The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Friday, January 18, 2019

The State of the Union

For John, BLUFI give kudos to the Democrats for strategic thinking in this instance.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

Update:  Dems Planned Move For “Months”?

From Hot Air, by Cap't Ed Morrissey, 16 January 2019.

Here is the key Constitutional passage from Wikipedia:

The address fulfills rules in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, requiring the President to periodically "give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
For a long time the State of the Union was sent as a written document.  President after President did it the way G Washington did it.  Then came along Woodrow Wilson, who decided to do it in person.  I don't see that as a permanent change.

My solution is for the President to write up the State of the Union and mail it off to the Speaker of the House and Senate President.  Then he should sit down and do a live broadcast, from behind the Resolute Desk, in the Oval Office.

My wife favors the letter route, but thinks he should then go to the Senate Chamber and deliver the message live to the Senators, given that a majority might actually listen to and appreciate his message.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

UPDATE:  This seems to have disappeared and is being resurrected.

Regards  —  Cliff

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Opponents of Brexit

For John, BLUFWhile some view Brexit through the lens of Homo economicus, those who voted for Brexit may have been more about wanting to avoid a distant and impersonal government dictating to them.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The New Reform Club, by Mr Seth Barrett Tillman, 16 January 2019.

Here is the lede and the last paragraph:

I did not “prais[e] the process that brought Brexit to the UK.”  I will say that the process was not “stupid” and it was not “criminally stupid.”  Why do you use this hyperbolic language?  It was just a referendum.  Cameron did not surprise the country (the UK) by putting the decision to the People.  It was a long-standing promise of the Tory Party to do just that.  That promise was made by the Tory Party in the two party manifestos in the two prior general elections.  After the first election, Cameron’s Tory Party did not have an absolute majority on the floor of the Commons, and his Liberal-Democratic coalition partners did not back a referendum.  So nothing happened.  After the second election, Cameron had a majority—and the referendum was a simple expression of a well known campaign pledge from the most recent general election.  I see nothing “stupid” about this; I see nothing “criminally stupid.”  Why this hyperbolic language?

Again, I don’t claim to know how the British people ought to have voted.  I am not British, and the UK is not my country.  I was not born there; I am not a citizen by naturalisation or otherwise; I was not educated there; I do not have any higher degrees specialising in British history, government, culture, etc; I do not live there; and, I do not pay taxes there. It is not my job to tell them how to vote.  I see no reason to call their elected politicians and their public “inept” or “stupid” because the People voted in a way which was not expected by those who think or thought they know or knew better.  So I am left wondering why you continue to use such strong language about a foreign country’s politics and politicians?  Is it that you believe the result was obviously wrong?—How did you reach that conclusion?  Or, is it that you believe the process was substantially defective (a process wholly free of gerrymandering—a subject which is a frequent source of complaint by academics here on Conlawprof)?—How did you reach that conclusion?  And even if you think the result wrong or the process defective, why are you using such strong language?  When you use such strong language about Brexit, and you do so for reasons that are (in my opinion) entirely opaque, it sort of undermines the force of the similar hyperbolic language you use in regard to Trump. You do see that, right?


Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Some Justice, At Last

For John, BLUFThis has been a long time coming, and it has come begrudgingly.  Bureaucracy doesn't like to admit error.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From The Daily Signal, by Reporter M.D. Kittle, 11 January 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Dozens of conservative organizations are receiving late Christmas presents years after the IRS handed them a lump of coal.

The federal government in recent days has been issuing settlement checks to 100 right-of-center groups wrongfully targeted for their political beliefs under the Obama administration’s Internal Revenue Service, according to an attorney for the firm that represented plaintiffs in NorCal v. United States.

From Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds:
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Possible Mueller Outcomes

For John, BLUFThere is the option that the Russiagate Probe will never end.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

This is not authoritative, but just my doodling:

  1. Guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors (Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution)
    • "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
    • At this kind of a report the US House of Representatives would spring into action, bringing impeachment articles against the President.
    • It does raise the question as to if the Vice President was involved, which may or may not be answered by a report by Special Counsel Mueller.
    • This raises an additional question, which is why this took so long.  An important question to emerge will be when did Mr Mueller know it and why did it take so long to get the news out?
  2. Not proven
    • This is the Scottish Verdict, where the jury thinks the person is guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • I would think this report would just sow confusion and conflict and would hurt the country.
  3. No indications of a crime by the President (or VEEP).
    • This would not quiet everyone, the House Democrats would proceed with their own investigations.
    • This would allow the President to focus more on being President, rather than being a defendant.
    • This might allow the President to now order the release of all pertinent documents, including the FISA Warrants and their supporting documentation.
  4. Finding that the FBI/DOJ engaged in unpardonable activities for political reasons.
    • There are those who believe the FBI has not been much cleaned up since the time of J Edgar Hoover.
    • There are those who believe that Mrs Clinton tipped her hand in late October 2016 when she talked about a Trump/Putin connection, right after leaks from the FBI and Fusion GPS brought us stories in the press.
Are there other possible outcomes?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

See Your Local Recruiter

For John, BLUFIf you join a Military Service, apply yourself and avoid drugs you will have a better shot when back on Civvie Street than you might otherwise.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From Military Times, by Ms Natalie Gross, 13 January 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

Women veterans were employed at higher rates than their male counterparts in 2018, federal data show.

And it’s not just women.  A military background also boosted the civilian job prospects for racial minorities that have historically had a harder time finding work.

Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show the annual unemployment rate for women veterans was 3 percent last year — the lowest unemployment rate on record for this group in the 21st century — while male veterans had an unemployment rate of 3.5 percent.

Among post-9/11 veterans in particular, women again outshined men with a 3.5 percent unemployment rate, compared to 3.9.

Breakdowns by race and ethnicity showed similar trends. White, black and Hispanic or Latina women who have served in the military since Sept. 11, 2001 all had lower unemployment rates than men of those races who did the same. The biggest gap was between black women, with a 3.6 percent unemployment rate, and black men, at 6 percent.

The alternative is to have two parents, living together, who give you solid middle class values.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Path Ahead to 2020

For John, BLUFThis is assuming President Trump isn't forced out.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

From Ricochet, by Mr Gil Reich, 14 January 2019.

A nice review.  But, I leave it to you to click on the link and read the ten reasons.

As the InstaPundit says, don't get cocky.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

The New Class

For John, BLUFI don't think the Progressives yet understand this.  I think they still think it is just ignorance and bigotry.  Sadly, they are misinformed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Here is the sub-headline:

What’s happening in America is an echo of what’s happening in democracies around the world, and it’s not happening because of Trump.

From USA Today, by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 15 January 2019.

Here is the lede plus three:

To understand events around the world today, one must think in terms of the class struggle.

This sentence sounds like something that could be written by a doctrinaire Marxist.  But it is nonetheless true.  Much of the current tension in America and in many other democracies is in fact a product of a class struggle.  It’s not the kind of class struggle that Karl Marx wrote about, with workers and peasants facing off against rapacious capitalists, but it is a case of today’s ruling class facing disaffection from its working class.

In the old Soviet Union, the Marxists assured us that once true communism was established under a “dictatorship of the proletariat,” the state would wither away and everyone would be free.  In fact, however, the dictatorship of the proletariat turned into a dictatorship of the party hacks, who had no interest whatsoever in seeing their positions or power wither.

Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas called these party hacks the "New Class," noting that instead of workers and peasants against capitalists, it was now a case of workers and peasants being ruled by a managerial new class of technocrats who, while purporting to act for the benefit of the workers and peasants, somehow wound up with the lion’s share of the goodies.  Workers and peasants stood in long lines for bread and shoddy household goods, while party leaders and government managers bought imported delicacies in special, secret stores.  (In a famous Soviet joke, then-leader Leonid Brezhnev shows his mother his luxury apartment, his limousine, his fancy country house and his helicopter only to have her object:  “But what if the communists come back?”)

I am not sure the New Class sees the problem here.  Maybe the increasing number of working homeless on the Coast will help them visualize the problem.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff