Monthly Archives: September 2019

Comey’s “Righteousness”

Posted on by
Reply

The DoJ IG report on fired FBI Director James Comey’s…peccadillos has been out for a few days.  The Wall Street Journal‘s Editors have a good commentary on the report and on Comey.

IG Michael Horowitz didn’t think there was enough to support criminal charges, but the damage done by Comey in

treating his memos as personal documents rather than official FBI records, improperly storing them at home, failing to inform the bureau he had them, or leaking them to the press, Mr Comey ignored FBI and Justice protocols and broke his employment agreement[]

does seem to warrant considerable civil action against and sanction of the man who has so disgraced the FBI.

Indeed, a junior sailor had his career destroyed and his life heavily damaged over a simple photograph innocently/ignorantly taken in a wrong location.

Surely, Comey, who is no junior agent and who behaved with planned deliberateness and careful rule-breaking, can be required to forfeit his government pension.

Surrendering to the Extorter

Posted on by
Reply

This is what Europe is getting ready, meekly, to do.

European diplomats are getting behind a French initiative to provide Iran economic relief from US sanctions in return for its full compliance with a multinational nuclear accord….

The “initiative” centers on these articles of surrender:

preliminary agreement aimed at allowing Iran to be able to sell at least 700,000 barrels of oil a day—more than double its current exports.
It also envisions a credit line of some $15 billion so Iran could draw on hard currency….

What makes this timidity especially bad is that, even with Iran actually complying with the terms of the JCPOA, the nuclear weapons agreement expires—and then, by the terms of that same agreement, Iran will be entirely free to resume developing its nuclear weapons, with nary a peep allowed by the signatories.

And here’s an example of Iranian integrity and a demonstration of its willingness to honor the commitments it pretends to make, including its acceptance of those terms:

On Friday, an Iranian tanker was set to offload crude onto ships that would take it to Syria, breaching terms of its release following its seizure by Gibraltar….

These European diplomats, including the French ones, know all of that full well.

Tactically Sound?

Posted on by
Reply

Perhaps, but perhaps strategically disastrous.  British Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked the queen to prorogue the current parliament, and the queen agreed, in order to block it from blocking him from taking Great Britain out of the European Union on schedule 31 October without a deal in the likely event that the EU continues its intransigence in negotiating.  Prorogation is the formal end of an existing session of Parliament, and normally it’s done just prior to the beginning of the next session, to clear the decks for that session.

The current prorogation would run until 14 October, at which point the Queen’s Speech, which would reconvene Parliament, would lay out her (the PM’s) agenda for the new session. Existing bills, including those currently planned to interfere with Brexit, cease to exist with the prorogation; although, they could be reintroduced—to take their turn in the queue in those two remaining weeks.

There are a couple of reasons why Johnson’s move might be tactically sound.  Parliamentary sessions normally last for one year; however, the current Parliament has sat [sic] since June 2017, more than two years.  It’s time for this feckless band to get out of the way, go home, and contemplate their navels.

That brings up the second reason: prorogation would prevent this Parliament from blocking Johnson’s effort to bring the nation out of the EU with no further delay and associated economic uncertainty—and that uncertainty’s follow-on deleterious effects on the British weal.

The longer question that arises is whether prorogation is a strategically sound move.  It’s very likely that prorogation will result in an on-time departure from the EU, with or without a deal governing the terms of the exit.  However, it’s entirely possible that the associated hue and cry will lead to new elections (possibly triggered by a successful no-confidence vote in November) and a new, non-Tory government installed.

That government is very likely to go, hat twisting in hand, to Brussels and beg for reentry into the EU.  What then?

What would be the result on British sovereignty; British economic and political welfare; indeed, British self-respect in such an eventuality?

Even if that new government doesn’t go begging (or even if it does), what else could happen? The alternative to a Johnson-led Tory, sort-of conservative, government is a Corbyn-led Labour government.  That means the prosperity of a limited (relatively, within the constraints of present British concepts) government that Margaret Thatcher made so much progress toward and that Johnson would seek to preserve and extend would be entirely undone by the destructively socialist government that Corbyn would install.

What then of British economic and political welfare; of British self-respect?

Still, Johnson’s move is worth the risk, for the sake of British sovereignty.

“Journalists,” Redux

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the kerfuffle over an idle tweet in which a George Washington University Associate Professor, in a mildly snarky tweet, likened New York Times Precious Columnist Bret Stephens to a bedbug.  The Prof was riffing off a headline announcing that the NYT building was infested with bedbugs.

Stephens chose to take offense, and not only did he email the Prof about it, he CCed the Prof’s Provost in a clear attempt to intimidate the professor into silence.  Or into something.  In the meantime, Stephens has earned for himself a new nickname: #BedbugBret.

But there’s something far more important here, and it goes back to the (lack of) integrity in the journalistic industry.

The Prof makes a closely related best in his op-ed in Esquire:

Bret Stephens seems to think that his social status should render him immune from criticism from people like me. …
Stephens…reached out believing my university would chastise me for provoking the ire of a writer at The New York Times. That’s an abuse of his social station.

But it’s much more than an abuse of station—a station that does not exist, properly, in the United States of America, where all and each of us are equal under law and before God.

This is an abuse of the industry of what used to be journalism.  This is a naked claim that journalism and journalists are too high and mighty for the petty rules of ordinary Americans, and we commoners have no business—no right—to tease, much less criticize, any member of the aristocracy of the press, our Betters.

The professor’s university also responded, directly to Stephens:

Stephens, though, as far as I can determine, has not reached out to the Provost or otherwise responded to his invitation to face the objects of his contempt on their turf. He seems willing only to face a single man in the comfort and safety of his own.

Stephens exemplifies the fundamental dishonesty of the press, and of the NYT in particular.  And, apparently, the cowardice of the bullying industry.

Some Labor Day Questions

Posted on by
Reply

First published in 2012, I’ve updated it for today.  In an ideal world, I’ll be able to update it again next year, with a still more optimistic tone.

The Wall Street Journal asked some questions on Labor Day 2012, and supplied some answers.  Here are some of those questions and answers, which remain as valid this Labor Day.

  • Q: How are America’s workers doing? Not good. Over the past decade, over the ups and downs of the economy, taking inflation into account, the compensation of the typical worker — wages and benefits—basically haven’t risen at all. … The Labor Department recently said that 6.1 million workers in 2009-2011 have lost jobs that they’d had for at least three years. Of those, 45% hadn’t found work as of January 2012. … Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Friday that unemployment is still two percentage points higher than normal….
  • Q: Things ARE getting better, though. The US economy is creating jobs, right? Back in December 2007 when the recession began, there were about two jobless workers for every job opening.  When the economy touched bottom in mid-2009, there were more than six unemployed for every job.  At last count, the BLS says there were 3.4 jobless for every opening.
  • Q: How much of this elevated unemployment is because the unemployed just don’t have the skills that employers are looking for right now?  …the bulk of the evidence is a lot of the unemployment really is the old-fashioned kind: the kind that would go away if the economy was growing at a stronger pace. Mr. Bernanke said as much at the [2012] Jackson Hole conference….

Today, the jobs situation is drastically improved.  The overall unemployment rate is at an historic low, and there are more job openings than there are folks to fill them.  The black unemployment rate is at a record low.  The Hispanic unemployment rate is at a near record low.  The women unemployment rate is at a near record low.  Wages, both real and nominal, are growing.

Happy Labor Day.