Trump of the Union

President Trump addressed both houses of Congress, several members of the Supreme Court, and assorted others.  In his speech, he outlined the goals for his presidency.  Some of his goals, I liked.  Repeal the Affordable Care Act, allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, enforce the immigration laws, put the interests of American citizens before those of non-Americans, reduce the administrative state by repealing two regulations for every new one added, tax reform, and sundry other items.  He also offered some things I don't like.  An infrastructure plan bigger than Obama's stimulus from 2009, replacing the Affordable Care Act with some Republican version of government overreach, protectionism, and so forth.  On the one hand, we need to get government out of the way so the people can innovate and on the other hand we need the government to solve your problems.

Trump's speech sought to engage the heart rather than the mind.  He would offer a rationale for his policy preference and then trigger the emotions with an appropriate guest.  The multiple guests who provided concrete evidence for his claims was effective for stirring the emotions he sought.  It is far easier to groan and shake one's head about criminal illegal immigrants when an actual victim of such is not present.  At times, it felt more like a speech a Democrat would give.  It was funny to see Bernie Sanders clap when Trump argued that it should be difficult for companies to leave the United States.  However, like Obama with Bush, Trump blamed his predecessor for whatever ails the country.  Sigh.

 

It was a better speech than his Inaugural Address.  Though he had the digs against Obama, he repeatedly called for unity and offered a number of issues that the Democrats could support.  Though the speech likely reads as well or better than most such speeches, Trump does not have the oratorical talents of President Obama.  Just listening to the tone and rhythm, Obama is like music and Trump is like construction foreman trying to talk over the jackhammer in the background.

 

The Democratic rebuttal was weak.  Governor Beshear rebutted a speech that wasn't given.  As a stand-alone speech, it works okay but it addressed the Democrats impression of Trump rather than the just presented policy prescriptions.  There were a couple lines where, if this had been a debate, the moderator would have said, "he addressed that point.  Weren't you listening?"  Of course, I'm not a fan of the rebuttals, regardless of who is president.  Maybe if the Libertarian Party got to do the rebuttal...

 

All in all, Trump gave a good speech that will benefit him in the near term.  Those who watched will long remember the emotions that were evoked while completely forgetting the content.  That is probably the point.

Insiders vs. Outsiders

George W. Bush spent the entirely of the Obama Administration in silence.  He didn't speak out when President Obama unraveled Iraq and unleashed the disaster that followed.  He didn't speak when Obama led us into Libya, from behind.  He had no public comments about IRS targeting or the executive rewriting legislation without including the legislative branch.  He didn't feel the need to defend his record when Obama or his surrogates blamed virtually every problem on Bush.  No, he was quite comfortable to retire from the national stage and let President Obama have his turn.

Today, President Bush decided it was time to speak.  He offered a not-so-oblique criticism of President Trump and his treatment of the media.  Interesting.  He hadn't felt compelled to comment on Obama wiretapping the Associated Press or naming James Rosen as an unindicted co-conspirator so he could really spy on him.  No problem with Obama constantly denouncing Fox News.  Nope, nothing to say then.  Huh.

What could explain this change?  George W. Bush is an insider.  Like President Obama, he went to Harvard.  Like President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, he attended Yale.  He is a member of the elite, a member of a dynastic family that goes back his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush.  Heck, his great, great grandfather graduated from Yale in 1844!  Though they may not have titles like Baron, Earl, and Duke, we have an aristocracy in the United States and they are extremely unhappy that some peasant who went to Fordham in the Bronx is president!  A mere businessman lording over the anointed?  The horror!

 

Trump is a modern day Andrew Jackson.  Jackson had a mini-rebellion against the establishment, expanding the franchise and getting far too friendly with the common folk.  Like Trump, Jackson was hardheaded and not prone to eloquence.  Where John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay - who were rivals in the 1824 election - joined forces to deny Jackson the Presidency, Republican and Democrat elites are determined to protect the prerogatives that have taken more than a century to build.

 

This is not a left vs. right conflict but an insider vs. outsider one.

Master of Branding

There is a new survey that shows CNN has plummeted in perception compared to its cable competitors, Fox News and MSNBC.  Is this downward trend because of Trump's labeling CNN as fake news?  He recently altered that to 'very fake news.'  Trump seems to have a gift for pinning his opponents - and he has openly called the media in general and CNN in particular opponents - with harmful branding.  It struck me as childish during the primaries when he would use these demeaning nicknames for his rivals: Little Marco, Lyin' Ted, Low Energy Jeb, Crazy Bernie, Crooked Hillary.  It's like schoolyard name calling but the results speak for themselves.  Trump is playing a perception game and through these gimmicky nicknames, he creates a perception.  'Very fake news' looks to be a sad excuse for branding and yet it appears to have worked.

 

A good brand will get confirmed, even if it doesn't apply well.  If Trump could point to just a couple of instances - even if they were aberrations from the norm - that confirmed his branding, it will stick like glue.  Of course, Trump isn't the only one who knows how to brand.  There is a reason so many think he is a fascist, because Democrats are old pros at branding Republicans.  However, I would have to say Trump is better.  Democrats always use the same batch of brands (e.g. racist, fascist, homophobe, sexist, Nazi) while Trump is comparatively subtle and clever (e.g. Low Energy Jeb).

 

With Trump as the current owner of Teddy Roosevelt's bully pulpit, one must be cautious in drawing the ire of one so skilled at branding and shameless in doing so.  For the moment, it is fun to see the over-inflated egos of the Washington elites popped but where might it lead after that?

To the Moon!

In 1927, Charles Lindbergh flew the Spirit of St. Louis from New York to Paris, the first solo non-stop transatlantic flight.  It took him 33 and a half hours to fly the 3,600 miles.  Fifty years later, the Concorde was making the flight same flight in 3.5 hours.

In 1968, Apollo 8 became the first manned spacecraft to leave low earth orbit and orbit the moon.  Interestingly, Lindbergh was present at the launch to wish them well.  The mission was an epic achievement that was eclipsed only a few months later when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in July 1969.  The last time a manned spacecraft circled the moon was in 1972.

SpaceX proposes to send two civilians around the moon next year, repeating the historic Apollo 8 mission nearly 50 years after it was first accomplished.  Will the Dragon space capsule be as far advanced from the Apollo 8 command module as the Concorde was to the Spirit of St. Louis?  Will Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, or Bill Anders - all still living and well into their 80s - be present for a repeat of their mission?  I hope so.

The Elite Academy Awards

A recent article claimed that the movies that win are no longer popular with audiences.  It was mentioned that Rogue One earned more than $500 million at the box office and was essentially unnoticed whereas Moonlight, which earned $20 million was up for multiple awards.  It was an interesting point so I did some research.

Since 2010, the average Best Picture winner is the 59th highest grossing movie of the year.  The King's Speech was the 18th highest grossing film in 2010, topping the group.  Moonlight was the 101st highest grossing film in 2016.

From 2000 to 2009, the average Best Picture winner was the 28th highest grossing movie.  Lord of the Rings: Return of the King was the number one earner in 2003 while The Hurt Locker was #116 on the other extreme.

From 1990 to 1999, the Best Picture winner was the 10th highest grossing movie.  Forrest Gump (1994) and Titanic (1997) were both the top grossing movies of their year.  The English Patient was the weakest of the bunch at 19th in 1996.  Note that 18th was the highest rated movie in the current decade whereas 19 was the lowest in the 90s.  Hmm.

From 1980 to 1989, the winner averaged 9th highest gross.  Rain Main was #1 in 1988.  The Last Emperor was the lowest of the bunch at 25th in 1987.

From 1970 to 1979, the winner averaged 4th!  Kramer vs. Kramer, Rocky, The Sting, and The Godfather were all the top earners for the year they won.  Annie Hall was the weakest of the bunch at 10th.

 

Given that, is it any wonder that the ratings for the Academy Awards are down?  This graph is revealing:

 

The change is accelerating.  By 2030, no one outside the academy will have seen the Best Picture of the Year.

Thinking BIG

Michael Munger, PhD Economist of Duke, was on EconTalk to propose a transition toward a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG).  Basically, the government provides a minimum income to all citizens.  He argues in favor for two reasons.  First, some people - through no fault of their own - will find themselves displaced.  For example, if self-driving cars take over, lots of truck drives and cabbies will find themselves without jobs.  Second, we already have a very inefficient BIG program that is distributed through multiple programs (e.g. CHIP, TANF, SNAP, WIC, Public Housing, etc.) which could be streamlined into a BIG.  I am unclear on whether Social Security and Medicare are likewise to be streamlined; I would think so.  Of course, many of the programs that would be abolished are means tested while the BIG would be universal.  Munger proposed a $15,000 a year BIG which would be conferred along the lines of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

This idea has been around for a while but this is the most in depth discussion I have encountered so far.  Generally, it looks like a bad idea.  A guaranteed income will be a disincentive to work.  People on the dole tend to have lower self-esteem and little purpose in their lives.  However, Munger thinks jobs might become scarce with the rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), thus his example of self-driving cars.  It is likely that many would work 'off the books' to get extra income while still benefiting from the full BIG.  That currently happens, so maybe that isn't really a mark against it.  It reminds me of the Roman Bread and Circuses, where Rome provided food and entertainment to the masses.  As Rome's affluence grew, the civic-mindedness of the people at the empire's core rotted away.  The Emperors kept them fat and happy, which also made them useless.

However, the AI argument does sound convincing.  Of course, we have had such waves of creative destruction before.  Think of the thousands of telephone operators who lost there jobs thanks to technology.  No mass unemployment.  What of the farmers who were replaced by tractors?  What of the 'computers' like those in Hidden Figures who were replaced by calculators and computers?  There has long been the belief that technology will eventually make humans obsolete but it has repeatedly not come to pass.  Is AI the silver bullet that will really dramatically reduce the need for human labor?  If so, the BIG may become a necessity.

Here is the transcript and there is a link to the podcast available too.

Method to his Madness?

Here is what may be a very insightful article by Charles Krauthammer.  Donald Trump has been doing deals for decades.  He has spent years piecing together complicated land deals, navigating building codes and gambling licensing in multiple states, interacting with fellow billionaires, lobbying government, and playing golf with the powerful and influential.  He wrote The Art of the Deal!  Moreover, he somehow convinced enough people to vote for him to win the presidency.  At this point, it would be foolish to think all of this was just happenstance, that he didn't have some terrific skills at doing deals, be they for the purpose of building a casino in Atlantic City or becoming President of the United States.  Krauthammer is onto something here, especially with the good cop-bad cop analogy.  Trump can play the mad king (hopefully he isn't really a mad king) and send out his sober minions to assure everyone that they have things under control but it would be helpful if some changes were made to assuage him.

 

Has Trump simply imported his business tactics to politics?  When Tiger Woods brought true athleticism to golf, he changed the game.  Has Trump done that for politics?  Yes, I think he has.  Of course, like Tiger, he would need to be successful for his innovations to really spread and change the political landscape.

Get Out

Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) is a photographer dating Rose Armitage (Allison Williams).  Chris is black and Rose is white.  They have been dating for five months and Rose wants to introduce him to her parents.  He is less than eager, expecting to get a cold welcome at best.  Nonetheless, he agrees and leaves his dog in the care of Rod (LilRel Howery), his best friend.  Rose's parents are odd but proved to be very welcoming.  Dean (Bradley Whitford) is a neural surgeon who constantly says 'my man' to make Chris feel welcome.  Missy (Catherine Keener) is a psychiatrist who uses hypnotism to resolve issues; it is mentioned how she cured Rod of his cigarette addition; Chris is a smoker.  Chris is initially pleased to see that the maid and the groundskeeper are black but when he meets them, there is something clearly not right.  Jeremy, Rose's brother, is openly hostile.

 

Directed by Jordan Peele of Key & Peele fame, Get Out is alternately funny and spooky.  There are some jump scares and some creepy scenes but it doesn't really rise to horror.  More of a mystery thriller with some horror elements.  While Chris is getting more and more spooked with the weirdness of his girlfriend's parents and their associates, Rod is on the case.  Rod is nothing but comedy, offering crazy explanations and otherwise being outlandish.  Oddly, this interweaving of comedy didn't break the ongoing tension at the Armitage Estate.

 

This was a surprisingly fun horror film and not the sort of thing one would expect from Peele after seeing his sketch comedy and Keanu.  With this as his first venture into feature films, I look forward to more.  Thumbs up.

 

End the Pomp

President Trump has announced that he will not be attending the White House Correspondence Dinner.  Good.  I don't like the idea of the executive branch being chummy with the media.  Events of this sort created the Washington Establishment.  Let's get rid of some of these pointless traditions around the executive.  Trump shouldn't throw the first pitch when Baseball Season starts, a tradition that dates back to President Taft in 1910.  Of course, Trump already threw out the first pitch in 2006 anyway.  Pass on the Easter Egg Roll -  which goes all the way back to 1878 or 1814 depending on source - or just relegate that to the First Lady.  Don't pardon the Thanksgiving turkey, a practice begun by President Truman in 1947.  The president is an elected official, not a monarch.  Let's strip away the pomp and circumstance and deflate the Presidency to what it was intended.

Steroid Loophole?

This wrestler has an amazing 55-0 record.  Wow, she must be good.  Oh, she is taking testosterone injections since she wants to be a boy.  As a side-effect, it has really increased her muscle mass.  If not for her transgender status, taking testosterone would qualify as cheating.  Therefore, our lesson here is that if you want to be the greatest female wrestler around, claim that you want to be male and take steroids.

The Sad State of NASA

In the wake of the Columbia Disaster (February 1, 2003), it was determined that the space shuttle would be retired by 2010 and would thus need a replacement.  The initial replacement was the Constellation Program (begun in 2005) with the goal of launching astronauts into space by 2014.  President Obama cancelled the Constellation Program in 2009.  The Space Launch System (SLS) was started in 2010, replacing the Constellation Program.  The last space shuttle mission was flown in July of 2011.  This article has NASA putting astronauts in space in 2019 at the soonest but more likely 2021, a ten year gap in manned NASA launches.  So, knowing that the shuttle needed a successor, NASA will have spent 16 years to make it (2005 to 2021).

 

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik and the Space Race.  Project Mercury saw its first rocket test on August 21, 1959.  Called Little Joe 1, it was a failure.  By December of that year, Sam the chimpanzee was launched into space.  In May of 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American in space.  NASA knew that Mercury was just the beginning and had the two-man capsules of Gemini ready for a test launch (April 1964) less than a year after the last Mercury rocket launched (May 1963).  The first Gemini manned mission was in May 1965.  Gemini wrapped up its 10 manned mission run in November of 1966.  In January 1967, the Apollo Program suffered a disastrous fire on the launch pad, killing 3 astronauts.  Even with the disaster, Apollo 7 launched in October of the following year.  Apollo 11 was on the moon in July 1969, less than 10 years since Little Joe 1.  Apollo 17 was the last moon landing.  Remaining rockets for further moon missions were used for Skylab, which was launched in May 1973.  The last of the Apollo rockets was used for the Apollo-Soyuz test in July 1975, which saw US astronauts shake hands with Soviet Cosmonauts in space.  US spaceflight ended until the shuttle was ready.  US spaceflight resumed on April 14, 1981, a gap of just under 6 years.  To duplicate that, we would need to launch astronauts in the next two months.

 

Clearly, NASA does not enjoy the budget it had during the 1960s but modern technology should dramatically reduce the costs and development time.  Really, if you have seen Hidden Figures in which all the calculations were done by hand with pencil, paper, and slide rules, how can progress not go much faster?  Instead, it is taking vastly longer to do things that we were doing more than 40 years ago.  NASA has suffered the fate of most government bureaucracies.  When it began, it had a purpose and clear goals.  Today it has an organizational chart and a budget.  Rather than having projects that need to get done, they are trying to find things to do, to keep busy, to defend their funding.

The LEGO Batman Movie

It opens with a black screen, because all important movies start with a black screen.  Batman (Will Arnett) offers such narration through the opening logos before the movie gets rolling.  The Joker (Zach Galifianakis) has assembled virtually every Batman villain - even Condiment Man! - for his latest scheme to take over Gotham.  When Batman arrives on scene, he embarrasses the score or more of villains with humorous ease but the Joker manages to escape.  Celebrated as the hero of the city and the toast of the town, Batman returns to his vast - really vast - Bat Cave and Wayne Mansion where he is alone.  So very alone.

 

Though bursting at the seams with action, the movie has no shortage of plot and character development.  The central hate affair between Batman and Joker is just awesome.  After 78 years of conflict, Batman has still not said, "I hate you."  Worse, he won't admit that Joker is his greatest enemy.  It is a weird idea but is brilliantly done.  But there is more!  Bruce Wayne unintentionally adopted an orphan, none other than Dick Grayson/Robin (Michael Cera).  Robin suffers hero worship throughout the movie even when Batman is clearly treating him badly.  This father-son dynamic also shows with Batman and Alfred (Ralph Fiennes).  But there is more still!  The solitary Batman is infatuated with Barbara Gordon (Rosario Dawson), who is a graduate of Harvard for Police.  She plans to fight crime with a powerpoint presentation of four spreadsheets.  There are constant references to the vast history of Batman, including a clip from the Adam West era!

 

LEGO Batman is much better than Batfleck.  Definitely see this movie.  Lots of fun!

 

Donald Trump, Soothsayer

Trump has been subject to criticism recently because he had implied that some sort of attack took place in Sweden on Friday night.  A reasonable person would conclude that he was referencing an attack that did not happen.  Clueless.  In fact, he was referencing a news report he had seen Friday night but a listener would have no way to know that.  He tweeted the following clarification:

My statement as to what's happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.

 

That caught a lot of fire and criticism itself, being cited as an example of Trump blaming Fox for his repeating fake news.  The attacks hardly slowed.  Like Milo, Trump had said something that was easier to criticize than to explain.  Until last night.

 

In the wake of last night's riot in a Muslim suburb of Stockholm, it is safe to say that further criticism of Trump's assessment of the situation in Sweden will vanish.  Did Trump foresee the burning cars and hurled rocks?  No, not really.  It doesn't take a prophet to predict that Muslims are going to riot or go on a killing spree.  Much as US law enforcement isn't advertising how many crimes are committed by illegal aliens here, European law enforcement is mum about how much crime is attributable to Muslim immigrants.  In both cases, the truth would not benefit the Church of Multiculturalism.  Gosh, it might even suggest that some cultures are better than others.  The horror!

 

A Trump faux pas has resulted in his critics having the rug pulled out from under them.

The Venezuela Diet!

Do you need to lose some weight?  Come on down to Venezuela!  Our citizens have managed to drop 19 pounds, on average, over the last year.  Our socialist utopia not only wins praise from Sean Penn, it offers the chance to lose weight by forced starvation!  The miracle of Socialism, provided by the revered Hugo Chavez, has managed to bankrupt an oil rich nation.  Is there anything Socialism can't ruin?  A slimmer you is just a plane ride away.  Lose 1.5 pounds a month (results may vary).

 

Try the Venezuela Diet today!

Target: Milo

The noted polemicist who was recently run out of Berkeley by rioters has spoken in favor of older men have relations with young boys.  Or so it is reported.  Milo states that he offered imprecise language and is demonstrably opposed to pedophilia, having exposed several.  However, his definition of pedophilia appears to only cover prepubescent youths.  He states that he lost his virginity at 13 and feels he was sufficiently mature to make that decision.  Uh huh.  He does say that the current legal age of consent is "about right."  This is not a good topic to offer equivocation and it has opened him to a barrage of criticism.

 

Milo has risen like a rocket in the last year.  He is a Free Speech absolutist, an evangelist for the 1st Amendment, a man who delights in goring the sacred cow of Political Correctness.  I first took note of Milo in October 2015 when he was ejected from the Amber Rose Slut Walk.  Since then, he has gained infamy for his college appearances and his outspoken support for Donald "Daddy" Trump.  His growing popularity and recent book deal demonstrated that he was having an impact.  As such, he should expect to be a target - effective advocates always draw the most fire - and he has provided excellent fodder that has already canceled his book deal, gotten him kicked out of CPAC, and may cost him his gig with Breitbart.  Live by the outrageous comments, die by the outrageous comments.

 

Of course, this sort of career-ending faux pas only happens to those on the right.  Lena Dunham wrote about sexually abusing her younger sister and also wrote about an easily debunked rape by a 'Republican' at Oberlin College but HBO greenlit another season of Girls in the wake of these stories.  Bill Clinton settled with Paula Jones in a sexual harassment case and the blue dress proved he did have 'relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky' but he remains a revered figure in the Democratic Party.  Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo to drown in his car and went on to be the Lion of the Senate.  Robert Byrd had been a member of the KKK and also had a very successful career in the Senate.  Milo says something stupid that he recants immediately and all must denounce him and ostracize him as a pariah.  Those on the left can be forgiven for their errors but those on the right must be destroyed.

 

I suspect Milo will recover from this foot in mouth blunder but his brand is damaged.  Unlike 'Daddy,' he doesn't have a Twitter account - they banned him - and he can't sign executive orders and call press conferences.  College invites are likely to dry up after this too.  However, all publicity has value and he will surely be able to find another publisher for his book.  He may be down but he's not out.

Treason Defined

Here is an article that explains what treason entails, offering 5 myths as a means of pinning down the definition.  To my surprise, one can only commit treason if the United States is at war.  Moreover, the traitor must either take up arms against the United States or provide aid to a nation that is taking up arms against the US.  That is news to me.  By that definition, Alger Hiss was not a traitor since we were not at war with the Soviet Union.  Julius and Ethel Rosenberg wouldn't be traitors either?  Then again, I suppose it depends on how one looks at the Cold War - we had a number of proxy wars with the Soviets over the years.  It is interesting to see how narrow the definition is and that the framers of the Constitution included the definition in the document:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

 

I've read this many times but always took a more expansive view of Enemies.  In any case, it would appear that the frequent accusations of treason were predicted by the Framers and they took measures to limit the scope of treason.  Just look at the French Revolution which was just getting into gear as the Constitution was ratified.  How many political opponents were guillotined as traitors?  Soon, disagreeing with the head of state becomes treason and the heads start rolling.

 

This is not to say that the current flurry of treason accusations don't have merit as other crimes, but they aren't treason under the US definition of the term.

Render unto Caeser

Pope Francis has recently stated that there is no Muslim terrorism.  I beg to differ.  The evidence of Muslim terrorism is overwhelming.  Whereas Christianity started as an oppressed religion that nonetheless won converts to become the dominant religion, Islam was a conquering religion that swept through the Middle East, North Africa, and into Spain.  One - which Francis leads - saw voluntary converts, while the other saw forced conversion or subjugation.  Muhammad himself said, "I have been made victorious through terror."  Though it is understandable that the pope does not wish to speak ill of a religion practiced by more than a billion people, he ought not offer clearly false assessments of it either.

 

Fresh from whitewashing Islam, he once again jumped on the climate change bandwagon.  If history is any guide, once religion - especially Christianity - takes a visible stance on science, the side chosen is probably wrong (e.g. Sun revolves around the Earth, Evolution, age of the Earth, Creation of the Universe).  With that in mind, scientist should be worried to have Vatican support.

 

The pope would be best served to avoid these political debates and stick to tending his flock.  Where his predecessor Pope John Paul II was a critic of the oppressive Soviet Empire, Francis is carving out a position as an apologist for an even more oppressive Islamic world.  If he believes Catholicism is the path to salvation, shouldn't he be spreading the good news and trying to win converts rather than reassuring everyone that they are just fine where they are?

Leaking is Bad except when it's Good

In the wake of Trump's victory, the story arose that the Russians had hacked the election.  That vague declaration is intentional.  What is alleged is that the Russians managed to hack the DNC server and tricked John Podesta into revealing his email password.  The trove of emails were provided to WikiLeaks who published them throughout the campaign.  They were very embarrassing for the Democrats and Hillary.  However, we were repeatedly told by the media and the Democrats that the content of the emails was secondary to the hacking.  The people who provided the emails were very bad people.  Pay no attention to the emails and instead focus your indignant rage on those who revealed them.  Yes, it may all be true but the voters have no right to know.  Okay, I accept your terms.

Members of the deep state, likely holdovers from the Obama Administration, have been leaking the contents of secret phone calls that President Trump and his staff - notably Michael Flynn - to the media.  By the recently established rules, the media should blast the leakers for letting the public know about these phone calls.  No?  It turns out that now the leakers are heroes to be praised while the media reports with gusto about the content of the leaked phone calls.  Huh.

It is this sort of reporting that has led to the precipitous decline in trust for the media.  We have heads I win tails you lose reporting.  It reminds me of how government shutdowns are always the fault of the Republicans.  Republican president and Democratic Congress?  President is at fault for shutdown.  Democratic president and Republican Congress?  Congress is at fault.  The media too often functions as the PR department for the Democratic Party.

Repeal Deceit

During the Obama Presidency, the Republican Congress managed to pass Obamacare repeal bills multiple times.  In January of last year, a bill made it through the House and the Senate.  It landed on Obama's desk where he vetoed it.  Where is that bill?  Why not brush that off and send it to the White House?  How difficult is that?  The fact that someone at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue will actually sign it is why they haven't done it.  They were fearless when Obama was sure to veto but now they balk.  Those previous bills were nothing but fodder for the rubes back home.  They were gaming their voters, calling for repeal when there was no hope but hesitating when victory is at hand.  In truth, they never wanted it repealed.  Their actions have exposed their words as hollow.  Distrust politicians always.

 

To provide cover to the exposed charlatans, Democratic operatives are flooding Republican townhalls and making a scene about Obamacare.  See, the voters don't want us a to repeal it.  Let's not be hasty in repealing it.  Maybe we can repair it.  Once government has seized power over a sector, it is loath to surrender it.

 

What is interesting is that the point of the ACA is to collapse.  Ideally, Hillary would be president and be able to proclaim that private insurance companies were too greedy and caused the collapse so now a complete government takeover would be required.  Maybe we can implement the Cuban healthcare system.  So, repeal or not, it is crumbling.  With Trump having ordered the IRS to relax enforcement of the 'tax' portion of the law, the individual mandate is at an end.  Perhaps the spineless Republicans want to wait for the collapse without having cast any votes.  It is one thing to watch as the Leaning Tower of Pisa falls over but something different if you gave it a push.

Out Like Flynn

The always exciting and rarely predictable Trump presidency continues.  National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, only confirmed 3 weeks ago, is already out the door.  It is strange that one of Trump's least controversial picks - he's a Democrat - should be the first to go.  The news so far is that he was under investigation for a conversations with Russian officials in which he talked about the sanctions that President Obama imposed in the wake of Russian hacking during the election.  Interestingly, it was Acting Attorney General Yates - whom Trump fired - that informed the administration of his talks.  The problem was not that he conversed with Russian officials but that he failed to report the scope of the conversations.

 

Will Trump have a higher than usual turnover rate?  How many of the current cabinet members and advisors will still be in the administration next year?

Funny Tweet

Not a Twitter person myself, I do visit sites that reference tweets or give links to them with surprising frequency.  Here is a particularly funny one that Scott Adams linked in a recent blog:

It's still early days and much too soon to think this tweet will hold for his entire presidency.  Indeed, he only just got his Attorney General confirmed.  Maybe he will use the IRS to silence his enemies, just like his predecessor.  Dr. Ben Carson endured his first IRS audit in the wake of speaking against Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast and countless Tea Party groups were harassed by IRS and other federal agencies.  Maybe he will selectively enforce laws to punish his critics, just like his predecessor did to Dinesh D'Souza or Senator Bob Menendez.  He has already rolled out the attacks on some news agencies, just like Obama did with regard to Fox News Channel.  I suppose all of these would just be a status quo ante with new management.

Luke Cage

Last seen in Jessica Jones, Luke Cage (Mike Colter) is working two jobs in Harlem to make a living.  He sweeps the floor at a barber shop and works as a dishwasher at a nightclub.  Interestingly enough, the night club owner is a crime lord known as Cottonmouth (Mahershala Ali) and the barber shop owner is a reformed criminal who used to run with Cottonmouth.  One night, Luke has to stand in for the bartender who has gone missing during a heist and meets undercover cop, Misty Knight (Simone Missick).  The bartender pulled the heist with a kid who works at the barber shop too.  Wow, could we include any more convenient coincidences to pull all the players together?  Yes, we can.  Cottonmouth's cousin is Mariah Dillard (Alfre Woodard), a corrupt councilwoman who gladly benefits from Cottonmouth's criminality.  The obligatory corrupt cop on the force just happens to be Misty's partner.  It is all very tidy for a 13 episode series.  Even when Luke's backstory is explored, it again turns into a tidy little bundle.  His nemesis in prison just happens to show up in Harlem and Luke's half-brother, Willis Stryker - who is responsible for Luke's imprisonment - happens to view Cottonmouth as a friend.  Interestingly, these 'friends' share zero screen time in the 13 episode series.

 

Luke had a big part in Jessica Jones, showing up in 7 episodes.  The two had a budding relationship and, in the comics, are married.  One kind of expects that she would have a cameo here.  Nope.  Instead, Claire Temple (Rosario Dawson) shows up to further tie the various Netflix series together.  She evolves into the clear love interest and at one point offered to put Luke in touch with a lawyer she knows.  Though she does not mention his name, it is obviously Matt Murdock.

The best character was probably Misty Knight, a tough smart detective.  She was too reckless, nearly getting herself killed on a couple of occasions because she went alone but overall I liked the character.  Alfre Woodard made Mariah come to life as a crooked politician who gets pulled deeper into criminality until she finally embraces it.  She will make a good villain in the next season.  Shades (Theo Rossi) was the best of the gangsters, not reckless like most of his superiors.  He was loyal to his superiors but also manipulative of them.  Cottonmouth was too menacing, always the gangster and never the musician.  When he finally begins to develop, he dies immediately.  Stryker is barely contained madness.  He makes a good villain but not a believable kingpin of a crime syndicate.  Either he needed to dial back the rage or be relegated to a gangster enforcer.

Claire frequently accuses Luke of being corny.  Some of the things he says are a bit corny but the corniest moment in the whole show was when Shades turned to Stryker and said, "Watchoo talkin' bout, Willis?"  Straight out of Diff'rent Strokes.  Stryker was not amused but I was.

The series ends with Luke heading back to prison though there is the potential of exoneration, with Mariah ensconced as the new owner of the nightclub and inheritor of her cousin's criminal empire, and his half-brother about to undergo the same process that made Luke almost indestructible.

The weakest of the MCU series on Netflix so far, it is still entertaining.  I look forward to the further adventures of Luke Cage, Hero for Hire.

One China Policy

I've seen a couple of reports on how Trump agreed to honor the One China policy during a phone conversation with President Xi.  The tone of the story is that Trump's a chump, a novice, and a dope who has been set straight by people who understand international relations.  The man who is famed for The Art of the Deal was rolled.  Not buying it.  Trump got something for that concession.  To be totally cynically, he might have been guaranteed a great plot of land in Beijing for a future Trump hotel but there was a quid pro quo.  To give an example, it took decades before we learned that JFK agreed to dismantle US missiles in Turkey to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The Cuban Missile Crisis was a Russian victory, where they gave up something they didn't have in exchange for something we had already deployed.  What did Xi give up to solidify the One China policy?

Enforce the Laws

Like Lazarus, immigration law has come back to life.  It has been said for years, perhaps decades, that we have plenty of laws on the books to resolve our immigration problems.  There has not been a need for comprehensive immigration reform to fix a broken system.  All that is needed is to enforce the existing laws.  Less than a month into the Trump Presidency and we see existing laws employed.  Threats to cut federal funding have already convinced many 'sanctuary' cities and counties to dump the policy.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has started rounding up some criminal aliens in California.  In Arizona, an illegal immigrant convicted of identity theft in 2008 and ordered deported in 2013 was allowed to remain thanks to lax enforcement under the Obama Administration.  Now, felons get deported.  Had this sort of enforcement been happening for the last 25 years, Trump's wall would have been a loser issue.  With the law now being enforced, can the wall be abandoned?  Nope.  The next president might be as lax as several presidents - from both parties - who preceded Trump.  While administrations can choose to ignore laws, walls remain in force.  It is tragic that trust in the government to enforce the laws has fallen so far that a wall looks like a safer bet.

When Harassing a Woman is Appropriate?

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos tried to go to a DC school today but a crowd of protestors blocked the entrance and then started berating her as she retreated to her vehicle.  One cried 'Shame' repeatedly like he was playing a scene out of Game of Thrones.  Even after she was in the car and attempting to drive away, the successful 'shamer' stepped in front of the vehicle to once again inflict his sign on the secretary.

 

Having exhausted the legitimate means of defeating Betsy DeVos, her opponents are now resorting to illegitimate means.  Most times, a man harassing a woman in this manner would be yet another sign of the War on Women but the problem is that the woman is Republican and the protestor is presumably a Democrat.  As we have seen with Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Kellyanne Conway, Ivanka Trump, Condoleezza Rice, and other Republican women, it is entirely appropriate to attack and harass them.  Really, they don't count as women.

Undermining the Law

First Judge Robart and now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal have ruled against President Trump's executive order that restricts travel from 7 terror hot-beds.  Arguments against the order rest on due process, equal protection, and First Amendment religious protections.  I did not realize that Constitutional rights extended into other countries.  We need to start toppling a lot of governments in order to make sure these rights are observed globally.  Or maybe these rights aren't conferred until the foreign national books a flight to the United States.  Interesting and diverting as these issues may be, judges are supposed to interpret the law.  What does the law say?

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

Legalese is usually an ambiguous mess - the better to let unelected bureaucrats and judges to implement their policy preferences - but this is surprisingly clear.  Would a 90 day travel ban on aliens from 7 countries fit the above language?  Clearly.  More interesting, there is no check on his ability to make this proclamation.  If the president deems it appropriate, it fits within the law.  It doesn't take a law degree to interpret this.  If the Rule of Law was taken seriously, Robart would have dismissed the case.

Throughout the Obama administration, I was frustrated that the Republicans refused to oppose the president when he went beyond his Constitutional authority  (e.g. implementing the Dreamers Act despite the fact that Congress failed to pass the legislation, bailing out car companies even though Congress voted down the bill that would allow him to do so, rewriting the Affordable Care Act, etc.).  They offered anemic resistance, often leaving their best tools (e.g. power of the purse) unused.  With Trump, we have the opposite extreme.  So desperate to oppose him at every turn, the left is beclowning itself.  The media are jumping at shadows (e.g. Trump Dossier, Trump may assassinate Press like Putin) and shrieking with panic on a daily basis.  The career bureaucrats are leaking his every phone conversation, setting up secret societies to oppose the boss that the people elected, and stonewall fact-finding efforts by the administration.  The judiciary has now joined these crazy antics with rulings that are based not on a sober reading of the law but on a desire to oppose a president with whom they disagree.

Where the Republicans were spineless and timid in opposition, the Democrats are mindless berserkers, not unlike the rioters in Berkeley last week.  The Republicans would do well to emulate some of the fiery passion and steadfast determination of the Democrats (Democrats will resist tooth and nail) while the Democrats would benefit from the calm rationality of the Republicans (Republicans never riot).

Such obviously political rulings only serve to harm the judiciary.  The rulings have rewritten the limits of a clear statute.  In an effort to oppose, judges are undermining the rule of law.

Presidential Nominations

In general, the Senate should rubberstamp most nominees that will only last the duration of the president's tenure.  Beyond confirming that the nominee isn't a reprobate and has a working knowledge of the agency where they will server, the Senate should approve.  The current circus atmosphere which dates back to the 80s has surely led a lot of talented people to avoid government service and the current sad state of affairs shows how well that has worked.  On the other hand, when a nominee is going to outlast the president, the Senate should be much more discerning.  Judicial nominees should get the hairy eyeball treatment.

With that in mind, I have no qualms about the filibuster being nixed for administration appointees but think it should be in full force for all lifetime appointments or nominees who will outlast the president's term.  In that formulation, it would only take 50 + the VP to confirm all the members of the administration but it would take 60 to confirm judges, the FBI Director, the Federal Reserve Chair, etc.  Sadly, it is unlikely that such will be the case any time soon.  Neither party trusts the other to respect such a rule and so dare not surrender power that the other would simply retake.

Getting Rid of Secretary DeVos

Betsy DeVos won confirmation today on the barest of margins.  In fact, prior to Harry Reid's nixing the filibuster, there is no way she could have been confirmed.  One must always consider that the other side is going to benefit from such innovations.  Ms. DeVos is noted for championing charter schools and vouchers as an alternative to the demonstrably mediocre public school system.  This is a threat to teachers' unions throughout the country.  With all efforts to stop her from getting the job having failed, maybe now is the time to really go nuclear: Abolish the Department of Education.

Today, Thomas Massie of Kentucky proposed a bill that would shutter the Department of Education on December 31, 2018.  Created in 1980, US students have seen gains in math but losses in verbal skills.  SAT scores were 502/492 when DOE began and rose all the way to 494/508.  That's below the 1972 scores of 530/509, which predate DOE.  It is a money pit, like most federal departments.  Though the intentions were great, the results don't justify the cost.  Let's close up shop and say good bye to Secretary DeVos!  I approve this method of removing Ms. DeVos from government.

Elon Musk's Boring Company

Annoyed by Los Angeles traffic, Elon Musk is proposing to dig a tunnel under the city so he can bypass the highway gridlock.  Much like the HyperLoop, I don't think seismically active California is the best place to build.  Though I am sure an underground tunnel can be engineered to withstand a serious earthquake, it is going to be much more expensive than a tunnel that traversed the same distance in a seismically inactive area.

 

I find I have more and more admiration for Elon Musk because he tries lots of things.  He's not listening to naysayers like me and that is why he has a rocket company and an electric car company and the forthcoming boring company.  Even if half of his ideas fall flat, he will still have an impressive list of accomplishments with the remaining half.  Can hardly wait for his Iron-Man armor.

How to Incite Skepticism

For years, it has been repeatedly stated that global warming... er... climate change is a fact.  Furthermore, the consensus of scientists agree that humanity is a significant factor in the warming... uh... climate change.  Those who have doubts are climate deniers (not unlike Holocaust deniers, if you didn't catch that clever branding technique).  Fine.  Okay.  You know what you don't do if you have a slam dunk case: you don't do this:

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

The article reveals how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules in order to provide a sensational report in time for the Paris Climate Conference in 2015.

Science, honest science, doesn't need to fudge the numbers.  Real science is not determined by consensus.  There was a consensus in opposition to Galileo.  There was a consensus in favor of a flat Earth model.  Shenanigans like this support the hoax theory much better than the anthropomorphic warming model.

Hate Crime Hoax?

This was posted on Yahoo News:

This is Not Trump's America

There have been far too many hate crime hoaxes for me to accept these stories until at least a week goes by.  I've been gamed too many times and now I am always skeptical, which is sad if this turns out to be true.  The inclusion of a passenger saying "I guess this is Trump's America" in response to Swastika graffiti is what really makes me suspect the story is phony.  It fits the liberal narrative too perfectly.  Of course, that it went viral because of Chelsea Clinton makes it even more suspicious.  If this isn't revealed as a hoax in the next few days, as most hate crimes that see national coverage prove to be, I will be surprised.

It is noteworthy that Trump's son-in-law, whom he has recruited as an advisor in his administration, is Jewish.  His daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism.  Three grandchildren are Jewish.  Trump is far more pro-Israel than Obama ever was and yet the anti-Semitism nonsense is somehow being applied to the former when it was not applied to the latter.

Separation of Powers Blurred

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States

Article 1, Section 1, US Constitution

Notice the All.  It doesn't say most or the majority.  It says All.  Many Senators and Representatives are less than keen on imposing unpopular provisions on We the People because We the People might vote against them.  Eventually, the elected set discovered a work around that would allow them to exercise ever greater power over We the People while not having to answer for imposing the laws that granted that additional power.  They adopted the parliamentary system of primary and secondary legislation.  The legislature would create a regulatory agency and imbue it with legislative powers.  Thus, the Environmental Protection Agency - which is part of the Executive Branch of government - can make laws (euphemistically called regulations).  With each new regulatory agency, the government dramatically expands its scope.  The 535 legislators could never produce the number of laws that scores of agencies churn out on a regular basis.  Moreover, once created, the agency can implement laws even when the Congress is gridlocked.  We the People may have voted for divided government to slow down law-making but that has little impact on these independent law-making executive agencies.  On this basis, it is clear that all regulatory agencies are unconstitutional.  Congress needs to pass laws and be subject to voter displeasure rather than hide behind bureaucrats who cannot be voted out of office.

 

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, US Constitution

 

The President executes the laws and administers the executive agencies.  He is the person responsible if those agencies aren't getting the job done.  However, thanks to various laws, he doesn't have the authority to do so.  For instance, the Veterans' Administration has been shown to be a disaster for veterans, unable to provide healthcare in a timely manner.  The President cannot clean house because Civil Service Reform has taken 98% of federal jobs out of his ability to fire.  If the CEO cannot fire an employee, that employee can safely ignore the CEO.  On that basis, Civil Service Reform is unconstitutional.  The President runs the executive branch, which includes hiring and firing.  The lethargic bureaucracy will become quick and nimble overnight if the president could dismiss foot draggers.

 

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Article III, Section 1, US Constitution

 

Though the judicial power resides in the Supreme Court, the Congress has considerable authority on its size.  If Congress so desired, it could eliminate all the Federal Courts in the US and abolish all but one justice on the Supreme Court.  The courts have judicial power and yet have, from time to time, offered rulings that are indistinguishable from legislation.  Worse, some of these rulings are essentially beyond the power of the actual legislature to amend or repeal.  The court should limit itself to interpreting the laws.  If it must legislate, it should limit that to negative legislation, merely striking down laws that do not conform to the Constitution rather than positive legislation that implements their policy preferences.  Clearly, when the court has a ruling that is in opposition to the continually voiced desires of We the People, one must ask where US Sovereignty really resides: with the people or with 5 members of the Supreme Court?

 

The blurring of the lines between the three branches is a big part of why the government has become so bloated and unresponsive to We the People.  If the branches remained within the bounds of the Constitution, the government would be dramatically smaller, less expensive, and vastly more efficient.  There is far too much government for us to claim to have limited government.

Self-Defense Right vs. Property Rights

I am ambivalent on this proposed Florida bill.  On the one hand, if a business owner is going to deny patrons the right to defend themselves should the need arise, then those business owners should be liable should the worst happens.  If Bob left his handgun in his car when he went to dinner at Pasta House only to then be shot by crazed shooter George, Bob has a good reason to be upset with Pasta House.  Should Pasta House guarantee the safety of its clients if it implements a no gun policy?  On the other hand, Bob was perfectly free to go across the way to the Linguini Palace that allows guns.  Pasta House believes that a no gun policy will drum up more business and has every right to limit who or what comes on the premises.

 

I would lean toward the first view.  The likely result would be a no gun insurance policy market arising with an amazingly low premium.  As the policy would only have to pay when a disarmed gun owner - who was licensed for concealed carry - was injured or killed in a manner where being armed may have prevented it.  Such a situation is going to be extremely rare.  By requiring the business to take responsibility for its clients' safety, the government both supports citizen self-defense rights and the private property owner still has the right to restrict guns.

 

At the very least, it would be useful to see how such a policy works in one state.  If it is a catastrophe, Florida can repeal it and other states can learn from the mess.  If it proves to be a great success, other states can learn from that too.  Federalism allows for such experimentation.

 

Of note, do the proponents of the law have a case where a gun owner was injured or killed in an attack at a business that restricted guns?  I would think that is a miniscule number and that this law is more of a virtue signaling effort.

Identify the Fascist

During the recent excitement at Berkeley, there was a clash of opinion that turned violent.  One party is accusing the other party of being fascist while claiming the title of 'anti-fascist.'  Can you find the anti-fascist?

Option 1: A gay, Jewish immigrant with a black boyfriend was on campus for a scheduled speech.

Option 2: Protestors who oppose the views that will be expressed in said speech detonated home-made explosives, shattered windows, and lit property on fire.

 

Yes, Option 2 was obviously the correct choice.  Some microaggressions - like inappropriate opinions - entirely justify retaliatory macroaggressions.  To prevent such speakers from being heard, it is often necessary to use extreme measures.

 

It is amazing how violent and/or destructive these leftist movements keep proving to be.  Occupy Wall Street was a cesspool of litter, vandalism, and rape.  Those who protested at Trump's inauguration set fire to a limo and shattered windows at various businesses. The Women's March even had a speaker pondering the destruction of the White House.  Fascist means to anti-fascist end?

The Bureaucracy Dissents

The title of this Politico article is practically treasonous:

Federal workers turn to encryption to thwart Trump

The article details how career bureaucrats at the various agencies in DC are coordinating among themselves with encrypted messaging to dodge laws regarding workplace communication.  In other words, they are pioneering a version of Hillary's offsite email server.  Why use secret communications within the bureaucracy?

The goal is to get their message across while not violating any rules covering workplace communications, which can be monitored by the government and could potentially get them fired.

 

The story puts the best possible spin on why these bureaucrats are engaging in this secretive communication.  They have to be able to oppose Trump if he tries to undermine the mission of the agency, tries to destroy important scientific data, or flout the law.  In fact, we know that most of the bureaucrats are Democrats (DC went 91% for Hillary) who don't want to implement Republican policy.  When the country votes for Democrat policy, the bureaucracy moves expeditiously but when the country votes for Republican policy, the bureaucracy must be dragged kicking and screaming.

 

Over at Labor, employees are coordinating in private emails to oppose the nomination for the Secretary of Labor.  Oh, that is going to make for a great working relationship if Puzder gets the job.  The same sort of opposition is surely happening at the Dept of Education regarding Betsy DeVos, at EPA for Pruitt, at Energy for Perry, etc. 

 

Thanks to civil service reform, we have non-partisan civil servants.  After all, labor statisticians can do statistics for Republicans or Democrats, right?  Of course, if someone came along who thought a particular bureaucracy needed streamlining and economizing, the current non-partisan bureaucrats might suddenly find they aren't as non-partisan as they thought.

 

It is entirely appropriate for an employee to voice disagreements.  A good boss will take note and perhaps moderate.  However, if not, the employees do what the boss instructs, provided it is legal.  If the employee cannot do this, it is time to find another job.  Assembling a resistance movement within the organization should result in immediate termination.

 

Yet again, here is evidence that the bureaucracy needs to be emptied on a regular basis.  The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (1883) succeeded in creating a bureaucratic leviathan that is barely responsive to the elected representatives of the people.  Let's go back to the spoils system.  Sure, we'll get a crop of novices every 4 years but government 'service' will cease being a career.

Earnings vs. Compensation

Mark Warshawsky was the guest on EconTalk recently and discussed what he claimed was a mistaken impression of increasing income inequality, the idea that the rich are getting richer and the poor are static.  If one looks at earnings, the conclusion that high paid workers are seeing greater increases than lower paid workers is absolutely correct.  However, that doesn't take into account employer-provided benefits.  Thus, income + benefits = compensation.  For example, Nancy the Office Manager at Mega Corp might take home $40,000 in salary but healthcare, 401K matching, etc. might add an additional $5,000.  Thus, her earnings are $40K but her compensation is $45K.  Rachel the Chief Financial Officer might be paid $100,000 in salary and her benefits are not much more costly than Nancy's, adding $6,000.  Her compensation is $106K.  Mega Corp finds that healthcare costs are skyrocketing.  Warshawsky reports that they tripled from 1992 to 2010, having doubled from 1999 to 2006.  So, going back to the Mega Corp example, healthcare costs double.  Nancy finds that her income is stagnant, not budging from the $40K.  However, her benefits package is now worth $10,000.  Her earnings are flat but her compensation has risen 11%.  Meanwhile, Rachel's benefits also doubled, now worth $12,000 and her earnings have increased to $105K.  Therefore, she has seen a 5% increase in earnings but only a 10% increase in compensation.  Based on earnings, income inequality is getting worse but based on total compensation, it is getting better.  I love economics!

 

Here is the podcast and here is the working paper.

Hyperloop

There is a video on YouTube that details the proposed HyperLoop, a transit system that would get someone from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 35 minutes.  The idea is to have tubes that stretch between the two cities.  The tubes are very low pressure - close to vacuum - so that there is no air resistance.  The pod could thus zoom at 800 miles per hour.  That sounds pretty cool.  You could work in San Francisco and work in LA.  Neat.

It sounds great and even doable but I don't see this working.  First, the proposed pod can only accommodate 24 passengers.  Even with a pod leaving every 5 minutes, that's less than 300 people an hour.  Also, unlike a standard train or subway, there is no getting off at your stop.  This is more like a small jet.  Thanks to the energy efficiency aspect, it may offer private jet-like speed to more people but it won't have the expandable capacity (its a lot easier to build more jets than more vacuum tubes) or the freedom of destination (that private jet isn't stuck in a vacuum tube).  As shown, it looks to be a novelty that isn't really mass transit.  The test of its viability will be its funding source.  If government pays for it, it is a boondoggle.  If private industry pays, it might have a shot of turning a profit and expanding.

 

Elon Musk (SpaceX, Tesla, PayPal) is the big proponent for this.  Here is a man with big dreams and a string of amazing accomplishments.  That he thinks this is viable is a good argument against my doubts.  Perhaps this is meant to be profitable with a relatively small number of passengers.

Too Much News

So much is happening in so short a period of time that I would have to be a fulltime blogger to get even close to commenting on all of it.  However, here are some thoughts on recent developments:

1. Senate Committee rule change: It has long been practice that members of both party need to be present for a vote on a nominee.  The Democrats have used this rule to prevent votes by not being present.  This was used to the extreme by Wisconsin Democrats trying to thwart Governor Walker's reforms, which included them fleeing the state!  Committee Chairman Hatch altered the rules to allow for a vote with those present.  I suspect the purpose of the rule was to prevent the majority from meeting secretly to move nominees and bills out of committee and intentional absence was not an expected tactic.  Such childish antics explain the low approval ratings of Congress and government.

 

2. Neil Gorsuch nomination: It is always best to have justices who understand that it is up to the legislature to write law, not the courts.  Far too many subjects are decided by courts writing laws and framing it as existing rights.  That he was unanimously approved for his current position in 2006 is good maneuvering by the Trump Administration.  It used to be that nominations were not so contentious, because the court wasn't nearly as important as it has become.  Antonin Scalia was approved 98 to 0 and Ruth Bader Ginsberg won with 96 to 3.  Gorsuch will be lucky if he gets 60 in favor.  If courts would refrain from legislating, we could return to the ho-hum confirmation process.  Yeah, that's not going to happen.

 

3. Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary: Though she is out of committee, two Republican Senators have stated their intention to vote against.  A party line vote would give her a 50-50 split which VP Pence would presumably decide in DeVos's favor.  As someone who would like to abolish the Department of Education, I am mostly indifferent to who is in charge.  When did the Constitution get amended to expand federal authority to education?  In any case, US education has been static - at best - since the creation of the department, demonstrating how useless it is.

 

4. Barack Obama speaks: Not even two weeks and Obama feels the need to offer his opinion.  I'm not sure George W Bush ever said anything in opposition to Obama though Obama spent most of his first term blaming Bush for the state of everything.  Even so, Bush remained silent and allowed the new president to take the world stage.  Some ex-presidents have class.

 

5. Military Action against Mexico: Apparently Trump had a phone conversation with Pena Nieto and suggested that he deal with the cartels or perhaps the US military might.  Wow, that escalated fast.  The US has intervened militarily in Mexico in the past.  When Pancho Villa raided into the US, President Wilson dispatched a Punitive Expedition led by General Pershing.  Wilson also occupied Vera Cruz.  It is extremely unlikely that US forces actually march into Mexico but hinting at the possibility could certainly prompt Mexico to crackdown.  Bullying or smart diplomacy?

 

6. Frenetic Trump: That may not be the right adjective but it certainly seems appropriate to an outside observer.  There is something new always happening.  No one would accuse Trump of being 'low energy.'  In a way, his tactics so far remind me of a military campaign.  Shock and awe is surely what Washington is feeling.  This high-speed activity is not how things are normally done.  However, that may be the point.  The opposition is off-balance.  Heck, even the allies are off-balance.  It remains to be seen how successful this strategy will be.  Did he use this technique in the many deals he has struck over the years?

 

7. Berkeley Riot: The self-described 'Dangerous Faggot' was scheduled to speak at Berkeley but protests turned to a riot.  Do these students not realize that this sort of 'tolerance' of opposing views is part of the reason Trump was elected?  Each time one of these protests make the news, more people wonder what Milo is saying to incite it.  Curious, they look on YouTube.  This is how I became aware of Milo and now he is a rising star with a huge book deal and multiplying appearances.  It reminds me of how every time Obama would call for reasonable gun legislation, gun sales would sky rocket.  Counter-productive.

 

I wonder how much has happened while I've been blogging.