautions against Covid-19, but they are surely the most risky experiment ever conducted on the public.  From the start, researchers have warned that lockdowns could prove far deadlier than the coronavirus.  People who lose their jobs or businesses are more prone to fatal drug overdoses and suicide, and evidence already exists that many more will die from cancer, heart disease, pneumonia, and tuberculosis and other diseases because the lockdown prevented their ailments from being diagnosed early and treated properly.

Yet politicians and public-health officials conducting this unprecedented experiment have paid little attention to these risks.  In their initial rush to lock down society, they insisted that there was no time for such analysis—and besides, these were just temporary measures to “flatten the curve” so as not to overwhelm hospitals.  But since that danger passed, the lockdown enforcers have found one reason after another to persevere with closures, bans, quarantines, curfews, and other mandates.  Anthony Fauci, the White House advisor, recently said that even if a vaccine arrives soon, he does not expect a return to normality before late next year.

He and politicians like New York governor Andrew Cuomo and British prime minister Boris Johnson profess to be following “the science,” but no ethical scientist would conduct such a risky experiment without carefully considering the dangers and monitoring the results.  After doing so, a group of leading researchers this week called for an end to the experiment.  In a joint statement, the Great Barrington Declaration, they predicted that continued lockdowns will lead to “excess mortality in years to come” and warned of “irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

This is a "big hand/little map" approach to the disease.  It is about saving lives by focusing on many causes of death, and not just COVID-19.

Here is a good summation:

Early in the pandemic, Scott Atlas at the Hoover Institution and researchers at Swansea University independently calculated that the lockdowns would ultimately cost more years of life than Covid-19 in the United States and Britain, and the toll seems certain to be worse in poor countries

This broader picture would be a hard sell in the best of times, but at our current political impasse it will be even harder.  Maybe, as John says, it will all clear up after the voting on 3 November.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Chew Slowly

For John, BLUF:  My Brother who lives in California says that they put their masks on when a waiter approaches the table.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

California governor's office tells diners to wear masks "in between bites"

From CBS News, by Reporter Caitlin O'Kane, 6 October 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

The California governor's office put out a tweet on Saturday advising that restaurant-goers keep their masks on while dining.  "Going out to eat with members of your household this weekend?" the tweet reads.  "Don't forget to keep your mask on in between bites.  Do your part to keep those around you healthy."

In California, masks are required for anyone going outside their home, as well as workers in customer-facing businesses, offices, factories, and health care professionals, among others, according to the state's COVID-19 guidance.

I wish there had been video to accompany this new health edict.  It might have helped further refine what the Governor (of California) intended.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Short Range Future

For John, BLUF:  Reporter Michael Yon brings a fresh set of eyes to the problems in Portland.  As General David Petraeus once asked:  "Tell me how this ends."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Dispatch 15:  Return to America:  Ebbs and Flows

From Michael's Dispatches, by Reporter Michael Yon, 5 October 2020.

Here are three key paragraphs on Portland:

Ebbs and Flows: Media reports about Portland fighting abating.  The authors of those articles often attach unstudied analysis in the form of wishful thinking.  Not to be confused with positive thinking.

I do not sense the Portland fighting will suddenly abate and vanish.  My current feel is that ANTIFA/BLM in Portland has eroded its support base.  BUT, the Antifa terrorists still are energetic, highly emotional, and their moods will be affected by, yet transcend, 2020 elections.

My sense is this will go on no matter the results of the elections.  Potential terrorists without a cause have been assigned a cause.  Local government here is amazingly weak-minded, feeble-minded, creating a vacuum that terrorists have filled.

The Media, the Fourth Estate, seems to be ignoring the long term issues of what is happening in Portland.  The danger is that it will not wind down as winter comes.  The additional danger is that it will spread to other parts of the nation.  I think we are playing with fire here and we don't realize it.

Regards  —  Cliff

Portland, the Future

For John, BLUF:  Aside from Andy Ngo, no one seeemed to have been reporting on the underside of protests (and associated rioting, looting and burning) in Portland and other locations.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Dispatch 13:  Portland Peril:  Mayorial Election:  ANTIFA and KKK are terror organizations

From Michael's Dispatches, by Reporter Michael Yon, 30 September 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

I've been talking with various law enforcement here in Portland.  Morale very low.  Chance they will walk off after next Mayorial election in November?  I do not know, but that number is significantly higher than zero.

Current Mayor, Ted Wheeler, is weak and indecisive.  Too weak to clean up this town.

Challenger, Sarah Iannarone, overtly sympathizes with the terror group euphemistically known as ANTIFA.  I was at their BLM/ANTIFA protest Saturday night where they called for mass arson and genocide against white people, demanding, "White people!  We got your attention now!?"  (Answer:  Yes.)

During my Monday interview with John Batchelor and Gordon Chang, we talked offline about John's experiences from the 1960s counterculture.  John cautioned that he knows people who were arrested and it "ruined their lives."  John said this numerous times:  "Ruined their lives."

Mr Michael Yon is a former Special Forces soldier and a free lance reporter from Afghnistan to Iraq and beyond.  He is well qualified to talk about terrorism and insurgency.

I wonder if lives will, indeed, be ruined in these days of no consequences for those arrested.  It doesn't appear that way these days, but memories are long and records can be squirreled away in many places.

I recommend folks follow Michael for a while to see what he uncovers and intuits about the situation.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Follow the Transcript, Not the Pundits

For John, BLUF:  When the President isn't perfect in his answer he is smeared as some sort of "…ist."  Is there any chance to get a good report?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Debate Transcript Shows Trump Did Not “Refuse to Denounce” White Supremacists, Contrary to Media Narrative

Here is the sub-headline:

Chris Wallace asked Trump if he was willing to condemn white supremacy.  Trump said “sure.”  Twice, as Wallace and Biden talked over him.

From Legal Insurrection, by Ms Mary Chastain, 30 September 2020.

Here is the lede plus six:

The left and media claim President Donald Trump refused to denounce white supremacy.

The debate transcript tells a different story.

As Emily Jashinsky at The Federalist noted, you can have issues with how Trump handled the question.

After he said “sure” I think he should have expanded on the answer.  But you cannot change the definition of “sure.”  Chris Wallace asked Trump if he was willing to condemn white supremacy.  Trump said “sure.”

Then Trump said, “Yes, I am willing to do it.”

Trump said “sure” and “yes.”  Therefore he answered the question.  Should he have gone further? Yes.

But do not misinform people about his answer.  Saying “willing” does not mean Trump “refused” to condemn white supremacy.

The "Narrative" is strong in some of the Reporters who give us our news.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff