An Inconvenient Shooting

President Obama had a town hall meeting on gun control.  Shortly thereafter, a man shot a police officer in Philadelphia.  Wow, perhaps this adds an exclamation point to his argument.  No, as a matter of fact, it undermined a slate of talking points from the administration.

Problem 1: It turns out that the gun was stolen from the home of a police officer.  Nothing the president suggested could have any impact on that.  In fact, short of disarming the police or perhaps requiring them to leave their guns at the police station when off duty would have had any impact on the shooter getting the gun.

Problem 2: Edward Archer is black and shot a white officer.  The incident is a reversal of the claimed epidemic of cops shooting black men.  What story might we have been told if the shooting hadn't been caught on camera and the officer's return fire had killed rather than wounded the shooter?  Keep in mind that the Ferguson shooting was not on camera and the initial story bore almost no resemblance to the truth.

Problem 3: Archer proclaimed that he shot the officer "in the name of Islam" and also pledged his allegiance to ISIS, again demonstrating that ISIS is not contained nor is the homeland safe.  Of course, the mayor of Philadelphia declared that - despite the shooter's claims - the shooting had nothing to do with Islam or its teachings.  Why is it that every time someone claims to be acting in the name of Islam, a non-Muslim politician becomes an Islamic theologians who can assure us that such incidents have nothing to do with Islam?

 

Everything about this shooting weakens the Democratic Party's favorite narratives.  Luckily, it is already old news now and we'll not hear about it again.

Amending the Constitution

Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, has proposed a bunch of new amendments to the Constitution.  I found a list of them here.  There are some good ideas.  However, most of his proposed amendments seek to return power to the states.  The states lost their say at the national level when the 17th Amendment was ratified, making Senator an elective office by the people of the state rather than an appointed position by the state assembly and/or governor.  As I have pointed out in a previous post, 26 states opposed Obamacare.  If those states could have simply ordered their senators to vote against - which is what would have happened before the 17th Amendment - the law would not have been passed.  Senators went from protecting the authority of the states they represented to accumulating power in the governmental body where they served.  This is one of the reasons money and power have migrated from the states and to Washington DC.

 

It would be far more efficient to just repeal the 17th Amendment.  Sadly, this is an abstruse argument that can easily be flipped as taking voting rights away from the people.  "What do you mean I no longer get to elect my senators?!"  For that reason, this simple solution would be a much harder sell.  It was comparatively easy to repeal Prohibition (18th Amendment) because everyone needed a drink.  With that sadly being the case, let's look at the proposals.

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
 

But for an expansive definition of the commerce clause, this would already be the case.  The Supreme Court ruled that a farmer who had grown a crop entirely for his personal use was taking part in interstate commerce and thus subject to federal law.  Ergo, everything becomes a facet of interstate commerce and under the purview of Congress. 

Require Congress to balance its budget.

That would be nice but I suspect that Congress would use this as an excuse to raise taxes rather than cut spending.  "Hey, you people ratified the amendment that requires us to balance the budget.  It's your fault that we must raise your taxes."  I like what Colorado did.  They limited the growth of state spending to inflation and population growth.  Do that at the federal level and we would be running surpluses in no time.

Prohibit administrative agencies — and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them — from creating federal law.

That this should even have to be proposed tells just how far we have drifted.  The Constitution grants legislative power solely to Congress.  Every single law, regulation, expenditure, et al. must be passed on the floor of the House and Senate.  They can no more transfer this power to non-elective agencies than the president can give his veto to Mickey Mouse.  Yet they have.  So be it, we will have to try an amendment.

Prohibit administrative agencies — and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them — from preempting state law.
 

This looks like it should just be a clause under that last one.  If Congress can't export its legislative features to unelected bureaucrats, it should be able to imbue them with judicial powers either.  Let's not blur the lines between judges and bureaucrats.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

I'm ambivalent on this one.  I'm not keen on the Supreme Court lacking a check or balance.  In theory, a misbehaving judge can be impeached by Congress but that is virtually impossible.  Congress likes transferring risky decisions to non-elective parts of government - thus those last two proposals - and the court is the ultimate non-elective part.  Each party seeks to control the court and have its agenda imposed on the country by means of unredressable rulings.  This provides a more realistic means of checking the Supreme Court.  However, I suspect there are some unforeseen problems hidden in this.

Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

 

I don't see how this would fly.  First, it would have to apply to all federal courts or this would mostly transfer final decisions to the various Federal Appeals Courts.  How far down would this super-majority requirement go?  Besides, if the two-thirds override discussed in the last proposal came to pass, there is redress rather than hobbling the court system.

 

Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
 

How do we do that?  The Constitution already limits the federal government to certain delegated powers.  Check out the 10th Amendment.  It is already unconstitutional and yet it is done.  Do we make it double-dog dare unconstitutional?  Wouldn't it be best to just enforce the laws (amendments) already on the books than enact new ones that duplicate the old ones?

 

Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

 

This one is full of mischief.  In a litigious society such as ours, this is an invitation to civil war fought in federal courts.  The very federal courts that have been hamstrung by some of the above proposals.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

 

The likelihood of this actually being exercised is so low that it is probably a good idea.  The populace would have to be hugely indignant for the states to achieve this.  It is short of an amendment (3/4ths required) and echoes the presidential veto.  If this were to be successfully used, it would be an indication that the federal government had become tyrannical and this might be a means of preventing civil war or secession.

 

That a governor of one of the largest states thinks this is necessary is a bad sign for the republic.  Too much of this tries to force the federal government back within the constraints that are already in place in the Constitution.  Those constraints have failed.  Reiterating them is unlikely to succeed.

Germany's Imported Rape Culture

"If the Cologne attackers had belonged to a fraternity, their coordinated sexual assaults would be the biggest story on earth right now."
@davidfrum

Wow!  Scary that this is true.

Socialism is Immoral

Stumbled upon this interesting video by Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian blogger with a libertarian bent and fondness for philosophy.  He explains why he abandoned his socialist beliefs because socialism seeks to define the world in a way that is in contradiction to the truth.  He repeatedly goes back to the sun being the center of our solar system, which is just the way it is.  One cannot decide that the Earth as the center would be better for society.  Likewise, there are similar foundational truths that undermine socialism.

 

Individuals own themselves and their actions.  To argue against this, is to be in favor of slavery.  If Bob grows a flower on his property, it is his flower.  If he grows 10 flowers, they are all his flowers.  The same goes for a million flowers.  There is no numerical limit where Bob's actions are no longer under his ownership.  Socialism supposes that the government can appropriate assets for the good of society, to provide a more equal distribution of wealth; that is theft.  To argue that, at a certain level of wealth, one's actions become the property of society is to argue against the foundational principal of self-ownership.  Just because Bill Gates remains in the top 1% after half his wealth is taken by government does not make the theft less immoral.  One of my favorite economists, Walter E. Williams, has said the same, but is more pithy:

“No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong”

 

“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?”

 

So far, this is the only video of his that I have watched.  I am interested to see what he has to say about other governmental systems and the morality of taxation in general.  Is there an ethical level of taxation?  Though I also lean heavily libertarian, it approaches anarchy in its purest form.

Youth

An unusual drama that takes place almost entirely in and around a posh hotel in the Swiss Alps.  The central character is Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine), a retired orchestra conductor.  His lifelong friend, film director Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel) is also staying at the hotel to work on the script for his latest film.  A number of lesser characters associated with one or the other of these two are developed as well.  There is the disillusioned actor (Paul Dano) who is most beloved for a part he hated, Fred's daughter, Lena (Rachel Weisz), who has just been dumped by her husband, and several other lesser characters that are merely glimpsed.

 

The movie has depth and, at times, offers some interesting insights.  Mick tells a young woman that to the young, the future is like that mountain which seems so far away.  To the old, it is the past that looks so far away.  He and Fred also talk about how their memories have faded, childhood memories are virtually gone.  It paints a rather bleak picture at times.

 

Paul Dano was a poor casting choice.  He is both too young for the role and not convincing as a 'star' that might be recognized by Miss Universe.  One fan liked a film where he had a 14 year old son; Dano is 31 now.  How long before had this fictional film been made?  Of course, I have never liked Dano in virtually any role - Prisoners excepted, where I thought he was perfectly cast - so I have a bias.  Nonetheless, his turn as an infamous historical figure was one of the funniest bits in the movie and he did it quite well.

 

Despite a two hour runtime, the movie is extremely slow.  Had I not known the relative durations, I would have thought this was longer than The Hateful Eight.  Many of the incidental characters are developed in non-dialogue shots.  Amazingly, there was quite a bit of nudity but it was almost entirely unrelated to the story, which made it more often a distraction.  The only occasion where it fit was when Miss Universe sauntered into the pool where Fred and Mick were soaking; the dropped jaw look on both their faces was quite funny and the discussion that ensued flowed with the themes of the movie.

 

It does provoke questions.  How much will you remember when you get old?  How will your kids view you?  Fred and his daughter have very different views on what kind of a father he was.  Characters - young, old and somewhere in between - are all explored to one degree or another.  Will you be remembered for the accomplishments for which you are most proud or for the ones you regret?  The answers are for the audience to decide.

The Hateful Eight

The opening of the film is shown in the trailer: Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) stops a stagecoach on a snowy Wyoming road and asks, "Room for one more?"  It turns out that the stagecoach was hired by John Ruth (Kurt Russell), a bounty hunter who is escorting a murderess, Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh), to be hanged.  Thanks to a blizzard, the stagecoach gets stuck at a way station populated by an assortment of men who may or may not be who they claim to be.

 

This is not an action movie.  When the shooting does happen, it is quick and bloody.  Mostly, this is a suspense movie.  One of the big influences was The Thing (1982) with Kurt Russell.  There is a lot to like though Samuel L. Jackson steals the show.  Most of the acting is very good but Michael Madsen was miscast.  His soft jowls and long flouncy hair just didn't fit with the hard-living of the American West.  Also, Channing Tatum is a bit young for the role he played or perhaps his sibling was a bit old - 18 year age gap.  Rather than sibling, maybe it should have been parent?

 

When the entire story unfolds and every character is exposed for who they are, one wonders why the plan was what it was.  Why the subterfuge?  Right out the gate, John Ruth is busy hammering a plank in the door with one wrist handcuffed to Daisy.  He was an easy target.

Though a bit too generous with the blood, an inordinate amount of which seems to shower the same character, it is good popcorn fun.  Despite its three hour runtime, it goes surprisingly quickly.

Who's Running the Show?

It is regularly said that Republican are racists and that's why blacks aren't doing as well as white in America.  The Democrats offer dog whistles, code language, and opposition to race-based admissions at colleges as clear evidence of Republican racism.  Sounds like the bar has been set fairly low to level the racism charge.  But here is a question: where are these hotbeds of Republican racism?  Where are blacks being treated unfairly, where cops are shooting them, where the murder rates among blacks are particularly high?

In an October story, St. Louis was listed as having the highest per capita murder rate in the US, having 50 murders for every 100 thousand residents.  The last Republican mayor of St. Louis was elected in 1943.  Okay, that's probably just a fluke, an outlier.  What city is number 2?

In that same story, Detroit was listed with 44 per 100K.  The last Republican mayor was elected in 1957.  All right, another oddball.  Let's continue.

New Orleans ranks 3rd, with 38 murders per 100K.  The last Republican mayor was Benjamin Flanders, who served from April 1872 to November of that same year.  Wow, that a long time of one party rule.

According to the FBI, the 4th city on the list is Jackson, Mississippi, with 35 murders per 100K.  Searching the records, I could not find the last Republican though everyone since the late 40s has been a Democrat.  Fine, next city.

The 5th city is Baltimore and it last elected an evil racist Republican in 1963.  Hmm.  This is starting to look less like a fluke and more like a pattern.  Too soon to tell.  Let's move on.

Newark, New Jersey had 33 murders per 100K.  The last Republican mayor was elected in 1949.  Just because the top 6 have been run by Democrats for decades doesn't absolve Republicans!

Birmingham is 7th and George Siebels was the last, and also first, Republican elected in 1967.  Buffalo, NY had the last Republican mayor elected in 1950.

Baton Rouge had a Republican mayor elected in 2000!  There it is!  The city with the 9th highest murder rate in the nation had a Republican mayor as recently as 2004!    Clearly, his racist four years led to the high murder rate of today.

Pittsburgh (22 murders per 100k) elected a Republican mayor in 1933 and thus rounds out the top 10 highest murder rate cities in the country.  Of course, the current mayor in all 10 is a Democrat.

The national average per capita murder rate is 4.5.  Only one of the nation's largest cities comes in under that number: New York City.  Yes, NYC had only 3.9 murders per 100k.  Interestingly, NYC had 8 years of Republican Rudy Giuliani followed by 7 years of Republican Michael Bloomberg and 5 more years of Independent Michael Bloomberg.  Bloomberg generally left Giuliani's crime prevention policies in place but added nanny-statism to the mix.  In 1990, under Mayor David Dinkins, there were 2,262 murders in NYC.  By 2001, Giuliani's last year in office, there were 639.  In 2015, there were 333 murders.  This is a massive success but, for some reason, these other cities - run by Democrats - are not implementing the policies that made it happen.

 

Who is running the cities where police shoot young black men?  Who is running the cities where gangbangers are slaughtering each other and random - usually black - bystanders?  Democrats are running these cities and have done so for decades.  If it has stayed this way for so long, whoever is in charge must like the status quo.