Category Archives: politics

A Florida State Guard

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has requested some $3.5 million to fund reestablishment of the Florida State Guard,

a civilian volunteer force that will assist the National Guard in state-specific emergencies[.]

The Governor’s press release went on:

The establishment of the Florida State Guard will further support those emergency response efforts in the event of a hurricane, natural disasters and other state emergencies. The $3.5 million to establish the Florida State Guard will enable civilians to be trained in the best emergency response techniques.

Florida’s State Guard would number all of 200 civilians, and as with all State Guards, will be under the control of the Governor and cannot be Federalized—cannot be called up by the President. DeSantis expanded on his press release:

We want to make sure that we have the flexibility and the ability needed to respond to events in our state in the most effective way possible. That will require us to have access and be able to use support in ways that are not encumbered by the federal government or don’t require federal government

The Leftist news outlets have gone hysterical about this move. CNN‘s now leading pundit following the temporary hiatus of Chris Cuomo had the typical response:

So… y’all know this is fascisty bananas, right…?

Because, of course.

It’s “fascisty bananas” to have a civilian force beholden only to the State government for being mustered in prompt response to State and local disasters like hurricanes, floods, and the like.

It’s “fascisty bananas” for 23 States in our nation to have such State Guards for such purposes.

Indeed, when Katrina struck Louisiana, the Texas State Guard, in an especially “faschisty bananas” move, immediately set up shelters for and distributed food to Louisiana refugees from the hurricane’s destruction.

When the bad storm comes and hours count, the Federal responses will be only days away. But it’s “fascisty bananas” to use first First Responders inside those days.

Some Key Moments

Posted on by
Reply

From the oral arguments regarding the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case currently before the Supreme Court. And my responses to them. Because you know I don’t lack for hubris.

Perhaps the most famous example of overturned precedent was the 1954 Brown v Board of Education ruling, which reversed Plessy v Ferguson….

Well, there was another, preceding case—the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dred Scott v Sandford, which needed a Civil War to overturn because the Justices on the Taney Court and later lacked the integrity, the morals, the courage to overturn the ruling on their own.

And from CJ Roberts,

If we look at it from today’s perspective, it’s going to be a long list of cases that we’re going to say were wrongly decided.

If those rulings were wrongly decided at the outset, of course they should be reversed. Wrong doesn’t become right through the hoariness of age.

If the conditions of those rulings no longer exist, of course they should be reversed. The convenience of the Court isn’t relevant to any of that.

Additionally, Stewart gave Roberts a way out by saying Roberts’ examples are settled.

And,

“What would you say to the argument that has been made many times by people who are pro-choice and pro-life, that the line really doesn’t make any sense—that it is, as Justice Blackman himself described it, arbitrary?” Alito asked Rikelman.
Alito noted that while a woman may still want to terminate a pregnancy after viability, a “fetus has an interest in having a life” both before and after.
Rikelman replied[,] “It is principled because in ordering the interests at stake, the court had to set a line between conception and birth.”

Rikelman evaded Alito’s question. The baby always has an interest—the primary interest in the ordering of interests—in its own life.

Finally,

…a Supreme Court that has undergone enormous changes and currently sits at a 6-3 conservative majority.

No, it doesn’t. At best it sits at a 5-3-1 majority.

A Union Strikes

Posted on by
Reply

Buzzfeed News has been struck by the union that organized many of its workers.

“BuzzFeed won’t budge on critical issues like wages—all while preparing to go public and make executives even richer,” the union said… “There is no BuzzFeed News without us, and we’re walking out today to remind management of that fact,” the union said.

Another way of saying the same thing, without changing a minim of meaning is this:

“The union won’t budge on critical issues like wages—all while the company is preparing to go public and make the company and its employees even more prosperous. There is no BuzzFeed News without us, and we’re walking out today to remind management of that fact and to pay the vig. Be too bad if something was to happen to that nice company.”

Not Unless…

Posted on by
Reply

…he can guarantee, also, a “No” on Lael Brainard. She, after all, was the only other serious potential nominee for Fed Chairman.

Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) wants a no vote on Jerome Powell’s nomination for a second term as Fed Chairman.

I disagree.

At least Powell is a devil we know and so whose behavior we have a chance to predict. Brainard, on the other hand, refuses to confirm whether she’s a capitalist or a socialist, forcing us to reject her on the risk that she’s a socialist. Alternatively, Brainard is unable to say whether she’s a capitalist or a socialist, forcing us to reject her on her incompetence.

Permanent Marks

Posted on by
Reply

The WSJ editors cited Fed Chairman Jerome Powell as saying, on the matter of our current relatively high inflation rate,

…some people define transitory to mean “short-lived.” But at the Fed “we tend to use it to mean that it won’t leave a permanent mark in the form of higher inflation.”

This is misleading. It’s good that he’s not anticipating permanently higher inflation—if he’s right—but that’s unlikely in nearly any event—so far.

The permanent mark of importance here is the higher price levels that have already resulted from the present inflation level. Even when the inflation rate falls to a more normal level, those price levels will be unlikely to fall commensurately in nominal terms, and it’ll be a long while before productivity or wages or both rise enough to reduce those price levels, in real terms, to their prior level.