Collusion With Russia

For John, BLUF:  Because…Shut Up.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Did the Media Hide Democratic Collusion with Russia in the Face of a U.S. Election?

From PJ Media, by Ms Debra Heine, 15 January 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Long before Trump was ever accused of colluding with the Russians, a powerful Democratic senator conspired with the Kremlin to undermine a sitting American president -- and there are KGB documents to prove it.

My favorite part of the whole RussiaGate farce has always been the newfound patriotism of the former pro-Soviet Democrats.  It was only a few years ago that a left-wing president and his cheer squad in the media and comments sections scoffed at the idea of Russia as a serious geopolitical foe.

But thanks to the deep state's baseless allegations that President Trump colluded with the Russians, Democrats are now the most Russia-phobic people on earth.

Well, it is different, because it was Senator Edward Kennedy, Lion of the Senate.

But, basically, we are dealing with the fact that a decent percentage of our society are, even today, unwilling to deal with the fact that Hillary Lost.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

New Movie on Chappaquiddick

For John, BLUF:  If ticket sales are a signal, don't go see it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NYT Op-Ed:  ‘Chappaquiddick’ Movie Is ‘Character Assassination’

From The Daily Caller and Ms Amber Athey, Media Reporter, 6 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus wo:

A New York Times contributor insisted in a Friday opinion piece that “Chappaquiddick” unfairly assassinates the character of former Senator Ted Kennedy.

The movie, which hits theaters on Friday, depicts the event surrounding the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, who drowned after Kennedy drove his car into a pond.  Kennedy failed to report the incident to police for ten hours.

Neil Gabler, who is writing a biography on Ted Kennedy, chose not to address the circumstances surrounding Kopechne’s death or Kennedy’s involvement in The New York Times.  Instead, Gabler flatly claimed that the movie is “outright character assassination.”

I will cut to the chase.  Unlikely to go to see the movie, which didn't need to be made.  Whose interest is served by dredging this up at this point?♠

Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy did some good things in his life.  He was for the F-35 Engine Second Source, which was being manufactured out of Lynn.  When the Boston Busing decision came down he said it was the right thing to do and he said it to the crowd assembled to protest the decision by Federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr.

On the other hand, he was notorious amongst women working on Capitol Hill as one of three Senators not to get into an elevator with, alone.♥  That should say something.  He colluded with the Russians during the end of President Jimmy Carter's first (and only) term.  Not a good thing.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Unless you subscribe to the view that you don't care what they say about you, as long as they spell the name correctly.
♥  Intel picked up from my Cousin, EE, who was at the time an Air Force Major working in the Pentagon.

Borking Sessions

For John, BLUF:  It looks like it is going to be an ugly few months ahead of us.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

In Alabama, Jeff Sessions Desegregated Schools and Got the Death Penalty for KKK Murderer

It is The Weekly Standard and the Reporter is Mr Mark Hemingway.

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama was being considered for a Cabinet post by the Trump Transition Team.  This ended up with a press release saying he would be nominated for Attorney General.  This has resulted in opponents raising the issue of racism on the part of Senator Sessions.  The article explores that issue.

The best line in this article is the last sentence in this paragraph:

However, it's worth noting that Senator Ted Kennedy, on the Senate judiciary committee at the time, seemed heavily invested in tanking Sessions nomination.  The next year, Kennedy's crusade was to sink Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, which has generally been regarded as a shameful smear campaign ever since.  The episode upended the comity that had previously existed between the Senate and the White House on Supreme Court nominations—Antonin Scalia was approved to the court 98-0 the year before, the same year that Sessions was filleted by Kennedy and Democrats on the judiciary committee.  Perhaps Sessions was a trial run for "Borking."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Another Kennedy Rejection of Ms Clinton?

For John, BLUF:  Uncle Joe supported Senator Obama over Senator Clinton in 2008.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Boston Herald tells us that US Rep Joseph P Kennedy III (Mass 4th Congressional District) has indicated that he would support his old teacher at Harvard Law, Senator E Warren, if she decided to run.

Regards  —  Cliff

Coakley Recycled

For John, BLUF:  Martha Coakley may be back.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Madison, Wisconsin Resident Professor Ann Althouse gives me a link to a Boston Herald article talking about Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley running for the Governor's Office.

I wanted to run screaming from the room, but I would still be in Massachusetts.  Isn't she the one who gave us "It isn't illegal to be illegal"?  I should have gone to New England School of Law a long time ago, so I could understand such "elocutions".

In the comments to the Althouse Post one person says "She is perfect for Massachusetts".  Frankly, I didn't take that well.  Also, the term "Amirault story" kept coming up.

Regards  —  Cliff

Republican Rally Sunday—UMass Lowell

For John, BLUF:  Republican Rally Sunday near Marty's Office.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Tomorrow, October 21st is the largest rally of the year with Senator Scott Brown, Senator Kelly Ayotte and Congressional Candidate Jon Golnik.  The event will be held at UMass Lowell's Cumnock Hall at One University Ave.  Doors open at 10:30 am and the rally will begin shortly after at 11:00 am.  If you would like to join us earlier we will have volunteers standing outside the rally with signs at 10:00 am.

Please click this link for further details and to RSVP.

Let Alexander Ingram know if you have any questions.  His number is (978) 810-1950.

Thanks

Regards  —  Cliff

pro bono publico

For John, BLUF:  Liz Warren has done outside work while at Harvard, but no public record shows she has done legal work for free for those who can't afford a lawyer.  This seems OOC,♠ thus newsworthy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson has been picking on Harvard Law Professor (and US Senate Candidate) Elizabeth Warren.  Yesterday he asked, "Has Elizabeth Warren ever done pro bono litigation?"

Professor Jacobson says he has tracked down 22 cases where Ms Warren has done work for large corporations, but none where she has done pro bono♥ work for indigents.

Wouldn't you think that someone who is so concerned for the rest of us, so concerned that the system is rigged against the less fortunate, would be doing a little free work on the side to help the less well off?  I like to think she has been a mole inside the corrupt corporate world, a sort of Herbert Philbrick, working on behalf of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Out of character.
♥  The term pro bono [publico] is used to describe, in the US, professional services providing voluntarily and for free (or near free) to those who can't otherwise afford such services.

Parking Data

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

I am parking the number "4000" here for a while.

Feel free to talk about anything you wish to in the Comments.

Regards  —  Cliff

-1 T1 M 0

A View of Prof E Warren

For John, BLUF:  Prof Elizabeth Warren is a bureaucratic scold.  Nothing to see; just move along.

I have my own reasons for favoring Senator Scott Brown over Law Professor Elizabeth Warren in the Massachusetts Senate race.  But, here is George Mason University Law Professor Michael S. Greve, who thinks a good reason to be against Ms Warren is because she is a nag.  Not in a small, family, sort of way, but in a big, Federal, bureaucratic way.

What he [Scott Brown] hasn’t said and probably won’t say:  she is a nag.  A scold.  An ideologue.  An advocate of a nanny state beyond a Swedish socialist’s wildest imagination.  A bureaucratic Bruegel who paints an America of victims—pathetic figures in a landscape of unremitting hostility.  Also, Professor Warren is an economic idiot.

That last was a bit harsh.

He does provide examples.

Regards  —  Cliff

It's About The Networking

A post by the InstaPundit sent me doing an Internet search for the take of The Boston Globe on a supposed cheating issue at Harvard, down county, in Cambridge.  The blog Inside Higher Education has a post at 3:00 PM, to be found here.  This is serious stuff.  I lost a roommate early one semester when he cheated off a classmate.  I think it was Chemistry, so we were Third Classmen (Sophomores).  When our Honor Rep debriefed us he said it wasn't clear at first who did it.  The innocent party graduated and went to the F-4 in the UK.  He was flying in the Wing Commander's back seat when the plane went out of control on the bombing range and he recovered it.  He got a chance to "upgrade" to the front seat and rotated into DaNang about the time I left for Germany.  Abut three months later (early 1967) he was shot down over North Viet-Nam and was stuck there until early 1973.  In a way, ironic.

As for those at Harvard, their fate is still unknown.  A slap on the wrist?  For Edward Kennedy it was a hitch in the Army, stationed in Europe.

But, is cheating that wrong?  Another of my roommates at the Air Force Academy, later an Economics PhD from Princeton, believes if a person turns himself or resurface in they might actually be more honest than someone who was never "tested".

Cheating Is:
	Always wrong
	Generally wrong, but engaged in
	Part of going to college
	Practiced only by lower types
	OK, because "the system is rigged"
	Pervasive
pollcode.com free polls

Regards  —  Cliff

Pushing the Camera

I remember, when I first arrived in Lowell an exchange of letters with a Globe columnist, who had disparaged the movie Primary Colors.  I had said the opening night show my wife and I attended was so crowded a couple on their first date could not sit together.♠  He noted that in Lowell "Politics is a blood sport".

Along that theme is this item in The Weekly Standard.  I sure hope the Scott Brown crew has been talked to so they don't do the same infantile thing.  Then, the article reaches back to last time and AG Martha Coakley.  Fortunately the Coakley staff incident was out of state.

The local CBS Affiliate reported this incident, but then, in a "fair and balanced"♥ way, reports a previous incident by the Brown Campaign.

The one good thing is that this shows at least one person, the "cab" driver, is excited about the campaign.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, we did offer our seats, but they declined.
♥  Do you think that is Trademarked or Copyrighted?

Mass Senate Race Poll

Do you know the PPP outfit?  I don't.  At any rate, here is Blogger Ed Morrissey's take on the most recent poll, which shows the Senator up by 5 points.

The bad news?  Brown didn’t build that lead all by himself[.]

Here are the details of the poll.

Regards  —  Cliff

Freud Says "You Didn't Build That"

Over at the New York Times this last Sunday was an article by Professor Firmin DeBrabander, titled "Deluded Individualism".  Referring to Sigmund Freud, he says:

By Freud’s account, conscious autonomy is a charade.  “We are lived,” as he puts it, and yet we don’t see it as such.  Indeed, Freud suggests that to be human is to rebel against that vision — the truth.  We tend to see ourselves as self-determining, self-conscious agents in all that we decide and do, and we cling to that image.  But why?  Why do we resist the truth?  Why do we wish — strain, strive, against the grain of reality — to be autonomous individuals, and see ourselves as such?

Perhaps Freud is too cynical regarding conscious autonomy, but he is right to question our presumption to it.  He is right to suggest that we typically — wrongly — ignore the extent to which we are determined by unknown forces, and overestimate our self-control.  The path to happiness for Freud, or some semblance of it in his stormy account of the psyche, involves accepting our basic condition.  But why do we presume individual agency in the first place? Why do we insist on it stubbornly, irrationally, often recklessly?

There you have it.  Per the Professor you really didn't build that yourself.  You are, in the words of Richard Dawkins, the product of "knobs and tuning" (inheritance and environment).  Going back to the article,

One might say there is something profoundly American in this.  It's our fierce individualism shining through.  But, the truth is, we can hardly fathom the depth of our dependence on government, and pretend we are bold individualists instead.

(Note that this is from the article in the print edition—the link is to the on-line version.  Read the whole thing, since fair use doesn't allow me to cover all the argument through quotes.)

At any rate, doesn't this approach sort of make a mockery of the whole election thing?

On the other hand, I believe our delusion of rugged individualism is much preferable to the concept that those who don't go along with the current majority fad are introduced to Madame Guillotine.  For one thing, when the power shifts within the controlling elite the appetite of Madame Guillotine changes and a whole new group of people are introduced.

But, before I close this out, one of my sons sent me a Washington Post item where the author said his success was a partnership with the government.  The author, Mr James C. Roumell, praises the Government help that allowed him to get educated and to start his own business, and says without it he would not have succeeded.

I get Mr Roumell's point.  Almost all of us have benefited from the actions of government at every level, from lead paint abatement to Pell Grants to national defense.  The question is, should we emphasize that side of the discussion by denigrating the other side—the contribution of the individual to his or her own success.  I say no.  But, further, I say we do need a discussion of those Government interventions in terms of their effectiveness.  Taking Senator Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island, as an example, is it correlation or causation that the cost of a college education has skyrocketed since the introduction of Pell Grants?  Is it possible that we are no better off now than in 1972 in terms of college financial issues?

Some would cut this discussion off, but it is a discussion worth having.  It is a discussion that goes to the heart of our democracy.  Not all democracies are the same.

Regards  —  Cliff

If Joe Goes

Over at the Bookworm Room There is some discussion of Dark Horses in the event Vice President Joe Biden takes a dive.  The Bookworm is going with Prof Elizabeth Warren.  It makes some sense.  Here is the key paragraph:

The only “young” gun they’ve got is Elizabeth Warren.   She’s struggling to stay above water in Massachusetts, but Democrats might see her as someone who can revive the base if she’s on the presidential ticket.   After all, when it comes to “You didn’t build that,” she and Obama are two minds with but a single thought.   Better an exciting candidate on the presidential ticket than a struggling candidate for a senate seat that’s already filled by a fairly popular, attractive RINO.

But, if this is the likely scenario, who runs against Senator Scott Brown, and how does he or she get selected?  I am going with Governor Deval Patrick if the majority in the General Court have really set their faces like flint.♠  The other possibility is State Senate President Therese Murray.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Isaiah, 50:7.

Individual Freedom v Social Provision?

In the recent book, American Empire:  The Rise of a Global Power, the Democratic Revolution at Home 1945-2000, by Queens College Professor Joshua Freeman, we have this paragraph:

Beyond its rejection of universalism, the GI bill departed from the New Deal in its stress on individual benefits and individual mobility.  The New Deal provided many of its benefits through government institutions that directly hired people, housed them, educated and entertained them.  The GI Bill took a different tack, giving funds to individuals to shop for education, housing, employment, and business opportunities in the private market.  (Health care came directly from the government through Veterans Administration hospitals and clinics.)  In promoting its bill, the American Legion used the language of individual freedom, not social provision.  Some of the strongest congressional support for the measure came from conservative critics of the New Deal.

I wonder if, in his reference to conservative critics he was referring to our own late Congresswoman, Edith Norse Rogers, for she is known for her support of the GI bill.

So, the author draws what I take to be an Elizabeth Warren like distinction between the view of the individual and the view of the collective good.  I think Professor Freeman comes down on the side of Professor Warren.  Is this a theme, a thread, within the Democratic Party?  Have they gone over from the view of the value of hard work by the individual to a more "European" like view?  The author does put it starkly, "the language of individual freedom, not social provision."  I would like to not be taken as wishing to ignore the poor, the homeless and those who just can't become part of the system of employment.  I do believe, however, that all workers benefit when individuals are best able to maximize their contributions to the nation as a whole.  (And why the swipe at mobility?  In a book I will be reviewing in this blog, The New Geography of Jobs, that author notes the importance of mobility in avoiding pockets of poverty and even asks if the Federal Government should be providing payments to the unemployed to support movement.)

Can we not have social provision without destroying individual freedom?  Once individual freedom is gone it might be very hard to get it back.

Regards  —  Cliff

Corporate Taxes—A Hunk of That

Earlier in this month the Scott Brown campaign sent out a digital flyer with this assertion:

Harvard's Elizabeth Warren is not only the self-proclaimed "intellectual founder" of the Occupy protest movement, she's also the originator of the idea that no one got successful on their own.

Professor Warren's view is that government is responsible for helping to build your business.  Because of that, Warren says government is entitled to, as she put it, "a hunk" of whatever you built.

It's how she justifies raising taxes in order to fuel her idea of a bigger and bigger government.

One of the things that occurs to me is that corporate taxes, which burden small businesses more than large, are really pass-through taxes, which are ultimately paid by the customer, and if not by the consumer, then as a penalty to the stock holders, as the customers rebel against price increases.

Regards  —  Cliff

Registering Welfare Recipients

Inside baseball, taxpayer funded, boondoggle, reported at Legal Insurrection.

Mentioned as exposing who was involved in this was Rob Eno.  Didn't he used to be a member of the LRCC?

I would like to be straight here.  I would rather lose an election than see legitimate voters not registered.  On the other hand, legitimate voters should show some interest in being registered.  Same on voting itself.  To paraphrase H L Mencken,

Progressivism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy just the way they are.♠

But, then, he also said:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

He was such a cynic.

It is not that a crime has been committed, but that the limits to which the campaign is willing to go may not exist.  I find that to usually be dangerous.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I am not as cynical as H L Mencken, quoted above, or John Steele Gordon, quoted at InstaPundit, who wrote recently:  "Implicit in all of these revelations, of course, is the firmest, if never directly expressed, belief of the Left:  That the average person is too stupid to run his own life, let alone make public policy decisions.  Those few, those happy few, that band of liberal intellectuals, must do that for them."  I give you What's The Matter With Kansas?

Release of Tax Returns—Mass Senate Race Version

On Monday Law Professor Elizabeth Warren asked that Senator Scott Brown release 20 years of tax returns (he has already released six years).  Ms Warren has released four.

Here is the Boston Globe version of the story, which isn't much different from the one at Hot Air.

Regards  —  Cliff

One Wonders

When I hear Professor Elizabeth Warren talk about "you didn't build that", I wonder if what we are hearing is echoes of stories from her Aunts and Uncles who left Oklahoma and went to California in the 1930s and 1940s, the people who helped make Southern California the thriving place it was in those and following decades?  From my time in LA and Orange Counties, it the 1940s, 50s and 60s, and into the 70s, the State of California was staying ahead of the curve in terms of infrastructure and education.  For example, I recall my Father complaining about the cost of education at what is now Cal State University, Long Beach.  He was complaining about $100 for my two Brothers.  Even allowing for inflation from the 1970s that is pretty cheap.  California, and especially Southern California, built highways—freeways—to stay ahead of the traffic, based on the idea that people should be enabled to move around and conduct their business.  And then it ended.

Part of the reason it ended was taxes and the move to cap property tax (sort of like our "two and a half" limit here in Massachusetts).  The other was the idea that urban sprawl and all that was bad; bad for the environment, morally bad, a blight upon a "living" nature.  This attitude was best captured for me by a letter to The Boston Globe, where the writer said, of fixing the interchange at I-93 and I-95 at Woburn, that if we fixed it it would just encourage more drivers to use it.  OK.  That is a "I've got mine, Jack" attitude.  I will skip my tirade against "Limo Liberals" at this point.

So, perhaps Professor Warren remembers older relative, back in Oklahoma for a visit from their homes in Long Beach and Compton and Pasadena, bragging about the infrastructure that made 1960s Southern California what it was.  A sort of "you build it and they will come."  I support that view.  It is something that one can see in Northern Virginia today.  It is not something I see much of here in our corner of the nation.

But, it is the way she puts it.  One thing that existed in Southern California in the day was the celebration of individuals and what they accomplished.  Gene Autry, born in Oklahoma, was an example.  He took his talents and made movies and TV shows and records.  He learned to fly and became an Army Air Force Flight Officer and flew the Hump during World War II.  He gave LA a baseball team during one of the expansions.  His success was celebrated by five stars on the Hollywood Walk.  His individual contributions were celebrated in other ways.  An individual.  Yes, the Nation works because the system allows the actions of individuals to be integrated into a dynamic whole.  But, we celebrate the individual and his or her role because we know we need that performance and we know we need to celebrate it.  It is the American way.

Regards  —  Cliff

Moral Deserts

Wikipedia gives us a discussion of Desert, here, and then this little bit:

One of the most controversial rejections of the concept of desert was made by the political philosopher John Rawls.  Rawls, writing in the mid to late twentieth century, claimed that a person cannot claim credit for being born with greater natural endowments (such as superior intelligence or athletic abilities), as it is purely the result of the 'natural lottery'.  Therefore, that person does not morally deserve the fruits of his or her talents and/or efforts, such as a good job or a high salary.  However, Rawls was careful to explain that, even though he dismissed the concept of moral Desert, people can still legitimately expect to receive the benefits of their efforts and/or talents.  The distinction here lies between Desert and, in Rawls' own words, 'Legitimate Expectations'.

Part of this sounds oddly familiar.

At any rate, over at The Right Coast Law Professor Tom Smith looks at the Roanoke Speech and gives us "Nirvana fallacy and you didn't build that".

Regards  —  Cliff