Monthly Archives: June 2017

The Mueller Investigation

Posted on by
2

Is Robert Mueller running a legitimate investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign or officials in it and Russia?

Robert Mueller hasn’t decided whether to actually investigate Trump: Report

Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say

Mueller Seeks to Talk to Intelligence Officials, Hinting at Inquiry of Trump

Special counsel is investigating Jared Kushner’s business dealings

It isn’t possible for the Mueller investigation to be legitimate with all of these leaks about his investigation and its status and findings that he’s permitting to occur.  Or that, Comey-esque, he’s doing himself.

He’s plainly not investigating his leaks, else that would have been leaked, too.

Is There a Mass Extinction in Progress?

Posted on by
Reply

Nope.  Eric Worrall, writing at the link, quoted Doug Erwin, a Smithsonian Paleontologist on whether we’re in the middle of one, as many climatistas (not all) insist [emphases in the original]:

Many of those making facile comparisons between the current situation and past mass extinctions don’t have a clue about the difference in the nature of the data, much less how truly awful the mass extinctions recorded in the marine fossil record actually were[.]

And

“‘[H]ow many geographically widespread, abundant, durably skeletonized marine taxa have gone extinct thus far?’ And the answer is, pretty close to zero,” Erwin pointed out. In fact, of the best-assessed groups of modern animals—like stony corals, amphibians, birds and mammals—somewhere between 0 and 1%t of species have gone extinct in recent human history. By comparison, the hellscape of End-Permian mass extinction claimed upwards of 90% of all species on earth.  …  By comparison, the hellscape of End-Permian mass extinction claimed upwards of 90 percent of all species on earth.

The money quote, though, begins in the penultimate paragraph.

Add the measurable greening of the world which has occurred the last few decades.

This isn’t a mass extinction, this is a blossoming of life such as likely has not occurred for millions of years—all thanks to the fertilisation effect of Anthropogenic CO2.

The Supreme Court is Considering the Limits of Partisan Gerrymandering

Posted on by
Reply

The case stems from a Wisconsin state districting case

where a three-judge lower court last year invalidated a redistricting plan enacted by the Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature in 2011.

That court insisted that, following the 2010 census, the Republican State legislature redrew its legislative districts to favor Republicans and disfavor Democrats.

Election results since then have shown the redistricting had its intended effect, with the GOP winning a larger majority in the state assembly, even as the statewide tally of votes was nearly even between Republicans and Democrats, the lower court said.

This smacks entirely too much of disparate impact sewage.  The ruling would be legitimately reversed on that ground alone.  That one party won a collection of close-run elections proves nothing.  Close-run means no more than that the two parties were evenly matched.  Apparently, an even election is too partisan, not favoring Democrats sufficiently, to suit the court.

The Supremes and lower courts have long held, though, that

gerrymandering that discriminates against minority voters [is] unconstitutional….

There aren’t any minority voters, only American citizen voters, though. Not any more.  As a Chief Justice John Roberts said only a few years ago in Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No.1, the way to end discrimination is to stop discriminating.  Mandating districts explicitly to benefit minorities is exactly that cynical discrimination.

Woodrow Wilson once said about segregation that blacks should be grateful for the protection it affords them.  Is that really what today’s Progressive-Liberals, including the Liberal Justices on the Supreme Court, want?  We should return to that despicable era of racial racist discrimination?

Regardless of any of the foregoing, the question is easily enough settled, if there’s enough collective courage to do so.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: draw equal-sized district squares, regardless of demographics, deviating from the square shape only at State borders and only along the side that is the border.

The Nub of the Thing

Posted on by
Reply

In a Deutsche Welle piece on the likelihood of Emmanuel Macron being able to reform French labor and pension law, is this statement by Julie Hamann, a political scientist with the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin.

The French have high expectations of the state, for it to fulfill its protective function with regard to social welfare.  As soon as reforms are announced that may lead to cuts in social services or labor market insecurity, this very quickly gives rise to very great and very emotional fears.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.  The French people—French society—expects government to play the major role in doing for them; individual personal responsibility for a Frenchman’s own future is secondary and operable only within a Government provided framework.

Macron and his La République en Marche! party may well fail as resoundingly as did Alain Juppe, who had the major French labor union on his side 22 years ago but couldn’t do the deed, and as resoundingly as did Dominique de Villepin, whose plan already had passed through Parliament 11 years ago when he folded and canceled reforms similar to Macron’s.

Macron is a younger man, and his party is populated by newcomers still fired by their idealism and disdain, if not disgust, for the establishment.  But he will need to go directly against the forces of the people—the popular establishment of a sort—if he’s to succeed.

Macron will change the foundation of French social thinking with his proposals.  He and a sufficiency of his party must have the courage to lead in order to enact his proposals—and to face the consequences if his policies, rammed through and held to, do not lift the French economy into prosperity-generating dynamism.

Another Example

Posted on by
Reply

…of the failure of government intervention in “green” energy.  And of the lack of understanding of the problem by the participants.  This four minute video via Deutsche Welle tells the tale.

A group of Spanish farmers, in order to “improve their pensions and to do something for the environment,” banded together to build a solar farm, Spain’s biggest cooperative solar park, an operation of solar cell collectors at roughly €90,000 per module.

The central takeaway:

[T]he modern facility is currently losing money because the conservative government has drastically cut the subsidies for solar power.

The solar farm is not economic viable, it cannot compete in the market place, without those subsidies, without OPM.  The thing simply is not market ready.

The lack of understanding is in the plaints that this is someone else’s fault; it can’t possibly be a poor business decision to rely on a technology that can’t compete and that isn’t ready for prime time.

I feel swindled by my own government, by the politicians we Spaniards voted into office.

And

The big energy companies regard us small investors as enemies because we threaten their monopoly on the market.

Except that these “small investors” don’t have anything with which to challenge them without all that OPM to prop you up.  Their enemy—and the small investors’—is that government subsidy.

One bit of slanting by DW: there is a vague reference to a tax on solar cell installations on private homes in that region of Spain.  However, DW chose to provide no context for that reference: what the tax is for, how much it is, what is actually being taxed, and so on.