Gerrymandering

Polls are increasingly showing that Americans oppose gerrymandering based on political partisanship; a Rasmussen poll illustrates.

Overall, 86% of likely US voters considered it a “problem” when states draw congressional district lines to favor one party over the other, including 61% who deemed it a “very serious problem.”

Americans hold that for good reason. Here’s what our Constitution has to say on Congressional representation:

Article I, Section 2: The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative….

There’s nothing in there about setting up districts according to political partisanship or for any other reason.

Additionally, here’s what the 14th Amendment says:

Article 1: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There’s nothing in there that authorizes a State to treat any of its citizens differently from any other of its citizens based on individual political holdings. That last clause makes the matter crystalline. Equal protection means exactly that. The Supreme Court has held as much, quite explicitly, in its speech and religion rulings. Congressional districts and the American privilege of voting are no different.

The only real way to stop gerrymandering is to divide a State into square districts of substantially equal populations, with district boundaries differing from straight lines only when the district abuts a neighboring State.

Some might argue, taking this argument a step further, that such strict district-drawing would favor urban area citizens over rural in terms of their collective power in government. That may be, but that isn’t the here and now; that’s a case better debated—politically, not in our courts—in two or three generations. Our courts aren’t in the business of speculation, only in adjudicating based on the text of our Constitution today.

CBC Arrogance

The Congressional Black Caucus has demonstrated its collective arrogance in spades in the aftermath of the Illinois primary election of Progressive-Democrat Governor JB Pritzker’s preferred candidate over that of the CBC. Congressman Gregory Meeks (D, NY), CBCPAC Chairman:

We don’t need to reach out to the governor. Others are going to have to reach out to us[.]

Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (D, OH):

Keep in mind, the Democratic candidate for president that prevails has to go through [our CBC]….

This Progressive-Democrat attitude of “do it my way, or—wait, there is no “or”—is what we can expect should Party regain power.

A Thought on Oil

The surviving governing mullahs in Iran have moved to close the Strait of Hormuz, impacting global oil flows and prices. The US has moved to continue destroying Iran’s military capability (along with Israel’s moves against Iran’s government and military officials), but shorter range drones and mines can functionally close the Strait for some time to come.

The US has asked its allies, especially those of Europe, for help in reopening the Strait and holding it open. Europe’s navies, after all, have more, and more experienced, anti-mine capabilities than ours does.

They refused initially, and are foot dragging presently.

That brings up my thought on oil flows in the Arabian Gulf and through the Strait. Iran’s oil exports are continuing apace, on Iranian oil tankers, and it already has some 50 days’ worth of oil on tankers in the seas around Singapore and quite a bit more in transit or on floating storage vessels. Iran also has just two oil exporting ports available to it: Kharg Island, in the northern reaches of the Gulf, from which 90% of Iran’s oil and natural gas exports are shipped, and at Bandar-e-Jask, just outside the Strait, from which the rest of Iran’s oil and natural gas are shipped.

One US move would be to stop Iranian oil exports altogether. Destroy the oil jetty on Kharg so oil and natural as present on the island can’t be moved offshore, and destroy the port at Bandar-e-Jask so oil and natural gas can’t be exported from there, either. In anticipation of a more peaceable government in future, it likely would be sufficient to destroy the pipelines entering and leaving those facilities. With Iran at war with us for the last 50-ish years and with us, alongside Israel, against whom Iran has been warring for just long, finally shooting back, Iranian ships and storage facilities are legitimate targets. We should seize and sequester Iran’s tankers at sea, with the possible exception of those tankers actually within Singapore’s territorial waters, along with its floating storage sites, sell the oil to other customers, and sell the seized ships and floating storage sites or send them to the breakers.

One more move: the US Navy could begin escorting convoys of oil tankers and other cargo ships through the Strait, except for the tankers and cargo shipping bound for Europe. Those nations continue to insist on freeloading off US blood and treasure while doing nothing for themselves. Let them pay the price of their freeloading or pick up their responsibility for escorting those vessels.

Mistaken Responsibility

A letter writer in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section wrote of the need for cooperation in the American-Israeli war against Iran. He was right that the war would benefit from the cooperation of serious players. He had this, though, on that war:

Making the case to other nations helps legitimize the mission and its necessity.

This is the letter-writer’s misapprehension. The legitimacy of the mission and its necessity is inherent in that mission: Iran is the world’s moneybags for terrorists and terrorist activities, the most significant of which are Iran’s satraps, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis. Iran is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, which it would promptly use to erase Israel and to peddle to terrorists for use outside the Middle East. Iran is bent on building ICBMs with which to shoot its nuclear bombs at us.

The mission is the elimination of Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons, the elimination of Iran’s ability to build missiles of any reach, the elimination of Iran’s ability to fund or otherwise support other terrorists anywhere. Those efforts have been badly damaged by the actions of last summer and, so far, the current mission.

This war has cooperation between the serious players: the US and Israel. Natterers, including the British PM and the German Chancellor, though, are not at all serious players.

The responsibility for cooperating with the US and Israel and joining the mission lies solely with those “other nations.” Their decisions to remain absent, to shirk their responsibility to Europe for the restoration of oil and natural gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz, says volumes about their alleged reliability in any crisis.

So far, Japan has signed on to assist with reopening the Strait of Hormuz amid the war with Iran. So, lately, have France, Germany, Italy, and Netherlands after their initial reluctance. The five nations’ joint statement can be read here. The TL;DR is this:

We condemn in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces.

We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait. We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.

Whatever “appropriate effort” means. “Preparatory planning” is just a weasel-word phrase meaning “but we’re in no hurry to do anything more than shake our fingers in the strongest terms.”

Japan’s assistance likely will be concrete; the units they send would gain valuable experience when the People’s Republic of China attacks the Republic of China and Japan needs to respond in answer of its commitment to RoC and to protect its South and East China Seas holdings. Those European nations? They’ll be busy hiding behind their definition of “appropriate effort” while they endlessly plan.

Black Boxes

Folks buying into a private lending fund are learning, I trust, a valuable lesson, and the rest of us should take that lesson to heart, also. This is especially the case when the fund restricts withdrawals. The fund singled out by The Wall Street Journal for its example is Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund.

Investors are fleeing the $42 billion Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund, among the latest of its kind to limit redemptions for shareholders. Many investors appear to believe the private-credit fund’s official net asset value is inflated, prompting them to sell their shares, or try to.
One reason many are rushing for the exits: it can be difficult for shareholders to understand what they own. The disclosures at funds like this often are as impenetrable as they are voluminous.

If the claims are not independently verifiable, including by a potential investor, they are not reliable, and a potential investor should not invest.

This, though, is not an excuse for Government to step in and “regulate.” Caveat emptor; investors, like any other American, ought to face the consequences—good or bad—of their decisions on their own, without government taking tastes from successes or doing bailouts for failures.