Understanding Liberalism and Its Purpose

For John, BLUF:  Liberalism is not about Progressive ideas, but about an agreement to give deference to the ideas of others, without giving up one's own.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A Machine for Preventing Civil War

From the Blog Chicago Boyz, by Blogger David Foster, 12 March 2021.

Here is the lede plus two:

People talk about “liberalism” as if it’s just another word for capitalism, or libertarianism, or vague center-left-Democratic Clintonism. Liberalism is none of these things.  Liberalism is a technology for preventing civil war.  It was forged in the fires of Hell – the horrors of the endless seventeenth century religious wars.  For a hundred years, Europe tore itself apart in some of the most brutal ways imaginable – until finally, from the burning wreckage, we drew forth this amazing piece of alien machinery.  A machine that, when tuned just right, let people live together peacefully without doing the “kill people for being Protestant” thing.  Popular historical strategies for dealing with differences have included:  brutally enforced conformity, brutally efficient genocide, and making sure to keep the alien machine tuned really really carefully.

Very insightful and correct, I believe, if by liberalism one means free speech, freedom of religion, and limited government, rather than the cluster of ‘progressive’ believe that often fly under the ‘liberalism’ brand today.

And when the above attributes of a society do not exist or are eroded, then live-and-let live become difficult to impossible, and all questions become politicized, because political outcomes determine everything.

This is why I call myself a Liberal, but note I am not a Progressive, as it is understood today.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Queue Jumpers

For John, BLUF:  One of the things I find wrong about illegal immigatoin is the queue jumping nature of it.  Many people come to this nation the regular way, following the rules.  It takes time.  Then there are those who ignore the rules and just come in.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Panama:  The Air Rifleman

Here is the sub-headline:

This is a no-edit mind-dump.  Thank you for not grading my grammar.u

From Reporter Michael Yon, 14 March 2021, 10:34 AM.

Here are two key paragraphs:

Down in Colombia, before we flew to Panama this week, we just saw people from all over Africa, Asia, and South America, entering the jungle at Darien Gap to trek here to Panama, and then north to America.  We already met two farmers here — Sebastian and his wife — who said they both have tuberculosis.

None of these people are being tested for anything.  They might come straight from jungles of Congo or India, or from China, through South America, and finally into El Paso.  No tests.  They might not even have passports.

Mr Yon estimates there are 2.5 million folks queued up for this year, with another 2.5 million likely to come next year.  That is a lot of people.

It makes me wonder about the unfairness of it all.  These folks just march north, hoping to come across the border and then be released into the United States, to get jobs and raise families, eventually becoming Americans, or at least their children.

When I reflect back on my time in the Philippines, I remember going into the US Embassy, on the water, and seeing a long line of Philippinos clutching their paper folders with their chest X-Rays, as part of their process of applying to come to the United States.  This was back in about 1981 or 2.  Who would have more of a right to come to the United States than the residents of the Philippines?  They were our coloney for almost 50 years.  They served in the US Navy and their soldiers helped us fight World war II.  Yet, they have to prove themselves worthy of coming here, while illegal immigrants get a pass.

It somehow seems to lack equity.

Regards  —  Cliff

Climate Change, Looking Back

For John, BLUF:  Climate change is like evolution itself, inevitable.  I am not sure it will be as rapid as some promise, absent a major event, such as the poles switching or an asteroid impact.  Forget the scientists.  What do the engineers say?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Nolte:  NY Times Spread Fake News that East Coast Beaches Would Be ‘Gone’ by 2020

From Breitbart, by Reporter John Nolte, 12 March 2021.

Here is the lede plus four:

“[M]ost of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years,” the fake New York Times told the world 25 years ago, all the way back in 1995.

Fact check: It’s 2021 and America’s East Coast beaches are doing just fine!

Here’s the relevant portion from the original Times’ article:

A continuing rise in average global sea level, which is likely to amount to more than a foot and a half by the year 2100.  This, say the scientists, would inundate parts of many heavily populated river deltas and the cities on them, making them uninhabitable, and would destroy many beaches around the world. At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East Coast of the United States would be gone in 25 years.  They are already disappearing at an average of 2 to 3 feet a year.

The date of the article is September 18, 1995.  The headline reads, “Scientists Say Earth’s Warming Could Set Off Wide Disruptions.”

I have a Bachelor of Science degree.  I like science.  I like to follow science.  However, not everyone is a scientist.  Some are propogandists.

There is climate change.  At some point it will get colder and at some point it will get warmer.  Examining the artifacts of the past shows that.

It appears to me that we need an engineering approach to climate change.  An engineering approach that is based on the idea that while world populationj will likely peak below the worse expectations, we are unlikely to arbitrarily bump off a couple of billion folks.  We need to avoid pie in the sky hopes and look at what we can do.  And, we need to avoid extremist views, like that from 25 years ago that all the beaches on the East Coast were going away in 25 years.

And yet, New York Times star science reporter, Mr Donald McNeil, exits over "racist remarks", not science reporting.  He didn't actually use the terms in a racist manner, but as a way of giving full context to what he was relating.  I wish he had gone over the Chimate Change coverage of the New York Times.

Regards  —  Cliff

On The Wrong Path

For John, BLUF:  I don't think we can end gun violence going down the path laid out by the Democratic Majority in Congress.  Not all paths lead to success.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Together, we can end gun violence.

From Congresswoman Lori Trahan, 13 March 2021, 9:01 AM.

Here is the lede plus one:

I normally try not to clog your inbox with multiple emails in the same week, but this is too important to wait.

Each year, tens of thousands of people in the United States -- including thousands of children -- lose their lives to senseless and preventable gun violence.  As an American, this sickens me.  As a mom, it infuriates me.

On Thursday, I took action.  The House took up and passed two key pieces of legislation to get at the root cause of the gun violence epidemic in our nation.  These bipartisan bills would require universal background checks on all gun purchases and finally close the “Charleston Loophole,” which allows guns to wrongly be sold to violent offenders and domestic abusers.

I applaud our Congresswoman, Ms Lori Trahan, for trying to do the right thing.

I fear, however, she and her colleagues are looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope.  Over half our gun deaths are suicides.  Yet we do not lead the world in suicides.  We are middling.  Yes, many of our suicides are from guns.  That said, I don't think a lack of guns will reduce suicides.  Other nations, with stricter gun laws, have more suicides.  When people wish to commit suicide, and our mental health support is weak,♠ they will find a way.

As to the smaller proportion of gun deaths, from Wikipedia we have:

Gun violence against other persons is most common in poor urban areas and is frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males.

So, it isn't evenly spread across the nation, but is concentrated in pockets.  To me that suggests there are factors other than, or in addition to, the availability of guns.  Further, the gun of death is not the rifle,♥ but the handgun.

So gun violence seems focused in poor urban areas.  What impact would a 3% change in the Labor Participation Rate have on this?  I think noticeable. We need change.  We need some creative thinking.  Congresswoman Trahan should hire an analytic contrarian.

On the other hand, it probably wont be me.  I am a creative thinker,♦ but I am older and I am a Republican.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Our mental health system is not good.  The reason is that when problems of the old system were exposed in court, the state (and Federal) governments just abandoned the mentally ill to their fate.
♥  This suggests that the vaunted ban on 206 "assult weapons" is not the key to stopping gun violence.
♦  In Elementary School my teacher wrote on my Report Card that I was a "Critical Thinker".  My Mother told me the techer probbly meant "Critical Stinker."

Democrats Set To Overturn The Voters' Choice

For John, BLUF:  It isn't enough to win.  One must win convincingly.  That is, convincingly enough that an overturn in Congress would draw ridicule and sarcasm and an uproar in the press and the home district.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

From The Epoch Times, by Reporter Jack Phillips, March 2021 Updated: March 12, 2021.

Here is the lede plus four:

The Democrat-run House of Representatives is open to overturning a tight Republican victory in an Iowa Congressional district, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) defeated Democrat Rita Hart by six votes during the Nov. 3 election.  When asked about a scenario in which Democrats would unseat Miller-Meeks, Pelosi said it was a “hypothetical” situation but later said it’s possible that it could happen.

“Well, I respect the work of the committee,” she told reporters in her weekly press conference.  “I did see, as you saw in the press, what they decided to—and they were following my, as I read it, the requirements of the law as to how you go forward.  And how you go forward is the path you’re on and we’ll see where that takes us.  But there could be a scenario to that extent.  Yes.”

It came after the House Committee on House Administration dismissed a motion filed by Miller-Meeks to dismiss Hart’s election contest.

“The margin separating the two candidates was only six votes out of almost 400,000 cast: less than 1/6 of 1 percent.  That’s six votes—not 6,000; not 600; not 60 or even 16—just six fewer votes than we have members of this committee,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the head of the committee, told the panel’s members.  She added:  “It should not be surprising that any candidate in these circumstances—with a margin this close—would seek to exercise their rights under the law to contest the results.”

We could call it the Majority Enrichment Law.  If your party is in the majority they are likely to vote in your favor, and if not, then it is unfortunate.

It reminds me of the Groucho Marx comment:  "I have principles.  If you don't like them, I have other principles."

Regards  —  Cliff

ID To Get Your Jab in DC

For John, BLUF:  Is it just hypocrisy, or is it that voting is just not that important?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Oh, Now You Have to Show ID

From National Review, by Writer Dan McLaughlin, 12 March 2021, 11:08 AM.

Here is the lede plus two:

NBC 4 in Washington, D.C., reports that the District is concerned that too many people getting the vaccine in DC are not residents, so it’s going to do something about that.

As the District launched its new system to register for a COVID-19 vaccine this week, it also announced major changes to help ensure more doses go to people who actually live there.  ”The essential worker burden for vaccinations in the District is disproportionately high [compared] to any other jurisdiction,” said Dr. LaQuandra Nesbitt, head of DC Health.  Going forward, the District will prioritize 90% of its appointments for eligible residents only.  In its new registration portal, D.C. said essential workers should bring verification like a work ID badge, letter from employer or paystub.  ”One of the ways that we have to ensure that we are not vaccinating residents from other jurisdictions who don’t actually have an essential job in the District of Columbia is to ask for some type of proof for that,” Nesbitt said.

Identification to prove that people are in the right jurisdiction?  Funny how this works, when a liberal government is trying to control something it actually cares about.  This comes just as congressional Democrats are trying to abolish state voter-identification requirements for in-person and absentee voting and progressives are calling it racist voter suppression to ask voters to cast ballots in their own precinct.  We are endlessly told that asking for ID scares people away just as surely as turning fire hoses on them.  What if it turns out that this is actually just a routine way for government to verify that it is dealing with people who are entitled to what they are trying to do?

Law Professor Glenn Reynolds commented:  "I.D. ISN’T RACIST WHEN IT’S FOR SOMETHING DEMOCRATS WANT."

For me it is sad that we don't, like say the Europeans, expect people to show an identificatoin to vote.  Is this part of American Exceptionalism?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Portland Evovling

For John, BLUF:  The Police "kettled" the protestors (read ANTIFA), which means placing a police cordon around a group of demonstrators.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Police detain more than 100 Portland protesters in apparent kettling

From Oregon Live, by Reporter Jayati Ramakrishnan, 13 March 2021, 12:11 AM.

Here is the lede plus three:

Portland police detained a crowd of over 100 protesters during a Friday night demonstration, stemming a march only minutes after it began.

The mass detainment was an apparent use of kettling, a police tactic of surrounding a crowd and containing people within a perimeter.  Police told the crowd they were detaining everyone within the boundary for the “investigation of a crime” but did not specify the nature of the alleged crime.

Demonstrators initially gathered in the Pearl District about 8:30 p.m. and started marching roughly a half-hour later.  Police threatened to arrest protesters minutes after the march started, saying those walking in the street were blocking traffic and would be subject to arrest, citation or crowd control munitions if they didn’t move.

Police announced about 9:20 p.m. they were setting up a perimeter around the group and detaining everyone.  Police said the detention was “temporary” and that they would remove demonstrators “one at a time.”

And here is the view from Breitbart:

Portland Police Bureau officers surrounded and temporarily detained about 100 Antifa protesters after they vandalized multiple businesses in the Pearl District.  Police identified and photographed all of the protesters, and some journalists, and placed 13 people under arrest.

Portland police report a group of people began marching in the street and blocking traffic at about 9 p.m. on Friday, according to a statement from police officials.  Officials advised the protesters to get out of the open roadway.  The group refused to comply and began marching down the roadway.

The Breitbart article makes it sound like the Portland Policer Bureau has decided to take back its City.  If you look at Reporter Michael Yon's post on the issue, 13 arrested.  There are reports of attacks on a Federal Court House.  Is the Department of Justice protecting our Federal Judges?

Meanwhile, Thursday, The Oregonian reported:

Mayor Ted Wheeler seeks $2 million to bring back uniformed police team to address spike in shootings

A funny thing about resources is they only go so far.  Protection of the People♠ is why folks pay taxes to their local government.  If the People can't enjoy their life, then the point of paying taxes is lost.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  There is the theory that the Police are there to protect the perps from a vengeful Citizenry.  I would not dismiss that too lightly.