Time is Running Out

For John, BLUF:  Actually, cumulate change is serious business and we should be putting in place hedges.  On the other hand, we shouldn't destroy the economy, and the nation, doing it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I liked this Tweet from Ms Emily Zarotti, yesterday.

Here is the lede plus five:

Only 11 years, 10 months to get this under control, guys. https://t.co/ymKc0ByM4M

— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) February 28, 2019

I worry about how the coming ice age is going to impact us if Congress does nothing?

Avoiding the Woody Allen quote, let's go with:

The world is run by those who show up

Regards  —  Cliff

The Draft For All

For John, BLUF:  It is time to have this discussion.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

With women in combat roles, a federal court rules the male-only draft unconstitutional

From USA Today, by Mr Gregory Korte, 24 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

A federal judge in Texas has declared that the all-male military draft is unconstitutional, ruling that "the time has passed" for a debate on whether women belong in the military.

The decision deals the biggest legal blow to the Selective Service System since the Supreme Court upheld the draft in 1981.  In Rostker v. Goldberg, the court ruled that the male-only draft was "fully justified" because women were ineligible for combat roles.

But U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ruled late Friday that while historical restrictions on women serving in combat "may have justified past discrimination," men and women are now equally able to fight.  In 2015, the Pentagon lifted all restrictions for women in military service.

The issue not addressed is that of pregnancy.  In time of war it is important to not allow the continued growth of the population to fall off.  Bearing children is a risky enterprise and require a long term investment.  As we bring women into the draft (conscription) we must also make allowance for that duty that only women can fulfill, giving birth.

Regards  —  Cliff

Abortion Loosening in Vermont

For John, BLUF:  Vermont is, in my humble opinion, heading in the wrong direction.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Vermont bishop:  Abortion bill tests limits of human brokenness

From The [Boston] Pilot, by the Catholic News Agency Staff, 22 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus five:

Burlington, Vt., Feb 22, 2019 CNA.- With a bill to legalize abortion for any reason until birth advancing in Vermont, the local Catholic bishop has stressed that defending unborn babies is a matter of human rights.

“Do we really want to allow this? Do we really want to test the limits of where human brokenness can take us?  Please God, no,” Bishop Christopher Coyne of Burlington said in a Feb. 15 statement.

Coyne cited his previous comments from January, saying the bill goes beyond Roe v. Wade and “does not recognize a viable life at any stage of pregnancy.”

“This bill will legalize infanticide.  This is wrong,” he said.

The Vermont House of Representatives passed H. 57, called the “The Freedom of Choice Act,” on Feb. 21 by a vote of 106-36.

The bill had at least 90 co-sponsors in the House and has strong support in the state Senate.  It claims to “safeguard the right to abortion” by ensuring it is not “denied, restricted, or infringed.”  It bars the prosecution of “any individual” who performs or attempts to perform an abortion.

With regard to abortion this has to be about educating Mothers.  Educating them as to the fact that they are carrying an individual life.  Educating them as to what options are available to them if they feel they don't wish to raise a child.

Bigger than the narrow abortion issue is the one of judging that there is life unworthy of life.  If this idea gains ground it will not be held narrowly to the issue of abortion but will become a broader issue with regard to children and adults, to include the elderly.nbsp; Some will speak of quality of life, which is a cover for saying that some humans are disposable.  This is something we need to resist, lest we become like Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and other nations, such as Cambodia under Pol Pot or China during the great leap forward.

Regards  —  Cliff

Dealing With The nKorean Threat

For John, BLUF:  Mr William Aikin is not a known "Right Wing" crank.  On the other hand, as a "defense analyst" he has been known to question the conventional wisdom.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Say what you will about Trump, but his tactics on North Korea are working

Here is the sub-headline:

US officials warn of a president who is a dangerous wildcard, but Trump should be supported in his denuclearization plan

From The Guardian, Analyst William M Arkin, 25 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

When Donald Trump sits down with Kim Jong-un in Hanoi this week to further discuss eliminating North Korea’s nuclear capability, there are lots of reasons to doubt that the American president can pull it off.

Yet denuclearization is exactly the right goal and the president should be cheered on to succeed.

And yet, ever since the president announced last year that he would pursue “complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean peninsula”, jeering has been the near universal response.&Nbsp; It’s come from almost every imaginable American quarter: Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, expert and amateur.

Former president Barack Obama’s CIA director John Brennan has been the most vociferous, saying that a president “prone to flattery” and oblivious to North Korea’s “agile feint” has taken Kim’s “bait”, canceling exercises and contemplating reductions of forces.  Meanwhile, the news media is filled with leaks and speculation that North Korea clandestinely continues to manufacture nuclear materials and work on long-range missiles.  Ahead of the meeting, US officials promise that troop withdrawals from the Korean peninsula won’t happen, more of a hope as to the actual agenda, given the portrayal of Trump as a dangerous wildcard.

The picture painted is of an unmanageable patriarch who desires to give away the family fortune.  That family fortune of course is in the possession of the national security establishment.  On North Korea, but not only with regard to Korea – look also at Syria and Afghanistan – expert Washington is the master at adhering to their own preferred solutions.  Their passive-aggressive ways – whether applied to Trump on Korea or Obama on issues like Guantánamo and general nuclear disarmament – perpetuate stagnancy, any real change stymied through the imposition of conditions that are never quite achievable.

Yes, North Korea still has nuclear weapons.  But, we are talking and there have been no recent tests.  I judge the new normal to be better than the old normal.  As for Chairman Kim's belief that if he gives up his nuclear weapons he makes his position less secure, we can thank then Secretary of State Clinton.

Regards  —  Cliff

Amazon and Taxes

For John, BLUF:  In cases like this it is usually beneficial to dig a little deeper.  Tax policies are usually structured to drive certain behaviors, like corporate investment.  Put another way, taxes are not so much about raising money as they are about shaping human behavior.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Why Does Amazon Pay $0 in Federal Income Taxes?

Here is the sub-headline:

There's a reason Amazon as a corporate entity usually escapes income taxes.

From FEE, by Prof Tyler Cowen, 20 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

The main reason Amazon as a corporate entity does not pay much in taxes is because the company so vigorously reinvests its profit.  The resulting expensing provisions lower their tax liabilities, in some cases down to zero or near-zero.

That is, in fact, the kind of incentive our tax system is supposed to create, and does so only imperfectly, noting that many economists have suggested moving to full expensing.

I am thinking reinvestment creates jobs, at least temporarily, as buildings are built and equipment purchased.  And later people are hired to work in those buildings, to operate that machinery.

A little bit later the article makes this point:

Amazon pays plenty in terms of payroll taxes and also state and local taxes.  Nor should you forget the taxes paid by Amazon’s employees on their wages.  Not only is that direct revenue to various levels of government, but the incidence of those taxes falls somewhat on Amazon, which now must pay higher wages to offset the tax burden faced by their employees.

I am glad there are people, like Mr Jeff Bazos, out there creating jobs.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Being Strong, Moving Forward

For John, BLUF:  We should be celebrating those who overcame their victimization.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What the Jussie Smollett Story Reveals

Here is the sub-headline:

It shows a peculiar aspect of 21st-century America: victimhood chic.

From The Atlantic, by Professor John McWhorter, 20 February 2019.

Here are the final two paragraphs:

But that’s just it—Smollett, if the latest reporting is true, was an eager puppy, jumping with joyous inattention into American social politics as he has encountered it coming of age in the 21st century. He would have known that in this moment, very important people would find him more interesting for having been hurt on the basis of his identity than for his fine performance on an interesting hit television show. He would have known this so well that it didn’t even occur to him that his story would have to be more credible than the dopey one he threw together about being jumped in near-Arctic temperatures by the only two white bullies in America with a mysterious fondness for a black soap hip-hopera. (Yet again, I’m assuming the latest reporting is accurate.)

Only in an America in which matters of race are not as utterly irredeemable as we are often told could things get to the point that someone would pretend to be tortured in this way, acting oppression rather than suffering it, seeking to play a prophet out of a sense that playing a singer on television is not as glamorous as getting beaten up by white guys. That anyone could feel this way and act on it in the public sphere is, in a twisted way, a kind of privilege, and a sign that we have come further on race than we are often comfortable admitting.

People are looking for solutions, not victimhood.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Digging a Hole for the Future

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I suggest covering up statues and paintings of past events is unhelpful for learning about who we are.

For John, BLUF:  If you don't know how you got here, how can you know which direction to take into the future?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Will history survive?

Here is the sub-headline:

The ongoing monument controversy shows the susceptibility of ‘liberating tolerance’ to fanaticism

From The Spectator, by Dr Roger Kimball, 18 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

The news that the University of Notre Dame, responding to complaints by some students, would ‘shroud’ its 12 134-year-old murals depicting Christopher Columbus was disappointing.  It was not surprising, however, to anyone who has been paying attention to the widespread attack on America’s past wherever social justice warriors congregate.

Notre Dame may not be particularly friendly to its Catholic heritage, but its president, the Rev. John Jenkins, demonstrated that it remains true to its jesuitical (if not, quite, its Jesuit) inheritance.  Queried about the censorship, he said, apparently without irony, that his decision to cover the murals was not intended to conceal anything, but rather to tell ‘the full story’ of Columbus’s activities.

Welcome to the new Orwellian world where censorship is free speech and we respect the past by attempting to elide it.

Over the past several years, we have seen a rising tide of assaults on statues and other works of art representing our nation’s history by those who are eager to squeeze that complex story into a box defined by the evolving rules of political correctness.  We might call this the ‘monument controversy,’ and what happened at Notre Dame is a case in point:  a vocal minority, claiming victim status, demands the destruction, removal, or concealment of some object of which they disapprove.  Usually, the official response is instant capitulation.

As the French writer Charles Péguy once observed, ‘It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.’  Consider the frequent demands to remove statues of Confederate war heroes from public spaces because their presence is said to be racist.  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, has recently had statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed from a public gallery.  In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio has set up a committee to review ‘all symbols of hate on city property.’

A hundred and fifty years from now, when we are generally in agreement that late term abortions are, in fact, infanticide, will we be tearing down or covering up the statues of President Obama and Senator Clinton and chiseling out of plaques the names of various Senators and House Speakers?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff