Congress Makes Law, Not the EPA

The Supreme Court has nixed a 'regulation' that the EPA sought to inflict.  The EPA argued that it was merely making regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act.  In West Virginia v. EPA, the court decided that the agency did not have unlimited regulating powers.  The court held that such dramatic changes in regulation must be enacted by Congress.  Precisely!  As I recently noted, Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution states that All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.  For far too long, these alphabet agencies have had free rein to legislate by regulation without Congressional input.  Congress loves this state of affairs as it centralizes more power in the capitol without the Representatives and Senators besmirching their voting records with the onerous regulations.  Now, if the Congress wants to regulate coal mines out of existence, they have to legislate.  Even Democrats in safe districts don't want to give that kind of ammunition to a rival candidate.

If Congress didn't write the law and the President didn't sign it, it's invalid.  It's bureaucratic overreach.  Where Trump failed to defeat the administrative state (AKA Drain the Swamp), the Supreme Court may succeed by removing its regulatory authority.

A Return to Federalism

“The country is coming apart at the seams, and the fundamental reason, in my opinion, is a lack of federalism.  What I mean by that is, is whoever is in power in Washington D.C., whether it’s Republicans or Democrats, roughly 50% of the country is angry about everything that is happening.”

Mark Meckler

Yes.  Absolutely correct.  I have long argued for a federalist approach to most issues.  Abortion law is unchanged in many states.  The most vociferous defenders of Roe v. Wade live in states that have retained the same laws as they had last week.  Their states are pro-choice.  They are protesting about laws in states where they do not live.  Meckler further states:

“There’s too much being decided in D.C., and the way we solve the discord and calm everything down is to take the power away from D.C. and give it back to the states. Then we can debate these issues in the states where it was always intended to be done."

Exactly right.  Decisions made in D.C. become a one-size-fits-all solution for 50 different states.  A gun control policy ideal for New York could be impractical for Wyoming.  A water conservation law that would be perfect for Nevada might be ludicrous for Hawaii.  Each state can come to its own conclusion.

The Supreme Court imposed a policy for all 50 states in 1973.  The current court has announced that each state may decide how it wants to legislate the issue.  Rather than a majority of 9 people deciding for more than 300 million people, the individual states will come to decisions with considerably more input from the voters.

The Dobbs decision does signal a sea change in the court.  If the overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment was incorrect in the case of Roe v. Wade, then it was also incorrect in a number of other instances.  The pendulum is starting to swing the other direction.

Meckler holds that the country is on a path of dissolution.  He calls it the Great Decoupling.  It could come apart by secession and civil war (I have addressed this with posts on Calexit and Texit) or by a return to federalism.  The central government will lose power either way, but the latter is peaceful and preserves the union.  The question is, can we return to federalism peacefully?

Like that Will Make a Difference

Ghislaine Maxwell placed on suicide watch

Jeffery Epstein was also on suicide watch and that did wonders for him.  It is interesting that no one else has been prosecuted.  Surely, someone other than Epstein and Maxwell engaged in sex with the many underage girls that Maxwell procured.  Prince Andrew is an obvious client but bringing him to trial would be an international incident.  Is there no one else?  It certainly looks like the elite clientele have arranged to protect themselves.  When Epstein's misdeeds could be swept under the rug more than a decade ago, they were.  When they could not be swept under the rug again, he was found dead in his cell.

If Ms. Maxwell is found dead in her cell in the near future, I will not be surprised.  That says something about the state of the republic.

Republican Split

I listen to all of these foolish (stupid!) people, often living in a bygone era, like the weak and frail RINO, Peggy Noonan, who did much less for Ronald Reagan than she claims, and who actually said bad things about him and his ability to speak, or Rich Lowry, who has destroyed the once wonderful and influential National Review, the pride and joy of the legendary William F. Buckley, or George Will, whose mind is decaying with hatred and envy before our very eyes, or Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes, two people who are finally out of the conversation and of no relevance whatsoever.

Donald Trump

This is sad but also true.  I followed each of these people for years, agreeing with them on most topics.  Now, they prefer the Democrats to the current Republican party.

I first read Peggy Noonan in the mid-90s when I was subscribed to the Wall Street Journal.  She is one of the best writers I have ever read.  I don't know how she does it, but there is a quality to her writing that imbues her words with great importance and significance.  There is a reason she was a great speechwriter and remains an excellent columnist.  Her opposition to Trump was more about personality than policy.  She even called for his censure in the wake of the Mueller Report.  It is now widely-accepted that the whole Russian Collusion story was nothing but a Democratic dirty trick with no basis in reality.

I was a huge fan of George Will from the early 1990s (when I was a regular watcher of This Week with David Brinkley) until the Trump Presidency.  If I didn't know what to think on a topic, George was usually a key source for me.  I never cared for his columns on Baseball, but he was otherwise the conservative's conservative.  When Trump became president, Will absolutely hated the man.  Trump was implementing more conservative policies than anyone since Reagan and Will was still furious.  Originalist judges?  Check.  Tax cuts?  Check.  Strong defense?  Check.  Muscular foreign policy?  Check.  Rollback of regulations?  Check.  Economic growth?  Check.  Fiscal responsibility?  No.  So much of what Trump accomplished was exactly what I had been reading from George Will for a quarter of a century and yet he hated the man so much as to leave the Republican party.  I still don't get it.

Jonah Goldberg was my favorite stand-in for Charles Krauthammer on Special Report.  He and I are about the same age, and it was nice to follow a pundit from my generation.  As with Will, he wrote and spoke about conservative policies while dismantling the Democrat plans.  As with Will, I almost always agreed with Jonah.  After Trump was elected, suddenly I find Jonah to be a constant scold to all things Trump and I'm often at odds with him.

Hayes and Lowry never really appealed to me though I've read a lot from each or seen them on Fox shows.  I had been a National Review subscriber and used to read online articles at NRO.  That the two of them also became anti-Trump was less of a disappointment than the three above.  Mostly, Will and Goldberg were the big letdowns.

During the Trump Presidency, I was often baffled what it was that I wasn't seeing.  How can these pundits who I have followed for years suddenly be on the opposite side from me when we were in concert for so long?  What am I missing?  With Noonan and Will, it seemed to be Trump's style rather than his policy.  He was inarguably a jerk, a loudmouth, an arrogant blusterer who was prone to hyperbole.  Indeed, I often had trouble watching one of his speeches.  However, his policies were closer to the conservative ideal than anyone since Reagan.  Was it really about personality?  That seems so shallow.

The other theory is that he was an outsider while all five of them are longtime insiders.  That would mean that the pundit class is just kabuki theater meant to keep the rubes in flyover country lulled by the idea that there is a give and take in the capitol, rather than a constant increase in insider wellbeing at the expense of outsider wellbeing.  That's kind of dystopian.

Counterproductive Virtue Signaling

The NBA and the WNBA has released a statement on the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade:

The NBA and WNBA believe that women should be able to make their own decisions concerning their health and future, and we believe that freedom should be protected.  We will continue to advocate for gender and health equity, including ensuring our employees have access to reproductive health care, regardless of their location.

Why is this necessary?  Their opinion on the subject is irrelevant.  In fact, it could be harmful to their business.  Michael Jordan had it right when he said that "Republicans buy sneakers, too."  Why alienate half of your audience in order to virtue signal with the other half, especially when your views have no impact on the policy?

Businesses and corporations have spent too much time picking sides on political issues where the result will be angering part of their client base.  Inevitably there follows calls to boycott this company for its stand on immigration and that company for its stand on gay marriage and that other company for its views on critical race theory.  Both the Democrats and Republicans make such demands.  Happily, these are mostly toothless efforts, but it could all go away if businesses just remained silent.

Reporter: What are your company's views on <insert cultural issue here>?

Company spokesperson: We manufacture widgets and hope both sides purchase our product.

Is that so hard?

We have evolved to this point because marketing departments sought to break into new customer demographics by taking certain stands on particular issues.  When I was in college, various companies were marketing themselves as environmentally friendly, using recycled products and so forth.  The campaign was so successful that it seemed almost every company jumped on the green bandwagon.  That was relatively benign, as there are few opposed to companies making products in an environmentally responsible way.  However, that same marketing technique used in other areas can attract some while repelling others.  Abortion is one of those areas.  Is the company gaining enough in one demographic to justify the loss of another?

The Critical Drinker

When I was a kid, the choice for film critics was Siskel or Ebert.  Their success led to a few other such critics, such as Leonard Maltin on Entertainment Tonight, or Michael Medved & Jeffery Lyons who followed Siskel and Ebert in Sneak Previews.  As the years went on, there were more critics, or perhaps I just became aware of more critics.  In Iowa, I remember coming across a radio psychiatrist who also reviewed movies; that was an odd combo.  In the bay area of California, there was a local radio critic who really didn't seem to like films.  All too often, I would see/hear the review after I had already seen the movie.  After years of seeing movies and hearing the reviews, I was able to determine which critics were right and which were wrong.  Generally, I more often agreed with Ebert than Siskel.

The Romans said that there's no disputing tastes.  With that in mind, the goal should be to find a critic who more often than not agrees with you.  At the moment, I have happily chosen The Critical Drinker.  The Drinker has a review channel on YouTube where he blasts or praises movies and TV shows.  I have yet to watch something that the Drinker recommended and I did not like.  The same goes for the reverse.  His tastes are in harmony with my own, which makes him the ideal critic.  Where it was maybe 80/20 with Ebert as to whether I'd actually like something he gave thumbs up, it is 100% for the Drinker.  Though he has only been in the critic business for a few years, he does offer 'Extra Shots' where he reviews older movies.  This is a real service as I don't watch nearly as many movies as I once did and often missed some of the older ones he reviews.

The Drinker is a particularly vocal critic of 'The Message' that infects many modern movies.  The message consists of critical race theory, black lives matter, LGBTQ+ themes, 3rd wave feminism, environmentalism, anti-capitalism, etc.  All too often, these are shoehorned into the story in a ham-fisted way that strips the entertainment value from the movie or TV show.  Recent movies have taken to rebooting old franchises to capture preexisting fanbases while at the same time including 'the message' in such a way as to undermine the very characters and franchises that have been rebooted.  Star Trek, Star Wars, The Matrix, James Bond, Masters of the Universe, Doctor Who, and others have all been defaced by the current batch of producers and directors.  He provides his reviews in the character of a hard drinking misanthrope.  The schtick involves some stock comments and movie clips.  Very entertaining.

Highly Recommended.

Inflation is a Policy

It has been so long since the United States was seriously impacted by inflation that most citizens have no understanding of it.  However, it is an old problem with known causes.  It does not come around on accident.  Here is the wisdom of those who experienced inflation and their thoughts on it.

When a business or an individual spends more than it makes, it goes bankrupt. When government does it, it sends you the bill. And when government does it for 40 years, the bill comes in two ways: higher taxes and inflation. Make no mistake about it, inflation is a tax and not by accident.

Ronald Reagan

By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.

John Maynard Keynes

Inflation is a form of tax, a tax that we all collectively must pay.

Henry Hazlitt

Inflation is taxation without legislation.

Milton Friedman

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.

Ernest Hemingway

The lesson is clear. Inflation devalues us all.

Margaret Thatcher

Continued inflation inevitably leads to catastrophe.

Ludwig von Mises

Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output... A steady rate of monetary growth at a moderate level can provide a framework under which a country can have little inflation and much growth. It will not produce perfect stability; it will not produce heaven on earth; but it can make an important contribution to a stable economic society.

Milton Friedman

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.

Vladimir Lenin

Inflation is not only unnecessary for economic growth. As long as it exists it is the enemy of economic growth.

Henry Hazlitt

Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation.

Milton Friedman

The most important thing to remember is that inflation is not an act of God, that inflation is not a catastrophe of the elements or a disease that comes like the plague. Inflation is a policy.

Ludwig von Mises

John Marshall said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  Milton Friedman declared inflation a tax without legislation.  Mismanagement of the money supply is causing destruction.  The last time the US had to contend with inflation, the rising interest rates brought about a recession in 1982.  That is likely to happen again.

The End of Roe

The Supreme Court is not an elective body.  It is not a legislature.  Occasionally, it fails to realize these points.  One reason that the Constitution places all legislative power in the Congress is that the people can unseat Congress every 2 to 6 years.  The people cannot unseat judges.  When Congress enacts a controversial law, the people can reply with an electoral stamp of approval or a house cleaning.  If the courts enact 'rulings' that have the force of law, the people have no recourse.  Yes, the legislature could enact specific laws that effectively overturn the court but that becomes exceedingly difficult if one party or the other likes the ruling.  It would take a supermajority (60) in the Senate and control of both the House and the Presidency to negate the Supreme Court.  Even that won't be enough if the court has found that the Constitution guarantees this or that.

Now that Roe has been overturned, the question of abortion returns to the state legislatures.  If state legislatures enact laws that the state's populace opposes, the house cleanings will commence.  Strange though it may seem, this ruling weakens the Supreme Court.  By negating one of its most obvious encroachments into legislating, it can resume its post of merely interpreting laws that the Congress writes. The court's transformation into a super-legislature is what has caused the hyper-partisan judicial nomination process.  For far too long, Congress has dodged its legislative responsibilities by offloading them to the bureaucracy and the courts, two branches of government that are not subject to the voters.

Next, it would be nice if the court would strike down all bureaucratic regulation-making authority.  All legislative authority is invested in Congress, not the EPA, EEOC, FDA, NIH, et al.  This outsourcing of law-making power is why the federal registry is incomprehensibly large.  Congress could never enact so many laws, which is the whole point of investing the exclusive legislative authority there.

Fletch and the Man Who

Fletch has been called by his old commanding officer, Walsh Wheeler, to fill in as a press secretary for his father's presidential campaign.  Fletch accepts the position and arrives to discover crime reporter Freddie Arbuthnot - last seen in Fletch's Fortune - among the press.  She is investigating murders that have occurred on the fringes of the Wheeler campaign.  Fletch has been given strict instruction to not let the murders get associated with the campaign, as that would be the kiss of death.  His idea of calling in the FBI is dismissed as that would be the story of the campaign from thence forward.  Very quickly, Fletch finds he likes Governor Caxton Wheeler, the Man Who could be the next president of the United States, and wants to protect his chances by exposing the murderer before it unravels the campaign.  There are a surprising number of suspects.  When not surreptitiously investigating, Fletch mingles with those on the campaign trail.  There's is the Man Who, his driver, his wife, the speech writers, the strategists, and a sea of journalists from various papers and magazines.  He even has conversations with his predecessor, who had been abruptly fired but still wants to help the Man Who could be president.

An entertaining yarn that explores political campaigning and offers some background to Fletch's military past.  He had some outside-the-box thinking to keep his platoon alive, something that Lt. Walsh Wheeler well-remembers.  Fletch is back to his quirky self and this is a fun entry in the Fletch series.

Recommended.

The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes (1991-93)

Holmes and Watson are back again to solve the various mysteries that plague late Victorian England.  A new series of fairly faithfully adapted Arthur Conan Doyle tales are featured in the first season (1991).  The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax is particularly good as it has Watson detailing his vacation in correspondence to Holmes only to see Holmes arrive to say Lady Frances was in grave danger.  Watson once again plays Archie Goodwin to Holmes' Nero Wolfe.  I wonder if Rex Stout was inspired by this story.  The Mystery of Thor's Bridge is another standout.  Also of note, a very young Jude Law appears in Shoscombe Old Place.  Highly recommended.

Season 2 consisted of only one feature-length episode - The Master Blackmailer - in which the normally likeable Robert Hardy has a turn as one of Holmes' most daunting foes.  Hardy is downright creepy as Charles Augustus Milverton, the ruthless blackmailer.  The ruination of his various victims dramatically expanded what had been detailed in the short story.

Season 3 followed in the footsteps of Season 2 by producing feature-length TV movies, but with considerably less success.  The Last Vampyre is turned on its head and sees bonus characters trained in hypnotism, an outbreak of influenza for Dr. Watson to attend, and an old story about vampires from a century earlier.  Very disappointing.  Then it became worse with a mishmash of The Noble Bachelor and The Veiled Lodger.  Efforts to squeeze the two stories together resulted in a complete mess.  Villains become victims and victims become villains.  Worse, Holmes suffers nightmares that prove to be premonitions of the coming mystery, including scenes that do unfold as shown in his dreams.  Really?  Holmes has become a seer, not a detective.

The Case-Book starts strong but ends poorly.

Two Countries

Scott Adams recently proposed looking at the US murder rate as if the US was two countries, one white and one black.  Sounds like a plan to get himself canceled.  However, I had seen a graphic on the internet - a known reliable source - that did something like that.  I found some numbers for a variety of countries on Macrotrends.net.  Here are the murder rates for 2018 per 100,000 people.

Yes, the United States looks pretty bad.  It would appear that the further south one travels in North America, the worse the murder rate.  Now, let's take a look at the FBI data for 2018 murders.

Now that we have the raw number of murders by race, let's determine the rate per 100,000 so we can plug it into the previous chart.  Working backwards, we can determine the population by this formula:

Population = Murders/(murder rate/100,000)

Macrotrends used 326,895,161 for the US population.  Let's stick with that number.  According to the Census bureau, Whites made up 73% of the population and blacks accounted for 12.7%.  What does that give us?

Clearly, we have imperfect data but it should give us some ballpark idea.  In order to determine the murder rate by race, we use the reverse of our population formula above:

Murder Rate = Murders/population*100,000

Wow, that's quite the range there.  Scott Adams makes an interesting point.  These numbers certainly demand his cancellation.  Let's plug them into the countries chart and see what we get.

Clearly, the murder rate just for white America is still more than double the rate for any of the European countries.  However, it is around half of what the comprehensive number showed.  As for black America, it is more dangerous than Mexico.  One must consider that the murder rate has spiked in the last two years and the numbers are now much worse.

Yahoo! 360 Blog

My first blog was started in 2005 on Yahoo! 360.  I posted with about the same regularity that I post here.  Some of those postings have been referenced or transplanted but the majority remained unavailable.  Until now!  Yes, the old blog is available at Amazon.

Red Flag Laws

With gun control still on the front burner, one of the ideas working its way through Congress is a red flag law.  What would that be?  If there were concerns about a gun owner being a danger to themselves or others, the police would confiscate that person's guns.  Sound reasonable?  No.  The law would inflict the punishment before the person was found guilty of any wrongdoing.  This is similar to the hated asset forfeiture, where the police confiscate property without charging the person with a crime.  It is suddenly up to the defendant to prove that they didn't intend to buy drugs with a large sum of cash.  The same would be true for the guns.  Let's see what the 5th Amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Did you see that part toward the end.  "...nor be deprived of ... property, without due process of law..."  Would taking a person's guns count as depriving of property?  Yes, it would.  We have already seen how the government selectively enforces laws.  The president's son lied on an application for a gun and nothing has happened.  Rioters across the country (BLM and/or Antifa) were mostly slapped on the wrist despite billions of dollars in damages.  Rioters from January 6th, who caused hundreds of dollars in damages, have had the book thrown at them.  What are the odds that red flag laws get used against people of one political leaning only?  Something close to 100% would be my guess.

It is good to keep in mind that the American Revolution began - had that shot heard round the world - when the British Army marched from Boston to confiscate guns from private citizens.  Are any of our representatives or senators familiar with US history?  I often wonder.

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1988)

Sir Charles Baskerville has died at Baskerville Hall, leaving no heirs.  The property is transferred to the nearest relative, Sir Henry Baskerville, an American.  No sooner has he arrived than he receives threats to stay away from the estate.  He engages Holmes and Watson to determine who is threatening him.  Of particular note, there is a legend about a demonic hound that killed a Baskerville who had caused the death of a young maiden during the English Civil War.  So much nonsense as far as Holmes is concerned but large canine footprints were found near Sir Charles.  Had he been scared to death?

Holmes and Watson travel with Sir Henry to the gloomy moors of Devon.  After spending a night and meeting some of the locals, Holmes returns to London while leaving Watson in charge of security for Sir Henry.  Sir Henry balks at being sequestered in his hall with Watson but accepts it, for now.  It is well-known that an escaped murderer is hiding in the moors, that there are eerie howls at night, and there is talk of a massive hound prowling!  Danger abounds.  With Holmes absent for a large portion of the tale, it is left to Watson to send frequent correspondence regarding developments to Holmes and for Sir Henry to chafe at Watson's constant protection, which interferes with his desire to woo a local woman.

Brett is quite good as Holmes, as usual.  Hardwicke plays centerstage for an extended period, doing an excellent job of carrying the story.  This Watson is highly-competent, not merely a sounding board for Holmes, or worse, a comic sidekick.  Where most Holmes' adventures are mysteries, this one crosses into the horror genre at times.

Highly recommended.

The Laws of Stupidity

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

Albert Einstein

Italian economic historian Carlo Cipolla proposed five laws of human stupidity.  They are fascinating and worth considering.

1. Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

2. The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristics of that person.  What that means is that a high IQ or advanced education does not preclude one from being stupid.

3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

4. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals.  In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

5. A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

Interesting as this is, how does one determine who is stupid?  Cipolla has definitions:

Intelligent people benefit themselves and others

Bandits benefit themselves but inflict losses on others

Stupid people inflict losses on themselves and others

Helpless people inflict losses on themselves but benefit others

An intelligent person might make a product that benefits his customers but also benefits himself through profits.

A burglar benefits himself by inflicting losses on his victims.

A stupid person could run a stoplight and cause an accident that inflicts losses on himself and whomever he hit.

A helpless person might leave belongings behind, inflicting losses on themselves but benefits to those who find them.  A philanthropist could be in this category voluntarily.

It is a safe bet that the stupid people have the upper hand in the world today.  Gas prices, food shortages, supply line failures, inflation, rising crime rates, border chaos, etc. all indicate that stupid people are calling the shots.

Fletch, Too

Only a few days after the events of Fletch Won, Fletch and Barbara are married.  At the wedding, Fletch finally meets his mother-in-law.  Fletch's mother, Josie, also attends the wedding.  Oh, and he meets his future second ex-wife Linda there too.  After the ceremony, Fletch is handed an envelope that claims to be from the father he never knew and who he was told had died the day he was born; it was thought he crashed his plane in the mountains and the wreck was never found.  The letter comes with tickets to Nairobi, Kenya, and $1,000.  Fletch confronts his mother, who readily admits that his father may be alive, though she had him declared dead years ago.  She is opposed to his flying to Kenya.  Oh, and she writes murder mysteries for a living.  At the last moment, he had Barbara switch planes.  Instead of a ski vacation in Colorado, they go to Kenya where the travelogue begins.

Much like Carioca Fletch, this book has Fletch being dragged from place to place, experiencing the wonders and oddities of Kenya.  Instead of the scions of Brazil, his guides are Peter Carr, a middle-aged pilot and friend of his father, and Juma, a native Kenyan.  To fit the story into the standard murder mystery template of the series, Fletch witnesses a murder shortly after touching down in Kenya.  Though he can identify the murderer, he doesn't want to get entangled in Kenyan courts, especially as he learns more about the harsh penalties and considering the curious looks he drew when arriving with skis, snow boots, and sweaters.  Heck, he might get arrested for the crime.

Barbara is already a shrew, though she has a right to be.  Why she agreed to go to Kenya without at least packing a different wardrobe is inexplicable.  Both of them suffered in their skis suits rather than buy some more appropriate garb with the $1,000.  Obviously, that was done for laughs, but it was more groan-inducing.  Barbara was less grating that in the previous book, but it is still obvious this marriage is not going to last.  Still have no idea why they married.

Of particular note, Fletch cannot identify his father.  Even accepting the story that he had died long ago, one would think that Fletch had at least seen some pictures of his father.  Apparently not.  Upon seeing him, he had no idea.  Thanks, mom.  Of course, Josie certainly had reason to be upset with the husband who abandoned her.  She suspected he had not died in a plane crash, though she had not let Fletch know that.

The mystery isn't a mystery.  Fletch doesn't solve it, it just reveals itself in the end.  As with the travelogue of Rio de Janeiro, one suspects that Gregory McDonald had recently gone to Kenya and thought it would be great to use that experience for a book.  It would have been a great idea if only he had a plot that was advanced by the various locations.

Meeting Fletch's parents should have made for a much better book.  It's better than Carioca Fletch, which isn't setting the bar high.  Mediocre.

Rule of Law Fading Fast

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

James Madison

That day came and went decades ago.  The laws are hundreds of pages long and cover hundreds of subjects at a time, often outsourcing the details to some bureaucracy to implement the regulations.  Worse still, all too often the laws are not passed by the elected representatives but handed down by judges with lifetime tenure.  There is a reason that Hammurabi's Code was publicly posted on a stele (stone slab).  The Twelve Tables of Roman Law stood in the forum and outlined the rights and duties of Roman citizens.  The law was available to all.  It was clear.  Now, it is a labyrinthine mess where we are all criminals if the elites wish to punish us.

Today, laws are being unequally applied.  Let us consider some cases.

In May 2020, during a Brooklyn protest, Urooj Rahman (Fordam School of Law) and Colinford Mattis (Princeton and NYU School of Law graduate) drove around with Molotov cocktails which they sought to distribute to protestors.  Rahman threw one of the Molotov's into a police car.  They pleaded guilty and were up for ten years.  However, a new deal had their original pleas withdrawn, lesser charges filed, and new guilty pleas.  Now, they are looking at 18 to 24 months.

On January 6, 2021, Jacob Angeli Chansley, more infamously known as the QAnon Shaman, walked into the US Capitol and sat down.  He posed for pictures throughout.  During his trespass, he did not commit assault, arson, or vandalism.  He has been sentenced to 41 months.

In May 2011, the Congress issued a subpoena to Attorney General Eric Holder to hand over documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious.  He refused.  In October 2011, Congress drafted a Contempt of Congress resolution.  Holder still refused, claiming executive privilege.  In June 2012, Holder was held in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress.  The Justice Department, headed by Holder, declined to prosecute Holder.

In February 2022, Peter Navarro - director of national trade council under Trump - was subpoenaed to provide documents regarding January 6th.  He refused, claiming executive privilege.  He was indicted for contempt of Congress and arrested.

Protestors at the homes of Supreme Court justices are tolerated, though what they are doing is illegal:

The 18 U.S. Code 1507 reads: "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Let's consider the following statement from Senator Charles Schumer:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.  You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

With protestors at their houses, the Majority Leader says this.  Is it any wonder that a crackpot was caught stalking around Kavanaugh's home?

By contrast, Ryan Kelley, a candidate for governor of Michigan, has been arrested by the FBI for being at the Capitol on January 6th.  He did not enter the Capitol, but was photographed on the Capitol steps.

Justice is no longer blind.  She took off the blindfold and looks to see if there is an R or a D next to the name.  Despite months long attacks in Portland on the Federal building which included firebombs and vandalism, only 97 were arrested and around 30 charged.  Only 1 is headed to prison so far.  These were anti-Trump protesters.  But January 6th, which saw no firebombings and very little vandalism, saw 725 arrested and 71 headed to prison or jail.  One day.

I am totally in favor of prosecuting the January 6th folks.  However, when vandals and arsonists throughout the country are released while trespassers have the book thrown at them, something doesn't seem right.  There is too much selective enforcement.

Russ Roberts on Education

"The ideal education is less of a focus on information, and more on open inquiry; less worry about the right answers, and more concern for asking the right questions."

Russ Roberts

Russ Roberts, President of Shalem College in Jerusalem, was interviewed by Alex Aragona of The Curious Task podcast on the topic of education.  It was made available on EconTalk as well.  Where most of EconTalk is a back and forth discussion, this was question and answer.  Russ provides thoughtful answers and in-depth analysis regarding his views on education.  Too often in the modern world, education is somewhat passive as the student sits through a lecture and then takes a test.  He notably asks, "...of all the things you know, how many of them came from school?"  He admits that all his knowledge of calculus came from school, but most of what he knows has come from other sources, notably conversations.  Another interesting point was that a liberal education provides self-examination.

"If you don't study history and you don't study culture and you don't study literature and you don't study ideas, you won't understand how you came to be who you are."

This is an important insight.  A person is more than their genes.  Parents, country, culture, religion, and so forth have a profound impact on what you can achieve.  Not surprisingly, he quotes Socrates famous line, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Here is a deep dive into what it means to be educated and why it's important.  This covers some of the same ground as a recent discussion with Pano Kanelos, which makes a good companion for this episode.