Some Rapes aren't as Important as Others

When Tawana Brawley reported that she had been raped, it was a media firestorm in 1987.  It was headline news and was the crime that launched Reverend Al Sharpton onto the national stage.  It later turned out she lied about the incident to avoid punishment from her mother for staying out.  Of note, Brawley is black and she accused white men of raping her.

When a stripper claimed that the Duke lacrosse team had raped her, it became a media firestorm that saw lacrosse canceled for the season and the coach forced to resign.  A year later, the charges were dropped when the stripper was shown to have lied.  Of note, the stripper was black and she accused white college students of raping her.

When Rolling Stone published a story about a fraternity raping a girl as part of initiation at UVA, a media firestorm followed in which rape culture was denounced, especially the members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.  Unlike the other two instances, this one flamed out quickly since the story was appallingly sourced and easily disproven.  Of note, the accused rapists were white college students.

 

Late last year in Kansas, a 13 year old girl was raped.  No firestorm of media attention followed.  Of note, the accused rapist was an illegal alien who had repeatedly been deported.

 

Last week in Maryland, a high school girl - 14 years old - was raped.  There has been no media firestorm.  Yes, it has been reported and then mostly forgotten.  Of note, the accused rapist is an illegal immigrant.

 

There is a pattern here.  If the rape confirms the narrative of racism or campus rape culture, the firestorm follows even though it is almost always a hoax.  If the rape would confirm Trump's claim that rapists are illegally crossing the border, crickets.  The media will obsess on stories that confirm its biases and overlook those that challenge them.

Consumer Confidence Boom!

Consumer confidence has hit a 16 year high.  That this comes two month into a new presidency is surely just a coincidence.  As shown in a previous blog, the last two presidents have the worst economic records in more than 50 years.  George H. W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, both one term presidents, presided over better economies than Obama and W, who each somehow served two terms.  By historical standards, the last 16 years have been a disaster.

 

From JFK to Clinton's final year, the US growth rate averaged 3.6%.  From the beginning of George W. Bush to the end of the Obama presidency, the US growth rate was 1.8%!  In the last 16 years, the growth exceeded the average of 3.6% only once: 3.8% in 2004, nicely timed for W's reelection.  What if the last 16 years had just been average?  Let's do some math!

 

Bob puts $100 in a CD that offers 1.8% interest and another CD that offers 3.6%.  After a year, the difference is paltry: $1.80.  After 5 years, the gap is $10.01.  At 10 years, it is $22.90.  At the end of 16 years, Bob finds that his CDs are worth $133.03 and $176.10.  Of course, on this scale, $43 is not a big difference for a 16 year investment.  But what if we were talking about a trillion dollars?  That would be a gap of $430 billion!  The economy would be 30% larger than it is today and maybe the debt wouldn't be $20 trillion.

 

Trump has clearly shown his intent to abandon many of the policies of the last 16 years.  He didn't like Bush's activist foreign policy and has decried Obama's Affordable Care Act.  There is the promise of unleashing the economy from the mountains of regulations that have accumulated.  The long blocked pipelines have been approved.  It is clear that business has an ally in the White House rather than an adversary.  The economy improves when businesses grow, not when government grows.

Judge Overrules Biology

In 1925, John Scopes, a Tennessee high school science teacher, used Civic Biology by George William Hunter - which included a chapter on evolution.  It turned out that was against state law and Scopes was brought to trial, convicted, and fined $100.  Famed as the Scopes Monkey Trial, it led to the elimination of 'evolution' from textbooks for many years after.

 

In 2017, biology lost another case in court.  Patrick Abbatiello holds that he is neither male nor female.  He petitioned the court to allow him to be legally 'genderless.'  Judge Amy Holmes approved the petition, thus overturning biology.  According to biology, Patrick - now known as Patch - is absolutely male but the law holds that he is not.  What are the consequences of the law ruling against demonstrable reality?  The law has ruled in favor of fiction!  If Patch wants to run around and claim to be genderless, it makes little difference.  If the state of Oregon sanctions Patch's genderlessness, that presents some problems.  Can Patch use either the men's room or the ladies' room, depending on his mood or will another judge require a third restroom for the genderless?  When will a judge rule against physics, chemistry, or geology?

The Easy Button

Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

Affordable Care Repeal Act as written by Congressman Mo Brooks

That was easy.  Let's clear the wreckage that is Obamacare and rebuild rather than trying to refurbish the ruins that will still be a rickety structure prone to failure and requiring constant maintenance.  Tear it down and start clean.  Better still, tear it down and see what the private sector builds in its place, especially after some additional regulations are repealed.

 

The complicated and ambiguous nature of legislation provides plenty of work for lawyers, bureaucrats, and judges while burdening the producers of society.  As noted in a previous blog, a majority of US Senators are Doctors of Law but only 4 are Medical Doctors.  Are these lawyers particularly suited to designing a health care system?  I doubt the House has much better qualifications.  Would we entrust the Congress to design a system for computers and software and expect the costs to go down?

Doubt the Expert

In the last year, two major discoveries have occurred in human anatomy.  First, the mesentery has been upgraded to an organ.  This may be a case where anatomy has modified the definition of an organ and suddenly the mesentery fit that new definition, not unlike how changes in astronomy recently downgraded Pluto from being a planet.  However, we are hundreds of years along in our study of anatomy, have dissected untold thousands of bodies, and have just determined that this bit is an organ.  Then there is this new development.  The lungs produce blood cells?  I was taught that blood cells came from bone marrow.  If true, this is a mind-blowing discovery.  Again, hundreds of years with a vast number of scientists studying the human body and only now we are discovering where blood cells are made?  My faith in medicine and medical science is shaken by these two discoveries.

 

Scientists and doctors have been studying the human body for vastly longer than scientists have studied climate science.  Today, the number of people studying the human body exceeds the number of people studying climate.  Climate research is a small sector when compared to medical research.  In 2012, $119 billion was spent on medical research in the US.  In 2013, climate change had a $22.5 billion budget, about a fifth of medical research.  Therefore, medical science with its vastly greater resources, greater number of scientists, and vastly longer history of study is still discovering things about how the human body works but climate scientists - with less money, time, and personnel - have already figured out that we are doomed without drastic changes.  Gosh, I wish those climate scientists had gone into medicine instead and we'd have a cure for cancer. 

Obamacare Still Stands

After seven horrible years of ObamaCare (skyrocketing premiums & deductibles, bad healthcare), this is finally your chance for a great plan!

Donald J. Trump, Twitter

I disagree.  This was only the first chance.  It is inevitable, if Obamacare collapses as predicted, that another chance will come.  This was not a great plan.  A great plan would be no plan at all.  Government would withdraw itself completely and let health insurance work like car insurance or life insurance.  There is no 'great plan' from the federal government for those but they work a lot better than the Unaffordable Care Act.

 

Trump states that this is just phase one.  Dangerous.  Passing a bad bill - which this is - and hoping to improve it later is fraught with peril.  Obamacare had similar plans and that didn't work out well.

 

I remain baffled as to why the House and Senate didn't just dust off the last repeal bill that Obama vetoed and send it to Trump.  Simple.  That they did not is why I am very distrustful of Republicans.  They knew Obama would veto but they could show the voters that they tried.  Now that it will get signed, they do this Obamacare Lite foolishness.

 

Though this is currently a setback and embarrassment, it may be beneficial in the long run.  The ACA is in a death spiral and all Republican efforts to save it have failed.  Thus, the collapse should fall on the builders (Obama, Reid, and Pelosi) though I doubt the media will report it that way.

Ending the Filibuster?

Senator Schumer has announced his intention to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court.  This will trigger the Reid option where the Republicans will change the rules in much the way the Harry Reid did when the Democrats controlled the Senate and approve Gorsuch on a 52 to 48 vote.  Interestingly, Gorsuch was unanimously approved by the Senate for his current post on the Tenth Circuit.  Repeatedly, Gorsuch has said that his job is to apply the laws that Congress passed and Senator Schumer finds that to be a conservative ideology.

If McConnell has a spine (questionable), the Reid option will forever nix the filibuster on nominees.  As noted in a previous blog, I hold that nominees whose term will exceed that of the president who nominates them should meet a higher bar but those who leave with him should be approved by a simple majority.  Sadly, the parties don't trust each other enough to make that deal.

 

As the Senate has just become another House of Representatives who just have longer terms, the filibuster is obsolete.  Senators represent their party rather than their state government.  Where senators once viewed the state assembly and governor as their superiors, now they look down upon them as inferiors.  Rightly so under the current election scheme.  In fact, since senators are popularly elected, Democratic senators represent 177 million people while Republican senators only represent 143 million people.  The Independents (Bernie Sanders and Angus King) represent a million people but caucus with the Democrats.  In the 5 most populous states, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 7 to 3.  In the 5 least populous states, that reverses with Republicans having the 7 to 3 majority.

 

It has been a century since the 17th Amendment broke the Senate.  The traditions that had been established beforehand had kept the Senate from going off the rails immediately but those traditions have been chipped away.  The state governments can't keep them in check and the voters have little interest in doing so.  Repeal the 17th Amendment and money will flow back to the states and the federal government will soon busy itself with its enumerated powers.

 

In the meantime, it's time to continue the demolition of the filibuster that Senator Harry Reid started.  After ending it for nominations, it will start getting chipped away for legislation.  It's just a matter of time.

Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

Many years ago, I worked at a dry cleaners.  It was not a demanding job but I soon had a working knowledge of the business.  Most interesting was that a liquid was used to clean the clothes!  Sometime while I was working at the cleaners, the local TV news had a story on the sexist pricing practices of dry cleaners.  Huh?  The reporter noted that skirts cost more than slacks and that blouses cost more than shirts.  Proof!  Of course, that was nonsense.  So many slacks came through the shop that we had a special press that was designed to press slacks.  By contrast, skirts had so much variance that they needed to be hand pressed.  A woman's blouse in the 1980s often had shoulder pads and was silk or rayon where a man's shirt was just cotton and run through a normal laundry machine.  Likewise, we had a special press for business shirts but blouses had to be hand pressed.  This doesn't even consider the pleats!  The reporter didn't have a clue.  I shook my head but then watched the next news segment as though it was accurate, thus experiencing the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.

 

As the years accumulated, I would again come across news stories that happened upon a subject where I was knowledgeable and it would be biased, inaccurate, or completely wrong.  And yet, I would continue to read the newspaper or watch the news to get informed, assuming that the sources were accurate regarding subjects where I had no expertise.  It took about a decade after the dry cleaners incident before I learned to distrust the media.

 

A good rule is to find a source of news that has demonstrated accuracy in fields I know and trust that they are equally accurate in fields I don't know.  As long as the source demonstrates accuracy and knowledge, I'll watch, listen, or read even when I disagree with the conclusions.  I'll even accept bias, as long as it's out in the open.  Interpreting the facts differently is fine, misrepresenting the facts is unacceptable.

Elites of the Senate

The United States Senate, which was initially formed to represent the interests of the States, was undermined by the 17th Amendment.  Rather than being selected by the state assembly and/or the governor, the senators would be popularly elected.  This effectively ended the ability of state governments to directly influence the federal government.  Whereas the state legislature could have recalled a senator who voted in favor of a law that would impose costs on the state government (e.g. Medicaid, Americans with Disabilities Act, No Child Left Behind, etc.), the 17th Amendment removed that check from the state.  Unfunded mandates have proliferated, allowing the federal government to determine how the states must spend their tax revenues.

 

The reasoning behind the amendment was that too many millionaires were 'buying' senate seats.  There was also an issue with legislatures selecting senators in a timely fashion since it wasn't an election with a given day for all legislators to vote.  Popular vote certainly resolved the second of those issues but senators are still among the wealthy elite.

 

Members of the 115th Senate are, on average, 61.9 years old and have been in the Senate for 10 years.  26 Senators graduated from Ivy League colleges (20 of them attended Harvard, Yale, or both) and 55 Senators have a Juris Doctor degree.  By contrast, only 4 senators earned an MD and 6 have an MBA.  Two have achieved PhDs.  Impressive credentials when one considers the mediocre to bad quality of their work.

 

Splitting by party is illuminating.  There are 46 Democrats, 17 of whom are Ivy League graduates (37%) and 32 of whom have a JD (70%).  By contrast, of the 52 Republicans, only 8 are Ivy League grads (15%) and 22 have a JD (42%).  All 4 MDs are Republicans.  The MBAs are split 4 Republicans to 2 Democrats.  Each party has a PhD senator.  50% of the Democrats have worked as lawyers while only 35% of the Republicans have.

 

Considering the low regard in which lawyers are held, it is no surprise that an institution that is dominated by lawyers and Ivy League elites would find itself with similar approval ratings.

Blake's 7 (series 1)

Blake's 7 is a British sci-fi series that ran from 1978 to 1981.  It was created by Terry Nation, the very man who created the Daleks from the Dr. Who franchise.  As such, the show often feels like background for a Doctor Who episode of the era.  I would not be the least surprised if Tom Baker arrived in the Tardis in any given episode and joined Blake and his crew in fighting the Federation.  I first encountered it sometime in the mid 90s.  I saw a handful of episodes and was intrigued.  Ever since then, I have occasionally sought the series.  At long last, I have found all the episodes posted on YouTube.

 

Roj Blake (Gareth Thomas) is a former freedom fighter in the distant future who finds himself being shipped to a prison planet.  As chance would have it, a starship battle between unknown belligerents results in damage to the prison transport.  While assessing damage, the prison ship notes that one ship is drifting.  If they could get control of it, it would be worth a fortune!  The captain sends some of his crew and they fail to return.  Unwilling to risk more of his crew, he sends prisoners, Blake among them.  Blake overcomes the alien ship's defenses and bolts with his new crew mates aboard the Liberator.  Over the first set of 13 episodes, Blake assembles a crew.  There is Kerr Avon the computer genius with an immense ego and mostly interested in what is best for him.  Jenna Stannis is a 'free trader' who was bound for prison for smuggling.  She is a competent pilot.  Vila Restal is a cowardly thief, a man who can open any lock, especially if he is in danger.  Olag Gan is a bear of a man who proves quite amiable.  He has an inhibitor chip in his head to prevent him from killing.  Cally is an alien who looks entirely human.  She can send her thoughts telepathically but cannot read minds.  Lastly, there is Zen, the Liberator's computer.  That makes seven crew, Blake's 7.

 

The show is a cross between Star Trek and Robin Hood.  Blake is an idealist who wants to use the Liberator - which is far superior to any Federation ship - to destroy the tyrannical government.  The rest of the crew would as soon find someplace to hide.  As such, the episodes are a mix of achieving Blake's objectives (e.g., blowing up a communications array, rescuing a rebel leader, etc.) or alien encounters (e.g., all powerful aliens mess with the ship or crew).  Viewing it today, I am reminded of Firefly.

 

The production values show great frugality, looking very like the Doctor Who episodes of the era.  Star Trek, a show that was canceled almost a decade before this one started, has better special effects.  Battlestar Galactica, a contemporary, is vastly superior.  However, the stories are solid, and the characters are fun.

 

The final episode of the first season has the crew acquire the ultimate supercomputer, an AI that is called Orac.  No sooner is Orac aboard the Liberator than it predicts the destruction of the ship in the near future, even providing a graphic detonation on the view screen.  Nice cliffhanger.

The Sense of an Ending

Tony Webster (Jim Broadbent) is a curmudgeonly fellow who has a small camera repair shop that keeps him busy in his retirement.  He has set routines.  He meets his ex-wife, Margaret (Harriet Walter) regularly and finds himself drafted into helping his pregnant daughter (Michelle Dockery) with Lamaze.  Into his structured life comes a certified letter which indicates he has been willed a diary from his college girlfriend's mother.

Much of the story is told in flashback, with young Tony (Billy Howle) meeting Veronica (Freya Mavor) at a party.  Of course, Tony's school chums figure as well, most notably Adrian (Joe Alwyn), a self-styled philosopher.  Tony's memories of the past are soon challenged by evidence from the past, either from his former classmates or from Veronica (Charlotte Rampling).  Investigating the past at this distant point reveals a story that he never knew.  New information leads to a reassessment of his memories.

 

The movie plays as a sort of mystery.  Jim Broadbent does an excellent job of being a likeable curmudgeon, partly because he doesn't realize he is a curmudgeon.  Very engaging and quite enjoyable.

Logan

Logan (Hugh Jackman) doesn't look good.  His healing factor is failing him and his adamantium bones are now poisoning him to death.  He is making a living as a chauffer in El Paso.  South of the border, he has a place where he is hiding Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart).  Charles is suffering from dementia and causes considerable harm to those around him during his less lucid moments.  Serving as nurse when Logan is away is Caliban (Stephen Merchant), an albino mutant with a gift for tracking mutants.  Enter Laura (Dafne Keen), an 11 year-old genetically-engineered mutant who has abilities nearly identical to Wolverine.  Hmm.  She is being tracked by Pierce (Boyd Holbrook) and his band of cyborgs.  Logan wants to walk away but Charles believes they must aide Laura.  Let the chase begin!

 

This is very somber and dark for a superhero movie.  There is no shortage of killing and much of it is very graphic.  Logan's failing health leads to him having some impressive scars and even what should be fatal open wounds.  On the other side, there are moments that are very sweet.  The brief time when Logan introduces himself as Charles' son and indicates that Laura is his daughter was quite fitting.  I've never thought of Professor X as a father-figure for Logan but it works quite well here.  'Chuck' provides a conscience that Logan wants to ignore.

 

Poignant and sad, it reminds me a bit of Watchman.  All the exciting heroics are in the past which itself is a bygone era.  In a different genre, the performances by Jackman and Stewart are the sort that would be Academy Award material.  Definitely one to see and a great finish for Jackman and Stewart in the X-Men series.

 

Hitler was NOT Elected

Then there's the notion that winning an election automatically makes a candidate the right/correct choice. If that were true, everyone today owes Hitler an apology.

Robert Kirby, Salt Lake Tribune

 

Adolf Hitler was Austrian and never won an election to a German political office.  He had renounced his Austrian citizenship in 1925 but did not gain German citizenship until 1932.  He could not legally run for office in Germany throughout the 1920s and instead became a party boss.  In 1932, he ran for president and lost.  However, the lead vote winner, Paul von Hindenburg, only received 49% of the vote, leading to a run off.  In the runoff, Hitler lost again but his strong showing led President Hindenburg to reluctantly appoint him as chancellor.  Hindenburg was in his 80s and died in August, 1934.  During his time as Chancellor, Hitler had already set about intimidating and crushing opposition parties.  With Hindenburg's death, there was nothing to stop Hitler from declaring himself Fuhrer of Germany.  Later elections offered only Nazi members as candidates for the Reichstag.  Hitler was not elected, and not re-elected.  At best, prior to his seizing power, his party held 43% of the seats in the Reichstag and made common cause with other parties to get legislation to further empower Hitler.  The other parties were abolished once Hitler had the powers he needed.

 

Enough with the Hitler nonsense.  There are plenty of American Presidents that took actions that Trump is taking.  How about comparing him to them?  Obama banned travel from Iraq, Carter banned travel from Iran.  It was okay then but wrong now.  Truman and Eisenhower deported lots of illegal immigrants.  FDR had Russian agents throughout his administration!  President Tyler had a wife who was 30 years his junior.  No need to make a Hitler analogy when past president's fit the bill.

Debt Limit Reached

The debt limit has been reached and the government can spend no more unless Congress raises or suspends the debt limit.  This could be a huge boon to Trump.  By simply vetoing any efforts to raise the debt limit, the president can hold the line on spending.  As the chief executive, it is up to him to decide where to cut spending in order to hold that line until Congress passes a new budget.  Even with a new budget, that debt limit is a wall on overspending.  The government will have to spend only what it collects in taxes!  Spending within our means!  What a concept!  Let the layoffs begin!

Andrew Jackson & Donald Trump

It is interesting that Trump should make this trip to the Hermitage so soon after I likened him to Andrew Jackson.  Some of Jackson's agenda applies to Trump.

Upon taking office, Jackson set about clearing the bureaucracies with his Rotation in Office to prevent the hereditary succession of offices that had been common.  He opposed the corrupt aristocracy and favored the common man.  However, this began the Spoils System in which each new administration swept the offices clean and put in cronies.  Civil Service Reform was instituted to stop the Spoils System.  However, Civil Service Reform has given us a fourth branch of government that is largely immune to elections and often resists the will of the elected representatives.  Enter Trump and his stated intention to roll back the scope and reach of the bureaucracy.  There are no solutions, only trade-offs.

Jackson dealt with the Nullification Crisis in which South Carolina declared federal tariff to be unconstitutional.  Threats of secession and even armed conflict arose.  The issue was resolved by a modification to the tariff but Jackson said it was only a pretext.  He predicted that another secession crisis would arise and the cause would be slavery, not tariffs.  With Trump, the issue is immigration law, where courts, states, and cities are openly defying federal laws.  California is even threatening secession.

Jackson was notorious for his temper and his willingness to duel those who offered slights.  One did not insult Jackson and not expect reprisals.  Trump may not break out the dueling pistols but he has that same habit to retaliate, often with belittling comments but now more often with Tweets.  Jackson's opponents called him Jackass, which the Democrats embraced and is the source of the party logo.

 

Jackson was the first president since Washington who did not have a college degree.  He was the first western president; all previous presidents had been from Massachusetts or Virginia.  Trump is the first president since Reagan to not graduate from Harvard or Yale.  He is also the first Northeasterner since JFK, and the first New Yorker since FDR.

 

Viewed as a violent backwoods bumpkin by the elites of the day, Jackson was nevertheless effective at pushing his policies.  Among his more egregious achievements is the Indian Removal Act which led to the Trail of Tears.  His economic policies had mixed results: to the good, he paid off the federal debt for the first and only time in the nation's history; to the bad, his banking innovations led to the Panic of 1837 (recessions and depressions were called panics).  He is the only president to be censured.  Jackson has been disowned by the Democratic Party because he owned slaves.  As the Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation, most Democratic presidents are villains in the age of the social justice warrior.

 

Jackson is a good choice for Trump to study and emulate.  His political situation is surprisingly similar to that of Jackson in 1829, an outsider seeking to upend and reform a corrupt and self-serving system.  Jackson had considerable success.

Dynastic Politics

With her mother's loss still visible in the rearview mirror, talk of Chelsea running for Senate in New York is already a news item.  Sigh.  Of course, with no Clintons in office, funding for the Clinton Foundation evaporated.  To keep the funds coming, there has to be the chance that a Clinton will be in a political office and be able to grant favors.  Without the play, there can be no pay.

 

If she does run for office, she will be one of the most educated people to do so.  She has a BA in History from Stanford, a MPhil (Masters), and later DPhil (Doctorate) in International Relations from Oxford.  She also has a Masters of Public Health from Columbia.  As impressive as this is, she has little in the form of work experience.  Her jobs as McKinsey & Co, Avenue Capital Group, and NBC coincide with her mother's stint in the Senate and as Secretary of State.  In fact, her $600,000 salary at NBC was criticized on account of her lack of experience and unremarkable tenure.  Her status as a multimillionaire is entirely on account of her parents' political careers and connections.  With her impressive and extensive academic achievements, there is certainly an Ivy League University with a professoriate available.  Stick to academics, Chelsea.

 

Of course, Hillary may not be done yet either.  Though I am highly doubtful that she will do it, there is still talk of her running for Mayor of New York City.  Though she crushed Trump in New York City (79% to 18%), it's unlikely she would challenge the Democrat incumbent, Bill de Blasio.  Also, the Clinton Foundation won't benefit much from a mayoral office.  The Clintons need a national office, either a high ranking position in the administration or high office in Congress.  State and local offices can't attract the dollars.  Nor would being mayor help another presidential run.  Though I think another run is doomed, I've read that she intends to give it another shot.

 

Finally, Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky will be old enough to run for a House seat in Congress in 2040.

Tax Dodger Network Blasts Taxpayer

On MSNBC last night, Rachel Maddow reported on President Trump's 2005 tax return which she had in hand.  It turns out that Trump paid taxes!  Yes, he paid $38 million on $150 million of income, which is about 25%.  That is a higher percentage than MSNBC Corporate owner, Comcast (24%), President Obama (19%), or Bernie Sanders (13%).  Why was this newsworthy?

 

And then I came across this article and thought about only those without sin may cast stones.  It turns out that quite a few people at MSNBC have had tax problems.  Reverend Al Sharpton leads the pack with $1.5 million in back taxes to both New York and the federal government.  Former host Toure had a long run of tax troubles from 2008 to 2012 for a quarter of a million dollars.  Former host Melissa Harris-Perry was into the feds for $70K in 2015.  Chris Matthews had a $4,000 lien placed on him by the state of Maryland last year.  The guy earns $5 million a year.  Supposing that he works 50 hour weeks and only takes a couple weeks of vacation a year, that works out to $2,000 an hour.  How do you let a 2 hour tax problem spiral to the point that the state of Maryland imposes a lien?  There is a story I would like to see reported, especially since this is a guy who demands the rich pay more since they don't need it.

 

The point of this story was to get ratings for Maddow.  She is currently skyrocketing and this will likely have been a ratings homerun.  Such is short term thinking.  How many anti-Trumpers watched with anticipation of a Trump-crushing scandal to be revealed only to find out that he made a lot of money and paid a lot of taxes on it?  The tax return in no way supported the conspiracy theory she outlined before the big reveal.

Kong: Skull Island

In World War II, Lt. Hank Marlow parachutes onto an uncharted island only a short distance from the wreckage of his plane.  Moments later, the Zero that shot him down also crashes and the Japanese pilot arrives moments later.  The duel to the death recommences!  After much shooting, running, stabbing, and jumping, it looks like Marlow is about to lose when a huge hairy hand thumps down beside the struggling figures.  A giant ape glares angrily at the two gaping pilots.

 

In 1973, Bill Randa (John Goodman) of the Monarch Company is in Washington DC and desperately trying to get funding for a mission to Skull Island, an island only just discovered thanks to satellite mapping technology.  Making his way to southeast Asia, Randa recruits a former British Special Forces captain (Tom Hiddleston), an "anti-war" photographer (Brie Larson), and an army helicopter squadron commanded by Colonel Packard (Samuel L. Jackson) to go along.  As soon as the helicopters breech the storm system that perpetually surrounds the island, the trouble starts.  Not amused by the seismic charges being dropped on his island, Kong starts taking down these pesky helicopters.  The majority of his men dead and all his helicopters crippled, Packard turns into Captain Ahab on a quest to kill Moby Dick.

 

Kong is immense, much larger than his last incarnation.  Rather than a monster that needs to be supplied with the occasional sacrificial woman like Ann Darrow from time to time, this Kong protects the island from the skull crawlers and other nasty beasts.  Kong gets to fight a lot in this film.  So does everyone else.  There is no shortage of action.  However, it is clear that the makers do not realize just how devastating a .50 caliber bullet can be, even to something the size of Kong or the skull crawlers.  It was also annoying that the helicopters kept flying within arm's length of the giant ape or that they never tried to retreat so that at least one helicopter was still airworthy.

 

The cast is surprisingly large and a modicum of personality is given to lots of characters who are doomed to die.  As such, the principals don't get as much attention as they should.  The stand out characters are Hank Marlow (John C. Reilly) and Colonel Packard.  Everyone else is one-dimensional, including Hiddleston and Larson.  By the end, if everyone except Marlow had died, I'd have been okay with that.

 

Good popcorn fun that sets up the eventual King Kong vs. Godzilla movie.

Consumer Comfort Index?

As someone who pays entirely too much attention to the daily news, I was surprised to discover the Consumer Comfort Index.  Comfort, not confidence?  It turns out that it is the Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index, a measure of views on the economy, personal finances, and the purchasing environment.  It has just broken 50 for the first time in 10 years, which is doubtless why President Trump has tweeted about it.  When getting battered by negatives, trumpet the positive.

Security Incompetence

Just over two years ago, someone jumped the White House fence and got into the building.  Last night, someone tried to repeat that.  Where the last fellow had a knife, this one had a backpack that, happily enough, did not contain a bomb (only mace, a laptop, a book by Trump, and a letter for President Trump).  If there is any place in government that one would expect to be secure, the White House is high on the list.  If this 'troubled' fellow could get so close to the White House, imagine what would happen if a professional tried it.  After the 2014 incident, one expected a shakeup with the Secret Service.  Apparently, that didn't happen.

The Secret Service has seen a lot of scandals in recent years and is in desperate need of reform.  Until a few years ago, I had a great deal of respect for the Secret Service.  Indeed, it is hard not to admire men and women who volunteer to take a bullet for those they protect.  I don't know if the agency is actually in decline or a long pattern of bad behavior has finally leaked out.  Perhaps when the Department of Homeland Security is disbanded (wishful thinking, I know), the Secret Service can return to the Treasury Department.

Whose Economy Is It?

Trump taking credit for Obama's economy is like someone inheriting millions from his dad and bragging about what a smart businessman he is.

Oliver Griswold, Twitter

 

As seen on Facebook, this is pretty funny. Throughout the Obama years, the anemic economy was blamed on the mismanagement of the Bush Administration. I recall posing the question that, if Romney won, would he be inheriting the Bush or Obama economy? Indeed, Obama's first term saw an average growth rate of less than 1%. His second term was quite a bit better at 2.1% but still anemic by historic standards. Let's explore the numbers, shall we.

 

 

Obama had inherited the worst economy of any president shown and it got worse. He is the first president since Hoover who never saw a year break 3% growth. His best year – 2010 - is worse than Bill Clinton’s worst year -1995. George W Bush does not compare well to Clinton either. The direction of the economy since Clinton left office has not been promising.

 

 

Both Bush and Obama had good excuses for a weak start. Bush had to contend with the Tech Bubble bursting and then 9/11. Obama started his presidency with the economy plunging into the deepest recession since the Depression. On the other hand, both Bush and Obama entered the presidency with plans to expand government. Bush had No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Part D Drug Benefit already in the queue when 9/11 prompted the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Likewise, Obama entered with the promise of a health care overhaul, an $800 billion stimulus, and what eventually became the Dodd-Frank Act to further regulate the financial sector. Therefore, both entered in difficult economic times with plans to expand the scope and expense of government.

 

President Clinton’s first term had a very respectable average growth rate of 3.3%, despite his raising taxes and trying to nationalize the healthcare system. In 1996, he declared the era of big government to be over. His second term saw a phenomenal average growth rate of 4.4%. Moreover, the federal debt shrank during this period and the government was running surpluses.

 

Expectations play a big role in business investment. If the president comes into office with plans to increase the cost and burden of government, business waits to see how much more burdensome it will be and if its business model will still be profitable. On the other hand, if a president announces plans to reduce the cost of government and reduce regulations, capital starts flowing since the future environment will be better than the current one. Thus, Trump’s stated goals of repealing the Affordable Care Act (less burden), cutting taxes (less cost), cutting regulations (less burden), and reducing the federal workforce through attrition (less cost & burden) all indicate that the business landscape will be better tomorrow than it is today. The Trump Economy started on November 9th.

Presidential Debates with a Twist

After watching the presidential debates, Professor Maria Guadalupe had an idea.  What if the genders of the two candidates were swapped?  How would Trump's aggressive demeanor have been viewed were a woman to have acted that way?  Would Hillary's superior political experience have received more recognition when delivered by a man?  She set out to test the theory.  Actors were cast.  A woman would play the Trump clone, Brenda King, while a man would play the Hillary clone, Jonathan Gordon.  Watching and listening to the debates, each actor sought to mimic the tone, cadence, and mannerisms of the candidates.  Finally, they gave a couple of performances.  To the amazement of all, Brenda King came off surprisingly well while Jonathan Gordon came off stiff and overly reliant on rehearsed statements.

 

Though an interesting experiment, it doesn't look fair to the Hillary clone.  Assertive and aggressive behavior in a woman is far more acceptable than effeminate behavior in a man, especially when looking at a potential president.  One picture shows Gordon in a very awkward pose for a man that would be unremarkable of a woman.

 

Of note, in the first televised presidential debates in 1960, those who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won while those who watched on TV chose Kennedy.  The visual cues made a big impression.

 

For a future experiment, run the debate twice with the same actors but have them switch roles the second time around.  Script remains unchanged.  One actor should be George Clooney and the other can be Steve Buscemi.  This sounds like an obvious sort of experiment and has probably already been done but the results could be instructive.

Obamacare 2.0

Back in 2009 and 2010, the Republicans managed to hold together and vote 100% in opposition to a government takeover of the healthcare sector.  When they took over the House in January 2011, the repeal bills began.  Once the Republicans captured the Senate, a repeal bill actually made it to Obama's desk where he - unsurprisingly - vetoed it.  Now, rather than just erase this disaster and have US law return to what it was in February 2010 (the month before the ACA was signed into law), they are having second thoughts.  The Democrats took the hit - having lost over one thousand elective offices across the country during Obama's Presidency - so the Republicans figure why give up the power that Democrats committed political suicide to acquire.  Really, let's not be hasty.  Is it any wonder I left the Republican Party?

Apparently, the free market is a foreign concept to the party that used to champion free markets.  Have they not noticed that goods and services provided by the free market see tremendous improvement over time and also drop in price?  Here is a great graph that shows how prices have changed over the last 20 years.  All those things government has sought to make more affordable (e.g. college, health care, housing, food) have seen massive cost increases.  Those items left to the private market (e.g. clothing, cars, furniture, cellphone plans, TVs) has seen prices flat or dramatically fall.  Maybe there is a correlation?

 

Among the crazy things the Republicans have decided to retain is the guarantee of coverage for those with a pre-existing condition.  That would be like allowing a homeowner to buy insurance while the house was on fire.  The fire is a pre-existing condition; how can the insurance company deny?  That isn't how insurance works.  Insurance is a hedge against disaster, not a payment plan for routine costs.  No one buys gas or gets their tires rotated through a copay.  Why doesn't health insurance work that way?

 

The best thing that Congress could do would be to repeal the whole enchilada.  And then just keep repealing until there are no national laws or regulations regarding health care.  Prices would plummet, insurance would transform to only paying for catastrophic care, and the states could setup modest programs to cover the poor.  The Constitution does not authorize the government to do anything with regard to health care.  Set the market free and it will do wonders.  The drawback is that government would have less power over the peasants and fewer dollars to spend.

Schumer Voted for the Wall

Here is an article in which Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer plans to filibuster the wall and, to read it, one would think Schumer has a good shot.  However, the legislation for the wall is already passed: Secure Fence Act of 2006.  Schumer voted Yea.  Therefore, the only thing needed for building the fence is a check.  That can be done through reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes.  Hey, that's how the Democrats managed to ram through the Affordable Care Act even after they lost the 60 vote majority in the Senate.  Of course, the Republicans may play along and pretend that they have no means of overcoming Schumer's parliamentary tricks.  Voters with short memories will believe it.  If such does come to pass, look for Trump to start tweeting about spineless Republicans.

Worse than Watergate?

Mark Levin, a conservative talk show host and former member of the Reagan Administration, makes the case of Obama Administration spying on the Trump Campaign by citing left-leaning news sources.  Of course, citing these same sources with equal brevity, one can make the case that Trump's Campaign was deeply entangled with the Russians.  However, which story is more prevalent?

That is the secret of spin, slant, and fake news.  When the accusation comes on page 1 and the retraction on the following day appears on page 20, how many readers will have read the former but not the latter?  Is that by accident or intention?  For weeks on end, the news will report about a hate crime, but when the victim turns out to be the perpetrator, silence.  The news had given the impression that rape is common and widespread on college campuses but every story that gets wide coverage turns out to be false.  The media picks which stories will go viral and which will get a mention - so they can honestly say they covered it - and then never go anywhere.  The majority of the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.) are staffed with Democrats.  It's an echo chamber run on confirmation bias.  The fact that the word 'narrative' is so popular in news coverage today speaks volumes.  The Op Ed page has invaded the whole of the news industry.

 

The Russia story is bogus.  It was used as a means to get a FISA judge to approve surveillance.  Russia had no reason to prefer Trump over Hillary.  Obama was the best US President Russia ever had.  He stood by with empty words when Russia invaded the Crimea.  He was flexible on weakening the US military.  He stood by as Russia sent forces into Syria.  He managed to improve the relationship between Turkey and Russia, which is not beneficial to America.  He gave billions of dollars to Iran - a Russian ally in the Middle East - and lifted sanctions, again benefiting Russia.  He nixed our missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic, which pleased Russia.  While Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary approved the sale of 20% of the US uranium mines to a Russian mining company, Rosatom.  With a series of victories like that, why would Russia want an erratic real estate mogul who keeps saying, "Make America Great Again" rather than Obama's chosen successor?  It sure looks like the Russia story is a clear case of projection.

 

As for the spying, one must ask what did Obama know and when did he know it?

Uber

Does Uber have a responsibility to cooperate with sting operations favoring crony-capitalist competitors?

Steven Green, Instapundit

 

In an effort to circumvent the laws in some cities, Uber has an app called Greyball.  The app keeps track of those accessing the Uber app with particular attention to those who might be setting up a sting operation against Uber drivers working in areas where the ride sharing service is not legal.  Clever.

One of my favorite economists, Walter Williams, has described smugglers as heroes.  Indeed, if Bill is willing to drive Sally to the airport in his private vehicle and Sally is willing to pay, why should government have the right to deny them from engaging in this mutually beneficial trade?  On the other hand, if the population of a locality has freely elected those who make such laws, those laws should be followed.  Federalism and libertarianism clash here.  But even there, Steven Green has a point in that it is not incumbent on the "lawbreaker" to cooperate with efforts to catch them.

 

The taxi model with its medallion system is a relic of an older era.  With cellphones and willing drivers, hailing a cab is heading out with the buggy whip.  Heck, before too much longer, cars with drivers will be an oddity.  Embrace the future and let free people engage in free trade.

Watergate Redux

In 1972, members of the Nixon campaign sought to steal documents and plant bugs in the offices of the Democratic National Committee at Watergate.  President Trump claims that the Obama Administration - which was actively campaigning for Hillary Clinton - did the same.  Here are a couple of Trump's tweets on the subject:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

 

How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

Donald J. Trump, Mar 4, 2017

 

Is that crazy talk?  Sadly, no.  The Obama Administration tapped the phones of the Associated Press for two months.  Even more invasive measures were taken against Fox Reporter James Rosen.  Edward Snowden was sufficiently alarmed that he went public with leaks revealing mass surveillance.  The Obama Administration used the Espionage Act of 1917 to punish leakers rather than to prevent espionage.  Add to that Krauthammer's view that the outgoing administration left "landmines" to hobble the early days of the Trump Administration.  With all that in mind, was this the kind of administration that would pull a Nixon?  Yes it was.

 

Obviously, it remains to be proven.  Trump makes wild claims (e.g. Inauguration crowd size, electoral college margin, etc.) but he is in a position to know what government agencies have been doing; they all report to him now, even if reluctantly.

Breaking the Elite Clique

I had mentioned in an earlier blog that Trump's election expanded the potential nominees.  I had offered Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerburg but Oprah Winfrey is also qualified by our new standard.  She is tremendously successful in a variety of enterprises, has name recognition as great or greater than Trump, and - unlike Trump - she is almost universally loved.  Though she didn't think she was qualified, now she thinks perhaps she is.  Although Oprah and I are on different sides of the political spectrum, I would rate her as more qualified than most Democratic politicians because she has been successful in the private sector.  Politicians with a long and distinguished career in government think nothing of piling regulations, taxes, and other burdens on the private sector but Oprah has been on the receiving end of that.  Also, she has more character than most politicians.

 

This is exactly why the insiders are up in arms.  Trump has vastly expanded the competition.  The cozy little clique of Harvard and Yale graduates have controlled the presidency since 1989 and are furious that their reign has been interrupted.  A third of all presidents have gone to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.  These universities are churning out a professional political class which has become the American aristocracy.  In order to save the clique, Trump must fail.  Trump must fail so badly that the voters realize their error and never commit it again.  Then the aristocracy can claim that it takes a particular education to be president and only we chosen few may apply.

 

Here are the last 8 elections.  Only schools that were attended by multiple nominees are highlighted.

 

2016 - Trump (U Penn) vs. Hillary (Yale)

2012 - Obama (Harvard) vs. Romney (Harvard)

2008 - Obama (Harvard) vs. McCain (Annapolis)

2004 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Kerry (Yale)

2000 - Bush II (Yale & Harvard) vs. Gore (Harvard)

1996 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Dole (U Kansas) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1992 - Clinton (Yale) vs. Bush I (Yale) vs. Perot (Annapolis)

1988 - Bush I (Yale) vs. Dukakis (Harvard)

 

Only Dole and Trump did not attend Harvard, Yale, or Annapolis.  Trump is the first person since Reagan in 1984 to win without having attended Harvard or Yale.  If she runs, Oprah attended Tennessee State University.