Somehow Sam Cooke … Chain Gang … comes to mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcGwz3LhQ1A
.
They have done lots of prison work programs with variable success. Apparently you must work in the fed prison system if you are physically able, for about $0.30 /hour. There are internal factories such as license plate manufacturing and prison support such as laundry. The prisons are heavily dependent on prison labor to keep things running.
.
I’m guessing your standard guest worker will be a much better worker than prison labor. It’s probably a good idea that will never fly once the usual suspects start screaming.
Thanks, Tom. Chain Gang was a great Sam Cooke song. I also like Back On The Chain Gang by Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders,
although the meaning is different.
I don’t know if prisoners in the U.S have ever been hired out to work on private farms. During WWII German POW’s in U.S. camps worked on nearby farms. Most POW’s, however, probably were less likely than prison inmates to try escaping.
OK_Max (Comment #169408)
July 27th, 2018 at 4:10 pm
OK, that was my comment you quoted.
The Chinese experiment “borrows” ideas from more innovative economies and depends on government controlled banks to provide capital for expansion. Those banks are often kept from going under by the Chinese government – and that situation will end badly someday.
The Chinese economy is much freer today than it was when more of the economy was under tighter control a few decades ago. This is more a case of going from a terrible economy to one not as bad. The question should be: Where would the Chinese economy be if it were even more free from government control and further how much more sustainable would that economic level be?
I recall that Paul Samuelson, the extolled Keynesian economist and text book author in the US, predicting that the USSR economy was to pass that of the US in the near future. I think that leftist wishful thinking often enters into these discussions.
If I am a builder in the southwest US and I claim that the only people who will do roofing are illegal immigrants, citing a statistic that 87% of contruction workers are native does nothing to refute the claim.
I would agree that after reading those statistics and viewing who does what in work around my neighborhood and local area, it becomes a matter of who do I believe the statistics or my lying eyes.
In our area almost all yard, landscaping and roofing jobs are handled by Spanish speaking Mexican immigrants. A number of the companies doing these jobs are owned by immigrants. What I see are efficient and excellent workers. Last year I had the only non Hispanic yard worker in my neighborhood and he was a Russian immigrant – and did excellent work also.
I also might add that the equipment used for yard work by these professionals has changed over the recent years to where a yard can be mowed, trimmed and sidewalks blown free of grass in a much shorter time and with much less manual labor than a couple of decades ago. Technology rears her lovely head in many places.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #169413): “I would agree that after reading those statistics and viewing who does what in work around my neighborhood and local area, it becomes a matter of who do I believe the statistics or my lying eyes.”
I don’t doubt that there are jobs that are done largely by low skill immigrants. But that does not mean that only immigrants will do those jobs; it means that few people other than immigrants will do those jobs for the wages on offer.
Completely cutting off the supply of low skill immigrants would surely cause labor shortages in some areas. That would cause wages to rise, drawing more domestic workers. But it some areas it might well be problematic to fill the need for workers.
The big problem is the all-or-nothing attitude adopted by many. On one side, we have many people pointing to certain job classifications and arguing that we need all the low skill immigrants that might come here. On the other side, we have some people claiming that we don’t need any low skill immigrants; cut off the supply and the market will adjust, to the benefit of domestic workers.
The truth lies somewhere in between. Our economy can make use of some low skill immigrants. We should allow in the number that can easily be productively employed, and no more.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #169412)
July 28th, 2018 at 8:51 am
OK_Max (Comment #169408)
July 27th, 2018 at 4:10 pm
“OK, that was my comment you quoted.”
_______
I’m sorry Kenneth. I will try to pay better attention.
You say “The question should be: Where would the Chinese economy be if it were even more free from government control and further how much more sustainable would that economic level be?”
That’s a good question. It might be better for the citizens of China if the country was more free from government control, but government direction of the economy may be making it more of a force in the world market.
Mike M. (Comment #169414)
July 28th, 2018 at 9:49 am
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #169413): “I would agree that after reading those statistics and viewing who does what in work around my neighborhood and local area, it becomes a matter of who do I believe the statistics or my lying eyes.â€
I don’t doubt that there are jobs that are done largely by low skill immigrants. But that does not mean that only immigrants will do those jobs; it means that few people other than immigrants will do those jobs for the wages on offer.
_____
If citizens won’t do those jobs for the wages being offered, what are they doing? If the citizens who would be doing those jobs (if the wages were higher) have other jobs who cares? On the other hand,
if they are unemployed, should we care?
OK_Max (Comment #169416): “If citizens won’t do those jobs for the wages being offered, what are they doing?”
All sorts of things, I’m sure. Collecting welfare, or unemployment insurance, or disability, or living off an early retirement pension that is not really enough, or getting by in the underground economy, or working at a less productive low paying job that is easier. Not all such people might be physically capable of being roofers, but people drawn to higher paying jobs from easier jobs might create room for others to enter the workforce in the easier jobs.
.
OK_Max: “If the citizens who would be doing those jobs (if the wages were higher) have other jobs who cares?”
Off hand, I’d say that anyone who is not among the smug elite would care.
.
OK_Max: “On the other hand, if they are unemployed, should we care?”
Of course we should. You sound like a Social Darwinist.
The vast majority of yard work in FL looks to use immigrant labor, I’m using native labor although that is not be design, it just happened that way. When we had our house re-roofed several of the companies made it a point to say they do not use immigrant labor and that most of their crews have been employed for years. They were more expensive amazingly enough. I suppose roofing is an area of manual labor that doesn’t look to be automated anytime soon (although the portable electrical hammers make very quick work of the nailing process now). Doing roof work in FL in July / Aug is level 10 torture in my view.
.
On a similar subject I have now had 3 experiences in the past few years where cable installers or electrical contractors basically refuse to do any attic work. If it take immigrants to run a wire in a FL house, then so be it.
Plastic straws are now being criminalized. As if I need another reason to vote against the left.
.
“Our straw campaign is not really about straws,†said Dune Ives, the executive director of Lonely Whale, the organization that led the straw ban movement in Seattle.” https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17488336/starbucks-plastic-straw-ban-ocean-pollution
Tom
Waxed paper straws should work.
Kenneth,
In Lisle, just south of you, the landscapers are nearly all Hispanic. The roofers are not.
It just reminds me of ban paper bags! Ban plastic bags! It’s an exercise in exerting power without any legitimate reason. I can say without even looking that the connection between plastic straws and whale deaths is incredibly thin if not non-existent. Lots of the media have been using straw estimates uncritically from a nine year old. This is what environmentalism and the media coverage has become. Latch onto a random cause, report on it uncritically, demonize anyone who disagrees, make people’s lives less convenient, then move on to the next random cause. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/plastic-straws-ban-fact-check-nyt.html
.
It’s unacceptable to criminalize the use of something that advocates outright admit isn’t a real problem. I expect better from everybody. Isn’t it possible there could be an interim phase where we try to use fewer straws before it’s jail time?
I think roofers are unionized in Illinois which would explain the roofer demographics.
For some reason, I dislike straws and almost never use them. All of a sudden I’m trendy! What a strange feeling (or maybe there was something wrong with that shrimp).
Now maybe I can become trendy about something that will actually make a difference without negatively impacting the disabled. I never litter. I am waiting with baited breath. Not.
.
p.s. – It seems the phrase is “bated breath”.
From the article Tom cited in #169419: “Straws are far from our biggest problem when it comes to marine plastic pollution. […] But activists hope that straws will be a “gateway plastic,†encouraging people to forgo other single-use plastics such as bags and bottles.”
.
Gives new meaning to the phrase “straw man argument”.
HaroldW,
“Straw man argument.”
.
LOL.😆
I use very, very few straw. My guess is 1 straw/year.
I buy milk in plastic bottles; I will continue to do this.
Others buy water in plastic bottles. Me? Not so much. My guess is they will continue to do this.
But I don’t mind waxed paper straws. I don’t use may straw either way, but ok… no never mind to me.
But lucia, you don’t mind waxed paper straws because you rarely use straws anyway. I’m the same way, but plastic straws could be important to some straw users. Maybe plastic feels better on the lips than waxed paper to some users.
I prefer glass bottles over plastic bottles, particularly if I will be drinking right from the bottle. But the main reason is I suspect
the plastic may leach into the liquid ( an irrational fear?). That
shouldn’t be a problem with milk because it’s consumed in a short
time.
Mike M. (Comment #169417)
OK_Max: “If the citizens who would be doing those jobs (if the wages were higher) have other jobs who cares?â€
Mike M.:Off hand, I’d say that anyone who is not among the smug elite would care.
.
OK_Max: “On the other hand, if they are unemployed, should we care?â€
MikeM.: Of course we should. You sound like a Social Darwinist.
______
Being for universal health care probably would disqualify me from being a Social Darwinist.
I misused “unemployed.” I should have said “if they aren’t working by choice” should we care?” By definition, unemployed means not employed but looking for work.
I didn’t understand your comment about the smug elite. There are lots of different people who think they are superior or better than others and are proud about it. Some actually are superior, others just think they are. I don’t know which ones you meant and why you think they don’t care about the kinds of jobs low-paid workers have.
BTW, I’m like you about straws.
California’s Anti-Okie Act
In 1937 California passed a law to stem the Okie invasion. It was before my time, but a lot of my ancestral relatives got in anyway. Of course the law was struck down in court. Almost all my relatives today are California residents, the decedents of the original Okie settlers.
Why did Californians back then fear Okies. Aside from language, mostly for the same reasons there is fear in America today about immigrants from Mexico and Central America.
Will Rogers said the Okie migration raised the intellectual levels of both California and Oklahoma.
OK_Max (Comment #169429): “I didn’t understand your comment about the smug elite. There are lots of different people who think they are superior … I don’t know which ones you meant and why you think they don’t care about the kinds of jobs low-paid workers have.”
I meant you. The reason I think you don’t care about low paid workers is because you implied that you don’t with your apparently rhetorical questions.
.
OK_Max: “Being for universal health care probably would disqualify me from being a Social Darwinist. … I should have said if they aren’t working by choice should we care?”
One statement that sounds like a socialist coupled with another that sounds like a Social Darwinist. I suppose that you reconcile the two by reasoning that as long as the less fortunate are provided with bread and circuses (maybe that should be bread and doctors) they have nothing to complain about. What that misses is the fact that having useful work is more important than having medical care.
.
OK_Max: “By definition, unemployed means not employed but looking for work.”
But it is an oversimplification to characterized discouraged workers as not working by choice.
OK_Max (Comment #169430): “Why did Californians back then fear Okies. Aside from language, mostly for the same reasons there is fear in America today about immigrants from Mexico and Central America.”
That is pure propaganda. The major issues then and now are not about fear.
Funny. When I saw the term ‘Okie’ I assumed it referred to immigrants from Okinawa. This (and Merriam Webster) suggests that the term refers to immigrants from Oklahoma. Probably everybody else already knew that, but I [didn’t and ] thought it was funny [when I found out what it really meant].
California passed a law trying to prohibit immigration from Oklahoma… Huh. People are strange.
lucia (Comment #169421)
Lucia, I have had lots of jobs done recently on my property and home getting it ready to sell in a year or so and the many of the jobs I have had completed were done by immigrant workers. I was satisfied with their work and the communications that I had with them.
The only job that was done by a non immigrant worker was that of sealing my basement and he also did a good job. As I recall he was from Lisle.
Many years ago I had a major home improvement project overseen by a white male in his thirties who was recommended by a friend of a friend. He started to wear on my nerves when he said I should not talk to his subcontractor and really got me going when he tried to intimidate me about my punch list. When he arrived to get his final payment in his brand new pick-up truck I had to remind him that he had to remove the materials left over from his project. He said he thought I would want this scrap and that he did not want to load it into his new truck. I told him in that case he would not get the final payment. I took some pleasure from watching over this arrogant SOB sweat while he loaded the scrap into his brand new truck.
I am not biased against white males in their thirties but for this one jackass to have been in business there must have been a lack of competition. If that competition comes from immigrant workers and small business owners I am all in.
Propagating the notion that illegal immigration is opposed because of fear and racism is a convenient way to avoid the questions involving the harm that is caused. An influx of cheap labor cannot possibly help the US citizens competing for those jobs. It also doesn’t help US drywallers, roofers, landscapers etc when an influx of cheaper labor negatively impacts their income. Of course you get your home built a little cheaper or your lawn manicured for less. So some are hurt and some are benefited but let’s talk about racism. It’s a lot simpler.
mark bofill (Comment #169434): “California passed a law trying to prohibit immigration from Oklahoma”
Actually, it was a law trying to prevent the importation of indigent persons. In the late 1930’s, the annual migration of Okies amounted to about 1% of California’s population per year, plus many more from other dust bowl states. So the concern was not unreasonable, even if the methods were unreasonable.
.
As for “Okie”, you seem to have a gap in your knowledge of American popular culture. I recommend that you find a Merle Haggard CD that includes “I’m Proud to be an Okie from Muskogee”, and give it a listen. 🙂
Also, Woody Guthrie “Do Re Me”.
Mike M. (Comment #169432)
July 29th, 2018 at 8:16 am
OK_Max (Comment #169429): “I didn’t understand your comment about the smug elite. There are lots of different people who think they are superior … I don’t know which ones you meant and why you think they don’t care about the kinds of jobs low-paid workers have.â€
I meant you. The reason I think you don’t care about low paid workers is because you implied that you don’t with your apparently rhetorical questions.
________
Mike M, my question was not meant to be rhetorical. I will try to explain. Some people may choose to not work rather than take a low-paying job. I have mixed feelings about this. I believe a person should have the freedom to not work if he is willing to accept the consequences. On the other hand, I believe work can benefit a person beyond getting paid. Loss of a person’s labor also is a loss
to society. But those are my opinions. My question was meant to
get other opinions.
I do care about low-paid workers, particularly those with families to support. I favor the earned-income tax credit as well as universal
health care.
Mike M. (Comment #169433)
July 29th, 2018 at 8:18 am
OK_Max (Comment #169430): “Why did Californians back then fear Okies. Aside from language, mostly for the same reasons there is fear in America today about immigrants from Mexico and Central America.â€
That is pure propaganda. The major issues then and now are not about fear.
_________
If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?
In case you missed it.
.
China’s stock market is down 25% since January. The yuan had its worst single month ever in June. Part of the pending EU / US trade resolution is apparently to put more pressure on China.
.
The US economy grew at 4.1% last quarter, continuing its “never recovery” from the Trump election. Full employment. Near record stock markets. Wall Street is immune to media hyperventilating.
.
China’s losing so far by any objective measure and the US is in better position to continue an aggressive stance. https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-is-losing-the-trade-war-with-trump-1532729725
.
That being said, negative trade effects are likely more in front of us than behind us and the economy is near the top so its likely future direction is predictably down (regression to the mean).
Mike,
As for “Okieâ€, you seem to have a gap in your knowledge of American popular culture. I recommend that you find a Merle Haggard CD that includes “I’m Proud to be an Okie from Muskogeeâ€, and give it a listen.
Apparently so.
Thanks, sure will! 🙂
OK_Max,
Okies are moronic, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist, sexist, racist, prejudiced, uncaring bigots (I think I checked all the right boxes). Who wants that? It’s not fear, it’s just not wanting to associate with deplorables. CA knew this long before the rest of America did. It should have been obvious to everyone when the bunch of cheaters left the line early for their immoral land grab in 1889. You just can’t breed that stuff out.
Tom Scharf,
” The yuan had its worst single month ever in June. ”
.
That makes their exports more competitive relative to domestically produced USA products.
.
China does have real economic problems, of course, many stemming from the command-and-control portion of their economy. Banks make bad loans to companies favored by the government…. and so have generated lots of bad debt. But China’s exports will remain strong for a long time to come.
mark bofill (Comment #169434)
July 29th, 2018 at 10:06 am
John Steinbeck’s book Grapes of Wrath and a movie with the same title will give you a classic left wing propaganda view of an Okie family move to CA. It says more about Steinbeck than the Okies.
Some of the critical reviews of this work are probably better at giving a historical view of that exodus to CA and what happened to Okies that settled in CA.
†The yuan had its worst single month ever in June. â€
.
That makes their exports more competitive relative to domestically produced USA products.
That’s exactly the predicted effect of increased tariffs (along with a stronger dollar, which also makes imports cheaper) in my link above:
Yeah, right. I’m just quoting the WSJ, I don’t really understand currency markets and their manipulation. I was always confused when the dollar fell or rose it was reported as bad news either way.
Kenneth,
Thanks. I’m certain I read Grapes of Wrath as a kid, but apparently it didn’t sink in. Maybe I’ll reread it. Or I’ll take your advice and go with the reviews (much more probable).
.
[Edit: Tom,
Okies are moronic, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist, sexist, racist, prejudiced, uncaring bigots (I think I checked all the right boxes). Who wants that? It’s not fear, it’s just not wanting to associate with deplorables. CA knew this long before the rest of America did. It should have been obvious to everyone when the bunch of cheaters left the line early for their immoral land grab in 1889. You just can’t breed that stuff out.
You sure that’s Oklahoma? Sounds like my sweet home Alabama to me. :O ]
DeWitt,
I read over your link. The things it points out are mostly true and mostly irrelevant to trade policy. Eg. A trade imbalance leads to an offsetting capital flow… obvious, true, and irrelevant. Countries with large surpluses in their trade with the USA end up holding (directly or indirectly) capital assets in the USA. They also help enable utterly irresponsible government expenditures by reducing the cost of government debt. More dollars looking for a home ultimately lower the cost of treasury debt, postponing needed reforms in Federal budgeting. From a political perspective, falling manufacturing employment is an even bigger consequence of large trade deficits.
O.K. Max: “If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?”
It is about the rule of law, which cannot exist without the foundation of a shared culture. It is about the anarchy that occurs when large numbers of people speak different languages. It is about being overwhelmed by the large number of people throughout the world who live in extreme poverty (assuming the policy of open borders, which is favored by a plurality of Democrats) and who would be doing much better in the US on welfare than they are currently doing in their home country.
JD
What is the most disparaged state? Certainly Alabama is a good candidate, as my home state of WV. Others would be Arkansas, Kentucky, New Jersey and I’ll even throw in OK and KS. Maybe dark horses like Mississippi, Idaho, the Dakotas. But being ignored as nonexistent isn’t the same as being disparaged.
.
It seems my candidates align with “Which state has the ugliest residents” ha ha. I missed the amount of vitriol to Texas. https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-how-americans-feel-about-the-states-2013-8
OK_Max (Comment #169439): “If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?”
What JD said (Comment #169449).
To that I add: It’s about the rule of law with respect to our borders and our right to control who we let it. It’s about not creating conditions that make it hard for recently arrived immigrants to get ahead economically. It’s about not damaging our economy by letting in an excess of low productivity individuals. It’s about not making our budget deficits even bigger and thus making it harder to provide services to people who are already here and need the services. It is about not damaging the lives of natives by making it hard for them to find productive work.
MikeM,
Sounds like you draw a legal distinction between US citizens and non-citizens. Very non-PC.
.
But the fact that it is very non-PC points to the intellectual folly of PC gatekeepers, and to the deep political divide this country faces….. a significant fraction (depends what polls you believe) of “progressives” support essentially open borders, and some even support giving illegal residents the right to vote. Which is tantamount to rejecting the legitimacy of the United States as a self-governing political entity with authority over its borders. Having a sizable fraction of one political party reject the idea of their own country as a self-governing entity is a very big problem, and one which does not lend itself to compromise.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169442)
July 29th, 2018 at 10:45 am
OK_Max,
“Okies are moronic, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist, sexist, racist, prejudiced, uncaring bigots (I think I checked all the right boxes). Who wants that? It’s not fear, it’s just not wanting to associate with deplorables. CA knew this long before the rest of America did. It should have been obvious to everyone when the bunch of cheaters left the line early for their immoral land grab in 1889. You just can’t breed that stuff out.”
_______
I wouldn’t agree that “you just can’t breed that stuff out. While I do have some relatives with one or more of those characteristics, I also have a few who are smug elites.
My ancestors arrived in Oklahoma a several years after the land run, so missed out on getting a farm free. But land still was inexpensive.
Oklahoma was booming in the early 1900’s.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #169444)
July 29th, 2018 at 11:03 am
“John Steinbeck’s book Grapes of Wrath and a movie with the same title will give you a classic left wing propaganda view of an Okie family move to CA.”
_____
Not all Okie families who migrated to California were as bad off as the Joads and not all Californians were inhospitable to the migrants.
But the fact that a law was passed to keep Okies from entering the State should tell you something.
Mike M. (Comment #169451)
July 29th, 2018 at 2:49 pm
OK_Max (Comment #169439): “If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?â€
What JD said (Comment #169449).
“To that I add: It’s about the rule of law with respect to our borders and our right to control who we let it. It’s about not creating conditions that make it hard for recently arrived immigrants to get ahead economically. It’s about not damaging our economy by letting in an excess of low productivity individuals. It’s about not making our budget deficits even bigger and thus making it harder to provide services to people who are already here and need the services. It is about not damaging the lives of natives by making it hard for them to find productive work.”
______
I favor immigration laws. At the same time, I don’t begrudge people
for trying to better their lot by entering the country illegally. If I
were in their shoes, I might be doing what they try to do. I doubt
the illegals are a net economic liability.
JD Ohio (Comment #169449)
July 29th, 2018 at 1:52 pm
O.K. Max: “If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?â€
” It is about being overwhelmed by the large number of people throughout the world who live in extreme poverty (assuming the policy of open borders, which is favored by a plurality of Democrats)”
_____
JD, what do you mean by ” plurality” and what’s the source?
Max,
I doubt the illegals are a net economic liability.
Out of curiosity, why do you doubt this? (real question) I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t good reasons to doubt this. I’m just curious what [specifically] makes you say that, off the cuff.
OK M “JD, what do you mean by †plurality†and what’s the source?”
Alright. Open borders on this thread. Sanctuary comments. Not only will I not detain you and lock up your kids, but I’ll steal from Tom, Steve, Mike and DeWitt to give you free healthcare and birth control! Come one, come all!
.
Seriously people. The last thread is getting too long. :/
[Edit: People may deny that Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, but apparently Trump Anxiety Disorderis a thing.]
mark bofill (Comment #169457)
July 29th, 2018 at 6:10 pm
Max,
I doubt the illegals are a net economic liability.
Out of curiosity, why do you doubt this? (real question) I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t good reasons to doubt this. I’m just curious what [specifically] makes you say that, off the cuff.
______
Common sense.
I believe most illegal immigrants support themselves by working.
They add to our GNP. If they are putting citizens out of work why is the unemployment rate so low?
The linked Na’l Acad study concludes all immigrants together
are a net long-term benefit. I believe the illegals are less likely
than the legals to receive services funded by taxpayers because applying for such services would reveal their illegal status.
….
However, what happens is that after the Border Patrol apprehends someone, it is ICE’s job to deport them. If you abolish ICE the Border Patrol has nothing to do because there is no agency to house those arriving here illegally or those whose visa’s have expired. Some on the Left equate deportation with White Supremacy.
….
“The call to abolish ICE is, above all, a demand for the Democratic Party to begin seriously resisting an unbridled white-supremacist surveillance state that it had a hand in creating. Though the party has moved left on core issues from reproductive rights to single-payer health care, it’s time for progressives to put forward a demand that deportation be taken not as the norm but rather as a disturbing indicator of authoritarianism.
White supremacy can no longer be the center of the immigration debate. Democrats have voted to fully fund ICE with limited fanfare, because in the American immigration discussion, the right-wing position is the center and the left has no voice. There has been disturbing word fatigue around “mass deportation,†and the threat of deportation is so often taken lightly that many have lost the ability to conceptualize what it means. Next to death, being stripped from your home, family, and community is the worst fate that can be inflicted on a human, as many societies practicing banishment have recognized. It’s time to rein in the greatest threat we face: an unaccountable strike force executing a campaign of ethnic cleansing. ”
Although ICE deals with deportation, housing of illegals and removal, unless those functions exist, there is very little for the Border Patrol to do if people can simply tell the Border Patrol they won’t leave. Getting ride of ICE is functionally very close to an open borders policy. I also doubt that the Democratic voters are making the somewhat subtle distinction that you are making.
….
“Also, being in favor of abolishing ICE wouldn’t necessarily mean being in favor of nothing to replace it.” This is a reasonable point, but I see nothing workable being proposed by those who oppose ICE. However, from the article cited above:
…….
“But the goal of abolishing the agency is to abolish the function. ICE has become a genuine threat to democracy, and it is destroying thousands of lives. ” I would comment that “destroying” thousands of lives is drop in the bucket compared to the millions of people who are illegally in the US. If you are going to have real enforcement with respect to 10 million people, it is inevitable that thousands of lives will be affected. The same could be said, for instance, about IRS audits.
JD
JD
7 weeks to arctic minimum.
5 years since Lucia used to do these?
One of the reasons for reading these threads and observing such disparate interesting commentators.
Please do not bring it back, Lucia.
Trump in more trouble, not happy with Cohen.
Why,why, why?
He, not Trump, must have done something big wrong for them to get him to turn like this.
angech,
I don’t have time to do the betting any more.
Lucia
angech,
“..must have done something big wrong..”
.
More likely it is a ‘ham sandwich’ type prosecution. Mueller is prosecuting anyone associated with Trump in the past that he possibly can (including ham sandwiches, if need be) if he believes they might testify to Trump having committed some crime. This is neither surprising, nor has anything to do with collusion with Russians…. it is Muller trying to find one or more charges, unrelated to Russian collusion, to get Trump impeached after the November election (assuming the Democrats gain a majority of the House of Representatives). Of course it all hinges on the November election. If the Republicans maintain control of the House, then Mueller’s investigation will lead to nothing…. except plenty of tormented ham sandwiches. Had Trump not won the election, none of the people who have been indited by Mueller would have been. It is 100% politically motivated, and has nothing to do with normal law enforcement.
Now it is official:
“I’m now 85,†Ginsburg said, according to CNN. “My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years.â€
.
So long as she is alive, Trump won’t be naming her replacement.
SteveF,
That’s my take. RBG is not stepping down voluntarily.
OK_Max (Comment #169460): “Common sense.”
One man’s common sense is another man’s nonsense.
.
OK_Max: “I believe most illegal immigrants support themselves by working.”
Yes, and they also use government services. Since they are low income, that is a net fiscal drain on the government, even if they do not all use all services that they might. I think that is a generally accepted result, but I am not certain.
.
OK_Max: “They add to our GNP.”
Yes, everyone agrees on that. But only a small fraction of that benefits people other than themselves. It is not clear if that plus government transfers is a net positive or negative for the native born.
.
OK_Max: “If they are putting citizens out of work why is the unemployment rate so low?”
Because workforce participation is so low. Unemployment is low, but employment is well below where it should be. Also, underemployment is high and wages are low.
.
OK_Max: “The linked Na’l Acad study concludes all immigrants together are a net long-term benefit.”
What has been true in the past will not necessarily be true in the future. And looking at net rather than individuals ignores the human cost of excessive low skill immigration.
.
—————
Immigrants slightly increase per capita GDP for the native born. But the big impact (an order of magnitude larger) is income redistribution. That redistribution is from low income people to high income people. It occurs by suppressing wages for the less well off and thus increasing profits for employers and reducing costs for customers, the more affluent get the biggest benefit. That is contrary to good public policy.
As pointed out by mark, this thread is too long, so we should move the discussion to the all-but-empty thread.
SteveF,
Again I would like to point out that while manufacturing jobs have declined in the US, manufacturing has not.
The 1979 movie Norma Rae is often cited as a great movie about the labor movement. The movie is about unionizing the textile mills in North Carolina. Guess what, those mills have been gone for decades. Labor intensive industry will always move to where the labor is less expensive. That’s why the textile mills moved to the South from the Northeast.
The advent of containerized shipping was a significant factor in the move offshore. The only way they would move back is if they could be made far, far less labor intensive, i.e. essentially no low-skilled labor needed.
Tariffs always hurt more people than they help. The only possible excuse for tariffs is as a short term strategy to lower tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers overall. Maybe that’s Trump’s plan. Only he knows.
DeWitt Payne wrote “The only possible excuse for tariffs is as a short term strategy to lower tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers overall. Maybe that’s Trump’s plan. Only he knows.”
.
Take the EU. It looks like typical Trump to go in with a big stick with the aim of coming to a more favorable compromise.
.
“The question is, how much do you give in to a bully?†asked Maria Demertzis, the deputy director of Bruegel, an economic research institute in Brussels. “This could just be perfunctory, and if it just stops extra tariffs, that’s fine. But you can’t really depend on Trump. His understanding of global trade is bilateral balance, which is as good as arbitrary, given global supply chains. And it depends on what side of the bed he wakes up on tomorrow.â€
.
“Juncker’s achievement was to get Trump to say publicly that he would reconsider steel and aluminum tariffs and not impose car tariffs in return for a negotiation,†said Guntram B. Wolff, director of Bruegel. “For the E.U., the gun is still loaded but it’s not pointed at our heads, so for us it’s a good moment to negotiate.â€
.
So he’s put the “big stick” on the table and they know he’s unpredictable, unstable and stupid enough to use it. Seems like a great position to bargain from.
It still boggles my mind you can manufacture something in China, ship it to port by truck/train, load it up, go thousands of miles in a boat, unload it, drive it to Walmart in the Midwest, and sell something profitably for $1. This is magic.
An underappreciated potential effect of “crazy man with a stick” negotiating is that it shifts the opponent’s stance to be defensive, while they are battling just to maintain the status quo they aren’t contemplating offensive actions.
Tom Scharf,
A Wall Street Journal editorial discussed Trump’s negotiating behavior noting he’d basically flipped the tables on the Chinese who used to do the same dang thing. That is: make unclear demands, criticize all first offers, be vague about how it could be fixed and so on.
If you look at Trump as a slimy integrity challenged used car salesman executing foreign/trade policy then nothing he does is very surprising. Just wait until China realizes that anti-rust treatment is mandatory with every purchase and there is a $250B administrative paperwork fee.
I don’t think Trump’s tariff threats are hard to understand. Many trading partners (including Canada, Mexico, Europe, and of course China) have tariff and non-tariff barriers plus subsidies to disadvantage US producers. The USA is hardly blameless, but our tariffs, subsidies, and protections for domestic producers (specifically some farm products and the ‘chicken tariff’ on pickup trucks) pale next to those imposed by our major trading partners. If the EU wants to avoid a trade war (and they do) they need to level the playing field by lowering their tariffs and non-tariff barriers to be approximately equal to ours. If Europe continues to insist on ~twice the net average tariffs plus onerous non-tariff barriers on US produced goods (REACH regulations!, no GMO’s!, no poisonous California wines!, no mass-produced eggs!), they will for certain face retaliatory tariffs. China is worse than Europe because of tariffs plus intellectual property theft….. which is no surprise, since private property is not respected in officially communist China.
DeWitt,
” The only possible excuse for tariffs is as a short term strategy to lower tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers overall. Maybe that’s Trump’s plan. Only he knows.”
.
Actually, Larry Kudlow (Director of the National Economic Council) has been saying just that. Trump’s future pronouncements are hard to predict, of course.
Tom Scharf,
“It still boggles my mind you can manufacture something in China, ship it to port by truck/train, load it up, go thousands of miles in a boat, unload it, drive it to Walmart in the Midwest, and sell something profitably for $1. This is magic.”
.
Not magic… pennies per hour wages in China and low container freight costs (eg <$60 per ton) make it all possible. Lots of $1 widgets fit in a 20 or 40 foot container.
SteveF,
Chinese wages are a lot higher than pennies/hour unless you’re counting pennies by the hundreds. If you assume the average Chinese works 200hours/month with a median monthly salary of $1,000/month, that’s 500 pennies/hour. Even the minimum wage in the poorest province is more than $1/hour.
1. Sulzberger of the NYT is asking Trump to tone down his anti-press rhetoric. Considering how Sulzberger ordered his editors and reporters to only be negative of Trump during the campaign (which hasn’t stopped), that’s more than a bit hypocritical. I believe the cliche is ‘what goes around, comes around.’
2. The Trump 2020 campaign is ordering its banners from China.
Mike M. (Comment #169470)
July 30th, 2018 at 7:19 am
Reply to OK_Max (Comment #169460): http://rankexploits.com/musing…..ent-169469
As pointed out by mark, this thread is too long, so we should move the discussion to the all-but-empty thread.
____
Given your link, I take it you mean the “Happy 4th of July” thread, which is almost empty. If not, please let me know. I don’t have time
right now, but am interested in further discussing the declining LF participation rate.
DeWitt,
I was not aware that Chinese wages had reached that level. Still, even $5 per hour is pretty cheap compared to US labor costs. At my production plant, nobody is paid much less than $20 per hour, and labor cost is the dominant factor in total production cost.
Good old negative psychology. Never worked on my kids very well either.
Sigh.
SteveF “I was not aware that Chinese wages had reached that level. Still, even $5 per hour is pretty cheap compared to US labor costs.”
……
I normally visit Wuhan once a year. Roughly, I would guess that its prices are 60% of those in the US. Just watched a Youtube video yesterday (can’t find it now), but it said the average income ranged from $5,000 per year in poor rural province to $30,000 per year in top tier cities like Shanghai.
Personally, in buying consumer goods, I can do better in Los Angeles than China. (part of the issue is that the sellers try to charge foreigners more). One thing that is very cheap in China are the cabs. You can travel about 10 miles in Wuhan for $20 or $25. Very convenient.
JD
DaveJR
“So he’s put the “big stick†on the table and they know he’s unpredictable, unstable and stupid enough to use it. Seems like a great position to bargain from.”
Yeah, that’s what I said somewhere way up thread. He’s taking the NY/NJ negotiating strategy of dropping a big turd on the table and then while his opponents draw back in horror, he offers them something slightly less repugnant. It works, at least in a general sense where the other side doesn’t exactly know where he’s going.
In my own personal business this meant that I always started my pricing higher with these guys than my normal customers elsewhere. It also meant that when they talked me down a dime a pound on a product I had to say “hey, you win, I’ll give you your price”. It was literally a part of the negotiation to say “you win”.
Not sure how this strategy works on an international scale but I have to believe it’s better than the milquetoast Obama way.
Jerry (Comment #169489)
“Not sure how this strategy works on an international scale but I have to believe it’s better than the milquetoast Obama way.”
_______
I’m not sure either. I’ve negotiated prices on cars, property, etc., and enjoy it, but of course I’ve never negotiated on international trade. In a making a deal, a house sale for example,both parties get something they want or there would be no deal. In the trade negotiations it looks like Trump wants to get more than he’s giving
or he will harm the other party with tariffs. But really all he has to
do to satisfy his base is look like he’s getting more than he’s giving.
I guess if were negotiating with a foreign leader on trade I would
just say let’s try to come up with something that will make us both
look good.
BTW, what is the milquetoast Obama way on trade?
I guess it is hard to be off topic on this thread, so I will ask a question.
The ACT typically has 8 statistics questions, and my son [senior to be in high school] typically gets 6 out of 8 right. On his last ACT he received a 30 and his superscore is 32. (30 on math & 32 on science — only 25 in English) I have pretty much decided to get him a tutor to try to get those last 2 questions right. (I know someone with a statistics degree who is predisposed to help and I am contacting him) I am looking at the statistics as low hanging fruit, while the English will take much more work. (Have a tutor for English)
…..
If I can get him to a 32 or 33, there are a number of schools offering free tuition. Am hoping someone here can give a suggestion as to what subjects should be covered to help son with ACT statistics.
JD
I think reading is a great way to improve your English if he’s so inclined, although not in the very short term. A constant stream of good examples tends to just rub off and hopefully the story is interesting as well!
Unfortunately, I have no insight into SAT or ACT prep. Even though test prep pays a lot for those tests, I find test prep a boring thing to tutor.
I tend to agree with DaveJR that reading is a great way to improve ability in English generally. But I doubt the number of novels he might read between now and the next ACT could make a huge difference.
But I know some aspects of “test prep” that are more “test taking”, some are sort of test specific and of course some are actual ability in English.
The degree to which aspects of test prep include test taking strategies is one of the reasons I can’t motivate myself to tutor “test prep”. I just can’t get into teaching kids to read all the questions *first*, then read the reading passage so you manage time better in a multiple-choice taking scenario. It’s not increasing any real ability or any important life skill. It’s just improving ‘test taking’, which is important to the student’s prospects but hollow in the end.
Writing is a great way to improve your English.
The best prep for the ACT is called “high school”, ha ha. Test prep doesn’t usually help much, but it helps a little. I imagine a narrow focus on ACT statistics might be successful. I would make sure whoever tutors him in statistics isn’t in climate science or an environmentalist from my experience! Another route is to see if he can score better on the SAT. Potentially take the SAT advanced math tests as well, although that probably doesn’t help with scholarships.
.
I was similar coming out of high school, scored very high in math, mediocre in English. I can’t imagine there were any quick fixes for the English, as only reading and writing a million words were going to get me there. YMMV. I was a very literal reader and the interpretive questions drove me crazy. My best advice to myself would be to open up the world of books that I actually find entertaining, which would have been science fiction in my case at that time. You might also try audio books. I would have rather listened to nails on a chalkboard than have an English tutor telling me to read Shakespeare. I think quantity matters in this case unfortunately.
A fascinating story as opposition to the straw madness, California of all places passes a bill to prohibit local communities from taxing soda. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/upshot/california-banning-soda-taxes-a-new-industry-strategy-is-stunning-some-lawmakers.html
.
What? Has sanity returned to CA? Not really. “Big Soda” had apparently gotten enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that “would have prevented local communities from raising taxes without approval from two-thirds of voters or an elected body, rather than a simple majority”. That’s for all taxes, not just soda taxes … then they went to the legislature and said pass the soda tax ban, or else. Legislature folded.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169422): “It just reminds me of ban paper bags! Ban plastic bags! It’s an exercise in exerting power without any legitimate reason. […] This is what environmentalism and the media coverage has become. Latch onto a random cause, report on it uncritically, demonize anyone who disagrees, make people’s lives less convenient, then move on to the next random cause.”
.
Death by a thousand trivialities from one point of view, winning by a thousand tiny victories is another. The victory is not in getting styrofoam packaging banned, or plastic products banned, or any other little thing, the victory is winning over another tiny part of your mind to the group think. Not all the victories are trivial. CFC, diesel, pesticides, gluten, CO2, …
“the victory is winning over another tiny part of your mind to the group think”. Turns out there is a word for this: ‘rallying cry”.
“something such as a word, phrase, event, or belief that encourages people to unite and to act in support of a particular group or idea”
.
Something to keep the troups focused, aligned, practiced, engaged.
.
So much of the news cycle is things like this. Promote the outrage, but keep it superficial. Focus on personalities and slogans; ideas and logic are too confusing.
I see the NYT’s defends the hiring, ha ha. What a blatant double standard. I’m all for forgiving people for stupid things they say, but the hypocrisy is just embarrassing. Occasionally people and places get true character tests, and when they fail it should be shown to the world for what it is. It’s a bit trite, but this is what gets you Trump (I’d be surprised if he let this golden opportunity to bash the NYT go by without comment).
.
I see Fox certainly didn’t let it go by without comment. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html
..for a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers…
According to the link, the NYT said Jeong’s racists comments about whites were in response to her being harassed, presumably by whites making racist comments about her being Asian, and that she now agrees with the NYT that responding to racism with racism is not the right thing for her to do.
I’m white and I was amused by some of things she said about whites. Why was I amused rather than offended? I’m not sure, but it could be I don’t feel insecure or guilty about being white.
Max,
Why was I amused rather than offended? I’m not sure, but it could be I don’t feel insecure or guilty about being white.
Or it’s also possible that you’re not a member of the ‘Progressive Church of the Sacred Victim’ – by which I mean, it’s possible that you aren’t looking for things to be offended by, and that you don’t count the many intersecting ways you may be construed as a victim.
.
You would know better than me of course. I could be wrong.
BTW, the ‘sacred victim’ sounds like the sort of snark I might have personally produced, but actually I’m more or less paraphrasing Haidt. At least I think I am. I’d link but I think it came out of a video and darned if I remember which one..
Maybe I find it later.
mark bofill (Comment #169508)
mark, off-hand I can’t think of any way I am victim. Given more time to think about it I may be able to come up with something.
Sarah Jeong gave as an example of internet racial harassment a comment about her being a dog eating gook and a word I can’t repeat here. She should have just laughed off racist comments directed at her, but she responded in kind. The NYT chose to give her a break.
It didn’t hurt my feelings either, but almost nobody in the SJW world has their own feelings hurt, they are bravely protecting others. Protecting white people from racism doesn’t matter I guess.
.
She’s the victim, of course. Replace white, with Black, Muslim, Asian, Hispanic and see how it reads. I have never heard the “responding to racism with racism is OK” defense before. I can call her degrading names now, is that the rule?
.
This is really about the ridiculous double standard in place. If progressives want to run by those rules then so be it, the NYT can do whatever it wants, but it’s not fooling anybody that they are attempting to build a social construct where they can be as vile as they want but vileness cannot be returned in kind. For some mysterious reason people object to that.
Max,
Well, you are a descendant of the hated and persecuted Okies. I mean, who can say what that cost you by proxy. Maybe your ancestors had more limited opportunities which started you off at a more disadvantaged place in life than it otherwise might have been.
I should add, I’m glad you don’t look at the world that way. Me either.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169511)
“This is really about the ridiculous double standard in place.”
_______
Tom, I’m not sure what the double standard is here. Were the actions of the writer the NYT rejected like the actions of Jeong,
a response to racial harassment?
Mark Bofill (Comment #169512)
August 2nd, 2018 at 3:53 pm
Max,
Well, you are a descendant of the hated and persecuted Okies. I mean, who can say what that cost you by proxy. Maybe your ancestors had more limited opportunities which started you off at a more disadvantaged place in life than it otherwise might have been.
______
I tried that one on my wife , and it didn’t work. She just threw here
Irish ancestry handicap back at me.
If you can’t understand the double standard in place, I can’t help you. You can lookup the word “rationalization” if you like. Try this:
.
“Dumba** f***ing white (black) people marking up the internet with their opinions are like dogs pissing on fire hydrants”
“oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white (black) men”
“#CancelWhite(Black)People”
“White(black) people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along”.
“white(black) men are bullshit”
etc. etc. There are more.
.
Under what if any conditions would you find the alternative versions presented above to be acceptable? You can fire back against trolls without being a racist yourself.
.
Explain, don’t equivocate. Do.Not.Equivocate. There are vile people on the right and left, if you want to live in a fantasy world where vile people only exist on the right, be my guest. These are vile statements but Twitter purity tests have gotten out of control. Who you are now matters more than who you were 20 (or four) years ago.
.
Can you explain what standard you think is acceptable and would hold both sides to account? Here’s mine: People who slander others based on a characteristic others cannot voluntarily change are racists / bigots. People should be allowed to disavow past behavior when they demonstrate different behavior in the present.
Hey, do you guys think this Qanon fellow that everyone is talking about will release the REAL temperature data?
Boris,
There exist crazy people.
Always have existed.
There is no need to listen to them, or to argue with their crazy ideas. That would be as pointless as arguing with the ATTP crowd.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169516)
August 2nd, 2018 at 4:45 pm
If you can’t understand the double standard in place, I can’t help you.
______
Tom, consider the way you are using “double standard” as it would apply to the “stand your ground” laws. Say you are involved in a road rage incident, and although you don’t threaten the other driver, he shoots at you and you shoot back. Fortunately, no one is injured and the situation cools down. Using your view of double standard, I could say you are just as wrong as him for having returned fire.
I would also recommend you lookup “non-sequitur”.
.
If anyone understands the standard the media is using I am all ears. I can understand what it is and still disagree with it, but right now I have no idea what it is and the media is not making any attempt to articulate it as far as I can tell.
OK_Max (Comment #169519): “Say you are involved in a road rage incident, and although you don’t threaten the other driver, he shoots at you and you shoot back. Fortunately, no one is injured and the situation cools down. Using your view of double standard, I could say you are just as wrong as him for having returned fire.”
There is a difference between self-defense and retaliation.
Also, a conservative would not get the same understanding as Jeong. That is where the double standard lies.
OK_Max (Comment #169507): “According to the link, the NYT said Jeong’s racists comments about whites were in response to her being harassed”
I could buy that if the comments were aimed at the harassers. But they were not. It was not a case of labeling individuals with a forbidden word. The were aimed at all white people. Pure, simple, unadulterated racism.
Tom, if Quinn Norton’s and Sarah Jeong’s
offensive comments both were responses
to attacks(offensives of the same nature)
on them, then the NYT is guilty of a double-
standard in firing Norton but not Jeong.
The NYT, however, claims Jeong’s racists
remarks were in response to racial
harassment, but didn’t say
Norton’s gay or lesbian slurs were her
reaction to her being slurred for anything. Given
what I know, I don’t think it’s fair to
accuse the NYT of a double-standard in
the way it treated the two women.
Mike M. (Comment #169522)
August 2nd, 2018 at 6:54 pm
OK_Max (Comment #169507): “According to the link, the NYT said Jeong’s racists comments about whites were in response to her being harassedâ€
I could buy that if the comments were aimed at the harassers. But they were not. It was not a case of labeling individuals with a forbidden word. The were aimed at all white people. Pure, simple, unadulterated racism.
_______
Mike M, I’m white and I don’t think her comments were aimed at me.
There may be other whites who don’t think her comments were aimed at them, so I think your statement “aimed at all white people”
is suspect unless you could know what was in her mind.
So I’m just sort of thinking out loud, haven’t really thought it through carefully yet. This said, it seems to me that there is something inconsistent with (a) the intolerance hate speech is shown when targeted towards persons that are viewed sympathetically and (b) the sudden understanding, tolerance, and possibly even sympathy, that is shown hate speakers who are speaking hate towards persons that are not viewed sympathetically.
I think it shouldn’t be both this:
…empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of “self-objectification,” which is associated with eating disorders.
These negative physical and mental health outcomes — which embody the historical roots of race and gender oppression — mean that hate speech is not “just speech.” Hate speech is doing something. It results in tangible harms that are serious in and of themselves and that collectively amount to the harm of subordination. The harm of perpetuating discrimination. The harm of creating inequality.
AND
“just trolling” groups of people based on the color of their skin, generalizing from prior experience about those groups (in short, trolling groups because of racial prejudice) “with their own rhetoric”.
If it’s real harm, it’s real harm, it’s not trolling. If it’s just trolling, it’s not real harm. If it’s intolerable, then it’s not tolerable. It shouldn’t abruptly switch depending who is hate speaking and who is being spoken about.
shrug.
OK_Max (Comment #169524): “I’m white and I don’t think her comments were aimed at me.”
If you really think that, then you are a fool. She did not say something like: “like many white people, you are a goblin who is only fit to live underground”. She called ALL white people goblins who are only fit to live underground.
Even if she did say something like the former, I doubt you can find and example of a racist, sexist, or homophobic comment that was acceptable because it was only meant for some blacks or women or gays.
And the PC mob never makes allowance for context, as with the recent John Schnatter (Papa John) business. Unless, of course, the perpetrator is a member of a favored group.
To the contrary, free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,†a collection of essays to be published this year.
“Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,†she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.â€
The argument seems to be – let’s decide if free speech is good or not depending on who it benefits and who it hurts. This type of analysis is fundamentally unacceptable to me. All things equal, we shouldn’t discriminate for or against groups of people, and deciding something on the basis of what groups it help and what groups it hurts is nothing else besides discrimination, AFAICT.
OK-M “According to the link, the NYT said Jeong’s racists comments about whites were in response to her being harassed, presumably by whites making racist comments about her being Asian, and that she now agrees with the NYT that responding to racism with racism is not the right thing for her to do.”
…..
This is total garbage. If people are racist and attack you, you attack them back individually. You don’t blame an entire people for what some individual people have done to you. Also, I would point out that if it wasn’t for the deaths of White American soldiers, if she was still alive, she would probably be living under Kim Jong-Un now.
JD
Tom Scharf: ” Test prep doesn’t usually help much, but it helps a little. I imagine a narrow focus on ACT statistics might be successful. ”
…..
Not in my experience or in my son’s experience. I taught an LSAT prep course for a short time, and it does help. My son’s ACT scores have been 25, 28, 28, & 30. After the second 28, he worked hard and went from the top 11% to the top 6%, which is signficant. Currently, there are a reasonable number of schools that will give my son 1/2 free tuition.
I am now offering him $750 for each point he gets above 30. (You should have seen his eyes open). If he gets up to 32, he is in free tuition range.
JD
When people use the term white people, I just assume they mean white people. If they mean something else then maybe they should use different words.
I think SAT test prep studies show 50 to 100 points improvement. I paid my kids for grades starting in middle school, working hard should have rewards. I used a doubling system, every additional A doubled the return. I have no idea how much it really helped, but they got good grades which ended up saving me $100K.
.
Here is a pretty good Korean War documentary. The Battle of Chosin. The good guys got thumped here, there are no John Waynes in this one. https://www.netflix.com/title/80991256
Mike M. (Comment #169526)
August 2nd, 2018 at 7:59 pm
OK_Max (Comment #169524): “I’m white and I don’t think her comments were aimed at me.â€
If you really think that, then you are a fool.
______
I’m not fool enough to believe you knew what was going through Sarah Jeong’s head when she made those comments.
I don’t know how Jeong could have believed “ALL” white people are goblins only fit to live underground,” when she has gone to school with many whites, been taught by them, and worked with them.
I think she may have meant some whites, not including me.
JD Ohio (Comment #169528)
” If people are racist and attack you, you attack them back individually.”
________
If “people” attack you, why not attack people back?
Perhaps you meant to say if an individual attacks you, you attack
him or her back.
You have to be very precise with your wording so some people, not all people, will interpret your words to suit them.
I don’t see what the question of ‘some’ vs ‘all’ has to do with this. The difficulty I have is that qualifying Sarah’s hate speech to only mean ‘some’ still doesn’t make it OK. I can’t say ‘Some black people are n*ggers’, obviously. So what makes this OK for Sarah? Real question.
BTW, I’ve read the analogy you put forward with ‘Stand your ground’ laws Max. Maybe in your view it’s OK for people who are subject to racist harassment to retaliate in kind. It’s not the widespread viewpoint of our culture.
.
Roseanne Barr tweets something racist once, she’s done. It doesn’t matter what excuses she has to offer, doesn’t matter what the backstory was, [doesn’t matter how sorry she is], none of that matters. Boom, she’s done.
.
Sarah tweets racist after racist hate tweet over a span of years. Oh, well. We don’t condone it. She understands now that that was the wrong thing to do. We had a candid conversation and we’re sure it’ll be OK going forward.
.
Merriam Webster defines a double standard as follows:
a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another
.
So, the principles (however precisely one wants to articulate them, it doesn’t really matter) that govern the unacceptability of hate speech and the penalties we as a society impose on individuals who violate these principles are applied differently and more rigorously to one group of people (white people who have antagonized progressives) than to another.
.
I don’t know how to make it any clearer than that.
OK_Max (Comment #169532): “I’m not fool enough to believe you knew what was going through Sarah Jeong’s head when she made those comments.”
Do you know what was going through Rosanne Barr’s mind when she made her single offensive tweet? Do you think she was treated unfairly?
Do you know what was going through Papa John’s mind when he used The Word of Career Death? Of course not, we don’t even know what he said, save for one word. Do you think he was treated unfairly?
I don’t claim to know what was in Yeong’s mind. I only know what she said.
.
OK_Max: “I don’t know how Jeong could have believed “ALL†white people are goblins only fit to live undergroundâ€
Well, that is what she said. Strange that you claim to know what was in her mind.
.
OK_Max: “when she has gone to school with many whites, been taught by them, and worked with them.”
Is it possible for white people who work with black people to be racist?
OK_Max (Comment #169532): “I think she may have meant some whites, not including me.”
Not if she subscribes to the standard leftist ideology. George Yancy (first link given DaveJR, Comment #169537) says that you, OK_Max, are a racist, just because you are white. And you are a sexist, just because you are male. That is a standard attitude on the left.
I’m not sure what the possible end game could be with all this racial rhetoric, it seems all downside beyond a momentary rush for dumping on “allowable” people. Keep in mind it’s not even OK to dump on MS-13 and ISIS according to our betters.
.
She has quite a history, “kill all men” “f*** the police” “f*** white women”. I’m actually glad a new standard of forgiveness from career death penalties is set now, until it’s not, because next time it will be different, OK_Max should be able to explain why based on the “we know evil when we see it” standard. http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/03/nyt-sarah-jeong-cop-men-tweets/
.
I think this issue has been dealt with properly. She has been exposed for who she is and she will fit right in at the NYT. The media predictably cannot find fault with even the most outrageous statements from their own tribe and has once again demonstrated their double standards. Just wait until Trump says the word Mexican again.
.
Far right speech is banned, far left speech is tolerated.
Here’s bleeding heart bofill at it again, doubtless to the chagrin of some.
.
Max, it’s dang hard to argue alone against a group. I’m no psychologist but I’m pretty sure something in our make up as humans objects very strongly to being singled out and attacked, quite separate from the abstract idea / concept realm. It’s frickin uncomfortable. Therefore – I appreciate you speaking here, although I disagree with your viewpoint. I admire people with the fortitude to do so; mostly I myself do not. So – thank you. Seriously.
mark bofill,
You are right, this is how all forums end up getting polarized. It is very rare that over time forum mobs don’t end up striking down the non-believers. I have been on the receiving end many times and it isn’t pleasant. I can live with adult disagreement, but eventually it turns into “look, another stupid person just posted here!”. I’m thinking of something like “don’t throw stones in glass houses” at the moment.
Tom,
It’s surprisingly hard to avoid even when one is trying. It gets in the way of the conversation to constantly reassure the person you’re talking to that it’s not a personal attack. It’s awkward…
Anyway. Thanks.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169503) 
August 2nd, 2018 at 10:09 am

“Don’t forget Quinn Norton was fired by the NYT after 24 hours for her tweets.â€
Tom Scharf (Comment #169505) 
August 2nd, 2018 at 12:09 pm
“I see the NYT’s defends the hiring, ha ha. What a blatant double standard.â€
Tom Scharf (Comment #169511) 
August 2nd, 2018 at 3:24 pm

“This is really about the ridiculous double standard in place.â€
_______________
Tom, I’m not sure, but I presume from your comments quoted above that you believe the NYT is guilty of having a double-standard in hiring Sarah Jeong rather than Quinn Norton for an editorial job , as you see both women having backgrounds tainted by racism albeit of different natures.
The NYT was first considering Norton but I believe decided against her because she said neo-nazi Andrew “Weev†Auernheimer is her friend, and although she said he is a terrible person and she doesn’t agree with his views she continued to say he was a friend. Norton’s excuse was she can’t control what her friends think. Auernheimer advocated killing Jews.
Later the NYT hired Jeong for the job despite her having in the past tweeted several racist comments about whites, her excuse being she was responding to being the subject of racism from whites.
Because rather than hire Norton, the NYT hired Jeong, Tom and others here may believe this demonstrated a double-standard in hiring. I don’t see a double-standard in these two cases. I think the NYT would have kept Norton had she said Auernheimer was no longer a friend and she regretted ever being his friend. Jeong, in contrast, apologized for her racist comments about whites.
Jeong said “While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers,†she wrote. “These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again.â€
Had Jeong not apologized, and the NYT hired her any, that would have been a double-standard.
Have I missed something? Is there another reason the NYT was practicing a double-standard by hiring Jeong?
_________
Tom Scharf (Comment #169516)Â
August 2nd, 2018 at 4:45 pm
“People should be allowed to disavow past behavior when they demonstrate different behavior in the present.â€
Tom, then you must be OK with the NYT hiring Jeong.
mark bofill (Comment #169541)
August 3rd, 2018 at 10:58 am
“Therefore – I appreciate you speaking here, although I disagree with your viewpoint. I admire people with the fortitude to do so; mostly I myself do not. So – thank you. Seriously.”
_____
mark, thank you for the kind words. You are polite. Being polite does not mean a lack of fortitude.
OK_Max (Comment #169544): “then you must be OK with the NYT hiring Jeong.”
I don’t think anyone here has said either that Jeong should be fired or should not have been hired. Speaking for myself, I don’t know enough either way.
The issue is the double standard. Norton was FIRED by the Times for less than what Jeong did. Many others have suffered severe consequences for much less than what Jeong did. But those people were white and/or conservative.
mark bofill (Comment #169543): “It’s surprisingly hard to avoid even when one is trying. It gets in the way of the conversation to constantly reassure the person you’re talking to that it’s not a personal attack. It’s awkward…”
There is a simple, old-fashioned solution to that. People should not assume that criticism or disagreement is personal. I think that often when things do escalate to being personal, it is a result of people being overly quick to take offense.
Thanks Max. [Thanks Mike as well]
I will strive to resist the temptation to discuss the discussion further, interesting as that may seem to me.
.
[Edit, add: To clarify – I do not accuse the NYT specifically of a double standard. Rather, I claim that generally in our society there is a double standard applied that tends to serve leniency towards persons that progressives are sympathetic to and severity towards persons that progressives are not. So – I’m not part of the discussion about whether or not the NYT specifically is demonstrating a double standard.]
In the vein of Jonathan Swift’s satirical essay “A Modest Proposal”: (sarc) Perhaps we should reintroduce the code duello. That way there might be lethal consequences for insulting someone.(/sarc)
I’m perfectly OK with NYT hiring anybody they want, at no point did I say she shouldn’t be hired. The NYT should be held accountable for their hiring preferences by their customers. I think it hurts their brand, but that is their choice.
.
I think Quinn Norton and a host of others shouldn’t have been penalized the way they were. I don’t believe in guilt by association and 2nd level multi-generational purity tests either. I think it is OK to be friends with flawed people. We can disagree on a double standard, it’s clear to me. If you can state what the NYT”s standard actually is and they adhere to that in the future with their actions I will be satisfied, but I’ll probably disagree. I would argue that this standard is ideologically biased, whatever it is, demonstrated by their hiring practices and their own words.
.
I think the conversation is as follows:
Side A: Anti-white racism is bad.
Side B: Anti-(black, Muslim, etc.) racism is worse than anti-white racism.
Side C: There is no prejudice/bigotry/racism here.
.
I can see how side B is an interesting argument depending on how one looks at it, as strictly moral or in real world effects. What I don’t understand is why side B cannot agree with side A on that point, and move on to the debate about side B. I’m not interested in a debate on side C.
What makes these quasi-satirical generalizations about “white people†different from actual racism is, yes, the underlying power structure in American society. There is no sense of threat associated with Jeong making a joke about how white people have dog-like opinions. But when white people have said the same about minorities, it has historically been a pretext for violence or justification for exclusionary politics.
Sometimes I really think Jordan Peterson has hit the nail on the head. In my view, power has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not something is racist. I can be a completely ineffectual, completely powerless racist. Or I can be a racist with vast powers. The two (power and racism) are simply completely different concepts with no intrinsic relationship.
.
One might as well assert that a person isn’t indulging in racism because they’re wearing a certain type of clothing, or because some oak trees are taller than some maple trees, AFAICT.
shrug.
I asserted but I did not demonstrate.
Alright.
What does ‘racism’ mean ->
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
.
I don’t seem to read anything in here about underlying power structures, or whether or not there is a sense of threat, or whether or not something is historically been a pretext for violence or justification for exclusionary politics.
.
Anyway.
Mike M. (Comment #169546)
August 3rd, 2018 at 2:51 pm
The issue is the double standard. Norton was FIRED by the Times for less than what Jeong did.
____________
MikeM, I don’t understand why you think that.
Jeong made some racists comments about whites. She wrote an apology saying she understood it was hurtful and wouldn’t do it again.
Norton is friends with neo-nazi Andrew “Weev†Auernheimer
who advocates killing Jews. Although she describes Weeve as a terrible person and does no agree with his views, she continues
to call him a friend.
Jeong has changed to make herself more acceptable, but Norton
has not. If Joeong hadn’t changed, you could make a good case
for the NYT using a double-standard in hiring her instead of
Norton. But given what happened, how can you make a case?
It’s hard for me to understand how the NYT, a newspaper with
a large Jewish reading audience, ever considered hiring an editor
who claims to be friends with a neo-nazi who advocates murdering
Jews, whether she agrees with him or not.
BTW, Norton recently tweeted defending Jeong:
@quinnnorton
 18h
18 hours ago
More
“I don’t think @nytopinion made the right call firing me, though I understand that they panicked, and don’t bear them ill-will, at all, really. But I hoped they have learned to only fire people for cause, not social media fishing for out of context tweets, & stand by @sarahjeong.”
‘But “racism” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Earle,
I sometimes think the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language you quoted is actually a concise definition of deconstructionism.
Twitter has a history function, so we can see what posts she was responding to, as she claims, and all posts to her over the two years she made these posts.
She also had tweets attacking the New York Times. One said she would subscribe if they fired Tom Friedman.
Tom, thank you for the Vox link. I could relate to the “not all men”
thing the author was talking about at the end of his piece. I used to
be offended by feminist bashing men. I took it personally. Eventually
I realized they weren’t necessarily talking about me.
DeWitt, Earle,
Am I wrong in dismissing deconstructionism because I think it can be used equally effectively to undermine any meaning or interpretation, including those of the deconstructionist? Real question.
I always thought it was a darn silly way to attack something because of this and have never been able to take the notion seriously.
The purpose of deconstruction is to show that the usage of language in a given text, and language as a whole, are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible.
It’s all very well and good I guess, but nobody can actually get anywhere without ignoring this idea. So.. So what.
OK_Max,
Eventually I realized they weren’t necessarily talking about me.
No. You excused the behavior by making an assumption that may not be supportable in reality.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169560)
“No. You excused the behavior by making an assumption that may not be supportable in reality.”
______
DeWitt, I have a lot of experience rationalizing, am good at it, and usually know when I’m doing it and when I’m not. But not always, and as you think, I may have been rationalizing when I said feminists who bash men weren’t necessarily talking about me. I imagine feminists who hate men wouldn’t exclude me. I think most feminists, however, just want equality with men.
I should also mention that I’m not as thin-skinned as I used to be.
There was a time when I was mildly offended by comments such as
“Well, that’s a man for you” and “Men think with their dicks,” but I don’t care anymore.
Max,
I should also mention that I’m not as thin-skinned as I used to be.
.
I’m glad the conversation went here, because I think the discussion in our country gets sidetracked on this very point all too often. When I say racism is racism regardless of power, there are those who attempt to convert this into a discussion about my personal circumstance, about whether or not I feel victimized as a white person. This is done in order to dismiss my argument, because after all (and this part is quite true) I am hardly a victim of any sort. But it misses the whole point.
.
I don’t know if this comes out of post modernism, or [some specific] continental philosophy, or what. It becomes its own monumental pointless task sometimes to attribute the bullshit to the proper cow; I don’t really particularly care where it came from.
.
Bottom line, we ought to be able to discuss and consider things abstractly. It shouldn’t matter who is doing the discussing and considering. This idea that arguments cannot be divorced from ‘conditions of historical emergence’ amounts to a refusal to deal with anything on an abstract level. Maybe sometimes subjective experiences are relevant, but for pity’s sake! Not always.
DeWitt,
“I sometimes think the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language you quoted is actually a concise definition of deconstructionism.”
.
Maybe at least a good functional definition…. and one that serves equally well for the definition of ‘living constitution’.
OK_Max (Comment #169561): “”I may have been rationalizing when I said feminists who bash men weren’t necessarily talking about me. I imagine feminists who hate men wouldn’t exclude me. I think most feminists, however, just want equality with men.”
I would have agreed with you until rather recently. That was certainly true at one time. But identity politics is not about equality or fair treatment. Its fully woke adherents (white males included) hate all men and all white people, with a quadruple dose of hate for white males. Until a short time ago, that seemed (to me at least) to be largely limited to a certain class of postmodern academic kooks; but it has become shockingly mainstream in a frightfully short span of time.
mark bofill (Comment #169562): “Bottom line, we ought to be able to discuss and consider things abstractly. It shouldn’t matter who is doing the discussing and considering. This idea that arguments cannot be divorced from ‘conditions of historical emergence’ amounts to a refusal to deal with anything on an abstract level. Maybe sometimes subjective experiences are relevant, but for pity’s sake! Not always.”
I agree, but I think that “abstract” is not the best term. What is needed is to have fundamental principles, a bedrock concept of right and wrong. I suppose that such principles are abstract, in the same sense that the laws of physics are abstract. But, like the laws of physics, they are also very real. Postmodernists reject that, then all that is left is the will to power.
Mike, that could be. Maybe there are lots of paths back to sanity. When people have parked their brains in the middle of nowhere, maybe the specific direction they drive to get out isn’t as important as the decision to drive someplace else to get out. Any place else maybe.
mark bofill (Comment #169566): “Maybe there are lots of paths back to sanity. When people have parked their brains in the middle of nowhere, maybe the specific direction they drive to get out isn’t as important as the decision to drive someplace else to get out. Any place else maybe.”
Definitely not so. Nowhere is not surrounded by sanity or morality. It is mostly surrounded by evil. From a moral and intellectual nowhere, one can easily arrive at the sort of places reached by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and … but I don’t want to end this thread.
The idea that being ‘woke’ is likely counterproductive, Jonah Goldberg’s <i<Why Racism Begets More Racism in your link, had been percolating at the back of my mind. It also puts in perspective the ‘basket of deplorables’ comment that, IMO, was a major factor in Trump’s election. Talk about pushing buttons.
I get OK_Max’s point of “they don’t really mean everyone” and you shouldn’t take it personally. I discovered this more or less in my examination of Neo-Marxism. Their use of the term white is mainly intended to mean the white power structure, not a bunch of poor hicks waving confederate flags. However … and this is a big however … they are allegedly smart, educated, and perfectly capable of choosingly their words wisely. These are the same people who are hyper-hyper-sensitive to language.
.
I don’t buy that this is just shorthand, I am convinced it is intentional. This is the motte and bailey in action: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
.
“So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.”
.
One can examine how the language police react when Trump uses the term Mexican or others say Muslims relating to terrorism. So … we use different words. Illegal immigrants, undocumented people, Islamic Jihad, Muslim extremists and so on.
.
They also know these are highly contentious statements as stated and yet they repeatedly choose to use inclusive language. This is intentional, inflammatory, and they should be called on it instead of expecting others to know they mean something else, and certainly a subset of those saying these inflammatory things actually believe it.
.
As for Sarah Jeong, one can be somewhat sympathetic that in order to stand out in lefty journalism you need to be edgy and outspoken. You still have to answer for those words. I didn’t read her statement as disavowing the plain reading of what she wrote. She can at any time make it clear what she really thinks about men and white people, she chooses not to because she has been wedged between the mainstream and the trendy leftists. She will lose face with her in group if she disavows these words, so she basically says nothing. If anyone understands what she really thinks, please let me know.
Mark Bofill,
I’m not wont to deconstruct deconstructionism. My point is that the word you are using is not the word they are using. It sounds the same and is spelled the same. What it actually means I am still trying to figure out.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169570): “I don’t buy that this is just shorthand, I am convinced it is intentional. This is the motte and bailey in action …”
I think that Tom’s analysis is spot on.
Of course, if it’s intentional then one has to ask why? Historically, derogatory broad generalizations have never produced the fair and just society these people claim to want. Quite the opposite. It’s often just the start of the dehumanization chain that leads in very ugly directions. I see no winning strategy, just a sad perpetuation of malicious race baiting from people who pretend to occupy the moral high ground.
Mike M,
Fair enough. 🙂
Earl,
Thanks. I *did* puzzle over it for a while. I had to go read about the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to eventually understand that that’s what you meant. But thanks for clarifying.
In other news, the FBI release info on their interactions with Steele…
DaveJR (Comment #169573): “Of course, if it’s intentional then one has to ask why? Historically, derogatory broad generalizations have never produced the fair and just society these people claim to want. Quite the opposite. It’s often just the start of the dehumanization chain that leads in very ugly directions. I see no winning strategy, just a sad perpetuation of malicious race baiting from people who pretend to occupy the moral high ground.”
I agree.
My guess is that the left wants to tear down the existing social and political structure so that they can replace it with something “just” and “fair”. If they succeed in step 1, they will find that step 2 gets preempted by things going in some ugly direction with all sorts of unpleasant, unintended consequences. Just like every other time the left has succeeded in tearing down the scaffolding that supports society.
.
Progressives seem to believe that policies should be judged solely on the basis of intended consequences. Unintended consequences, even predictable ones, aren’t their fault and in no way prove their policies wrong.
.
Sorry about the cynicism. I just don’t see an alternative interpretation. (Well, I do, but it is even worse.)
Tom Scharf (Comment #169570)
I thought Jeong’s apology was enough. She said she wouldn’t do it
again (tweet racists remarks about whites). You can question her motives and sincerity, but a promise is a promise.
Perhaps I should follow Jeong’s example and promise myself to change my own behavior. I’m not free of racism. I have laughed at jokes about minorities and ethnic groups, and repeated those jokes, which is a form of racism. I sometimes have profiled, another form.
My own behavior should concern me more than Jeong’s behavior.
I can’t control what she does, but I can try to control myself.
I have laughed at jokes about minorities and ethnic groups, and repeated those jokes, which is a form of racism.
Meh. I wouldn’t get carried away.
.
I sometimes have profiled, another form.
Well played! Profiling can be racist. There are cases where I support profiling however. Shrug.
mark bofill (Comment #169578): “Profiling can be racist. There are cases where I support profiling however.”
There are times when “profiling” is just common sense. If I am walking down a street at night and see that up ahead some young black men are hanging around at a street corner drinking beer. I will change my route. Nothing racist about it, since I am only avoiding the bad blacks.
Mike,
I was preparing to say something similar. There’s some distinction I’d like to make. I’d like for our government, our legal system, and to some extent our institutions to avoid racism. We are equal in the eyes of the law. It gets fuzzier and harder to nail down, but our laws require some of our institutions to treat us equally. My inability to precisely draw this line in a couple of casual sentences doesn’t mean the line isn’t there.
. But as individuals – that’s a whole different matter. I have all sorts of prejudices. I’m prejudiced in my sexual orientation; I like women and not men. I’m so darn prejudiced I won’t even give guys a chance, how bout that. I’m prejudiced in the physical attributes I find attractive. It happens (inconveniently for this example) that I can think of attractive female representatives of every ethnicity, but were this not the case, I’d be fine with it.
.
Further, stereotypes are probabilistic predictions and I think our brains do this as automatically and as involuntarily as our nervous systems keep our hearts beating. I got bad news for you Max; you might have to lobotomize yourself if you really want to rid yourself of your tendency to profile.
.
I’ll try to hush for a bit and finish organizing my thoughts.
mark bofill (Comment #169534) “I don’t see what the question of ‘some’ vs ‘all’ has to do with this.”
.
Everything. Nothing. All. These words are slippery, slimy, the root of all evil, or at least, of all racism. The fractured syllogism goes like this. Sarah Jeong is racist, Sarah Jeong is Korean, therefore all Koreans are sexist. Bzzzt. But that seems to be her logic.
.
Some white man insulted her, therefore all white men are an … insult?
Confusing some and all is bad. It’s hard though because when we say ‘all’ we hardly ever mean really totally absolutely all. All is a shortcut generalization. Usually.
.
Speaking of Cretins, I didn’t know that Paul quotes one in the Bible: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttonsâ€.
.
Which of course leads to the famous “paradox”. Except, if Epimenides was around to say “Well, they are always liars, but that doesn’t mean they lie all the time”.
.
Finally, let me recommend to you the best movie I’ve seen in a long time. It touches on many of the topics discussed here, without being preachy. Modern Lebanon, multicultural except one culture is dominant and the other isn’t allowed to work, insults, apologies, the background each person has to justify their actions, the line between free speech and hate speech, and to top it off an absolutely fascinating look at how the trial courts work in Lebanon. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7048622/
“The Insult”
And be sure to watch the fantastic interview with the author (on the DVD).
Thanks Ledite! I’d never heard of it. I’ll look into it.
Mark Bofill (Comment #169580)
“I got bad news for you Max; you might have to lobotomize yourself if you really want to rid yourself of your tendency to profile.”
_________
Mark, I was referring to racial profiling only. Of course I frequently do other kinds of profiling, usually to advantage, but sometimes leading to less than optimum choices. I’m not sure all racial and ethnic profiling is harmful. Would It be offensive for me to believe Jews are better lawyers and Blacks make better BBQ,?
_________________________________________________________
Mike M. (Comment #169579)
“There are times when “profiling†is just common sense. If I am walking down a street at night and see that up ahead some young black men are hanging around at a street corner drinking beer. I will change my route. Nothing racist about it, since I am only avoiding the bad blacks.”
_________
Mike M, I would do the same. But I wouldn’t say “I am only avoiding bad blacks.” We don’t know they are bad.
Our profiling was attributing the characteristics of a group to some individuals within that group.
Sarah Jeong was accused of reverse profiling, or attributing characteristics of some individuals to their group.
I haven’t thought this through but profiling probably is statistically sounder than reverse profiling.
OK_Max (Comment #169584):
I would do the same. But I wouldn’t say “I am only avoiding bad blacks.†We don’t know they are bad.
What would you say? Real question.
The way I wrote my example, we do know they are at least somewhat bad. But not because they are black.
———
OK_Max:
Our profiling was attributing the characteristics of a group to some individuals within that group.
Sarah Jeong was accused of reverse profiling, or attributing characteristics of some individuals to their group.
I haven’t thought this through but profiling probably is statistically sounder than reverse profiling.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the difference. How do you determine the “properties of a group”? Other than the trivial things that define the group, I think there is only one way: By means of what you call “reverse profiling”. “Profiling” and “reverse profiling” are the same thing.
.
Off hand, I’d say that what makes profiling acceptable is when a decision must be made based on limited information, a key piece of that information (possibly the only piece) is group identity, and the statistical properties of the group are relevant to the decision that must be made. Remove any of the three and it is not justifiable, it is only prejudice.
.
p.s. – I hope I did the formatting right, because the edit funcion seems to be down.
Mike M. (Comment #169585)
“What would you say? Real question.
The way I wrote my example, we do know they are at least somewhat bad. But not because they are black.”
By means of what you call “reverse profilingâ€. “Profiling†and “reverse profiling†are the same thing.
_______
Somewhat bad for hanging out on the street drinking beer? I dunno about that. Anyway, I would say a potentially risky situation could be avoided, so I avoided it. I once actually faced something similar to what you described. I crossed the street and walked back the other way.
Maybe reverse profiling is not a good way to put it, but there is a
difference, as in (A) and (B) below:
(A) The group reflects on members. The Black crime rate can prejudice Whites against Blacks.
(B) The member reflects on the group. White individuals harassing Asians online can prejudice Asians against Whites in general if they believe the guilty are a sample of white attitudes.
But Sarah Joeng knows the difference. Regarding her
racist jibes at Whites, she wrote:
“These comments were not aimed at a general audience,
because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns.â€
I’ll check it out. But it better be better than The Slap.
Max,
I’m not sure all racial and ethnic profiling is harmful. Would It be offensive for me to believe Jews are better lawyers and Blacks make better BBQ,?
Good. I wonder if often we don’t get so caught up in the absolute pronouncement ‘X is bad, don’t do it’ that we forget why anybody decided X was bad in the first place.
Maybe we make this too complicated. Maybe it’d be better to simply try not to treat other people like crap anymore than necessary. I think SJW’s and folk like Jeong maybe lose sight of this. I’ve been listening to Jordan Peterson recently, I’m sure the guy makes his mistakes, but I think he has this part right. Life is tough. It’s tragic and full of suffering. Let’s not go out of our way to make it worse. Let’s not arrange our lives so we end up becoming bitter, vengeful people.
Anyway.
Take this concern about being ‘offensive’. We gerrymander the cases with these complex schemes of when it’s OK to say something offensive, it’s worse than the tax code.
Well, why are we worried about saying things groups of people might find offensive? Darned if I know. It’s not civil or productive I guess [to say offensive things needlessly]. So somehow we end up with a bunch of champions out there who try to protect groups of people from having to hear offensive things. And they pursue this goal using social media, posting things other groups of people find offensive morning noon and night. But oh, the historical context! Oh, the power structures! Well, screw that. If that’s why you care, good for you. It’s certainly not why I care.
OK_Max,
Jeong’s apology was enough to keep her job, which I don’t think should have been under threat anyway. However this statement is like a company saying they “are going to fully comply with the court’s ruling”. They don’t have any legal choice to not cooperate so they are empty words that sound good. Clearly she was not going to be hired if she was going to continue those type of statements which the NYT’s social media policy already prohibits. It’s a condition of employment. However she had stopped already on her own volition for whatever reason as the worst stuff was years old. Perhaps it was a condition for working at the Verge as well. I think she has been dragged over the coals enough and the world should move on.
.
I’d like to see some consistency from social mob harassment across the board so people can at least predict what behavior is appropriate and what isn’t. I think the NYT would be applauded for verbalizing an actual standard (no examination of social media > 2 years, etc.). These are the closest thing to witch hunts we have in this age. Punishment without a trial, severe punishments for seemingly trivial offenses, no standards. Throw her in the lake, if she floats she is a witch, if she drowns she is not!
I think the goal is to recognize when you are profiling and constantly question whether it is appropriate. It cannot be turned off.
.
If I’m going to try to get some info on relativity I profile and don’t ask a six year old. Well, duh. If I was to not talk to a woman then that is different, or is it? 89% of physics degrees are awarded to men. However my daughter understands it better than I do just based on high school. If I was to not talk to a woman who has a physics degree than that seems invalid. I should profile by physics degrees, but only a tiny percentage of the population has physics degrees. A good understanding of relativity is likely much more equally shared across gender.
.
If this was something you were going to wager money on and you have limited information, then you profile with what you have. This is basically how the brain works, it’s wagering, and this evolved so strongly because it’s effective. We avoid bears because enough of them are a threat to warrant a blanket assessment.
.
You stand about 0.005% chance of being murdered in the US any given year, or 0.0000015% a day. Is it worth treating a race, gender, or age group like murdering machines to improve these odds? Is it worth increasing these odds to demonstrate wokeness?
.
You are relatively twice as likely to die in a car wreck than be murdered, and much more likely relatively to do so if you are white upper middle class. You should be more scared of getting into your car. Are you? The brain is biased against “hunting threats” such as terrorism versus random threats such as a car accident.
.
There are many valid counter arguments. Reducing risk without a downside only makes sense. Strolling around in a bad neighborhood in Washington DC at 2 am Saturday morning being aggressive to others significantly changes the odds. Things aren’t really random, etc.
Sometimes I just don’t know what to say, hard as that may be to believe considering how I hardly ever shut up around here.
. Activists: Facebook’s move to block Russian interference discriminates against illegal immigrants
.
The knots people tie themselves into. How can we lets the goodly non citizens that we like participate in our political process while keeping the evil nasty non citizens that we don’t like out. It’s a dilemma.
mark bofill (Comment #169592)
Activists: Facebook’s move to block Russian interference discriminates against illegal immigrants.
_____
I don’t know much about Facebook because I go there only to see photos of relatives and friends. I suggest having one Facebook for
documented American citizens and another Facebook for everyone
else. But it could be that already exists or is a dumb idea for some
reason I don’t know about.
Max,
Sounds fine to me. I wonder if that would satisfy all parties.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169590)
Tom, I have been defending Sarah Jeong here, but that
doesn’t mean I think she’s a saint. Perhaps she invited
the trolling and enjoyed it. Perhaps she used it in her
research. I don’t know what her motivation was back
when she was participating in the trolling.
Early today I looked at Jeong’s recent tweets and the
replies. If she wanted negative attention, she’s getting
it. It’s a cesspool of hate.
mark bofill (Comment #169592): “Activists: Facebook’s move to block Russian interference discriminates against illegal immigrants
.
The knots people tie themselves into.”
Indeed. From mark’s link: “Facebook’s attempt to stop Russian interference in the U.S. elections has enraged activists who say illegal immigrants will be banned from buying political ads on the internet platform.”
So now people will not be allowed to use Facebook to break the law. How evil of Facebook.
Wow. Just wow.
.
Note: Legal permanent residents are the only foreign citizens legally permitted to spend money on U.S. elections.
This Russian interference on Facebook, was actually putting out lots of Fake News that would reel in supporters of Trump and Bernie, because they had large numbers of followers. These followers would then read the fake news articles and become regular readers.
The Russian company could then sell ads on these articles.
It is right there in Mueller’s indictment.
Mike M.
Note: Legal permanent residents are the only foreign citizens legally permitted to spend money on U.S. elections.
“on US elections”. But nothing prevents others from spending money on ads that are about issues that are important during elections.
lucia (Comment #169598): “But nothing prevents others from spending money on ads that are about issues that are important during elections.”
Fair point. I don’t know just where the legal line is drawn or if Facebook is trying to draw their line in the same place.
In reality, that means views they don’t like. Conservatives get shadow banned, progressives don’t.
I still don’t see any good reason to get a Facebook account.
DeWitt,
I still don’t see any good reason to get a Facebook account.
Yeah. I got one about a year ago when I realized Facebook groups were how my kids school groups (band and so on) were communicating with parents. Other than that… Sometimes they have videos of kittens and puppies and such.
One thing I noticed lately is any expressed “commitment” to free speech is followed by the exact opposite sort of action by those expressing it. It’s getting really tiresome. What happens if you hate the attacks on free speech, do you get banned on FB and Apple? I cry no tears for Alex Jones but a fantasy that censorship by our betters will end at Alex Jones is just that, a fantasy. The kangaroo speech courts are forming.
.
If these people had their way … it’s not hard to imagine the dsytopia (ummm .. I really mean paradise my great Internet overlord!) we would live in. I still can’t believe 1984 is a best seller this year for liberals. Maybe they just buy and put it on a coffee table to virtue signal, I’m having a hard time believing they read and understood it.
.
I’m not a single issue voter, but the weight I give to free speech issues has increased over the last decade. This stuff is suffocating.
Tom,
I still can’t believe 1984 is a best seller this year for liberals. Maybe they just buy and put it on a coffee table to virtue signal, I’m having a hard time believing they read and understood it.
They’d tell you you got it backwards. The Resistance is noble and good, it’s Trump who’s going to lead us into Orwell’s nightmare.
Here: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-1984-fake-news-media-2018-8
[Edit: I guess I’m not just deplorable anymore, I’ve checked out and joined a cult. Gonna hafta work on that ‘obedient’ thing though…
“When that happens, you’re no longer living in a Democratic republic,” Schmidt added. “Thirty-five percent of this country has checked out. They have joined a cult. They are obedient. They are obedient to the leader.”
Thousands of Studies Support the Liberal Theory of Aggression?A tenet of liberalism is that violence is a learned behavior. A favorite culprit is the media—people learn to be violent from seeing violence on television and in movies and playing violent video games.In 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) testified to Congress that more than 3500 studies have investigated the link between exposure to media violence and actual violent behavior. All but 18 have shown a positive correlation. To make the point dramatically, it asserted that the strength of the correlation is larger than that of condom non-use and sexually transmitted HIV, lead exposure and lower I.Q., passive tobacco smoke and lung cancer or calcium intake and bone mass,relationships which pediatricians accept as fact… (American Academy of Pediatrics 2000)…
…Well, it turns out that these organizations never conducted reviews of the literature about which they were testifying. A bit of investigation would have revealed an important fact: There were not 1000 studies—let alone more than 3500—investigating the relationship between exposure to media violence and aggression. It is simply false. In an extensive review of the literature, Freedman (2002) found around 200 studies that address the link (see Freedman 2002:13). Of these studies, more than half report findings that are inconsistent with there being a causal link. Of those whose findings are not inconsistent, there are other explanations for the results besides the causal hypothesis. In many cases, researchers interpreted a transient increase in general arousal from watching exciting (violent) films as elevated aggression. The ways in which aggression is measured (e.g., hitting a Bobo doll, asking a child whether he would pop a balloon if one were present) are often questionable for a number of reasons…
This all sounds vaguely familiar for some reason…
Violence is a learned behavior??? Anyone who believes that has never raised small children. Or if they have, they are completely oblivious.
Here is an interesting essay on white bashing. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/the-utility-of-white-bashing/566846/
.
“It is almost as though we’re living through a strange sort of ethnogenesis, in which those who see themselves as (for lack of a better term) upper-whites are doing everything they can to disaffiliate themselves from those they’ve deemed lower-whites.”
.
Summary: It’s just the cool thing to do, you know, and if you want to join club-upper-white then you need to impress them with performative art otherwise known as racial prejudice. This is likely the most accurate column to date on the subject. In other news upper-whites distressed to learn recently that lower-whites get to vote.
.
Predictable: A conservative commentator Candace Owens replicated Jeong’s tweets except replacing white with the usual suspects and was then suspended from Twitter. Twitter later apologized for banning her. So I guess it’s OK to say those things now, or something?
.
Anyway, my last word on the subject. Thank you NYT, you passed this test with flying colors.
mark bofill (Comment #169604)
“Thousands of Studies Support the Liberal Theory of Aggression?A tenet of liberalism is that violence is a learned behavior. A favorite culprit is the media—people learn to be violent from seeing violence on television and in movies and playing violent video games.â€
______
Mark, I suspect violence might be at least somewhat a learned behavior. It seems reasonable that children raised in environments where violence is acceptable would be more likely to be violent. If violence is not a learned behavior then violent people are just born that way.
As for media contributing to violent behavior, the research is divided, and who knows who is right? Watching movies
and TV shows depicting violence never made me want to attack anyone and seeing porn never made me want to sexually assault anyone. I wouldn’t say, however, media can’t influence behavior at all.
How about violent video games? Contributing to violent behavior or not, I hate to see kids spending so much time playing these games. Kids need to be outside exercising, not sitting on their butts getting fat on snacks and soft drinks.
While I’m not sure about the harm of virtual violence in movies and video games, the real violence caught on cell phones is another matter. I have been very disturbed by depictions of real violence.
OK_Max,
Being raised in an environment where violence is acceptable is not the same thing as learning violence. It’s more like not learning that your instinctive violent tendencies are not acceptable in polite society, i.e. discipline. Discipline is sadly lacking in current child raising, as far as I can tell.
OK_Max (Comment #169607): “I suspect violence might be at least somewhat a learned behavior. It seems reasonable that children raised in environments where violence is acceptable would be more likely to be violent. If violence is not a learned behavior then violent people are just born that way.”
Environment matters. But it is not the urge to violence that is learned; it is restraint that is learned.
Thank you Tom for the link to a very interesting article.
Of the many things worth quoting from the article, I have picked
the following:
“The people I’ve heard archly denounce whites have for the most part been upwardly-mobile people who’ve proven pretty adept at navigating elite, predominantly white spaces. A lot of them have been whites who pride themselves on their diverse social circles and their enlightened views, and who indulge in their own half-ironic white-bashing to underscore that it is their achieved identity as intelligent, worldly people that counts most, not their ascribed identity as being of recognizably European descent.”
________
I’ve done that a little. I’ve said unflattering things about lower-class whites. Being white myself, it’s acceptable to my upwardly-mobile friends of all races, whereas saying unflattering things about lower-class non-whites would not be.
The author of the article believes upwardly mobile Asians may be
imitating their white friends in bashing low-class whites. Maybe.
I have never actually witnessed that behavior (I know few Asians),
but imagine I would be a bit offended since I came from a low-class
white background. It’s similar to blacks using the n-word but being
offended by whites using it.
Max,
I think humans being capable of learning and capable of controlling their behavior, it’s inevitable that therefore we can learn to behave violently. I agree with DeWitt and Mike that learning civilized restraint is the real trick. I agree with you too; video games and electronics are fine, but there’s more to life than that. Personally I really only remember playing with my TRS-80 and playing in the woods from my childhood.
.
No actually I ought to have typed a few words explaining that I thought this was entertaining because parallels could be drawn between this and climate science / climate blogosphere experience.
.
I remember Skeptical Science’s consensus project, where they examined the title and maybe the abstracts of climate science papers to come up with a figure about the consensus regarding AGW. There too they were acting as ‘impact scientists’; I think I can say without lack of charity that those gents are climate activists, I don’t think they’d disagree about that. Finally the bit about conservatives not trusting them because they know this — it all seemed like climate blog deja vu.
.
shrug.
OK_Max,
I’ve done that a little. I’ve said unflattering things about lower-class whites. Being white myself, it’s acceptable to my upwardly-mobile friends of all races, whereas saying unflattering things about lower-class non-whites would not be.
That behavior has become commonplace in food labels, what with non-GMO labels on food that has no possibility of being GMO or fat free for orange juice. Of course the non-GMO people are actually in the same anti-science boat as the anti-vaxxers and the people that don’t believe that ghg’s can affect atmospheric temperature. Since celiac disease is a real condition, labels with gluten free for things that don’t contain gluten in their unprocessed forms, like rice and oats, is more acceptable.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169608)
August 6th, 2018 at 3:21 pm
OK_Max,
Being raised in an environment where violence is acceptable is not the same thing as learning violence. It’s more like not learning that your instinctive violent tendencies are not acceptable in polite society, i.e. discipline. Discipline is sadly lacking in current child raising, as far as I can tell.
_____
The instincts are OK, acting on them is not OK.
I too think discipline is lacking in current child raising,
not that I’m for spanking kids. And letting kids always
have their way doesn’t prepare them for adulthood.
OK_Max,
I too think discipline is lacking in current child raising,
not that I’m for spanking kids.
Spanking is almost never necessary.
There’s a TV ad that that demonstrates the problem of lack of discipline. It’s the DirecTV ad with the kid continuously kicking the seat in front of him. That wasn’t the point of the ad, but what were the kid’s parents or guardians doing or thinking? I don’t think the ad agency would have used that as an example if it weren’t common.
Mike M. (Comment #169609)
“Environment matters. But it is not the urge to violence that is learned; it is restraint that is learned.”
______
Mike, I agree it’s not the urge to violence that’s learned, it’s the restraint, yet I wonder if the urge can be stimulated by media and video games, even sports events (e.g., rioting at soccer matches).
Also, violence is not an urge, it’s an act. How to do the act can be copied or learned.
I wonder if the urge can be stimulated by media and video games, even sports events (e.g., rioting at soccer matches).
If so, would it matter?
.
I don’t like thinking of an engineered society with smoothed out edges such that nobody gets ‘urges stimulated’ that are considered undesirable. Of course it’s me putting this ‘engineered world’ thing forward and you’ve said nothing of the sort, I understand that. It seems like where progressive go with ideas like this sometimes, although I can’t cite an example off the top of my head.
.
I prefer shooting for a freer society where people are expected to take responsibility for their actions, –and one where people are held responsible for their actions despite whatever simulations.
Of course to be fair, let it be noted that I’m also the sort who’s irritated by seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws, even though I’d never dispute that these effectively do save a LOT of lives, and that seat belts and motorcycle helmets are undoubtedly a good idea. So maybe it’s me who’s a little … whatever.. misguided maybe, on this point.
[Edit: Heh- I said ‘simulations’ in 169616. Meant ‘stimulations’ of course.]
mark bofill (Comment #169616): “I prefer shooting for a freer society where people are expected to take responsibility for their actions”
mark bofill (Comment #169617): “I’m also the sort who’s irritated by seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws, even though .. seat belts and motorcycle helmets are undoubtedly a good idea.”
I agree on all counts. When in an especially curmudgeonly mood, I maintain that seat belt and helmet laws help to degrade the gene pool. 🙂
When in an especially curmudgeonly mood, I maintain that seat belt and helmet laws help to degrade the gene pool.
~grins~
It’s rednecks much like me who’d generally be selecting themselves out, if that’s a selling point to tell [to] the Left.
Mike M. and mark,
The problem is that without the laws, the seat belts available in cars would probably be primitive at best so that people who wanted to wear them, like me, might not have them. I also think that motorcycle helmet wearing could have been encouraged by making failure to wear one have consequences other than fines. Health insurance and life insurance, for example, should cost more if one wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
Air bags are my pet peeve. I suspect that the cost/benefit ratio is very high, not to mention the whole Takata fiasco. They should be automatically deactivated if passengers are wearing belts.
Health insurance and life insurance, for example, should cost more if one wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
I’d find that preferable and more reasonable than legal enforcement, yep. And airbags – well, studies can be slippery as we all well know. Maybe this one is making some bone headed mistake or rookie oversight, but it shows that it can be argued anyway that airbags do more harm than good.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169620): “The problem is that without the laws, the seat belts available in cars would probably be primitive at best so that people who wanted to wear them, like me, might not have them.”
I have no problem with requiring seat belts and setting standards, for just that reason.
.
DeWitt Payne: “I also think that motorcycle helmet wearing could have been encouraged by making failure to wear one have consequences other than fines. Health insurance and life insurance, for example, should cost more if one wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.”
OK, except that enforcement might be a problem. I suspect it would not really make much difference in the rates.
.
DeWitt Payne: “Air bags are my pet peeve. I suspect that the cost/benefit ratio is very high”
I agree.
Thanks to mark for the link on air bags costing lives. But I think they have been improved since that time. Maybe now they are a wash.
We had a world without lots of TV, movies, and video games and it was plenty violent. Society is getting better at reducing violence. Violent crime in the US has dropped in half since the 1990’s which coincides with the video game revolution. I personally feel less stressed after a bit of first person shooting action.
.
People are safer in cars if they wear helmets as well, but nobody is screaming for that. The standard libertarian view is if you want to ride a motorcycle standing on your head it is fine by me as long as you pay for your own healthcare and you don’t endanger me. I’m generally not a fan of nanny state laws although they can be effective.
Tom Scharf,
“People are safer in cars if they wear helmets as well, but nobody is screaming for that.”
.
Yes, at least for now. People are safer if they are not allowed to smoke or drink, safer if not allowed to drive, safer if not allowed to be overweight, or eat foods with too much sugar, safer if not allowed to have unprotected sex, and not allowed to spend too much time in the sun, and…. well, let’s face it, there are progressives who want to take all decisions away from individuals and exercise pretty much complete control. It’s Orwell’s 1984 lite, but the motivation and collective mindset are the same. It is not a coincidence that restrictions on free speech on campuses are framed as making the university “safer”. It is all nonsensical rubbish which infringes on the individual’s right to “the pursuit of happiness”. Public control of personal decisions should be vigorously and consistently resisted.
Sometimes I think some differences between progressive and conservative positions are just chance. I’m pretty sure progressives would oppose the notion that forcing women to wear clothing that covers them up reduce instances that might tend to stimulate men’s urges. They’d oppose it [policy trying to engineer society by forcing women to cover up] and quite rightly so. Possibly the trouble is that conservatives and progressives agree about such a large amount of fairly trivial stuff that there’s nothing interesting or noteworthy about it – it’s just the areas of disagreement that attract our attention. And of course the fact that policy matters.
[Edit: in case the connection isn’t clear (cause I’m on my first cup of coffee), my idea is this is an area where society could be engineered and a freedom curtailed for an overall positive outcome, at least in theory. But this is an example I think we’d all agree isn’t a good idea. Why is this different in principle, is it different in principle. Could it be a road that might lead to common ground. That sort of thing.]
mark bofill,
I think there are bigger differences between libertarians and progressives than between conservatives and progressives when it comes to trying to boss people about (directly or through coercion). The question is who should control the choices individuals make, the individuals or society? Libertarians almost always answer “individuals”, progressives and conservatives answer “it depends”. Conservatives have lost a lot of political power over the past few decades (How many sodomy laws, still on the books, are enforced? None!), while progressives have seen their influence grow, as the endless nanny-laws and the transformation of many campuses into mini-orwellian-people’s republics, clearly show. Still, the urge to control the choices others make is alive and well in both conservatives and progressives… progressives are just in a position to do more of it today, so they are more of a threat to personal liberties.
SteveF, thanks. That [likely] wouldn’t have occurred to me but I think that observation will be of value to me. I think you’re right. What the heck do I think I mean when I say ‘conservative’ anyway.
.
Maybe I ought to sort out exactly where I think I’m standing conceptually, and who I think I’m standing next to, and make sure I at least have identified that part correctly, and take stock a bit before going much further.
The religious right can get a little bossy, ha ha. Everybody wants control, even if the goal of that control is to “free the people” by controlling the urges of government. Everyone has the righteous answer right up until they get power and the opportunity to implement their vision, then it all fars apart as it turns out society is a little more complex than a bumper sticker. They then blame the other side for blocking them from properly implementing their vision and declare it would have worked if only there would have been much more of it.
The risk of being killed by a defective air-bag seems blown way out of proportion. I recall estimates of only 15 people in the U.S. killed by airbags compared to 28,000 people saved. With those odds, I’m for having air-bags.
Be more concerned about being killed by a deer. About 400 people are killed each year in collisions with deer I’ve had collisions with two, fortunately with no more than minor car damage. I think the deer survived.
Deer kill far more people than sharks, bears, and mountain lions combined, but you wouldn’t know it from news reports. Bees probably are second to deer as killers.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169628)
August 7th, 2018 at 8:56 am
The religious right can get a little bossy, ha ha.
________
That’s understandable. If I thought everyone who believed
differently than me was going to roast in hell, I might be
bossy too. You better do as I say or else.
When I was a child attending a Southern Baptist church,
the preacher had me very worried about going to hell.
I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing by
by scaring kids with the threat of eternal burning, but
I think it was cruel and I resent it.
OK_Max,
It’s difficult to prove that someone’s life was saved by airbags. IMO, the estimate you quote is high, possibly by orders of magnitude. OTOH, it’s a lot easier to know when someone has been killed or seriously injured by an airbag. See again the Takata fiasco. I’ve personally seen airbags deployed without a collision just by aggressive driving during a parking lot autocross. Repairing the damage done costs thousands of dollars.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169631)
August 7th, 2018 at 2:11 pm
OK_Max,
“It’s difficult to prove that someone’s life was saved by airbags. IMO, the estimate you quote is high, possibly by orders of magnitude.”
______
Yes, DeWitt, it could be difficult, but comparisons of outcomes of similar accidents should give reliable conclusions regarding magnitude. 

Counting that as 19 years, gives an average annual estimate of 15 lives lost.
The estimate of lives saved is more than 100 times the count of lives lost. So there is lots of room for error on the estimate of lives saved without changing the conclusion that airbags are a net life saver.
I believe it was Mark who linked to a study that was critical of the
statistics on lives lost because they included on only airbag caused
fatalities in low-speed accidents. That could be a valid criticism.
Do airbags kill some people in high-speed collisions who would
have survived had their cars not been equipped with the bags ?
Autopsies on those killed at high speeds and crash experiments with dummies could answer that question, but I don’t know what’s been done.
Forget about airbags and keep an eye out for deer. Remember, if
one runs in front of your car, others may be close behind and you
could hit one of the followers. OK, I guess that could trigger
your airbag.
I did link that study. But my problem isn’t that I think airbags cost peoples lives, but rather that people who force car makers to install airbags in their cars will roast in hell.
.
So to speak. I think it’s the wrong thing to do.
.
Folk around here would definitely approve of the idea of watching out for deer though. I’ve got hunter friends who preemptively shoot deer, although I expect they don’t do it for driver safety, it is an added bonus.
OK_Max (Comment #169632): “Forget about airbags and keep an eye out for deer. Remember, if one runs in front of your car, others may be close behind and you could hit one of the followers.”
The issue with airbags is not so much that they kill people but that they provide little benefit, given the cost.
Good advice on deer. If you see a deer near the side of the road, expect it to run out in front of you, even if it appears to see you. Deer are much dummer than small children.
A close election today or a shoe in?
Folk around here
uhm I meant in North Alabama. I’ve no idea if the Blackboard is full of deer hunters or not.
.
Angech, are you talking about the special election in Ohio? I haven’t been following it.
I think there’s a vote about right to work in MO.
I wish you’d posted about the deer sooner. Happened exactly like that. I missed the first one and hit the second. Airbag did not deploy though.
Vote in Ohio will be close. Democrat led for first two hours with early vote, then Republican took the lead, and should keep it, maybe win by 5.
Blue waves, red tsunamis… I’m not seeing either. It looks like normal midterm political weather to me, which is to say – the Republicans may lose the House. It happens during midterms. Dang close race in Ohio. We’ll see how it goes in November.
MikeN (Comment #169638)
August 7th, 2018 at 7:26 pm
I wish you’d posted about the deer sooner. Happened exactly like that. I missed the first one and hit the second. Airbag did not deploy though.
_______
I hope you and your passengers weren’t injured. I know it can be
a shock.
lucia (Comment #169637)
August 7th, 2018 at 5:42 pm
“I think there’s a vote about right to work in MO.”
_______
The voters rejected the right-to-work law by a wide margin (67/33).
I haven’t been following the issue, but was surprised by how unpopular the law was with MO voters.
Correction: 63/37
Max, no shock as I was only going about 35. I had shock previously when I avoided hitting while going 50.
Ohio race was much closer than I predicted, under 1%, with 8400 ballots still to be counted and an 1800 vote lead for the Republican.
OK_Max,
The advertising spending on rejecting right-to-work was something like 5 times greater than the spending in support. Something like $15 million to $3 million.
WRT air bags: There is no question that air bags actually do (on net) save lives. Mostly, those are lives of people who choose to not wear seat belts. An air bag alone is not nearly as effective as a seat belt alone. As in much of life, there is selective pressure against stupidity when it comes to seat belts. IIRC, the net benefit of front air bags with a seat belt over a seat belt alone is pretty small, and considering the cost of replacing an air bag (lots of damage done when it deploys!), it may not be worth having air bags activate when people are using seat belts (as DeWitt suggested). I have never seen any data for the benefit of side impact air bags, though maybe this data exists.
SteveF (Comment #169648): “WRT air bags: There is no question that air bags actually do (on net) save lives. Mostly, those are lives of people who choose to not wear seat belts. An air bag alone is not nearly as effective as a seat belt alone.”
I’d bet that some people do not bother with seat belts because they have air bags.
Mike M.,
I’d bet that some people do not bother with seat belts because they have air bags.
The problem is that air bags are mainly for a single front end collision. For example, they won’t keep you inside the car in a rollover accident. Ejection from a vehicle is often fatal.
By the way, here’s a study that claims that the costs of airbags are about three times the estimated benefits:
I read in MO the message was “recall right to work to make MO attractive to business” which I found a bit confusing. Unions can play a useful role, they just need to clean up their act. I’m not optimistic that can happen in the near term, but the incentives are in place for them to become something more positive.
.
WH – Republicans
House – Republicans
Senate – Republicans
SC – Conservative
Governors – Republicans
State Legislatures – Republicans
.
Enjoy the next few months, this won’t be coming back for a while, a long while. We will probably need to ban OK_Max the month of November, ha ha. Everyone gets to feast on schadenfreude occasionally.
The initial problem with airbags was they deployed too fast and at too low a speed in some cases. This was optimized over a few decades. 90% of slow airbag deaths occurred in vehicles manufactured before 1998. I don’t think there is a perfect setting, more like overlapping circles. The statistics aren’t hard, just examine injury rates for similar accidents before and after airbags. There are large numbers to look at, so they should be valid, and the reduction in deaths in frontal crashes is 30%, that number is 50% with seat belts added. That’s significant. For visual learners: https://youtu.be/rIcrXjIbfpQ
.
As to where these become optional, mandatory, and if they should be able to be manually disabled is another debate. My current car has about 20 bazillion airbags. My car also has auto-braking for pending frontal crashes which I think is very useful. You could make a car even safer if you added $50,000 to the cost but obviously poor people should be able to buy cars, this is a classic cost/safety tradeoff.
A new climate change record today. The highest ever unqualified estimate for sea level rise in the mainstream media.
“The climate might stabilise with 4-5 degrees C of warming above the pre-industrial age. Thanks to the melting of ice sheets, the seas could be 10-60 metres higher than now.”
.
OMG, the lowest sea level rise is now 10M! And to put this clearly into the climate porn category, we have this:
.
“At a time of the widespread rise of right-wing populism, with its associated rejection of the messages of those perceived as ‘cosmopolitan elites’ and specific denial of climate change as an issue, the likelihood that the combination of factors necessary to allow humanity to navigate the planet to an acceptable ‘intermediate state’ must surely be close to zero.”
.
I can’t imagine how anyone could not trust cosmopolitan elites after a statement like that if they reviewed the “truth” of the science. What is wrong with these people, seriously.
. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45084144
Tom Scharf (Comment #169652): “The statistics aren’t hard, just examine injury rates for similar accidents before and after airbags. There are large numbers to look at, so they should be valid, and the reduction in deaths in frontal crashes is 30%, that number is 50% with seat belts added”
On things like this, there tend to be two types of statistical analyses: Very hard and very wrong. Sometimes both. Many things besides airbags changed between the “before” and “after” groups. And there is probably no way to know how many people did not bother with seat belts because they had air bags.
From DeWitt’s link (Comment #169650): “Even after the deployment of 10 million airbags, their effect on injury risk remains uncertain”
Tom Scharf (Comment #169651)
August 8th, 2018 at 8:24 am
“Enjoy the next few months, this won’t be coming back for a while, a long while. We will probably need to ban OK_Max the month of November, ha ha. Everyone gets to feast on schadenfreude occasionally.”
______
If that happens I will try to resist the temptation to rub it in.
A political analyst on NPR this morning said many Trump supporters
are unhappy with their Republican reps in Congress and will vote for
Dems. That surprised me. I thought the gain in Dem support was a reaction against Trump from some of those who voted for him. I guess it could be some of both.
Re airbags and seatbelts, I read that frontal airbags on recent model cars are deigned to be used with seat belts, but the bags on older models weren’t.
Re rollovers, no, frontal airbags aren’t protection. Don’t know if the trend to SUV’s is resulting in more rollovers, but these vehicles are top heavy and roll over more easily than sedans.
My airbag story:
I had an old Dodge Caravan, which I mostly drove locally, meaning low speeds on suburban streets. A light came on indicating there was something wrong with the airbag. What? dunno.
It was more than 10 years old, I grew up without air bags. I ignored the light.
When I took the van in for servicing, the service guy naturally mentioned it and mentioned a price for fixing it. The price was more than the blue book value of the van, so I declined. This particular technician was my age and told me that his “training” had advised him to push hard to sell fixing this. But he knew better than to push someone our age who was driving an old Caravan to believe that fixing whatever was wrong was some sort of emergency worth the cost.
I had my other service done (e.g. oil change, tire rotation. Whatever.)
Eventually, there was a recall about whatever problem was causing the lights to turn on for the airbags. As it happens, the problem did not make the airbags nonfunctional. It was something…. else. ….
I got the light fixed. Soon after, I donated the van because I was buying a new car anyway.
For the record: I have nothing against airbags. They are very useful in car accidents. On the other hand, if you never drive on the highway or at high speed, a seat belt will nearly always suffice. The risk you take by having no airbag is not great. If I had to do it all over again, I would still make the decision to not spend over $1000 to do something to fix the light (and whatever underlying problem that indicated).
I think fatality statistics with and without wearing a seatbelt have been around for 50 years. This couldn’t be any clearer. You do need to do the statistics correct as there are many things happening simultaneously and there will be inevitable uncertainty. Cars designed with crumple zones, collapsible steering columns, pre-tensioning seat belts, the relative weights of cars, and so forth. I might be a tad biased on the subject of safety equipment from personal experience, walking away unscathed from 70 mph rollovers tends to leave an impression (no airbag deploy here for the record): https://scharf.smugmug.com/TomFamily/1993/i-XM6Krcs/A
.
The effects of airbags is quite known. They use elaborate crash test dummies that measure forces and there is enough information on what kills and injures a person to make this pretty straight forward in the lab on a better/worse spectrum definitely, and likely to within a few percentage points in practice. They also have lots and lots and lots and lots of real world data to verify lab results. Insurance companies give discounts for safety equipment based on real numbers and they put their money where their mouth is.
.
There is no question that robot driving will further reduce injuries and no question that people will resist it like the plague initially. It will ultimately become mandatory after a decade or so and people will howl. I don’t feel especially comfortable with cars driven by strangers passing me with 10 feet at relative speeds of over 100 mph, this always seemed liked a psychotic design to me.
60 meters? That is roughly equivalent to 100% melting of all of Antarctica. That is, 100% melting for a continent which today averages ~-20C in summer (~ -40C in winter).
.
Only shameless numb skulls would suggest such nonsense, and only bigger numb skulls would publish it. Good grief. The ghost of Stephen Schneider still haunts climate science, and I fear it always will.
OK_Max,
Do not resist the temptation, otherwise what fun would it be? Nothing is worse than a respectful winner in politics. The best part of losing is that you can blame everything bad that happens on your opponents which is a much easier thing to do. I’m getting tired of all this winning anyway, ha ha.
Do not resist the temptation, otherwise what fun would it be? Nothing is worse than a respectful winner in politics.
Gahhh, Tom. I find gloating pretty much unbecoming of everybody. Except when it’s funny, if there is such a case. Whatever, I guess.
Max_OK,
I’d be surprised if red-rock-Republicans unhappy with Trump voted for Democrats. The swing is usually independents and so on. Red-rock Republicans might fail to show up, but they are unlikely to vote for Dems.
My vote swings. OTOH: I also vote for 3rd parties. There’s generally a choice of 3rd party candidates of various different shades of weird. So it’s easy to pick one. I won’t vote for a candidate I dislike if they might win.
I’m still not a big Trump fan. But I’m not going to vote for a Democrat just because I don’t like him. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican merely because I liked whoever the GOP president was. I vote for Congress and Senate based on who is actually running for those seats.
The outcome of elections is always overinterpreted. The losing side is in permanent decline and the winners are ascendant. The media can only extrapolate from 4 years back apparently. The smack talk is inevitable and if you can’t take it, dont … I have a feeling the “democracy is saved” storylines have already been written and waiting on the presses. Given that Trump actually won last time you cannot discount the left’s ability for self sabotage, but they won’t be mindlessly over-confident this time around. Their energy is comparable to Tea party screaming which resulted in a 2010 wipeout for the left.
Tom Scharf,
“There are large numbers to look at, so they should be valid, and the reduction in deaths in frontal crashes is 30%, that number is 50% with seat belts added.”
.
Not sure what that means. Do you mean that air bags alone reduce deaths by 30% compared to nothing, while seatbelts plus air bags reduce deaths by 50% compared to nothing? If so, those numbers look wildly out of line…. that air bags alone are 60% as effective as seat belts plus air bags is improbable.
.
This study of just under 10,000 head-on crashes: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/153/3/219/80361
says the reduction in fatalities for cars with only air bags in use was 29% (compared to nothing), while for only seat belts the reduction in fatalities was 75%. The combination of seat belts and air bags reduced fatalities by 82%… or 7% more than seat belts alone.
.
A couple of other very interesting things from that study: Men are 21% less likely to die in a head-on crash than women (relatively stronger bones for the same body weight?), and people over 65 are three times more likely to die in a head-on crash than younger people. Which suggests getting old increases your chance of death even more than one might imagine. 😉
.
More disturbing is the influence of vehicle weight: your chance of death doubles when you drive in a car that weighs less than 2250 lbs compared to a car that weighs more than 3375 lbs. So, be male, drive a tank, wear your seat belt, and don’t be old if you want to avoid death in a head-on crash. Air bags won’t make much difference if you do all those things.
Heavier cars win in collisions with light cars naturally. When you hit tin foil with a hammer the results are predictable on both. The goal would be to get rid of heavier cars if possible (by making them lighter) to remove the disparity. Collisions with trucks will still be a big problem.
.
I got airbar stats here, cannot vouch for them. I imagine some of this is how you do the fractions. The statement seems a bit contradictory on close reading, it seems belts are doing most of the work in a belts + airbag scenario. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/airbags/qanda
.
“In frontal crashes, frontal airbags reduce driver fatalities by 29 percent and fatalities of front-seat passengers age 13 and older by 30 percent. The fatality reduction in frontal crashes is larger for belted drivers (52 percent) compared with unbelted drivers (21 percent). 2 NHTSA estimates that the combination of an airbag plus a lap and shoulder belt reduces the risk of death by 51 percent, compared with a 45 percent reduction for belts alone in frontal crashes.”
Tom Scharf,
“The goal would be to get rid of heavier cars if possible to remove the disparity.”
.
Until that most improbable happenstance, drive a tank. 😉
.
The advantage of a bigger car is two-fold: yes, in head-on collisions with lighter cars the g-forces are much lower. But even in solid barrier frontal collisions, a larger car has more “crumple length”, and so generates lower g-forces than a smaller car. Car designers have (I believe) worked to increase crumple length as much as practical for all cars.
A bit counter-intuitively two equivalent cars hitting each other at 50 mph is the same as one car hitting a wall at 50 mph. http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html
.
I imagine it does make a difference if you hit a wall that is magically traveling 50 mph in the opposite direction. You want to avoid all insta-stop collisions if you value your life. Do yourself a favor and do not type in dashcam accidents on youtube.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169661)
August 8th, 2018 at 11:19 am
OK_Max,
“Do not resist the temptation, otherwise what fun would it be? Nothing is worse than a respectful winner in politics.”
mark bofill (Comment #169662)
August 8th, 2018 at 11:23 am
“Gahhh, Tom. I find gloating pretty much unbecoming of everybody. Except when it’s funny, if there is such a case.”
________
I suppose a little good natured ribbing would be ok.
Lucia (Comment #169663)
August 8th, 2018 at 11:32 am
Max_OK
“I’m still not a big Trump fan. But I’m not going to vote for a Democrat just because I don’t like him. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican merely because I liked whoever the GOP president was. I vote for Congress and Senate based on who is actually running for those seats.”
_________
Makes sense to me. Republicans are not all alike, Democrats are not
all alike. All politics are local.
There could be a number of reasons why that Ohio Congressional race was so close: disappointment with Trump, dissatisfaction with the Republican candidate, the Democrat candidate’s appeal, an increase in voter turnout by Democrats, a decrease in Republican
turnout, and reasons not occurring to me. I would be interested in
knowing the importance of each reason.
The Ohio race was close because suburban Republicans are not voting for Republican candidates.
Democrats achieved a huge turnout. 87% of their 2016 number, while Republicans hit 40%.
Question is if this is because they brought lots of resources into a special election or if this is the default condition and it was Republican resources that boosted their candidate past the finish line. Neither one can scale to 50-100 simultaneous races, thought Trump may have the energy to campaign for every one.
I am solid Republican who supports Trump, but am considering voting for a Democrat for the House. The existing candidate is weak on a number of issues, and I wonder if it would be better to clear the decks for a more conservative candidate in two years.
Lucia, didn’t the air bag light lead to a failed emissions test?
SteveF (Comment #169665)
August 8th, 2018 at 11:46 am
“people over 65 are three times more likely to die in a head-on crash than younger people”
“More disturbing is the influence of vehicle weight: your chance of death doubles when you drive in a car that weighs less than 2250 lbs compared to a car that weighs more than 3375 lbs”
______
Yes, older people would be wise to have large cars, and I do see many large cars being drive by seniors. As makers have downsized cars for fuel economy, new large cars at affordable prices have become harder to find. But the latest models of all sizes have safety features that were unavailable back in the days of big cars. I hope this means the downsizing isn’t increasing fatality and injury rates for older people.
I’m not sure large cars are less likely to be involved in accidents. If controls for driver age and other influences are factored, the statistics could show small cars less likely to be in accident. The reason could be they are more maneuverable and have less area to be struck.
MikeN (Comment #169672)
Thank you for the stats on the Ohio race.
Tom Scharf,
“A bit counter-intuitively two equivalent cars hitting each other at 50 mph is the same as one car hitting a wall at 50 mph.”
.
I assure you this is not at all counter-intuative for those who have studied Newtonian physics. You can even ask a former professor of mechanical engineering named Lucia if you doubt this.
OK_Max,
I am over 65 and drive an SUV that weighs 4350 lbs…. so maybe these factors cancel out. My SUV also has automatic pre-collision braking, lane change alarms (if you try to change lanes when another vehicle occupies that lane), semi-autopilot (keeps the car in the lane if you start to drift out of your lane) and other safety features. BTW, automatic pre-collision braking ought to reduce the risk of death in both vehicles involved in a head-on crash.
.
I figure I am much more likely to die from cancer or heart disease than a car accident.
Not sure what to make of this: Trump is now 14 for 14 in his Republican primary endorsements. You want elected? Kiss the Don’s ring. It also appears to have turned the FL governor race around. http://www.nbc-2.com/story/38842164/how-donald-trump-just-keeps-winning
.
I still get a feeling I’m living in the Matrix with a major league software bug.
MikeN,
Nope. Passed every emissions test every year. Out of curiosity, why do you think the light would cause the car’s emissions to not meet standards?
SteveF,
The two cars hitting vs. one car hitting the wall is a classic high school physics problem involving impulse momentum theorem.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169679): “Not sure what to make of this: Trump is now 14 for 14 in his Republican primary endorsements.”
The article gives Trump credit for John James winning the senate nomination in Michigan. They claim that no way James would have won otherwise, probably because he started from nowhere. Trump probably helped, but James was already closing in and won by 10 points. He appears to be a very string candidate. If Stabenow takes reelection for granted, she could be in for a big surprise. Maybe even if she does not take it for granted.
SteveF (Comment #169677)
“I am over 65 and drive an SUV that weighs 4350 lbs…. so maybe these factors cancel out.”
“I figure I am much more likely to die from cancer or heart disease than a car accident.”
_____
Your SUV is loaded with safety technology. When I’m ready for a new car, I will opt for the safety features you mentioned.
By determining what is most likely to kill you if you do nothing,you may be able to reduce that likelihood by doing something. I’m a
firm believer in the value of regular physical checkups.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169678)
August 8th, 2018 at 7:13 pm
In other news, don’t ever drive into a rocket sled with your econobox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eA6cEql6uE
_________
HOLY COW ! Little left of that car.
The following collision is an example of a driver not paying attention or having a stroke. I don’t know which. It’s a miracle no one was killed.
Lucia, perhaps your car was too old. My impression is the first step in an emissions test, and in some cases the only step, is to connect to the onboard computer, and any light will cause a test fail.
Mike N,
Whatever they did, the light being on didn’t interfere with passing. I don’t have a vivid memory of what they do during testing. It’s not the sort of thing I file in permanent memory. But I know the van never failed.
MikeN,
I googled, and the intertubes seem to report a vehicle won’t pass if the check engine light is on. My light was not the check engine light. It was specifically for the airbag system. That might be the reason my car passed while you are under the impression a light on causes failure. It may matter which light. (Imagine if it was a “check oil” or “check washer fluid” light and so on. Some of these are little more than timers. Of course you should check your oil or washer fluid. But emissions may be just fine.)
Max_ok
The voters rejected the right-to-work law by a wide margin (67/33).
I haven’t been following the issue, but was surprised by how unpopular the law was with MO voters.
Bear in mind: this was a primary election. Voter turn out was high for a primary, which is low for a major election. Evidently, those who did not want right-to-work were very motivated to vote. Others were not.
Generally speaking (in my view) referendum questions about statewide law should not be placed on any election other than the one in November. November is the only time when enough people show to really know the will of the people. That said: there’s no rule against putting important questions on ballots at times when turn out is typically miniscule and the majority of an unusually small minority ends up dictating the outcome.
It’s an old trick though. 🙂
Tom Scharf
I read in MO the message was “recall right to work to make MO attractive to business†which I found a bit confusing. Unions can play a useful role, they just need to clean up their act. I’m not optimistic that can happen in the near term, but the incentives are in place for them to become something more positive.
The hypothetical of Unions playing a useful role to attract business is all well and good. But businesses making investments do so based on current and past behavior of Unions. Strong unions will only attract business after unions clean up their act.
One of the incentives to make unions clean up their act is their having less than infinite power. (To be useful, they also need more than zero power). If the balance of power is to large in favor of unions, right to work tends to make them “clean up their act” because part of the reasons extremely powerful unions don’t have “clean acts” is that, in some cases, once they win one election by more than 50% of employee vote, they have a near unbreakable lock on representations. It’s hard for employees to get rid of a union even if less than 50% of the employees now support it.
Without right to work, a union can, hypothetically, force all members to pay dues even after more than 50% don’t even want the union. With right to work, they need to remain sufficiently attractive that people want to pay dues and so join the union voluntarily.
Mind you: this weakens the union. But part of the “weakening” is, at least hypotentically, not allowing the union to become despotic.
Obviously, if unions are too weak, they have no power either.
All that said: I think the good argument for right to work is the one captured by it’s name. Individuals should notbe required to join a union merely to get a job somewhere where the majority of employees voted to unionize. Basically, employees shouldn’t be able to vote to exclude workers on the condition that the potential worker effectively “joins their club”.
Edit: I inserted “not” in between “should” and “be” above.
Lucia,
Individuals should be required to join a union merely to get a job somewhere where the majority of employees voted to unionize.
Is this a typo or is this what you meant to type? I’d have thought ‘should not’ would be more consistent with what you were saying, but maybe I’m just not understanding what you’re saying.
Thanks. Should not. I’ll fix.
lucia (Comment #169688)
“Generally speaking (in my view) referendum questions about statewide law should not be placed on any election other than the one in November. November is the only time when enough people show to really know the will of the people.”
_____
lucia, thank you for the explanation. I hadn’t thought about
the difference voter turnout could have made in the MO
vote against the right-to-work law.
OK_max.
Here’s a back of the envelope estimate:
I read the turnout in past years was about 30% of registered voters. this time it was 37%.
Suppose the real feeling was 50-50, and we’d expect that to be the result for voters who arrived for some reason other than voting on the referendum. But suppose the extra 7% all arrived to vote “no”.
Then (0.15+0.07)/.37 = 0.59. The no would have gotten 59% of the vote. According to the WSJ 64% voted against.
Now, 64% is bigger than 59%, but I think this shows the “overwhelming-ness” might really just be due to motivated voters in an election that would normally have a very low turnout rate.
Obviously, people who like the result are happy with this result. Those who don’t are unhappy. But as I said, I think referend for statewide issues should generally be left to November elections. Because having important issues on the ballot during things like primaries can potentially result in minority groups imposing their will on the entire state– that’s not the actual goal of elections.
(Small towns and college towns do this all the time by the way. They’ll vote for things that affect students and which students disfavor during a small summer election while most are away at jobs and so on. The townies will argue it’s fair– and it may be so. Afterall, the townies live in the town 100% of the time. But still– the tactic is well known.)
lucia (Comment #169693)
Taking a vote when opponents are
are out of town. WOW, that is dirty.
I can see both sides of the union
issue. As a manager, I would prefer
not having to deal with unions at all.
As a non-managerial employee, I
might prefer a union shop or at least
an agency agreement requiring non-
union employees to pay union dues.
I wish union/management relations
in the US weren’t so adversarial.
The relations seem to be better
in some countries (e.g., Japan
and Germany).
OK_Max
s a non-managerial employee, I
might prefer a union shop or at least
an agency agreement requiring non-
union employees to pay union dues.
I think this is the preference of the union and those employees who support the union enough to join it. It tends not to be the preference of employees who disagree with the union and don’t want to join it. So I don’t think one should presume that all non-managerial employees prefer a union shop with all employees being forced to pay dues.
In fact, if all wanted to support the union and believed it just for all employee’s to pay dues, passing a right to work law would make no difference. They’d all just join. The problem is at last some employees don’t want that.
OK_Max,
The real problem, and the subject of Janus v. AFSCME, is that unions engage heavily in politics. Agency fees, ideally, are only supposed to cover the costs of collective bargaining. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Public employee unions are political by definition and home health care workers, especially relatives, get close to zero benefit from membership in public employee unions. But agency fees or union dues were deducted by some states directly from benefit payments.
lucia (Comment #169695)
“So I don’t think one should presume that all non-managerial employees prefer a union shop with all employees being forced to pay dues.”
__________
True, but the union could argue that those who don’t join should pay dues anyway because they receive union negotiated benefits.
I am presuming employers provide equal pay and benefits to their union and non-union workers. If I’m wrong, the argument could change.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169696)
DeWitt, I used to think governments were paternalistic employers and public servants had no need or right to organize. Oklahoma’s State government has caused me to reconsider. In recent years the State badly neglected educational funding, eventually resulting in a widespread teacher strike and school closings this past spring.
The State finally came around and the strike ended. I was glad
to see the teachers stand up for what they believed right.
Of course public employee unions are political. They bargain with governments that are political.
OK_Max,
True, but the union could argue that those who don’t join should pay dues anyway because they receive union negotiated benefits.
The Unions do argue this. It’s the position that is favorable to the Union. That’s why the unions call it a “free rider” problem. That’s the union framing.
Meanwhile, there are employees who don’t consider the things the union negotiates “for them” be benefits. As is: they don’t think they get value from what the union negotiates “for them” and would prefer something else.
Those employees don’t think they should have to give the union money to negotaite for things they don’t want and don’t consider benefits. It’s a triple blow to both (a) not get anything you think a benefit , (b) be told that you must consider the stuff you “got” to be a benefit and (c) be required to pay the union for cutting a deal that gives you things you don’t want in place of things you do want.
I am presuming employers provide equal pay and benefits to their union and non-union workers.
The negotiated contract applies to both union and non-union members and both groups are treated identically. The reason for this is that the non-union members have their right to negotiate for themselves (to try to get what they actually want) taken away from them and given to the union.
So: the non-union members don’t necessarily being deprived of the right to negotiate for what they want and instead being given what the union deems they “should” want to be a “benefit”. It’s not entirely clear that losing their right to negotiate and being forced to rely on a party they don’t agree with (i.e. the union) is a “benefit”. Moreover, even if the contract the union negotiates containsthings called “benefits” (e.g. insurance etc.) that’ doesn’t mean the non-union members are better off (Though, they may well be.)
So: just deeming getting the union contract a “benefit” isn’t quite right. Certainly, the non-union members have something taken away: that is the right to negotiate for what the non-union employee actually prefers.
Youtube is taking a stand against no good dirty gosh darn climate science deniers like me! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6042837/YouTube-takes-climate-change-deniers.html
I wondered briefly if SkS was in on this, cause it sort of sounded like their type of thing, but if so they haven’t posted about it. Mebbe youtube just got the itch all by itself.
Well, I’ll just have to work harder to spread my diabolical web of disinformation in other ways I suppose.
Janus case was about union fees for government workers.
While political spending is supposed to be deducted if demanded, this doesn’t mean much with union accounting.
Kennedy asked if union political power would be affected if they lost the mandatory dues.
When told yes, he responded, “Isn’t that the end of this case?”
lucia (Comment #169699)
lucia, a union’s obligation to non-members isn’t clear
to me.
In States with right-to-work laws if more than 50% of
the workers in a bargaining unit want to be represented
by a union does it become the exclusive bargaining agent
and have a legal obligation to represent any of the rest
who choose to not join the union and pay union dues?
If the union does have such an obligation it is being required
to provide a service to workers (non-union members) who
are not paying for the service.
OK_Max,
Unions obligations to non-union members is dictated by law. For state employees, it’s state laws. For private companies, that’s federal law but some choices are left to the states.
right-to-work laws if more than 50% of
the workers in a bargaining unit want to be represented
by a union does it become the exclusive bargaining agent
and have a legal obligation to represent any of the rest
who choose to not join the union and pay union dues?
Yes to both. This is federal law and the two things are linked. Moreover, it’s worth nothing that historically unions want both to represent everyone and insist everyone they represent pay them for the privilege to do so. Unions do not want to only represent a fraction of employees.
If the union does have such an obligation it is being required
to provide a service to workers (non-union members) who
are not paying for the service.
Some see it this way; unions like it described that way. The problem is using the word “service”. It’s not a “service” to me if someone does something I don’t want and I consider contrary to my interests. It doesn’t become a “service” just because the other person tells me I should like what they are doing.
So, for example: if, while I was on vacation, my neighbor came over and painted my house brown, I would not call what they did a “service” even if brown is a nice color. I would not call it one even if he pointed out that as a result of his actions, I wouldn’t need to repaint for 10 years, as now the house is nice a protected against the elements.
As far as I am concerned, his painting the house would also not become a “service” to me if law dictated that all the neighbors could form a collective and vote for a sole provider of outdoor paining and the decision about painting my own house had become theirs against my will.
I would much rather retain the right to select my own color and paint the house myself. In that case, I’ll gladly pay for the paint and painters myself.
But I don’t want the “neighborhood collective” to decide this. And I would be even more miffed, if to get a law passed to have the “neighborhood collective” take away my right to have my house painted as I prefer, they then changed the rhetoric to insist they are doing me a “service” and telling me I need to pay them.
If you change “neighborhood collective” to “union” and change the house painting to the union being the sole bargaining agent, we’ve now got a good analogy for what is happening with unions.
I think “right to work” should exist. I think those who have a “right to work” should not have to pay dues. If that means unions no longer act as sole agents and the non-union employees negotiate for themselves, that’s fine with me. (In fact, it’s probably fine with the non-union employees. The fact is the unions generally want to take away that right from the non-union employees. That, after the unions get what they want, they also use it as an excuse to charge the non-union employees for having their right to negotiate taken away is double whammy for the non-union employees. I don’t consider that a “service”.)
OK_Max,
I should note: The federal law I mentioned covered private companies not state employees. So the answer “yes to both” applies to private companies. For state employees, the answer depends on state law, but I think it’s still yes for all 50 states.
Now that public (state) employees unions can’t force non-union members to pay agency fees, they could request the laws making unions the sole bargaining agent be changed so they don’t have the “cost” of bargaining for the non-union members.
My prediction: unions would fight any such change tooth and nail. Unions would rather keep the right to bargain for the non-union members (thereby taking that right away from non-union members) and let the non-union members not pay for the union “service” than to lose that right to be the sole bargaining agent.
Of course, unions prefer to both to take away the non-union members right to bargain and force the non-union member to pay them for that “service”. But what unions really, really, really don’t want is for the non-union member to be allowed to find someone else to do the service or to do it for himself!
OK_Max,
Public employee unions have been a financial disaster. They have negotiated unsustainable pay, pension and health plans that are going to bankrupt several states in the near future, Illinois, Kentucky and New Jersey are at the top (or bottom) of the list with greater than 60% of the state pension plan unfunded. Oklahoma is somewhere in the middle at 28% unfunded. But that was in 2017 and probably doesn’t reflect the new settlement. The teachers in Kentucky went on strike recently too.
Of course the Fed’s near zero interest rate policy hasn’t helped pension plan returns. They’ve been forced into riskier investments and things will get a lot worse when the current bubble bursts.
lucia (Comment #169703): “Some see it this way; unions like it described that way. The problem is using the word “serviceâ€. It’s not a “service†to me if someone does something I don’t want and I consider contrary to my interests. It doesn’t become a “service†just because the other person tells me I should like what they are doing.”
I strongly agree with that. For 25 years I was a member of a union that charged me dues to provide “services” that I would have been better off without. Lucia is also right about unions wanting to provide the “services” to non-members. I had a few co-workers who were exempt from union membership, but the collective agreement applied to them. The union went to court to make sure that was so.
The non-members had no say in how the union was run and no right to vote on strikes or a new agreement. I am pretty sure that they would get no help from the union if they had a grievance against the employer. I would think that similar provisions apply to non-members in right-to-work states.
MikeM
I am pretty sure that they would get no help from the union if they had a grievance against the employer.
I”m going to answer based on my understanding fed law which applies to private employers. (Not state employees. Each state might have a different rule.) I read this recently– after Janus– otherwise, I’d have no idea. Mind you, real lawyers should tell me if I’m wrong.
Whether the union represents a non-union member in a grievance with the employer depends on what sort of grievance they have. If it’s relative to something actually in the contract for which the union is the sole negotiator, law dictates the union must represent the non-union member. But, the fact is, the union usually wants to do so because they want to be involved in interpretation of the contract. They actually don’t want the precedent of a clause being interpreted to mean something they don’t like– that would affect union employees also.
The law also says the union must deal provide the exact same level of representation to the union and non-union employee in this situation. So for example: they can’t give the union members an attorney and only send a shop steward for the non-union guy.
However, if the grievance unrelated to something the union does not deal with with as sole representative, then they don’t have to represent the a non-union employee even if they would represent a union employee. So, they can offer some benefits to union employees but not to non-union employees. (Presumably, those should never have been paid for by “fair share” agency fees, but … dunno….)
The union went to court to make sure that was so.
Yep. The Union position during Janus arguments was it was unfair for them to “have to” do things for non-union members without being paid. But the reality is unions absolutely don’t want non-union members to have the right to do these things for themselves. Given that, it seems entirely fair to me that if unions get what Unions want (i.e. the laborers right to negotiate his own contract) Unions should at least “pay” for being given the non-union members right to negotiate by negotiating for ‘free’. Unions getting what they want (which is the additional negotiating power that comes from being sole agent) should be enough “reward” to the union for providing the “service” of treating everyone the same under the contract.
In my analogy: if the “neighbors collective” wants to gain the right of absolutely control over the color of my house and deciding when painting is to be done and so on, and I have no say, they should at least pay for the paint. ( I avoid buying in places with neighborhood associations.)
If there is going to be a union, it is the companies that demand only a single representative for employees because they don’t want to have to negotiate separate deals with a bunch of separate entities. This is the foundation of the free rider problem, the unions would love to be able to cut non-payers loose.
.
If you want to see why unions are a problem today, examine the most recent teacher’s union convention. It’s ludicrous. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/teachers-unions-get-more-political-after-janus-decision/
.
This is for negotiating a contract? They are leftist political lobbyists and a right wing teacher should have the option to cut them loose. The unions have no standing in the free rider argument until they clean this up IMO. I don’t trust their separate fees for political lobbying.
Tom
the unions would love to be able to cut non-payers loose.
Nope. Unions will sue to prevent non-payers from negotiating their own contracts.
Of course, some unions would love to give non-payers a worse deal if they could. But that would be unfair after they take away the non-payers right to negotiate for themselves. This is why the law doesn’t let them negotiate different deals for union and non-union.
The fact is: it doesn’t cost the union any more to negotiate for the “extra” non-union members. A negotiation is a negotiation. The costs to the union of the negotiation are fixed by the fact they are sending people to negotiate. That’s true even if a second negotiation by a non-union member would cost the non-union member and management money. Many non-union members would gladly pay the cost of negotiating their own contract. Management might not like it so much– but OTOH, they might.
“Public employee unions have been a financial disaster. They have negotiated unsustainable pay, pension and health plans that are going to bankrupt several states…”
.
I would consider this the unions doing their job effectively and the politicians not doing their jobs. An argument can certainly be made the unions are doing it so effectively as to kill the goose laying the golden eggs, and the incestious relationship between the unions and elections are a big time corrupting force. I’d probably choose Venezuela over Chicago if I had to choose somewhere to live for the next 30 years. Chicago is going to be high taxes / low services for decades, and people who move there will be paying for previous services to previous residents.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169708): “If there is going to be a union, it is the companies that demand only a single representative for employees because they don’t want to have to negotiate separate deals with a bunch of separate entities.”
I don’t think that is true at all. If it were true, we would see companies demanding that their employees unionize.
In the unionized open shop situation the employer can: (1) tell the non-union employees that the negotiated pay scale is the pay scale for everyone, (2) pay the non-union guys more just to stick a finger in the eye of the union, or (3) pay the non-union guys less to save money. I think lucia is correct that only (1) is actually legal. But even if that were not so, it would be the only practical option. (1) would lead to a strike demanding that everyone get the non-union rate and (3) would lead to all the non-union guys joining the union.
Tom Scharf,
I would consider this the unions doing their job effectively and the politicians not doing their jobs.
That’s the problem, though. The politicians are, in fact, doing the job that the public employee unions get them elected to do with campaign contributions, both in money and labor. Without public employee unions, the politicians might be motivated to represent all their constituents, not just the public employee unions that got them elected and keep them in office. In Illinois in particular, the public employee unions own the state legislature.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169710): “I would consider this the unions doing their job effectively and the politicians not doing their jobs.”
I agree, but part of the reason is that public sector unions have an unfair advantage. The politicians have to face election and the unions can exert a significant influence on the election. Public sector unions should be banned from participating in elections; it is like giving private sector unions a major say in choosing the board of directors.
Another part of the problem is third party payment. The decisions on the public side are not made by the people who will eventually pay.
There’s also a certain amount of irony in the progressive’s opposition to the Citizens United decision. If corporations don’t have speech rights because they’re not individuals, then neither should labor unions. I would actually support the overturning of Citizens United if it would also remove labor unions from politics. Conversely, as long as labor unions are allowed to engage in politics, then there is no justification for banning corporate engagement.
Private companies are driven out of business if they agree to large cost increases for wages and benefits in negotiations with unions. So private companies rarely do this, and those that do usually fail (unless saved by government bale-outs!). Most politicians are undisciplined in their negotiations with unions because the union has political power (both votes and campaign contributions) and because the negative consequences for a strike are immediate while the negative consequences for an irresponsibly costly contract can be (and usually are) kicked far down the road via government debt accumulation. The negative consequences happen long after the politicians can no long be held responsible by the voters. The existence of public employee unions is an invitation to politicians to act (even) more irresponsibly than they otherwise would. The voters in California, Connecticut, Illinois, and other states with unsustainable debts will soon become aware of just how bad public employee unions are for the public when their taxes rise, their public services drop, and their governments default on debt. It is going to be ugly.
Normally a proper feedback system is in place so that overcompensating employees results in an entity failing. The future benefits scam and taxpayer’s deep pockets have allowed a hidden unsustainable system to go on far longer than it ever would in the private sector. Somebody is going to get screwed here, the employees or the taxpayers. Meanwhile the union leadership and politicians will not suffer at all. Maybe public square waterboarding would be a good start.
.
If the feds bail out Chicago and Illinois, I’m leaving! I better at least get lifetime season tickets for the Bears out of the deal.
You can’t tell or expect unions to not use every legal dirty trick in the book to the advantage of their members, one should anticipate this. This problem MUST be fixed from the political side or there needs to be an outright ban on public sector unions.
.
Another nasty trick is when local governments use these defined benefit packages to be a replacement for social security, so these employees don’t fund the SS system. They are effectively stealing federal SS payments for their own largesse.
.
Forbidding unions from lobbying is never going to pass SC muster, I doubt allowing non-elected bureaucrats to negotiate will be any better. One possibility is an ironclad payment system that does not allow future benefits to be underfunded, another cleaner version is that future benefits are simply not part of the government system. 401K’s, SS, and Medicare like the rest of us. These can easily happen once the sh** really hits the fan with the first fiscal failure. Voter referendums on “no future benefits” should easily pass.
lucia, thank you for answering my questions about unions.
I also want to thank others for joining the discussion.
I feel I now know more about the topic
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169705)
“Of course the Fed’s near zero interest rate policy hasn’t helped pension plan returns. They’ve been forced into riskier investments and things will get a lot worse when the current bubble bursts.”
_______
DeWiit, the least risky investments are short-term bonds. I don’t know whether the real interest rate (interest rate minus inflation rate) has changed much over the years for these bonds. Inflation
has been low for quite a long time, which is reflected in the low
interest rates.
IMO, over the long term a pension fund should not be heavily invested in short-term bonds. The cost of avoiding risk will be
lower returns. Historically, the riskier investments, stocks and
long-term bonds, have given higher returns.
I apologize if you already know all this. I kinda suspect you do.
I have know about sound financial planning for a long time, but unfortunately, have not always practiced it. Too frequently
I have yielded to the temptation to time markets.
I agree we should be concerned about public employee pension fund underfunding in many States. The solution, higher taxes and reduced benefits, will displease everyone. Reduced benefits alone, if that would solve the problem, will displease only the public employee retirees, a safer course for anyone running for office.
OK_Max,
It’s a complicated topic. We’re all going to have different opinions on the ultimate right balance of power, individual vs. collective liberties, fairness to company owners and employees. But no matter what, I think a person has to consider things from multiple points of view. These include at least:
1) Business owner/manager.
2) “Collective” of employees who want to unionize.
3) Employees who don’t want to be represented by a union and certainly don’t want to pay for unions to take away their right to negotiate for themselves.
4) In the case of public employees, the public in their roles as (a) taxpayers, (b) consumers of the service provided by the public employees.
We should certainly not assume the “union” view is the same as that of employees who don’t want to join the union or vice versa. So, for example, we should assume what the union considers a “service” or “benefit” they provide to the non-union employees is something the non-union employee actually considers themselves a “service” or “benefit”. The non-union employee may very well want something else.
This doesn’t, by the way, mean that “free riders” don’t exist. They certainly will if non-union members aren’t required to pay fees. At least some employees who totally want what the union negotiates will decide to save themselves money and not pay and won’t join the union for that reason. But it’s not at all clear this is most or all of those who don’t join and don’t pay. The fact is, we just don’t know.
FWIW: I’m in Illinois where the Janus lawsuit started. Our treasury is seriously overburdened, and part of the problem is pension benefits. We don’t know what, ultimately will happen with pensions, particularly if the state goes bankrupt which will create tension between federal and state law. Bankruptcy law may (or may not) end up giving public employees guaranteed pensions the short end of the stick. If so, one will say that in retrospect it would have been better for public employees unions to have negotiated for higher take home pay and encouraging public employees to have 401K’s or something equivalent.
Unions generally don’t like 401Ks for various reason. The cynic would say one reason is that 401ks leave power in the hands of individual employees . Pensions leave more power in the hands of Unions (since now, employees need the union to continue to make sure the pension is maintained and not raided.) The non-cynic would point to other benefits of pensions vis-a-vis workers.
OK_Max,
Reduced benefits alone, if that would solve the problem, will displease only the public employee retirees, a safer course for anyone running for office.
Reducing benefits in Illinois and several other states would require amending the state’s constitution. The Illinois Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Don’t hold your breath. It takes a 60% vote in both Houses of the Illinois General Assembly to pass either a call for a Constitutional Convention or to pass an amendment to be ratified by the voters. That might happen when judges start setting tax rates, but I’m not optimistic.
The problem with pension funding is that the funding parameters are set using a rate of return higher than a conservatively chosen portfolio can achieve. IIRC, if real rates of return were used to calculate funding, things would look even worse than they do now.
DeWitt Payne is correct: Currently, pension benefits of public employees cannot be reduced in Illinois. That’s the Il. constitution. Whether that applies only to benefits already earned or the stated benefit in the handbook from day 1 a person is hired is an open question that remains to be resolved in by the IL supreme court.
The other open question is what happens if Illinois ends up in bankruptcy. At that point, Federal and IL law could be in tension.
Of course, the IL constitution can be amended, but that’s a big hurdle.
if real rates of return were used to calculate funding, things would look even worse than they do now.
Yep. The state could end up in bankruptcy court. No one knows what happens in that instance.
Sorry about my #169719.” Edit” didn’t work for me. Sometimes it
does, sometimes it doesn’t. Hope it works this time.
Again, as an employer or manager, I would prefer to not have to
deal with unions, but as a non-managerial employee I probably
would prefer to be a union member, although I can believe not
all employees would share my preferences, and perhaps even a
few managers.
Regarding right-to-work laws, I wonder if it would be better if
unions were required to represent only union members and
non-members could negotiate as individuals with employers.
That could be a bad idea, but I was just wondering.
I have mixed feelings about individual retirement accounts
(e.g. 401K) vs group retirement plans. Both have strengths
and weaknesses. They can, however, be complimentary.
Here’s a tidbit on bankruptcy from Detroit’s experience. Source:
While under Article IX, Section 24, of the Michigan Constitution, neither the state nor any of its “political subdivisions” are permitted to default on the accrued financial benefits of their pension plans or retirement systems,[45] federal law may allow bankruptcy judges to renegotiate pensions of municipalities in bankruptcy.[46] Many consider public pension benefits of existing retirees “virtually untouchable”; the clash between state constitutional protections of vested public pension rights and the general ability of the bankruptcy process to modify debt obligations has yet to be fully tested in any Chapter 9 proceeding.[47]
On July 22, Aquilina delayed to July 29 her hearing on retiree funds request for an order directing Orr and Snyder to withdraw the bankruptcy filing and desist from any effort to reduce vested pension benefits in the face of their protected status under the Michigan Constitution. This legal move allowed the bankruptcy court to weigh in.[48] Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes scheduled a hearing on July 24, on the city’s request that the retiree state court suit be stayed because of the pending federal bankruptcy case. Rhodes indicated that the bankruptcy court, not the state court, has the authority to resolve the dispute between the city and the retiree funds over the city’s authorization to file the bankruptcy case.[4
The thing goes on and on…
OK_Max
Regarding right-to-work laws, I wonder if it would be better if
unions were required to represent only union members and
non-members could negotiate as individuals with employers.
That could be a bad idea, but I was just wondering.
I suspect if that were allowed, most managers would just offer the non-union employees in jobs that typically unionize the same contract given union employees and it would be subject to “take it or leave it”. (Salaried employees who don’t ordinarily join unions would, of course, be unaffected.)
That makes the system w/o a union the same amount of work for the employer. (Well…. unless they end up with two or three unions. But more than one union can currently happen, it’s just that you have different unions for different job functions. EG. Workers who made snacks at Hostess belonged to a different union from the truck drivers back when Hostess went out of business.
When there is no union, employers often come up with a contract for many employees and have it be “take it or leave it”.
You can’t pay full benefits with non-existent money, so it will ultimately come to that if they don’t take action to at least further delay it. The faster this thing collapses the better off everyone will be IMO, it gets things on a sane path faster.
.
The stock market is due for a years long correction at some point, that isn’t going to help the budgets. The Trump economy is Chicago’s best friend so far.
I very much doubt voters in Illinois or anywhere else will allow their elected representatives or state judges to confiscate the voters’ incomes in order to pay outrageous retirement benefits for public employees. Tick off enough voters and state laws, or even state constitutions, will be changed. Before it comes to that, I suspect judges would, ahem, alter their judicial interpretation.
Tom
You can’t pay full benefits with non-existent money,
No. Detroit couldn’t and the state of Illinois won’t be able to. At some point, vis-a-vis federal bankruptcy, pension holders may be seen as little different from “creditors”. That is to say: the constitution says we can’t “change” things. So they are owed money. But that’s just a creditor.
It won’t be entirely fair and the burden will fall on some public employees more than others. OTOH: the union, acting on behalf of the employees bargained to become a creditor. One could speculate all the reasons but one is that the union wanted pats on the back for getting a “benefit”, while the state didn’t really want to pay for that benefit. And so… well… stuff happens.
My mom has a teacher’s pension. Not sure how it will affect teachers who have already retired vis-a-vis others. Of course those worst off will be people in their 60s or so– that is the ones whose pension could be cut, have a longer time to rely on that and are too old to change jobs, decide to work longer, look for better summer jobs and so on.
SteveF,
state judges to confiscate the voters’ incomes in order to pay outrageous retirement benefits for public employees
It’s actually federal judges who may end up acting in ways that cut the retirement benefits. The bankruptcy courts are federal, and it looks like they think bankruptcy laws may just turn the pensioners into creditors.
The feds can’t dictate a rise in state income taxes and so on. They can impose rules on distributing money to different creditors.
At least thats sort of how I understand things more-or-less worked in Detroit.
State and city employees have every right to be rather annoyed at everyone involved. It’s not like they are expected to understand actuary tables and press both sides to do the right thing. I expect ultimately those with large pensions will be hurt the most, and taxpayers are going to be reamed for not electing the right people and also not understanding actuary tables. Unfortunately for Illinois taxpayers are under voluntary participation.
Just when you think things are hopeless in academia, a tiny ray of sunshine. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/
.
“The boys graduated from high school and went off to colleges where they were exposed to the kind of policed discourse that dominates American campuses. They did not make waves; they did not confront the students who were raging about cultural appropriation and violent speech; in fact, they forged close friendships with many of them. They studied and wrote essays and—in their dorm rooms, on the bus to away games, while they were working out—began listening to more and more podcasts and lectures by this man, Jordan Peterson.”
The predictable reaction, ha ha. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/the-lefts-hatred-of-jordan-peterson-is-perfectly-rational.html
.
“But one of the major obstacles to realizing such ideals in the United States is the refusal of wealthy, white America to recognize what doing so requires. If we want to live in a country where all children have a genuine opportunity to meet their potential, we must redistribute a massive amount of material resources to the people that we, as Americans, collectively conspired to deprive”
Tom
The state is nearly bankrupt. The city of chicago also has serious problems. But there are tons of individual counties and cities that are just fine. I don’t know how school districts go. Things will be uneven.
>Another nasty trick is when local governments use these defined benefit packages to be a replacement for social security, so these employees don’t fund the SS system. They are effectively stealing federal SS payments for their own largesse.
How does that work? The local government has taken a number of people off the Social Security rolls, and reduced the future obligations. Where is the stealing?
One of the Midwest states had a union that got itself declared as the union for home health care workers, and starting getting a share of everyone’s government checks. The workers had no vote on this. When a group tried to let them know that they can opt out, the lists were made non-public.
Technically states cannot go bankrupt, but I would suppose they could default on debt. Who knows what “flexible” rules will apply in a crisis.
In IL I would wonder if the state were to make reduced pension payments how the court system would enforce the supposed constitutional requirement that pensions cannot be reduced.
Tom (Re comment-169733)
.
Wow, I don’t think I[‘ve] ever read a piece with so many rhetorical questions. It seemed like a continuous stream of them. It’s amazing how irritating rhetorical questions can be when I’m reading somebody else ask them rather than spewing them forth myself.
[Edit: But I take Lucia’s point about them. In my opinion, most of the questions the author asked can be answered in ways I don’t think were ‘rhetorically intended’. It does make for tedious reading.]
It would only be “stealing” if they turn around and get a taxpayer bailout later. If you are a citizen funding these plans you are supporting the SS system and subsidizing a local version that you will need to pay even more for than SS.
.
SS isn’t exactly a shining light on the hill of fiscal responsibility either. If I was in one of those unions I think I would prefer to have SS over the equivalent union benefits which are more questionably funded and run by near criminals.
Kenneth Fritsch,
It’s not like IL will have no money, but it can’t pay all its bills. Then it is a matter of who gets priority. The state amendment is going to make sure union workers are first in line and they won’t be very receptive to line cutting. IL has a hard problem borrowing money already and what may eventually happen is that people won’t lend money to IL if they aren’t guaranteed to be first in line on a default. The union will need to make hard decisions, stay first in line and guarantee a default, or give up your place to survive another day. Taxpayer services will ultimately suffer.
.
There are some high tax areas (some places in CA) where you can look around and see you are at least getting something for your money, there are others that combine high tax with low services.
mark bofill,
I continue to be amazed at how polarizing this guy is because there isn’t really much reason for it. It’s kind of just a randomly selected attempted character assassination that failed spectacularly. The more they hate him the more popular he becomes. 2M book sales, 10M’s of youtube views, 1000’s show up at each venue to hear him speak worldwide, this isn’t Barnes and Noble book signings.
.
If you want to be disillusioned by our elite expert opinion then read what people say about him and them watch his youtube videos or interviews. Rhetorical question trigger warning: What is going on here?
.
He is quite anti-collectivist and pro-individual, but I don’t recall when arguing against Marxism started being a cardinal sin against society that qualified you for being disappeared. He’s an imperfect but interesting guy who doesn’t fall into neat little pigeon holes. I don’t understand why he is that popular, and I don’t understand why he is hated so much. For those who have never seen him, here is an introduction to him on Joe Rogan, it’s only 2.5 hours long, ha ha. It’s not super amazing nor is it hateful or particularly political, just mildly interesting when you are bored, 4M views of this thing?! Watch that and reread the NYMag article (currently the most popular article on the site). It’s really odd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI
As a pro-individual, it’s not hard to see why the identitarians would be against him and I’d guess a lot of the rest are simply going off what they’ve been told he represents by such articles from “thought leaders”. A 2.5 hour podcast is far far more than the average person is likely to watch.
.
In general though, there’s also simple psychology at work. It’s a well known phenomena that individuals are loath to go against a group, even when the individual knows the group is wrong. However, with the addition of just one dissenting member, the sway of the group is largely broken and the individual will speak out. This is for things that are quite obviously incorrect. On matters which are much more subjective, the group is far more powerful. People like Peterson are the dissenting individuals, not silenced by the usual epithets of the day, and therefore highly dangerous to maintaining group think cohesion.
Tom,
I agree, I think both the guy and the phenomenon of his popularity are fascinating.
.
I think I understand at least pieces of why he’s popular among his adherents; 1) Identity politics really have gotten out of hand to the point where it’s sometimes absurd and laughable, and Peterson appears to offer a firm and plausible foundation from which to reject them, and 2) He’s got what appears to be (I’m not a psychologist or self help expert) good basic advice for people – a seemingly realistic, sensible, beneficial way of attacking life for people who feel like they are foundering. Not surprising given that he’s a clinical psychologist. There are doubtless other pieces, but I think this is some of it.
Why the left despises him so, or seems to perceive him as a threat is also very interesting to me, although I feel like I understand this less well. Perhaps it’s just that he speaks against venerable leftist doctrine like Marxism. Perhaps it’s that he openly attacks identity politics. Perhaps there’s more to it than that. Personally I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
.
DaveJR – I think that’s true too. I think Peterson gains some degree of ..stature.. maybe, from apparently being able to successfully stand against his critics. For those who oppose the far (or extreme? radical?) Left, perhaps this is inspirational and people examine Peterson to figure out how he does it. Possibly he gains notoriety and negative interest on the Left for the same reason.
.
He is pretty interesting.
DaveJR,
I think that is a lot of it, this is an internal tribe building and border setting exercise. Tribal loyalty. Pledge allegiance to the tribe by repeating the shibboleths and thou shall be favored. This is universal. What is fascinating is to watch what happens when the group-think clearly errs and how corrective action is taken or not taken. Devout Christians being asked what DNA evidence says about evolution, etc.
.
It’s also a warning to other academics to not leave the reservation. This is a bit desperate because what happened when Peterson left the reservation was wild success for a previously obscure Canadian professor in finding a market starving for long form thoughtful representation. Perhaps this is why the critics are using so much venom.
Tom Scharf
he state amendment is going to make sure union workers are first in line and they won’t be very receptive to line cutting.
Pensioners will be first in line. First year teachers still have to wait until they earn their pension. That won’t happen if there are no teaching jobs.
DaveJR (Comment #169745)
August 11th, 2018 at 11:41 am
As a pro-individual, it’s not hard to see why the identitarians would be against him and I’d guess a lot of the rest are simply going off what they’ve been told he represents by such articles from “thought leadersâ€. A 2.5 hour podcast is far far more than the average person is likely to watch.
In general though, there’s also simple psychology at work. It’s a well known phenomena that individuals are loath to go against a group …
_________
As they say in Japan “出る釘ã¯æ‰“ãŸã‚Œã‚‹”
or
“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.â€Â
I live under a rock, and never heard of this guy Petersen until he was
brought up here. I looked around, and an interesting thing I found
about him at Wikipedia are his 12 rules:
1. Stand up straight with your shoulders back
2. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3. Make friends with people who want the best for you
4. Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
5. Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
6. Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
7. Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
8. Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
10. Be precise in your speech
11. Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
12. Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
NO, NO, NO, never pet a stray cat or a stray dog or any other stray animal. Otherwise,these are pretty good rules for life.
I’ve petted stray cats. It’s always worked out well.
A cat that doesn’t want stroking will usually run away. Trying to stroke a cornered cat is not a good idea. I guess there are especially grumpy cats and there is a chance of rabies.
.
Where we used to live there were neighborhood cats that people left food out for. There was a particularly friendly one that was always looking for strokes. Before we were due to leave, we smuggled her into the apartment (no animals, and yes, she was definitely a stray), cleaned her up and took her to the vets. Taking her to the vets was a bit of an ordeal because we had to sneak her carrier out in a bag so no one would see! We took her with us when we moved and she’s still with us 7 years later!
DaveJR,
We are currently a 1 cat household. When we had 2 cats, this one came in through the cat door during a storm– freezing rain. He stayed awhile, left,and came back. Long story… now he’s our for permanent. The other two cats died after living long lives. He’s glad to be our cat.
lucia (Comment #169753)
August 11th, 2018 at 2:54 pm
“I’ve petted stray cats. It’s always worked out well.”
DaveJR (Comment #169754)
August 11th, 2018 at 3:12 pm
A cat that doesn’t want stroking will usually run away.
_______
It probably isn’t very risky, but I would be careful if the cat acts strange or aggressive, as such behavior could be a sign of rabies.
Elitist cat tribe trying to oppress the rest of us with their feline regime. #MakeDogsGreatAgain
OK_Max,
In Italy, there are lots of stray cats at places like the Bomboli gardens etc. Those cats come right up and beg and want to be petted.
In my neighborhood occasionally, there are cats near the edge of yards. If they are close to the sidewalk, you can walk up slowly and pet them. Otherwise, don’t.
Cats who don’t want to be petted make that clear either by walking way if you approach or hissing and spitting. I don’t attempt to pet them in either of the other two situations.
Lost cats will sometimes try desperately to find a human to adopt them.
The cat who adopted us through the cat door was not lost. But he lived in a household with several kids, dogs other cats. We learned his story and it was clear he was shopping around for better digs.
I think he picked us because of the cat door and the fact we were nice to him. He wanted to be an in and out cat; that’s what he got. He was willing to tolerate being low-cat in the hierarchy in exchange for the cat door and did not challenge the other cats despite being a much fitter more vigorous cat. (One of our cats, Mo, was a fat diabetic cat. The diabetes had attacked his legs somewhat and he couldn’t really jump, certainly couldn’t fight and couldn’t run well. But the new cat allowed Mo to keep his “upper cat” status without any challenge. I think he knew dealing with Mo was a condition for getting the humans to accept him. )
I have this strange urge to say that Peterson didn’t literally mean to pet stray cats and to try to explain what I think he was talking about. I say strange because, well. Why I guess. People can google him easily enough and get it from the horse’s mouth. Besides, I like the discussion going on about cats.
.
My daughter picked up a stray who lives with her now. I don’t know all that much about cats, but it seems to me to support the idea that cats sometimes pick their owners. This cat would hang around outside and look in the windows at Zoe and her other two cats. Of course Zoe started feeding her, and took her in fairly soon after. I think her guess was that this cat was abandoned. She had some reason to believe the cat grew up around people, but I forget exactly what that reason was. Seemed like a sweet enough cat, maybe a little shy.
Our current cat still has a bee-bee lodged in his leg. We suspect he had good reason to want to leave his old digs. He was tame and still “grocked” that people are useful. He found new digs.
What pets get and don’t get is interesting. Does anyone observe cats watching TV? I ask because I’m a dog person, have had dogs all my life. My current dog is part poodle and (I think) is considerably brighter than most of the other dogs I’ve had, and this one watches TV and exhibits some signs of at least recognition – she likes shows with dogs and other animals and will bark at animals on the TV. It’s possible of course that all of the dogs I’ve had were bright enough to recognize other animals on TV but maybe they just didn’t give a flip. Or maybe they were brighter than my current dog in the sense that they understood the dogs on the TV were just images that they couldn’t interact with. My current dog is still just a 6 month old pup.
mark,
Or fat diabetic cat used to watch football. He didn’t watch anything else. We figure the small people scurrying was the attraction.
The current cat is distracted if he hears cats on youtube.He’s been known to walk around the computer to try to figure out where the cat is. I’ve learned not to play any cat videos if he’s in the room.
lucia (Comment #169760)
I didn’t see the feral cats in Italy, but I have seen temple cats in Japan. My neighborhood has two outdoor cats. One likes me. The
other fears me. There were three for a while, two of which
frequently fought over territory.
I don’t know whether any of my neighbors object to the outdoor cats.
I guess those who are bird lovers might. Some object to people not picking up after their dogs.
My family always had cats and/or dogs when I was growing up. I
wouldn’t mind having a pet, but I’m too lazy to care for one, and
my wife isn’t an animal lover.
I have a feeling pets would be wildly more interested in TV if it transmitted smells.
.
In college a neighborhood cat showed up for a few days. We had some ancient garlic bologna in the fridge that we fed him as much as he wanted. Sometime in the middle of the night he climbed back in through a second story window and left an enormous toxic dump on our rug. We never saw it again. I’m not sure if I feel guilty about it or that justice was served.
Feeding a cat ancient garlic bologna makes you the antihero of this story. It’s morally ambiguous. It was food. Sort of. The feline surviving to revisit you during the evening demonstrates that the meal couldn’t have been immediately fatal.
.
I think that cat in its wisdom was an avatar of both mercy and justice, Tom. It could have gone much worse after all.
Strzok fired from FBI https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-fires-peter-strzok-who-sent-anti-trump-text-messages-1534174199?mod=hp_lead_pos2
.
“Peter Strzok was dismissed by the FBI after a top official overruled the recommendation of staff that the agent be given a two-month suspension but be allowed to keep his job, his attorney said.”
.
Not firing him would have been a big mistake politically. In a world without such heated politics perhaps discipline would have been warranted.
This I find very funny. 100 “independent” media organizations have agreed to collude (ha ha) and publish simultaneous Trump bashing articles over his attacks on the media. I don’t think the media teaming up to attack Trump is a very good message. If it wasn’t announced nobody would even be able to tell the difference from stuff they put out every single day, and coordinated media attacks on Trump validate media critic’s view that this is exactly how they operate. Reinforce us against them, bad idea. If they coordinated a day where they would all publish something good about Trump it would ironically be more effective for their goal.
Tom,
MSNBC or someone other cable news channel will probably hire him.
In terms of career advancement, a 60 day suspension is only slightly less punishment than firing. He’d likely never be anything other than a paper pusher in HR or some other sideline job. He doesn’t strike me as someone who would tolerate that well.
While he might not relish the opportunity, the power of “paper pushersâ€, especially those in HR, should not be underestimated!
Honestly, the guy has to have known for months he was going to be fired. He’s probably made plans for what to do.
Lucia,
I’m sure he will be funded generously by progressives, at least for a while. I doubt he can get a permanent job on cable news…. based on his Congressional testimony, he seems pretty oily in both word and deed, and so would not likely attract many viewers; he’s more likely to repel viewers.
“Honestly, the guy has to have known for months he was going to be fired. He’s probably made plans for what to do.”
.
He immediately announced a GoFundMe campaign for $500K for I guess legal expenses. I have no doubt this will be reached within days. Watching the knee jerk defenses of Jeong and Strzok by progressives is both not surprising and a bit disappointing. These really are integrity tests for the speech police.
.
The FBI decision makers were in a no-win situation. Keep him and you look like you don’t have any standards, fire him and admit the investigation was tainted. The possibility does exist for tainted investigations of guilty people. If the FBI likes to see themselves as the shining light on the hill, this was their only choice. They should get some credit for having standards of behavior and enforcing them. I’m one notch less cynical.
SteveF,
At dinner, I said the exact same thing about his prospects as a “news guy” to Jim. The guy alternates between sucking on lemons and looking like a 3 year old who think he pulled on over on others. Not a good look for tv. TV needs the appearance of sincerity or factuality. Ideally, the appearance matches reality; whether it does or not, they need the appearance. Strzoks…. (how is that spelled) doesn’t have it.
Tom,
“The socialism favorability drops in half from the 20’s to the 60’s while capitalism remains about constant.”
.
Proving that even the slow witted can learn, given enough time and experience.
Lucia,
The weird thing about Strzok is that he could have come out of it at least not making himself forever unemployable. A year ago he should have publicly apologized for writing text messages which damaged the FBI and for allowing his politics into enter the FBI workplace, and then resigned.
.
But that would mean he was a very different person, not the oily weasel who testified before Congress. That very different person would not have written the damaging text messages in the first place. People can’t escape their own flaws and limitations.
SteveF,
Strzok will probablby write a book making himself at at least 1/2 million. He’s probably vested at some level for a defined payout pension plan.
He’s fine compared to most American, even most educated Americans.
SteveF,
…even the slow witted can learn, given enough time and experience.
There’s an old saying that has appeared in various forms since at least the late nineteenth century: If you’re not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative at 35, you have no brain.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169781)
August 13th, 2018 at 7:18 pm
It’s pretty amazing how many people have a favorable view of socialism.
SteeF (Comment #169782)
—————-
Tom, a person can have a favorable view of both. I do, depending on definitions.
The question wording does not define “socialism” or “capitalism” but simply asks respondents whether their opinion of each is positive or negative.
Old people were less positive than young people about socialism, yet benefit more from it. Social Security and Medicare, which many
consider socialist, serve the elderly. This suggest lots of old folks
don’t know where they are getting their bread buttered.
SteeF, If as you suspect, people get smarter with age, I’m glad I
have something to look foreword to. I’m not aware of an improvement yet.
Old people may have a more accurate historical definition of the outcomes of socialism as a form of government. Those history books were burned and young people may just be thinking safety net and Marxist utopia, then they get a job and notice that their paycheck is looking like socialism already. Almost everyone runs a hybrid of some kind but doesn’t want to admit it. You can’t let people starve in the street or they like to come rob your house so it has an effective feedback system.
.
I know where my bread got buttered, with 30+ years of Medicare and SS payments, no dount you touch my soshul shecurrity!
Nowadays, the term refers to a wide swathe of the left-wing political thought. Some socialists believe that workers or communities should manage businesses as stakeholders, what is known as a cooperative, while others advocate for varying degrees of governmental ownership and administration.
Wide swath indeed. I think cooperatives are much different from government ownership. If one calls cooperatives ‘socialist’, it seems a small step from there to calling companies with publicly traded stock socialist, which I think would be an absurd label to hang on a stock market.
.
[Having] skin in the game is a critical component of success.
.
[Edit: I should have noted that I was talking about worker cooperatives. I see that there are other kinds that are more dubious..]
Mark Bofill,
Seems to me the thread which binds all on the left is the preference for dominance of the individual by the collective. That could be via a ‘cooperative’ of laborers, via ever growing regulation and restriction of economic activity by government, via heavy tax and re-distribute laws, via direct control of the means of production by the government, or a combination of these. Heck, it can even be the insistence that ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child (translation: parents can’t make most decisions on child rearing). When someone thinks one of these things is good, they likely think all are good.
.
Before Venezuelans started starving and dying for lack of basic medications, there were plenty of people on the left who could excuse every step in Chavez’s dismantling of liberty, and even now, with widespread suffering in Venezuela and mass emigration, there are still plenty on the left who offer excuses. Like religious fervor, affinity for dominance by the collective is usually immune to change based on factual reality.
SteveF,
I definitely think that the collectivist idea where the preference and focus is not on the individual is near to the root of (if not the actual root of) a lot of the needless misery in this world.
.
The irony of collectivist activists championing blacks today. Part of the claim against racism is rooted in the horrors of the slavery that blacks endured in the U.S. These activists might do well to ask themselves, ‘Why do I believe slavery is wrong?‘ What else is slavery besides the suspension of individual freedom, and a system by which an individual does not get to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. Well, what is collectivism besides this.
.
We are social animals, but we live within our own skins. Even when we empathize, we do so in the context of our own well being. We empathize, but what is that except feeling vicariously the suffering of somebody else through our imagination. Even our idioms reflect this – ‘I can’t stand to watch someone suffer.’ for example. I firmly believe that the only way we build societies that minimize unnecessary human suffering and maximize prosperity is to keep always in the forefront of our minds that individuals matter most; each individual matters most to himself, this is how it is and how it should be. Political and economic systems that lose sight of this are never going to be a good idea.
.
[Edit: I made a bunch of rhetorical statements.. Rhetorical questions without question marks.. of the form ‘what else is X besides Y’. My answer to each of these is ‘nothing’.]
I asked the damn rhetorical question, now I have to pay the price.
.
Collectivism isn’t identical to slavery, I think; they are overlapping sets. I don’t believe collectivism as practiced by the many totalitarian communist regimes of the 20’th century differed from slavery in any respect that mattered to the individual suffering under them. This is what I was actually trying to say.
OK_Max (Comment #169786): “a person can have a favorable view of both. I do, depending on definitions”
In socialism, the state controls the means of production, at least above a certain size. It is incompatible with capitalism.
.
OK_Max: “Old people were less positive than young people about socialism, yet benefit more from it. Social Security and Medicare …”
Social welfare programs are not socialism and are compatible with capitalism.
.
People may have simultaneous good opinions of socialism and capitalism because they confuse socialism with social welfare programs. The left is trying to exploit that confusion. But the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, who are gaining control of the Democratic Party, are in fact socialists.
.
OK_Max: “This suggest lots of old folks don’t know where they are getting their bread buttered.”
Both snooty and wrong. Old folks paid into those systems and are getting out what they are entitled too. Well, more than what they are entitled to, since politicians like to be generous with other people’s money. But that part is widely overlooked.
mark bofill (Comment #169792): “Collectivism isn’t identical to slavery, I think; they are overlapping sets. I don’t believe collectivism as practiced in the many totalitarian communist regimes of the 20’th century differed from slavery in any respect that mattered to the individual suffering under them.”
There may have been some more benign systems of slavery, such as in the later Roman Empire, where being a slave was not so different from living in a communist country. But slavery in the American south was much worse. Slaves had no rights whatever. They could be punished, raped, and killed by their masters. They could be bought and sold and their children could be bought and sold. They received no education; teaching a slave to read was a crime. In the USSR there was enough freedom that there were black markets and even a samizdat press. Participation could get you sent to the Gulag, which was significant punishment. But still not as bad as slavery.
Mike,
.
That’s so. Still, slaves cost money, much as a draft animal. A plow horse had (has?) no rights whatsoever, yet merely because they could be abused without limit doesn’t mean they [generally] were, because at the end of the day they cost something to replace.
.
My impression was that people could be (and were) sent to the gulag for reasons so flimsy and arbitrary that in essence they were sent to the gulag for no reason. Wasn’t Solzhenitsyn (who was a soldier for the Communists and I believe at the time was indeed a ‘good communist’) sentenced for writing an innocent letter to a German? That’s my recollection anyway, I could be wrong.
.
[Edit: I also seem to remember him relating the story of some event where the audience was applauding. The applause went on for over ten minutes, because the first to stop clapping ran a substantial risk of arrest as a subversive. Indeed the man who first stopped clapping in that story was arrested according to Solzhenitsyn, once again if my memory serves, and it’s possible it does not.]
OK_Max: “This suggest lots of old folks don’t know where they are getting their bread buttered.â€
Both snooty and wrong. Old folks paid into those systems and are getting out what they are entitled too. Well, more than what they are entitled to, since politicians like to be generous with other people’s money. But that part is widely overlooked.
I think sometimes older folks do like to “forget” that the amount the get is (generally) greater than they paid in. They also like to “forget” that the tax on the young used to cover the current layouts paid right can be very burdensome.
The do remember they paid in.
Mike,
I guess another way of looking at it is the death toll.
.
I’m not indulging in slavery apologetics here, so nobody misunderstand me. Slavery is pure evil, no question.
.
Rather, what I am arguing is that the pure evil of American slavery had owner profit as its chief motive. I think this motive tended to encourage slave owners to keep their slaves alive, all other things being equal and if not too inconvenient.
.
Whereas I think the gulags were essentially death camps. It wasn’t as important that the prisoners produce anything of value so much that they suffered and died.
Mike M,
“The left is trying to exploit that confusion. But the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, who are gaining control of the Democratic Party, are in fact socialists.”
.
Sure. And Bernie Sanders, a host of talking heads on TV, many at the NY Times, and those involved in much of what passes for academia. The “toning down” of explicit socialist goals is just the means to an end… gaining sufficient political power to subvert the Constitution, institute socialism, and take away most personal liberties. The confusion, as you note, is willful. Very few people on the right think slavery is a good idea, but plenty on the left think socialism is a great idea. It is the ultimate political goal that makes numb skulls like Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk a real danger.
Mark Bofill,
“Collectivism isn’t identical to slavery, I think; they are overlapping sets.”
.
The overlap is significant; “the collective” does not simply confiscate your economic output and completely control what you are allowed to say and do, it can (and in practice always does) persecute, imprison, or kill any and all those who try to resist. Like a slave, the collective citizen “has economic value”, but not so much value they are not jailed or killed for thinking or saying the wrong thing.
SteveF,
Yep, I think so too. I’m still chewing on it, but at the moment I’m thinking that to decide which is worse (at least for me) seems to hinge on the question, ‘Is it better to live as a slave in a system that is trying to keep you alive as a slave, or is it better to live as a slave in a system that’s more or less trying to kill you off?’.
It’s possible that living a long(er) life as a slave is worse than a short one. I don’t know.
Pretty awful anyway you slice it, I think. Maybe it’s just what’s more culturally familiar to me, but the horror of the applause story for me is overwhelming. It’s like an episode of the Twilight Zone in real history.
Hey the guy from Alabama is making the “slavery wasn’t so bad argument”! Ha ha. I kid. If you ever run for office make sure Lucia purges all your posts. Although I did screenshot it and will send you a … errr … bill for making it disappear in case you run. Impossible conversation, right up there with “all Nazis weren’t bad people”. Slavery = Nazis = Evil. Do not deviate.
.
It is curious that liberteriarian hyper individualist types are often lectured about slavery but are the least likely to accept any form of collectivist power over their lives. Slavery has been used forever in human history, blacks in the south were thankfully one of the last forms of slavery and a particularly bad form. I am pre-wired such that I hate being forced to do anything, even if it makes sense. I would have been a pretty bad slave, although I assume my will would have been broken after a few whippings. What a nightmare.
.
I’m an American with German ancestry, but my relatives emigrated around 1900. So … this means I get off scot-free for both slavery and the German atrocities, right? No reparation bills for me!
~grins~
Well, I calls ’em likes I see ’em. I’ll be darned if I’ll impose thought crime restrictions on myself. It can be done; like anybody else sufficient pressures could be brought to bear on me to cause me to recant my heresy and beg for mercy.
But somebody’s going to have to get up off their butts and do it (bring said pressures to bear against me) to make me shut up before I shut up. I’m not going to silence myself just because.
[Edit: which segues nicely into political correctness and freedom of speech, perhaps.]
Tom,
“No reparation bills for me!”
.
Nah. You benefited indirectly from all the white wealth, privilege, and influence you gained when your relatives arrived, so you are still just as guilty as slave owners, and have to pay up. As for German atrocities… well, maybe you are off the hook on those. Maybe. Depends on what political beliefs you have.
Tom,
As for German atrocities… well, maybe you are off the hook on those. Maybe. Depends on what political beliefs you have.
Sure, you can skate scott free for those.
.
Just remember, don’t be the first to stop clapping…
The socialist argument seems to be: I am benevolent, the people I know are benevolent, if we were in charge the government would be benevolent. A benevolent government with righteous benevolent power is the best system. The last sentence might even be true, but the first sentence is not. The belief that they are the most benevolent seems to be the core argument and they spend a lot of time trying to virtue signal this to everyone, thus the “intentions are what matter” mentality. When they are in charge government will have empathy.
.
Empathy doesn’t pay the bills. I’d like to take a poll of all the leaders in history and find out how many believe they were benevolent and had empathy. Approx. 100.0%. We had empathy when we saved the Koreans and Vietnamese from the scourge of communism. We relieved Iraq from Saddam, how much empathy can you have? We had empathy when we chose to not engage in Syria. We used “duty to protect” when we bombed Libya. The world is a complex clusterf*** and empathy isn’t a magic key that unlocks magic answers. People running around with masks, bats, and “Love Trumps Hate” shields is all you need to know about this form of empathy.
.
The empathy Olympics isn’t very interesting to me, how they would solve problems is.
Harold,
.
WTF. That is weird as … I don’t even know. Does it check out at all? (I’m too busy screwing around wasting my time in other ways to check this for myself so far.. :/ )
Another movement integrity test, another failure. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html
.
Famous feminist NYU professor gets accused of sexual harassment. A year long investigation results in her guilt. She got due process, confidentiality, and the results or existence of the investigation were never publicly announced. She’s not fired, one year suspension. Her famous feminist colleagues defend her in an open letter without knowing any facts and attack the accuser.
.
“Diane Davis, chair of the department of rhetoric at the University of Texas-Austin, who also signed the letter to the university supporting Professor Ronell, said she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.”
.
The most shocking part of this paragraph is there is such a thing as a department of rhetoric.
HaroldW,
Looks like either the data was partially fudged or fully fudged. I guess it could be some technician or grad student didn’t want to bother with collecting lots of data below the transition temperature they observed, and so did a single data collect and then copied that data for the other runs (with a bit of off-set), instead of actually collecting data for the other runs. But that is the most generous interpretation I can come up with. Nefarious seems more likely.
.
Like cold fusion, this paper seems too good to be true, but it won’t be long before independent researches attempt to duplicate the results.
Cold fusion with room temperature superconductivity should solve our global warming problems.
Tom Scharf,
“I am benevolent, the people I know are benevolent, if we were in charge the government would be benevolent. A benevolent government with righteous benevolent power is the best system. The last sentence might even be true, but the first sentence is not.”
.
Both sentences are blatantly false. The best system rewards achievement and allows people to resist tyranny. ‘Righteous’ government rewards whatever it thinks is righteous, and punishes that which it thinks not righteous. And that is tyranny. Pol Pot certainly considered himself perfectly righteous in eliminating everyone who disagreed with him or posed a possible challenge to his righteous government. Ditto Che Guevara… on a much smaller scale, of course.
mark, SteveF, Tom-
My first thought was faked data, but it could be something less nefarious. Perhaps something as simple as a spreadsheet/programming error. It’s got me very curious. I’m traveling at the moment and away from computer or I’d take a more direct look at the questionable graph.
Of course the more important question is whether the effect is real. Wouldn’t be as revolutionary as cold fusion, but it would still be a big deal. On the surface, though, it sounds implausible.
Correlated noise (which usually isn’t actually noise) could easily be an equipment or test setup problem. These could be real measurements of what actually happened and something physical is affecting both measurements.
.
I have no idea how carefully this was designed. This kind of thing happens all the time, RF interference can “magically” get into many independent circuits at once. One would expect they would check very carefully for this before an announcement of this magnitude is made. It’s most likely going to be a major embarrassment for somebody, then again maybe correlated noise is how it magically works, ha ha.
HaroldW (Comment #169814): “My first thought was faked data, but it could be something less nefarious. Perhaps something as simple as a spreadsheet/programming error. It’s got me very curious. I’m traveling at the moment and away from computer or I’d take a more direct look at the questionable graph.”
It looks to me like Skinner overstates his case in criticizing the data. He claims that in Figure 3(a) “For every green data point at T 225 K, there is a blue data point that is displaced downward by a constant amount”. But in his extremely blown up image, one can not distinguish the data points and I see blue data that lies above the green data. If one looks only at the lowest points, there does seem to be an odd correlation between the two data sets.
.
HaroldW: “Of course the more important question is whether the effect is real. Wouldn’t be as revolutionary as cold fusion, but it would still be a big deal. On the surface, though, it sounds implausible.”
I don’t know why it sounds implausible. 30 years ago, the record Tc suddenly jumped by a factor of four or so, I know of no reason why that could not happen again. But skepticism is warranted. I will believe it when they demonstrate the Meissner effect.
Mike M,
“I don’t know why it sounds implausible.”
.
It sounds implausible to me because the size scale of the gold core/silver shell nanoparticles they are forming (~10 nm core, and a somewhat larger shell) seems too large to produce the kind of lattice flexure responsible for other high temperature superconductors. Which is not to dismiss it out of hand…. it just seems implausible to me. I hope I am wrong, but fear I am right. I have measured the size distribution of many nano-gold and nano-silver materials. The one positive thing is that these particulates have a remarkably uniform size, so some kind of “crystal-like” structure is possible.
I sometimes mix up sayings by mistake. In my comment #169786
the metaphor “ know where they get their bread buttered†was an
unintentional integration of (1) the ancient metaphor “know which
side their bread is buttered on†and (2) Mark Twain’s “You tell me
whar a man gets his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions isâ€
from the essay Corn-Pone Opinons.
In my defense, the mix does make sense, unlike combinations of
incompatible metaphors ( malaphors ?) such as the following:
“That train has sailed.â€
“When the cat is away, do as the Romans do.â€
“We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.â€
Actually, that last one may make sense.
Max,
We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.
One of my all time favorites. Words to live by. 🙂
Mike M. (Comment #169794)
August 14th, 2018 at 7:55 am
OK_Max (Comment #169786): “a person can have a favorable view of both. I do, depending on definitionsâ€
In socialism, the state controls the means of production, at least above a certain size. It is incompatible with capitalism.
________
Given that definition I would not view socialism favorably. But
definitions differ. Webster and Oxford online dictionaries, for
example, don’t completely agree on definitions of socialism.
Webster dictionary: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goodsâ€
I do not have a favorable view of socialism as defined by Webster, as I interpret it means collective ownership of ALL mean of production and distribution. This definition doesn’t say anything about services, such as those performed by Social Security and Medicare, which I do view favorably. I regard these services as socialist since they could be performed by the private sector.
Oxford dictionary: “A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by
the community as a whole.â€
Note “or regulated “ in the Oxford definition. It implies socialism can mean no more than regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. I take a favorable view of regulation.
Now, regarding capitalism, I have a favorable view of capitalism as practiced in the U.S. and many other countries. But if capitalism is defined as unfettered, with laws of supply and demand free of
any intervention by government, I do not view it favorably.
I’m not sure how I view the State Directed Capitalism practiced by some countries.
The survey did not define capitalism and socialism. The surveyed Republicans and Democrats may have defined these “isms” differently. The same goes for the old and the young. Who knows?
Sorry about my last post. I thought I had fixed it in editing. Don’t
know what went wrong.
I’d mentioned my puppy dog and the TV a while back. Something interesting this evening (at least to me 🙂 ) I had the TV on mute, took her awhile to even notice it was on. When she finally did, she started and then jumped and barked. Apparently she found it surprising that the stuff on the TV could be visible but silent. She got over it pretty quickly.
SteveF (Comment #169799)
August 14th, 2018 at 8:27 am
Mike M,
“The left is trying to exploit that confusion. But the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, who are gaining control of the Democratic Party, are in fact socialists.â€
.
Sure. And Bernie Sanders, a host of talking heads on TV, many at the NY Times, and those involved in much of what passes for academia.
______
I don’t know much about Ocasio-Cortez. I saw a news article that called her the Democrat’s Sarah Palin. Ocasio-Corteza is a socialist if she advocates collective or governmental ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of goods. If not, and she claims to be a socialist, she’s actually just a socialist in name only, a SINO. I’ll know what she is when I find out more about her views. I suspect she’s just a far-left leaning Dem.
Bernie Sanders says he’s a Democratic Socialist, which I think means he advocates the way capitalism is practiced in European countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries. Calling Sanders a socialist is like calling grizzly bears vegetarians because they eat berries,
mark bofill (Comment #169822)
August 14th, 2018 at 4:22 pm
I’d mentioned my puppy dog and the TV a while back.
Apparently she found it surprising that the stuff on the TV could be visible but silent. She got over it pretty quickly.
______
Perhaps she always was more aware of the sound than the picture. I have read that the eyes of dogs and cats are good at detecting movement but don’t focus on things as well as human. Don’t know that would make a difference in this case, but it’s something to think about. Distance from the picture might matter. Dog’s have good far vision, cats good close vision.
Both have good hearing (maybe in different ways). Their hearing may be much better than human hearing, but neither seem to be interested in music.
OK Max,
Yes, Sanders claims to support democratic elections, but all socialists do that… at least until they gain enough power to do otherwise. A better question is what parts of the Constitution he would like to change. Sanders has the unique distinction of so liking the Soviet Union that he went there on his honeymoon, not every democratic socialist can say that.
.
Ocasio-Cortez belongs to a party that actually does want the government to control the means of production…. yup, communists. With regard to comparisons with Sara Palin: yup they are both remarkably unaware of basic information about the world (eg why there is conflict in the middle East), economics, and history. They also both have dark eyes and hair, and say really dumb stuff.
OK Max,
Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. They describe themselves as an activist organization, not a party. But they sound like Communists by a different name:
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. We believe that working people should run both the economy and society democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few.
Karl Marx himself couldn’t have said it better.
They also both have dark eyes and hair, and say really dumb stuff.
Say! I have dark eyes and hair too! And I sa…
Oh.
Both have good hearing (maybe in different ways). Their hearing may be much better than human hearing, but neither seem to be interested in music.
I had just about convinced myself my last dog specifically liked a certain song this one actually, Ludovico Einaudi’s Ancora). She’d growl softly when it’d start to play; for her that was indicative of something she liked.
I wonder if in retrospect parts of it reminded her of another dog or another animal whining. No offense to Einaudi intended; I really like that song. But I’ve no idea really how dogs perceive these things.
Huh, would you look at that. Dogs do have musical tastes, apparently. Einaudi is pretty much minimalist classical, makes sense Meg would like him.
If the text of this tweet is correct, Trump doesn’t understand how tariffs actually work:
….Tariffs will make our country much richer than it is today. Only fools would disagree. We are using them to negotiate fair trade deals and, if countries are still unwilling to negotiate, they will pay us vast sums of money in the form of Tariffs. We win either way….
3:58PM 4 Aug 2018
No, we don’t. We win if we get a better trade deal. We lose if we don’t. The exporting country doesn’t pay the tariff, the importer is the one that pays. So US citizens and companies will pay vast sums of money in the form of Tariffs to the US government. IOW, it’s a tax, dummy.
We got Trump, they got Ocasio-Cortez. It’s a wash.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169830): “We win if we get a better trade deal. We lose if we don’t.”
That is definitely the preferable result. That is also the result Trump is after.
.
DeWitt Payne: “The exporting country doesn’t pay the tariff, the importer is the one that pays. So US citizens and companies will pay vast sums of money in the form of Tariffs to the US government.”
It is only that simple if the exporter has no competition from U.S. companies. But such cases are not, I think, where tariffs are being applied. If there is domestic competition, then the exporter will either lose sales or lower their prices, effectively paying all or part of the tariff. Either way, there will be at least some benefit to the U.S.
SteveF (Comment #169826)
August 14th, 2018 at 6:18 pm
OK Max,
Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. They describe themselves as an activist organization, not a party. But they sound like Communists by a different name:
__________
Well, they do in ways, but their Preamble says this:
 “Global economic integration has rendered obsolete both the social democratic solution of independent national economies sustaining a strong social welfare state and the Communist solution of state-owned national economies fostering social development.â€
A quick read of what the DSA stands for leaves me with
the impression they have identified problems that could
worsen with continued global economic integration but
offer as a solution only the replacement or partial
replacement of capitalism with some vague form of
democratic public ownership and control.
DSA’s solution doesn’t appeal to me.
BTW, if Bernie advocates doing away with capitalism
it’s news to me.
Mike M. (Comment #169832)
” If there is domestic competition, then the exporter will either lose sales or lower their prices, effectively paying all or part of the tariff. Either way, there will be at least some benefit to the U.S.”
_____
If Trump places a 20% tariff on say a $50,000 BMW imported
from Germany, and BMW reduces the price to offset the tariff,
surely you don’t expect BMW to in effect send us all or even
part of $10,000.
mark bofill (Comment #169829)
mark, thanks for the link. The following quote is from that source:
“The kind of music that the dogs listened to made a difference. When the researchers played heavy metal music the dogs became quite agitated and began barking. Listening to popular music, or human conversation, did not produce behaviors that were noticeably different from having no sound at all. Classical music, on the other hand, seemed to have a calming effect on the dogs.â€
I’m afraid my taste in music is dog like.
Max,
A quick read of what the DSA stands for leaves me with
the impression they have identified problems that could
worsen with continued global economic integration but
offer as a solution only the replacement or partial
replacement of capitalism with some vague form of
democratic public ownership and control.
Ok.
What (if anything) bugs you about capitalism, what would you have change?
.
Reading back though the thread, it’s not exactly clear that anything bugs you about capitalism or that you’d want anything to change. You tried to clarify what DSA stands for, which doesn’t say anything about your position. So my question could be founded on unjustified assumptions. If so let me know if you’d like.
I hear on the news that we’ve moved on from investigating Trump from secular matters like collusion to the more serious infractions of heresy. There seems to be some consternation over the possibility that Trump once uttered The Unspeakable Word, during his time on the Apprentice.
What a bad joke our media and public discourse have become.
[Edit: Maybe not heresy. Maybe blasphemy. Taking the name of the Sacred Victim in vain is against the commandments..]
OK_Max (Comment #169834): “If Trump places a 20% tariff on say a $50,000 BMW imported from Germany, and BMW reduces the price to offset the tariff, surely you don’t expect BMW to in effect send us all or even part of $10,000.”
In that example BMW is paying all of the tariff, so yes, they are sending us all of the tariff.
mark bofill (Comment #169837): “Maybe not heresy. Maybe blasphemy. Taking the name of the Sacred Victim in vain is against the commandments..”
🙂
OK Max,
“BTW, if Bernie advocates doing away with capitalism
it’s news to me.”
.
Bernie is a politician, he is not going to ever come right out and say that. He does, however, invite Ocasia-Cortez to campaign rallies for ‘progressive’ candidates.
.
WRT to the DSA: Communism has failed in many different ways, on that I agree. But if the DSA thinks capitalism has failed, I don’t know what success would look like. People are richer, better fed, better educated, live longer, face a lower chance of violent death, and have more choices, material and otherwise, than at any time in human history. On current trend, extreme poverty will be eliminated almost everywhere within about 15 years; it is the wealth from capitalism doing that. Of course pockets of extreme poverty will remain, mainly where people as dumb as those in the DSA are in power.
WRT to tariffs on cars: large manufacturers will usually respond to tariffs by shifting production operations (both final assembly and components) to the country imposing the tariffs. Trump probably thinks that is a good thing. The Europeans obviously think so. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_General_Motors_factories and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_factories
In Brazil (for example) there is a flat import tariff of 35% of the car’s value at the port (purchase plus transport cost plus freight insurance), plus several mandated additional costs associated with customs clearance. After customs and payment of VAT, any car you purchase in the States costs approximately 2.5 to 3 times as much (in dollar terms) in Brazil. The result is that very (very!) few cars are ever imported, and those are mostly luxury cars driven by extremely wealthy individuals or politicians. Most major car manufacturers have large local production plants in Brazil.
Max,
I see here in comment-169820:
Now, regarding capitalism, I have a favorable view of capitalism as practiced in the U.S. and many other countries. But if capitalism is defined as unfettered, with laws of supply and demand free of any intervention by government, I do not view it favorably.
.
Basically answers my question. Thanks.
SteveF,
No one is going to build manufacturing and assembly plants if the tariffs aren’t permanent. They also aren’t likely to eat anything like 100%. Tariffs don’t make nations wealthy, they impoverish the citizens. Brazil is a good example of that.
DeWitt,
Trump may have just read the WSJ today. It’s a curious effect.
.
U.S. Policy Stirs Foreign Markets
“Investors’ allocations to U.S. stocks and bonds have climbed as White House moves intensified volatility in overseas markets”
.
“U.S. foreign policy has driven sharp swings in global markets this summer, drawing investors into the relative safety of the U.S. where growth and earnings are considered steadier.
The White House’s recent actions on trade and international sanctions have amplified steep declines across markets in Turkey, Russia and China at a time emerging economies were already grappling with a stronger dollar and decelerating global growth.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-hide-in-u-s-as-washington-stirs-markets-abroad-1534325401
.
I guess this is the it hurts the other side more and we look better relatively strategy
Tom Scharf,
I guess this is the it hurts the other side more and we look better relatively strategy
Sure, until things fall apart. The problem with a strong dollar is that a lot of emerging market debt is in dollars, not the local currency. Tens of billions of dollars in Turkish debt, for example, is held by Spanish banks. The collapse of the Thai baht was the trigger for the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The global financial situation is a lot worse today than it was in 1997. There’s a whole lot more debt relative to size of the global economy than there was then. People who play with fire usually end up getting burned.
What does DSA believe in?
Like most socialist organizations, DSA believes in the abolition of capitalism in favor of an economy run either by “the workers†or the state — though the exact specifics of “abolishing capitalism†are fiercely debated by socialists. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/27/17509604/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-socialist-of-america
.
They want to remove the “profit motive” of industry. This is one of those things the right is gleeful to have the leftist media shout from the rafters – We love socialism and the people who advocate it! The most entertaining aspect here is that she received a degree in economics from Boston University.
.
She tries to describe it here although it comes out as gobbly gook: https://thepoliticalinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-doesnt-understand-socialism/
.
Some more difficult to interpret statements.
“I do think that right now, when we have this no-holds-barred Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost. Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world. When this country started, we did not operate on a capitalist economy.”
Asked if democratic socialism, the system to which Ocasio-Cortez claims allegiance, “calls for an end to capitalism,†the candidate said:
“Ultimately, we are marching towards progress on this issue. I do think that we are going to see an evolution in our economic system of an unprecedented degree, and it’s hard to say what direction that that takes … â€
. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270776/ocasio-cortez-capitalism-wont-always-exist-matthew-vadum
.
If you just like social safety net programs and advocating for the working class, why call yourself a “socialist”. I think the answer is that this does not have a tarnished brand in the academy bubble. If you can’t tarnish real socialism in an economics major at the university then that truly makes my head spin.
.
The simpler answer is that this is just another cult of personality explosion by the media, the same they did with Trump once somebody interesting shows up. They could easily hold her feet to the fire on the history socialism, but a 1000 interviews later, nothing as far as I can tell.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169844): “I guess this is the it hurts the other side more and we look better relatively strategy”
Sure, until the other side catches on and decides to play fair. Then everyone will be better off.
DeWitt,
“Tariffs don’t make nations wealthy, they impoverish the citizens. Brazil is a good example of that.”
.
Of course, on average the economic impact of tariffs (and of other barriers to trade) is negative. However, the impact is not at all uniform. Farmers (eg corn/ethanol and sugar farmers in the USA, most all farmers in Europe and elsewhere) benefit enormously from protective tariffs and other economically destructive policies, even while the large majority of people are hurt by these policies. Concentrated benefits and dilute costs are a constant invitation for the soft corruption of political influence and crony capitalism.
.
But I think it is clear Trump is using tariffs and the threat of tariffs as a bludgeon to force trading partners to give the States better trade deals. He is doing this in a graceless a way, of course; he is Trump after all. We’ll see how it works out.
Tom Scharf,
“The most entertaining aspect here is that she received a degree in economics from Boston University.”
.
More accurate is that she received complete indoctrination into socialist rubbish at BU, understands very little about economics, and is too dumb to recognize that sorry reality.
Sorry. I’m off in my own little world over here. But it just came to me – I’d better hope the ‘Church of the Sacred Victim’ isn’t really a religion. Or if it is I’d best hope it’s never recognized as one. ‘Cause if it is, and if they come to realize it, think of all the protections and privileges it would enjoy… Tax free status, all sorts of protections from discrimination, from persecution.. Once recognized and accepted as a real religion, it would move outside the jurisdiction of logic, evidence, and reasonable debate. What a horrid thought. The only upside I can see right now is that (in theory) this status would get it out of our government.
.
Fortunately for us all maybe, I think most progressives would reject the notion that their views are religious out of hand.
It is currently worse than tax free status, it is actually taxpayer funded.
Mike M. (Comment #169838) 
August 15th, 2018 at 7:17 am
OK_Max (Comment #169834): “If Trump places a 20% tariff on say a $50,000 BMW imported from Germany, and BMW reduces the price to offset the tariff, surely you don’t expect BMW to in effect send us all or even part of $10,000.â€
In that example BMW is paying all of the tariff, so yes, they are sending us all of the tariff.
_______
I’m afraid either you misunderstand tariffs or we aren’t talking about the same thing. In the example, BMW lowers their price to offset the $10,000 U.S. tariff, either making less profit or taking a loss. The price of the car ($50,000) remains the same as it was before the tariff was imposed. If I buy the car, I don’t expect BMW to then send me $10,000.
Perhaps you reason the price would have been higher($60,000) had BMW not absorbed the tariff, thus by by taking the loss the company is in effect giving me $10,000. If that made sense we should all demand our State governments raise sales tax so merchants could in effect give us money by absorbing the tax.
I challenge anybody to read a bunch of the latest “first (fill in identity) to be elected to (fill in office)” and try to determine anything about the candidate other than their group identity. It’s an absolute obsession at this point, it’s all they say.
We have NPR cluelessly saying this in a new “analysis”: It was a big night for Democratic diversity – “And Trump has doubled down on that difference, catering to white grievance to win in 2016 and to keep his base behind him as president. Democrats seem more in line with businesses and universities, which are increasingly sensitive to embracing diversity, while conservatives react reflexively against “identity politics.”
One side is the celebration and embrace of identity, and the other is catering to grievances. How can you write text like this and not understand what you are saying. The academy is identity grievance 24/7. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/15/638801062/a-big-night-for-democratic-diversity-and-3-other-primary-takeaways
SteveF (Comment #169840)
August 15th, 2018 at 7:43 am
OK Max,
“BTW, if Bernie advocates doing away with capitalism
it’s news to me.â€
.
Bernie is a politician, he is not going to ever come right out and say that. He does, however, invite Ocasia-Cortez to campaign rallies for ‘progressive’ candidates.
_______
Sure, he courts the extreme left. Trump, courts the extreme right.
That doesn’t mean either buy into extremist views. I don’t see Bernie
trying to do away with capitalism, nor do I see Trump becoming a
neo-nazi.
Tom, good point.
OK Max,
“Perhaps you reason the price would have been higher($60,000) had BMW not absorbed the tariff, thus by by taking the loss the company is in effect giving me $10,000. If that made sense we should all demand our State governments raise sales tax so merchants could in effect give us money by absorbing the tax.”
.
What? (not rehtorical)
Before: Selling price – $50,000
Net to BMW – $50,000
Taxes paid to Federal Government – $0
After: Selling price – $50,000
Net to BMW – $40,000
Taxes paid to Federal Government – $10,000
.
In this (unlikely) case, the consumer sees no difference in cost, but the Federal Government gets $10,000 it wouldn’t have before, and BMW has $10,000 less than it had before. I really am not sure how you can see that as anything other than a transfer of $10,000 from BMW to the Treasury. BMW would of course, not eat the entire $10,000… more likely they would raise prices, but somewhat less than the full value of the import duty.
According to Ecclesiastes, there is a time for every purpose under heaven. It may be that the time has finally come for the NYPost to serve as useful evidence of something:
. https://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/
.
Or perhaps this time has not yet come, and the NYPost must continue to wait for some distant age to finally serve some useful purpose. I don’t know.
.
[Edit: I don’t know if Sanders is a communist. I don’t know if Trump is a neo-nazi. I get the impression that by examining the background of the two men that one could objectively make a stronger case that Sanders is a communist than that Trump is a neo-nazi, but this is just my opinion and I don’t think I’m interested in actually taking the time and energy to make this case.]
SteveF,
Your analysis ignores that Germany will impose countervailing tariffs in at least the same amount as we impose. Then there is no net wealth transfer. In fact, depending on the details, there could be a small increase in wealth transfer in the wrong direction.
Also, if German car manufacturers don’t eat all the price increase from the tariff, US car manufacturers will also increase prices. This is, in the end, almost as bad as that idi0t de Blasio in NYC limiting the number of Uber and Lyft drivers to protect the Yellow Cab drivers and blocking charter schools to protect the teacher’s unions.
And that’s cars, where the profit margin might be large enough that manufacturers can absorb a significant amount of the tariff. That’s not true for steel and aluminum. One reason that we don’t have the steel industry that we used to is that the US steel companies didn’t make timely investments in new technology to protect short term profits. That’s a decision to go out of business eventually.
The same thing happened where I worked when the company didn’t invest in direct spinning technology. That was actually a decision to leave the polyester fiber business, but I’m not at all sure that management realized it at the time.
OK Max,
“I don’t see Bernie trying to do away with capitalism, nor do I see Trump becoming a neo-nazi.”
.
Bernie is on record as supporting government takeover of heath care, banking, and electric power generation, which together represent probably 35% of the economy. He also wants to tax ‘investor speculation’ (AKA tax stock investments), and use the money to give people ‘free’ stuff. So he seems to want to do away with a substantial portion of capitalism. I will venture a wild guess that like every other ‘democratic socialist’ (eg Chavez) if he had the political power to do so, Bernie would discover a need to eliminate even more capitalism and to silence his political opponents… in the service of ‘the public interest’ and ‘economic fairness’ of course. The guy is a communist, whether he uses that description or not.
DeWitt,
“Your analysis ignores that Germany will impose countervailing tariffs in at least the same amount as we impose.”
.
And your analysis ignores that Europe already has higher tariffs on US goods than the USA has on European goods (on average, about double). Europe also imposes rather severe non-tariff barriers which effectively lock-out US competition. If the Europeans have half a gram of sense (and it is not clear if they do or not), they will agree to negotiate lower tariffs and non-tariff barriers, rather than risk losing access to the US market in a trade war. The Europeans have a lot more to lose (about $150 billion per year more) in a trade war than does the USA. Yes, it is all economically stupid. And yes, the tariffs and non-tariff barriers (in both directions) should never have been there in the first place. But that doesn’t mean the Europeans shouldn’t give US producers the same access to their markets we give to European producers. If the threat of tariffs is what it takes to make that happen, so be it.
Apologies for trashing NYPost before. I confused it with NYMag. Heh. I don’t regularly read either of the two.
SteveF (Comment #169856)
August 15th, 2018 at 12:35 pm
OK Max,
“Perhaps you reason the price would have been higher($60,000) had BMW not absorbed the tariff, thus by by taking the loss the company is in effect giving me $10,000. If that made sense we should all demand our State governments raise sales tax so merchants could in effect give us money by absorbing the tax.â€
.
What? (not rehtorical)
Before: Selling price – $50,000
Net to BMW – $50,000
Taxes paid to Federal Government – $0
After: Selling price – $50,000
Net to BMW – $40,000
Taxes paid to Federal Government – $10,000
.
In this (unlikely) case, the consumer sees no difference in cost, but the Federal Government gets $10,000 it wouldn’t have before, and BMW has $10,000 less than it had before. I really am not sure how you can see that as anything other than a transfer of $10,000 from BMW to the Treasury. BMW would of course, not eat the entire $10,000… more likely they would raise prices, but somewhat less than the full value of the import duty.
_______
Here I see how tariffs can make buying foreign goods the patriotic thing to do. By purchasing that BMW I transfer $10,000 from a German car company to the U.S. government, and help pay down the national debt.
Wait a minute ! I thought the purpose of tariffs was to discourage purchases of foreign goods in favor American made products, creating more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. No worry, buying an American car instead of a foreign car is another way to be patriotic.
Is this a dilemma? No, just buy two cars, one import, one domestic. Be a double patriot.
What kind of American are you anyway, if you don’t have two cars.
Max,
Wait a minute ! I thought the purpose of tariffs was to discourage purchases of foreign goods in favor American made products, creating more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. No worry, buying an American car instead of a foreign car is another way to be patriotic.
Is this a dilemma? No, just buy two cars, one import, one domestic. Be a double patriot.
What kind of American are you anyway, if you don’t have two cars.
LOL. Love it!
Utilities are a special case and we likely want them to be effectively run by the government. Nobody want three sets of power lines and three sewers with different brand names running down their streets, or somebody buys your sewer company and ups the rates 10x and leaves you with untenable options. There are different ways to handle this problem than full on government, but we don’t want the exact opposite either.
SteveF (Comment #169859)
August 15th, 2018 at 1:10 pm
OK Max,
“I don’t see Bernie trying to do away with capitalism, nor do I see Trump becoming a neo-nazi.â€
.
Bernie is on record as supporting government takeover of heath care, banking, and electric power generation, which together represent probably 35% of the economy.
______
I didn’t find that record. Is it recent? I do know Bernie wants to break up banks. Believes the largest banks are two powerful. I haven’t given much thought to nationalizing banks, but see them as already nationalized in a way, what with the borrowing, insurance, and bail outs.
I was not a Bernie supporter against Hillary. I didn’t like his position
on trade, which is similar if not the same as Trump’s.
Max,
In fairness, Steve did mention (twice actually in that post) that consumers would see higher prices from BMW. But even if he hadn’t and even if this were not the case (even if BMW just ate the tariff completely), there’s no real need to posit that everyone buy two cars. It’s enough to say some would buy domestic because of the tariff and some would still buy the import.
mark bofill (Comment #169866)
Yes, Mark, Steve did say the tariff likely would raise car prices,
and I think he’s right. I doubt the car maker in my example
actually would absorb a 20% tariff. More likely part if not all
of this tax would fall on the car buyer.
No, I don’t own 2 cars, but my wife and I each own a car.
I’m fairly sure “the Germans†won’t be imposing tariffs on anyone. The EU is responsible, which is why Trump told May that if she followed her stupid “brexit†plan, the US wouldn’t be able to help the UK in trade. She seems determined to snatch utter defeat from the jaws of victory, but perhaps that’s the plan.
Tom (re 169853),
.
Playing LGBT bingo with the governor nominations. Identity politics gone wild. Doesn’t matter what you bring to the table, are you a lesbian? Perfect! Gay? Great! Bi? Alright! Trans?!? BINGO!
.
I can’t wait to see how this works out for those states.
OK Max,
“I thought the purpose of tariffs was to discourage purchases of foreign goods in favor American made products, creating more manufacturing jobs in the U.S.”
.
Then you thought wrongly. The main purpose is to force trading partners to level the playing field for US producers, and in the case of China, stop stealing intellectual property from US companies. I stipulate that tariffs are stupid, as are non-tariff barriers to trade. The fact that they are stupid and economically damaging doesn’t mean they don’t exist, nor that they are not worth trying to get rid of. When it come to import restrictions, the USA is not as pure as Ceasar’s wife, but the States are far better about opening our markets to foreign competition than are most of our trading partners.
.
BTW, earlier this year I purchased a German SUV (a Volkswagen Atlas). Had it been 10% more costly, I would have purchased one of the 5 other comparable SUV’s I looked at. Patriotic? No, just rational.
Government has legitimate roles to play to protect consumers from the excesses of capitalism. Assume for example that all credit card companies made people liable for credit card fraud that is beyond their control. The free market says somebody would stop doing that to gain customers and business, but the problem of industry collusion between companies is real, and when that happens somebody has to step in and fix it. Monopolies have to be broken up or regulated to protect consumers when they abuse their market position. These aren’t theoretical problems, but the government doesn’t need to step in and do something until the problem exists. Pre-emptive intervention is too heavy handed.
Tom Scharf,
Most true monopolies exist only because the government protects them. See, for example, Ma Bell, before the government changed it’s mind, and the Post Office. Standard Oil actually reduced the price of gas and oil to the consumer.
SteveF,
Do you really think the EU would impose tariffs against the wishes of Germany or the converse? I certainly don’t.
Existing tariff and non-tariff barriers are irrelevant to Trump’s tweet that I quoted above. He insisted that we will make lots of money even if new trade agreements are not implemented. That’s still obvious rubbish.
DeWitt,
“That’s still obvious rubbish.”
.
Of course it is. Tariffs always are economically bad, and lack of tariffs always economically good. But note what actually happened: Trump carried on about how swell tariffs are, and the EC immediately agreed to negotiate lower tariffs. What is not to like? I am pretty sure Trump’s economic advisers have been telling him (correctly) how bad tariffs are for both sides. His tirades are just histrionics to scare the miscreants into doing what they should have done long ago. It seems to be working.
SteveF (Comment #169870)
August 15th, 2018 at 4:56 pm
OK Max,
“I thought the purpose of tariffs was to discourage purchases of foreign goods in favor American made products, creating more manufacturing jobs in the U.S.â€
.
Then you thought wrongly. The main purpose is to force trading partners to level the playing field for US producers, and in the case of China, stop stealing intellectual property from US companies.
______
If a “level playing field for US producers ” just means zero tariffs in all directions, I’m not convinced, it would add significantly to jobs
in American factories, but I believe tariffs on imports would.
Competition from factories in low-wage countries is the problem.
Leveling the playing field doesn’t take away the wage advantage
these countries have. We have to equalize the wages with tariffs
if the goal is to create lots of jobs in manufacturing.
China stealing intellectual property from US companies doesn’t surprise me. I know little about the theft, but presume it’s a violation of patents not recognized by Chinese law. Threat of
tariffs could lead to an agreement, but agreements between
countries can be broken with little consequence.
OK Max,
“…presume it’s a violation of patents not recognized by Chinese law”
.
There is some of that for sure, especially in pharmaceuticals. But the Chinese force US companies to disclose trade secret information, which then (surprise!) ends up in the hands of Chinese companies.
I don’t know how it works at the top. Down with the grunts, security clearance isn’t a civil liberty. You only get one when you need one. You only keep it if you behave. I’ve always been of the opinion that you only get to keep it after you leave for awhile because it’s convenient for the government to have it that way.
.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t like our security clearance system. There’s lots of things wrong with it in my view. As usual though, I find all of the media attention Brennan is getting to be rather misplaced.
mark,
Generally, you can also only keep your clearance if you have a task on a project that requires a clearance. This is relevant to people at national labs who might have several projects with only one classified. If the funding for the classified one lapses for any reasons (even just disarray in WA) the clearances are yanked. Reassembling the team on restart is time consuming.
Lucia,
Interesting. Down in the contractor world in Huntsville my understanding is that people generally retain their clearances when they leave a position until the clearance expires (every 18 months). I suspect this is in part due to the practical reality that many (possibly most) of these people are leaving positions to take up other positions that require clearance, so it makes little sense to yank them.
Bottom line though, nobody owes you a darn thing regarding a clearance. If you get to hang onto one for awhile, be grateful. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
[Edit: Now that I utter this, I question why I think this is the case. It’s possible I’m just plain wrong here. I’ll check.]
Maybe it’s changed. But this is Jim’s understanding. They have a project with the Biowatch office. If it lapses, supposedly, all the clearances will lapse.
Some programs in Biowatch had some scrambling because of this:
The guy overseeing lots of programs was suddenly gone…..
Lucia,
.
I could be wrong. I might have gotten this impression for any number of reasons. For example, maybe they do get pulled and it’s just that the wheels grind really slowly sometimes. I don’t know.
The terms active, current and expired cause a lot of confusion. Your clearance is active as long as you’re in a job requiring access to classified information. The moment you leave that position or contract, your clearance is no longer active, it’s considered current – assuming your investigation hasn’t expired. Obtain another cleared position within two years, and your clearance can be reactivated without a new investigation. And that can save you months, particularly considering the widespread delays facing security clearance applicants today.
.
I guess you can keep an ‘inactive’ clearance for awhile.
Security clearances timed out back when I was protecting us from the evil Ruskies, and somebody has to pay to get you cleared. I’m kind of surprised people who no longer work for the CIA get to keep their clearances. I imagine it is so they can consult if necessary. Brennan clearly burned his bridge, he deserved it. The next president can give it back to him.
I guess today is the day the press unites and beats on Trump, pardon me while I go barf, the self adulation is a bit sticky.
mark
I guess you can keep an ‘inactive’ clearance for awhile.
Ahh!!! That’s an important distinction.
It would still leaven Argonne in a bit of a lurch because Jim is also derivative classifier. So, “inactive” would probably mean he can’t do that and they need someone else to train. But at least if Biowatch funding has a 2 month glitch, people’s clearances can be reactivated when it comes back up.
Jim’s not really worried about this. But it would be a pesky issue for putting together teams to do the various field experiments, analyses and so on. You don’t need a clearance to work at the lab, and most of people funding is not-classified. Clearances going “poof” would be a glitch in the project matrix (as it were.)
Tom
I imagine it is so they can consult if necessary. Brennan clearly burned his bridge,
I think given current stories (like Strokz, Comey) one could argue that there are people who are removed who we actively want to prevent from discussing anything with people who still work at the FBI and so on.
That’s true even if ordinarily we’d like the current high level FBI, CIA and so on people to be able to talk to former high level people.
No trade deal yet with the EU yet on cars and pickups.
Below are the current tariffs:
U.S. tariff on EU cars 2.5%
EU tariff on U.S cars 10%
U.S. tariff on EU pickups 25%
EU tariff on U.S. pickups 10% ?
Our tariff on European pickups got to be 25% because of the 1964 chicken war.
If the 10% tariffs on American cars is eliminated I doubt there will be a significant change in Europeans buying habits. Europeans
like cars and suv’s that handle well and are very stable at high speeds, sacrificing the softer ride for the necessary firmness in suspension. American vehicles are designed with an emphasis on softer ride.
IMoreover, American factories do not make the smaller cars that Europeans prefer, nor the diesels. Some sporty American cars,such as Corvettes and Mustangs, may sell well but not in high volume.
Even if the 25% tariff on European pickups is eliminated, I don’t see
them appealing much to American buyers. It’s an imagine thing.
There are other forms of trade fixing, such as the EU banning GMO’s which are prevalent in US soybeans. This is protectionism by proxy.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169884): “I guess today is the day the press unites and beats on Trump, pardon me while I go barf, the self adulation is a bit sticky.”
The L.A. Times sensibly refused to go along:
The president himself already treats the media as a cabal — ‘enemies of the people,’ he has called us, suggesting over and over that we’re in cahoots to do damage to the country. The idea of joining together to protest him seems almost to encourage that kind of conspiracy thinking by the president and his loyalists. Why give them ammunition to scream about ‘collusion’?
On one hand, I hope that more of the left/press won’t be smart enough to catch on that they are being self-destructive. On the other hand, catching on might make them less damaging to the country as a whole.
Happy Birthday to the leader of the Democrat Party, Maxine Waters! (Donald J Trump @realDonaldTrump)
.
Seriously. To think this needs analysis suggests one needs a vacation at the very least, if not some psychological help.
.
Naturally, the Washington Post doesn’t find this worthy of a story, although it gets a mention in the Trump tweet article: http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/15/maxine-waters-birthday-wish-trumps-impeachment/
.
Because #InDarknessDemocracyDies, and #Resistance, and #WeHaveOurHeadsCrammedUpOurRectums.
“I decided to tweet political things today and you know that can go one of two ways,†he says in the video. “I feel like we are currently, everyone, like the Left and the Right, we’re all being played, and I hate to say this, but we’re really being played by people in newsrooms who are just, like, writing things for headlines to, like, really piss off people on the Left and really piss off people on the Right.â€
“Left people are not necessarily inherently evil and right people are not necessarily inherently evil, and our ability to notice gray area and to notice what compromise means and how much compromise has led us to where we are is important,†he continues.
“We have to be able to not demonize the Right.â€
Needless to say, this did not endear him to his followers…
My exasperation gets the better of me sometimes.
.
Look, I get that calling Maxine the ‘leader of the Democratic Party’ is worth glancing at. She’s not the ‘leader of the Democratic Party’. So why did Trump say that. Well, fine. We can analyze that. There’s not all that much too it. Short form is that Maxine Waters has taken questionable position recently in encouraging activists to harass political opponents. Trump would like to suggest that this characterizes the Democratic Party. Fine. Got it.
.
Not what the analysis at WP was about at all. No. ‘This is how Trump handles his enemies, so he can justify subsequent attacks’ was the essence of the piece. I think this is a more advanced form of Trump Derangement, call it stage 2 – Early Trump Dementia syndrome.
It is safer for people in government to leak info to people who have a security clearance.
Not having a security clearance would make it harder for Brennan and Clapper to share info with the media, even in a not-revealing-classified info way.
The argument I hear is that revoking Brennan’s clearance is an attempt to silence him.
.
IS it a known and given ‘thing’, that Brennan uses classified information to attack Trump? I think this is rhetorical; it’s meant to be. My answer is ‘God, I hope not!’ But maybe I’m off in never land and am unaware of something everyone else is aware of (it happens).
.
If Brennan does use classified information to criticize the Administration publicly, I’m a little astonished that anyone thinks that’s a good idea; that he should have access to secret information for that purpose.
.
If not, then I don’t see what his clearance has to do with his criticisms. I think the argument that Trump is trying to ‘silence’ Brennan would be more plausible if Trump was threatening to revoke Brennan’s clearance.
.
That’s the way it works, right. I want to rob you, or to make you do something you don’t want to do. How do I do that. I threaten you with something – if you don’t comply, I will do this. If I just go ahead and do whatever the threat is, you’ve got no motivation to comply.
.
Whatever. The issue seems dumb to me.
What I think is really going on:
.
I think Trump does not trust Brennan to refrain from using classified information for political purposes that are contrary to the purposes of Trump’s administration.
.
Given the Russian collusion debacle, I think Trump’s point of view is understandable.
.
As a people, perhaps Americans need to sort out objectively if they want the role of the President to change. As it stands, he is the chief executive. I think this means the FBI answers to him. I think this means he can revoke security clearances. Maybe I’m wrong, but if I’m not — the rules don’t change just because you don’t like the guy in office.
mark
the rules don’t change just because you don’t like the guy in office.
His role is set by the constitution, so changing it would be pretty darn difficult. Also: I kinda like the separation of powers. I’m not a huge Trump fan, but I wasn’t an Obama fan either.
I don’t see any big problem with Trump taking Brennan’s clearance away. I don’t see a big problem with it being discussed by others.
Thanks lucia.
I just heard the rest of the story – Trump has a list of people he’s essentially told ‘you’re next’ regarding the clearances. Ok, that is a threat. If the argument is he’s threatening these others, I have no quarrel with that reasoning.
The thing is: What do guys like Comey need clearances for now?
Seriously, real question. They no longer hold their former jobs. They shouldn’t need the clearance. Other than the (somewhat odd) tradition of letting them keep the clearances for some reason, and the publicity over revocation, I don’t see someone taking away their clearance as a “punishment”. It’s just a thing that, in terms of actual gain or punishment ought to be seen as neutral.
Notably, Clapper says he hasn’t used his clearance since 2017.
As it stands, the only thing removing the clearance ought to possibly do is prevent current FBI from consulting with these former FBI. If the president doesn’t want the current FBI from doing that, he could order so, but taking the additional step of removing the former staff clearances enforces that order better.
Now I know Trump does lots of things for show, so part of the removing clearance is show on his part. But I really can’t get very upset by this show.
lucia,
.
Yeah.
.
I don’t know why this issue specifically gets under my skin. It’s not like it’s categorically different from any of the other crap out there in the media in any obvious way. *shrug* Just a quirk of mine I suppose.
mark,
The problem with this issue is it is, to a large extent, “theater” on both sides.
Trump is being theatrical in yanking these things. But that’s just Trump. Then people are saying threatening to yank them somehow infringes people’s free speech. But they don’t really say how it does that. I suspect they don’t say how it affects their speech because it doesn’t.
Comey, Clapper, Brennan and so on can all yap in public with their clearances; they are yapping. They can continue to yap in public without them; Brennan is. I’m sure Comey, Clapper, and so on will if theirs are yanked. They lose no $$, no freedom, no job access and so on when they lose their clearances. If anything, they are rewarded with some publicity so people listen to their yapping during the kerfuffle surrounding the yanking.
Mind you: they do potentially lose credibility as someone a member of the press thinks might have inside information. Without the clearance, the press knows that they can’t (or shouldn’t be) speaking with anyone in the administration who does access classified info. But honestly, this is a good reason for yanking the clearances since staff in the FBI, CIA and so on should currently not be sharing this info!
So basically, the only thing they lose is the potential that someone with a clearance can share and discuss classified or sensitive information with them. But Trump doesn’t want that shared. He has a right to not want that shared. He has a right to enforce the Fed employees not sharing anything with these former Fed employees.
Other than the fact it’s all such a big story, this is a big nothing burger.
From the beginning, there have been outrageous leaks regarding the Trump administration. Sometimes classified,sometime not. Sometimes true, sometimes false. It has been a problem and I suspect it is regarded as such by most people who do not identify with the “resistance”.
Trump has every right to yank the clearances of people who no longer actually need them. Those people have no right to the clearances. Some of those people have declared themselves to be enemies of the administration; enemies, not just the loyal opposition. I, like many others, was surprised to learn that they still have clearances. All things considered, it is perfectly reasonable for Trump to yank those clearances.
As lucia says, it is mostly just theater. It really does not matter. The “resistance” will work themselves up in a lather, but most others will probably agree with Trump, if they care at all. When it comes to political theater, Trump is hard to beat. As usual, he is goading his enemies into playing a mug’s game.
Having a security clearance does not, I’m pretty sure, allow access to any and all classified information. There’s still ‘need to know’ involved. So sharing classified information with someone who doesn’t have need to know is still against the law. Wasn’t that what happened to Petraeus? He shared classified information with Paula Broadwell, his biographer, who I believe had a security clearance at the time.
DeWitt,
Correct. Which ought to mean that generally, after these guys leave their former position, they shouldn’t be allowed access to information anyway. That’s a reason why I think other than the political theater aspects, taking away their clearances is a big nothing burger because if they stayed within the law, they couldn’t really use the clearance for anything.
Some of those people have declared themselves to be enemies of the administration; enemies, not just the loyal opposition.
Yep. Which ought to be a sufficient reason for the administration to take the precaution of taking away their clearances. In principle, these people couldn’t use it. But in practice, not having it ensures that.
Basically, the way I see it is that the administration could have allowed them to keep the clearances as some sort of “courtesy”, which amounts to letting the former employees “feel” good about still having something they once had. But there is nothing wrong with yanking them even if that makes the former employees feel bad.
It would probably be better if the tradition was former employees from previous administrations lost it after 6 months unless officially “renewed” at the discretion of the current one. Then they could just not renew.
It’s likely but not provable that Brennan has been an anonymous source to the media for some leaks. He has shown he has motive to discredit Trump. Without a clearance it will make it a clear criminal offense for somebody to share new information with Brennan. This is what the point is I think.
… or just as likely Trump poking the media bear for his own entertainment. Quite frankly I think this is what the primary motive for Trump’s misguided tweets are, he is simply entertaining himself. He’s over 70, a few years left in his life, why not enjoy it? Trump’s most redeeming and most annoying aspect is he just doesn’t give a …
This is what has been happening for the past two years:
“The WH is considering eating lunch tomorrow”
Media: “Aaaaaaaagggggggghhhhhhhh!!!! Demacracy is dying! Only Hitler would do that! Let’s go ask people if they STILL support Trump even after this! We’re not sure what’s on the menu but it’s definitely a racist selection! Hamburgers are killing the planet!”
.
The longer and more intense the wailing scream the more clicks they get. I really wonder what’s going to happen to CNN after Trump is gone, they have really alienated his supporters and nobody will show up to hear how wonderful the new left administration is. I’m guessing their ratings fall through the floor.
> if Trump was threatening to revoke Brennan’s clearance.
But he is threatening to take away others’ clearances, and this threat is more effective now.
DeWitt, while it is illegal to leak, it is not as illegal to leak to someone with a security clearance.
The defenders of Brennan are arguing that the lack of a security clearance hurts Brennan or others, which means he is planning on revealing classified information.
One name on the list is Bruce Ohr, who would lose his DOJ job without a security clearance. He has already been demoted twice, and this likely means he’ll be fired soon.
mark bofill (Comment #169892)
Mark, I thought Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) referred to Americans who were crazy for Trump, strongly approved of him, 33% according to the Rasmussen poll.
But you seem to think TDS refers to Americans who strongly disapprove of Trump, 43% according to Rasmussen. Unlike those crazy for Trump, these are
people crazy against him.
Obviously, we get our definitions of TDS from different sources.I used the urbandictionary.com, my favorite source.
If we use both definitions, 76% of Americans suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, a statistic I find very disturbing.
Tom
Without a clearance it will make it a clear criminal offense for somebody to share new information with Brennan. This is what the point is I think.
Yes. And no one will be able to argue that Brennan has a clearance and a “need to know”. He won’t have a clearance. Done.
MikeN,
But he is threatening to take away others’ clearances, and this threat is more effective now.
Yes. And it would probably be better to just take them away rather than say he might do so. He’s hardly doing anything like blackmail, or forcing them to do anything as a result of the threat. They can just keep on doing whatever.
The defenders of Brennan are arguing that the lack of a security clearance hurts Brennan or others
Do they say how? (Real question.) He doesn’t need it to do his current job. He doesn’t need it to do anything he has to do. As far as I can tell, the most it does is hurt his feelings. I guess that’s ‘hurting’ him.
One name on the list is Bruce Ohr, who would lose his DOJ job without a security clearance. He has already been demoted twice, and this likely means he’ll be fired soon.
Ok. Then that person would lose something tangible– an income producing job. But he can be fired, and maybe he will be.
Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a neologism used by its adherents to describe a reaction to United States President Donald Trump by liberals, progressives, and anti-Trump conservatives, who are said to respond to Trump’s statements and political actions irrationally, with little regard to Trump’s actual position or action taken.
.
I lean against the wind. I used to be sympathetic to members minorities of almost any sort suffering from discrimination. I think [largely as] a consequence of the militant efforts of various parties to change our culture, I tend to be anti-sympathetic these days. One of the simplest unintended consequences maybe – some people don’t like to be pushed in a direction, even if it’s a good direction, and will push back just because.
.
Might be I support Trump more than I otherwise would because of this.
.
shrug.
.
[Edit: Probably I should add this. That’s an entertaining idea, the equivalence you seem to propose between Trump’s supporters and Trump’s detractors, and that both are deranged. The logical fallacy of persuasion by amusement is one I’m generally highly susceptible to. But in this case, I’m going to have to say ‘no’, I think is what I’m trying to get at. There may well be similarities. Certainly some Trump supporters are probably irrational; heck I’m sure some are crazy as loons. But, I don’t think I can view these groups as basically the same. But thanks for the fun thought!]
MikeN,
One name on the list is Bruce Ohr, who would lose his DOJ job without a security clearance. He has already been demoted twice, and this likely means he’ll be fired soon.
That couldn’t happen soon enough. He is heavily implicated in the whole Fusion GPS, Steele dossier, FBI investigation fiasco. Kimberly Strassel has a column about that in today’s WSJ.
Justice releases some damning documents, but much of the truth is still classified.
Why Trump doesn’t declassify all those documents remains a mystery.
DeWitt, timing.
DeWitt,
“Why Trump doesn’t declassify all those documents remains a mystery.”
.
As they used to say on radio game shows… that is the $64 question. Trump has the legal and constitutional authority to de-classify anything he wants, revoke the security clearances of whom he wants, and fire worms like Strzok and Ohr at will. It is a mystery indeed.
Max,
.
Kicking it around, I come up with this alternative way of expressing my idea:
.
Identity politics, SJW screed, and other progressive things irritated the heck out of me well before anybody dreamed Trump had a chance at the Republican nomination, let alone the Presidency. At least in part I think, (and maybe I delude myself, but I do think for my part to some extent) it’s not that I take positions I do because I support Trump. It’s that I support Trump because I take the positions I do. But the origin of those positions are a response to progressives progressing too far in their relentless march towards whatever the heck they’re marching towards [and dragging our society along with them].
.
[Edit: It’s really no different from what I said before I guess. Oh well.]
It has actually gotten to the point that many consider an ideology to remove race from everything as racist. It’s referred to as colorblind racism. You will find approx. zero people advocating out loud for treating all people the same independent of race on the left now, although I suspect most of them do support it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(race)
.
One of the few times I watched a CNN clip recently had the host and panelist berating another panelist that they need to look at them and see a black man and a black woman, not just a person, and acting like this should be obvious to everyone as the way to fix things. The answer to racism is “correctly” treating people differently by race. You fix perceived unfairness by implementing reverse unfairness. I’m just left confused. What do they want exactly? As far as I can tell it is special favorable treatment based on minority status of race or religion, but they never seem to actually say those words or ask for specific things. I just don’t know what actionable things they want. Maybe they just want to feel respected. Deplorables feel disrespected that way by the establishment as well.
I don’t know Max. Take this:
. http://thehill.com/homenews/media/402104-msnbc-analyst-virtually-certain-10-percent-of-gop-would-say-its-ok-for-trump
.
I think in a weird way he comes close. It’s not ‘the media is testing my loyalty to Trump’ though. It’s more ‘I am expressing my discontent with the enemies of the crude orange haired reality show host billionaire that I support largely to annoy them.’
.
Alright. I’ll hush now. [I’m trying to avoid what I’m working on, can you tell? :> ]
.
[Edit: holy smokes Tom, don’t get me started on colorblind racism, I’ll never shut up and my wife will divorce me for spending all day and night commenting on the Blackboard. I better self impose a time out before I get myself in hot water.]
SteveF, Trump is not just going after one or two, but a whole network. The arrest of James Wolfe doesn’t happen if Trump had acted all out from Day 1. Wolfe is threatening to call Senators as witnesses, implying he was acting on their behalf.
The Senate Intelligence Committee had the Carter Page FISA in March 2017, and Wolfe then leaked it to Ali Watkins. It’s why the date on the publicly released portion doesn’t match the actual date of the FISA, Oct 19 vs Oct 21. It was a leak hunt.
mark bofill (Comment #169916)
mark, I wish fewer people had strong feelings about Trump. The
poll showing 43% strongly disapprove and 33% strongly approve of
him is indicative of a very divided country. I didn’t check on the
numbers, but It may have been just as divided under Obama.
It seems like every change in leadership or power results in a large
proportion of the population being angry. I fear the division, the
back and forth, weakens America. It could eventually cause the nation to breakup.
All that said, I do not believe I have a patriotic duty to moderate how I feel, and just disapprove rather than strongly disapprove of Trump. Hopefully, he will change in ways that will make me feel less negative. He could start by keeping his mouth shut instead
of Tweeting about everything that crosses his mind.
lucia (Comment #169909)
The defenders of Brennan are arguing that the lack of a security clearance hurts Brennan or others
Do they say how? (Real question.) He doesn’t need it to do his current job. He doesn’t need it to do anything he has to do. As far as I can tell, the most it does is hurt his feelings. I guess that’s ‘hurting’ him.
One name on the list is Bruce Ohr, who would lose his DOJ job without a security clearance. He has already been demoted twice, and this likely means he’ll be fired soon.
Ok. Then that person would lose something tangible– an income producing job. But he can be fired, and maybe he will be.
_____
I read that former officials are left with a basic security clearance more for helping the nation than for their own benefit. It makes
sense. Current officials may seek their advice.
If the threat of losing a security clearance could interfere with someone doing his job, that would not be good.
Max,
I still think Trump is more of the symbol or … the shorthand representation of our disunity than the root cause, but I could be wrong. Maybe people truly love or hate Trump specifically more than I realize. Do you not think that were Thor to lightning down the Donald tonight and Pence take office, our disunity would remain?
Anyway. I don’t love the disunity. I think it would be preferable for us to back away as a people from certain doctrines that have been rising in recent years. Specifically, speech is not violence, period paragraph. We ought to cultivate the maturity, self discipline, and fortitude as a people to listen to points of view we disagree with, even those we find repugnant. …
Crud got more to say but out of time. I be back later. 🙂
I don’t know what this Q stuff is, but here’s the general idea for why Trump is so recalcitrant.
I read that former officials are left with a basic security clearance more for helping the nation than for their own benefit. It makes
That’s supposed to be the reason. If true, it mean that
(a) taking it away wouldn’t hurt Brennan
(b) if the executive branch no longer wants any help from Brennan, and would prefer to ensure those employed to carry out the decisions of the executive branch don’t want people conferring with Brennan, yanking his clearance would be a reasonable and even wise thing to do. No harm could come to the executive branch by yanking that clearance.
If the threat of losing a security clearance could interfere with someone doing his job, that would not be good.
Obviously, this is irrelevant to Comey, Brennan, Clapper who no longer work for FBI, CIA and so on. Potentially it applies to Ohr, who may be fired (and then have his clearance yanked.)
FWIW: Everyone with a clearance always has a possibility of losing the clearance if they (a) do their job wrong or (b) do something stupid like perhaps even getting arrested for drunk driving. Losing the clearance prevents someone from doing their job. The threat not so much.
The president is the head of the executive branch.
MikeN,
Trump should just declassify stuff.
mark bofill (Comment #169920)
August 17th, 2018 at 3:46 pm
Max,
I still think Trump is more of the symbol or … the shorthand representation of our disunity than the root cause, but I could be wrong. Maybe people truly love or hate Trump specifically more than I realize. Do you not think that were Thor to lightning down the Donald tonight and Pence take office, our disunity would remain?
______
Good question. Pence might stoke the disunity less than Trump.
I agree Trump is not the root cause of disunity, but he’s doing
little to promote unity.
12M believe lizard people run the country. Real stat. This just means somewhere below 10% of poll questions aren’t going to be reliable for anything. Another portion of the people just shortcut poll questions to “do I support or not support Trump” and answer accordingly regardless of the policy question at hand. “Do you support Trump’s …” Yes. Designing fair poll questions is hard, and partisan pollers work it the wrong way.
OK_Max,
I have never heard anyone utter the words “I can’t understand why people don’t like Trump”. I didn’t like Obama’s policies but I didn’t really dislike his style (except when it came to things like if you like your doctor). I like Trump’s policies but dislike his style (except when it comes to things like making the other side embarrass themselves). Policies are what matter to me, and style is second. Perhaps style makes a real difference to some people and diplomacy.
I’d rather have a sane Trump, but policy is what matters and it has been disingenuous of the media to pretend that style is all that matters, and rarely if ever contemplating whether Trump is following through on his policy pledges or being effective for conservatives.
Max ,
Yes. Trump does not promote unity all that well. He goes after things on Twitter that prior presidents would have ignored.
Regarding style vs. policy, my guess is almost all people who dislike Trump’s policies also dislike his style, and the majority of people who don’t have strong feelings about policy also dislike his style.
I like nothing about Trump’s style, and I have opposed his policies, with two possible exceptions. A peaceful settlement with N. Korea and zero tariffs with trading partners are goals I believe in, so I would favor Trump policies to achieve those goals, unless I found the details objectionable or the costs to great.
My previous post was in reply to Tom Scharf (Comment #169926)
Tom, I’m sorry for my oversight
Tom Scharf,
I’m sure there’s a federal judge out there that would grant Brennan an injunction.
Mark Bofill (Comment #169927): “Trump does not promote unity all that well. He goes after things on Twitter that prior presidents would have ignored.”
There is no possible way for Trump to promote unity. Or for anyone pushing conservative and/or populist ideas to promote unity. Because any such person would be demonized by the Dems and their allies in the press.
President Pence would be demonized just as much as Trump. For crying out loud, Mitt Romney was demonized.
Trump certainly tweets on topics that President Romney would have ignored. But Romney lost and Trump won. I strongly suspect those two things are linked.
Trump has found a way to counteract the establishment and the press. It ain’t pretty, but it works better than any alternative.
Mike,
Unfortunately for me, I was still too young during both Reagan’s terms that I wasn’t paying much attention to what was going on. I’m under the impression that Reagan did a reasonable job of uniting the country. Granted, this was 30-40 years ago. Is this impossible today? I don’t really know – I wasn’t paying attention.
I can conceive of both a yes and no answer to this. Neither seem preposterous to me. I believe the landscape has changed somewhat since Reagan’s day in real ways. I don’t know.
What do you think of this?
On Date August 16, 2018 SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS:
HANNITY: Now, for anyone who thinks that that man, that Trump-hating partisan, MSNBC hack, should have a security clearance — let me make this very simple and easy to understand. And, by the way, I will read to you to the official CIA rules.
– the rules of the CIA are. Quote:
“In the case of former directors, the agency holds their security clearance and renews it every five years for the rest of their life. However, that requires former CIA directors to behave like the current CIA employees.”
mark bofill (Comment #169933): “I’m under the impression that Reagan did a reasonable job of uniting the country. Granted, this was 30-40 years ago. Is this impossible today?”
.
The U.S. was nowhere near as polarized in the 70’s as in this century. The party’s were not nearly as polarized; there were some very conservative Democrats and very liberal Republicans. The culture wars and the sorting of the two parties did not really start until the 80’s.
,
Nevertheless Reagan was demonized at the time. Nothing like Trump or even Bush II, but the press depicted him as a dangerous, ignorant, buffoon. That was, I think, because he challenged the then established status quo. However, he was successful and was such a nice guy that he somewhat diffused the opposition by the end of his two terms. But only somewhat; he did not really get treated fairly until after he was out of office and the USSR came apart.
.
I think now there is no hope of reconciliation until the left goes so far that they lose all credibility. Or until the likes of you and me are marched off to the re-education camps.
I no longer see the “edit” option, even immediately after posting. Am I alone in that?
MikeM,
I see it when I’m logged in. But that doesn’t mean everyone can. If others don’t see it, I can look for another plugin tomorrow.
Mark Bofill (Comment #169927)
“Yes. Trump does not promote unity all that well. He goes after things on Twitter that prior presidents would have ignored.”
–
But they all twitter. Every single last politician. They must have special twitter units setup. Or they are twits or both.
angech (Comment #169934)
August 17th, 2018 at 8:18 pm
On Date August 16, 2018 SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS:
HANNITY: I will read to you to the official CIA rules.
– the rules of the CIA are. Quote:
“In the case of former directors, the agency holds their security clearance and renews it every five years for the rest of their life. However, that requires former CIA directors to behave like the current CIA employees.â€
———————————————-
I’m surprised the CIA isn’t more specific about what is expected of former CIA directors who want to keep their security clearances.
The requirement they “behave like current CIA employees†is
vague, but would have to cover behavior that could put security
at risk (revealing secrets, drug or alcohol addiction, fraternizing
with foreign agents,and getting deep into debt, to name a few).
I don’t know if critizing the president is prohibited behavior for
for current CIA employees or former directors.
> I’m under the impression that Reagan did a reasonable job of uniting the country.
The media was very hostile towards Reagan as well.
I e-mailed Steve Hayward, author of The Age of Reagan
If you substitute Trump’s name with Reagan’s how similar are the Trump is incompetent, insane, 25th Amendment stories?
Response: Close enough.
and
I asked my teacher, and she didn’t think the media was quite as biased back then.
Response: Your teacher is wrong.
OK_Max (Comment #169939)
“I don’t know if criticizing the president is prohibited behavior for
for current CIA employees or former directors.”‘
Umm.
Really?
There is a difference of course between unsolicited, unpaid criticism between FBI friends which might be your interpretation.
I am sure that CIA directors and staff are actually held to, professionally, what did James Comey call his book?
A higher standard.
Furthermore I am sure it is spelled out in gold plate legalese.
That is what makes Comey such a fool to actually put it in a book everyone can read and judge. The same for Brennan’s tweets.
Senility or hubris.
Spies are supposed to stay quiet, full stop.
It is just like that poor Greek guy trying to deny knowledge that the FBI or CIA had fed him.
Or Trump talking to Mueller.
Wrong and foolish.
Mike M,
“I think now there is no hope of reconciliation until the left goes so far that they lose all credibility. Or until the likes of you and me are marched off to the re-education camps.”
.
Seems to me the problem is that educators have been trying for a long time to diminish students’ exposure to the history of the USA, the constitution, historical juries prudence, and how the country developed. So now we have know-nothings like Ocasio-Cortez being elected to office. If you and your ilk (and me) are not going to be marched off to re-education camps, it is going to take a change in public education, something that I (sadly) don’t see happening. Heck, when I was 12 my sixth grade teacher was a screaming leftist (in Massachusetts, of course), and made sure the class was exposed to literature (not part of the curriculum) endorsing leftist views and white guilt for slavery in the 19th century. The inmates are in charge of the asylum, and the curriculum reflects that sorry fact.
lucia (Comment #169937): “I see it when I’m logged in. But that doesn’t mean everyone can. If others don’t see it, I can look for another plugin tomorrow.”
Logged in? Real question. I don’t see a way to do that, unless that is what happens when I enter my name and email when writing a comment.
The only scripts I am blocking here are the ones from google (gmodule). I noticed that the sites cookies were being autodeleted; so I changed that. If that makes it possible for me to edit, I will add a note to that effect. No note means no edit.
It’s easier to have unity when you have a clear and convincing foreign threat to your existence, the USSR. Their stated goal was to spread communism throughout the world and they used every available avenue to do it, as well as a stockpile of 10,000 nuclear warheads. The outcome of this was very much in doubt for decades. Too many people mistake what Russia is today for what the USSR was in the 20th century. Nothing unites like a shared threat.
The latest Chicago financial engineering scam. They are trying to borrow money to backfill the pension hole. This is of course another shell game to avoid having to use taxpayer revenue now to fill that hole. This would reduce their pension payments because the liabilities would technically be smaller (keep your eye on the ball). They would be obligated to make yearly payments on these new bonds plus interest, but that comes from a different pool of money.
.
Why on earth would this make sense? For Chicago it means that when they default it will be these bond buyers who take the loss and not the pensioners. Sounds great for everyone except any fool who would buy these bonds. https://www.wsj.com/articles/chicago-has-another-bond-for-you-1534546800
MikeN (Comment #169940): “The media was very hostile towards Reagan as well.”
Yes, the media were hostile toward Reagan. But it was nothing like their hostility toward Trump. Or even Bush the Younger.
.
MikeN: “If you substitute Trump’s name with Reagan’s how similar are the Trump is incompetent, insane, 25th Amendment stories?
Response: Close enough.”
I very much disagree. I don’t doubt that you can find stores from the 80’s for which that is true. But they would be the exception, not the rule. The Dems had large majorities in the House, but no one suggested impeachment. There was disdain for the man, but there were no claims that Reagan was a threat to Democracy or a would-be dictator. There were no claims that he was in league with our enemies. There were concerns that he might tick off the Soviets and start a nuclear war, at least until ReykjavÃk. His Strategic Defense Initiative was uniformly ridiculed, but even that does not come close to what we see with Trump. I don’t recall any calls for using the 25th Amendment, although during his second term concerns were expressed that he had become too old for the job.
.
MikeN: “I asked my teacher, and she didn’t think the media was quite as biased back then.”
Your teacher is correct. They were biased, but they tried not to show it and tried to be even handed.
.
p.s. for lucia: Still no edit, so it was not the cookies.
MikeM
Logged in? Real question. I don’t see a way to do that,
You can’t log in. Only authors and administrators can. So SteveF, JD_Ohio and so on have been given “author” access and can log in. Most people can’t.
Tom Scharf
Why on earth would this make sense? For Chicago it means that when they default it will be these bond buyers who take the loss and not the pensioners.
Glad I’m in the ‘burbs. 🙂
At this point, no one should buy Chicago bonds of any sort. I certainly wouldn’t!
For Chicago it means that when they default it will be these bond buyers who take the loss and not the pensioners.
Maybe. Having never filed bankruptcy and not working in the area, I don’t know what judges rule in bankruptcy proceedings. I have no idea if the judges ‘recognize’ different “pools” of money. I also have no idea if the “pension fund” is still owned by the city of if they actually give money to some external company (like an insurance company who then pays out annunities) to hold for them.
If the city still ‘owns’ that money, it might just be an “asset”, and maybe judges see assets as assets. I’m sure judges see most assets as assets in a private bankruptcy. I don’t think a private person can just say “Hey, I don’t have money to pay the mortgage! That $2 milliion in the the checking account. I’ve called that my “vacation” fund to pay for all my bucket-list activities”. It may well be a city can’t get away with that either. Or not. I have no idea.
Most of the time I can edit (without logging in). Once in a while the function disappears.
lucia: “I have no idea if the judges ‘recognize’ different “pools†of money. I also have no idea if the “pension fund†is still owned by the city of if they actually give money to some external company (like an insurance company who then pays out annunities) to hold for them.”
I am pretty sure that the money actually in the pension fund belongs to the pensioners and can not be used to pay the city’s debts. The issue is that there is not enough money in the fund to pay the promised pensions. Pensioners may be treated as just another creditor with respect to receiving that promised money.
If they issue bonds and put the money in the pension fund, the pensioners should be safe. But as Tom says, it would seem that only a fool would buy those bonds.
MikeM
I am pretty sure that the money actually in the pension fund belongs to the pensioners and can not be used to pay the city’s debts
The Chicago Teachers Pension Fund was established by the Illinois state legislature in 1895 as The Public School Teachers’ Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago (CTPF) is the administrator of a multi-employer defined benefit public employee retirement system providing retirement, survivor, and disability benefits for certain certified teachers and employees of the Chicago Public Schools.
So CTPF administers the funds. That’s not the same as owning them. ( U chicago operates Argonne National Lab. It does not own it and so on.)
I haven’t read anything that discusses who owns the pool of money. If you have something, it would be interesting to read.
MikeM, that was my assumption, but I had heard stories, like journalists celebrating when he was shot. I didn’t think it was possible to be as hostile as towards Trump. Steve Hayward wrote two big books on Reagan so his opinion makes me consider maybe it was as bad. Reagan faced his own third party Republican challenge from John Anderson.
Memories can fade. Even W had quite a bit of hostility. Even before Iraq War, there were protests of Ashcroft and Bush as fascists.
angech (Comment #169941)
“Spies are supposed to stay quiet, full stop.”
______
Anyone having a security clearance( including spies) is subject to
penalties for breaching security, and not staying quiet about
classified information would be a breach and against the law.
But I’m not aware of any law that says criticizing the president
is a breach of security if you hold a security clearance, unless of course, the criticism contained classified information.
On Reagan,
He had a light gentle touch with critics. It was possible to disagree with his politics– even violently. He was divorced, and some people didn’t like that. But there weren’t stories of his keeping his mistress in a hotel room upstairs from his current wife. He didn’t say piggish things. But it was hard to actually hate him.
Trump acts like a junk yard dog, attacking fairly often. He says pigging things — like grabbing women by the pussy. He is not just divorced but his first divorce involved behavior that was public and raised people’s eyebrows. It’s easy for people to dislike, hate or despise him. Many do.
Whether the nation is actually more polarized than during the 80s, I can’t say. I think it was just as polarized during the Obama administration but the press liked Obama while those who disliked him did not yet have large outlets making their views visible.
I think some people (e.g. “She who called others deplorable”) were blithely unaware of how polarized things were, and as a result just went around saying “things” that increased polarization. The took a certain amount of silence as lack of polarization. Until. Nov. 2016.
That said: many people seriously dislike the current president and dislike him on a level that is not even political. The press as a whole dislikes him. He acts very aggressively towards other people, that makes the polarization very evident. But I think it pre-existed him and is part of the reason he was elected.
Max_OK,
Here’s a way to view it:
I think there is something of an expectation that those in the FBI, CIA, IRS and so on not be overtly partisan. It’s true they aren’t forbidden to criticize individual politicians. But it’s hard to distinguish virulent criticism of a sitting president and partisanship. You would not expect the head of the FBI, CIA, IRS and so on to keep their jobs if they were openly criticizing the sitting president; it is their job to serve and carryout his orders and policies.
If they did not serve and did not carry out orders, they would be expected to resign. I think the same would be said if they carried them out, but were accusing the sitting president of treason.
To keep his clearance, the former head of FBI, CIA and so on is supposed to conform to behavior expected of current heads. Which would be: no vitriolic criticism of the president.
I don’t know if this is the right view, but it is one that can be put forward given the stated policy. If that’s the correct view, it’s entirely justified to yank the clearances of people– who like Brennan– are openly critiizing the president. (I think Brennan used terms like “treason”. This isn’t minor.)
Mike M. (Comment #169932)
“There is no possible way for Trump to promote unity. Or for anyone pushing conservative and/or populist ideas to promote unity.”
____
MikeM, unity requires compromise. The Parties don’t do it much.
I think it better both sides be a little satisfied and a little dissatisfied
than one side be very satisfied and the other very dissatisfied.
Heh
Former CIA Director John Brennan said that he didn’t mean President Trump had committed treason when he called Trump’s press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin “nothing short of treason.”
So, nothing short of treason ≠treason. Heh.
Lucia,
“…many people seriously dislike the current president and dislike him on a level that is not even political.”
.
For sure. The self-aggrandizing, the p
That time the edit function failed.
The self aggrandizing, the childish reaction to all criticism, the crude behavior, etc offend many. But no other Republican was offering anything except a guarantee that we would have the first career criminal and first woman as president, and worse, a continuation of disastrous Obama policies. It was a hold-your-nose vote for many.
Lucia,
Brennan’s behavior is consistent with someone who fears criminal prosecution. The fear may be quite rational; he clearly was a very bad actor when in office.
OK_Max (Comment #169956): “unity requires compromise. The Parties don’t do it much.
I think it better both sides be a little satisfied and a little dissatisfied
than one side be very satisfied and the other very dissatisfied.”
I agree. I also think that it is in Trump’s nature to compromise. He will drive a tough bargain, but in the end he wants a deal. The “resistance” never gave him a chance to do that. They declared their opposition right after the election, and have never let up. So, as lucia says, Trump attacks like a junkyard dog; his choices are limited to that and being entirely ineffective. That is why I accept Trump’s style even though I dislike it.
Being an employed high level CIA administrator and making the rounds on cable TV and harshly criticizing your boss would be career limiting, and a President should immediately fire anyone who did it that was appointed.
.
I know this doesn’t really need to be said but: Trump is no Reagan. Reagan did the aw shucks trustworthy grandfather act to perfection.
.
I have closely followed the news since the 1980’s and my perception is the media is much, much, nastier. 300 newspapers colluding to bash the President in the 1980’s would have been a scandal, and journalists would never have done it even if it was Trump. They didn’t do things like that even during Watergate.
CNN was straight laced by the book global journalism.
Things have changed though. Multiple 24 hour channels, social media, the Internet, so they must really compete at a base level to survive. People love outrage and so they serve it up.
They really didn’t go hyper-partisan until Obama with fawning coverage, followed by a united “danger to democracy” blatant biased coverage with Trump. They aren’t even trying to hide it anymore. How SAD! is it that they have resorted to telling us what we need to think about journalists.
.
I think the nation appears more polarized because they keep being told the other side hates them and the media gives the microphones to angry polemicists. There was a time when an angry panel of people yelling at each other and showing no respect on TV was considered bad journalism.
lucia (Comment #169955)
To keep his clearance, the former head of FBI, CIA and so on is supposed to conform to behavior expected of current heads. Which would be: no vitriolic criticism of the president.
I don’t know if this is the right view, but it is one that can be put forward given the stated policy. If that’s the correct view, it’s entirely justified to yank the clearances of people– who like Brennan– are openly critiizing the president. (I think Brennan used terms like “treasonâ€. This isn’t minor.)
________
Good point. But both former and current officials of these agencies
should not ignore what they believe to be criminal behavior by the
President or behavior that while not criminal they see as a threat to
the nations security. That doesn’t mean current officials who have
evidence of misdeeds by the president can expect to be openly critical of him without being fired.
Former officials, on the other hand, need only fear loosing their security clearance for speaking out against the president for any reason. Removing their security clearance does’t stop them from speaking out. All it does is prevent current officials from revealing classified information to them.
One could point out that what is called #Resistance now was called #Obstruction when the right was doing it. This is just another example of media framing bias.
Brennan knows FBI & CIA folks can’t expect to get away with publicly, openly and loudly accusing the sitting president of treason. He knows they’d be asked to resign.
For that matter: There’s a reason Comey didn’t write his book while still at the FBI. That wouldn’t be tolerated in a current high level employee of the FBI.
It’s not hard to make the case that Brennan and Comey’s current behavior would not be tolerated in a current employee. If the condition of keeping the clearance is to conform to behavior of a current employee, then they don’t merit the courtesy of a clearance as stated in policy.
Consider if the current director (or high ranking official) in the FBI, CIA accused the president of treason, and the 3rd test for speech by gov’t. employees (The first two don’t matter in this case, because they just bump things to the 3rd and final tests.)
3) If a government employee was speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, the next question is whether the government employer’s interest in efficiently fulfilling its public services is greater than the employee’s interest in speaking freely.
This test was also established by the Pickering and Connick cases.
The government employer has an interest in efficiently providing public services and maintaining good professional relationships within an office. Courts analyze the government employer’s interest by considering the following set of factors:
Whether the speech would interfere with the employee’s responsibilities;
The nature of the working relationship between the speaker and those at whom the criticism was directed;
Whether the relationship between the speaker and the person criticized was sufficiently close that the speech would create disharmonious relations in the workplace;
Whether the speech would undermine an immediate superior’s discipline over the employee; and
Whether the speech would compromise the loyalty and confidence required of close working employees.
When close working relationships are essential to fulfilling public responsibilities, a wide degree of deference is given to the government employer’s judgment. After a court considers each factor, it must weigh these factors against the employee’s interest in speaking out.
The sitting president may be the immediate superior of the head of the CIA. Would the head of the CIA accusing the president of treason
* create a disharmonious relation in the working relationship with the president? Yes.
*undermine Presidents’s discipline over the employee?
Yes.
*compromise the loyalty and confidence required of close working employees
Yes. In spades. I don’t see how the President can have confidence or expect loyalty of Brennan given what Brennan is saying publicly.
This sort of behavior would not be tolerated in someone currently heading the CIA or FBI. I’m pretty sure it would be acceptable to fire them without anyone calling it a violation of the 1st Amendment.
If the standard for keeping the clearance is conforming to expectations of the former job Brennan was not conforming to that . By policy, it seems his clearance should be yanked. He isn’t after all fired– because he’s not an employee. But the reason he is supposedly permitted to keep it is to continue to provide loyal service to the administration and to do so in a way that permits the current president to have confidence in his advise.
OK_Max
But both former and current officials of these agencies
should not ignore what they believe to be criminal behavior by the
President or behavior that while not criminal they see as a threat to
the nations security. That doesn’t mean current officials who have
evidence of misdeeds by the president can expect to be openly critical of him without being fired.
Precisely. People will often step down from these jobs if they can no longer support the President.
DeeDee Myers did not openly criticize Clinton when she stepped down. But I think I remember watching a TV show where she was a guest speaker. Then a fresh (and likely new to her) clip came on …. tv break. She was gone. Iwas like… whoa!!! She left the show.
Then she resigned. I think she needed to be closer to her family…. Or something…
Removing their security clearance does’t stop them from speaking out. All it does is prevent current officials from revealing classified information to them.
And of course they can no longer “help” the nation with their expertise. But I think under the circumstances it’s safe to say the current president has reason to not trust that Brennan is committed to helping this administration and has every reason to fear he would undermine it if he could.
If he were current head of the CIA he’d be fired and we probably wouldn’t be hearing people complaining about the 1st amendment issue. Now he’s just having his clearance yanked.
You would have to be a complete fool to believe you could go to the media and say things like that, much based on speculation, opinion and/or without showing any evidence and expect there to be no career blowback. Professionals act professionally in trying times, that’s what makes them professional. Mueller is acting professional, he keeps his mouth shut and leaks contained. I may not end up liking his conclusions, but he isn’t acting like an unhinged partisan fool.
The line of ex-employees who think any behavior is justified and the rules should no longer apply “because Trump” is getting pretty long.
#obstruction was against what republicans saw as wrong. #resistance is against what democrats describe as evil. The type of response is therefore quite different. One was politics albeit heavily partisan. The other is personal.
Tom Scharf,
Exactly. Trump might actually like Mueller to go off like Brennan. It would give him a good excuse to fire him. But the fact is, Mueller is acting professionally at least as far as anyone can tell. If he’s doing anything unprofessional, he’s hiding it well.
The line of ex-employees who think any behavior is justified and the rules should no longer apply “because Trump†is getting pretty long.
They can have wide latitude provided they aren’t keeping the connection of supposedly continuing to “serve”. If they aren’t serving but are undermining the current administration, they shouldn’t have clearances. This is not hard.
I don’t like Trump, but he’s not wrong on this.
As for regaining them: supposedly they can’t get them back. But that’s something in an executive order. So it could be changed by executive order or Congressional action.
lucia (Comment #169966)
“And of course they can no longer “help†the nation with their expertise. But I think under the circumstances it’s safe to say the current president has reason to not trust that Brennan is committed to helping this administration and has every reason to fear he would undermine it if he could.
If he were current head of the CIA he’d be fired and we probably wouldn’t be hearing people complaining about the 1st amendment issue. Now he’s just having his clearance yanked.”
______
Not having Brennan’s expertise could weaken the nation’s security.
I’m not saying it necessarily would, but he is a valuable resource.
Current CIA officials still should be able to seek his advice, providing
they don’t reveal classified information, but they probably wouldn’t
because associating with him could displease Trump.
While Trump may have had reasons(other than revenge) to remove
Brennan’s security clearance, I see two costs:
1. It might appear Trump didn’t want Brennan to have access to future classified information that could be damaging to him or
his administration, which suggests such information could exist.
2. Removing Brennan’s security clearance did not set well with
many in the intelligence community. Giving this community
reasons to not like you seems like a bad idea.
OK_Max
Not having Brennan’s expertise could weaken the nation’s security.
At least hypothetically. But there’s a tension between his expertise and whether, given is behavior, the nations’ current administration can have confidence he will use it to enhance security. That’s the rub.
Bear in mind: if he died, we could probably figure out what to do without his expertise. So it’s not necessarily a unique thing.
I agree there is also an appearance problem. But strictly speaking Trump didn’t need to yank the clearance to prevent Brennan from having access to future classified info. He could just order CIA & FBI not to deal with him.
I also agree yanking the clearance probably does not sit well with at least some in the intelligence community. It may sit perfectly well with others.
As far as I can tell, vocal people — or at least those who have been quoted– have been former staff and members of Congress. I don’t consider people in either category members of the intelligence community. So they aren’t evidence for how this sits with the intelligence community. What the preponderance of current members of the intelligence community think is not something we can know for sure.
I haven’t heard of any resignations by members of the intelligence community over this action.
Current CIA officials still should be able to seek his advice, providing they don’t reveal classified information, but they probably wouldn’t because associating with him could displease Trump.
I agree. As they can seek anyone’s advice. Maybe they won’t consult with him for that reason.
There are things Trump does that are sub-optimal. No doubt about that. But the rhetoric we are getting around this isn’t saying this move is perhaps sub-optimal. It’s pretty strong.
“I would consider it an honour if you would revoke my security clearance … so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency,†McRaven wrote in an open letter.
Is it possible for McRaven to give up his clearance? If yes, I’ll believe he will consider it an honor to have it yanked when he takes whatever steps required to for him to give it up.
Fun fact: There have been 14,597 calls in SF to report human poop on the sidewalk so far this year. Welcome to progressive paradise, ha ha. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-francisco-poop-problem-inequality-homelessness
.
“The incidents are part of a broader failure of the city to provide for the basic needs of its citizens, and show the catastrophic, socially destructive effects of unchecked inequality.”
Apologies if I’ve said this already, but I’m going to throw out another conspiracy theory.
Mueller interviewed with Trump to be head of the FBI the day before he was named special counsel. Rod Rosenstein was at this interview.
Because of term limits, Mueller could only be head of FBI if Congress passed a waiver.
Is it possible Rosenstein and Mueller fooled Trump at this interview, telling him that if we appoint this special counsel, we can clear you of the Russia witch-hunt?
Well, that is not the conspiracy theory I am suggesting. Instead, is it possible that Mueller is working for Trump, and all this was plotted with Rosenstein. Trump has not blocked a single witness interview. There is no accusation of obstruction of justice as Trump goes after the team in the FBI and DOJ who was spying on him, as it is all being handled by the Special Counsel now. Meanwhile, Mueller gets a team of angry Democrats and can see everyone who talks to them.
Michael Flynn is not acting like he’s about to go to jail, signing with a consulting firm.
Papadopolous just tweeted ‘tick tock’, and is making noises about dropping his plea deal.
MikeN,
Possible? Sure. That theory doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermo after all.
I’m pretty skeptical of a complicated theory that involve newly elected Trump playing three dimensional chess and which involve him almost magically getting the cooperation of two people important people who were in no way connected to Trump before the election and so on and so on. So I doubt Mueller was working for and that both Mueller and Rosenstein plotted with Trump in some complicated scheme to clear Trump.
MikeN (Comment #169974): “Instead, is it possible that Mueller is working for Trump, and all this was plotted with Rosenstein. Trump has not blocked a single witness interview. There is no accusation of obstruction of justice as Trump goes after the team in the FBI and DOJ who was spying on him, as it is all being handled by the Special Counsel now.”
There is a lot of evidence against that. Members of the anti-Trump contingent at the FBI had high positions in the Mueller team. The Mueller team is entirely composed of Democrats. Those Democrats have not been rebelling against Mueller. There are trumped up prosecutions against Flynn, Manafort, etc. The investigation has not been wrapped up; that makes it seem like there is something to find rather than admitting that there is nothing to find.
From the Grauniad via Tom Scharf (Comment #169973): “The incidents are part of a broader failure of the city to provide for the basic needs of its citizens, and show the catastrophic, socially destructive effects of unchecked inequality.â€
The article manages to not mention that San Francisco is the most “liberal” and “progressive” city in the U.S. It also does not mention all the hypodermic needles littering the streets; less disgusting but probably more dangerous than the poop. Sounds like people need sanctuary from the sanctuary city.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169973)
August 18th, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Fun fact: There have been 14,597 calls in SF to report human poop on the sidewalk so far this year. Welcome to progressive paradise, ha ha.
_______
Give the homeless no place to answer nature’s call and they will leave? No, they won’t. Sounds like a failed unintentional experiment in getting rid of the homeless.
Solution: More public restrooms.
Solution: Provide no services for the homeless. Let other places deal with the problem.
Solution: Make panhandling illegal.
Solution: Make being homeless illegal.
Solution: Stop being a wealthy city with moderate climate.
Interesting discussions today, sorry I missed participating in them. Thanks to all who responded regarding Reagan.
The last 2 years has been like living on the edge of a soap opera.
Reality is pretty Blegh at times. So one of the saving graces for me has been this fantastic, enervating dance of death between Trump and the deep state [if it exists].
I thought he would last 3 months.
The amount of vitriol thrown post election far outweighs the pre election stuff and yet he so far survives. Any one of 100 spinning plates would seem to be enough to bring him down.
It is funny that the only reason I feel involved is because of my contrarian viewpoint on climate change. And that only because I like to support the underdog. People with missions to push always seem to go too many steps too far.
So Arctic ice this year jury still out, thick ice, small extent, heat should go to space and extent should stall.
Bruce Ohr, 10 days til questioned. Will Trump last that long, Will Sessions act, Will anything actually ever happen.
Usual day check ATTP, check something deplorable, check Delingpole and the real clear poll and look over here.
Who needs a life?
Brennan today: “I don’t believe I’m being political at all.”.
.
One critic of Trump’s decision, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, told CNN on Sunday that the relationship between Trump and the intelligence community was “dangerously close to being permanently broken; it is badly injured right now.”
.
There isn’t a two way relationship. You work for and report directly to the President. If you don’t like it, quit. You aren’t the only person who ever had to do their job while not liking their boss, stop being a petulant baby. Trump may be a 5 year old, but he has successfully shown there is quite a few more 5 year olds at top levels in our government.
While everyone was in an inconsequential Brennan tizzy, a consequential announcement that rules for coal plants were going to be rewritten was met with relatively little outrage.
Heh, more of the same. If you’re not with us and bend the knee, you’re a white supremacist. The irony is you don’t even need to be white to be a white supremacist. “POC” who argue against this twisted ideology are also white supremacists! It’s really quite an inclusive club!
Tom Scharf (Comment #169973)
August 18th, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Fun fact: There have been 14,597 calls in SF to report human poop on the sidewalk so far this year. Welcome to progressive paradise, ha ha.
_____
My previous reply to Tom’s comment now seems flippant to me,
disrespectful to San Francisco and its homeless.I will try to do
better here.
I wouldn’t say San Francisco is a paradise, but with living space going for $1,057 per square foot (Zillow June 2018 median)it must be very appealing, and it’s popularity is growing. An article in Business
Insider said â€San Francisco’s tech boom is so expansive that the city’s median home price rose by $205,000 in the first half of 2018, one of the biggest swells in its history.
The homeless can’t compete for space with the growing number of high-income people who want to live in the city. Space is limited because the city is surrounded by water on three side. The gentrification of poorer neighborhoods is leaving the homeless
with fewer areas where they can inconspicuously answer natures call.
More housing for San Francisco’s homeless seems like an obvious solution. Given the astronomical price of real estate it is a very
expensive solution. Fortunately, the city has wealthy taxpayers.
Max, I read an article decades ago in Massachusetts that some officials were buying one-way bus tickets to Texas.
MikeN, seems I recall reading about SLC inducing their homeless to leave town. Other cities should be glad SF doesn’t do that.
The linked 2017 article says San Francisco has bought one-way tickets out of town for the homeless, giving one man a ticket
to Indianapolis.
This practice could be helpful to a homeless person who wanted to
go to another place.
Brennan today: “I don’t believe I’m being political at all.â€.
Of course not. He is merely standing up for truth and justice, whereas those who think differently are mere deplorables.
It is a very revealing quote, not just By showing Brennan’s self-righteousness, but also be illustrating why the left is such a danger to democracy.
San Francisco has been crazy expensive for a long time, in no small part due to progressive policies that drive up housing costs. But problems with poop and needles in the streets, aggressive panhandling, and dead bodies lying around have skyrocketed recently. That would not seem to be due to housing costs.
.
In any case, I don’t see where homelessness has much to do with housing costs. The homeless are typically not hardworking people who can not afford an apartment. They tend to be the mentally ill, drug addicts, and others who are unable or unwilling to be a functioning part of society.
.
SF has long been an attractive place for such dregs, but has become much more attractive due to extreme soft on crime policies. A place where drug laws are not enforced will attract addicts. A place where illegal immigrants are protected will attract illegals. And so on. They are beginning to reap the whirlwind of foolish policies.
OK_Max,
Guess what happens every time somebody in SF proposes low cost or high density new development? It is virulently fought by the local ascendant who endlessly try to help others. If only the heartless Republicans weren’t so mean. There are endless local building restrictions and requirements to effectively prevent any new development. They would love to fix the problem, just not in their neighborhood. CA proposed a law that would override local restrictions for low cost / high density dwelling near public transportation, it was eventually defeated and I’m guessing it wasn’t defeated by the homeless.
. https://slate.com/business/2018/04/why-sb-827-californias-radical-affordable-housing-bill-was-so-unpopular.html
“Opposed by virtually every Californian in a position of power”
John Brennan has had many problems during his tour of duty with the US government that the left appears to have conveniently forgotten for the moment and that the right mostly appears hesitant to point out. The link below discusses a few of these problems but there are others.
Partisan politics requires that objective viewers in order to remain objective must measure what they hear by way of politicians and the mass media. It is analogous to what is required to obtain an objective view of climate science these days by way of climate science papers. It is not about false statements but rather about the spin and what is left out.
Mike M. (Comment #169991)
August 19th, 2018 at 2:59 pm
“San Francisco has been crazy expensive for a long time, in no small part due to progressive policies that drive up housing costs. But problems with poop and needles in the streets, aggressive panhandling, and dead bodies lying around have skyrocketed recently. That would not seem to be due to housing costs.”
________
San Francisco’s problem with the homeless pooping on the streets is a housing related problem. If a homeless person lives in a tent, as many of the city’s homeless do, and is prohibited from using toilets in restaurants and other retail places, where is he going to relieve himself ? There are cities with larger homeless populations that report less of a street pooping problem, which suggests they house the homeless better than San Francisco and/or have more accessible public restrooms.
I was surprised to find that San Francisco, known for being soft on crime and a sanctuary for drug addicts and illegal immigrants, had a lower murder rate than two-thirds of large American cities in 2017. It had a lower murder rate than 55 cities and a higher rate than 24 cities in my count from the following source:
I also was surprised to find two cities I thought were fairly safe, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, with murder rates of 18.7 and 12.7 per 100,000 residents, respectively, were not as safe as San Francisco which had a rate of 6.5.
San Francisco does have a high rate of property crime (theft). It ranked third among large cities in 2015, only Tuscan and St. Louis had higher rates of property crime. I couldn’t find more recent data.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169992)
August 19th, 2018 at 3:16 pm
OK_Max,
“Guess what happens every time somebody in SF proposes low cost or high density new development? It is virulently fought by the local ascendant who endlessly try to help others.”
______
That’s me. I’m against anything that hurts my property.
Tom, thanks for the link. The slate.com piece was interesting.
SteveF (Comment #169913) “As they used to say on radio game shows… that is the $64 question.”
.
Google knows the answer. In the forties there was a radio program called “Take It or Leave It” and the grand prize was 64 silver dollars.
.
In the fifties there was a TV show called “The $64,000 Question” and clones. Those quiz shows are remembered for the scandals.
.
Sort of like more recent presidential debates.
OK_Max,
Lack of large low incomes areas and demographics are likely the explanation for SF’s lower crime rate. If you cross the bay bridge to Oakland the murder rate more than triples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco
Max,
My impression is that homelessness turns into a complicated problem pretty quickly as you dive into it. There are subcategories (vets with psychological problems vs recently unemployed people sleeping in cars) for which the root problems are different and thus the likely remedies are different. It’s hard to talk about in general terms in a meaningful / useful way. Which is why I mostly avoid talking about it. :/
FWIW, I don’t throw stones at SF for the poop problem. I don’t know enough about that situation to have an opinion.
OK_Max (Comment #169994): “San Francisco’s problem with the homeless pooping on the streets is a housing related problem. … There are cities with larger homeless populations that report less of a street pooping problem, which suggests they house the homeless better than San Francisco …”
.
I am not sure what OK_Max means here since “housing the homeless” seems oxymoronic. I think that what he is trying to say is that although some cities have more homeless than San Francisco, they have far fewer “unsheltered homeless” than San Francisco. This report supports that claim: https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2017-10-23/homelessness-bay-area
It is long and so far I have only looked at the figures.
.
The homeless lack housing in the sense of living space that is legally theirs, whether owned or rented. But homelessness does not seem to be primarily a housing problem; it is mostly a mental health problem. The issue (at least for chronic homelessness) is not so much a lack of housing as people being unable to do the things (including applying for welfare) that would enable them to have housing.
.
The homeless can be classified as “sheltered” or “unsheltered”, the latter would be the ones responsible for things like poop in the streets. San Francisco has a huge number of unsheltered homeless. Maybe that is because they refuse to provide shelters, but then why don’t those people go to a neighboring community with shelters? Maybe the above report provides an answer.
.
I suspect that most of the unsheltered homeless are unsheltered by choice. Shelters have rules. Some people, such as drug addicts, are unable or unwilling to abide by those rules. I suspect that San Francisco has huge numbers of such people. Certainly something is different there other than high housing costs.
OK_Max (Comment #169994): “I was surprised to find that San Francisco, known for being soft on crime and a sanctuary for drug addicts and illegal immigrants, had a lower murder rate than two-thirds of large American cities … I also was surprised to find two cities I thought were fairly safe, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, … were not as safe as San Francisco …”
San Francisco is 6% black, compared to 15% in Oklahoma City and 16% in Tulsa. That probably accounts for much of the difference in murder rate, especially when one considers that the blacks in San Francisco are probably much more likely to be middle or upper class. On the other hand, Asians have far lower murder rates than other ethnic groups and San Francisco is 33% Asian.
I don’t think that either the homeless are much associated with murder. I think that murders are mostly domestic violence or committed by gangs and other career criminals. The Oklahoma cities have large American Indian populations, associated, I think, with high rates of domestic violence.
.
OK_Max: “San Francisco does have a high rate of property crime (theft).”
That is something I would associate with homelessness, drug addicts, and a certain subgroup of illegal immigrants.
I saw the video of the Mayor taking a walk down the street and someone shooting up as they walked past.
.
This article https://sf.curbed.com/2018/5/9/17336090/san-francisco-needles-syringes-exchange-numbers-sf suggests the city hands out 400k needles a month for a total of about 18 per person. Which would suggest something like 20k addicts.
.
Clearly, if addicts see San Francisco as the place to be to get high, with soft touch policing, free needles, safe spaces to shoot up etc, that’s where they’re going to go. Where there’s demand, there’s also sure to be a good supply, and everything that entails. It’s a downward spiral that’s just going to get worse.
Your link reported that Paris has installed exposed public urinals
because the French have a tradition of peeing in the street.
“Paris has struggled to prevent public or “wild peeing” for years, even implementing an “incivility brigade” to enforce fines for uncouth behavior in 2016.”
“Wild peeing” is a new term for me. Hilarious!
After seeing the accompanying photo of a street urinal in Paris, my
first thought was I would be too embarrassed to use one. But why?
I wouldn’t be exposing myself.
The street urinals are less expensive and not as unsightly as port-a-potties, but provide little privacy. Since San Francisco’s homeless don’t seem to be concerned about privacy anyway, a similar device to control “wild pooping” might work.
Mike M. (Comment #170000)
I am not sure what OK_Max means here since “housing the homeless†seems oxymoronic. I think that what he is trying to say is that although some cities have more homeless than San Francisco, they have far fewer “unsheltered homeless.
______
Yes, unsheltered is what I mean. Thank you, MikeM.
The section comparing San Francisco to the reast of the U.S. had something quite interesting:
For anyone who believes, based on their own eyes, that San Francisco has the worst problem with homelessness in the country, this statistic — the number of unsheltered homeless people per capita — is the “smoking gun.†East Coast cities have adopted a very different set of strategies, emphasizing shelters as a low-cost, temporary solution and in many cases forcing people to go into those shelters, as opposed to allowing them to choose to sleep in public spaces. Indeed, New York State has a “right to shelter†law that compels the city and state to provide shelter beds to all New Yorkers who are homeless by “reason of physical, mental, or social dysfunction.†While some critics decry the New York approach as “warehousing†homeless people, it’s clear that they have been vastly more successful than large California cities in getting people at least minimal shelter and in addressing the quality of life impacts on city residents.
It goes on to say:
By making “real housing†with wraparound social services the only acceptable solution, without having enough money to actually scale up that solution, Bay Area cities, especially San Francisco, have created the conditions in which thousands of people are living on the streets.
Progressive politics at work. Good intentions, disastrous consequences.
Here’s an interesting video. If you think Hispanic ‘refugees’ are a problem, try Middle Eastern ones. And if you live in the UK and complain publicly, you risk prosecution for hate speech.
DaveJR (Comment #170002)
August 20th, 2018 at 10:51 am
I saw the video of the Mayor taking a walk down the street and someone shooting up as they walked past.
.
This article https://sf.curbed.com/2018/5/9/17336090/san-francisco-needles-syringes-exchange-numbers-sf suggests the city hands out 400k needles a month for a total of about 18 per person. Which would suggest something like 20k addicts.
Clearly, if addicts see San Francisco as the place to be to get high, with soft touch policing, free needles, safe spaces to shoot up etc, that’s where they’re going to go. Where there’s demand, there’s also sure to be a good supply, and everything that entails. It’s a downward spiral that’s just going to get worse.
_____
Interesting link by DaveJR
San Francisco hands out free needles to prevent addicts from infecting each other with previously used needles, but the
abundant free supply results in streets littered with used
needles, creating a public health hazard.
I definitely would be worried if stuck by one of those discarded
needles even if infection was not certain. Blood transmitted
viruses don’t survive long when exposed to the outdoors, but
the discarded needle could have been freshly used.
An exception might be Hep C which I have read can last up to
6 weeks at room temperature. SF does have a mild climate.
I don’t know if an innocent person has ever been accidently
infected by a discarded needle on the streets of San Francisco.
Now Trump and company are ripping even unborn babies from their parent’s arms. How SAD! https://www.npr.org/2018/08/19/640022683/ice-detains-man-driving-his-wife-to-hospital-for-planned-c-section
.
This was all over the news a few days ago with all the usual immediate outrage and self righteous indignation from the major networks. Update:
1. The lady wasn’t in labor, she was going in for a scheduled c-section.
2. The man who was so heartlessly detained (her husband) is wanted on homicide charges in Mexico.
.
The spin is now that “she had to drive herself to the hospital”. Not a single story seems to say “people wanted for homicide should definitely be arrested immediately”, “what are people wanted for homicide doing in the US”, etc. Another poorly chosen martyr (Michael Brown) rush to judgment with nobody saying this is actually not an outrage after all. Can we get a follow up to see how much their 5 kids’ births have cost the taxpayers? I would die of shock if somebody brought this up.
.
But wait!!!! He may not be wanted for homicide, it’s really his brother. Vindication! Update: He is actually wanted for homicide.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170007)
August 20th, 2018 at 2:24 pm
Here’s an interesting video. If you think Hispanic ‘refugees’ are a problem, try Middle Eastern ones. And if you live in the UK and complain publicly, you risk prosecution for hate speech.
I listened to UK journalist Katie Hopkins in the link you posted.
The woman is an unabashed hate monger. She makes Trump
look moderate.
Mick Heaney, writing for The Irish Times, says Hopkins only discernible talent is her ability to be tiresome and repellent at the same time.
My reaction to her speech was a little different. I was repelled
by her speech before finding it tiresome. I got bored about
one-half way through and turned her off. Had I kept listening, however, I’m sure I would have found Hopkins simultaneously repelling and tiresome.
OK_Max,
I’m not surprised at your response. So none of the incidents that she reports in the speech actually happened or she somehow misinterpreted what she saw?
And she wasn’t reported to the authorities for child abuse? I’m waiting for Maxine Waters to pick up on that one.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170011)
August 20th, 2018 at 5:43 pm
OK_Max,
I’m not surprised at your response. So none of the incidents that she reports in the speech actually happened or she somehow misinterpreted what she saw?
_______
I had never heard of Katie Hopkins before viewing the video of her
speech. As I said, I didn’t watch the entire speech. I don’t know whether her reports are accurate. I did find that the Mail had to pay
150,000 pounds in damages to a muslim family because Hopkins slandered them in her column, said things that weren’t true. While that doesn’t mean her reports are always lies or exaggerations, it does mean one shouldn’t just presume what she says is fact without checking.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170009)
August 20th, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Now Trump and company are ripping even unborn babies from their parent’s arms. How SAD!
_______
ICE needs to work on its PR.
Of course the husband or boyfriend should have been arrested.
But leaving the pregnant woman on her own to continue driving
to the hospital for her C-section makes ICE look bad, if that’s
what happened. Hopefully, she won’t have to drive herself and
the baby back home.
That’s really just standard practice. When police arrest a driver and the passenger can’t drive, then they are told to call someone to pick them up. They aren’t a taxi service. This lady was not in labor, nor is there any indication she even asked for assistance. The standard practice for a medical emergency is to call an ambulance if requested.
She could have called someone to drive her, but I suspect she was perfectly capable of driving herself. Cops won’t leave people in a dangerous situation, but I have seen a few exceptions where the person of interest was cooperative and deemed “sympathetic enough”.
.
The people who need work is the media. It’s a bit hard to understand how ICE arresting a single illegal is worthy of nationwide coverage, since when is this breaking news. Why didn’t they wait until they had the facts, why jump the gun? Because it was an outrage competition with a favored “ICE is evil” narrative. After the facts came in it was an embarrassment for our self elected arbiters of truth and justice. Even after they knew the facts and were cornered, they still chose to distort the “illegal alien arrested for beating a man to death” story. Watch framing bias in action: https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/08/19/ice-murder-illegal-alien/
.
I’m going to go out on a limb and argue the real victim here is the murder victim.
OK_Max (Comment #170013): “ICE needs to work on its PR.”
ICE is a law enforcement agency. I don’t want the police making decisions based on PR. I want them to make decisions based on the law and public safety. As Tom points out, they acted appropriately.
Any PR hit is a result of the media spinning the news rather than reporting the news.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170014)
Tom, I checked on your linked brietbart.com story, and found
the author of the story reads differently than I read. I think I
read better.
The breitbart.com headline was
“19 Times the Media Portrayed Illegal Alien Wanted for Murder as a Victim of Trump Immigration Enforcement”
breitbart quotes 19 tweets to support its claim that accused
murder Joel Arrona-Lara was portrayed as a victim for being
arrested while driving his pregnant wife to the hospital for
a c-section.
After reading the Tweets, however, it’s clear to me they are
portraying the arrested man’s wife as the victim rather than
him. That does seems more reasonable than making him out
to be the victim.
Right, she is the victim or her unborn child. Keeping the father and child apart is a non-story, so the whole story comes down to whether the authorities should have made sure she made it to the hospital OK, or driven her there. This type of situation (stranded bystander) happens all the time and they have policies to deal with it.
.
The basis of this being exceptional is that she is being treated poorly because she is an illegal immigrant. As far as I can tell a citizen being pulled over in the same circumstances would be treated the same, unless there is information available for this case to contradict that. She wasn’t in labor and there is no indication she ever asked for assistance. She was also * already driving the vehicle * when they were pulled over! This is readily available in the surveillance video they proudly show, but the media never noted it(?).
.
“Agents, who had conducted surveillance on Arrona-Lara before the arrest, were not aware that the couple were headed to the hospital, according to the agency.
Arrona-Lara’s wife was driving the vehicle before they stopped at the gas station, according to the agency, and ICE officers were confident that she was able to continue on her way after the arrest.” http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-arrest-warrant-20180820-story.html
.
I don’t see any there there. This is clearly knee jerk media propaganda.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170017)
August 21st, 2018 at 9:51 am
“Right, she is the victim or her unborn child. Keeping the father and child apart is a non-story, so the whole story comes down to whether the authorities should have made sure she made it to the hospital OK, or driven her there.”
“I don’t see any there there. This is clearly knee jerk media propaganda.”
______
You may not be sympathetic to the woman’s predicament.
While a woman could go alone to a hospital for a C-section, driving by herself, I can’t imagine a doctor recommending it. At the hospital,
before and after the surgery, the presence and support of a loved
one is important to the woman’s emotional state. After the mother
and baby are driven home, she will need to follow post-operative
instructions (no driving, stair climbing, heavy lifting for several
weeks). Obviously, she will need assistance during the recovery period.
In the case under discussion here, the mother no longer has her
husband to help with her recovery because ICE arrested him. It is not ICE’s responsibility to replace what they have taken from her in her time of need. Hopefully, she has family members and/or friends who will help.
Mike M. (Comment #170015)
August 21st, 2018 at 8:59 am
OK_Max (Comment #170013): “ICE needs to work on its PR.â€
ICE is a law enforcement agency. I don’t want the police making decisions based on PR. I want them to make decisions based on the law and public safety. As Tom points out, they acted appropriately.
_______
PR is important because law enforcement needs the support of the
public to do its job.
Without all the details on this case, I can’t say whether I believe ICE could have handled it in a better way.
Her husband (allegedly) beat someone to death. It is his fault, not ICE’s. The government is not responsible for making sure undocumented people have the correct support system when they have babies. The feds never called me up (an actual citizen) and made sure my babies were born the correct way. If I had a felony warrant and was arrested on the way to the hospital I wouldn’t be mad at the government, but maybe that is just my crazy thinking. If they left somebody in labor on the side of the interstate who had to walk 10 miles to make a phone call who subsequently delivered a baby without any medical help then maybe we have something to talk about. The burden should be on the media to show government malfeasance for this story, not the reverse.
Looks like Trump better start preparing some pardon paperwork, ha ha. Maybe he should get some boilerplate ready so it will be easier next time.
When a criminal gets arrested or convicted, it inconveniences all sorts of people (some of them children) who depend in some way on the criminal. That is the fault of the criminal, not the police or the courts.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170022)
Tom, I’m not troubled by Joel Arrona-Lara being arrested. Regardless
of whether he is wanted in connection with murder in Mexico, he had been living in the U.S. illegally, and that alone was grounds for ICE to arrest him.
What I didn’t like was brietbart.com claiming “19 Times the Media Portrayed Illegal Alien Wanted for Murder as a Victim of Trump Immigration Enforcement.†I read the 19 tweets. Unless I missed something, none portrayed him as a victim. If briebart wants media
to be fair, it can start at home.
I wonder what will happen to his wife, if she’s an illegal immigrant too, and their kids who were born in the U.S. ?
She is an illegal as well. Their kids are US citizens since they were born here. They let her go, and typically will continue to do nothing if she is behaving, but this is not guaranteed. I think the slight of hand by the media falls into a few categories through Twitter snippets and misleading headlines:
1. Her husband wasn’t arrested just because he was an illegal.
2. She didn’t need to be “rushed” to the hospital, not in labor.
3. She was perfectly capable of driving herself, as she was already driving.
Many stories buried this info 5 paragraphs in. This is a man arrested for murder story.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170024)
August 21st, 2018 at 2:59 pm
Looks like Trump better start preparing some pardon paperwork, ha ha. Maybe he should get some boilerplate ready so it will be easier next time.
__________
Too early. More convictions ahead. Anyway, pardoning a buddy can hurt you. Presidents usually wait until they are on the way out, lame ducks. It’s safer that way.
But with Trump, you never know.
Well he cannot leave office now can he? Or he will get prosecuted.
Can he give himself a pardon for any and all problems exposed both pre and during his presidency as outgoing president?
If so, the more rubbish produced the more he will be able to free himself. Finally when running a second time. He has to to stay out of trouble. Is he as a candidate no longer in that capacity the president hence liable to any misdeameanours in that time?
The law is strange.
Angech,
I doubt Trump has any plans to leave office prematurely. Congress would have to impeach and remove him.
The question regarding a President’s power to pardon himself is interesting to me. As far as I can tell, this question has not been answered definitively one way or the other yet by Constitution or precedent (I am no legal scholar however, and others here may give you a more informed response).
I don’t quite follow your last question (been a long day).
[Edit: for example, here is a discussion of the self pardon question.]
angech (Comment #170030): “Well he cannot leave office now can he? Or he will get prosecuted.”
Prosecuted for what? There is no evidence that Trump has broken any laws or, so far as I know, any reason to believe that he has broken any laws.
Mike M. (Comment #170032)
“There is no evidence that Trump has broken any laws or, so far as I know, any reason to believe that he has broken any laws.”
______
Many legal scholars see Cohen’s guilty plea as reason to suspect Trump broke campaign finance law and/or conspired to break it.
Even if there is compelling evidence Trump has broken the law, my understanding is he can’t be indicted while President. He could be impeached, but I doubt he will be impeached unless evidence of even worse misdeeds surface.
Trump pardoning Cohen seems unlikely, since he no longer likes him.
Cohen’s lawyer says his client wouldn’t accept a pardon anyway, which I find puzzling.
Andy McCarthy has been declaring Trump a criminal ever since the Stormy Daniels story broke. Meanwhile, former FEC chair Bradley Smith declares that there is no violation of campaign finance law.
In John Edwards’s case, the FEC declared that the donors had committed no violation, and the case against Edwards was a hung jury and the government eventually dropped the case. To make the case of campaign finance violation, the government argued that the payment was needed to preserve Edwards’s image as a family man.
The difference here is that Cohen has pled guilty to saying the payment was campaign related.
The Obama campaign was convicted of breaking campaign finance law and fined $375k.
mark bofill (Comment #170031)
Mark, the following paragraph, quoted from your link, suggests that Trump could do a self pre-emptive pardon. I think that would
pardon him from any crimes he has ever committed, even crimes
he may have committed before becoming President.
“In the case of former President Richard Nixon, he was granted a pardon by President Gerald Ford for any crimes he might have committed during the Watergate scandal, even though Nixon wasn’t charged with or convicted of federal crimes. (This is known as a pre-emptive pardon.) Nixon was able to receive a pardon under the precedent of an 1866 Supreme Court ruling called Ex parte Garland, which allowed for a pardon granted by President Andrew Johnson to remain in force for a former Confederate politician.”
If I were Trump I would pre-emptively pardon myself on my last day
in office. That’s a no-brainer. I wonder if I could make it apply to the future?
OK_Max (Comment #170036): “If I were Trump I would pre-emptively pardon myself on my last day in office.”
The only way that would make sense is if the incoming president were a Democrat and it was clear that the Democrats were going to engage in vindictive political prosecutions. Otherwise it would be an effective admission of guilt. The self-pardon would probably be struck down by the courts. The paragraph cited only says that preemptive pardons are valid; it says nothing about self-pardons.
The fact that Vox could find a bunch of politically motivated experts to trash Trump proves nothing. Cohen’s testimony, on it’s own, can not even be used in court without confirming evidence.
Basically, if Cohen acted on his own then he arguably broke the law, but Trump is clear. If Cohen acted on Trump’s direction, no law was broken except perhaps a reporting violation. Dershowitz: “Failure to report all campaign contributions is fairly common in political campaigns. Moreover, the offense is committed not by the candidate but, rather, by the campaign and is generally subject to a fine.”
Mike M. (Comment #170041)
“If Cohen acted on Trump’s direction, no law was broken except perhaps a reporting violation.”
____
I thought Cohen pleaded guilty to two campaign felonies, and said as Trump’s lawyer, he broke the laws under Trump’s direction. Directing commission of a felony is a felony.
It seems reasonable that Trump would tell his lawyer what he wants done. Trump, however, claims Cohen is lying about what took place between them. Since Trump can’t be indicted and put on trial, how can the public find out if he too is a felon?
Since Trump can’t be indicted and put on trial, how can the public find out if he too is a felon?
corroborating evidence?
Always good.
Only crime here is blackmail.
Which Mueller seems to be the prime exponent.
OK_Max (Comment #170044):”I thought Cohen pleaded guilty to two campaign felonies, and said as Trump’s lawyer, he broke the laws under Trump’s direction. Directing commission of a felony is a felony.”
It is not at all clear that Cohen broke the law.
.
OK_Max: “Since Trump can’t be indicted and put on trial, how can the public find out if he too is a felon?”
Trump is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. There is no reason to believe that Trump did anything felonious.
angech (Comment #170045)
“Since Trump can’t be indicted and put on trial, how can the public find out if he too is a felon?
corroborating evidence?”
“Only crime here is blackmail.
Which Mueller seems to be the prime exponent.”
_________
Corroborating evidence would be of interest to the public. Evidence without a trial, however, does not result in a legal verdict, and if there is to be no trial, what official body, if any, seeks the evidence?
What blackmail ?
OK_Max (Comment #170047): “What blackmail ?”
Bringing exaggerated and/or bogus charges against people like Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, and Papadoupolous to coerce them into pleading guilty and perhaps providing, or “composing”, evidence that could be used against Trump. Not technically blackmail, but in that spirit.
Mike M. (Comment #170046)
“Trump is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. There is no reason to believe that Trump did anything felonious.”
__________
Cohen’s testimony under oath is reason to suspect Trump. If Trump weren’t President, he likely would be investigated, and the result could be indictment. But as President,Trump is above the law. He has no need to worry about having to testify under oath.
Trump wanted to hide his affairs with the two women so he arranged for Cohen to pay them to keep quiet. The under-the-table way they went about it broke campaign law. I don’t know why Trump didn’t just pay the women directly out of his own pocket.
OK_Max “The under-the-table way they went about it broke campaign law.”
What law did that break? Real question. Cohen plead guilty to making illegal contributions. How does that implicate Trump?
Mike M. (Comment #170048)
August 23rd, 2018 at 6:47 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170047): “What blackmail ?â€
Bringing exaggerated and/or bogus charges against people like Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, and Papadoupolous to coerce them into pleading guilty and perhaps providing, or “composingâ€, evidence that could be used against Trump. Not technically blackmail, but in that spirit.
________
Mike M, I think you are suggesting the prosecution coerces the defendants into committing perjury, committing not only a crime itself, but adding to the crimes of the defendant. The “blackmail” could go something like this:
We have dirt on you, but make up dirt on Trump, and we will let you off easy.
Mike M, why do you have so little faith in the judicial system?
I have no faith in out-of-control prosecutors like Mueller (or Ken Starr) because they have shown themselves of being not deserving of faith.
Mike M. (Comment #170050)
August 23rd, 2018 at 7:46 pm
OK_Max “The under-the-table way they went about it broke campaign law.â€
What law did that break? Real question. Cohen plead guilty to making illegal contributions. How does that implicate Trump?
_____
Didn’t do it for himself, did it for Trump, because Trump wanted
him to, so he says. Makes sense.
Hard to imagine this happening: “WHAT, you paid that b*tch $150,000 ! Who told you to do that ! I should fire your dumb
butt. You are supposed to be a lawyer.”
OK_Max (Comment #170053): “Didn’t do it for himself, did it for Trump, because Trump wanted him to, so he says. Makes sense.”
Makes no sense at all. Why would Cohen spend his own money? And how does that implicate Trump?
The thing I have not been able to find, is whose money was used for the payoffs (which, in themselves, were perfectly legal). It does not seem to have been the campaign’s, since there is no accusation of improper campaign spending. If it was Trump’s, it was legal. So where did the money come from?
If Trump reimbursed Cohen, then this would be Trump paying the money, and the crime is that he didn’t report it on campaign disclosures. If done at Trump’s direction, this would be deliberately evading campaign finance law.
If Trump did not reimburse Cohen, then they are saying it is too large an amount, in excess of $2700 limit. Trump campaign would be liable for accepting such a large donation. If done at Trump’s direction, that would be a somewhat serious charge.
There is still the underlying issue that the payments are not illegal, and were not done with campaign money. Mark Penn points out that if Trump had used campaign money for this, he would be charged for that, embezzling of campaign funds for personal use.
MikeN (Comment #170056)
MikeN, thanks for the information. Some of it was new to me.
I don’t know the whole story on Michael Cohen’s campaign law violations and how Trump was involved. More information will come out in time, but I will try to lay out what I know so far.
Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making two illegal contributions to Trump’s presidential campaign (1) a corporate contribution of $150,000,and (2) a personal contribution of $130,000. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), the limit for a corporate contribution for a candidate is $5,000, and for an individual, $2,700.
Cohen’s attorney,Lanny Davis, said in a statement. “This is Michael fulfilling his promise made on July 2nd to put his family and country first and tell the truth about Donald Trump. Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen,then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump? ”
The illegal $150,000 corporate contribution refers the payment Karen McDougal received in August 2016 from American Media, Inc. (AMI), publisher of the National Enquirer, for her story about a 10-month affair she had with Donald Trump. AMI never ran the story. It looks like AMI’s intention was to prevent the story from being told (the company had exclusive rights) in order to protect Trump’s campaign, and thus amounted to a corporate campaign contribution.
The role of Michael Cohen here is not clear to me. but I presume he asked AMI chairman David Pecker, a personal friend of Trump, to buy the story as a favor to Trump. The question is was Cohen directed by Trump in this dealings with Pecker? I also wonder since Pecker was a good friend did Trump have direct dealings with him about Karen Mcdougal? And is Pecker himself guilty of breaking campaign law?
The illegal $130,000 personal contribution refers to amount Cohen himself paid to Stormy Daniels for her agreement to keep quiet about an affair she had with Trump. Had Trump himself paid for the agreement, my understanding is no campaign law would have been violated. Why Cohen made the payment with his own money, even mortgaging his house for the funds, is a mystery to me. Was this done in an attempt to conceal that the arrangement was for Trump’s benefit. Even though Trump later reimbursed him, Cohen still violated the campaign law. The question is did Trump direct
Cohen to pay Stormy Daniels in the way he did and why?
OK_Max (Comment #170057):
Thanks, that helps.
.
OK_Max: “It looks like AMI’s intention was to prevent the story from being told (the company had exclusive rights) in order to protect Trump’s campaign, and thus amounted to a corporate campaign contribution.”
I gather that is the claim. But how can the intention be established? Trump, or his friends, protecting his reputation and his family need not have anything to do with the campaign.
If they could somehow establish that the purpose of the payment was for the campaign and that Trump was involved in it (both iffy) then I can see where Trump would have a problem.
.
OK_Max: “And is Pecker himself guilty of breaking campaign law?”
I don’t see how. Trump using his own money would not violate any law, no matter the purpose.
.
Trump did nothing that was even a fraction as bad as what Hillary did. I agree with not prosecuting Hillary. Prosecutions should carefully avoid even the appearance of being politically motivated, since democracy can not long survive politically motivated prosecutions.
Mueller and his cheerleaders are working from the autocrats playbook. They are a far bigger threat to democracy than Trup could ever be.
I believe the situation is that if Trump would have paid the women off to protect the Trump brand even if he hadn’t been running for President, then it isn’t campaign related and isn’t a crime. Proving intent amounts to mind reading.
We’ve been through something like this before with John Edwards who was running for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. There was hush money involved there. It destroyed Edward’s political career, but he had an image of being a good family man, unlike Trump.
Edwards was indicted on six charges and brought to trial. He was acquitted on one charge and a mistrial was declared on the other five.
OK_Max: “Even though Trump later reimbursed him, Cohen still violated the campaign law.â€
I don’t see how. Trump using his own money would not violate any law, no matter the purpose.
_______
It may be like theft. Even if the thief pays the victim back, he still
has broken the law.
I hope we find out why Cohen used his own money to pay Stormy Daniels. That really puzzles me. The only reasons I can imagine are
(1) he liked Trump so much he was willing to mortgage his house to
pay Daniels for the silence agreement, hoping that Trump would
show his appreciation by reimbursement, or (2) he and Trump
wanted the agreement to conceal Trump’s involvement.
The wording of the agreement with Daniels may provide the answer.
I do recall her saying something about not being bound by the agreement because it was not between Trump and her.
Thank you for the Pecker link. I agree if the Karen McDougal deal
was a campaign violation, he looks guilty. The immunity must have
to do with that deal.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170059)
August 24th, 2018 at 9:21 am
I believe the situation is that if Trump would have paid the women off to protect the Trump brand even if he hadn’t been running for President, then it isn’t campaign related and isn’t a crime. Proving intent amounts to mind reading.
_____
Yes, proving intent is difficult, but the timing of the agreements with the two women may be incriminating. Didn’t Trumps affairs with the women occur long before he began campaigning for
President, while the agreements were made after he began? If so,
it would look like the purpose of keeping the women quiet was
to protect the campaign.
OK_Max,
Kimberley Strassel’s column in today’s WSJ raises questions about the one-sidedness of Mueller’s investigation.
And they are now witnessing unequal treatment in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. Yes, the former FBI director deserves credit for smoking out the Russian trolls who interfered in 2016. And one can argue he is obliged to pursue any evidence of criminal acts, even those unrelated to Russia. But what cannot be justified is the one-sided nature of his probe.
Specifically:
If there is only “one set of rules,†where is Mr. Mueller’s referral of a case against Hillary for America? Federal law requires campaigns to disclose the recipient and purpose of any payments. The Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to compile a dossier against Mr. Trump, a document that became the basis of the Russia narrative Mr. Mueller now investigates. But the campaign funneled the money to law firm Perkins Coie, which in turn paid Fusion. The campaign falsely described the money as payment for “legal services.†The Democratic National Committee did the same. A Perkins Coie spokesperson has claimed that neither the Clinton campaign nor the DNC was aware that Fusion GPS had been hired to conduct the research, and maybe so. But a lot of lawyers here seemed to have been ignoring a clear statute, presumably with the intent of influencing an election.
That’s just one example. There are several more in the article. Mueller is apparently only pursuing the Republican violations and apparently completely ignoring evidence staring him in the face of equally serious violations by the Democrats.
But of course he can’t look at the whole Fusion GPS mess without calling into question the validity of the origin of his remit, not to mention the FBI’s and the intelligence community’s dirty laundry.
OK_Max (Comment #170060): “It may be like theft. Even if the thief pays the victim back, he still has broken the law.”
According to Alan Dershowitz, that is not the case.
.
OK_Max: “I hope we find out why Cohen used his own money to pay Stormy Daniels.”
I think that is simple. It was the hectic last days of the campaign, so he made the payment, trusting Trump to reimburse him. I can’t count the times I spent my own money, expecting my employer to reimburse me. Never more than a few thousand, but then I wasn’t a high flying lawyer working for a billionaire.
.
OK_Max : “he was willing to mortgage his house”
I have not seen that claim except from you. What I have seen is that he used a personal line of credit.
.
OK_Max: “or (2) he and Trump wanted the agreement to conceal Trump’s involvement.”
Conceal it from whom? I am not saying they would not have wanted to conceal it, only that using Trump’s money directly would have made no difference.
.
OK_Max: “if the Karen McDougal dealwas a campaign violation, he [Pecker] looks guilty.”
For Pecker to be guilty the money would have to have been spent for the campaign and at the specific behest of the campaign or the candidate. A citizen can spend as much as he wants to support a candidate, as long as he does it on his own.
—–
OK_Max (Comment #170061): “Yes, proving intent is difficult, but the timing of the agreements with the two women may be incriminating.”
.
Trump did not control the timing. The two women did.
Max, in the payment by Enquirer there was a deal that Cohen would buy the rights to the story after they bought it. However, the deal was cancelled so Enquirer paid but Cohen did not pay Enquirer. This was probably at the request of Enquirer’s lawyers who might have pointed out that intent is clear if they sell to Cohen. The charge is not that Cohen donated, but that he arranged for the company to donate.
Trump paying with his own money is still a crime under the theory that this is campaign spending, because it would not have been properly reported.
Cohen paid and then charged Trump $420,000. I don’t know how they can argue that it is personal donation if they are also saying Trump directed it and reimbursed. It is not the same as stealing and giving back, as here there is no original crime.
I don’t see a difference between this and a printer providing $100,000 worth of signs and flyers, and you pay him afterwards.
Except that it is questionable if this really is a campaign expense. If Trump had paid the $130,000 with campaign funds, do you think this would have been OK, or would people argue he was embezzling?
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170062)
Kimberley Strassel’s column in today’s WSJ raises questions about the one-sidedness of Mueller’s investigation.
______
DeWitt, as you mentioned, Strassel’s WSJ column is paywalled, and
since I am not a subscriber, I don’t have access. The parts you quoted, however, do give me a good idea of her thinking. I’m not sure Mueller jurisdiction extends to investigating Hillary Clinton’s
campaign financing, which Strassel thinks he should do to be fair.
The only language I saw which might allow Mueller to investigate
Hillary’s campaign financing is Section 600.4b of The General Powers:
“Section 600.4b) Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.”
RE Mike M. (Comment #170063)
It seems to me that would be the case. If not, individuals could
break the $2,700 contribution limit, and if caught, beat the charge by having the candidate reimburse them.
Regarding intent and timing , IMO Trump wanted to silence the two women because he was running for President, not to protect his
family. Had he been concerned about hurting his family, he would
not have been involved with these women in the first place.
MikeN (Comment #170064)
“Except that it is questionable if this really is a campaign expense. If Trump had paid the $130,000 with campaign funds, do you think this would have been OK, or would people argue he was embezzling?”
_______
Good question. I guess if he said campaign funds were used to prevent the women from damaging his campaign, it could be a campaign expense.
OK_Max,
Try actually reading the quote. She didn’t say that Mueller needed to be the one to prosecute the Clinton campaign.
where is Mr. Mueller’s referral of a case against Hillary for America?
Mueller’s team does not have to exceed their authority to prosecute someone when they find evidence of a crime in the course of their investigation. He didn’t prosecute Cohen. He referred the case to the US Attorney’s office in New York after the team uncovered the evidence. Again, where are the referrals for the known crimes of the Clinton campaign.
OK_Max,
And if you say that the Steele Dossier is outside the remit of the Mueller team, you aren’t paying attention. Steele’s sources were Russian. So if the Mueller team hasn’t investigated GPS Fusion, then there’s really something rotten in Denmark.
RE DeWitt Payne (Comments #170068 and 170069)
You say I said prosecute, but I didn’t. I said investigate.
Nor did I say the Steele Dossier is outside the remit of the
Mueller team. I didn’t say anything about it at all.
I’m not familiar with the “known crimes of the Clinton
campaign,†but if they are known maybe Mueller will get
to them before he finishes.
OK_Max,
This had been an interesting discussion, but now you seem to be suddenly playing dumb.
.
(Comment #170065): “I’m not sure Mueller jurisdiction extends to investigating Hillary Clinton’s campaign financing, which Strassel thinks he should do to be fair.”
Strassel said nothing about Clinton’s financing. The Clinton campaign paid to have Russian disinformation inserted into the campaign and fraudulently reported those payments. That is surely much closer to Mueller’s remit than things that Manafort did 10 years ago or that are Trump’s private affairs.
.
(Comment #170066): “If not, individuals could break the $2,700 contribution limit, and if caught, beat the charge by having the candidate reimburse them.”
You can’t be serious.
.
(Comment #170066) “Had he been concerned about hurting his family, he would
not have been involved with these women in the first place.”
Of course, but that is irrelevant. You need to acquire a greater familiarity with the real world. By your logic, people cheating on their spouses would never try to conceal what they are doing.
.
(Comment #170067): “I guess if he said campaign funds were used to prevent the women from damaging his campaign, it could be a campaign expense.”
You know perfectly well that would never fly.
.
(Comment #170070): “Nor did I say the Steele Dossier is outside the remit of the
Mueller team.”
Then you are being disingenuous since that is what the Strassel excerpt is about.
Mike M. (Comment #170058)
OK_Max: “Even though Trump later reimbursed him, Cohen still violated the campaign law.â€
I don’t see how. Trump using his own money would not violate any law, no matter the purpose.
_______
It may be like theft. Even if the thief pays the victim back, he still has broken the law.
Or it might be like me wanting to buy my mother’s friends vintage china. Mom bought it, paid for it, then I reimbursed her. One big difference between this and theft is that everyone involved agreed to each step. Mom’s friend accepted the money– entirely legally. Mom chose to shell out– entirely legally. I paid her back– also legal.
I have no idea what the actual law says about the Cohen transactions. But merely saying it might be like theft isn’t a strong argument that it is anything like theft. “Like theft” seems to be a fairly poor analogy to me. But they might be illegal for other reasons for the same reason that other things that also are not “like theft” are illegal.
Mike M. (Comment #170071)
“This had been an interesting discussion, but now you seem to be suddenly playing dumb.”
_____
I get dumb when sleepy and don’t explain things well.
Re (Comment #170065) I meant to say Clinton’s possible campaign
violations, not just campaign finance violations. If you will read
Rosenstein’s letter in my link you may understand why I’m not sure
Mueller has the authority to investigate Clinton, although Section 600.4b of The General Powers would seem to give him that authority
if he requests it and the AG approves it.
RE (Comment #170066): Seriously, it would be a get out of jail free
card. Suppose, a very wealthy supporter of a very wealthy candidate
paid $500,000 more for a campaign expense than allowed by law, knowing that if caught, the candidate could erase the violation by
just repaying him. Since getting caught isn’t certain, why not do it?
RE (Comment #170066): If you mean by timing, Trump didn’t initiate contact with the women regarding hush deals, I would agree.
His need for hush agreements arose only after he started
campaigning. I doubt the women have initiated threats to expose Trump and he would have paid them for keeping quiet had he not been running for office. But I’m not sure what these or other women tried to do before he started campaigning.
Re (Comment #170067) I don’t know what you mean by “never fly,” but I can’t see him doing it. It would defeat the purpose.
Re (Comment #170070) I don’t understand what you mean.
OK_Max (Comment #170073): “Seriously, it would be a get out of jail free card. Suppose, a very wealthy supporter of a very wealthy candidate paid $500,000 more for a campaign expense than allowed by law, knowing that if caught, the candidate could erase the violation by just repaying him.”
No, that would not erase the violation.
That example is nothing like Cohen. There are two huge differences. (1) Cohen worked for Trump. He routinely incurred expenses that he billed to Trump or was reimbursed for. (2) Cohen was reimbursed by Trump shorty after incurring the expense, not aftre getting caught.
Lucia (Comment #170072)
“Or it might be like me wanting to buy my mother’s friends vintage china. Mom bought it, paid for it, then I reimbursed her. One big difference between this and theft is that everyone involved agreed to each step. Mom’s friend accepted the money– entirely legally. Mom chose to shell out– entirely legally. I paid her back– also legal.”
_______
lucia, in your hypothetical example, your mother’s payment didn’t break a law. Cohen’s payment did break a law. His payment to hush Stormy Daniels exceeded the legal limit for an individual’s campaign contribution by about $125,000, and he has pleaded guilty to this crime.
Consider my hypothetical example. Suppose my mother knows I want a bottle of wine costing $100, so she steals the wine, gives it to me, and I drink it. Later, she is charged for theft. Regardless of whether I then pay the wine merchant $100, she has broken the law.
I would be innocent of any crime unless I asked her to steal the wine (conspiracy to commit a crime) or didn’t ask but knew you stole it and consumed or kept it anyway (receiving stolen goods).
In Trump’s case the question is did he direct Cohen to make the campaign contribution, which exceeded the legal limit for Cohen,
or did Trump not know Cohen was going to make that illegal
contribution. Since Cohen has already confessed to breaking the law
by making the excessive contribution, the question many people
are asking is if Trump directed him to do it, wouldn’t Trump also have broken the law?
According to Cohen’s Lawyer, Cohen says Trump did direct him to break the law by paying Daniels with Cohen’s own money. He used
a line of credit on his house to pay her $130,000 to keep quiet about
her affair with Trump. Later Trump reimbursed Cohen in installments ( I forget the installment amounts).
Why the Daniels agreement was handled in this way is not clear.
I do believe Trump would have wanted a curtain between him and
the Daniels agreement to the extent possible, and having no trail
of money from him to her would be one way to conceal that he had
paid her for something. I suspect that’s why he could have wanted Cohen to pay Daniels. Reimbursing Cohen in installments suggests Trump didn’t have or couldn’t raise $130,000 in cash, but that seems unlikely. There must have been another reason.
BTW, my mother doesn’t steal wine for me, and I have never tasted
a $100 wine.
Mike M. (Comment #170074)
Don’t forget Cohen has already pleaded guilty to breaking
a law by making illegal campaign contributions. You seem
to think he needlessly pleaded guilty because he really
didn’t break that law. Why would a sane innocent person
plead guilty?
I anticipate your answer will be Cohen could have been
coerced by the prosecution to plead guilty to two crimes
he didn’t commit in exchange for reduced sentences for
crimes he did commit, the prosecution’s objective being
to imply Trump is guilty of the same two crimes because
he directed Cohen, and the judge could also have been in
on the scheme.
OK_Max
Why would a sane innocent personplead guilty?
It is well known that many perfectly sane innocent people plead guilty. There are many reasons to do so, one is to reduce cost of defending themselves and risk of being found guilty even if they aren’t.
In fact, many people applauded Mark Cuban for fighting the SEC who charged him with insider trading. He spent loads and loads of money defending himself and was found not guilty. But it was expensive. He was wealthy enough that defending himself would require him to bankrupt his family and leave wife and dependent children homeless. That’s not the case for some other people, so they cop a plea because the punishment for the offense the confess too is less than the “punishment” of losing every penny they have.
I anticipate your answer will be Cohen could have been
coerced by the prosecution to plead guilty to two crimes he didn’t commit in exchange for reduced sentences for crimes he did commit,
well…. that wasn’t the reason I gave. 🙂 Perhaps Mike M would have given that reason.
But sometimes that is a reason since people have for pleading guilty to a lesser offense they did not commit to avoid being prosecuted for a heavier one they did commit. But as I noted: perfectly sane people sometimes plead guilty for other reasons.
I’m surprised, but maybe I shouldn’t be given my ignorance of legal matters. I’d have figured Cohen was Trump’s attorney-in-fact at the time of the Stormy Daniels payment. I wouldn’t have thought he was making a ‘campaign contribution’ as a separate individual.
I anticipate your answer will be Cohen could have been coerced by the prosecution to plead guilty to two crimes
he didn’t commit in exchange for reduced sentences for
crimes he did commit, the prosecution’s objective being
to imply Trump is guilty of the same two crimes because
he directed Cohen, and the judge could also have been in
on the scheme.
The judge wouldn’t need to be in on the ‘scheme’, as you put it. I don’t find it far fetched at all to speculate that Mueller really doesn’t give a hoot about Cohen, but that he is after Trump. In fact, I’d call that pretty obvious.
OK_Max (Comment #170076): “Why would a sane innocent person
plead guilty?”
I doubt you are really that naive. It happens all the time, a recent example being Michael Flynn. It is extremely difficult for an individual to fight the entire might of the federal government. Many people decide that the risk-reward ratio is not worth it.
.
OK_Max: “I anticipate your answer … ”
Right.
.
OK_Max: “the judge could also have been in on the scheme.”
I see no reason to think that.
OK_Max
lucia, in your hypothetical example, your mother’s payment didn’t break a law. Cohen’s payment did break a law. His payment to hush Stormy Daniels exceeded the legal limit for an individual’s campaign contribution by about $125,000, and he has pleaded guilty to this crime.
Your argument is circular. Cohen arranging and conveying the payment is only a crime if Cohen actually made a contribution. If he merely advanced Trump the funds, with an agreement that Trump will reimburse, then Trump paid it. If so, the money is not an individual campaign contribution. Trump buying himself things with his own money isn’t a contribution and doesn’t become so if he follows common business protocols of having an employee or representative do so on his behalf.
People are allowed to have others pay on their behalf. Many wealthy people have accounting firms or a manager of some sort do business, and things like write checks on their behalf. Those firms might advance money, send the check and so on. They then get reimbursed. When they do so, they are acting on behalf of their client.
Heck, assistants sometimes buy flowers for their boss’s wife and then get reimbursed. The boss might even have a standing order for the secretary to buy the flowers once a week and so on. That gift of flowers is from the boss, not the secretary. The character of this arrangement doesn’t change merely because the wealthy person involved later became President, nor because the item arranged for was covering up a sordid affair.
If done this way, a payoff from Cohen would be Cohen making and arrangement and conveying money on Trumps behalf. It would not be Cohen’s own contribution and so not a violation of campaign laws.
You can’t change this merely by just creating a non-analogous hypothetical in which my mom steals wine in the first place. Yes. Her stealing in the first place is stealing and can’t become not stealing. But that doesn’t necessarily turn Cohen’s writing a check or arranging a campaign contribution. It might have been, or it might not.
The whole Stormy Daniels thing is sordid. It reflects badly on Trump. But it remains to be seen whether the money is a campaign contribution because we do not yet know the source of the funds, who authorized it and so on.
But it remains to be seen whether the money is a campaign contribution because we do not yet know the source of the funds, who authorized it and so on.
I should add this is true even though Cohen confessed to conveying the money.
lucia (Comment #170077)
August 25th, 2018 at 4:35 pm
OK_Max
“It is well known that many perfectly sane innocent people plead guilty. There are many reasons to do so, one is to reduce cost of defending themselves and risk of being found guilty even if they aren’t.
In fact, many people applauded Mark Cuban for fighting the SEC who charged him with insider trading. He spent loads and loads of money defending himself and was found not guilty.”
_________
lucia,I wasn’t aware that many innocent people plead guilty, although if the penalty is a fine with no jail time and no further consequences, a guilty plea could be less costly than legal fees resulting from a not guilty plea and a not guilty verdict, and even much less costly than the consequences of a guilty verdict.
Mark Cuban is not an example of an innocent person who pled guilty.
He plead not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury. He claims
his legal fees were greater than the fine would have been had he
plead guilty, but believes it was worth it.
There must be examples of innocent defendants who pled guilty to
save money and/or for other reasons.
About 95% of felony convictions in the United States (and at least as many misdemeanor convictions) are obtained by guilty pleas, but only 15% of known exonerees pled guilty (261/1,702). It would be comforting to conclude that defendants who plead guilty are far less likely to be innocent than those who are convicted at trial, but it’s not true. …
Max_OK
lucia,I wasn’t aware that many innocent people plead guilty, although if the penalty is a fine with no jail time and no further consequences
Whether “many” people do it, I can’t say. However, it happens, and not infrequently. This is widely known. However, evidently you aren’t aware of it. That merely means you are unaware of something that happens; it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Mark Cuban is not an example of an innocent person who pled guilty.
He plead not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury.
Oh? I guess you view it that way. Others disagree with you. Evidently the jury diagreed with you. Perhaps the SEC did not think he was innocent. But the jury disagreed with the SEC.
He claims
his legal fees were greater than the fine would have been had he
plead guilty, but believes it was worth it.
He was rich and preferred to spend the money rather than plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. Less wealthy people might have chosen to plead guilty even though they considered themselves innocent. Some do.
Obviously, if you decree that people who plead guilty must be guilty, and also decree that people who plead innocent are guilty it will be rather difficult to present you with an example of someone who was charged, but innocent who you will accept as innocent. I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time trying to find an example who meets your standards because it seems your standard may be that those who are charged must be guilty!
Max, I think it was in Enron case, or maybe Morgan Stanley, where the judge threw out a plea agreement, because he was pleading guilty to something that wasn’t a crime.
Only 8% of all federal criminal charges in 2013 were dismissed, and more than 97% were completed through plea bargain. And only 3% went to trial. The plea bargain often will decide the sentence that is given to you. Many defendants decide to go for a plea bargain because the odds are high that if you are convicted, the sentence will be much worse.
in some cases it can be appropriate for innocent people to plead guilty. The criminal process is long, time-consuming and uncertain. If the prosecution is willing to accept a deal that ends the process quickly, it can be a good idea to accept the bargain.
Things that would have been found out about the Clinton campaign from the Mueller investigation, or possibly earlier, and needed investigation or could be referred for prosecution.
Hillary Clinton campaign funded the Steele Dossier, thru Perkins Coie who hired Fusion GPS. This made Hillary’s opposition research spending get hidden on campaign finance reports as ‘legal expenses’. This is illegal, and is exactly the campaign finance charge Trump would be accused of if he had cut out Michael Cohen from the payment portion.
Person at the Trump Tower meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin testified to Congress that he knew Hillary Clinton, ‘some people who worked on her campaign’. It is suspected he is a major source for the Steele Dossier.
Material presented at this meeting was prepared by Glenn Simpson, who met with the Russian lady the day before and after the meeting, but he says he didn’t know about the meeting.
Also needing investigation by Mueller is that Steele was being paid by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who is on the US sanctions list. Recent text messages have come to light showing Steele talking to Bruce Ohr about helping ‘our guy’.
Deripaska’s lawyer/lobbyist Adam Waldman was communicating with Sen Warner, about getting in touch with Steele in early 2017. Waldman also represents Julian Assange.
Paul Manafort lobbied on behalf of Deripaska along with Waldman and Steele.
Only Mueller is conflicted, because he tried to get Deripaska’s help(tens of millions of dollars) to free an FBI agent 10 years ago.
lucia (Comment #170085)
lucia, I said “Mark Cuban is not an example of an innocent person who pled guilty. He plead not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury.”
You said “Oh? I guess you view it that way. Others disagree with you. Evidently the jury diagreed with you. Perhaps the SEC did not think he was innocent. But the jury disagreed with the SEC.
lucia, I don’t understand what you are saying. Perhaps my wording was confusing. Would it have been clearer had I said he was an innocent man who pled not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury?
Back to the subject of Cohen’s guilty plea, I find it easy to believe
Trump wanted him to pay for a hush agreement with Stormy Daniels,
and promised to reimburse him for its cost. The problem may be with the way it was done. According to Cohen the agreement was
between Daniels and his company, which I would take to mean rather than between Daniels and Trump.
In the eyes of the law I believe Cohen would be seen as the buyer and owner of the hush agreement, unless there was a previous contract between the two men stating that Cohen was buying the hush agreement for Trump to own and would be reimbursed. If there was such a contract, I think it would mean Cohen is not guilty of violating a campaign finance law. I don’t know if a verbal contract would work here.
These are just some thoughts. I’m not a lawyer and have no legal training.
M Bofill: “And in fact it’s the opinion of a former FEC Chairman (Bradley Smith) that this is exactly the case with Cohen; that he has plead guilty to something that isn’t a crime.”
I checked this out. Smith is not a fringe character. In addition to being former FEC chair, he is a law professor. The extremely relevant quotation from your article is this:
…..
“it has to be something that exists ONLY because of the campaign and SOLELY for that reason.”
…..
So, if it was 90% for the campaign and 10% to save embarrassment from his wife, there is no criminal violation according to the former FEC chair. If Cohen pled guilty to something that wasn’t a crime (with the assistance of Clinton lawyer) and the collusion of the NY AG (working hand in glove with Mueller) that is corruption of the highest order. Not a criminal lawyer, but I suspect one crime would be obstruction of justice.
…..
So, why did Cohen do it?
[From the article]”It was apparent to me that Lanny Davis’s primary charge was to rescue Cohen from the prison term his innumerable foibles and illegalities would generate. But there was also a political and personal side benefit to Davis’s retainer: embarrass and indirectly charge Trump with a crime. This would provide a fig leaf of legal grounds for impeachment should the Democrats take over the House of Representatives or, if that did not eventuate, to drive Trump’s approval down to the point that he would became essentially impotent and thus unviable in 2020.”
….
If there are substantial grounds to contend that this isn’t a crime, this could (and should) backfire big time on Mueller.
JD
OK_max
lucia, I said “Mark Cuban is not an example of an innocent person who pled guilty. He plead not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury.â€
You said “Oh? I guess you view it that way. Others disagree with you. Evidently the jury diagreed with you. Perhaps the SEC did not think he was innocent. But the jury disagreed with the SEC.
lucia, I don’t understand what you are saying. Perhaps my wording was confusing. Would it have been clearer had I said he was an innocent man who pled not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury?
If you meant to say he was an innocent man, then, yes, it would be clearer if you said he was innocent. But you wrote this
“Mark Cuban is not an example of an innocent person who pled guilty. He plead not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury.â€
When I read it, and even now that I read it, it appears you were saying he was not innocent.
I agree he plead not guilty. I did not suggest he was someone who plead guilty. I gave him as the rare example of an innocent person who spent tons of money rather than plead guilty to save money. In his position, lots of people plead guilty and many people were surprised he did not plead guilty despite his innocence because most people do plead down to avoid the hassle and risk of the trial and so on..
OK_Max
The problem may be with the way it was done.
There may have been a problem or not. We don’t know yet.
If there was such a contract, I think it would mean Cohen is not guilty of violating a campaign finance law. I don’t know if a verbal contract would work here.
Verbal contracts are generally binding. There are exceptions for certain things– like real estate purchases. They are harder to prove, but they are generally binding.
It’s a bit weird that Stormy’s contract is with Cohen’s firm, but paid for by Trump. But if Trump paid for the agreement out of his own personal pocket, I don’t know how the contract being with Cohen’s firm turns it into a campaig contribution.
In this case, Trump reimbursing Cohen is consistent with Cohen, Trumps’ attorney in fact, carrying out Trump’s request. So I’m pretty sure an unbiased jury would tend to believe Trump if he said Cohen was acting on his behalf– which is a perfectly ordinary thing for a lawyer to do.
The issue of which pot of money Trump used to reimburse Cohen might matter to whether there is a campaign finance violation. But if Trump paid from his own personal pocket, I think there wouldn’t be one. If it’s from a corporate account or from a “campaign” fund, I think there might be.
We don’t know yet. For what it’s worth, Cohen might not know. He might only know he got reimbursed.
Trump paid with Trump organization money, and this was then reimbursed from Trump family funds. NY AG is looking into whether this constitutes false expensing by Trump organization as legal expenses.
JD, it is not NY AG but SDNY that prosecuted Cohen. Andy McCarthy worked with the lead prosecutor on the Blind Sheikh case and considers him to be very ethical.
lucia (Comment #170094)
August 25th, 2018 at 11:03 pm
OK_Max
The problem may be with the way it was done.
There may have been a problem or not. We don’t know yet.
_________
No, we don’t know the details, but speculation is good exercise for the imagination.
Regarding verbal agreements, if there was one between Trump and Cohen on doing the Stormy Daniels non-disclosure deal, we could believe it if they agreed on the details of the agreement. I would
be surprised if they now would agree.
MikeN (Comment #170086)
August 25th, 2018 at 8:39 pm
Max, I think it was in Enron case, or maybe Morgan Stanley, where the judge threw out a plea agreement, because he was pleading guilty to something that wasn’t a crime.
_______
I doubt this happens much. The justice system would be a farce if lots of defendants were charged with non-crimes.
mark bofill (Comment #170083)
August 25th, 2018 at 7:04 pm
This may be relevant.
About 95% of felony convictions in the United States (and at least as many misdemeanor convictions) are obtained by guilty pleas, but only 15% of known exonerees pled guilty (261/1,702). It would be comforting to conclude that defendants who plead guilty are far less likely to be innocent than those who are convicted at trial, but it’s not true. …
______
Only 5% of convictions come from defendants who plead not guilty.
This could mean charges against the non-guilty are rare and/or
prosecutors do a lousy job of convicting defendants who plead not
guilty. We will never know what percent of defendants who plead not guilty and are found not guilty actually are guilty.
mark bofill (Comment #170088)
August 25th, 2018 at 9:14 pm
And in fact it’s the opinion of a former FEC Chairman (Bradley Smith) that this is exactly the case with Cohen; that he has plead guilty to something that isn’t a crime.
________
He wasn’t the judge. Had he been the judge, I think it would have been his responsibility to ask Cohen why he, a lawyer who should
know better, was wasting the court’s time by pleading guilty
to something that isn’t a crime.
JD, thanks!
.
Max,
We will never know what percent of defendants who plead not guilty and are found not guilty actually are guilty.
I’m sorry if the link I provided was unclear. My point wasn’t about defendants who plead not guilty and who are found not guilty. My point was merely that innocent people plead guilty more often than one might think. Here is what might be a more clear story explaining the phenomena in Harris County Texas. The short form of it was this: Harris County started testing drug evidence even in cases where defendants pled guilty. In many cases defendants pled guilty even when no illegal drugs were found.
.
Also,
why he, a lawyer who should know better, was wasting the court’s time by pleading guilty to something that isn’t a crime.
Well, the article I linked discusses possible explanations for this and JD discusses them above.
OK_Max
I would be surprised if they now would agree.
Yes. But the circumstantial evidence would support the existence of such an agreement. We know:
(a) Cohen’s job was attorney in fact and “fixer”. This is the sort of task one expects in that job.
(b) Fixers and employees operating on verbal agreement is routine. (To do otherwise is cumbersome. No company writes a separate contract for every task incident to the normal job contract. You’d need a contract a day or more often and no work would ever get done.)
(c) Trump did reimburse Cohen, and did so promptly, long before the story became known to others.
(d) Trump didn’t fire Cohen for doing things behind his back. This suggest Cohen didn’t do anything Trump was surprised about when he reimbursed.
The hammer the USDA held over Cohen was the threat of jail time for both him and his wife at the same time for tax evasion…. very destructive for Cohen’s family. I suspect Cohen would plead to just about anything to keep his wife out of prison.
.
So whether Cohen was guilty of making an unlawful campaign contribution or not, the more substanrive legal issue was multiple counts of tax evasion for large undeclared income. The campaign contribution charge was just a two-fer for Mueller’s Trump posse, and an excuse to charge ‘high crimes’ should the Democrats gain control of the House in January.
Max,
Anyway, back to the idea that it’s some sort of conspiracy theory to think Mueller is systematically bringing legal pressure to bear on people in an effort to get to Trump – I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory if it’s widely known and reported. Here is a Reuters article explaining in quite plain, matter of fact language that this is the role of Andrew Weissmann on Mueller’s team, and that he developed this expertise in flipping organized crime witnesses. I expect one has to play pretty rough to flip mob witnesses. Of course I don’t really know, but the popular culture impression is that the stakes are life and death in ratting out the mafia.
[Edit: FWIW, SteveF may well be correct that what flipped Cohen was a threat to Cohen’s wife. Weissmann has used this tactic before:
Weissmann also led lengthy negotiations with lawyers for Andrew Fastow, Enron’s former chief financial officer and a star prosecution witness in the case, gaining leverage from the fact that prosecutors had indicted Fastow’s wife, also a former Enron employee, on tax fraud charges.
]
Thanks to mark bofill (Comment #170088) for the link with the clarifying quote from former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith.
No matter how much OK_Max tries to obfuscate, the situation is clear. The hush money payments were not campaign contributions. So it makes no difference who made the payments or who directed the payments; no crimes were committed.
Cohen’s guilty plea is just a result of prosecutorial extortion. Completely unsurprising to anyone familiar with the many abuses of power by the FBI when Mueller was in charge.
Mike M: “Cohen’s guilty plea is just a result of prosecutorial extortion. Completely unsurprising”
I wouldn’t view it completely that way. It is part of collusion and an inside game between the prosecutors and Cohen to get Trump. Cohen is a willing participant since he wants to get Trump, and they have the goods on him in other matters. The other charges may be extortion, but the campaign finance charge is a valuable bargaining chip for him to reduce the other probably valid charges.
JD
DOJ has the position that these sorts of things are campaign spending, regardless of FEC’s conclusion to the contrary in the Edwards case. So it is not prosecutorial misconduct to charge Cohen with this. At the time there was one acquittal and five no decisions by the jury, reportedly just one voting in favor of conviction(opposite of Manafort jury).
A judge would have a hard time rejecting this plea deal as a non-crime with disagreement like this.
I don’t get how it stays a contribution by Cohen if he was reimbursed.
It’s different if a law firm compensates their employees for their donations, allowing them to exceed the contribution limit.
I also don’t see edit button.
Trump’s violation of campaign finance law is non-existent, because it requires knowing and willful violation of the law. While Trump did intend to have this payment be done, he had no intention or awareness that this was campaign spending. Easy to establish this, since even the FEC does not have this awareness.
MikeN,
I have to set aside time to find a new plugin. It’s not time consuming, but I just haven’t done it.
MikeN (Comment #170105): “DOJ has the position that these sorts of things are campaign spending, regardless of FEC’s conclusion to the contrary in the Edwards case. So it is not prosecutorial misconduct to charge Cohen with this.”
The DoJ does not get to decide what the law is. So for them to try to enforce the law differently from the FEC is prosecutorial misconduct.
As JD points out, the Cohen case is not just prosecutorial extortion, it is also collusion between the prosecution and the defense. It seems to me that might also be prosecutorial misconduct.
It seems the Edwards case was complicated by the fact that it was his campaign finance chairman who solicited the payments to the mistress. Even so, the jury refused to buy the DoJ theory. Cohen worked for Trump, not his campaign.
.
MikeN (Comment #170106): “Trump’s violation of campaign finance law is non-existent, because it requires knowing and willful violation of the law. ”
Sadly, that is not true for federal regulatory violations. The EPA (as well as other agencies) has sent people to prison for breaking rules that they did not know existed while trying to do something beneficial. It is a major way in which the regulatory state is out of control and needs to be reigned in.
The flip side is that it is the regulatory agency that sets the rules. So DoJ has no business second guessing the regulators.
mark bofill (Comment #170099)
I’m sorry if the link I provided was unclear. My point wasn’t about defendants who plead not guilty and who are found not guilty. My point was merely that innocent people plead guilty more often than one might think.
_____
mark, the exoneration site said 261 defendants who pled guilty
were later exonerated, and they represented 15% of all 1,702 exonerees. My mac would only hold this site for a few seconds, before it went blank. Not sure why. Anyway, I believe these
numbers are cumulative rather than for one year.
Quoting from the same organization, the following link said Only 7% of exonerations were for drug and white collar crimes, but didn’t
give the statistic for white-collar alone.
We need to know how many years the statistics cover. If say
10 years are covered , the averages are 170 exonerees per
year, 26 of who had pleaded guilty. Of the 170 total, we
estimate about 12 ( .07 x 170 )were convicted of drug or
white-collar crimes, 2 of whom had pleaded guilty(.15 X 12).
I think 2 per year isn’t many. But this is just an exercise, since
I don’t know the actual number of years represented. I did the
estimates fast, so am not guaranteeing mistake free numbers
For whatever it’s worth, If I were charged with a crime I didn’t
commit, I can’t imagine entering a guilty plea.
OK_Max
If the number was 2 a year, it would not be many. But you are considering factors that reduce the number without considering other ones.
The number of exonerations is not remotely equal to the number of innocent people who were convicted.
Mark’s point is we have data that shows quite a few people plead guilty when, in fact, we know no crime was committed because the “drugs” the plead guilty of possessing turned out to not be drugs. He’s shown that.
FWIW Max,
Don’t get me wrong. Personally (as in: a speculative belief I don’t care to try to make an evidential case for) I think if Cohen’s not guilty of this he’s probably guilty as Cain of six or seven other things. I pretty much assume that to be the case when we are dealing with Federal level politicians, politics, [lawyers] and bureaucrats. So, it’s not that I think Cohen (or Trump) is any sort of saint. Rather, it’s just that what’s going on here / the case against him doesn’t have much of anything to do with justice, in my view. It’s not exactly just politics either. Special counsel is a strange beast, maybe.
shrug.
lucia (Comment #170110)
August 26th, 2018 at 12:16 pm
OK_Max
If the number was 2 a year, it would not be many. But you are considering factors that reduce the number without considering other ones.
_______
True. I was just trying to get some idea of magnitude. Available statistics may not show the number of white-collar crime
exonerees who had pled guilty. I didn’t find any in my search. The interest is in exonerees who had pled guilty to murder and rape.
Even if we had data on white-collar exonerees who had pled guilty,
it wouldn’t tell us how many pled guilty, were not guilty, and were
not exonerated. Who cares about them anyway. It’s those who were
executed or served long sentences the public cares about.
mark bofill (Comment #170102)
August 26th, 2018 at 8:14 am
Max,
Anyway, back to the idea that it’s some sort of conspiracy theory to think Mueller is systematically bringing legal pressure to bear on people in an effort to get to Trump – I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory if it’s widely known and reported. Here is a Reuters article explaining in quite plain, matter of fact language that this is the role of Andrew Weissmann on Mueller’s team, and that he developed this expertise in flipping organized crime witnesses…
_____
I suspect Cohen flipped because of the records the FBI confiscated
in the raid on his office. Although Cohen has already pleaded guilty
to several charges, he could testify about Trump, and those records
could back up his testimony.
OK_Max
True. I was just trying to get some idea of magnitude.
My point is you are going about it entirely the wrong way.
The interest is in exonerees who had pled guilty to murder and rape.
No. If by “the interest” you mean the conversation we are having here, the interest is in innocent people who plead guilty for crimes they did not commit. This interest was triggered by your questioning the notion that Cohen might plead guilty to a crime he did not commit.
That could be murder and rape. That could be drug possession. That could be any crime they did not commit.
The relevant thing is that people plead innocent to crimes we know they did not commit because the exculpatory evidence is overwhelming. We know these people represent the absolute lower bound on the number of innocent people who plead guilty. We also know the lower bound is likely to be much lower because in most cases it is impossible to prove someone absolutely could not have committed a crime.
In the case of rape and murder, DNA can be exculpatory. But for most crimes, there is no way to prove the negative. So innocent people who plead guilty cannot be detected.
OK_Max
he could testify about Trump, and those records
could back up his testimony.
If the seized records point to Trump’s illegal behavior, the prosecutors probably don’t need Cohen’s testimony. But they’d probably like it. So getting Cohen to testify is something they might like enough to allow him to cop a plea to a lesser crime instead of to a higher crime. Cohen would have a strong motive to plead guilty to the lesser crime even if he didn’t commit it in order to avoid jail for the higher one. (And in Cohen’s case, avoid jail for both him and his wife.)
All this explains why Cohen might plead guilty to a crime he did not commit, which is something many here have been telling you he might very well do– as others have done before him.
That the records might back up Cohen testimony against Trump might be a reason the prosecutors offered him a deal. It’s not really a motive for Cohen to flip. Cohen’s motive to flip is to avoid huge jail time and fines for things Cohen did.
The difficulty with prosecutors flipping Cohen– or anyone who sings in exchange for reduced charges and sentencing– is now they have a witness who might be motivated to make up fact to allow the tapes to seem to make the case the prosecutors “want”. Not saying Cohen will do that. But under the circumstances, his flipping can be seen a few different ways.
In some way, we are going to need to hear what the tapes reveal independent of Cohen’s testimony. If they don’t make a strong case on their own or with evidence separate from Cohen, Cohen’s testimony should be looked at somewhat suspiciously.
OTOH: Cohent’s testimony may just turn out to be the frosting on the evidence cake. Prosecutors still like that– as they should.
OK_Max (Comment #170109): “For whatever it’s worth, If I were charged with a crime I didn’t commit, I can’t imagine entering a guilty plea.”
Maybe you need a bit more imagination.
I agree with regards to the things that most people think of when they hear the word “crime”. But the kinds of crimes that people can commit without knowing it are a different matter. Those tend to be highly subject to interpretation and the government’s interpretation tends to be what counts. So what if your lawyer tells you:
(1) Yes, you are innocent, but we have about a 10% chance of convincing a jury of that.
(2) If you plead guilty, you pay a $50K fine and spend 18 months in a minimum security “country club” prison with a bunch of other white collar criminals.
(3) Going to trial will cost you about $250K, win or lose.
(4) If you lose at trial you will likely spend 10 years in a maximum security prison, quite possibly with a cell mate who is a drug dealer serving a life sentence.
I don’t know if I am overstating or understating the case. My point is that there is a point where you would seriously consider pleading guilty.
lucia (Comment #170114)
August 26th, 2018 at 2:00 pm
OK_Max
True. I was just trying to get some idea of magnitude.
My point is you are going about it entirely the wrong way.
The interest is in exonerees who had pled guilty to murder and rape.
No. If by “the interest†you mean the conversation we are having here, the interest is in innocent people who plead guilty for crimes they did not commit.
_______
I didn’t think trying to find data on the subject was going about it the
wrong way, the subject being innocent people who plead guilty to white-collar crimes, until I failed to find such information. In my
search I saw instead a lot of information on innocent people who
had been convicted of murder and/or rape, some of whom had
pleaded guilty. While that wasn’t the information I was seeking,
I got side tracked wondering why an innocent defendant would
plead guilty to a crime that could result in a severe sentence,
even death.
Mike M. (Comment #170116)
August 26th, 2018 at 2:23 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170109): “For whatever it’s worth, If I were charged with a crime I didn’t commit, I can’t imagine entering a guilty plea.â€
Maybe you need a bit more imagination.
______
OK, Mike M, you got me on that one. I have pleaded guilty to
a traffic ticket when I thought I actually was innocent, as I
thought paying the fine was preferable to wasting my time
on a case I would very likely lose anyway.
While it’s hard to beat a traffic ticket, going to court isn’t
always a waste of time. I once pled not guilty and was found
guilty, but the judge reduced the fine.
But if the penalty is time in jail, and I’m innocent, I’m pleading
not guilty.
Mike M,
“…quite possibly with a cell mate who is a drug dealer serving a life sentence.”
.
And who seriously wants a ‘boyfriend’ sleeping in the same cell. White collar criminals have lots of reasons to cop a plea rather than go to trial, unless they are certain their case for innocence, to be made to a jury, is overwhelming. With complicated laws and differing reasonable interpretations of those law, many cases will be far from black and white. This is where a plea agreement might be very advantageous to the defendant, even if he honestly thinks he is not guilty of a crime.
OK_Max (Comment #170118): “But if the penalty is time in jail, and I’m innocent, I’m pleading not guilty.”
I do not believe you. Surely the length of term and type of prison would matter. As would the financial consequences for you and your family, both short and long term.
>I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory if it’s widely known and reported.
This because you are defining conspiracy theory as crazy theory.
MikeN,
.
That’s quite true. I think many people use the terms ‘conspiracy theory’ to mean ‘crazy theory’, although perhaps this is unwarranted. For example, I think I can make a decent case that the Founding Fathers of our country were basically a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Darn good ones it would appear, our Constitution has stood a test of time and who knows how many conspiracies.
[Edit: Well, I don’t know if I agree with the ‘because’ part. But I agree that I was using ‘conspiracy theory’ to mean ‘crazy theory’.]
Bruce Ohr tomorrow . Closed session. Would imagine he will try the Strzok and Rosenstein defense of not talking about current investigations. Can this fly though if, as is said, he was not legitimately involved with the FBI and was doing it of his own bat..
As not a legitimate investigator he should have no such privilege.
If the DOJ use their or the FBI lawyers to help him they would be obstructing justice?
angech,
He remains an employee of the DOJ, and he will for certain be accompanied by DOJ lawyers. No doubt he has already been carefully coached about what he can and can’t say. The committee will get no information of any use out of him about how the DOJ and FBI colluded to use the “Trump dossier” for getting a FISA search warrant to spy of the Trump campaign, nor anything about how his wife, working for Fusion GPS (opposition research firm), fed him ongoing opposition research, which he passed on to others at the DOJ, the FBI, and probably the CIA. He will have no idea why is middle aged wife, while doing opposition research on Trump for Fusion GPS, had a sudden desire for an amateur radio operating licence. The fact that amateur shortwave radio is about the only means of global communication which is not continuously monitored by the CIA will come as a surprise to him.
.
The guy is a lying worm, motivated by implacable opposition to Trump, and used his official capacity at the DOJ to conspire with others to defeat Trump in 2016. He will ultimately be fired for submitting knowingly false declarations of conflicts of interest to the DOJ. But he will never be prosecuted for his criminal acts, and the public will get nothing out of him, before or after he is fired, thus protecting other people at DOJ who conspired against Trump. Like oh, say, Loretta Lynch…. and her former boss.
I expect (although as Steve mentions, nobody will ever prove) that the real story of Russian meddling and conspiracy was rather different from what is commonly believed. But there would be a certain delicious irony to pinning Russian collusion and election interference on Trump by means of his political adversaries colluding with the Russians and election interference.
Nobody will ever prove it, but it’d make an entertaining story. Steele and Nellie Ohr, the means by which Putin’s FSB conduct their little maskirovka to interfere with US politics. Heh.
Max_OK
But if the penalty is time in jail, and I’m innocent, I’m pleading not guilty.
Like others: I don’t believe you. I think you believe what you are saying, but I think you aren’t thinking of the sorts of extreme circumstances people might find themselves in.
If you own a large business or are the sort who can remain employable with a record and your choices are:
1) 30 days jail in a cream-puff facility because you turn states evidence so they can catch a bigger fish vs
2) losing your business, house and so on in order to pay millions of dollars for defense and risking 5 years jail time in a not-cream puff jail if you lose.
The fact is: if you have enough wealth, you’ll still be ok after 30 days in jail. But you won’t be ok if you lose your business, house and so on. And then go to jail to. This is very unattractive.
I think you like many people would pick pleading guilty in some circumstances. Or maybe you are a martyr. ou already paid a traffic ticket you thought you didn’t deserve and all you wanted to do was avoid wasting a little time. So you know people, including you, do trade off things.
The problem with your confidence is I suspect you just aren’t realizing how expensive some cases would be. In the current cases involving Trump affiliates not only are they going to have to pay for lawyers to deal with legal issues, they need to hire people to get in front of the press, they need to avoid talking in public and all sorts of other things. Also, the prosecution has very deep pockets and since the case is very public, they aren’t going to let things to lightly.
Also: Some of these people are almost certainly guilty of something. So it’s not a case of being entirely innocent– they just might not be guilty of the offense they plead guilty to. A person guilty of “X” offerred the opportunity to plead guilty to Y with a lower penalty vs. the DA going after “X” they are going to be very tempted by the lower. (The DA might even think the guy is guilty of Y. The guy knows he’s not… but… so? He still might plead to it to avoid being prosecuted for X.)
Mike M. (Comment #170120)
August 26th, 2018 at 5:02 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170118): “But if the penalty is time in jail, and I’m innocent, I’m pleading not guilty.â€
I do not believe you. Surely the length of term and type of prison would matter. As would the financial consequences for you and your family, both short and long term.
______________
Of course the possible consequences would matter,
but what would matter most is whether I committed
the crime, assuming justice is not like a crapshoot,
with the innocent and the guilty equally likely to be
sentenced.
Because I have never actually experienced
having to choose between a guilty or not guilty
plea, I can’t say with certainty what I would do
if charged with a white-collar crime. I imagine
my choice would depend on the circumstances.
If guilty, I would plead guilty, unless nothing was
to be gained. If not guilty, and my attorney and
I felt confident about my case, I would plead not
guilty. A guilty plea would be considered only
if we weren’t confident, and the prosecution
made an attractive offer.
Fortunately, I will never have to make such a
choice because I don’t break the law, and the
government must have a basis for charging
people with crimes. The conviction rate for
defendants charged with white-collar crimes,
about 85% as I recall, indicates prosecutors
are very efficient and don’t waste time on
cases lacking evidence.
lucia (Comment #170127)
August 27th, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Max_OK
But if the penalty is time in jail, and I’m innocent, I’m pleading not guilty.
Like others: I don’t believe you. I think you believe what you are saying, but I think you aren’t thinking of the sorts of extreme circumstances people might find themselves in.
_____
I’m sorry lucia, I didn’t see your post before I replied to Mike M,
a reply that I hope addresses some of your post.
Regarding the expense of a trial, I agree the cost could be financially
devastating. It doesn’t seem fair to defendants found not guilty.
Multiple charges do give the prosecution leverage, and IMO may increase the chances a jury would find the defendant guilty of a least one.
Anxiety over the uncertainty of a trial outcome can be very hard
to take, even for an innocent defendant who feels confident about
winning. There’s alway xanax.
I can’t say for sure what I would do in a particular situation
until I am actually in that situation. It has to be real.
OK_Max (Comment #170128)
I can’t say with certainty what I would do
if charged with a white-collar crime. I imagine
my choice would depend on the circumstances.
If guilty, I would plead guilty, unless nothing was
to be gained. If not guilty, and my attorney and
I felt confident about my case, I would plead not
guilty. A guilty plea would be considered only
if we weren’t confident, and the prosecution
made an attractive offer.
That is pretty much what I would do. The point of this is to understand that just because Flynn or Cohen pleaded guilty, it does not mean they actually broke the law.
.
Fortunately, I will never have to make such a
choice because I don’t break the law
You don’t think you break the law. You don’t intend to break the law. But you, like most people, probably break the law in ways you don’t even realize. These days, many laws do not require mens rea for conviction. It is rarely a problem in practice (which does not make it OK), unless some prosecutor decides to pick apart your life looking for something he can use. Then you are screwed.
Lucia,
“Some of these people are almost certainly guilty of something.”
.
Truth is, with the vast array of Federal and State laws, it is probably pretty common for people to be in violation of some statute or another. The more complicated a person’s financial and business affairs, the more likely there is some violation somewhere. Most of these would never be prosecuted, of course (and at worst, a fine), but if you get on the wrong political side of a DA, or worse, the DOJ… then bad things happen. The troubling thing is this: none of the people that Mueller has indited, convicted, or gotten pleas from would ever have been prosecuted except that Trump was elected and Mueller is out to get Trump by any means, up to and including guns-drawn pre-dawn raids on non-violent suspects homes. It is abuse of the power to prosecute by the DOJ, nothing less. IMO, the real criminal here is Mueller.
Mike M. (Comment #170130)
August 27th, 2018 at 2:36 pm
OK_Max (Comment #17012
“The point of this is to understand that just because Flynn or Cohen pleaded guilty, it does not mean they actually broke the law.”
I believe you are saying Cohen may have pled guilty to the two campaign finance charges because, even though he believed he wasn’t guilty or doubted he was guilty, he feared a jury might
find him guilty. If so, I would agree that’s a possibility. On the
other hand, he may have pled guilty because he believed he
is guilty.
“You don’t think you break the law. You don’t intend to break the law. But you, like most people, probably break the law in ways you don’t even realize.”
Mike M, I’m not going to worry about that.
OK_Max
I believe you are saying Cohen may have pled guilty to the two campaign finance charges because, even though he believed he wasn’t guilty or doubted he was guilty, he feared a jury might
find him guilty. If so, I would agree that’s a possibility. On the
other hand, he may have pled guilty because he believed he
is guilty.
That’s only part of the issue in Cohen’s case. His problems include:
1) He may very know he’s guilty of “Y” with much more sever penalties and he knows a jury would find him guilty of that. If he cops a plea to thing “X”, the prosecutors will drop Y. So in this case, he would plead guilty of X which he is innocent of to avoid being found guilty for Y which he is guilty of.
2) He knows that defending himself against charges X and Y in court will ruin him financially even if he is found innocent. The jail time for pleading guilty for X is less bad than the cost of defending himself.
Either of these independently could be enough to motivate him to plead guilty to “X” even though he is innocent of X.
Of course he may also have plead guilty because he knows he is. But I suspect he wouldn’t even do that if he thought a jury would be convinced there is sufficient doubt to find him not guilty.
lucia (Comment #170133)
“Either of these independently could be enough to motivate him to plead guilty to “X†even though he is innocent of X.”
_______
Yes, that seems possible. I’m not sure the rules followed by the
court require the plea hearing to disclose the trade as a part of the plea, although the following section from Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11, says some disclosure is necessary:
“Disclosing a Plea Agreement. The parties must disclose the plea agreement in open court when the plea is offered, unless the court for good cause allows the parties to disclose the plea agreement in camera.”
I’m just not sure this rule means the prosecution and defense have
to tell the court what was traded.
I suspect Cohen would want them to report that he was charged with “X” and the DA agreed to not charge him with “Y” in trade. That would prevent them from coming around later and charging him with “Y”.
Obviously, Cohen doesn’t get to say, “I’m pleading guilty for X even though I’m innocent.” You aren’t allowed to “plead guilty but please not that I’m really innocent.”
OK_Max (Comment #170132): “I believe you are saying Cohen may have pled guilty to the two campaign finance charges because, even though he believed he wasn’t guilty or doubted he was guilty, he feared a jury might find him guilty. If so, I would agree that’s a possibility.”
Yes, that is a possibility. Lucia pointed out another. Yet another is that both Cohen and the prosecutor know perfectly well that a jury would never convict him on those charges, but the plea deal reduces the penalties to less than he would get for the tax evasion alone. Yet another possibility is that the penalty is the same whether or not he pled guilty to the campaign finance laws, but he wanted to plead to the latter to cause trouble for Trump.
.
OK_Max: “On the other hand, he may have pled guilty because he believed he is guilty.”
I doubt it. Some people might do that. But my guess is that someone like Cohen would only consider the possible penalties and the odds of being convicted.
.
OK_Max (Comment #170134): “I’m just not sure this rule means the prosecution and defense have to tell the court what was traded.”
I am pretty sure it would include what each party commits to (for example, maybe it requires Cohen to testify against others). But I can not believe that the disclosure would have to include speculation on what might have happened without the deal.
lucia (Comment #170135): “You aren’t allowed to plead guilty but please not that I’m really innocent.â€
Somehow, I doubt attorney’s would allow it in a plea bargain. But ok!
The tax charges against Cohen carry a max penalty of about 50 years. A judge could give him 65 years on his guilty plea, but prosecutor recommendation is 47-63 MONTHS.
MikeN,
“The tax charges against Cohen carry a max penalty of about 50 years.”
.
Consider this: in Brazil, the maximum sentence for ANY crime is 30 years (even multiple murders). 50 years for tax evasion seems by comparison pretty extreme. Of course, few people are sentenced to the maximum, but facing an extreme possible prison sentence (effectively a life sentence for someone like Cohen) in case of a conviction is yet another reason to plea to get a much shorter prison term. Draconian maximum sentences means very few cases ever go to trial.
All this Cohen pleaded guilty to X to protect himself from being charged with Y reminds me of a recent case here is Australian sport and how an early plea can reduce both the sentence and the reputation damage. 2 teams in different sports were both charged with doping (it is complicated because the materials used were not banned but were not approved and there was no physical evidence). Team A fought the charges vigorously all the way to the World Court for Arbitration in Sport in then most of the players were banned for a year, the coaches reputation for life and the club heavily fined, Team B pleaded guilty through gritted teeth and whilst letting it known they considered themselves innocent, they were banned for a couple of months and their reputations preserved. Sometimes you cop the lesser charge because the investigation and trial are the punishment.
In reference to the guilty plea of Cohen discussed by OK Max, Lucia and Mike M and others, I have a different opinion.
…..
Since there is strong evidence that no crime was committed (remember that a candidate has the right to spend any amount of his own funds on his campaign, and Trump spent his own money. Also, the expenditure has to be SOLELY for campaign purposes), I believe there is actual collusion (or wink and nod collusion) to finger Trump. The guilty plea to a phony crime (while pointing to Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator — technically unnamed) is simply a disguised benefit given to Mueller to reduce the other charges.
……
It is not like, Cohen and his lawyer said that he is facing 10 years in prison on the campaign charge and he can get his sentence on the campaign charge reduced by 5 years if he pleads guilty. It is more that the Cohen team knows that the charges are bogus and could be successfully challenged, but by going through the charade of a phony guilty plea, he puts himself in a position to get reduced sentencing and the withdrawal of other real charges. Somewhat analogous to snitches lying about defendants so that charges faced by the snitches can be reduced.
JD
JD_Ohio
It is more that the Cohen team knows that the charges are bogus and could be successfully challenged, but by going through the charade of a phony guilty plea, he puts himself in a position to get reduced sentencing and the withdrawal of other real charges.
I think this was what I was trying to suggest in response to Max_OK’s contention that if someome is innocent, they don’t plead guilty. But it’s possible Cohen has really done ‘Y’, but he pleads guilty to ‘X’. The prosecutors drop charges for “Y” in exchange.
Lucia : “But it’s possible Cohen has really done ‘Y’, but he pleads guilty to ‘X’. The prosecutors drop charges for “Y†in exchange.”
Sorry, I did miss about 80% of the thrust of your comment. However, I still think there is a significant difference in this case that needs to be made explicit. It is not unusual to, say, plead guilty to a drug selling charge when in actuality you didn’t sell any drugs. In exchange , for instance, a robbery charge may be dropped.
What is very different in this case is that the underlying behavior that is the predicate for the guilty plea of a campaign violation is not a crime. It is as though (somewhat over simplified here) an accused stated that he borrowed property from an uncle, and the court upon hearing that accepted a guilty plea for robbery. If this is what happened, and it appears to be the case, it is very, very corrupt for all concerned. Much worse than a typical plea bargain.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #170145): “If this is what happened, and it appears to be the case, it is very, very corrupt for all concerned. Much worse than a typical plea bargain.”
I agree that it seems quite possible, perhaps likely, that JD’s scenario is what happened in the Cohen case. I also agree that if it is what happened, it is very corrupt. I’d call it a threat to the rule of law.
JD
What is very different in this case is that the underlying behavior that is the predicate for the guilty plea of a campaign violation is not a crime.
Ahh.. I see the difference.
JD Ohio,
“Much worse than a typical plea bargain.â€
.
Of course. The stakes.. and the objective…. (driving Trump from office) are very different from a typical plea bargain. Mueller, his posse, and most of the DOJ are and have always been targeting Trump. They are acting like they would in an organized crime case… hammering the lesser individuals with “Trumped up”charges to force them to turn on the boss. No surprise there; the MSM has made clear for two plus years that Democrats believe Trump must be driven from office, no matter the means, and no matter if he “colluded with Russia”. Whether they succeed or not depends mainly on the November election. The rest is political posturing.
“Lanny Davis, a spokesman and attorney for Cohen, said in an interview this weekend that he is no longer certain about claims he made to reporters on background and on the record in recent weeks about what Cohen knows about Trump’s awareness of the Russian efforts.” – WP
.
Looks like more red faces in the media. This web is so tangled I can’t even tell who is deceiving whom.
JDOhio, the problem is that ‘not a crime’ is an opinion that is disputed by DOJ. Edwards case went to trial. So at least one other judge was not willing to declare ‘this is not a crime’, even with an FEC opinion to the contrary.
MikeN: “JDOhio, the problem is that ‘not a crime’ is an opinion that is disputed by DOJ.”
for what I would consider corrupt reasons. The DOJ is not an objective organization uninfluenced by politics. What possible reason is there to refer to Trump (in a very thinly veiled way) in connection with Cohen’s plea? The DOJ is a political organization mostly like any other. In the past, it was headed by Eric Holder who was involved in the very dirty Marc Rich pardon, and other questionable activities.
…..
I consider Bradley Smith (former FEC chair) to be a very reliable source. Also, Dershowitz has referred to this as being like a jay walking ticket. (Trump has the right to use unlimited funds from his own account to pay for his campaign expenses if you consider the non-disclosure agreement to be a campaign expense.) The only taint of illegality is that he didn’t report using his own money.
…..
However, the whole point of campaign laws is to make sure that people with money and influence can’t surreptitiously give money to campaigns. Everyone knew Trump was financially supporting his own campaign. So, even if you don’t buy Smith’s position, Trump is at worst, guilty of the equivalent of jay walking.
JD
I would add that the judge presiding over the Cohen matter is Kimba Wood who presided over the recent wedding of Soros. Not unexpected that she wouldn’t give the plea bargain stringent scrutiny.
JD
JD, have you ever served on a jury?
I was wondering about the impact of Gates’s lying in the Manafort trial.
Apparently they agreed at the beginning to just ignore his testimony.
MikeN: “JD, have you ever served on a jury?” Not surprised that they would ignore or possibly give Gates some credence. The jury evaluates the case from their own view of the big picture, and then goes from there. I did have 150 jury trials (civil), which is a lot.
…..
Will relate a story about my former boss. He sat on a jury that was called to try a man for breaking into his former home where his girlfriend lived to retrieve his own clothes and was charged with burglary. During the trial, he admitted to some sort of important lie. He essentially admitted to the burglary, but not another more serious crime.
…..
My boss and many of the jurors thought it was a BS charge. During the course of the deliberations, my boss said that if the defendant lied about the other matter, how do we know he told the truth when he admitted to the burglary. The jury acquitted him. When the verdict was announced, everyone’s jaw dropped, including that of the defendant.
……
The point being that jury verdicts are very unpredictable. Although less so with the Trump defendants, since there is a large paper trail.
JD
I was thinking if they hadn’t agreed to ignore Gates at the beginning of deliberations, his lies which were so obvious to the jury would have weighed down every charge and cast the paper trail in doubt.
I think your boss’s argument might be what CNN will use for their Mannian defense of ‘Cohen says Trump knew about meeting with Russians’ even after their anonymous source Lanny Davis has denied the story.
JD Ohio (Comment #170143)
JD, I will try to summarize how you and others here see Cohen’s plea on the Daniels hush
money charge. I apologize if the following summary does not accurately represent your view.
The prosecution wanted Cohen to plead guilty to a non-crime, so offered Cohen an incentive to plead plead guilty to the non-crime by promising to drop or reduce charges against him for a real and more serious crime, and he accepted the offer. The prosecution and Cohen then presented this deal to the court, and the Judge who is not supposed to accept pleas to non-crimes accepted it anyway.
Everyone involved knew Cohen was pleading guilty to a non-crime, yet they all lied by saying it was a crime. Their motive was to implicate Cohen’s old boss Trump, making it appear Cohen’s guilty plea meant Trump also was guilty.
_________
I guess anything can happen, but it seems far
fetched to me that the prosecution and Cohen would in effect lie under oath and the judge
would break her own oath to adhere to the law.
OK_Max,
.
Were the British colonists in the U.S. who fought against British soldiers revolutionary [freedom fighters] or terrorists?
Real question, and I promise you it’s not irrelevant to the discussion.
I’ll just cut to the chase. You characterize ‘crime’ and ‘non-crime’ as if the world is clear cut, black and white, and further as if the clear cut difference is readily apparent to everyone at a glance.
It’s not.
I don’t know. JD Ohio, when you see this, if you wouldn’t mind terribly I’d appreciate your opinion.
I have this idea that the questions lawyers and judges settle are complicated. Maybe I’ve got this wrong. Heck, I even have this foolish notion that some lawyers might think the arguments they come up with in court matter. Maybe prosecutors have a rationale, or at least a rationalization. Maybe defense attorneys do too. I expect everybody on opposing sides thinks their side is right sometimes, even though everybody can’t be right and the court eventually rules one way or another.
Maybe sometimes it’s not clear if someone has crossed a legal line or not. Does this ever happen, in your estimation?
Terrorist to the loyalist, freedom fighters to everyone else. Well. maybe not everyone else, as some people may have been neutral.
Hundreds of years later it doesn’t matter much, as Canada and
Australia ended up with the same deal without fighting for it.
On second thought, one of my ancestors got a lot of land in
Tennessee for his service to the American revolution. So if
the Revolution hadn’t happened I might not be here or I could
be part me and part someone else.
Regarding your other strange notion, judges are supposed to know what is and isn’t a crime. The prosecution and defense are supposed to know too. If they all had different ideas about what is a crime the criminal justice system would be a comedy.
I hope my sentences aren’t truncated this time.
Max.
.
Is shooting someone a crime.
.
The correct answer is it depends.
.
Because it does depend. Whether or not something is a crime depends heavily on the relevant details. Was Cohen acting on his own or on Trump’s behalf. Arguments could be made. So on – there are likely numerous details that actually matter. If the law was as simple as you are trying to make it appear I don’t think lawyers would make the big bucks or require people with brains to practice.
.
OK Max: “The prosecution and Cohen then presented this deal to the court, and the Judge who is not supposed to accept pleas to non-crimes accepted it anyway.”
……
Pretty much correct. The judge who presided over the trial was Kimba Wood, who officiated over the wedding of George Soros recently. Doesn’t surprise me at all that she let it slide, because she is undoubtedly very anti-Trump. (The ethics of her participation are slippery here because the law assumes that the prosecutors and Cohen were adverse parties with respect to the campaign finance guilty plea, and they really weren’t. A judge is supposed to mostly step aside when “adverse” parties reach an agreement.)
…..
You seem to be surprised by the depth of the corruption. I am not. In Cleveland (Cuyahoga County), a former sheriff (McGettrick) became judge and accepted a $5,000 bribe to let someone beat a murder rap. Can you imagine how many people McGettrick framed as sheriff. Also, one year (probably mid-80s), the whole of Cuyahoga County (pop about 2 million.) had approximately 10 criminal trials. It is beyond imagination how lazy and ineffective, the approximately 35 judges, as well as the prosecutors, were.
Mueller’s chief prosecutor, Andrew Weissman, has already tried the trick of getting a defendant to plead to a non-crime. “At one hearing, an incredulous district court judge looked down at an Enron defendant [being prosecuted by Weismann) and told him he was pleading guilty to a wire fraud crime that did not exist.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/22/christopher-wray-robert-muellers-top-prosecutor-kn/
…..
OK M: “Everyone involved knew Cohen was pleading guilty to a non-crime, yet they all lied by saying it was a crime. Their motive was to implicate Cohen’s old boss Trump, making it appear Cohen’s guilty plea meant Trump also was guilty.”
…..
Yes. Exactly how corrupt and despicable they were. (Will add that it is theoretically possible that Lanny Davis was too stupid to know that what Cohen and Trump did was not a crime. His most recent actions are amazingly stupid.)
…..
So, yes there is a lot of corruption, and it is much worse than most people can imagine. Until the texts were actually published, who could imagine that there was someone as despicable as Strozk being a main “investigator” on the Hillary Clinton investigation.
JD
Max,
.
I find this somewhat frustrating only because I feel like this is an obvious point that shouldn’t be a source of disagreement. I would like to try to walk through slowly.
1. I think we may agree that people tend to rationalize things. This is to say, they have a certain point of view and they come up with justifications for their point of view.
2. I don’t think being a lawyer or judge makes one immune from this, we might agree on that.
3. I think we could agree that people have existed and exist today who believe that there are cases where a desirable end justifies the use of questionable means.
4. Even if we cannot agree on (3), we might agree that people have existed and still exist today who act as if a certain desirable end justifies the use of questionable means.
5. I believe that people who rationalize, or who believe the ends may sometimes justify the use of immoral means, or who sometimes act as if in accordance with the notion that a noble end may justify immoral means — I believe these people are just as likely to be prosecutors and judges as defense attorneys.
.
Do we disagree on any of these points?
M Bofill: “I have this idea that the questions lawyers and judges settle are complicated. Maybe I’ve got this wrong. Heck, I even have this foolish notion that some lawyers might think the arguments they come up with in court matter.”
….
I will agree that much of what lawyers do is very complicated. The downside of that is when you have unethical lawyers, you can dream up “clever” ways to engage in corrupt behavior. For instance, consider the Clinton Foundation, which was mostly a disguised bribe endeavor. Not too hard to defend legalistically, but practically a very bad and unethical institution.
JD
JD,
Thank you.
.
[Edit: I point out that people are often morally grey. JD points out that sometimes people are out and out morally black. Max, I fail to see why you’d insist that people are morally white. It hasn’t been my general experience..]
mark bofill (Comment #170162)
August 28th, 2018 at 4:44 pm
Max.
.
Is shooting someone a crime.
.
The correct answer is it depends.
___________
Shooting is not the charge. Assuming the shooting kills a person, the charge could be murder (and the specific degree) or something else ((e.g. manslaughter) or if the prosecution believes the shooting was accidental or justifiable, no charge at all.
A jury doesn’t decide whether murder is against the law, the jury decides whether the defendant is guilty of the charge. Self-defense would be a grounds for a not guilty plea, despite the prosecution’s belief it was not self-defense.
A jury can, however, find a defendant not guilty of breaking a law
because they don’t believe that law should be a law. I think that’s
called jury nullification or something like that.
Max,
I don’t know what to tell you. I give you links to Reuters, not Fox News, discussing bluntly how Andrew Weissman operates. JD gives you a case where a judge told a defendant that Weissman had dealt with that he was pleading guilty to a non crime. People rationalize, things are complicated enough that truth probably isn’t always obvious, some people get noble cause corruption.
I give. I don’t know what else to tell you.
JD Ohio (Comment #170163)
August 28th, 2018 at 4:52 pm
OK Max: “The prosecution and Cohen then presented this deal to the court, and the Judge who is not supposed to accept pleas to non-crimes accepted it anyway.â€
……
Pretty much correct.
____
JD, your supposing that’s true doesn’t make it true.
My supposing it’s not true doesn’t make it not true.
But I believe supposing can be good. It works the brain.
Brains need exercise.
Max,
.
My apologies. My wife tells me I am out of sorts, and I can see what she’s talking about. On my word, I wasn’t consciously aware of it until it was pointed out to me. I regret that I took my personal … whatever… irritation I guess out on you.
mark bofill (Comment #170168)
I don’t know what else to tell you.
Tell me something I don’t know, but don’t tell me the SDNY, the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and Mueller are all out to get Trump by lying, cheating, and other wrongdoing.
It wasn’t too long ago, during the Hillary investigation as I recall.
that some on the right were reporting an anti-Hillary rebellion in
the FBI. If the same guys are now after Trump, I think that shows
the organization is impartial.
OK_Max (Comment #170156): “Everyone involved knew Cohen was pleading guilty to a non-crime, yet they all lied by saying it was a crime.”
I don’t think that is the case at all. Cohen plead guilty to actual crimes. It is extremely unlikely that he committed those crimes. With a plea bargain, I doubt it is the judge’s responsibility to try to decide if the defendant really did it; at least not as long as the defendant is competent and is competently represented.
I think that JD’s interpretation is plausible but not certain. I suspect it is not a case of the various participants saying “Bwa-ha-ha, we are really gonna get Trump now” (well, maybe Cohen). More likely it is what mark suggests: rationalization all around.
OK_Max (Comment #170171): “It wasn’t too long ago, during the Hillary investigation as I recall. that some on the right were reporting an anti-Hillary rebellion in the FBI. If the same guys are now after Trump, I think that shows the organization is impartial.”
I think the rebellion within the FBI (if it existed) was against the people who are out to get Trump now.
Max OK: “JD, your supposing that’s true doesn’t make it true.”
My opinion is based on a lot more than supposing. It is based on a lot of experience as a lawyer and the statement of a former chairperson of the FEC. It is mainly supported by Alan Dershowitz, maybe he pre-eminent criminal law attorney in the US.
It is also based on strong circumstantial evidence. The fundamental reason for campaign laws is to force potentially undisclosed financial donors to make clear what their monetary contributions are so the public at large can judge whether politicians are unduly or improperly influenced by donations. Trump contributed to his own campaign. Everyone knows that. An after the fact report of the contribution is of close to zero significance.
Also, other than political corruption by the prosecutors, there was no reason to name Trump as an unindicted conspirator other than to spear him politically. The guilty plea to the campaign violations was a political act, not a response to a legitimate prosecution.
Finally, Mueller doesn’t even hide the political/Beria nature of his prosecutions. He has virtually all Democrats on his staff, many of whom have proven to be incompetent. Weismann, in particular, is a bum.
JD
Mark M: “More likely it is what mark suggests: rationalization all around.’
…..
At this high level of politics, and the dirt that is part and parcel of national politics, I don’t think there is any rationalization. They know exactly what they are doing and mostly lack what most people would consider to be consciences which would force them to go to the trouble of rationalizing.
Not being a criminal lawyer, I was going to backtrack a little about the wrongfullness of naming Trump. However, I looked up wikipedia on unindicted conspirators, and the participants here are even lower than I thought. (Hard to believe)
…..
Here is what wiki states: “An unindicted co-conspirator, or unindicted conspirator, is a person or entity that is alleged in an indictment to have engaged in conspiracy, but who is not charged in the same indictment. Prosecutors choose to name persons as unindicted co-conspirators for a variety of reasons including grants of immunity, pragmatic considerations, and evidentiary concerns.
The United States Attorneys’ Manual generally recommends AGAINST [emphasis added] naming unindicted co-conspirators, although their use is not generally prohibited by law or policy.[1] Some commentators have raised due-process concerns over the use of unindicted co-conspirators.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unindicted_co-conspirator Interesting that I haven’t seen any main stream media mention that naming an unindicted co-conspirator goes against the general policy of the DOJ.
…..
So, not only is there an issue of no crime being committed, the colluders have violated the normal procedures of the US Attorneys Manual in naming an unindicted co-conspirator. In fact the wording of the naming of the un-indicted conspirator was made in an unnecessarily disrespectful way in the sense of naming Trump, but faking the non-naming: ” Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to federal tax evasion and campaign-finance charges, telling the Court that some of his crimes were done for the benefit of, and at the direction of, “Individual 1″[4] a certain un-named candidate for federal office, who later became President of the United States.” (wiki)
……
If a criminal lawyer were to tell that I am approaching this incorrectly, I would be predisposed to backtrack, at least on the unindicted conspirator part, but at this point, it doesn’t seem complicated to me.
JD
mark bofill (Comment #170170)
August 28th, 2018 at 6:19 pm
Max,
.
My apologies. My wife tells me I am out of sorts, and I can see what she’s talking about. On my word, I wasn’t consciously aware of it until it was pointed out to me. I regret that I took my personal … whatever… irritation I guess out on you.
_______
mark, thank you, but there is no need for an apology. I wasn’t offended.
Regarding your (Comment #170164), I agree with much of what
you said. Prosecutors and judges like all humans can have political views. But they are supposed to follow the laws and regulations that apply to how they do their jobs, regardless of their views. Those who don’t can lose their jobs.
Thanks Max. I enjoy the discussions, which wouldn’t be a quarter as interesting if we agreed all the time. Night all.
Many here may have already seen Cohen’s plea agreement, but if you haven’t it can be found at
Cohen pleaded guilty to 8 counts. I have summarized the penalties for counts below:
Counts 1 thru 5 (tax evasion) each carry a maximum of 5 years and $100,000 in fines.
Count 6 (false statement to bank) carries a maximum of 30 years and a $1,000,00 fine.
Count 7 (corp hush payments) carries a maximum of 5 years and a $250,000 fine.
Count 8 (individual hush payment) carries a maximum of 5 years and a $250,000 fine.
This makes me wonder if Cohen pleaded guilty to the two hush payment charges in exchange for other charges being dropped, just what were the dropped charges and what penalties did they carry that totaled more than 10 years and $500,000, and whether that information is available?
Of course it’s possible the guilty plea didn’t involve any charges being dropped, but was exchange for the prosecution’s
recommendation of a less than maximums for for prison times and fines. The prosecution could have presented the package of charges to Cohen as a take it or leave it offer. There may have been no negotiating, no back and forth with offers and counter offers.
JD Ohio (Comment #170175)
JD, I didn’t mean to imply your views are without foundation. I
understand what you are saying.
Please excuse the sloppy writing in this post, I’m tired. Hopefully, the thinking isn’t sloppy too.
Cohen said he paid Daniels with his own money
and Trump says he reimbursed Cohen. I suspect
the details would determine the legality. I don’t
know (1) whether Cohen paid her directly or through
the straw company he set up, Essential Consultants
LLC, (2) whether Trump reimbursed him directly or through
the straw company, (3) whether the straw company had
deposits from other sources before the hush
payment to Daniels and before Trump repaid the
amount, (4) whether the straw company is a corporation
under campaign finance law.
If all monies were funneled through the straw
company, Essential Consultants LLC, and it
is legally a corporation, the hush payments
were in excess of what a corporation can
contribute under campaign law. Even if this
straw company is not a corporation, but
had contributions from corporations, which
Cohen drew on to pay Daniels, those payments
might still be a violation of campaign law.
Regardless of whether the money was
funneled through Essential Consultants
LLC, it seems odd that a man of Trump’s
wealth needed his lawyer Cohen to in
effect loan him $130,000 to pay Daniels,
a loan he repaid in installments. I can’t
think of a reason other than to buy more
time to figure out a way to conceal that
Trump was paying Daniels hush money.
But what was repayment in installments
about?
One might argue Cohen broke the campaign
law limit for individuals soon as he paid
Daniels with his own money, regardless of
whether he was paid back, unless there
was a formal agreement stating that he
was loaning Trump the money and was
paying it to her on his behalf. It could be
argued the Trump repayment was an
after thought, and the original plan was for
Cohen to recover his money from
contributions corporations were making
to Essential Consultants LLC, the straw
company Cohen controlled.
The other hush money deal involved
the company that publishes the National
Enquirer. It’s different than the Daniels
deal. I don’t want to go into it right now.
Max,
I want to briefly address this:
but don’t tell me the SDNY, the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and Mueller are all out to get Trump by lying, cheating, and other wrongdoing.
(1) I don’t think these organizations are monolithic implacable enemies of Trump. However, there’s this thing. #Resistance. I don’t know exactly what it means. It seems to be a social media thing, big enough that everyone has heard of it. It seems to have something to do with opposing or resisting Trump. Correct me if I’m wrong here, because I don’t actually have anything solid that says what #Resistance means – this is just what I’ve gathered anecdotally.
(2) I certainly do believe that there are elements in most or all of the organization you list that oppose Trump. Former CIA chief Brennan has connected Trump with treason in his statements, for example. This goes back to what I started with in comment #170158 – it’s almost certainly not wrongdoing in a patriot’s eyes to stop a treasonous President.
(3) Mueller isn’t just a DA. He’s special counsel tasked specifically with investigating any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign and the Russian government.
Some here believe (me included) that to accomplish this objective, Mueller needs to motivate people involved who would normally be disinclined to talk to him to tell his investigators everything they can about this. I think the primary tool he has at his disposal is to investigate everybody, figure out what they can be charged with, charge them, and then offer leniency if they help him pursue his mandate. I’ve already supplied links supporting this which don’t seem to impress you, seems pointless to link them again.
About
#Resist or The Resistance refers to the ongoing campaign to protest President Donald Trump administration through online activism, protests, and boycotts.
Origin
References to The Resistance and the hashtag #Resist began appearing immediately following Trump’s victory in the 2016 Presidential Election. Moments after the The New York Times began predicting Trump’s victory, Twitter users began using the hashtag #Resist on November 8th, 2016.
Baratunde @baratunde 8 Nov 2016 Ifonly the we responded to black and brown pain they way we jump to appease white pain. Angry whites gonna drag the world down with them ã‚25 t7455 932 Suzanne Gardinier @SGardinier Replying to @baratunde @trabernlaw Not without a fight #Resist Patrick Fafard @pcfafard 8 Nov 2016 No comment (just feeling a bit i Chance of Winning Presidency TOSSUP LEANING LEANING LIKELY LIKELY VERY LIKELY VERY LIKELY >95% Trump FORECAST ã‚2 23 3 James Bloyd @j_bloyd Replying to @pcfafard Hell and protest in USA-world future. #resist 11:10 PM 8 Nov 2016
One of the first viral pieces of criticism came by way of The New Yorker’s David Remnick, whose piece “An American Tragedy”[1] went viral on November 9th.
…
Spread
Later that day, journalist and host Keith Olberman posted the first episode of “The Resistance,” a daily news commentary web series, which at the time went by the title “The Closer.” In a tweet promoting the November 9th episode entitled “The Terrorist Have Won,” he wrote “Let the resistance begin.” The post received more than 300 retweets and 620 likes.[2]
Max, I’m not going to continue to flood the thread with this, but I do want to say – you ought to watch some of Keith Olberman’s “The Resistance” episodes. Keith appears to be right there with us in saying that the plea deals from people like Flynn are all about impeaching and removing Trump from office. This appears to be the original source of #Resistance or #Resist and what it’s all about.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmkXR7EL_RY
OK_max
One reason some of your arguments lack force is you are constantly finding standard operating procedures for businesses and employers “odd”.
I don’t find it at all odd that Cohen paid and Trump reimbursed.
LLC, it seems odd that a man of Trump’s wealth needed his lawyer Cohen to in effect loan him $130,000 to pay Daniels,
a loan he repaid in installments. I can’t think of a reason other than to buy more time to figure out a way to conceal that Trump was paying Daniels hush money. But what was repayment in installments
about?
Your using verbs like “needed”. I had my Mom get Krona for me last summer and repaid her. I didn’t do this because I “needed” borrow from Mom. I did it because it was the most efficient way with the least accounting.
Trump is hardly the only wealthy person who has a standing arrangement were someone pays for things that are required and then the wealthy person repays. Yes. In some sense the employees is “lending”. But.. heck… when my husband goes on business travel, he pays, then he files the travel paperwork. Then stuff gets approved and Argonne reimburses him. That’s the way Iowa state, Pacific Northwest National Lab and so on all operated too.
I have no idea why this becomes unusual just because Trump is behaving like Argonne and Cohen like Jim. What I find odd is for some reason you can’t think of any reason for Trump to behave the way tons of employers routinely behave other than try to conceal hush payments. The goals was to prevent a story from surfacing.
That said: Yes. I think those were “hush” payments. But the alleged illegal aspect isn’t that they were “hush payments”. We don’t need to marvel that steps were taken to make the story easier to conceal.
The illegal aspect is whether they were campaign contributions. I’m not seeing how installment payments would turn the reimbursing into campaign contributions.
One might argue Cohen broke the campaign
law limit for individuals soon as he paid
Daniels with his own money,
One might. You seem to be doing this. However, one can equally well point out that when my Mom bought my Krona for me using her “own” money, I owed her a debt which I had agreed to pay. So, in effect she did not buy them. I bought them since neither one of us considered these to temporarily be “her” Krona. Had I not repaid her, or she refused to hand over the Krona, we would consider the other in “breech”. (Not that eitehr of us would actually sue the other. She’s my mom for heaven’s sake!)
If we look at the Mom-Lucia’s krona analogy– which is the normal conventional way of looking at this, Trump, not Cohen is the one who paid the “hush” money. Sure “one” could argue otherwise. But then “one” needs to explain why the Trump-Cohen situation is somehow different from all other similar situations.
If Trump paid it, the remaining question is then whose money did Trump use? The answer to that one might create an illegal campaign contribution or it might not. But Cohen merely arranging and conveying doesn’t do it (as far as I can see.)
RE: OK Max: Straw Companies and LLCs
……
I haven’t looked at this closely because no one seems to be raising it. Dershowitz was on the air with a liberal commentator and said that Trump paid for the campaign contributions himself. The liberal commentator said that yes he paid for them, but Trump didn’t report them. From that I would imply that there is very little dispute that Trump actually paid for the non-disclosure himself. Otherwise, the Left would be all over it.
…..
Max OK: “it seems odd that a man of Trump’s
wealth needed his lawyer Cohen to in
effect loan him $130,000 to pay Daniels,
a loan he repaid in installments. I can’t
think of a reason other than to buy more
time to figure out a way to conceal that
Trump was paying Daniels hush money.”
…..
Of course, Trump was trying to conceal the payments. That was the whole point of the agreement. However, if he paid Cohen reasonably promptly (which he apparently did), in terms of campaign finance laws, Trump is at worst guilty of jay walking. Cohen funneling other business through his LLC may implicate banking laws and other matters, but it has nothing to do with the campaign law guilty plea, which appears to be the result of very corrupt collusion. All sorts of odd things may have been happening, but I have seen nothing indicating that they have anything to do with campaign finance laws.
After Trump’s election, he’s put up “#Resist” posters– or something like that. (I’ll have to get a photo to show you.)
I have no idea what he actually means to communicate. He’s certainly been resisting getting regular non-tent accomodations for a long time.
Mark
This is more about the tent guy. The article shows his tent burning down in July 16. I was aware of the fire. He has a tent back up pretty quickly, and I guess that’s because people donated him new tents.
I betcha it was Trump that had that poor devil’s tent burned. Somebody ought to call Mueller.
Wait. Are we sure tent guy isn’t Robert Reich wearing a long beard disguise?!?
[Edit: Nah. Tent guy doesn’t sound nearly as batcrap crazy as Reich.]
Mark,
The amazing thing is people donated a new tent. At one point, he had tents on both sides of the street. I’m not sure that’s currently the case. But he’s got quite a complex. I don’t know if he has heaters in the tent or what, but it’s there year round.
That is nutty. 🙂
Well, it’s ‘Protest HQ’! Gotta have that I guess. I wonder if he got his support locally or it was a ‘GoFundMe’ sort of thing.
mark bofill (Comment #170183)
mark, yes, there is a strong resistance to the Trump Presidency. Democrats can’t stand him and many establishment Republicans never wanted him as the GOP candidate. The dislike of Trump results not only from his policies, but from his behavior as a person.
Polls measure the dissatisfaction with Trump. The Rasmussen poll,
which may have a Republican bias, today reported that 42% of
respondents strongly disapprove of Trump while only 35% strongly
approved. The proportion who strongly disapprove could be higher
among officials in the DOJ, CIA, and other government agencies
that can damage Trump in legitimate ways.
It’s possible some officials may dislike Trump enough to resort to
unethical or even illegal measures to tarnish his reputation and
hurt his chances of serving a second term. Given this possibility,
Trump supporters may suspect anything that makes him look
bad is the result of misconduct by his enemies rather than
what he actually did.
OK_Max
among officials in the DOJ, CIA, and other government agencies that can damage Trump in legitimate ways.
They can also damage him in illegitimate ways.
Given this possibility,
Trump supporters may suspect anything that makes him look
bad is the result of misconduct by his enemies rather than
what he actually did.
Sure. Given that it’s possible that it is the result of misconduct by his enemies, it’s possible some people whose brains work might suspect it might be the result of misconduct on the part of his enemies. It’s also possible it’s not the result of misconduct on the part of his enemies.
One has to look at the evidence all around. Merely saying that since A and (notA) are both possible, some people will think A is possible and others will think (notA) is possible. Both those things are true.
OK_Max (Comment #170193): “The dislike of Trump results not only from his policies, but from his behavior as a person.”
.
There is much more to the “resistance” than mere “dislike” or policy disagreements. There are a lot of people, both inside and outside government, who have become wealthy and comfortable due to the policies of the last 30 years. They are especially prevalent in the coastal cities of the east and west, leading to the shorthand name “coastal elites”. They have pushed the country into policies (trade, immigration, foreign intervention) that are good for them, but terrible for most ordinary people. They have also been promoting social policies that are an existential threat to a way of life many Americans hold dear. They advocate identity politics that likely will be catastrophic for our society. They push their views with bullying tactics that undermine free speech and democracy.
.
Trump is an existential threat to the coastal elites. He is unalterably opposed to the failed, divisive, and destructive policies of the coastal elites. He is smart, resourceful, and determined. He has the hide of a rhinoceros. He will not be bought off, he will not be dissuaded, and he can not be bullied. The coastal elites feel that they are in a fight to the death. I think that Trump agrees.
lucia (Comment #170185)
August 29th, 2018 at 11:32 am
OK_max
One reason some of your arguments lack force is you are constantly finding standard operating procedures for businesses and employers “oddâ€.
I don’t find it at all odd that Cohen paid and Trump reimbursed.
LLC, it seems odd that a man of Trump’s wealth needed his lawyer Cohen to in effect loan him $130,000 to pay Daniels,
a loan he repaid in installments. I can’t think of a reason other than to buy more time to figure out a way to conceal that Trump was paying Daniels hush money. But what was repayment in installments
about?
Your using verbs like “neededâ€. I had my Mom get Krona for me last summer and repaid her. I didn’t do this because I “needed†borrow from Mom. I did it because it was the most efficient way with the least accounting.
_______________
lucia , my wife and I actually do something similar to the
example you gave about you and your mother. My wife
borrows cash from my stash and replaces it sometime
later. There is no record of my loan and her repayment,
and none is needed for legal purposes.
For legal purposes, Cohen and Trump do need a record
of their transactions. A record could be believed. What
they say, unless under oath, is suspect because they
have a habit of changing their stories.
Max,
.
Heh. Trump doesn’t need the help of his enemies to look bad, he does just fine by himself.
.
I have been looking forward for quite some time now to hearing the results of Mueller’s investigation. It may be quite the rare and beautiful flower that blossoms from such a deep and rich foundation of manure as the foundation I have heard thus far for the investigation. Political opposition research turned into FBI investigation from unsubstantiated bias sources, serving as the basis for FISA warrants, possibly substantiated by FBI leaks to the media. The exposure of bias at the FBI in investigators. The different FBI precautions (or maybe I should say utter lack of precautions) taken in dealing with Clinton as opposed to Trump. A special counsel investigating a President for suspicion of activities that aren’t even crimes.
.
Yeah, I can’t wait to hear what comes of this. I would love to hear all about the collusion with Russia. How on earth did Russia tilt the election for Trump, if that’s what they did. If not, exactly what is it they did for Trump, and in particular where is Trump’s crime in all this. I can’t wait to hear precisely how the Trump administrations efforts to collect dirt on Hillary are fundamentally different from the opposition research Steele and other foreign outfits collected on Trump.
.
It’s not like I believe the slate is blank so far, Max. But by God Yes. If Trump colluded with Putin who used the magic Russian Thought Controller or whatever to swing the election, or if Russians hacked the election results (which liberals never seemed to tire of telling me was categorically impossible before Hillary lost the election) – you bet I want to know it.
.
But if all we find is that Trump used the N word, and Trump screwed around with women left right and center and tried to cover it up, and Trump did all the same crappy dirty things that a plurality of rich men tend to do anyway, all the petty crimes and infractions, [oh, like campaign finance violations, that’s right.] I don’t know where that leaves us. Because the matter is apparently never settled with La Resistaunce.
.
Anyway.
Mike M. (Comment #170195)
Trump is an existential threat to the coastal elites.
_________
He threatened we elites by giving us a big tax cut.
There’s talk of a new threat, deflating capital gains subject to tax.
JD Ohio (Comment #170186)
“The liberal commentator said that yes he paid for them, but Trump didn’t report them. From that I would imply that there is very little dispute that Trump actually paid for the non-disclosure himself. Otherwise, the Left would be all over it.”
_______
JD, there are records of the transactions somewhere, possibly
in what the FBI took from Cohen’s office, that can verify payment details. What was the reporting requirement for Trump?
OK M: “What was the reporting requirement for Trump?”
Interesting question. Couldn’t find out much about this or the transaction records in quick internet search. However, John Edwards had much worse problems (large amounts of money came from outside donors) and was ultimately found to have not violated campaign laws. See https://heavy.com/news/2018/05/trump-john-edwards-campaign-finance-donald/
Of course, under Bradley Smith’s analysis, it wouldn’t matter because part of Trump’s motivation was non-political.
JD
Max_OK
For legal purposes, Cohen and Trump do need a record
of their transactions. A record could be believed.
We already have records of the relationship between Cohen and Trump. Cohen was Trumps lawyer and was charged with handling contractural matters and so on.
A check from Trump to Cohen would constitute a record indicating Cohen was repaid. Has Cohen publicly denied being repaid? (I admit I’m not following every detail. I figure it will trickle out over time.)
What they say, unless under oath, is suspect because they have a habit of changing their stories.
Sure. But given our legal system, that would favor the accused, which would be Trump if someone wants to charge him with something. If those accusing have unreliable sources for their case, there is reasonable doubt.
n fact, Cohen was repaid by the Trump Organization, according the government’s delineation of his crimes. Cohen, it reads, submitted a series of invoices to “a Manhattan-based real estate company†where he had once worked. Those invoices were meant, among other things, to repay him for the money he gave to Daniels and occurred over the course of 2017. Those payments were identified inside the company as being for a legal retainer.
So it appears, records showing Cohen was repaid by Trump exist. Or at least that he was repaid is not in dispute.
Mark Bofill, I predict that rather than publicly exonerate Trump, Mueller team will look to hide behind the Galindez case and not issue a public report of their findings. It will be up to Rosenstein or Trump to release it.
Re lucia (Comment #170202)
lucia, thank you for the info and the link. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the WoPo article, as I’m not a paid subscriber.
I did’t mean to imply Cohen was never reimbursed for paying Daniels the hush money. My interested is the payment details. After reading your post, I did find a nationalreview.com article by Andrew C. McCarthy that addresses the details.

McCarthy doubts the Trump organization did anything wrong in making the payments but believes Cohen could be in trouble for
the manner of reimbursement.


 “At issue is the manner in which Cohen was reimbursed for the $130,000 hush-money payment to Stephanie Clifford (the porn star better known as Stormy Daniels). Specifically, there are peculiarities in the way Cohen’s reimbursement was totaled up, invoiced, and processed for payment.â€
OK_Max,
I don’t subscribe to WAPO. I just clear my cookies every time I reach their limit or that of the NYTIMES.
On the reimbursement: Yes, the devil is in the details. But remember, the are at least two defenses for Trump and only 1 needs to be ok for him to be clear.
1) If the main or sole purpose was not for the campaign, it’s not a contribution no matter how it was processed or paid. (This is what got Edwards off and what the SEC guy says.)
2) If it was was from Trumps personal stash, it is not a contribution because Trump doesn’t contribute to himself.
Merely being “secret” or “hush” or “processed oddly” doesn’t turn it into a “campaign contribution”. It might create some other problem, but then someone has to explain what problem it creates and charge with that.
Cohen deciding to not dispute prosecutors contention that something was illegal and/or was somehow for the campaign doesn’t even turn it into a campaign contribution. Edwards disputed and courts four prosecutors wrong and Edwards right.
Even with Cohen claiming to have been acting in his “campaign” role instead of his “personal attorney” role is going to be a problem for prosecutors. Cohen was Trump’s personal attorney and did do tons of personal work. So to “get” Trump prosecutors are going to have to show Trumpknew Cohen was wearing his “campaign hat”, which, afterall, is both a metaphor and invisible. And prosecutors are going to have to show how outsiders can possibly tell. And heck Cohen is going to have to explain how he knew when he was wearing his campaign hat vs. his personal attorney hat and show how he informed Trump which hat he was wearing so that Trump could know. And Cohen is going to have to show he informed Trump he was wearing his campaign hat.
If there was a trial, the benefit would go to Trump not prosecutors. And that is true even if the entire business arrangement between Trump and Cohen is designed to make it hard to tell which “hat” Cohen is wearing at any time. The fact is: anything Cohen did to make it difficult for anyone (including Trump) to tell what Trump authorized and “which hat” Cohen was wearing favors Trump saying he couldn’t tell and didn’t know.
Remember: while lots of people don’t like Trump, it’s unlikely a prosecutor is going to get 9 Trump hating jurors who will convict him regardless of the strength of the case. If 8 want to convict and 1 doesn’t, that’s a hung jury.
Mind you: in impeachment, all bets are off. But imagine if Trump were impeached for this, and the either:
1) Not tried or
2) Tried and was found not guilty on some counts and hung on others just like Edwards.
How do you think that’s going to go down with much of the country? I think pretty badly. Because sure, lots of people don’t like Trump. But they do like our Representative democracy and they don’t want impeachment to just become a tool for Congress to get rid of a president they just personally dislike.
OK Max. Virtually all browsers have a private mode that gets you 5 or 10 free articles from paywalled sites. On Firefox, it is called private mode. On Google Chrome called incognito mode. Opera also has private mode.
WP, I believe gives you 5 free articles a month. So, with 3 browsers you get 15 free per month. Once you reach 15, you simply refresh. If you have a tablet and a computer, you would get 30 free articles per month. And, on and on…
JD
Pleading guilty to a crime you didn’t commit can be completely rational, especially in an imperfect justice system and an imperfect world. People almost always plead guilty to lesser crimes, and it is a risk decision on whether they can convict you of the charged crime regardless of whether you are guilty or not.
.
A two time felon watches his drug dealing friend get shot, the perp throws down the gun, the felon picks it up and fires at the perp. Witnesses see the last part, a felon firing a murder weapon right next to the murder victim. You are offered 25 years for 2nd degree murder. What are you going to do?
.
Your not-friend gets murdered and three of his friends all falsely claim they witnessed you killing him. What are you going to do.
.
The cops pull you over and plant a murder weapon of a recently shot cop on you. What are you going to do?
.
You have zero trust in the justice system, barely understand how it works, not too bright, are a high crime minority in a small town accused of a violent crime against a white woman. What are you going to do?
.
You are being accused of something you didn’t do, but are guilty of much worse things in the related case, you want the investigation in this case closed ASAP. You plead guilty.
.
It can be rational, although it is likely the large majority of plea bargains are guilty people pleading to lesser offenses so the justice system doesn’t have the costs of a trial of every case.
.
Don’t forget the other side, prosecutors offering plea bargains to people they know they don’t have the evidence to convict. It’s a pretty gray world in the details.
Right click on link, use open link in incognito window, and this will bypass many paywalls indefinitely (works on NYT, WP, not the WSJ). This works because the vendors want to entice new business and incognito mode does not allow them to track previous usage. Advanced bypassers (whoever they might be …) will open a incognito window on one monitor and browse to the front pages of news sites on their second monitor. They well then drag links from the front pages to the incognito window to save themselves precious milliseconds of labor.
“It’s alarming that Trump is aligning himself with anti-civil rights activist Edward Blum in this subversive attempt to say that civil rights protections cause discrimination, Asian-Americans have long benefited from policies to increase equal opportunity and still do. Our fear is that Harvard’s admissions system is just the latest target in a larger fight to roll back protections for people of color in all fields, including government and business.â€
.
Guess who said this? Jeannie Park, the head of the Harvard Asian American Alumni Alliance.
mark, the subject of plea bargaining is very interesting.
In reading up on it, I couldn’t find a developed country
that doesn’t have some form. Japan had been an
exception until earlier this year when it decided to start
plea bargaining with snitches. Some in the legal
community find fault with the plan.
The following quotes are from the linked Japanese Times article titled Japanese-style plea bargaining debuts but authorities fear spread of false testimony.
“Unlike the U.S. plea bargaining system, admitting to a crime does not warrant a deal with prosecutors in Japan. The new system, introduced in a revision to the criminal procedure law, allows suspects in such crimes as bribery, embezzlement, tax fraud and drug smuggling to negotiate with prosecutors. The bargaining only applies to crimes listed in the law, with murder and assault off-limits.â€
“To prevent suspects or the accused from lying to get a deal, Japan’s revised law penalizes false depositions and obliges defense lawyers to be involved in the bargaining process. If depositions are found to be false, those giving them will face up to five years in jail.â€
“Penalizing false depositions could “make it harder for informants to retract what they said,†Sasakura pointed out. Instead of discouraging false statements, the penalty may instead push informants to stick with their story even if it’s false, she explained.â€
Apparently, the Japanese authorities will plea bargain only in cases where they will get more than just a confession of guilt. To get a reduced sentence or go free, the criminal defendant must lead the authorities to other criminals. I guess if Cohen had been subject to Japanese style plea bargaining he might have benefitted from his guilty pleas on the two campaign finance charges, unless he was lying.
Somehow Sam Cooke … Chain Gang … comes to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcGwz3LhQ1A
.
They have done lots of prison work programs with variable success. Apparently you must work in the fed prison system if you are physically able, for about $0.30 /hour. There are internal factories such as license plate manufacturing and prison support such as laundry. The prisons are heavily dependent on prison labor to keep things running.
.
I’m guessing your standard guest worker will be a much better worker than prison labor. It’s probably a good idea that will never fly once the usual suspects start screaming.
Thanks, Tom. Chain Gang was a great Sam Cooke song. I also like Back On The Chain Gang by Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders,
although the meaning is different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ8kbordCAg
I don’t know if prisoners in the U.S have ever been hired out to work on private farms. During WWII German POW’s in U.S. camps worked on nearby farms. Most POW’s, however, probably were less likely than prison inmates to try escaping.
OK_Max (Comment #169408)
July 27th, 2018 at 4:10 pm
OK, that was my comment you quoted.
The Chinese experiment “borrows” ideas from more innovative economies and depends on government controlled banks to provide capital for expansion. Those banks are often kept from going under by the Chinese government – and that situation will end badly someday.
The Chinese economy is much freer today than it was when more of the economy was under tighter control a few decades ago. This is more a case of going from a terrible economy to one not as bad. The question should be: Where would the Chinese economy be if it were even more free from government control and further how much more sustainable would that economic level be?
I recall that Paul Samuelson, the extolled Keynesian economist and text book author in the US, predicting that the USSR economy was to pass that of the US in the near future. I think that leftist wishful thinking often enters into these discussions.
I would agree that after reading those statistics and viewing who does what in work around my neighborhood and local area, it becomes a matter of who do I believe the statistics or my lying eyes.
In our area almost all yard, landscaping and roofing jobs are handled by Spanish speaking Mexican immigrants. A number of the companies doing these jobs are owned by immigrants. What I see are efficient and excellent workers. Last year I had the only non Hispanic yard worker in my neighborhood and he was a Russian immigrant – and did excellent work also.
I also might add that the equipment used for yard work by these professionals has changed over the recent years to where a yard can be mowed, trimmed and sidewalks blown free of grass in a much shorter time and with much less manual labor than a couple of decades ago. Technology rears her lovely head in many places.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #169413): “I would agree that after reading those statistics and viewing who does what in work around my neighborhood and local area, it becomes a matter of who do I believe the statistics or my lying eyes.”
I don’t doubt that there are jobs that are done largely by low skill immigrants. But that does not mean that only immigrants will do those jobs; it means that few people other than immigrants will do those jobs for the wages on offer.
Completely cutting off the supply of low skill immigrants would surely cause labor shortages in some areas. That would cause wages to rise, drawing more domestic workers. But it some areas it might well be problematic to fill the need for workers.
The big problem is the all-or-nothing attitude adopted by many. On one side, we have many people pointing to certain job classifications and arguing that we need all the low skill immigrants that might come here. On the other side, we have some people claiming that we don’t need any low skill immigrants; cut off the supply and the market will adjust, to the benefit of domestic workers.
The truth lies somewhere in between. Our economy can make use of some low skill immigrants. We should allow in the number that can easily be productively employed, and no more.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #169412)
July 28th, 2018 at 8:51 am
OK_Max (Comment #169408)
July 27th, 2018 at 4:10 pm
“OK, that was my comment you quoted.”
_______
I’m sorry Kenneth. I will try to pay better attention.
You say “The question should be: Where would the Chinese economy be if it were even more free from government control and further how much more sustainable would that economic level be?”
That’s a good question. It might be better for the citizens of China if the country was more free from government control, but government direction of the economy may be making it more of a force in the world market.
Mike M. (Comment #169414)
July 28th, 2018 at 9:49 am
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #169413): “I would agree that after reading those statistics and viewing who does what in work around my neighborhood and local area, it becomes a matter of who do I believe the statistics or my lying eyes.â€
I don’t doubt that there are jobs that are done largely by low skill immigrants. But that does not mean that only immigrants will do those jobs; it means that few people other than immigrants will do those jobs for the wages on offer.
_____
If citizens won’t do those jobs for the wages being offered, what are they doing? If the citizens who would be doing those jobs (if the wages were higher) have other jobs who cares? On the other hand,
if they are unemployed, should we care?
OK_Max (Comment #169416): “If citizens won’t do those jobs for the wages being offered, what are they doing?”
All sorts of things, I’m sure. Collecting welfare, or unemployment insurance, or disability, or living off an early retirement pension that is not really enough, or getting by in the underground economy, or working at a less productive low paying job that is easier. Not all such people might be physically capable of being roofers, but people drawn to higher paying jobs from easier jobs might create room for others to enter the workforce in the easier jobs.
.
OK_Max: “If the citizens who would be doing those jobs (if the wages were higher) have other jobs who cares?”
Off hand, I’d say that anyone who is not among the smug elite would care.
.
OK_Max: “On the other hand, if they are unemployed, should we care?”
Of course we should. You sound like a Social Darwinist.
The vast majority of yard work in FL looks to use immigrant labor, I’m using native labor although that is not be design, it just happened that way. When we had our house re-roofed several of the companies made it a point to say they do not use immigrant labor and that most of their crews have been employed for years. They were more expensive amazingly enough. I suppose roofing is an area of manual labor that doesn’t look to be automated anytime soon (although the portable electrical hammers make very quick work of the nailing process now). Doing roof work in FL in July / Aug is level 10 torture in my view.
.
On a similar subject I have now had 3 experiences in the past few years where cable installers or electrical contractors basically refuse to do any attic work. If it take immigrants to run a wire in a FL house, then so be it.
Plastic straws are now being criminalized. As if I need another reason to vote against the left.
.
“Our straw campaign is not really about straws,†said Dune Ives, the executive director of Lonely Whale, the organization that led the straw ban movement in Seattle.”
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17488336/starbucks-plastic-straw-ban-ocean-pollution
Tom
Waxed paper straws should work.
Kenneth,
In Lisle, just south of you, the landscapers are nearly all Hispanic. The roofers are not.
It just reminds me of ban paper bags! Ban plastic bags! It’s an exercise in exerting power without any legitimate reason. I can say without even looking that the connection between plastic straws and whale deaths is incredibly thin if not non-existent. Lots of the media have been using straw estimates uncritically from a nine year old. This is what environmentalism and the media coverage has become. Latch onto a random cause, report on it uncritically, demonize anyone who disagrees, make people’s lives less convenient, then move on to the next random cause.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/plastic-straws-ban-fact-check-nyt.html
.
It’s unacceptable to criminalize the use of something that advocates outright admit isn’t a real problem. I expect better from everybody. Isn’t it possible there could be an interim phase where we try to use fewer straws before it’s jail time?
I think roofers are unionized in Illinois which would explain the roofer demographics.
For some reason, I dislike straws and almost never use them. All of a sudden I’m trendy! What a strange feeling (or maybe there was something wrong with that shrimp).
Now maybe I can become trendy about something that will actually make a difference without negatively impacting the disabled. I never litter. I am waiting with baited breath. Not.
.
p.s. – It seems the phrase is “bated breath”.
From the article Tom cited in #169419: “Straws are far from our biggest problem when it comes to marine plastic pollution. […] But activists hope that straws will be a “gateway plastic,†encouraging people to forgo other single-use plastics such as bags and bottles.”
.
Gives new meaning to the phrase “straw man argument”.
HaroldW,
“Straw man argument.”
.
LOL.😆
I use very, very few straw. My guess is 1 straw/year.
I buy milk in plastic bottles; I will continue to do this.
Others buy water in plastic bottles. Me? Not so much. My guess is they will continue to do this.
But I don’t mind waxed paper straws. I don’t use may straw either way, but ok… no never mind to me.
But lucia, you don’t mind waxed paper straws because you rarely use straws anyway. I’m the same way, but plastic straws could be important to some straw users. Maybe plastic feels better on the lips than waxed paper to some users.
I prefer glass bottles over plastic bottles, particularly if I will be drinking right from the bottle. But the main reason is I suspect
the plastic may leach into the liquid ( an irrational fear?). That
shouldn’t be a problem with milk because it’s consumed in a short
time.
Mike M. (Comment #169417)
OK_Max: “If the citizens who would be doing those jobs (if the wages were higher) have other jobs who cares?â€
Mike M.:Off hand, I’d say that anyone who is not among the smug elite would care.
.
OK_Max: “On the other hand, if they are unemployed, should we care?â€
MikeM.: Of course we should. You sound like a Social Darwinist.
______
Being for universal health care probably would disqualify me from being a Social Darwinist.
I misused “unemployed.” I should have said “if they aren’t working by choice” should we care?” By definition, unemployed means not employed but looking for work.
I didn’t understand your comment about the smug elite. There are lots of different people who think they are superior or better than others and are proud about it. Some actually are superior, others just think they are. I don’t know which ones you meant and why you think they don’t care about the kinds of jobs low-paid workers have.
BTW, I’m like you about straws.
California’s Anti-Okie Act
In 1937 California passed a law to stem the Okie invasion. It was before my time, but a lot of my ancestral relatives got in anyway. Of course the law was struck down in court. Almost all my relatives today are California residents, the decedents of the original Okie settlers.
Why did Californians back then fear Okies. Aside from language, mostly for the same reasons there is fear in America today about immigrants from Mexico and Central America.
Will Rogers said the Okie migration raised the intellectual levels of both California and Oklahoma.
OK_Max (Comment #169429): “I didn’t understand your comment about the smug elite. There are lots of different people who think they are superior … I don’t know which ones you meant and why you think they don’t care about the kinds of jobs low-paid workers have.”
I meant you. The reason I think you don’t care about low paid workers is because you implied that you don’t with your apparently rhetorical questions.
.
OK_Max: “Being for universal health care probably would disqualify me from being a Social Darwinist. … I should have said if they aren’t working by choice should we care?”
One statement that sounds like a socialist coupled with another that sounds like a Social Darwinist. I suppose that you reconcile the two by reasoning that as long as the less fortunate are provided with bread and circuses (maybe that should be bread and doctors) they have nothing to complain about. What that misses is the fact that having useful work is more important than having medical care.
.
OK_Max: “By definition, unemployed means not employed but looking for work.”
But it is an oversimplification to characterized discouraged workers as not working by choice.
OK_Max (Comment #169430): “Why did Californians back then fear Okies. Aside from language, mostly for the same reasons there is fear in America today about immigrants from Mexico and Central America.”
That is pure propaganda. The major issues then and now are not about fear.
Funny. When I saw the term ‘Okie’ I assumed it referred to immigrants from Okinawa. This (and Merriam Webster) suggests that the term refers to immigrants from Oklahoma. Probably everybody else already knew that, but I [didn’t and ] thought it was funny [when I found out what it really meant].
California passed a law trying to prohibit immigration from Oklahoma… Huh. People are strange.
lucia (Comment #169421)
Lucia, I have had lots of jobs done recently on my property and home getting it ready to sell in a year or so and the many of the jobs I have had completed were done by immigrant workers. I was satisfied with their work and the communications that I had with them.
The only job that was done by a non immigrant worker was that of sealing my basement and he also did a good job. As I recall he was from Lisle.
Many years ago I had a major home improvement project overseen by a white male in his thirties who was recommended by a friend of a friend. He started to wear on my nerves when he said I should not talk to his subcontractor and really got me going when he tried to intimidate me about my punch list. When he arrived to get his final payment in his brand new pick-up truck I had to remind him that he had to remove the materials left over from his project. He said he thought I would want this scrap and that he did not want to load it into his new truck. I told him in that case he would not get the final payment. I took some pleasure from watching over this arrogant SOB sweat while he loaded the scrap into his brand new truck.
I am not biased against white males in their thirties but for this one jackass to have been in business there must have been a lack of competition. If that competition comes from immigrant workers and small business owners I am all in.
Propagating the notion that illegal immigration is opposed because of fear and racism is a convenient way to avoid the questions involving the harm that is caused. An influx of cheap labor cannot possibly help the US citizens competing for those jobs. It also doesn’t help US drywallers, roofers, landscapers etc when an influx of cheaper labor negatively impacts their income. Of course you get your home built a little cheaper or your lawn manicured for less. So some are hurt and some are benefited but let’s talk about racism. It’s a lot simpler.
mark bofill (Comment #169434): “California passed a law trying to prohibit immigration from Oklahoma”
Actually, it was a law trying to prevent the importation of indigent persons. In the late 1930’s, the annual migration of Okies amounted to about 1% of California’s population per year, plus many more from other dust bowl states. So the concern was not unreasonable, even if the methods were unreasonable.
.
As for “Okie”, you seem to have a gap in your knowledge of American popular culture. I recommend that you find a Merle Haggard CD that includes “I’m Proud to be an Okie from Muskogee”, and give it a listen. 🙂
Also, Woody Guthrie “Do Re Me”.
Mike M. (Comment #169432)
July 29th, 2018 at 8:16 am
OK_Max (Comment #169429): “I didn’t understand your comment about the smug elite. There are lots of different people who think they are superior … I don’t know which ones you meant and why you think they don’t care about the kinds of jobs low-paid workers have.â€
I meant you. The reason I think you don’t care about low paid workers is because you implied that you don’t with your apparently rhetorical questions.
________
Mike M, my question was not meant to be rhetorical. I will try to explain. Some people may choose to not work rather than take a low-paying job. I have mixed feelings about this. I believe a person should have the freedom to not work if he is willing to accept the consequences. On the other hand, I believe work can benefit a person beyond getting paid. Loss of a person’s labor also is a loss
to society. But those are my opinions. My question was meant to
get other opinions.
I do care about low-paid workers, particularly those with families to support. I favor the earned-income tax credit as well as universal
health care.
Mike M. (Comment #169433)
July 29th, 2018 at 8:18 am
OK_Max (Comment #169430): “Why did Californians back then fear Okies. Aside from language, mostly for the same reasons there is fear in America today about immigrants from Mexico and Central America.â€
That is pure propaganda. The major issues then and now are not about fear.
_________
If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?
In case you missed it.
.
China’s stock market is down 25% since January. The yuan had its worst single month ever in June. Part of the pending EU / US trade resolution is apparently to put more pressure on China.
.
The US economy grew at 4.1% last quarter, continuing its “never recovery” from the Trump election. Full employment. Near record stock markets. Wall Street is immune to media hyperventilating.
.
China’s losing so far by any objective measure and the US is in better position to continue an aggressive stance.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-is-losing-the-trade-war-with-trump-1532729725
.
That being said, negative trade effects are likely more in front of us than behind us and the economy is near the top so its likely future direction is predictably down (regression to the mean).
Mike,
Apparently so.
Thanks, sure will! 🙂
OK_Max,
Okies are moronic, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist, sexist, racist, prejudiced, uncaring bigots (I think I checked all the right boxes). Who wants that? It’s not fear, it’s just not wanting to associate with deplorables. CA knew this long before the rest of America did. It should have been obvious to everyone when the bunch of cheaters left the line early for their immoral land grab in 1889. You just can’t breed that stuff out.
Tom Scharf,
” The yuan had its worst single month ever in June. ”
.
That makes their exports more competitive relative to domestically produced USA products.
.
China does have real economic problems, of course, many stemming from the command-and-control portion of their economy. Banks make bad loans to companies favored by the government…. and so have generated lots of bad debt. But China’s exports will remain strong for a long time to come.
mark bofill (Comment #169434)
July 29th, 2018 at 10:06 am
John Steinbeck’s book Grapes of Wrath and a movie with the same title will give you a classic left wing propaganda view of an Okie family move to CA. It says more about Steinbeck than the Okies.
Some of the critical reviews of this work are probably better at giving a historical view of that exodus to CA and what happened to Okies that settled in CA.
That’s exactly the predicted effect of increased tariffs (along with a stronger dollar, which also makes imports cheaper) in my link above:
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/-three-simple-principles-of-trade-policy_142937157317.pdf
Yeah, right. I’m just quoting the WSJ, I don’t really understand currency markets and their manipulation. I was always confused when the dollar fell or rose it was reported as bad news either way.
Kenneth,
Thanks. I’m certain I read Grapes of Wrath as a kid, but apparently it didn’t sink in. Maybe I’ll reread it. Or I’ll take your advice and go with the reviews (much more probable).
.
[Edit: Tom,
You sure that’s Oklahoma? Sounds like my sweet home Alabama to me. :O ]
DeWitt,
I read over your link. The things it points out are mostly true and mostly irrelevant to trade policy. Eg. A trade imbalance leads to an offsetting capital flow… obvious, true, and irrelevant. Countries with large surpluses in their trade with the USA end up holding (directly or indirectly) capital assets in the USA. They also help enable utterly irresponsible government expenditures by reducing the cost of government debt. More dollars looking for a home ultimately lower the cost of treasury debt, postponing needed reforms in Federal budgeting. From a political perspective, falling manufacturing employment is an even bigger consequence of large trade deficits.
O.K. Max: “If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?”
It is about the rule of law, which cannot exist without the foundation of a shared culture. It is about the anarchy that occurs when large numbers of people speak different languages. It is about being overwhelmed by the large number of people throughout the world who live in extreme poverty (assuming the policy of open borders, which is favored by a plurality of Democrats) and who would be doing much better in the US on welfare than they are currently doing in their home country.
JD
What is the most disparaged state? Certainly Alabama is a good candidate, as my home state of WV. Others would be Arkansas, Kentucky, New Jersey and I’ll even throw in OK and KS. Maybe dark horses like Mississippi, Idaho, the Dakotas. But being ignored as nonexistent isn’t the same as being disparaged.
.
It seems my candidates align with “Which state has the ugliest residents” ha ha. I missed the amount of vitriol to Texas.
https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-how-americans-feel-about-the-states-2013-8
OK_Max (Comment #169439): “If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?”
What JD said (Comment #169449).
To that I add: It’s about the rule of law with respect to our borders and our right to control who we let it. It’s about not creating conditions that make it hard for recently arrived immigrants to get ahead economically. It’s about not damaging our economy by letting in an excess of low productivity individuals. It’s about not making our budget deficits even bigger and thus making it harder to provide services to people who are already here and need the services. It is about not damaging the lives of natives by making it hard for them to find productive work.
MikeM,
Sounds like you draw a legal distinction between US citizens and non-citizens. Very non-PC.
.
But the fact that it is very non-PC points to the intellectual folly of PC gatekeepers, and to the deep political divide this country faces….. a significant fraction (depends what polls you believe) of “progressives” support essentially open borders, and some even support giving illegal residents the right to vote. Which is tantamount to rejecting the legitimacy of the United States as a self-governing political entity with authority over its borders. Having a sizable fraction of one political party reject the idea of their own country as a self-governing entity is a very big problem, and one which does not lend itself to compromise.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169442)
July 29th, 2018 at 10:45 am
OK_Max,
“Okies are moronic, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist, sexist, racist, prejudiced, uncaring bigots (I think I checked all the right boxes). Who wants that? It’s not fear, it’s just not wanting to associate with deplorables. CA knew this long before the rest of America did. It should have been obvious to everyone when the bunch of cheaters left the line early for their immoral land grab in 1889. You just can’t breed that stuff out.”
_______
I wouldn’t agree that “you just can’t breed that stuff out. While I do have some relatives with one or more of those characteristics, I also have a few who are smug elites.
My ancestors arrived in Oklahoma a several years after the land run, so missed out on getting a farm free. But land still was inexpensive.
Oklahoma was booming in the early 1900’s.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #169444)
July 29th, 2018 at 11:03 am
“John Steinbeck’s book Grapes of Wrath and a movie with the same title will give you a classic left wing propaganda view of an Okie family move to CA.”
_____
Not all Okie families who migrated to California were as bad off as the Joads and not all Californians were inhospitable to the migrants.
But the fact that a law was passed to keep Okies from entering the State should tell you something.
Mike M. (Comment #169451)
July 29th, 2018 at 2:49 pm
OK_Max (Comment #169439): “If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?â€
What JD said (Comment #169449).
“To that I add: It’s about the rule of law with respect to our borders and our right to control who we let it. It’s about not creating conditions that make it hard for recently arrived immigrants to get ahead economically. It’s about not damaging our economy by letting in an excess of low productivity individuals. It’s about not making our budget deficits even bigger and thus making it harder to provide services to people who are already here and need the services. It is about not damaging the lives of natives by making it hard for them to find productive work.”
______
I favor immigration laws. At the same time, I don’t begrudge people
for trying to better their lot by entering the country illegally. If I
were in their shoes, I might be doing what they try to do. I doubt
the illegals are a net economic liability.
JD Ohio (Comment #169449)
July 29th, 2018 at 1:52 pm
O.K. Max: “If it’s not about fear, what’s it about?â€
” It is about being overwhelmed by the large number of people throughout the world who live in extreme poverty (assuming the policy of open borders, which is favored by a plurality of Democrats)”
_____
JD, what do you mean by ” plurality” and what’s the source?
Max,
Out of curiosity, why do you doubt this? (real question) I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t good reasons to doubt this. I’m just curious what [specifically] makes you say that, off the cuff.
OK M “JD, what do you mean by †plurality†and what’s the source?”
This:
“”Among Democrats, 43 percent say the government should get rid of ICE, while only 34 percent say it should keep ICE.” https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/11/immigration-ice-abolish-poll-708703
JD
Alright. Open borders on this thread. Sanctuary comments. Not only will I not detain you and lock up your kids, but I’ll steal from Tom, Steve, Mike and DeWitt to give you free healthcare and birth control! Come one, come all!
.
Seriously people. The last thread is getting too long. :/
[Edit: People may deny that Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, but apparently Trump Anxiety Disorder is a thing.]
mark bofill (Comment #169457)
July 29th, 2018 at 6:10 pm
Max,
I doubt the illegals are a net economic liability.
Out of curiosity, why do you doubt this? (real question) I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t good reasons to doubt this. I’m just curious what [specifically] makes you say that, off the cuff.
______
Common sense.
I believe most illegal immigrants support themselves by working.
They add to our GNP. If they are putting citizens out of work why is the unemployment rate so low?
The linked Na’l Acad study concludes all immigrants together
are a net long-term benefit. I believe the illegals are less likely
than the legals to receive services funded by taxpayers because applying for such services would reveal their illegal status.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-immigration
Also, I think about all those immigrants from Europe in the 1800’s.
I don’t believe they were a net long term liability.
Max,
I appreciate your thorough answer, thank you.
JD Ohio (Comment #169458)
JD, thank you for the link to your source.
In your previous comment, you said “assuming the policy of open borders, which is favored by a plurality of Democrats”
Your linked source says a plurality of Democrats favored abolishing ICE. It didn’t say a plurality favored open borders.
I thought ICE had responsibility for the illegals already here, and another Fed agency was in charge of border control, but I could be wrong.
Also, being in favor of abolishing ICE wouldn’t necessarily mean being in favor of nothing to replace it.
Max OK “I thought ICE had responsibility for the illegals already here, and another Fed agency was in charge of border control, but I could be wrong.’
…..
It turns out that you are right. ICE and the Border Patrol are sister agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement#Record_number_of_deportations
….
However, what happens is that after the Border Patrol apprehends someone, it is ICE’s job to deport them. If you abolish ICE the Border Patrol has nothing to do because there is no agency to house those arriving here illegally or those whose visa’s have expired. Some on the Left equate deportation with White Supremacy.
….
“The call to abolish ICE is, above all, a demand for the Democratic Party to begin seriously resisting an unbridled white-supremacist surveillance state that it had a hand in creating. Though the party has moved left on core issues from reproductive rights to single-payer health care, it’s time for progressives to put forward a demand that deportation be taken not as the norm but rather as a disturbing indicator of authoritarianism.
White supremacy can no longer be the center of the immigration debate. Democrats have voted to fully fund ICE with limited fanfare, because in the American immigration discussion, the right-wing position is the center and the left has no voice. There has been disturbing word fatigue around “mass deportation,†and the threat of deportation is so often taken lightly that many have lost the ability to conceptualize what it means. Next to death, being stripped from your home, family, and community is the worst fate that can be inflicted on a human, as many societies practicing banishment have recognized. It’s time to rein in the greatest threat we face: an unaccountable strike force executing a campaign of ethnic cleansing. ”
Although ICE deals with deportation, housing of illegals and removal, unless those functions exist, there is very little for the Border Patrol to do if people can simply tell the Border Patrol they won’t leave. Getting ride of ICE is functionally very close to an open borders policy. I also doubt that the Democratic voters are making the somewhat subtle distinction that you are making.
….
“Also, being in favor of abolishing ICE wouldn’t necessarily mean being in favor of nothing to replace it.” This is a reasonable point, but I see nothing workable being proposed by those who oppose ICE. However, from the article cited above:
…….
“But the goal of abolishing the agency is to abolish the function. ICE has become a genuine threat to democracy, and it is destroying thousands of lives. ” I would comment that “destroying” thousands of lives is drop in the bucket compared to the millions of people who are illegally in the US. If you are going to have real enforcement with respect to 10 million people, it is inevitable that thousands of lives will be affected. The same could be said, for instance, about IRS audits.
JD
JD
7 weeks to arctic minimum.
5 years since Lucia used to do these?
One of the reasons for reading these threads and observing such disparate interesting commentators.
Please do not bring it back, Lucia.
Trump in more trouble, not happy with Cohen.
Why,why, why?
He, not Trump, must have done something big wrong for them to get him to turn like this.
angech,
I don’t have time to do the betting any more.
Lucia
angech,
“..must have done something big wrong..”
.
More likely it is a ‘ham sandwich’ type prosecution. Mueller is prosecuting anyone associated with Trump in the past that he possibly can (including ham sandwiches, if need be) if he believes they might testify to Trump having committed some crime. This is neither surprising, nor has anything to do with collusion with Russians…. it is Muller trying to find one or more charges, unrelated to Russian collusion, to get Trump impeached after the November election (assuming the Democrats gain a majority of the House of Representatives). Of course it all hinges on the November election. If the Republicans maintain control of the House, then Mueller’s investigation will lead to nothing…. except plenty of tormented ham sandwiches. Had Trump not won the election, none of the people who have been indited by Mueller would have been. It is 100% politically motivated, and has nothing to do with normal law enforcement.
Now it is official:
“I’m now 85,†Ginsburg said, according to CNN. “My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens, he stepped down when he was 90, so think I have about at least five more years.â€
.
So long as she is alive, Trump won’t be naming her replacement.
SteveF,
That’s my take. RBG is not stepping down voluntarily.
OK_Max (Comment #169460): “Common sense.”
One man’s common sense is another man’s nonsense.
.
OK_Max: “I believe most illegal immigrants support themselves by working.”
Yes, and they also use government services. Since they are low income, that is a net fiscal drain on the government, even if they do not all use all services that they might. I think that is a generally accepted result, but I am not certain.
.
OK_Max: “They add to our GNP.”
Yes, everyone agrees on that. But only a small fraction of that benefits people other than themselves. It is not clear if that plus government transfers is a net positive or negative for the native born.
.
OK_Max: “If they are putting citizens out of work why is the unemployment rate so low?”
Because workforce participation is so low. Unemployment is low, but employment is well below where it should be. Also, underemployment is high and wages are low.
.
OK_Max: “The linked Na’l Acad study concludes all immigrants together are a net long-term benefit.”
What has been true in the past will not necessarily be true in the future. And looking at net rather than individuals ignores the human cost of excessive low skill immigration.
.
—————
Immigrants slightly increase per capita GDP for the native born. But the big impact (an order of magnitude larger) is income redistribution. That redistribution is from low income people to high income people. It occurs by suppressing wages for the less well off and thus increasing profits for employers and reducing costs for customers, the more affluent get the biggest benefit. That is contrary to good public policy.
Reply to OK_Max (Comment #169460): http://rankexploits.com/musings/2018/happy-4th-of-july/#comment-169469
As pointed out by mark, this thread is too long, so we should move the discussion to the all-but-empty thread.
SteveF,
Again I would like to point out that while manufacturing jobs have declined in the US, manufacturing has not.
The 1979 movie Norma Rae is often cited as a great movie about the labor movement. The movie is about unionizing the textile mills in North Carolina. Guess what, those mills have been gone for decades. Labor intensive industry will always move to where the labor is less expensive. That’s why the textile mills moved to the South from the Northeast.
The advent of containerized shipping was a significant factor in the move offshore. The only way they would move back is if they could be made far, far less labor intensive, i.e. essentially no low-skilled labor needed.
Tariffs always hurt more people than they help. The only possible excuse for tariffs is as a short term strategy to lower tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers overall. Maybe that’s Trump’s plan. Only he knows.
DeWitt Payne wrote “The only possible excuse for tariffs is as a short term strategy to lower tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers overall. Maybe that’s Trump’s plan. Only he knows.”
.
Take the EU. It looks like typical Trump to go in with a big stick with the aim of coming to a more favorable compromise.
.
“The question is, how much do you give in to a bully?†asked Maria Demertzis, the deputy director of Bruegel, an economic research institute in Brussels. “This could just be perfunctory, and if it just stops extra tariffs, that’s fine. But you can’t really depend on Trump. His understanding of global trade is bilateral balance, which is as good as arbitrary, given global supply chains. And it depends on what side of the bed he wakes up on tomorrow.â€
.
“Juncker’s achievement was to get Trump to say publicly that he would reconsider steel and aluminum tariffs and not impose car tariffs in return for a negotiation,†said Guntram B. Wolff, director of Bruegel. “For the E.U., the gun is still loaded but it’s not pointed at our heads, so for us it’s a good moment to negotiate.â€
.
So he’s put the “big stick” on the table and they know he’s unpredictable, unstable and stupid enough to use it. Seems like a great position to bargain from.
It still boggles my mind you can manufacture something in China, ship it to port by truck/train, load it up, go thousands of miles in a boat, unload it, drive it to Walmart in the Midwest, and sell something profitably for $1. This is magic.
An underappreciated potential effect of “crazy man with a stick” negotiating is that it shifts the opponent’s stance to be defensive, while they are battling just to maintain the status quo they aren’t contemplating offensive actions.
Tom Scharf,
A Wall Street Journal editorial discussed Trump’s negotiating behavior noting he’d basically flipped the tables on the Chinese who used to do the same dang thing. That is: make unclear demands, criticize all first offers, be vague about how it could be fixed and so on.
If you look at Trump as a slimy integrity challenged used car salesman executing foreign/trade policy then nothing he does is very surprising. Just wait until China realizes that anti-rust treatment is mandatory with every purchase and there is a $250B administrative paperwork fee.
I don’t think Trump’s tariff threats are hard to understand. Many trading partners (including Canada, Mexico, Europe, and of course China) have tariff and non-tariff barriers plus subsidies to disadvantage US producers. The USA is hardly blameless, but our tariffs, subsidies, and protections for domestic producers (specifically some farm products and the ‘chicken tariff’ on pickup trucks) pale next to those imposed by our major trading partners. If the EU wants to avoid a trade war (and they do) they need to level the playing field by lowering their tariffs and non-tariff barriers to be approximately equal to ours. If Europe continues to insist on ~twice the net average tariffs plus onerous non-tariff barriers on US produced goods (REACH regulations!, no GMO’s!, no poisonous California wines!, no mass-produced eggs!), they will for certain face retaliatory tariffs. China is worse than Europe because of tariffs plus intellectual property theft….. which is no surprise, since private property is not respected in officially communist China.
DeWitt,
” The only possible excuse for tariffs is as a short term strategy to lower tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers overall. Maybe that’s Trump’s plan. Only he knows.”
.
Actually, Larry Kudlow (Director of the National Economic Council) has been saying just that. Trump’s future pronouncements are hard to predict, of course.
Tom Scharf,
“It still boggles my mind you can manufacture something in China, ship it to port by truck/train, load it up, go thousands of miles in a boat, unload it, drive it to Walmart in the Midwest, and sell something profitably for $1. This is magic.”
.
Not magic… pennies per hour wages in China and low container freight costs (eg <$60 per ton) make it all possible. Lots of $1 widgets fit in a 20 or 40 foot container.
SteveF,
Chinese wages are a lot higher than pennies/hour unless you’re counting pennies by the hundreds. If you assume the average Chinese works 200hours/month with a median monthly salary of $1,000/month, that’s 500 pennies/hour. Even the minimum wage in the poorest province is more than $1/hour.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/08/16/china-wage-levels-equal-to-or-surpass-parts-of-europe/#290e071a3e7f
https://www.statista.com/statistics/233886/minimum-wage-per-hour-in-china-by-city-and-province/
Tom Scharf,
Container shipping is both inexpensive, faster than you might think and highly predictable, although there is the occasional accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship
Yet more proof that irony always increases:
1. Sulzberger of the NYT is asking Trump to tone down his anti-press rhetoric. Considering how Sulzberger ordered his editors and reporters to only be negative of Trump during the campaign (which hasn’t stopped), that’s more than a bit hypocritical. I believe the cliche is ‘what goes around, comes around.’
2. The Trump 2020 campaign is ordering its banners from China.
Mike M. (Comment #169470)
July 30th, 2018 at 7:19 am
Reply to OK_Max (Comment #169460): http://rankexploits.com/musing…..ent-169469
As pointed out by mark, this thread is too long, so we should move the discussion to the all-but-empty thread.
____
Given your link, I take it you mean the “Happy 4th of July” thread, which is almost empty. If not, please let me know. I don’t have time
right now, but am interested in further discussing the declining LF participation rate.
DeWitt,
I was not aware that Chinese wages had reached that level. Still, even $5 per hour is pretty cheap compared to US labor costs. At my production plant, nobody is paid much less than $20 per hour, and labor cost is the dominant factor in total production cost.
Good old negative psychology. Never worked on my kids very well either.
Sigh.
SteveF “I was not aware that Chinese wages had reached that level. Still, even $5 per hour is pretty cheap compared to US labor costs.”
……
I normally visit Wuhan once a year. Roughly, I would guess that its prices are 60% of those in the US. Just watched a Youtube video yesterday (can’t find it now), but it said the average income ranged from $5,000 per year in poor rural province to $30,000 per year in top tier cities like Shanghai.
Personally, in buying consumer goods, I can do better in Los Angeles than China. (part of the issue is that the sellers try to charge foreigners more). One thing that is very cheap in China are the cabs. You can travel about 10 miles in Wuhan for $20 or $25. Very convenient.
JD
DaveJR
“So he’s put the “big stick†on the table and they know he’s unpredictable, unstable and stupid enough to use it. Seems like a great position to bargain from.”
Yeah, that’s what I said somewhere way up thread. He’s taking the NY/NJ negotiating strategy of dropping a big turd on the table and then while his opponents draw back in horror, he offers them something slightly less repugnant. It works, at least in a general sense where the other side doesn’t exactly know where he’s going.
In my own personal business this meant that I always started my pricing higher with these guys than my normal customers elsewhere. It also meant that when they talked me down a dime a pound on a product I had to say “hey, you win, I’ll give you your price”. It was literally a part of the negotiation to say “you win”.
Not sure how this strategy works on an international scale but I have to believe it’s better than the milquetoast Obama way.
Jerry (Comment #169489)
“Not sure how this strategy works on an international scale but I have to believe it’s better than the milquetoast Obama way.”
_______
I’m not sure either. I’ve negotiated prices on cars, property, etc., and enjoy it, but of course I’ve never negotiated on international trade. In a making a deal, a house sale for example,both parties get something they want or there would be no deal. In the trade negotiations it looks like Trump wants to get more than he’s giving
or he will harm the other party with tariffs. But really all he has to
do to satisfy his base is look like he’s getting more than he’s giving.
I guess if were negotiating with a foreign leader on trade I would
just say let’s try to come up with something that will make us both
look good.
BTW, what is the milquetoast Obama way on trade?
I guess it is hard to be off topic on this thread, so I will ask a question.
The ACT typically has 8 statistics questions, and my son [senior to be in high school] typically gets 6 out of 8 right. On his last ACT he received a 30 and his superscore is 32. (30 on math & 32 on science — only 25 in English) I have pretty much decided to get him a tutor to try to get those last 2 questions right. (I know someone with a statistics degree who is predisposed to help and I am contacting him) I am looking at the statistics as low hanging fruit, while the English will take much more work. (Have a tutor for English)
…..
If I can get him to a 32 or 33, there are a number of schools offering free tuition. Am hoping someone here can give a suggestion as to what subjects should be covered to help son with ACT statistics.
JD
I think reading is a great way to improve your English if he’s so inclined, although not in the very short term. A constant stream of good examples tends to just rub off and hopefully the story is interesting as well!
Unfortunately, I have no insight into SAT or ACT prep. Even though test prep pays a lot for those tests, I find test prep a boring thing to tutor.
I tend to agree with DaveJR that reading is a great way to improve ability in English generally. But I doubt the number of novels he might read between now and the next ACT could make a huge difference.
But I know some aspects of “test prep” that are more “test taking”, some are sort of test specific and of course some are actual ability in English.
The degree to which aspects of test prep include test taking strategies is one of the reasons I can’t motivate myself to tutor “test prep”. I just can’t get into teaching kids to read all the questions *first*, then read the reading passage so you manage time better in a multiple-choice taking scenario. It’s not increasing any real ability or any important life skill. It’s just improving ‘test taking’, which is important to the student’s prospects but hollow in the end.
Writing is a great way to improve your English.
The best prep for the ACT is called “high school”, ha ha. Test prep doesn’t usually help much, but it helps a little. I imagine a narrow focus on ACT statistics might be successful. I would make sure whoever tutors him in statistics isn’t in climate science or an environmentalist from my experience! Another route is to see if he can score better on the SAT. Potentially take the SAT advanced math tests as well, although that probably doesn’t help with scholarships.
.
I was similar coming out of high school, scored very high in math, mediocre in English. I can’t imagine there were any quick fixes for the English, as only reading and writing a million words were going to get me there. YMMV. I was a very literal reader and the interpretive questions drove me crazy. My best advice to myself would be to open up the world of books that I actually find entertaining, which would have been science fiction in my case at that time. You might also try audio books. I would have rather listened to nails on a chalkboard than have an English tutor telling me to read Shakespeare. I think quantity matters in this case unfortunately.
A fascinating story as opposition to the straw madness, California of all places passes a bill to prohibit local communities from taxing soda.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/upshot/california-banning-soda-taxes-a-new-industry-strategy-is-stunning-some-lawmakers.html
.
What? Has sanity returned to CA? Not really. “Big Soda” had apparently gotten enough signatures to put an initiative on the ballot that “would have prevented local communities from raising taxes without approval from two-thirds of voters or an elected body, rather than a simple majority”. That’s for all taxes, not just soda taxes … then they went to the legislature and said pass the soda tax ban, or else. Legislature folded.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169422): “It just reminds me of ban paper bags! Ban plastic bags! It’s an exercise in exerting power without any legitimate reason. […] This is what environmentalism and the media coverage has become. Latch onto a random cause, report on it uncritically, demonize anyone who disagrees, make people’s lives less convenient, then move on to the next random cause.”
.
Death by a thousand trivialities from one point of view, winning by a thousand tiny victories is another. The victory is not in getting styrofoam packaging banned, or plastic products banned, or any other little thing, the victory is winning over another tiny part of your mind to the group think. Not all the victories are trivial. CFC, diesel, pesticides, gluten, CO2, …
Rules for radicals #4: Make the enemy live up to its own rule book.
.
Meet the newest member of the NYT editorial board, ha ha.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-hires-writer-racist-past/
.
Don’t forget Quinn Norton was fired by the NYT after 24 hours for her tweets.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/business/media/quinn-norton-new-york-times.html
.
Queue up the “she’s really the victim here” response.
“the victory is winning over another tiny part of your mind to the group think”. Turns out there is a word for this: ‘rallying cry”.
“something such as a word, phrase, event, or belief that encourages people to unite and to act in support of a particular group or idea”
.
Something to keep the troups focused, aligned, practiced, engaged.
.
So much of the news cycle is things like this. Promote the outrage, but keep it superficial. Focus on personalities and slogans; ideas and logic are too confusing.
I see the NYT’s defends the hiring, ha ha. What a blatant double standard. I’m all for forgiving people for stupid things they say, but the hypocrisy is just embarrassing. Occasionally people and places get true character tests, and when they fail it should be shown to the world for what it is. It’s a bit trite, but this is what gets you Trump (I’d be surprised if he let this golden opportunity to bash the NYT go by without comment).
.
I see Fox certainly didn’t let it go by without comment.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html
Heh.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169503)
“Meet the newest member of the NYT editorial board, ha ha.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-hires-writer-racist-past/”
______
According to the link, the NYT said Jeong’s racists comments about whites were in response to her being harassed, presumably by whites making racist comments about her being Asian, and that she now agrees with the NYT that responding to racism with racism is not the right thing for her to do.
I’m white and I was amused by some of things she said about whites. Why was I amused rather than offended? I’m not sure, but it could be I don’t feel insecure or guilty about being white.
Max,
Or it’s also possible that you’re not a member of the ‘Progressive Church of the Sacred Victim’ – by which I mean, it’s possible that you aren’t looking for things to be offended by, and that you don’t count the many intersecting ways you may be construed as a victim.
.
You would know better than me of course. I could be wrong.
BTW, the ‘sacred victim’ sounds like the sort of snark I might have personally produced, but actually I’m more or less paraphrasing Haidt. At least I think I am. I’d link but I think it came out of a video and darned if I remember which one..
Maybe I find it later.
mark bofill (Comment #169508)
mark, off-hand I can’t think of any way I am victim. Given more time to think about it I may be able to come up with something.
Sarah Jeong gave as an example of internet racial harassment a comment about her being a dog eating gook and a word I can’t repeat here. She should have just laughed off racist comments directed at her, but she responded in kind. The NYT chose to give her a break.
It didn’t hurt my feelings either, but almost nobody in the SJW world has their own feelings hurt, they are bravely protecting others. Protecting white people from racism doesn’t matter I guess.
.
She’s the victim, of course. Replace white, with Black, Muslim, Asian, Hispanic and see how it reads. I have never heard the “responding to racism with racism is OK” defense before. I can call her degrading names now, is that the rule?
.
This is really about the ridiculous double standard in place. If progressives want to run by those rules then so be it, the NYT can do whatever it wants, but it’s not fooling anybody that they are attempting to build a social construct where they can be as vile as they want but vileness cannot be returned in kind. For some mysterious reason people object to that.
Max,
Well, you are a descendant of the hated and persecuted Okies. I mean, who can say what that cost you by proxy. Maybe your ancestors had more limited opportunities which started you off at a more disadvantaged place in life than it otherwise might have been.
I should add, I’m glad you don’t look at the world that way. Me either.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169511)
“This is really about the ridiculous double standard in place.”
_______
Tom, I’m not sure what the double standard is here. Were the actions of the writer the NYT rejected like the actions of Jeong,
a response to racial harassment?
Mark Bofill (Comment #169512)
August 2nd, 2018 at 3:53 pm
Max,
Well, you are a descendant of the hated and persecuted Okies. I mean, who can say what that cost you by proxy. Maybe your ancestors had more limited opportunities which started you off at a more disadvantaged place in life than it otherwise might have been.
______
I tried that one on my wife , and it didn’t work. She just threw here
Irish ancestry handicap back at me.
If you can’t understand the double standard in place, I can’t help you. You can lookup the word “rationalization” if you like. Try this:
.
“Dumba** f***ing white (black) people marking up the internet with their opinions are like dogs pissing on fire hydrants”
“oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white (black) men”
“#CancelWhite(Black)People”
“White(black) people have stopped breeding. You’ll all go extinct soon. This was my plan all along”.
“white(black) men are bullshit”
etc. etc. There are more.
.
Under what if any conditions would you find the alternative versions presented above to be acceptable? You can fire back against trolls without being a racist yourself.
.
Explain, don’t equivocate. Do.Not.Equivocate. There are vile people on the right and left, if you want to live in a fantasy world where vile people only exist on the right, be my guest. These are vile statements but Twitter purity tests have gotten out of control. Who you are now matters more than who you were 20 (or four) years ago.
.
Can you explain what standard you think is acceptable and would hold both sides to account? Here’s mine: People who slander others based on a characteristic others cannot voluntarily change are racists / bigots. People should be allowed to disavow past behavior when they demonstrate different behavior in the present.
Hey, do you guys think this Qanon fellow that everyone is talking about will release the REAL temperature data?
Boris,
There exist crazy people.
Always have existed.
There is no need to listen to them, or to argue with their crazy ideas. That would be as pointless as arguing with the ATTP crowd.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169516)
August 2nd, 2018 at 4:45 pm
If you can’t understand the double standard in place, I can’t help you.
______
Tom, consider the way you are using “double standard” as it would apply to the “stand your ground” laws. Say you are involved in a road rage incident, and although you don’t threaten the other driver, he shoots at you and you shoot back. Fortunately, no one is injured and the situation cools down. Using your view of double standard, I could say you are just as wrong as him for having returned fire.
I would also recommend you lookup “non-sequitur”.
.
If anyone understands the standard the media is using I am all ears. I can understand what it is and still disagree with it, but right now I have no idea what it is and the media is not making any attempt to articulate it as far as I can tell.
OK_Max (Comment #169519): “Say you are involved in a road rage incident, and although you don’t threaten the other driver, he shoots at you and you shoot back. Fortunately, no one is injured and the situation cools down. Using your view of double standard, I could say you are just as wrong as him for having returned fire.”
There is a difference between self-defense and retaliation.
Also, a conservative would not get the same understanding as Jeong. That is where the double standard lies.
OK_Max (Comment #169507): “According to the link, the NYT said Jeong’s racists comments about whites were in response to her being harassed”
I could buy that if the comments were aimed at the harassers. But they were not. It was not a case of labeling individuals with a forbidden word. The were aimed at all white people. Pure, simple, unadulterated racism.
Tom, if Quinn Norton’s and Sarah Jeong’s
offensive comments both were responses
to attacks(offensives of the same nature)
on them, then the NYT is guilty of a double-
standard in firing Norton but not Jeong.
The NYT, however, claims Jeong’s racists
remarks were in response to racial
harassment, but didn’t say
Norton’s gay or lesbian slurs were her
reaction to her being slurred for anything. Given
what I know, I don’t think it’s fair to
accuse the NYT of a double-standard in
the way it treated the two women.
Mike M. (Comment #169522)
August 2nd, 2018 at 6:54 pm
OK_Max (Comment #169507): “According to the link, the NYT said Jeong’s racists comments about whites were in response to her being harassedâ€
I could buy that if the comments were aimed at the harassers. But they were not. It was not a case of labeling individuals with a forbidden word. The were aimed at all white people. Pure, simple, unadulterated racism.
_______
Mike M, I’m white and I don’t think her comments were aimed at me.
There may be other whites who don’t think her comments were aimed at them, so I think your statement “aimed at all white people”
is suspect unless you could know what was in her mind.
So I’m just sort of thinking out loud, haven’t really thought it through carefully yet. This said, it seems to me that there is something inconsistent with (a) the intolerance hate speech is shown when targeted towards persons that are viewed sympathetically and (b) the sudden understanding, tolerance, and possibly even sympathy, that is shown hate speakers who are speaking hate towards persons that are not viewed sympathetically.
I think it shouldn’t be both this:
AND
“just trolling” groups of people based on the color of their skin, generalizing from prior experience about those groups (in short, trolling groups because of racial prejudice) “with their own rhetoric”.
If it’s real harm, it’s real harm, it’s not trolling. If it’s just trolling, it’s not real harm. If it’s intolerable, then it’s not tolerable. It shouldn’t abruptly switch depending who is hate speaking and who is being spoken about.
shrug.
OK_Max (Comment #169524): “I’m white and I don’t think her comments were aimed at me.”
If you really think that, then you are a fool. She did not say something like: “like many white people, you are a goblin who is only fit to live underground”. She called ALL white people goblins who are only fit to live underground.
Even if she did say something like the former, I doubt you can find and example of a racist, sexist, or homophobic comment that was acceptable because it was only meant for some blacks or women or gays.
And the PC mob never makes allowance for context, as with the recent John Schnatter (Papa John) business. Unless, of course, the perpetrator is a member of a favored group.
Maybe it has something to do with this:
The argument seems to be – let’s decide if free speech is good or not depending on who it benefits and who it hurts. This type of analysis is fundamentally unacceptable to me. All things equal, we shouldn’t discriminate for or against groups of people, and deciding something on the basis of what groups it help and what groups it hurts is nothing else besides discrimination, AFAICT.
OK-M “According to the link, the NYT said Jeong’s racists comments about whites were in response to her being harassed, presumably by whites making racist comments about her being Asian, and that she now agrees with the NYT that responding to racism with racism is not the right thing for her to do.”
…..
This is total garbage. If people are racist and attack you, you attack them back individually. You don’t blame an entire people for what some individual people have done to you. Also, I would point out that if it wasn’t for the deaths of White American soldiers, if she was still alive, she would probably be living under Kim Jong-Un now.
JD
Tom Scharf: ” Test prep doesn’t usually help much, but it helps a little. I imagine a narrow focus on ACT statistics might be successful. ”
…..
Not in my experience or in my son’s experience. I taught an LSAT prep course for a short time, and it does help. My son’s ACT scores have been 25, 28, 28, & 30. After the second 28, he worked hard and went from the top 11% to the top 6%, which is signficant. Currently, there are a reasonable number of schools that will give my son 1/2 free tuition.
I am now offering him $750 for each point he gets above 30. (You should have seen his eyes open). If he gets up to 32, he is in free tuition range.
JD
When people use the term white people, I just assume they mean white people. If they mean something else then maybe they should use different words.
I think SAT test prep studies show 50 to 100 points improvement. I paid my kids for grades starting in middle school, working hard should have rewards. I used a doubling system, every additional A doubled the return. I have no idea how much it really helped, but they got good grades which ended up saving me $100K.
.
Here is a pretty good Korean War documentary. The Battle of Chosin. The good guys got thumped here, there are no John Waynes in this one.
https://www.netflix.com/title/80991256
Mike M. (Comment #169526)
August 2nd, 2018 at 7:59 pm
OK_Max (Comment #169524): “I’m white and I don’t think her comments were aimed at me.â€
If you really think that, then you are a fool.
______
I’m not fool enough to believe you knew what was going through Sarah Jeong’s head when she made those comments.
I don’t know how Jeong could have believed “ALL” white people are goblins only fit to live underground,” when she has gone to school with many whites, been taught by them, and worked with them.
I think she may have meant some whites, not including me.
JD Ohio (Comment #169528)
” If people are racist and attack you, you attack them back individually.”
________
If “people” attack you, why not attack people back?
Perhaps you meant to say if an individual attacks you, you attack
him or her back.
You have to be very precise with your wording so some people, not all people, will interpret your words to suit them.
I don’t see what the question of ‘some’ vs ‘all’ has to do with this. The difficulty I have is that qualifying Sarah’s hate speech to only mean ‘some’ still doesn’t make it OK. I can’t say ‘Some black people are n*ggers’, obviously. So what makes this OK for Sarah? Real question.
BTW, I’ve read the analogy you put forward with ‘Stand your ground’ laws Max. Maybe in your view it’s OK for people who are subject to racist harassment to retaliate in kind. It’s not the widespread viewpoint of our culture.
.
Roseanne Barr tweets something racist once, she’s done. It doesn’t matter what excuses she has to offer, doesn’t matter what the backstory was, [doesn’t matter how sorry she is], none of that matters. Boom, she’s done.
.
Sarah tweets racist after racist hate tweet over a span of years. Oh, well. We don’t condone it. She understands now that that was the wrong thing to do. We had a candid conversation and we’re sure it’ll be OK going forward.
.
Merriam Webster defines a double standard as follows:
.
So, the principles (however precisely one wants to articulate them, it doesn’t really matter) that govern the unacceptability of hate speech and the penalties we as a society impose on individuals who violate these principles are applied differently and more rigorously to one group of people (white people who have antagonized progressives) than to another.
.
I don’t know how to make it any clearer than that.
This situation is why hate speech laws would never work and should be treated like a plague. The left will favor a vague interpretive moving target that makes up the rules as they go along. This is exactly how the rules will be interpreted, whatever favors their tribe at the moment, and anything is OK when talking about white people.
.
Example from tooday:
An Asian American woman’s tweets ignite a debate: Is it okay to make fun of white people online?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/08/03/an-asian-american-womans-tweets-ignite-a-debate-is-it-okay-to-make-fun-of-white-people-online/
.
And as NPR informs us, white trash is OK to use in polite company, except it is actually a slur against people of color using some mysterious interpretation.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/08/01/605084163/why-its-still-ok-to-trash-poor-white-people
.
The media remains baffled why people might consider them the enemy. When you don’t allow pushback in the editorial process, the extremists flourish.
I believe this piece https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/ is pertinent to the current discussion. I think it explains the mindset that would encourage and legitimize such double standards. You could follow it up with https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracial-friendship-donald-trump.html
OK_Max (Comment #169532): “I’m not fool enough to believe you knew what was going through Sarah Jeong’s head when she made those comments.”
Do you know what was going through Rosanne Barr’s mind when she made her single offensive tweet? Do you think she was treated unfairly?
Do you know what was going through Papa John’s mind when he used The Word of Career Death? Of course not, we don’t even know what he said, save for one word. Do you think he was treated unfairly?
I don’t claim to know what was in Yeong’s mind. I only know what she said.
.
OK_Max: “I don’t know how Jeong could have believed “ALL†white people are goblins only fit to live undergroundâ€
Well, that is what she said. Strange that you claim to know what was in her mind.
.
OK_Max: “when she has gone to school with many whites, been taught by them, and worked with them.”
Is it possible for white people who work with black people to be racist?
OK_Max (Comment #169532): “I think she may have meant some whites, not including me.”
Not if she subscribes to the standard leftist ideology. George Yancy (first link given DaveJR, Comment #169537) says that you, OK_Max, are a racist, just because you are white. And you are a sexist, just because you are male. That is a standard attitude on the left.
I’m not sure what the possible end game could be with all this racial rhetoric, it seems all downside beyond a momentary rush for dumping on “allowable” people. Keep in mind it’s not even OK to dump on MS-13 and ISIS according to our betters.
.
She has quite a history, “kill all men” “f*** the police” “f*** white women”. I’m actually glad a new standard of forgiveness from career death penalties is set now, until it’s not, because next time it will be different, OK_Max should be able to explain why based on the “we know evil when we see it” standard.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/03/nyt-sarah-jeong-cop-men-tweets/
.
I think this issue has been dealt with properly. She has been exposed for who she is and she will fit right in at the NYT. The media predictably cannot find fault with even the most outrageous statements from their own tribe and has once again demonstrated their double standards. Just wait until Trump says the word Mexican again.
.
Far right speech is banned, far left speech is tolerated.
Here’s bleeding heart bofill at it again, doubtless to the chagrin of some.
.
Max, it’s dang hard to argue alone against a group. I’m no psychologist but I’m pretty sure something in our make up as humans objects very strongly to being singled out and attacked, quite separate from the abstract idea / concept realm. It’s frickin uncomfortable. Therefore – I appreciate you speaking here, although I disagree with your viewpoint. I admire people with the fortitude to do so; mostly I myself do not. So – thank you. Seriously.
mark bofill,
You are right, this is how all forums end up getting polarized. It is very rare that over time forum mobs don’t end up striking down the non-believers. I have been on the receiving end many times and it isn’t pleasant. I can live with adult disagreement, but eventually it turns into “look, another stupid person just posted here!”. I’m thinking of something like “don’t throw stones in glass houses” at the moment.
Tom,
It’s surprisingly hard to avoid even when one is trying. It gets in the way of the conversation to constantly reassure the person you’re talking to that it’s not a personal attack. It’s awkward…
Anyway. Thanks.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169503) 
August 2nd, 2018 at 10:09 am

“Don’t forget Quinn Norton was fired by the NYT after 24 hours for her tweets.â€
Tom Scharf (Comment #169505) 
August 2nd, 2018 at 12:09 pm
“I see the NYT’s defends the hiring, ha ha. What a blatant double standard.â€
Tom Scharf (Comment #169511) 
August 2nd, 2018 at 3:24 pm

“This is really about the ridiculous double standard in place.â€
_______________
Tom, I’m not sure, but I presume from your comments quoted above that you believe the NYT is guilty of having a double-standard in hiring Sarah Jeong rather than Quinn Norton for an editorial job , as you see both women having backgrounds tainted by racism albeit of different natures.
The NYT was first considering Norton but I believe decided against her because she said neo-nazi Andrew “Weev†Auernheimer is her friend, and although she said he is a terrible person and she doesn’t agree with his views she continued to say he was a friend. Norton’s excuse was she can’t control what her friends think. Auernheimer advocated killing Jews.
Later the NYT hired Jeong for the job despite her having in the past tweeted several racist comments about whites, her excuse being she was responding to being the subject of racism from whites.
Because rather than hire Norton, the NYT hired Jeong, Tom and others here may believe this demonstrated a double-standard in hiring. I don’t see a double-standard in these two cases. I think the NYT would have kept Norton had she said Auernheimer was no longer a friend and she regretted ever being his friend. Jeong, in contrast, apologized for her racist comments about whites.
Jeong said “While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers,†she wrote. “These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again.â€
Had Jeong not apologized, and the NYT hired her any, that would have been a double-standard.
Have I missed something? Is there another reason the NYT was practicing a double-standard by hiring Jeong?
_________
Tom Scharf (Comment #169516)Â
August 2nd, 2018 at 4:45 pm
“People should be allowed to disavow past behavior when they demonstrate different behavior in the present.â€
Tom, then you must be OK with the NYT hiring Jeong.
mark bofill (Comment #169541)
August 3rd, 2018 at 10:58 am
“Therefore – I appreciate you speaking here, although I disagree with your viewpoint. I admire people with the fortitude to do so; mostly I myself do not. So – thank you. Seriously.”
_____
mark, thank you for the kind words. You are polite. Being polite does not mean a lack of fortitude.
OK_Max (Comment #169544): “then you must be OK with the NYT hiring Jeong.”
I don’t think anyone here has said either that Jeong should be fired or should not have been hired. Speaking for myself, I don’t know enough either way.
The issue is the double standard. Norton was FIRED by the Times for less than what Jeong did. Many others have suffered severe consequences for much less than what Jeong did. But those people were white and/or conservative.
mark bofill (Comment #169543): “It’s surprisingly hard to avoid even when one is trying. It gets in the way of the conversation to constantly reassure the person you’re talking to that it’s not a personal attack. It’s awkward…”
There is a simple, old-fashioned solution to that. People should not assume that criticism or disagreement is personal. I think that often when things do escalate to being personal, it is a result of people being overly quick to take offense.
Thanks Max. [Thanks Mike as well]
I will strive to resist the temptation to discuss the discussion further, interesting as that may seem to me.
.
[Edit, add: To clarify – I do not accuse the NYT specifically of a double standard. Rather, I claim that generally in our society there is a double standard applied that tends to serve leniency towards persons that progressives are sympathetic to and severity towards persons that progressives are not. So – I’m not part of the discussion about whether or not the NYT specifically is demonstrating a double standard.]
In the vein of Jonathan Swift’s satirical essay “A Modest Proposal”: (sarc) Perhaps we should reintroduce the code duello. That way there might be lethal consequences for insulting someone.(/sarc)
I’m perfectly OK with NYT hiring anybody they want, at no point did I say she shouldn’t be hired. The NYT should be held accountable for their hiring preferences by their customers. I think it hurts their brand, but that is their choice.
.
I think Quinn Norton and a host of others shouldn’t have been penalized the way they were. I don’t believe in guilt by association and 2nd level multi-generational purity tests either. I think it is OK to be friends with flawed people. We can disagree on a double standard, it’s clear to me. If you can state what the NYT”s standard actually is and they adhere to that in the future with their actions I will be satisfied, but I’ll probably disagree. I would argue that this standard is ideologically biased, whatever it is, demonstrated by their hiring practices and their own words.
.
I think the conversation is as follows:
Side A: Anti-white racism is bad.
Side B: Anti-(black, Muslim, etc.) racism is worse than anti-white racism.
Side C: There is no prejudice/bigotry/racism here.
.
I can see how side B is an interesting argument depending on how one looks at it, as strictly moral or in real world effects. What I don’t understand is why side B cannot agree with side A on that point, and move on to the debate about side B. I’m not interested in a debate on side C.
Here is the progressive argument:
In defense of Sarah Jeong
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17648566/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-twitter-andrew-sullivan
.
BTW I am totally satisfied with people reading what she said, and the counter argument, and making up their own mind. I don’t think this is very helpful politically for the away team, but I could be wrong, after all I am white ha ha.
Thanks Tom.
Sometimes I really think Jordan Peterson has hit the nail on the head. In my view, power has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not something is racist. I can be a completely ineffectual, completely powerless racist. Or I can be a racist with vast powers. The two (power and racism) are simply completely different concepts with no intrinsic relationship.
.
One might as well assert that a person isn’t indulging in racism because they’re wearing a certain type of clothing, or because some oak trees are taller than some maple trees, AFAICT.
shrug.
I asserted but I did not demonstrate.
Alright.
What does ‘racism’ mean ->
.
I don’t seem to read anything in here about underlying power structures, or whether or not there is a sense of threat, or whether or not something is historically been a pretext for violence or justification for exclusionary politics.
.
Anyway.
Mike M. (Comment #169546)
August 3rd, 2018 at 2:51 pm
The issue is the double standard. Norton was FIRED by the Times for less than what Jeong did.
____________
MikeM, I don’t understand why you think that.
Jeong made some racists comments about whites. She wrote an apology saying she understood it was hurtful and wouldn’t do it again.
Norton is friends with neo-nazi Andrew “Weev†Auernheimer
who advocates killing Jews. Although she describes Weeve as a terrible person and does no agree with his views, she continues
to call him a friend.
Jeong has changed to make herself more acceptable, but Norton
has not. If Joeong hadn’t changed, you could make a good case
for the NYT using a double-standard in hiring her instead of
Norton. But given what happened, how can you make a case?
It’s hard for me to understand how the NYT, a newspaper with
a large Jewish reading audience, ever considered hiring an editor
who claims to be friends with a neo-nazi who advocates murdering
Jews, whether she agrees with him or not.
BTW, Norton recently tweeted defending Jeong:
@quinnnorton
 18h
18 hours ago
More
“I don’t think @nytopinion made the right call firing me, though I understand that they panicked, and don’t bear them ill-will, at all, really. But I hoped they have learned to only fire people for cause, not social media fishing for out of context tweets, & stand by @sarahjeong.”
‘But “racism” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Earle,
I sometimes think the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language you quoted is actually a concise definition of deconstructionism.
Twitter has a history function, so we can see what posts she was responding to, as she claims, and all posts to her over the two years she made these posts.
She also had tweets attacking the New York Times. One said she would subscribe if they fired Tom Friedman.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169551)
August 3rd, 2018 at 4:04 pm
Here is the progressive argument:
In defense of Sarah Jeong
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17648566/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-twitter-andrew-sullivan
__
Tom, thank you for the Vox link. I could relate to the “not all men”
thing the author was talking about at the end of his piece. I used to
be offended by feminist bashing men. I took it personally. Eventually
I realized they weren’t necessarily talking about me.
DeWitt, Earle,
Am I wrong in dismissing deconstructionism because I think it can be used equally effectively to undermine any meaning or interpretation, including those of the deconstructionist? Real question.
I always thought it was a darn silly way to attack something because of this and have never been able to take the notion seriously.
It’s all very well and good I guess, but nobody can actually get anywhere without ignoring this idea. So.. So what.
OK_Max,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)
No. You excused the behavior by making an assumption that may not be supportable in reality.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169560)
“No. You excused the behavior by making an assumption that may not be supportable in reality.”
______
DeWitt, I have a lot of experience rationalizing, am good at it, and usually know when I’m doing it and when I’m not. But not always, and as you think, I may have been rationalizing when I said feminists who bash men weren’t necessarily talking about me. I imagine feminists who hate men wouldn’t exclude me. I think most feminists, however, just want equality with men.
I should also mention that I’m not as thin-skinned as I used to be.
There was a time when I was mildly offended by comments such as
“Well, that’s a man for you” and “Men think with their dicks,” but I don’t care anymore.
Max,
.
I’m glad the conversation went here, because I think the discussion in our country gets sidetracked on this very point all too often. When I say racism is racism regardless of power, there are those who attempt to convert this into a discussion about my personal circumstance, about whether or not I feel victimized as a white person. This is done in order to dismiss my argument, because after all (and this part is quite true) I am hardly a victim of any sort. But it misses the whole point.
.
I don’t know if this comes out of post modernism, or [some specific] continental philosophy, or what. It becomes its own monumental pointless task sometimes to attribute the bullshit to the proper cow; I don’t really particularly care where it came from.
.
Bottom line, we ought to be able to discuss and consider things abstractly. It shouldn’t matter who is doing the discussing and considering. This idea that arguments cannot be divorced from ‘conditions of historical emergence’ amounts to a refusal to deal with anything on an abstract level. Maybe sometimes subjective experiences are relevant, but for pity’s sake! Not always.
DeWitt,
“I sometimes think the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language you quoted is actually a concise definition of deconstructionism.”
.
Maybe at least a good functional definition…. and one that serves equally well for the definition of ‘living constitution’.
OK_Max (Comment #169561): “”I may have been rationalizing when I said feminists who bash men weren’t necessarily talking about me. I imagine feminists who hate men wouldn’t exclude me. I think most feminists, however, just want equality with men.”
I would have agreed with you until rather recently. That was certainly true at one time. But identity politics is not about equality or fair treatment. Its fully woke adherents (white males included) hate all men and all white people, with a quadruple dose of hate for white males. Until a short time ago, that seemed (to me at least) to be largely limited to a certain class of postmodern academic kooks; but it has become shockingly mainstream in a frightfully short span of time.
mark bofill (Comment #169562): “Bottom line, we ought to be able to discuss and consider things abstractly. It shouldn’t matter who is doing the discussing and considering. This idea that arguments cannot be divorced from ‘conditions of historical emergence’ amounts to a refusal to deal with anything on an abstract level. Maybe sometimes subjective experiences are relevant, but for pity’s sake! Not always.”
I agree, but I think that “abstract” is not the best term. What is needed is to have fundamental principles, a bedrock concept of right and wrong. I suppose that such principles are abstract, in the same sense that the laws of physics are abstract. But, like the laws of physics, they are also very real. Postmodernists reject that, then all that is left is the will to power.
Mike, that could be. Maybe there are lots of paths back to sanity. When people have parked their brains in the middle of nowhere, maybe the specific direction they drive to get out isn’t as important as the decision to drive someplace else to get out. Any place else maybe.
mark bofill (Comment #169566): “Maybe there are lots of paths back to sanity. When people have parked their brains in the middle of nowhere, maybe the specific direction they drive to get out isn’t as important as the decision to drive someplace else to get out. Any place else maybe.”
Definitely not so. Nowhere is not surrounded by sanity or morality. It is mostly surrounded by evil. From a moral and intellectual nowhere, one can easily arrive at the sort of places reached by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and … but I don’t want to end this thread.
Sarah Jeong is getting her full 15 minutes of flame.
.
As usual, Jonah Goldberg writes it best.
https://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/sarah-jeong-racism-anti-white-still-bad/
Ledite,
The idea that being ‘woke’ is likely counterproductive, Jonah Goldberg’s <i<Why Racism Begets More Racism in your link, had been percolating at the back of my mind. It also puts in perspective the ‘basket of deplorables’ comment that, IMO, was a major factor in Trump’s election. Talk about pushing buttons.
I get OK_Max’s point of “they don’t really mean everyone” and you shouldn’t take it personally. I discovered this more or less in my examination of Neo-Marxism. Their use of the term white is mainly intended to mean the white power structure, not a bunch of poor hicks waving confederate flags. However … and this is a big however … they are allegedly smart, educated, and perfectly capable of choosingly their words wisely. These are the same people who are hyper-hyper-sensitive to language.
.
I don’t buy that this is just shorthand, I am convinced it is intentional. This is the motte and bailey in action:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
.
“So the motte-and-bailey doctrine is when you make a bold, controversial statement. Then when somebody challenges you, you claim you were just making an obvious, uncontroversial statement, so you are clearly right and they are silly for challenging you. Then when the argument is over you go back to making the bold, controversial statement.”
.
One can examine how the language police react when Trump uses the term Mexican or others say Muslims relating to terrorism. So … we use different words. Illegal immigrants, undocumented people, Islamic Jihad, Muslim extremists and so on.
.
They also know these are highly contentious statements as stated and yet they repeatedly choose to use inclusive language. This is intentional, inflammatory, and they should be called on it instead of expecting others to know they mean something else, and certainly a subset of those saying these inflammatory things actually believe it.
.
As for Sarah Jeong, one can be somewhat sympathetic that in order to stand out in lefty journalism you need to be edgy and outspoken. You still have to answer for those words. I didn’t read her statement as disavowing the plain reading of what she wrote. She can at any time make it clear what she really thinks about men and white people, she chooses not to because she has been wedged between the mainstream and the trendy leftists. She will lose face with her in group if she disavows these words, so she basically says nothing. If anyone understands what she really thinks, please let me know.
Mark Bofill,
I’m not wont to deconstruct deconstructionism. My point is that the word you are using is not the word they are using. It sounds the same and is spelled the same. What it actually means I am still trying to figure out.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169570): “I don’t buy that this is just shorthand, I am convinced it is intentional. This is the motte and bailey in action …”
I think that Tom’s analysis is spot on.
Of course, if it’s intentional then one has to ask why? Historically, derogatory broad generalizations have never produced the fair and just society these people claim to want. Quite the opposite. It’s often just the start of the dehumanization chain that leads in very ugly directions. I see no winning strategy, just a sad perpetuation of malicious race baiting from people who pretend to occupy the moral high ground.
Mike M,
Fair enough. 🙂
Earl,
Thanks. I *did* puzzle over it for a while. I had to go read about the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language to eventually understand that that’s what you meant. But thanks for clarifying.
In other news, the FBI release info on their interactions with Steele…
https://vault.fbi.gov/records-between-fbi-and-christopher-steele/records-between-fbi-and-christopher-steele-part-01-of-01/view
DaveJR (Comment #169573): “Of course, if it’s intentional then one has to ask why? Historically, derogatory broad generalizations have never produced the fair and just society these people claim to want. Quite the opposite. It’s often just the start of the dehumanization chain that leads in very ugly directions. I see no winning strategy, just a sad perpetuation of malicious race baiting from people who pretend to occupy the moral high ground.”
I agree.
My guess is that the left wants to tear down the existing social and political structure so that they can replace it with something “just” and “fair”. If they succeed in step 1, they will find that step 2 gets preempted by things going in some ugly direction with all sorts of unpleasant, unintended consequences. Just like every other time the left has succeeded in tearing down the scaffolding that supports society.
.
Progressives seem to believe that policies should be judged solely on the basis of intended consequences. Unintended consequences, even predictable ones, aren’t their fault and in no way prove their policies wrong.
.
Sorry about the cynicism. I just don’t see an alternative interpretation. (Well, I do, but it is even worse.)
Tom Scharf (Comment #169570)
I thought Jeong’s apology was enough. She said she wouldn’t do it
again (tweet racists remarks about whites). You can question her motives and sincerity, but a promise is a promise.
Perhaps I should follow Jeong’s example and promise myself to change my own behavior. I’m not free of racism. I have laughed at jokes about minorities and ethnic groups, and repeated those jokes, which is a form of racism. I sometimes have profiled, another form.
My own behavior should concern me more than Jeong’s behavior.
I can’t control what she does, but I can try to control myself.
Meh. I wouldn’t get carried away.
.
Well played! Profiling can be racist. There are cases where I support profiling however. Shrug.
mark bofill (Comment #169578): “Profiling can be racist. There are cases where I support profiling however.”
There are times when “profiling” is just common sense. If I am walking down a street at night and see that up ahead some young black men are hanging around at a street corner drinking beer. I will change my route. Nothing racist about it, since I am only avoiding the bad blacks.
Mike,
I was preparing to say something similar. There’s some distinction I’d like to make. I’d like for our government, our legal system, and to some extent our institutions to avoid racism. We are equal in the eyes of the law. It gets fuzzier and harder to nail down, but our laws require some of our institutions to treat us equally. My inability to precisely draw this line in a couple of casual sentences doesn’t mean the line isn’t there.
.
But as individuals – that’s a whole different matter. I have all sorts of prejudices. I’m prejudiced in my sexual orientation; I like women and not men. I’m so darn prejudiced I won’t even give guys a chance, how bout that. I’m prejudiced in the physical attributes I find attractive. It happens (inconveniently for this example) that I can think of attractive female representatives of every ethnicity, but were this not the case, I’d be fine with it.
.
Further, stereotypes are probabilistic predictions and I think our brains do this as automatically and as involuntarily as our nervous systems keep our hearts beating. I got bad news for you Max; you might have to lobotomize yourself if you really want to rid yourself of your tendency to profile.
.
I’ll try to hush for a bit and finish organizing my thoughts.
Lest I be accused of knocking down straw men:
https://studybreaks.com/culture/racist-dating-preferences/
https://www.them.us/story/racism-is-not-a-preference
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/removingthefigleaf/2016/04/does-my-sexual-orientation-make-me-a-bigot/
[ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/staceydash/2017/04/genital-preferences-dating-transphobic/ ]
Be it known for the record: I don’t much care. People are free, as they should be. The responsibility, risk and reward for their judgment is their own. In my case, it’s my own.
mark bofill (Comment #169534) “I don’t see what the question of ‘some’ vs ‘all’ has to do with this.”
.
Everything. Nothing. All. These words are slippery, slimy, the root of all evil, or at least, of all racism. The fractured syllogism goes like this. Sarah Jeong is racist, Sarah Jeong is Korean, therefore all Koreans are sexist. Bzzzt. But that seems to be her logic.
.
Some white man insulted her, therefore all white men are an … insult?
Confusing some and all is bad. It’s hard though because when we say ‘all’ we hardly ever mean really totally absolutely all. All is a shortcut generalization. Usually.
.
Speaking of Cretins, I didn’t know that Paul quotes one in the Bible: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttonsâ€.
.
Which of course leads to the famous “paradox”. Except, if Epimenides was around to say “Well, they are always liars, but that doesn’t mean they lie all the time”.
.
Finally, let me recommend to you the best movie I’ve seen in a long time. It touches on many of the topics discussed here, without being preachy. Modern Lebanon, multicultural except one culture is dominant and the other isn’t allowed to work, insults, apologies, the background each person has to justify their actions, the line between free speech and hate speech, and to top it off an absolutely fascinating look at how the trial courts work in Lebanon.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7048622/
“The Insult”
And be sure to watch the fantastic interview with the author (on the DVD).
Thanks Ledite! I’d never heard of it. I’ll look into it.
Mark Bofill (Comment #169580)
“I got bad news for you Max; you might have to lobotomize yourself if you really want to rid yourself of your tendency to profile.”
_________
Mark, I was referring to racial profiling only. Of course I frequently do other kinds of profiling, usually to advantage, but sometimes leading to less than optimum choices. I’m not sure all racial and ethnic profiling is harmful. Would It be offensive for me to believe Jews are better lawyers and Blacks make better BBQ,?
_________________________________________________________
Mike M. (Comment #169579)
“There are times when “profiling†is just common sense. If I am walking down a street at night and see that up ahead some young black men are hanging around at a street corner drinking beer. I will change my route. Nothing racist about it, since I am only avoiding the bad blacks.”
_________
Mike M, I would do the same. But I wouldn’t say “I am only avoiding bad blacks.” We don’t know they are bad.
Our profiling was attributing the characteristics of a group to some individuals within that group.
Sarah Jeong was accused of reverse profiling, or attributing characteristics of some individuals to their group.
I haven’t thought this through but profiling probably is statistically sounder than reverse profiling.
OK_Max (Comment #169584):
What would you say? Real question.
The way I wrote my example, we do know they are at least somewhat bad. But not because they are black.
———
OK_Max:
I’m sorry, but I don’t see the difference. How do you determine the “properties of a group”? Other than the trivial things that define the group, I think there is only one way: By means of what you call “reverse profiling”. “Profiling” and “reverse profiling” are the same thing.
.
Off hand, I’d say that what makes profiling acceptable is when a decision must be made based on limited information, a key piece of that information (possibly the only piece) is group identity, and the statistical properties of the group are relevant to the decision that must be made. Remove any of the three and it is not justifiable, it is only prejudice.
.
p.s. – I hope I did the formatting right, because the edit funcion seems to be down.
Mike M. (Comment #169585)
“What would you say? Real question.
The way I wrote my example, we do know they are at least somewhat bad. But not because they are black.”
By means of what you call “reverse profilingâ€. “Profiling†and “reverse profiling†are the same thing.
_______
Somewhat bad for hanging out on the street drinking beer? I dunno about that. Anyway, I would say a potentially risky situation could be avoided, so I avoided it. I once actually faced something similar to what you described. I crossed the street and walked back the other way.
Maybe reverse profiling is not a good way to put it, but there is a
difference, as in (A) and (B) below:
(A) The group reflects on members. The Black crime rate can prejudice Whites against Blacks.
(B) The member reflects on the group. White individuals harassing Asians online can prejudice Asians against Whites in general if they believe the guilty are a sample of white attitudes.
But Sarah Joeng knows the difference. Regarding her
racist jibes at Whites, she wrote:
“These comments were not aimed at a general audience,
because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns.â€
I’ll check it out. But it better be better than The Slap.
Max,
Good. I wonder if often we don’t get so caught up in the absolute pronouncement ‘X is bad, don’t do it’ that we forget why anybody decided X was bad in the first place.
Maybe we make this too complicated. Maybe it’d be better to simply try not to treat other people like crap anymore than necessary. I think SJW’s and folk like Jeong maybe lose sight of this. I’ve been listening to Jordan Peterson recently, I’m sure the guy makes his mistakes, but I think he has this part right. Life is tough. It’s tragic and full of suffering. Let’s not go out of our way to make it worse. Let’s not arrange our lives so we end up becoming bitter, vengeful people.
Anyway.
Take this concern about being ‘offensive’. We gerrymander the cases with these complex schemes of when it’s OK to say something offensive, it’s worse than the tax code.
Well, why are we worried about saying things groups of people might find offensive? Darned if I know. It’s not civil or productive I guess [to say offensive things needlessly]. So somehow we end up with a bunch of champions out there who try to protect groups of people from having to hear offensive things. And they pursue this goal using social media, posting things other groups of people find offensive morning noon and night. But oh, the historical context! Oh, the power structures! Well, screw that. If that’s why you care, good for you. It’s certainly not why I care.
OK_Max,
Jeong’s apology was enough to keep her job, which I don’t think should have been under threat anyway. However this statement is like a company saying they “are going to fully comply with the court’s ruling”. They don’t have any legal choice to not cooperate so they are empty words that sound good. Clearly she was not going to be hired if she was going to continue those type of statements which the NYT’s social media policy already prohibits. It’s a condition of employment. However she had stopped already on her own volition for whatever reason as the worst stuff was years old. Perhaps it was a condition for working at the Verge as well. I think she has been dragged over the coals enough and the world should move on.
.
I’d like to see some consistency from social mob harassment across the board so people can at least predict what behavior is appropriate and what isn’t. I think the NYT would be applauded for verbalizing an actual standard (no examination of social media > 2 years, etc.). These are the closest thing to witch hunts we have in this age. Punishment without a trial, severe punishments for seemingly trivial offenses, no standards. Throw her in the lake, if she floats she is a witch, if she drowns she is not!
I think the goal is to recognize when you are profiling and constantly question whether it is appropriate. It cannot be turned off.
.
If I’m going to try to get some info on relativity I profile and don’t ask a six year old. Well, duh. If I was to not talk to a woman then that is different, or is it? 89% of physics degrees are awarded to men. However my daughter understands it better than I do just based on high school. If I was to not talk to a woman who has a physics degree than that seems invalid. I should profile by physics degrees, but only a tiny percentage of the population has physics degrees. A good understanding of relativity is likely much more equally shared across gender.
.
If this was something you were going to wager money on and you have limited information, then you profile with what you have. This is basically how the brain works, it’s wagering, and this evolved so strongly because it’s effective. We avoid bears because enough of them are a threat to warrant a blanket assessment.
.
You stand about 0.005% chance of being murdered in the US any given year, or 0.0000015% a day. Is it worth treating a race, gender, or age group like murdering machines to improve these odds? Is it worth increasing these odds to demonstrate wokeness?
.
You are relatively twice as likely to die in a car wreck than be murdered, and much more likely relatively to do so if you are white upper middle class. You should be more scared of getting into your car. Are you? The brain is biased against “hunting threats” such as terrorism versus random threats such as a car accident.
.
There are many valid counter arguments. Reducing risk without a downside only makes sense. Strolling around in a bad neighborhood in Washington DC at 2 am Saturday morning being aggressive to others significantly changes the odds. Things aren’t really random, etc.
Sometimes I just don’t know what to say, hard as that may be to believe considering how I hardly ever shut up around here.
.
Activists: Facebook’s move to block Russian interference discriminates against illegal immigrants
.
The knots people tie themselves into. How can we lets the goodly non citizens that we like participate in our political process while keeping the evil nasty non citizens that we don’t like out. It’s a dilemma.
mark bofill (Comment #169592)
Activists: Facebook’s move to block Russian interference discriminates against illegal immigrants.
_____
I don’t know much about Facebook because I go there only to see photos of relatives and friends. I suggest having one Facebook for
documented American citizens and another Facebook for everyone
else. But it could be that already exists or is a dumb idea for some
reason I don’t know about.
Max,
Sounds fine to me. I wonder if that would satisfy all parties.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169590)
Tom, I have been defending Sarah Jeong here, but that
doesn’t mean I think she’s a saint. Perhaps she invited
the trolling and enjoyed it. Perhaps she used it in her
research. I don’t know what her motivation was back
when she was participating in the trolling.
Early today I looked at Jeong’s recent tweets and the
replies. If she wanted negative attention, she’s getting
it. It’s a cesspool of hate.
mark bofill (Comment #169592): “Activists: Facebook’s move to block Russian interference discriminates against illegal immigrants
.
The knots people tie themselves into.”
Indeed. From mark’s link: “Facebook’s attempt to stop Russian interference in the U.S. elections has enraged activists who say illegal immigrants will be banned from buying political ads on the internet platform.”
So now people will not be allowed to use Facebook to break the law. How evil of Facebook.
Wow. Just wow.
.
Note: Legal permanent residents are the only foreign citizens legally permitted to spend money on U.S. elections.
This Russian interference on Facebook, was actually putting out lots of Fake News that would reel in supporters of Trump and Bernie, because they had large numbers of followers. These followers would then read the fake news articles and become regular readers.
The Russian company could then sell ads on these articles.
It is right there in Mueller’s indictment.
Mike M.
“on US elections”. But nothing prevents others from spending money on ads that are about issues that are important during elections.
lucia (Comment #169598): “But nothing prevents others from spending money on ads that are about issues that are important during elections.”
Fair point. I don’t know just where the legal line is drawn or if Facebook is trying to draw their line in the same place.
The latest thing on Facebook is shadow banning.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/07/13/facebook-admits-to-shadowbanning-news-it-considers-fake/
In reality, that means views they don’t like. Conservatives get shadow banned, progressives don’t.
I still don’t see any good reason to get a Facebook account.
DeWitt,
Yeah. I got one about a year ago when I realized Facebook groups were how my kids school groups (band and so on) were communicating with parents. Other than that… Sometimes they have videos of kittens and puppies and such.
One thing I noticed lately is any expressed “commitment” to free speech is followed by the exact opposite sort of action by those expressing it. It’s getting really tiresome. What happens if you hate the attacks on free speech, do you get banned on FB and Apple? I cry no tears for Alex Jones but a fantasy that censorship by our betters will end at Alex Jones is just that, a fantasy. The kangaroo speech courts are forming.
.
If these people had their way … it’s not hard to imagine the dsytopia (ummm .. I really mean paradise my great Internet overlord!) we would live in. I still can’t believe 1984 is a best seller this year for liberals. Maybe they just buy and put it on a coffee table to virtue signal, I’m having a hard time believing they read and understood it.
.
I’m not a single issue voter, but the weight I give to free speech issues has increased over the last decade. This stuff is suffocating.
Tom,
They’d tell you you got it backwards. The Resistance is noble and good, it’s Trump who’s going to lead us into Orwell’s nightmare.
Here:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-1984-fake-news-media-2018-8
[Edit: I guess I’m not just deplorable anymore, I’ve checked out and joined a cult. Gonna hafta work on that ‘obedient’ thing though…
]
I thought this was kind of interesting:
Study finds conservatives ‘right to be skeptical of scientists’
An amusing excerpt:
This all sounds vaguely familiar for some reason…
Violence is a learned behavior??? Anyone who believes that has never raised small children. Or if they have, they are completely oblivious.
Here is an interesting essay on white bashing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/the-utility-of-white-bashing/566846/
.
“It is almost as though we’re living through a strange sort of ethnogenesis, in which those who see themselves as (for lack of a better term) upper-whites are doing everything they can to disaffiliate themselves from those they’ve deemed lower-whites.”
.
Summary: It’s just the cool thing to do, you know, and if you want to join club-upper-white then you need to impress them with performative art otherwise known as racial prejudice. This is likely the most accurate column to date on the subject. In other news upper-whites distressed to learn recently that lower-whites get to vote.
.
Predictable: A conservative commentator Candace Owens replicated Jeong’s tweets except replacing white with the usual suspects and was then suspended from Twitter. Twitter later apologized for banning her. So I guess it’s OK to say those things now, or something?
.
Anyway, my last word on the subject. Thank you NYT, you passed this test with flying colors.
mark bofill (Comment #169604)
“Thousands of Studies Support the Liberal Theory of Aggression?A tenet of liberalism is that violence is a learned behavior. A favorite culprit is the media—people learn to be violent from seeing violence on television and in movies and playing violent video games.â€
______
Mark, I suspect violence might be at least somewhat a learned behavior. It seems reasonable that children raised in environments where violence is acceptable would be more likely to be violent. If violence is not a learned behavior then violent people are just born that way.
As for media contributing to violent behavior, the research is divided, and who knows who is right? Watching movies
and TV shows depicting violence never made me want to attack anyone and seeing porn never made me want to sexually assault anyone. I wouldn’t say, however, media can’t influence behavior at all.
How about violent video games? Contributing to violent behavior or not, I hate to see kids spending so much time playing these games. Kids need to be outside exercising, not sitting on their butts getting fat on snacks and soft drinks.
While I’m not sure about the harm of virtual violence in movies and video games, the real violence caught on cell phones is another matter. I have been very disturbed by depictions of real violence.
OK_Max,
Being raised in an environment where violence is acceptable is not the same thing as learning violence. It’s more like not learning that your instinctive violent tendencies are not acceptable in polite society, i.e. discipline. Discipline is sadly lacking in current child raising, as far as I can tell.
OK_Max (Comment #169607): “I suspect violence might be at least somewhat a learned behavior. It seems reasonable that children raised in environments where violence is acceptable would be more likely to be violent. If violence is not a learned behavior then violent people are just born that way.”
Environment matters. But it is not the urge to violence that is learned; it is restraint that is learned.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169606)
August 6th, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Here is an interesting essay on white bashing.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/the-utility-of-white-bashing/566846/
_________
Thank you Tom for the link to a very interesting article.
Of the many things worth quoting from the article, I have picked
the following:
“The people I’ve heard archly denounce whites have for the most part been upwardly-mobile people who’ve proven pretty adept at navigating elite, predominantly white spaces. A lot of them have been whites who pride themselves on their diverse social circles and their enlightened views, and who indulge in their own half-ironic white-bashing to underscore that it is their achieved identity as intelligent, worldly people that counts most, not their ascribed identity as being of recognizably European descent.”
________
I’ve done that a little. I’ve said unflattering things about lower-class whites. Being white myself, it’s acceptable to my upwardly-mobile friends of all races, whereas saying unflattering things about lower-class non-whites would not be.
The author of the article believes upwardly mobile Asians may be
imitating their white friends in bashing low-class whites. Maybe.
I have never actually witnessed that behavior (I know few Asians),
but imagine I would be a bit offended since I came from a low-class
white background. It’s similar to blacks using the n-word but being
offended by whites using it.
Max,
I think humans being capable of learning and capable of controlling their behavior, it’s inevitable that therefore we can learn to behave violently. I agree with DeWitt and Mike that learning civilized restraint is the real trick. I agree with you too; video games and electronics are fine, but there’s more to life than that. Personally I really only remember playing with my TRS-80 and playing in the woods from my childhood.
.
No actually I ought to have typed a few words explaining that I thought this was entertaining because parallels could be drawn between this and climate science / climate blogosphere experience.
.
I remember Skeptical Science’s consensus project, where they examined the title and maybe the abstracts of climate science papers to come up with a figure about the consensus regarding AGW. There too they were acting as ‘impact scientists’; I think I can say without lack of charity that those gents are climate activists, I don’t think they’d disagree about that. Finally the bit about conservatives not trusting them because they know this — it all seemed like climate blog deja vu.
.
shrug.
OK_Max,
I believe that called virtue signaling nowadays.
That behavior has become commonplace in food labels, what with non-GMO labels on food that has no possibility of being GMO or fat free for orange juice. Of course the non-GMO people are actually in the same anti-science boat as the anti-vaxxers and the people that don’t believe that ghg’s can affect atmospheric temperature. Since celiac disease is a real condition, labels with gluten free for things that don’t contain gluten in their unprocessed forms, like rice and oats, is more acceptable.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169608)
August 6th, 2018 at 3:21 pm
OK_Max,
Being raised in an environment where violence is acceptable is not the same thing as learning violence. It’s more like not learning that your instinctive violent tendencies are not acceptable in polite society, i.e. discipline. Discipline is sadly lacking in current child raising, as far as I can tell.
_____
The instincts are OK, acting on them is not OK.
I too think discipline is lacking in current child raising,
not that I’m for spanking kids. And letting kids always
have their way doesn’t prepare them for adulthood.
OK_Max,
Spanking is almost never necessary.
There’s a TV ad that that demonstrates the problem of lack of discipline. It’s the DirecTV ad with the kid continuously kicking the seat in front of him. That wasn’t the point of the ad, but what were the kid’s parents or guardians doing or thinking? I don’t think the ad agency would have used that as an example if it weren’t common.
Mike M. (Comment #169609)
“Environment matters. But it is not the urge to violence that is learned; it is restraint that is learned.”
______
Mike, I agree it’s not the urge to violence that’s learned, it’s the restraint, yet I wonder if the urge can be stimulated by media and video games, even sports events (e.g., rioting at soccer matches).
Also, violence is not an urge, it’s an act. How to do the act can be copied or learned.
If so, would it matter?
.
I don’t like thinking of an engineered society with smoothed out edges such that nobody gets ‘urges stimulated’ that are considered undesirable. Of course it’s me putting this ‘engineered world’ thing forward and you’ve said nothing of the sort, I understand that. It seems like where progressive go with ideas like this sometimes, although I can’t cite an example off the top of my head.
.
I prefer shooting for a freer society where people are expected to take responsibility for their actions, –and one where people are held responsible for their actions despite whatever simulations.
Of course to be fair, let it be noted that I’m also the sort who’s irritated by seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws, even though I’d never dispute that these effectively do save a LOT of lives, and that seat belts and motorcycle helmets are undoubtedly a good idea. So maybe it’s me who’s a little … whatever.. misguided maybe, on this point.
[Edit: Heh- I said ‘simulations’ in 169616. Meant ‘stimulations’ of course.]
mark bofill (Comment #169616): “I prefer shooting for a freer society where people are expected to take responsibility for their actions”
mark bofill (Comment #169617): “I’m also the sort who’s irritated by seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws, even though .. seat belts and motorcycle helmets are undoubtedly a good idea.”
I agree on all counts. When in an especially curmudgeonly mood, I maintain that seat belt and helmet laws help to degrade the gene pool. 🙂
~grins~
It’s rednecks much like me who’d generally be selecting themselves out, if that’s a selling point to tell [to] the Left.
Mike M. and mark,
The problem is that without the laws, the seat belts available in cars would probably be primitive at best so that people who wanted to wear them, like me, might not have them. I also think that motorcycle helmet wearing could have been encouraged by making failure to wear one have consequences other than fines. Health insurance and life insurance, for example, should cost more if one wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
Air bags are my pet peeve. I suspect that the cost/benefit ratio is very high, not to mention the whole Takata fiasco. They should be automatically deactivated if passengers are wearing belts.
I’d find that preferable and more reasonable than legal enforcement, yep. And airbags – well, studies can be slippery as we all well know. Maybe this one is making some bone headed mistake or rookie oversight, but it shows that it can be argued anyway that airbags do more harm than good.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169620): “The problem is that without the laws, the seat belts available in cars would probably be primitive at best so that people who wanted to wear them, like me, might not have them.”
I have no problem with requiring seat belts and setting standards, for just that reason.
.
DeWitt Payne: “I also think that motorcycle helmet wearing could have been encouraged by making failure to wear one have consequences other than fines. Health insurance and life insurance, for example, should cost more if one wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.”
OK, except that enforcement might be a problem. I suspect it would not really make much difference in the rates.
.
DeWitt Payne: “Air bags are my pet peeve. I suspect that the cost/benefit ratio is very high”
I agree.
Thanks to mark for the link on air bags costing lives. But I think they have been improved since that time. Maybe now they are a wash.
We had a world without lots of TV, movies, and video games and it was plenty violent. Society is getting better at reducing violence. Violent crime in the US has dropped in half since the 1990’s which coincides with the video game revolution. I personally feel less stressed after a bit of first person shooting action.
.
People are safer in cars if they wear helmets as well, but nobody is screaming for that. The standard libertarian view is if you want to ride a motorcycle standing on your head it is fine by me as long as you pay for your own healthcare and you don’t endanger me. I’m generally not a fan of nanny state laws although they can be effective.
Tom Scharf,
“People are safer in cars if they wear helmets as well, but nobody is screaming for that.”
.
Yes, at least for now. People are safer if they are not allowed to smoke or drink, safer if not allowed to drive, safer if not allowed to be overweight, or eat foods with too much sugar, safer if not allowed to have unprotected sex, and not allowed to spend too much time in the sun, and…. well, let’s face it, there are progressives who want to take all decisions away from individuals and exercise pretty much complete control. It’s Orwell’s 1984 lite, but the motivation and collective mindset are the same. It is not a coincidence that restrictions on free speech on campuses are framed as making the university “safer”. It is all nonsensical rubbish which infringes on the individual’s right to “the pursuit of happiness”. Public control of personal decisions should be vigorously and consistently resisted.
Sometimes I think some differences between progressive and conservative positions are just chance. I’m pretty sure progressives would oppose the notion that forcing women to wear clothing that covers them up reduce instances that might tend to stimulate men’s urges. They’d oppose it [policy trying to engineer society by forcing women to cover up] and quite rightly so. Possibly the trouble is that conservatives and progressives agree about such a large amount of fairly trivial stuff that there’s nothing interesting or noteworthy about it – it’s just the areas of disagreement that attract our attention. And of course the fact that policy matters.
[Edit: in case the connection isn’t clear (cause I’m on my first cup of coffee), my idea is this is an area where society could be engineered and a freedom curtailed for an overall positive outcome, at least in theory. But this is an example I think we’d all agree isn’t a good idea. Why is this different in principle, is it different in principle. Could it be a road that might lead to common ground. That sort of thing.]
mark bofill,
I think there are bigger differences between libertarians and progressives than between conservatives and progressives when it comes to trying to boss people about (directly or through coercion). The question is who should control the choices individuals make, the individuals or society? Libertarians almost always answer “individuals”, progressives and conservatives answer “it depends”. Conservatives have lost a lot of political power over the past few decades (How many sodomy laws, still on the books, are enforced? None!), while progressives have seen their influence grow, as the endless nanny-laws and the transformation of many campuses into mini-orwellian-people’s republics, clearly show. Still, the urge to control the choices others make is alive and well in both conservatives and progressives… progressives are just in a position to do more of it today, so they are more of a threat to personal liberties.
SteveF, thanks. That [likely] wouldn’t have occurred to me but I think that observation will be of value to me. I think you’re right. What the heck do I think I mean when I say ‘conservative’ anyway.
.
Maybe I ought to sort out exactly where I think I’m standing conceptually, and who I think I’m standing next to, and make sure I at least have identified that part correctly, and take stock a bit before going much further.
The religious right can get a little bossy, ha ha. Everybody wants control, even if the goal of that control is to “free the people” by controlling the urges of government. Everyone has the righteous answer right up until they get power and the opportunity to implement their vision, then it all fars apart as it turns out society is a little more complex than a bumper sticker. They then blame the other side for blocking them from properly implementing their vision and declare it would have worked if only there would have been much more of it.
The risk of being killed by a defective air-bag seems blown way out of proportion. I recall estimates of only 15 people in the U.S. killed by airbags compared to 28,000 people saved. With those odds, I’m for having air-bags.
Be more concerned about being killed by a deer. About 400 people are killed each year in collisions with deer I’ve had collisions with two, fortunately with no more than minor car damage. I think the deer survived.
Deer kill far more people than sharks, bears, and mountain lions combined, but you wouldn’t know it from news reports. Bees probably are second to deer as killers.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169628)
August 7th, 2018 at 8:56 am
The religious right can get a little bossy, ha ha.
________
That’s understandable. If I thought everyone who believed
differently than me was going to roast in hell, I might be
bossy too. You better do as I say or else.
When I was a child attending a Southern Baptist church,
the preacher had me very worried about going to hell.
I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing by
by scaring kids with the threat of eternal burning, but
I think it was cruel and I resent it.
OK_Max,
It’s difficult to prove that someone’s life was saved by airbags. IMO, the estimate you quote is high, possibly by orders of magnitude. OTOH, it’s a lot easier to know when someone has been killed or seriously injured by an airbag. See again the Takata fiasco. I’ve personally seen airbags deployed without a collision just by aggressive driving during a parking lot autocross. Repairing the damage done costs thousands of dollars.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169631)
August 7th, 2018 at 2:11 pm
OK_Max,
“It’s difficult to prove that someone’s life was saved by airbags. IMO, the estimate you quote is high, possibly by orders of magnitude.”
______
Yes, DeWitt, it could be difficult, but comparisons of outcomes of similar accidents should give reliable conclusions regarding magnitude. 

“From 1987 to 2015, frontal air bags saved 44,869 lives.â€
https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/air-bags#2286
Counting that as 29 years, gives an average annual estimate of 1,547 lives saved.
“NHTSA estimates that during 1990-2008, more than 290 deaths were caused by frontal airbag inflation in low-speed crashes.â€Â
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/airbags/qanda
Counting that as 19 years, gives an average annual estimate of 15 lives lost.
The estimate of lives saved is more than 100 times the count of lives lost. So there is lots of room for error on the estimate of lives saved without changing the conclusion that airbags are a net life saver.
I believe it was Mark who linked to a study that was critical of the
statistics on lives lost because they included on only airbag caused
fatalities in low-speed accidents. That could be a valid criticism.
Do airbags kill some people in high-speed collisions who would
have survived had their cars not been equipped with the bags ?
Autopsies on those killed at high speeds and crash experiments with dummies could answer that question, but I don’t know what’s been done.
Forget about airbags and keep an eye out for deer. Remember, if
one runs in front of your car, others may be close behind and you
could hit one of the followers. OK, I guess that could trigger
your airbag.
I did link that study. But my problem isn’t that I think airbags cost peoples lives, but rather that people who force car makers to install airbags in their cars will roast in hell.
.
So to speak. I think it’s the wrong thing to do.
.
Folk around here would definitely approve of the idea of watching out for deer though. I’ve got hunter friends who preemptively shoot deer, although I expect they don’t do it for driver safety, it is an added bonus.
OK_Max (Comment #169632): “Forget about airbags and keep an eye out for deer. Remember, if one runs in front of your car, others may be close behind and you could hit one of the followers.”
The issue with airbags is not so much that they kill people but that they provide little benefit, given the cost.
Good advice on deer. If you see a deer near the side of the road, expect it to run out in front of you, even if it appears to see you. Deer are much dummer than small children.
A close election today or a shoe in?
uhm I meant in North Alabama. I’ve no idea if the Blackboard is full of deer hunters or not.
.
Angech, are you talking about the special election in Ohio? I haven’t been following it.
I think there’s a vote about right to work in MO.
I wish you’d posted about the deer sooner. Happened exactly like that. I missed the first one and hit the second. Airbag did not deploy though.
Vote in Ohio will be close. Democrat led for first two hours with early vote, then Republican took the lead, and should keep it, maybe win by 5.
Blue waves, red tsunamis… I’m not seeing either. It looks like normal midterm political weather to me, which is to say – the Republicans may lose the House. It happens during midterms. Dang close race in Ohio. We’ll see how it goes in November.
MikeN (Comment #169638)
August 7th, 2018 at 7:26 pm
I wish you’d posted about the deer sooner. Happened exactly like that. I missed the first one and hit the second. Airbag did not deploy though.
_______
I hope you and your passengers weren’t injured. I know it can be
a shock.
lucia (Comment #169637)
August 7th, 2018 at 5:42 pm
“I think there’s a vote about right to work in MO.”
_______
The voters rejected the right-to-work law by a wide margin (67/33).
I haven’t been following the issue, but was surprised by how unpopular the law was with MO voters.
Correction: 63/37
Max, no shock as I was only going about 35. I had shock previously when I avoided hitting while going 50.
Ohio race was much closer than I predicted, under 1%, with 8400 ballots still to be counted and an 1800 vote lead for the Republican.
OK_Max,
The advertising spending on rejecting right-to-work was something like 5 times greater than the spending in support. Something like $15 million to $3 million.
JD, what is your take on the Manafort trial, particularly how Gates did?
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1027037822459555844
WRT air bags: There is no question that air bags actually do (on net) save lives. Mostly, those are lives of people who choose to not wear seat belts. An air bag alone is not nearly as effective as a seat belt alone. As in much of life, there is selective pressure against stupidity when it comes to seat belts. IIRC, the net benefit of front air bags with a seat belt over a seat belt alone is pretty small, and considering the cost of replacing an air bag (lots of damage done when it deploys!), it may not be worth having air bags activate when people are using seat belts (as DeWitt suggested). I have never seen any data for the benefit of side impact air bags, though maybe this data exists.
SteveF (Comment #169648): “WRT air bags: There is no question that air bags actually do (on net) save lives. Mostly, those are lives of people who choose to not wear seat belts. An air bag alone is not nearly as effective as a seat belt alone.”
I’d bet that some people do not bother with seat belts because they have air bags.
Mike M.,
The problem is that air bags are mainly for a single front end collision. For example, they won’t keep you inside the car in a rollover accident. Ejection from a vehicle is often fatal.
By the way, here’s a study that claims that the costs of airbags are about three times the estimated benefits:
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2004-01-0840/
I read in MO the message was “recall right to work to make MO attractive to business” which I found a bit confusing. Unions can play a useful role, they just need to clean up their act. I’m not optimistic that can happen in the near term, but the incentives are in place for them to become something more positive.
.
WH – Republicans
House – Republicans
Senate – Republicans
SC – Conservative
Governors – Republicans
State Legislatures – Republicans
.
Enjoy the next few months, this won’t be coming back for a while, a long while. We will probably need to ban OK_Max the month of November, ha ha. Everyone gets to feast on schadenfreude occasionally.
The initial problem with airbags was they deployed too fast and at too low a speed in some cases. This was optimized over a few decades. 90% of slow airbag deaths occurred in vehicles manufactured before 1998. I don’t think there is a perfect setting, more like overlapping circles. The statistics aren’t hard, just examine injury rates for similar accidents before and after airbags. There are large numbers to look at, so they should be valid, and the reduction in deaths in frontal crashes is 30%, that number is 50% with seat belts added. That’s significant. For visual learners:
https://youtu.be/rIcrXjIbfpQ
.
As to where these become optional, mandatory, and if they should be able to be manually disabled is another debate. My current car has about 20 bazillion airbags. My car also has auto-braking for pending frontal crashes which I think is very useful. You could make a car even safer if you added $50,000 to the cost but obviously poor people should be able to buy cars, this is a classic cost/safety tradeoff.
A new climate change record today. The highest ever unqualified estimate for sea level rise in the mainstream media.
“The climate might stabilise with 4-5 degrees C of warming above the pre-industrial age. Thanks to the melting of ice sheets, the seas could be 10-60 metres higher than now.”
.
OMG, the lowest sea level rise is now 10M! And to put this clearly into the climate porn category, we have this:
.
“At a time of the widespread rise of right-wing populism, with its associated rejection of the messages of those perceived as ‘cosmopolitan elites’ and specific denial of climate change as an issue, the likelihood that the combination of factors necessary to allow humanity to navigate the planet to an acceptable ‘intermediate state’ must surely be close to zero.”
.
I can’t imagine how anyone could not trust cosmopolitan elites after a statement like that if they reviewed the “truth” of the science. What is wrong with these people, seriously.
.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45084144
Tom Scharf (Comment #169652): “The statistics aren’t hard, just examine injury rates for similar accidents before and after airbags. There are large numbers to look at, so they should be valid, and the reduction in deaths in frontal crashes is 30%, that number is 50% with seat belts added”
On things like this, there tend to be two types of statistical analyses: Very hard and very wrong. Sometimes both. Many things besides airbags changed between the “before” and “after” groups. And there is probably no way to know how many people did not bother with seat belts because they had air bags.
From DeWitt’s link (Comment #169650): “Even after the deployment of 10 million airbags, their effect on injury risk remains uncertain”
Tom Scharf (Comment #169651)
August 8th, 2018 at 8:24 am
“Enjoy the next few months, this won’t be coming back for a while, a long while. We will probably need to ban OK_Max the month of November, ha ha. Everyone gets to feast on schadenfreude occasionally.”
______
If that happens I will try to resist the temptation to rub it in.
A political analyst on NPR this morning said many Trump supporters
are unhappy with their Republican reps in Congress and will vote for
Dems. That surprised me. I thought the gain in Dem support was a reaction against Trump from some of those who voted for him. I guess it could be some of both.
Re airbags and seatbelts, I read that frontal airbags on recent model cars are deigned to be used with seat belts, but the bags on older models weren’t.
Re rollovers, no, frontal airbags aren’t protection. Don’t know if the trend to SUV’s is resulting in more rollovers, but these vehicles are top heavy and roll over more easily than sedans.
My airbag story:
I had an old Dodge Caravan, which I mostly drove locally, meaning low speeds on suburban streets. A light came on indicating there was something wrong with the airbag. What? dunno.
It was more than 10 years old, I grew up without air bags. I ignored the light.
When I took the van in for servicing, the service guy naturally mentioned it and mentioned a price for fixing it. The price was more than the blue book value of the van, so I declined. This particular technician was my age and told me that his “training” had advised him to push hard to sell fixing this. But he knew better than to push someone our age who was driving an old Caravan to believe that fixing whatever was wrong was some sort of emergency worth the cost.
I had my other service done (e.g. oil change, tire rotation. Whatever.)
Eventually, there was a recall about whatever problem was causing the lights to turn on for the airbags. As it happens, the problem did not make the airbags nonfunctional. It was something…. else. ….
I got the light fixed. Soon after, I donated the van because I was buying a new car anyway.
For the record: I have nothing against airbags. They are very useful in car accidents. On the other hand, if you never drive on the highway or at high speed, a seat belt will nearly always suffice. The risk you take by having no airbag is not great. If I had to do it all over again, I would still make the decision to not spend over $1000 to do something to fix the light (and whatever underlying problem that indicated).
I think fatality statistics with and without wearing a seatbelt have been around for 50 years. This couldn’t be any clearer. You do need to do the statistics correct as there are many things happening simultaneously and there will be inevitable uncertainty. Cars designed with crumple zones, collapsible steering columns, pre-tensioning seat belts, the relative weights of cars, and so forth. I might be a tad biased on the subject of safety equipment from personal experience, walking away unscathed from 70 mph rollovers tends to leave an impression (no airbag deploy here for the record):
https://scharf.smugmug.com/TomFamily/1993/i-XM6Krcs/A
.
The effects of airbags is quite known. They use elaborate crash test dummies that measure forces and there is enough information on what kills and injures a person to make this pretty straight forward in the lab on a better/worse spectrum definitely, and likely to within a few percentage points in practice. They also have lots and lots and lots and lots of real world data to verify lab results. Insurance companies give discounts for safety equipment based on real numbers and they put their money where their mouth is.
.
There is no question that robot driving will further reduce injuries and no question that people will resist it like the plague initially. It will ultimately become mandatory after a decade or so and people will howl. I don’t feel especially comfortable with cars driven by strangers passing me with 10 feet at relative speeds of over 100 mph, this always seemed liked a psychotic design to me.
60 meters? That is roughly equivalent to 100% melting of all of Antarctica. That is, 100% melting for a continent which today averages ~-20C in summer (~ -40C in winter).
.
Only shameless numb skulls would suggest such nonsense, and only bigger numb skulls would publish it. Good grief. The ghost of Stephen Schneider still haunts climate science, and I fear it always will.
OK_Max,
Do not resist the temptation, otherwise what fun would it be? Nothing is worse than a respectful winner in politics. The best part of losing is that you can blame everything bad that happens on your opponents which is a much easier thing to do. I’m getting tired of all this winning anyway, ha ha.
Gahhh, Tom. I find gloating pretty much unbecoming of everybody. Except when it’s funny, if there is such a case. Whatever, I guess.
Max_OK,
I’d be surprised if red-rock-Republicans unhappy with Trump voted for Democrats. The swing is usually independents and so on. Red-rock Republicans might fail to show up, but they are unlikely to vote for Dems.
My vote swings. OTOH: I also vote for 3rd parties. There’s generally a choice of 3rd party candidates of various different shades of weird. So it’s easy to pick one. I won’t vote for a candidate I dislike if they might win.
I’m still not a big Trump fan. But I’m not going to vote for a Democrat just because I don’t like him. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican merely because I liked whoever the GOP president was. I vote for Congress and Senate based on who is actually running for those seats.
The outcome of elections is always overinterpreted. The losing side is in permanent decline and the winners are ascendant. The media can only extrapolate from 4 years back apparently. The smack talk is inevitable and if you can’t take it, dont … I have a feeling the “democracy is saved” storylines have already been written and waiting on the presses. Given that Trump actually won last time you cannot discount the left’s ability for self sabotage, but they won’t be mindlessly over-confident this time around. Their energy is comparable to Tea party screaming which resulted in a 2010 wipeout for the left.
Tom Scharf,
“There are large numbers to look at, so they should be valid, and the reduction in deaths in frontal crashes is 30%, that number is 50% with seat belts added.”
.
Not sure what that means. Do you mean that air bags alone reduce deaths by 30% compared to nothing, while seatbelts plus air bags reduce deaths by 50% compared to nothing? If so, those numbers look wildly out of line…. that air bags alone are 60% as effective as seat belts plus air bags is improbable.
.
This study of just under 10,000 head-on crashes: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/153/3/219/80361
says the reduction in fatalities for cars with only air bags in use was 29% (compared to nothing), while for only seat belts the reduction in fatalities was 75%. The combination of seat belts and air bags reduced fatalities by 82%… or 7% more than seat belts alone.
.
A couple of other very interesting things from that study: Men are 21% less likely to die in a head-on crash than women (relatively stronger bones for the same body weight?), and people over 65 are three times more likely to die in a head-on crash than younger people. Which suggests getting old increases your chance of death even more than one might imagine. 😉
.
More disturbing is the influence of vehicle weight: your chance of death doubles when you drive in a car that weighs less than 2250 lbs compared to a car that weighs more than 3375 lbs. So, be male, drive a tank, wear your seat belt, and don’t be old if you want to avoid death in a head-on crash. Air bags won’t make much difference if you do all those things.
Heavier cars win in collisions with light cars naturally. When you hit tin foil with a hammer the results are predictable on both. The goal would be to get rid of heavier cars if possible (by making them lighter) to remove the disparity. Collisions with trucks will still be a big problem.
.
I got airbar stats here, cannot vouch for them. I imagine some of this is how you do the fractions. The statement seems a bit contradictory on close reading, it seems belts are doing most of the work in a belts + airbag scenario.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/airbags/qanda
.
“In frontal crashes, frontal airbags reduce driver fatalities by 29 percent and fatalities of front-seat passengers age 13 and older by 30 percent. The fatality reduction in frontal crashes is larger for belted drivers (52 percent) compared with unbelted drivers (21 percent). 2 NHTSA estimates that the combination of an airbag plus a lap and shoulder belt reduces the risk of death by 51 percent, compared with a 45 percent reduction for belts alone in frontal crashes.”
Tom Scharf,
“The goal would be to get rid of heavier cars if possible to remove the disparity.”
.
Until that most improbable happenstance, drive a tank. 😉
.
The advantage of a bigger car is two-fold: yes, in head-on collisions with lighter cars the g-forces are much lower. But even in solid barrier frontal collisions, a larger car has more “crumple length”, and so generates lower g-forces than a smaller car. Car designers have (I believe) worked to increase crumple length as much as practical for all cars.
A bit counter-intuitively two equivalent cars hitting each other at 50 mph is the same as one car hitting a wall at 50 mph.
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/collisionmath.html
.
I imagine it does make a difference if you hit a wall that is magically traveling 50 mph in the opposite direction. You want to avoid all insta-stop collisions if you value your life. Do yourself a favor and do not type in dashcam accidents on youtube.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169661)
August 8th, 2018 at 11:19 am
OK_Max,
“Do not resist the temptation, otherwise what fun would it be? Nothing is worse than a respectful winner in politics.”
mark bofill (Comment #169662)
August 8th, 2018 at 11:23 am
“Gahhh, Tom. I find gloating pretty much unbecoming of everybody. Except when it’s funny, if there is such a case.”
________
I suppose a little good natured ribbing would be ok.
Lucia (Comment #169663)
August 8th, 2018 at 11:32 am
Max_OK
“I’m still not a big Trump fan. But I’m not going to vote for a Democrat just because I don’t like him. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican merely because I liked whoever the GOP president was. I vote for Congress and Senate based on who is actually running for those seats.”
_________
Makes sense to me. Republicans are not all alike, Democrats are not
all alike. All politics are local.
There could be a number of reasons why that Ohio Congressional race was so close: disappointment with Trump, dissatisfaction with the Republican candidate, the Democrat candidate’s appeal, an increase in voter turnout by Democrats, a decrease in Republican
turnout, and reasons not occurring to me. I would be interested in
knowing the importance of each reason.
The Ohio race was close because suburban Republicans are not voting for Republican candidates.
Democrats achieved a huge turnout. 87% of their 2016 number, while Republicans hit 40%.
Question is if this is because they brought lots of resources into a special election or if this is the default condition and it was Republican resources that boosted their candidate past the finish line. Neither one can scale to 50-100 simultaneous races, thought Trump may have the energy to campaign for every one.
I am solid Republican who supports Trump, but am considering voting for a Democrat for the House. The existing candidate is weak on a number of issues, and I wonder if it would be better to clear the decks for a more conservative candidate in two years.
Lucia, didn’t the air bag light lead to a failed emissions test?
SteveF (Comment #169665)
August 8th, 2018 at 11:46 am
“people over 65 are three times more likely to die in a head-on crash than younger people”
“More disturbing is the influence of vehicle weight: your chance of death doubles when you drive in a car that weighs less than 2250 lbs compared to a car that weighs more than 3375 lbs”
______
Yes, older people would be wise to have large cars, and I do see many large cars being drive by seniors. As makers have downsized cars for fuel economy, new large cars at affordable prices have become harder to find. But the latest models of all sizes have safety features that were unavailable back in the days of big cars. I hope this means the downsizing isn’t increasing fatality and injury rates for older people.
I’m not sure large cars are less likely to be involved in accidents. If controls for driver age and other influences are factored, the statistics could show small cars less likely to be in accident. The reason could be they are more maneuverable and have less area to be struck.
MikeN (Comment #169672)
Thank you for the stats on the Ohio race.
Tom Scharf,
“A bit counter-intuitively two equivalent cars hitting each other at 50 mph is the same as one car hitting a wall at 50 mph.”
.
I assure you this is not at all counter-intuative for those who have studied Newtonian physics. You can even ask a former professor of mechanical engineering named Lucia if you doubt this.
OK_Max,
I am over 65 and drive an SUV that weighs 4350 lbs…. so maybe these factors cancel out. My SUV also has automatic pre-collision braking, lane change alarms (if you try to change lanes when another vehicle occupies that lane), semi-autopilot (keeps the car in the lane if you start to drift out of your lane) and other safety features. BTW, automatic pre-collision braking ought to reduce the risk of death in both vehicles involved in a head-on crash.
.
I figure I am much more likely to die from cancer or heart disease than a car accident.
In other news, don’t ever drive into a rocket sled with your econobox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eA6cEql6uE
Not sure what to make of this: Trump is now 14 for 14 in his Republican primary endorsements. You want elected? Kiss the Don’s ring. It also appears to have turned the FL governor race around.
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/38842164/how-donald-trump-just-keeps-winning
.
I still get a feeling I’m living in the Matrix with a major league software bug.
MikeN,
Nope. Passed every emissions test every year. Out of curiosity, why do you think the light would cause the car’s emissions to not meet standards?
SteveF,
The two cars hitting vs. one car hitting the wall is a classic high school physics problem involving impulse momentum theorem.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169679): “Not sure what to make of this: Trump is now 14 for 14 in his Republican primary endorsements.”
The article gives Trump credit for John James winning the senate nomination in Michigan. They claim that no way James would have won otherwise, probably because he started from nowhere. Trump probably helped, but James was already closing in and won by 10 points. He appears to be a very string candidate. If Stabenow takes reelection for granted, she could be in for a big surprise. Maybe even if she does not take it for granted.
SteveF (Comment #169677)
“I am over 65 and drive an SUV that weighs 4350 lbs…. so maybe these factors cancel out.”
“I figure I am much more likely to die from cancer or heart disease than a car accident.”
_____
Your SUV is loaded with safety technology. When I’m ready for a new car, I will opt for the safety features you mentioned.
By determining what is most likely to kill you if you do nothing,you may be able to reduce that likelihood by doing something. I’m a
firm believer in the value of regular physical checkups.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169678)
August 8th, 2018 at 7:13 pm
In other news, don’t ever drive into a rocket sled with your econobox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eA6cEql6uE
_________
HOLY COW ! Little left of that car.
The following collision is an example of a driver not paying attention or having a stroke. I don’t know which. It’s a miracle no one was killed.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/dashcam-captures-devastating-crash-on-canada-s-busiest-highway-1.4042081
Lucia, perhaps your car was too old. My impression is the first step in an emissions test, and in some cases the only step, is to connect to the onboard computer, and any light will cause a test fail.
Mike N,
Whatever they did, the light being on didn’t interfere with passing. I don’t have a vivid memory of what they do during testing. It’s not the sort of thing I file in permanent memory. But I know the van never failed.
MikeN,
I googled, and the intertubes seem to report a vehicle won’t pass if the check engine light is on. My light was not the check engine light. It was specifically for the airbag system. That might be the reason my car passed while you are under the impression a light on causes failure. It may matter which light. (Imagine if it was a “check oil” or “check washer fluid” light and so on. Some of these are little more than timers. Of course you should check your oil or washer fluid. But emissions may be just fine.)
Max_ok
Bear in mind: this was a primary election. Voter turn out was high for a primary, which is low for a major election. Evidently, those who did not want right-to-work were very motivated to vote. Others were not.
Generally speaking (in my view) referendum questions about statewide law should not be placed on any election other than the one in November. November is the only time when enough people show to really know the will of the people. That said: there’s no rule against putting important questions on ballots at times when turn out is typically miniscule and the majority of an unusually small minority ends up dictating the outcome.
It’s an old trick though. 🙂
Tom Scharf
The hypothetical of Unions playing a useful role to attract business is all well and good. But businesses making investments do so based on current and past behavior of Unions. Strong unions will only attract business after unions clean up their act.
One of the incentives to make unions clean up their act is their having less than infinite power. (To be useful, they also need more than zero power). If the balance of power is to large in favor of unions, right to work tends to make them “clean up their act” because part of the reasons extremely powerful unions don’t have “clean acts” is that, in some cases, once they win one election by more than 50% of employee vote, they have a near unbreakable lock on representations. It’s hard for employees to get rid of a union even if less than 50% of the employees now support it.
Without right to work, a union can, hypothetically, force all members to pay dues even after more than 50% don’t even want the union. With right to work, they need to remain sufficiently attractive that people want to pay dues and so join the union voluntarily.
Mind you: this weakens the union. But part of the “weakening” is, at least hypotentically, not allowing the union to become despotic.
Obviously, if unions are too weak, they have no power either.
All that said: I think the good argument for right to work is the one captured by it’s name. Individuals should notbe required to join a union merely to get a job somewhere where the majority of employees voted to unionize. Basically, employees shouldn’t be able to vote to exclude workers on the condition that the potential worker effectively “joins their club”.
Edit: I inserted “not” in between “should” and “be” above.
Lucia,
Is this a typo or is this what you meant to type? I’d have thought ‘should not’ would be more consistent with what you were saying, but maybe I’m just not understanding what you’re saying.
Thanks. Should not. I’ll fix.
lucia (Comment #169688)
“Generally speaking (in my view) referendum questions about statewide law should not be placed on any election other than the one in November. November is the only time when enough people show to really know the will of the people.”
_____
lucia, thank you for the explanation. I hadn’t thought about
the difference voter turnout could have made in the MO
vote against the right-to-work law.
OK_max.
Here’s a back of the envelope estimate:
I read the turnout in past years was about 30% of registered voters. this time it was 37%.
Suppose the real feeling was 50-50, and we’d expect that to be the result for voters who arrived for some reason other than voting on the referendum. But suppose the extra 7% all arrived to vote “no”.
Then (0.15+0.07)/.37 = 0.59. The no would have gotten 59% of the vote. According to the WSJ 64% voted against.
Now, 64% is bigger than 59%, but I think this shows the “overwhelming-ness” might really just be due to motivated voters in an election that would normally have a very low turnout rate.
Obviously, people who like the result are happy with this result. Those who don’t are unhappy. But as I said, I think referend for statewide issues should generally be left to November elections. Because having important issues on the ballot during things like primaries can potentially result in minority groups imposing their will on the entire state– that’s not the actual goal of elections.
(Small towns and college towns do this all the time by the way. They’ll vote for things that affect students and which students disfavor during a small summer election while most are away at jobs and so on. The townies will argue it’s fair– and it may be so. Afterall, the townies live in the town 100% of the time. But still– the tactic is well known.)
lucia (Comment #169693)
Taking a vote when opponents are
are out of town. WOW, that is dirty.
I can see both sides of the union
issue. As a manager, I would prefer
not having to deal with unions at all.
As a non-managerial employee, I
might prefer a union shop or at least
an agency agreement requiring non-
union employees to pay union dues.
I wish union/management relations
in the US weren’t so adversarial.
The relations seem to be better
in some countries (e.g., Japan
and Germany).
OK_Max
I think this is the preference of the union and those employees who support the union enough to join it. It tends not to be the preference of employees who disagree with the union and don’t want to join it. So I don’t think one should presume that all non-managerial employees prefer a union shop with all employees being forced to pay dues.
In fact, if all wanted to support the union and believed it just for all employee’s to pay dues, passing a right to work law would make no difference. They’d all just join. The problem is at last some employees don’t want that.
OK_Max,
The real problem, and the subject of Janus v. AFSCME, is that unions engage heavily in politics. Agency fees, ideally, are only supposed to cover the costs of collective bargaining. But we don’t live in an ideal world. Public employee unions are political by definition and home health care workers, especially relatives, get close to zero benefit from membership in public employee unions. But agency fees or union dues were deducted by some states directly from benefit payments.
lucia (Comment #169695)
“So I don’t think one should presume that all non-managerial employees prefer a union shop with all employees being forced to pay dues.”
__________
True, but the union could argue that those who don’t join should pay dues anyway because they receive union negotiated benefits.
I am presuming employers provide equal pay and benefits to their union and non-union workers. If I’m wrong, the argument could change.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169696)
DeWitt, I used to think governments were paternalistic employers and public servants had no need or right to organize. Oklahoma’s State government has caused me to reconsider. In recent years the State badly neglected educational funding, eventually resulting in a widespread teacher strike and school closings this past spring.
The State finally came around and the strike ended. I was glad
to see the teachers stand up for what they believed right.
Of course public employee unions are political. They bargain with governments that are political.
OK_Max,
The Unions do argue this. It’s the position that is favorable to the Union. That’s why the unions call it a “free rider” problem. That’s the union framing.
Meanwhile, there are employees who don’t consider the things the union negotiates “for them” be benefits. As is: they don’t think they get value from what the union negotiates “for them” and would prefer something else.
Those employees don’t think they should have to give the union money to negotaite for things they don’t want and don’t consider benefits. It’s a triple blow to both (a) not get anything you think a benefit , (b) be told that you must consider the stuff you “got” to be a benefit and (c) be required to pay the union for cutting a deal that gives you things you don’t want in place of things you do want.
The negotiated contract applies to both union and non-union members and both groups are treated identically. The reason for this is that the non-union members have their right to negotiate for themselves (to try to get what they actually want) taken away from them and given to the union.
So: the non-union members don’t necessarily being deprived of the right to negotiate for what they want and instead being given what the union deems they “should” want to be a “benefit”. It’s not entirely clear that losing their right to negotiate and being forced to rely on a party they don’t agree with (i.e. the union) is a “benefit”. Moreover, even if the contract the union negotiates containsthings called “benefits” (e.g. insurance etc.) that’ doesn’t mean the non-union members are better off (Though, they may well be.)
So: just deeming getting the union contract a “benefit” isn’t quite right. Certainly, the non-union members have something taken away: that is the right to negotiate for what the non-union employee actually prefers.
Youtube is taking a stand against no good dirty gosh darn climate science deniers like me!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6042837/YouTube-takes-climate-change-deniers.html
I wondered briefly if SkS was in on this, cause it sort of sounded like their type of thing, but if so they haven’t posted about it. Mebbe youtube just got the itch all by itself.
Well, I’ll just have to work harder to spread my diabolical web of disinformation in other ways I suppose.
Janus case was about union fees for government workers.
While political spending is supposed to be deducted if demanded, this doesn’t mean much with union accounting.
Kennedy asked if union political power would be affected if they lost the mandatory dues.
When told yes, he responded, “Isn’t that the end of this case?”
lucia (Comment #169699)
lucia, a union’s obligation to non-members isn’t clear
to me.
In States with right-to-work laws if more than 50% of
the workers in a bargaining unit want to be represented
by a union does it become the exclusive bargaining agent
and have a legal obligation to represent any of the rest
who choose to not join the union and pay union dues?
If the union does have such an obligation it is being required
to provide a service to workers (non-union members) who
are not paying for the service.
OK_Max,
Unions obligations to non-union members is dictated by law. For state employees, it’s state laws. For private companies, that’s federal law but some choices are left to the states.
Yes to both. This is federal law and the two things are linked. Moreover, it’s worth nothing that historically unions want both to represent everyone and insist everyone they represent pay them for the privilege to do so. Unions do not want to only represent a fraction of employees.
Some see it this way; unions like it described that way. The problem is using the word “service”. It’s not a “service” to me if someone does something I don’t want and I consider contrary to my interests. It doesn’t become a “service” just because the other person tells me I should like what they are doing.
So, for example: if, while I was on vacation, my neighbor came over and painted my house brown, I would not call what they did a “service” even if brown is a nice color. I would not call it one even if he pointed out that as a result of his actions, I wouldn’t need to repaint for 10 years, as now the house is nice a protected against the elements.
As far as I am concerned, his painting the house would also not become a “service” to me if law dictated that all the neighbors could form a collective and vote for a sole provider of outdoor paining and the decision about painting my own house had become theirs against my will.
I would much rather retain the right to select my own color and paint the house myself. In that case, I’ll gladly pay for the paint and painters myself.
But I don’t want the “neighborhood collective” to decide this. And I would be even more miffed, if to get a law passed to have the “neighborhood collective” take away my right to have my house painted as I prefer, they then changed the rhetoric to insist they are doing me a “service” and telling me I need to pay them.
If you change “neighborhood collective” to “union” and change the house painting to the union being the sole bargaining agent, we’ve now got a good analogy for what is happening with unions.
I think “right to work” should exist. I think those who have a “right to work” should not have to pay dues. If that means unions no longer act as sole agents and the non-union employees negotiate for themselves, that’s fine with me. (In fact, it’s probably fine with the non-union employees. The fact is the unions generally want to take away that right from the non-union employees. That, after the unions get what they want, they also use it as an excuse to charge the non-union employees for having their right to negotiate taken away is double whammy for the non-union employees. I don’t consider that a “service”.)
OK_Max,
I should note: The federal law I mentioned covered private companies not state employees. So the answer “yes to both” applies to private companies. For state employees, the answer depends on state law, but I think it’s still yes for all 50 states.
Now that public (state) employees unions can’t force non-union members to pay agency fees, they could request the laws making unions the sole bargaining agent be changed so they don’t have the “cost” of bargaining for the non-union members.
My prediction: unions would fight any such change tooth and nail. Unions would rather keep the right to bargain for the non-union members (thereby taking that right away from non-union members) and let the non-union members not pay for the union “service” than to lose that right to be the sole bargaining agent.
Of course, unions prefer to both to take away the non-union members right to bargain and force the non-union member to pay them for that “service”. But what unions really, really, really don’t want is for the non-union member to be allowed to find someone else to do the service or to do it for himself!
OK_Max,
Public employee unions have been a financial disaster. They have negotiated unsustainable pay, pension and health plans that are going to bankrupt several states in the near future, Illinois, Kentucky and New Jersey are at the top (or bottom) of the list with greater than 60% of the state pension plan unfunded. Oklahoma is somewhere in the middle at 28% unfunded. But that was in 2017 and probably doesn’t reflect the new settlement. The teachers in Kentucky went on strike recently too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-state-pension-funding-ratios/
Of course the Fed’s near zero interest rate policy hasn’t helped pension plan returns. They’ve been forced into riskier investments and things will get a lot worse when the current bubble bursts.
lucia (Comment #169703): “Some see it this way; unions like it described that way. The problem is using the word “serviceâ€. It’s not a “service†to me if someone does something I don’t want and I consider contrary to my interests. It doesn’t become a “service†just because the other person tells me I should like what they are doing.”
I strongly agree with that. For 25 years I was a member of a union that charged me dues to provide “services” that I would have been better off without. Lucia is also right about unions wanting to provide the “services” to non-members. I had a few co-workers who were exempt from union membership, but the collective agreement applied to them. The union went to court to make sure that was so.
The non-members had no say in how the union was run and no right to vote on strikes or a new agreement. I am pretty sure that they would get no help from the union if they had a grievance against the employer. I would think that similar provisions apply to non-members in right-to-work states.
MikeM
I”m going to answer based on my understanding fed law which applies to private employers. (Not state employees. Each state might have a different rule.) I read this recently– after Janus– otherwise, I’d have no idea. Mind you, real lawyers should tell me if I’m wrong.
Whether the union represents a non-union member in a grievance with the employer depends on what sort of grievance they have. If it’s relative to something actually in the contract for which the union is the sole negotiator, law dictates the union must represent the non-union member. But, the fact is, the union usually wants to do so because they want to be involved in interpretation of the contract. They actually don’t want the precedent of a clause being interpreted to mean something they don’t like– that would affect union employees also.
The law also says the union must deal provide the exact same level of representation to the union and non-union employee in this situation. So for example: they can’t give the union members an attorney and only send a shop steward for the non-union guy.
However, if the grievance unrelated to something the union does not deal with with as sole representative, then they don’t have to represent the a non-union employee even if they would represent a union employee. So, they can offer some benefits to union employees but not to non-union employees. (Presumably, those should never have been paid for by “fair share” agency fees, but … dunno….)
Yep. The Union position during Janus arguments was it was unfair for them to “have to” do things for non-union members without being paid. But the reality is unions absolutely don’t want non-union members to have the right to do these things for themselves. Given that, it seems entirely fair to me that if unions get what Unions want (i.e. the laborers right to negotiate his own contract) Unions should at least “pay” for being given the non-union members right to negotiate by negotiating for ‘free’. Unions getting what they want (which is the additional negotiating power that comes from being sole agent) should be enough “reward” to the union for providing the “service” of treating everyone the same under the contract.
In my analogy: if the “neighbors collective” wants to gain the right of absolutely control over the color of my house and deciding when painting is to be done and so on, and I have no say, they should at least pay for the paint. ( I avoid buying in places with neighborhood associations.)
If there is going to be a union, it is the companies that demand only a single representative for employees because they don’t want to have to negotiate separate deals with a bunch of separate entities. This is the foundation of the free rider problem, the unions would love to be able to cut non-payers loose.
.
If you want to see why unions are a problem today, examine the most recent teacher’s union convention. It’s ludicrous.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/teachers-unions-get-more-political-after-janus-decision/
.
This is for negotiating a contract? They are leftist political lobbyists and a right wing teacher should have the option to cut them loose. The unions have no standing in the free rider argument until they clean this up IMO. I don’t trust their separate fees for political lobbying.
Tom
Nope. Unions will sue to prevent non-payers from negotiating their own contracts.
Of course, some unions would love to give non-payers a worse deal if they could. But that would be unfair after they take away the non-payers right to negotiate for themselves. This is why the law doesn’t let them negotiate different deals for union and non-union.
The fact is: it doesn’t cost the union any more to negotiate for the “extra” non-union members. A negotiation is a negotiation. The costs to the union of the negotiation are fixed by the fact they are sending people to negotiate. That’s true even if a second negotiation by a non-union member would cost the non-union member and management money. Many non-union members would gladly pay the cost of negotiating their own contract. Management might not like it so much– but OTOH, they might.
“Public employee unions have been a financial disaster. They have negotiated unsustainable pay, pension and health plans that are going to bankrupt several states…”
.
I would consider this the unions doing their job effectively and the politicians not doing their jobs. An argument can certainly be made the unions are doing it so effectively as to kill the goose laying the golden eggs, and the incestious relationship between the unions and elections are a big time corrupting force. I’d probably choose Venezuela over Chicago if I had to choose somewhere to live for the next 30 years. Chicago is going to be high taxes / low services for decades, and people who move there will be paying for previous services to previous residents.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169708): “If there is going to be a union, it is the companies that demand only a single representative for employees because they don’t want to have to negotiate separate deals with a bunch of separate entities.”
I don’t think that is true at all. If it were true, we would see companies demanding that their employees unionize.
In the unionized open shop situation the employer can: (1) tell the non-union employees that the negotiated pay scale is the pay scale for everyone, (2) pay the non-union guys more just to stick a finger in the eye of the union, or (3) pay the non-union guys less to save money. I think lucia is correct that only (1) is actually legal. But even if that were not so, it would be the only practical option. (1) would lead to a strike demanding that everyone get the non-union rate and (3) would lead to all the non-union guys joining the union.
Tom Scharf,
That’s the problem, though. The politicians are, in fact, doing the job that the public employee unions get them elected to do with campaign contributions, both in money and labor. Without public employee unions, the politicians might be motivated to represent all their constituents, not just the public employee unions that got them elected and keep them in office. In Illinois in particular, the public employee unions own the state legislature.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169710): “I would consider this the unions doing their job effectively and the politicians not doing their jobs.”
I agree, but part of the reason is that public sector unions have an unfair advantage. The politicians have to face election and the unions can exert a significant influence on the election. Public sector unions should be banned from participating in elections; it is like giving private sector unions a major say in choosing the board of directors.
Another part of the problem is third party payment. The decisions on the public side are not made by the people who will eventually pay.
There’s also a certain amount of irony in the progressive’s opposition to the Citizens United decision. If corporations don’t have speech rights because they’re not individuals, then neither should labor unions. I would actually support the overturning of Citizens United if it would also remove labor unions from politics. Conversely, as long as labor unions are allowed to engage in politics, then there is no justification for banning corporate engagement.
Private companies are driven out of business if they agree to large cost increases for wages and benefits in negotiations with unions. So private companies rarely do this, and those that do usually fail (unless saved by government bale-outs!). Most politicians are undisciplined in their negotiations with unions because the union has political power (both votes and campaign contributions) and because the negative consequences for a strike are immediate while the negative consequences for an irresponsibly costly contract can be (and usually are) kicked far down the road via government debt accumulation. The negative consequences happen long after the politicians can no long be held responsible by the voters. The existence of public employee unions is an invitation to politicians to act (even) more irresponsibly than they otherwise would. The voters in California, Connecticut, Illinois, and other states with unsustainable debts will soon become aware of just how bad public employee unions are for the public when their taxes rise, their public services drop, and their governments default on debt. It is going to be ugly.
Normally a proper feedback system is in place so that overcompensating employees results in an entity failing. The future benefits scam and taxpayer’s deep pockets have allowed a hidden unsustainable system to go on far longer than it ever would in the private sector. Somebody is going to get screwed here, the employees or the taxpayers. Meanwhile the union leadership and politicians will not suffer at all. Maybe public square waterboarding would be a good start.
.
If the feds bail out Chicago and Illinois, I’m leaving! I better at least get lifetime season tickets for the Bears out of the deal.
You can’t tell or expect unions to not use every legal dirty trick in the book to the advantage of their members, one should anticipate this. This problem MUST be fixed from the political side or there needs to be an outright ban on public sector unions.
.
Another nasty trick is when local governments use these defined benefit packages to be a replacement for social security, so these employees don’t fund the SS system. They are effectively stealing federal SS payments for their own largesse.
.
Forbidding unions from lobbying is never going to pass SC muster, I doubt allowing non-elected bureaucrats to negotiate will be any better. One possibility is an ironclad payment system that does not allow future benefits to be underfunded, another cleaner version is that future benefits are simply not part of the government system. 401K’s, SS, and Medicare like the rest of us. These can easily happen once the sh** really hits the fan with the first fiscal failure. Voter referendums on “no future benefits” should easily pass.
lucia (Comment #169703)
lucia (Comment #169704)
______
lucia, thank you for answering my questions about unions.
I also want to thank others for joining the discussion.
I feel I now know more about the topic
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169705)
“Of course the Fed’s near zero interest rate policy hasn’t helped pension plan returns. They’ve been forced into riskier investments and things will get a lot worse when the current bubble bursts.”
_______
DeWiit, the least risky investments are short-term bonds. I don’t know whether the real interest rate (interest rate minus inflation rate) has changed much over the years for these bonds. Inflation
has been low for quite a long time, which is reflected in the low
interest rates.
IMO, over the long term a pension fund should not be heavily invested in short-term bonds. The cost of avoiding risk will be
lower returns. Historically, the riskier investments, stocks and
long-term bonds, have given higher returns.
I apologize if you already know all this. I kinda suspect you do.
I have know about sound financial planning for a long time, but unfortunately, have not always practiced it. Too frequently
I have yielded to the temptation to time markets.
I agree we should be concerned about public employee pension fund underfunding in many States. The solution, higher taxes and reduced benefits, will displease everyone. Reduced benefits alone, if that would solve the problem, will displease only the public employee retirees, a safer course for anyone running for office.
OK_Max,
It’s a complicated topic. We’re all going to have different opinions on the ultimate right balance of power, individual vs. collective liberties, fairness to company owners and employees. But no matter what, I think a person has to consider things from multiple points of view. These include at least:
1) Business owner/manager.
2) “Collective” of employees who want to unionize.
3) Employees who don’t want to be represented by a union and certainly don’t want to pay for unions to take away their right to negotiate for themselves.
4) In the case of public employees, the public in their roles as (a) taxpayers, (b) consumers of the service provided by the public employees.
We should certainly not assume the “union” view is the same as that of employees who don’t want to join the union or vice versa. So, for example, we should assume what the union considers a “service” or “benefit” they provide to the non-union employees is something the non-union employee actually considers themselves a “service” or “benefit”. The non-union employee may very well want something else.
This doesn’t, by the way, mean that “free riders” don’t exist. They certainly will if non-union members aren’t required to pay fees. At least some employees who totally want what the union negotiates will decide to save themselves money and not pay and won’t join the union for that reason. But it’s not at all clear this is most or all of those who don’t join and don’t pay. The fact is, we just don’t know.
FWIW: I’m in Illinois where the Janus lawsuit started. Our treasury is seriously overburdened, and part of the problem is pension benefits. We don’t know what, ultimately will happen with pensions, particularly if the state goes bankrupt which will create tension between federal and state law. Bankruptcy law may (or may not) end up giving public employees guaranteed pensions the short end of the stick. If so, one will say that in retrospect it would have been better for public employees unions to have negotiated for higher take home pay and encouraging public employees to have 401K’s or something equivalent.
Unions generally don’t like 401Ks for various reason. The cynic would say one reason is that 401ks leave power in the hands of individual employees . Pensions leave more power in the hands of Unions (since now, employees need the union to continue to make sure the pension is maintained and not raided.) The non-cynic would point to other benefits of pensions vis-a-vis workers.
OK_Max,
Reducing benefits in Illinois and several other states would require amending the state’s constitution. The Illinois Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Don’t hold your breath. It takes a 60% vote in both Houses of the Illinois General Assembly to pass either a call for a Constitutional Convention or to pass an amendment to be ratified by the voters. That might happen when judges start setting tax rates, but I’m not optimistic.
The problem with pension funding is that the funding parameters are set using a rate of return higher than a conservatively chosen portfolio can achieve. IIRC, if real rates of return were used to calculate funding, things would look even worse than they do now.
DeWitt Payne is correct: Currently, pension benefits of public employees cannot be reduced in Illinois. That’s the Il. constitution. Whether that applies only to benefits already earned or the stated benefit in the handbook from day 1 a person is hired is an open question that remains to be resolved in by the IL supreme court.
The other open question is what happens if Illinois ends up in bankruptcy. At that point, Federal and IL law could be in tension.
Of course, the IL constitution can be amended, but that’s a big hurdle.
Yep. The state could end up in bankruptcy court. No one knows what happens in that instance.
Sorry about my #169719.” Edit” didn’t work for me. Sometimes it
does, sometimes it doesn’t. Hope it works this time.
Again, as an employer or manager, I would prefer to not have to
deal with unions, but as a non-managerial employee I probably
would prefer to be a union member, although I can believe not
all employees would share my preferences, and perhaps even a
few managers.
Regarding right-to-work laws, I wonder if it would be better if
unions were required to represent only union members and
non-members could negotiate as individuals with employers.
That could be a bad idea, but I was just wondering.
I have mixed feelings about individual retirement accounts
(e.g. 401K) vs group retirement plans. Both have strengths
and weaknesses. They can, however, be complimentary.
Here’s a tidbit on bankruptcy from Detroit’s experience. Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_bankruptcy
The thing goes on and on…
OK_Max
I suspect if that were allowed, most managers would just offer the non-union employees in jobs that typically unionize the same contract given union employees and it would be subject to “take it or leave it”. (Salaried employees who don’t ordinarily join unions would, of course, be unaffected.)
That makes the system w/o a union the same amount of work for the employer. (Well…. unless they end up with two or three unions. But more than one union can currently happen, it’s just that you have different unions for different job functions. EG. Workers who made snacks at Hostess belonged to a different union from the truck drivers back when Hostess went out of business.
When there is no union, employers often come up with a contract for many employees and have it be “take it or leave it”.
You can’t pay full benefits with non-existent money, so it will ultimately come to that if they don’t take action to at least further delay it. The faster this thing collapses the better off everyone will be IMO, it gets things on a sane path faster.
.
The stock market is due for a years long correction at some point, that isn’t going to help the budgets. The Trump economy is Chicago’s best friend so far.
I very much doubt voters in Illinois or anywhere else will allow their elected representatives or state judges to confiscate the voters’ incomes in order to pay outrageous retirement benefits for public employees. Tick off enough voters and state laws, or even state constitutions, will be changed. Before it comes to that, I suspect judges would, ahem, alter their judicial interpretation.
Tom
No. Detroit couldn’t and the state of Illinois won’t be able to. At some point, vis-a-vis federal bankruptcy, pension holders may be seen as little different from “creditors”. That is to say: the constitution says we can’t “change” things. So they are owed money. But that’s just a creditor.
It won’t be entirely fair and the burden will fall on some public employees more than others. OTOH: the union, acting on behalf of the employees bargained to become a creditor. One could speculate all the reasons but one is that the union wanted pats on the back for getting a “benefit”, while the state didn’t really want to pay for that benefit. And so… well… stuff happens.
My mom has a teacher’s pension. Not sure how it will affect teachers who have already retired vis-a-vis others. Of course those worst off will be people in their 60s or so– that is the ones whose pension could be cut, have a longer time to rely on that and are too old to change jobs, decide to work longer, look for better summer jobs and so on.
SteveF,
It’s actually federal judges who may end up acting in ways that cut the retirement benefits. The bankruptcy courts are federal, and it looks like they think bankruptcy laws may just turn the pensioners into creditors.
The feds can’t dictate a rise in state income taxes and so on. They can impose rules on distributing money to different creditors.
At least thats sort of how I understand things more-or-less worked in Detroit.
State and city employees have every right to be rather annoyed at everyone involved. It’s not like they are expected to understand actuary tables and press both sides to do the right thing. I expect ultimately those with large pensions will be hurt the most, and taxpayers are going to be reamed for not electing the right people and also not understanding actuary tables. Unfortunately for Illinois taxpayers are under voluntary participation.
Just when you think things are hopeless in academia, a tiny ray of sunshine.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/
.
“The boys graduated from high school and went off to colleges where they were exposed to the kind of policed discourse that dominates American campuses. They did not make waves; they did not confront the students who were raging about cultural appropriation and violent speech; in fact, they forged close friendships with many of them. They studied and wrote essays and—in their dorm rooms, on the bus to away games, while they were working out—began listening to more and more podcasts and lectures by this man, Jordan Peterson.”
The predictable reaction, ha ha.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/the-lefts-hatred-of-jordan-peterson-is-perfectly-rational.html
.
“But one of the major obstacles to realizing such ideals in the United States is the refusal of wealthy, white America to recognize what doing so requires. If we want to live in a country where all children have a genuine opportunity to meet their potential, we must redistribute a massive amount of material resources to the people that we, as Americans, collectively conspired to deprive”
Tom
The state is nearly bankrupt. The city of chicago also has serious problems. But there are tons of individual counties and cities that are just fine. I don’t know how school districts go. Things will be uneven.
>Another nasty trick is when local governments use these defined benefit packages to be a replacement for social security, so these employees don’t fund the SS system. They are effectively stealing federal SS payments for their own largesse.
How does that work? The local government has taken a number of people off the Social Security rolls, and reduced the future obligations. Where is the stealing?
One of the Midwest states had a union that got itself declared as the union for home health care workers, and starting getting a share of everyone’s government checks. The workers had no vote on this. When a group tried to let them know that they can opt out, the lists were made non-public.
Technically states cannot go bankrupt, but I would suppose they could default on debt. Who knows what “flexible” rules will apply in a crisis.
In IL I would wonder if the state were to make reduced pension payments how the court system would enforce the supposed constitutional requirement that pensions cannot be reduced.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2016/07/28/dont-be-so-sure-that-states-cant-go-bankrupt/#62981b8f2f2d
Tom (Re comment-169733)
.
Wow, I don’t think I[‘ve] ever read a piece with so many rhetorical questions. It seemed like a continuous stream of them. It’s amazing how irritating rhetorical questions can be when I’m reading somebody else ask them rather than spewing them forth myself.
[Edit: But I take Lucia’s point about them. In my opinion, most of the questions the author asked can be answered in ways I don’t think were ‘rhetorically intended’. It does make for tedious reading.]
It would only be “stealing” if they turn around and get a taxpayer bailout later. If you are a citizen funding these plans you are supporting the SS system and subsidizing a local version that you will need to pay even more for than SS.
.
SS isn’t exactly a shining light on the hill of fiscal responsibility either. If I was in one of those unions I think I would prefer to have SS over the equivalent union benefits which are more questionably funded and run by near criminals.
Kenneth Fritsch,
It’s not like IL will have no money, but it can’t pay all its bills. Then it is a matter of who gets priority. The state amendment is going to make sure union workers are first in line and they won’t be very receptive to line cutting. IL has a hard problem borrowing money already and what may eventually happen is that people won’t lend money to IL if they aren’t guaranteed to be first in line on a default. The union will need to make hard decisions, stay first in line and guarantee a default, or give up your place to survive another day. Taxpayer services will ultimately suffer.
.
There are some high tax areas (some places in CA) where you can look around and see you are at least getting something for your money, there are others that combine high tax with low services.
mark bofill,
I continue to be amazed at how polarizing this guy is because there isn’t really much reason for it. It’s kind of just a randomly selected attempted character assassination that failed spectacularly. The more they hate him the more popular he becomes. 2M book sales, 10M’s of youtube views, 1000’s show up at each venue to hear him speak worldwide, this isn’t Barnes and Noble book signings.
.
If you want to be disillusioned by our elite expert opinion then read what people say about him and them watch his youtube videos or interviews. Rhetorical question trigger warning: What is going on here?
.
He is quite anti-collectivist and pro-individual, but I don’t recall when arguing against Marxism started being a cardinal sin against society that qualified you for being disappeared. He’s an imperfect but interesting guy who doesn’t fall into neat little pigeon holes. I don’t understand why he is that popular, and I don’t understand why he is hated so much. For those who have never seen him, here is an introduction to him on Joe Rogan, it’s only 2.5 hours long, ha ha. It’s not super amazing nor is it hateful or particularly political, just mildly interesting when you are bored, 4M views of this thing?! Watch that and reread the NYMag article (currently the most popular article on the site). It’s really odd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI
As a pro-individual, it’s not hard to see why the identitarians would be against him and I’d guess a lot of the rest are simply going off what they’ve been told he represents by such articles from “thought leaders”. A 2.5 hour podcast is far far more than the average person is likely to watch.
.
In general though, there’s also simple psychology at work. It’s a well known phenomena that individuals are loath to go against a group, even when the individual knows the group is wrong. However, with the addition of just one dissenting member, the sway of the group is largely broken and the individual will speak out. This is for things that are quite obviously incorrect. On matters which are much more subjective, the group is far more powerful. People like Peterson are the dissenting individuals, not silenced by the usual epithets of the day, and therefore highly dangerous to maintaining group think cohesion.
Tom,
I agree, I think both the guy and the phenomenon of his popularity are fascinating.
.
I think I understand at least pieces of why he’s popular among his adherents; 1) Identity politics really have gotten out of hand to the point where it’s sometimes absurd and laughable, and Peterson appears to offer a firm and plausible foundation from which to reject them, and 2) He’s got what appears to be (I’m not a psychologist or self help expert) good basic advice for people – a seemingly realistic, sensible, beneficial way of attacking life for people who feel like they are foundering. Not surprising given that he’s a clinical psychologist. There are doubtless other pieces, but I think this is some of it.
Why the left despises him so, or seems to perceive him as a threat is also very interesting to me, although I feel like I understand this less well. Perhaps it’s just that he speaks against venerable leftist doctrine like Marxism. Perhaps it’s that he openly attacks identity politics. Perhaps there’s more to it than that. Personally I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.
.
DaveJR – I think that’s true too. I think Peterson gains some degree of ..stature.. maybe, from apparently being able to successfully stand against his critics. For those who oppose the far (or extreme? radical?) Left, perhaps this is inspirational and people examine Peterson to figure out how he does it. Possibly he gains notoriety and negative interest on the Left for the same reason.
.
He is pretty interesting.
DaveJR,
I think that is a lot of it, this is an internal tribe building and border setting exercise. Tribal loyalty. Pledge allegiance to the tribe by repeating the shibboleths and thou shall be favored. This is universal. What is fascinating is to watch what happens when the group-think clearly errs and how corrective action is taken or not taken. Devout Christians being asked what DNA evidence says about evolution, etc.
.
It’s also a warning to other academics to not leave the reservation. This is a bit desperate because what happened when Peterson left the reservation was wild success for a previously obscure Canadian professor in finding a market starving for long form thoughtful representation. Perhaps this is why the critics are using so much venom.
Tom Scharf
Pensioners will be first in line. First year teachers still have to wait until they earn their pension. That won’t happen if there are no teaching jobs.
DaveJR (Comment #169745)
August 11th, 2018 at 11:41 am
As a pro-individual, it’s not hard to see why the identitarians would be against him and I’d guess a lot of the rest are simply going off what they’ve been told he represents by such articles from “thought leadersâ€. A 2.5 hour podcast is far far more than the average person is likely to watch.
In general though, there’s also simple psychology at work. It’s a well known phenomena that individuals are loath to go against a group …
_________
As they say in Japan “出る釘ã¯æ‰“ãŸã‚Œã‚‹”
or
“The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.â€Â
I live under a rock, and never heard of this guy Petersen until he was
brought up here. I looked around, and an interesting thing I found
about him at Wikipedia are his 12 rules:
1. Stand up straight with your shoulders back
2. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3. Make friends with people who want the best for you
4. Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
5. Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
6. Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
7. Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
8. Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie
9. Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
10. Be precise in your speech
11. Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
12. Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
NO, NO, NO, never pet a stray cat or a stray dog or any other stray animal. Otherwise,these are pretty good rules for life.
I’ve petted stray cats. It’s always worked out well.
A cat that doesn’t want stroking will usually run away. Trying to stroke a cornered cat is not a good idea. I guess there are especially grumpy cats and there is a chance of rabies.
.
Where we used to live there were neighborhood cats that people left food out for. There was a particularly friendly one that was always looking for strokes. Before we were due to leave, we smuggled her into the apartment (no animals, and yes, she was definitely a stray), cleaned her up and took her to the vets. Taking her to the vets was a bit of an ordeal because we had to sneak her carrier out in a bag so no one would see! We took her with us when we moved and she’s still with us 7 years later!
DaveJR,
We are currently a 1 cat household. When we had 2 cats, this one came in through the cat door during a storm– freezing rain. He stayed awhile, left,and came back. Long story… now he’s our for permanent. The other two cats died after living long lives. He’s glad to be our cat.
lucia (Comment #169753)
August 11th, 2018 at 2:54 pm
“I’ve petted stray cats. It’s always worked out well.”
DaveJR (Comment #169754)
August 11th, 2018 at 3:12 pm
A cat that doesn’t want stroking will usually run away.
_______
It probably isn’t very risky, but I would be careful if the cat acts strange or aggressive, as such behavior could be a sign of rabies.
Elitist cat tribe trying to oppress the rest of us with their feline regime. #MakeDogsGreatAgain
OK_Max,
In Italy, there are lots of stray cats at places like the Bomboli gardens etc. Those cats come right up and beg and want to be petted.
In my neighborhood occasionally, there are cats near the edge of yards. If they are close to the sidewalk, you can walk up slowly and pet them. Otherwise, don’t.
Cats who don’t want to be petted make that clear either by walking way if you approach or hissing and spitting. I don’t attempt to pet them in either of the other two situations.
Lost cats will sometimes try desperately to find a human to adopt them.
The cat who adopted us through the cat door was not lost. But he lived in a household with several kids, dogs other cats. We learned his story and it was clear he was shopping around for better digs.
I think he picked us because of the cat door and the fact we were nice to him. He wanted to be an in and out cat; that’s what he got. He was willing to tolerate being low-cat in the hierarchy in exchange for the cat door and did not challenge the other cats despite being a much fitter more vigorous cat. (One of our cats, Mo, was a fat diabetic cat. The diabetes had attacked his legs somewhat and he couldn’t really jump, certainly couldn’t fight and couldn’t run well. But the new cat allowed Mo to keep his “upper cat” status without any challenge. I think he knew dealing with Mo was a condition for getting the humans to accept him. )
I have this strange urge to say that Peterson didn’t literally mean to pet stray cats and to try to explain what I think he was talking about. I say strange because, well. Why I guess. People can google him easily enough and get it from the horse’s mouth. Besides, I like the discussion going on about cats.
.
My daughter picked up a stray who lives with her now. I don’t know all that much about cats, but it seems to me to support the idea that cats sometimes pick their owners. This cat would hang around outside and look in the windows at Zoe and her other two cats. Of course Zoe started feeding her, and took her in fairly soon after. I think her guess was that this cat was abandoned. She had some reason to believe the cat grew up around people, but I forget exactly what that reason was. Seemed like a sweet enough cat, maybe a little shy.
Our current cat still has a bee-bee lodged in his leg. We suspect he had good reason to want to leave his old digs. He was tame and still “grocked” that people are useful. He found new digs.
What pets get and don’t get is interesting. Does anyone observe cats watching TV? I ask because I’m a dog person, have had dogs all my life. My current dog is part poodle and (I think) is considerably brighter than most of the other dogs I’ve had, and this one watches TV and exhibits some signs of at least recognition – she likes shows with dogs and other animals and will bark at animals on the TV. It’s possible of course that all of the dogs I’ve had were bright enough to recognize other animals on TV but maybe they just didn’t give a flip. Or maybe they were brighter than my current dog in the sense that they understood the dogs on the TV were just images that they couldn’t interact with. My current dog is still just a 6 month old pup.
mark,
Or fat diabetic cat used to watch football. He didn’t watch anything else. We figure the small people scurrying was the attraction.
The current cat is distracted if he hears cats on youtube.He’s been known to walk around the computer to try to figure out where the cat is. I’ve learned not to play any cat videos if he’s in the room.
lucia (Comment #169760)
I didn’t see the feral cats in Italy, but I have seen temple cats in Japan. My neighborhood has two outdoor cats. One likes me. The
other fears me. There were three for a while, two of which
frequently fought over territory.
I don’t know whether any of my neighbors object to the outdoor cats.
I guess those who are bird lovers might. Some object to people not picking up after their dogs.
My family always had cats and/or dogs when I was growing up. I
wouldn’t mind having a pet, but I’m too lazy to care for one, and
my wife isn’t an animal lover.
I have a feeling pets would be wildly more interested in TV if it transmitted smells.
.
In college a neighborhood cat showed up for a few days. We had some ancient garlic bologna in the fridge that we fed him as much as he wanted. Sometime in the middle of the night he climbed back in through a second story window and left an enormous toxic dump on our rug. We never saw it again. I’m not sure if I feel guilty about it or that justice was served.
Feeding a cat ancient garlic bologna makes you the antihero of this story. It’s morally ambiguous. It was food. Sort of. The feline surviving to revisit you during the evening demonstrates that the meal couldn’t have been immediately fatal.
.
I think that cat in its wisdom was an avatar of both mercy and justice, Tom. It could have gone much worse after all.
Strzok fired from FBI
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-fires-peter-strzok-who-sent-anti-trump-text-messages-1534174199?mod=hp_lead_pos2
.
“Peter Strzok was dismissed by the FBI after a top official overruled the recommendation of staff that the agent be given a two-month suspension but be allowed to keep his job, his attorney said.”
.
Not firing him would have been a big mistake politically. In a world without such heated politics perhaps discipline would have been warranted.
This I find very funny. 100 “independent” media organizations have agreed to collude (ha ha) and publish simultaneous Trump bashing articles over his attacks on the media. I don’t think the media teaming up to attack Trump is a very good message. If it wasn’t announced nobody would even be able to tell the difference from stuff they put out every single day, and coordinated media attacks on Trump validate media critic’s view that this is exactly how they operate. Reinforce us against them, bad idea. If they coordinated a day where they would all publish something good about Trump it would ironically be more effective for their goal.
Tom,
MSNBC or someone other cable news channel will probably hire him.
In terms of career advancement, a 60 day suspension is only slightly less punishment than firing. He’d likely never be anything other than a paper pusher in HR or some other sideline job. He doesn’t strike me as someone who would tolerate that well.
While he might not relish the opportunity, the power of “paper pushersâ€, especially those in HR, should not be underestimated!
Honestly, the guy has to have known for months he was going to be fired. He’s probably made plans for what to do.
Lucia,
I’m sure he will be funded generously by progressives, at least for a while. I doubt he can get a permanent job on cable news…. based on his Congressional testimony, he seems pretty oily in both word and deed, and so would not likely attract many viewers; he’s more likely to repel viewers.
“Honestly, the guy has to have known for months he was going to be fired. He’s probably made plans for what to do.”
.
He immediately announced a GoFundMe campaign for $500K for I guess legal expenses. I have no doubt this will be reached within days. Watching the knee jerk defenses of Jeong and Strzok by progressives is both not surprising and a bit disappointing. These really are integrity tests for the speech police.
.
The FBI decision makers were in a no-win situation. Keep him and you look like you don’t have any standards, fire him and admit the investigation was tainted. The possibility does exist for tainted investigations of guilty people. If the FBI likes to see themselves as the shining light on the hill, this was their only choice. They should get some credit for having standards of behavior and enforcing them. I’m one notch less cynical.
SteveF,
At dinner, I said the exact same thing about his prospects as a “news guy” to Jim. The guy alternates between sucking on lemons and looking like a 3 year old who think he pulled on over on others. Not a good look for tv. TV needs the appearance of sincerity or factuality. Ideally, the appearance matches reality; whether it does or not, they need the appearance. Strzoks…. (how is that spelled) doesn’t have it.
It’s pretty amazing how many people have a favorable view of socialism.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx
.
Do check out the favorability by age though. The socialism favorability drops in half from the 20’s to the 60’s while capitalism remains about constant.
Tom,
“The socialism favorability drops in half from the 20’s to the 60’s while capitalism remains about constant.”
.
Proving that even the slow witted can learn, given enough time and experience.
Lucia,
The weird thing about Strzok is that he could have come out of it at least not making himself forever unemployable. A year ago he should have publicly apologized for writing text messages which damaged the FBI and for allowing his politics into enter the FBI workplace, and then resigned.
.
But that would mean he was a very different person, not the oily weasel who testified before Congress. That very different person would not have written the damaging text messages in the first place. People can’t escape their own flaws and limitations.
SteveF,
Strzok will probablby write a book making himself at at least 1/2 million. He’s probably vested at some level for a defined payout pension plan.
He’s fine compared to most American, even most educated Americans.
SteveF,
There’s an old saying that has appeared in various forms since at least the late nineteenth century: If you’re not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative at 35, you have no brain.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169781)
August 13th, 2018 at 7:18 pm
It’s pretty amazing how many people have a favorable view of socialism.
SteeF (Comment #169782)
—————-
Tom, a person can have a favorable view of both. I do, depending on definitions.
The question wording does not define “socialism” or “capitalism” but simply asks respondents whether their opinion of each is positive or negative.
Old people were less positive than young people about socialism, yet benefit more from it. Social Security and Medicare, which many
consider socialist, serve the elderly. This suggest lots of old folks
don’t know where they are getting their bread buttered.
SteeF, If as you suspect, people get smarter with age, I’m glad I
have something to look foreword to. I’m not aware of an improvement yet.
Old people may have a more accurate historical definition of the outcomes of socialism as a form of government. Those history books were burned and young people may just be thinking safety net and Marxist utopia, then they get a job and notice that their paycheck is looking like socialism already. Almost everyone runs a hybrid of some kind but doesn’t want to admit it. You can’t let people starve in the street or they like to come rob your house so it has an effective feedback system.
.
I know where my bread got buttered, with 30+ years of Medicare and SS payments, no dount you touch my soshul shecurrity!
Tom,
The terms do get muddied. For example:
Wide swath indeed. I think cooperatives are much different from government ownership. If one calls cooperatives ‘socialist’, it seems a small step from there to calling companies with publicly traded stock socialist, which I think would be an absurd label to hang on a stock market.
.
[Having] skin in the game is a critical component of success.
.
[Edit: I should have noted that I was talking about worker cooperatives. I see that there are other kinds that are more dubious..]
Mark Bofill,
Seems to me the thread which binds all on the left is the preference for dominance of the individual by the collective. That could be via a ‘cooperative’ of laborers, via ever growing regulation and restriction of economic activity by government, via heavy tax and re-distribute laws, via direct control of the means of production by the government, or a combination of these. Heck, it can even be the insistence that ‘it takes a village’ to raise a child (translation: parents can’t make most decisions on child rearing). When someone thinks one of these things is good, they likely think all are good.
.
Before Venezuelans started starving and dying for lack of basic medications, there were plenty of people on the left who could excuse every step in Chavez’s dismantling of liberty, and even now, with widespread suffering in Venezuela and mass emigration, there are still plenty on the left who offer excuses. Like religious fervor, affinity for dominance by the collective is usually immune to change based on factual reality.
SteveF,
I definitely think that the collectivist idea where the preference and focus is not on the individual is near to the root of (if not the actual root of) a lot of the needless misery in this world.
.
The irony of collectivist activists championing blacks today. Part of the claim against racism is rooted in the horrors of the slavery that blacks endured in the U.S. These activists might do well to ask themselves, ‘Why do I believe slavery is wrong?‘ What else is slavery besides the suspension of individual freedom, and a system by which an individual does not get to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. Well, what is collectivism besides this.
.
We are social animals, but we live within our own skins. Even when we empathize, we do so in the context of our own well being. We empathize, but what is that except feeling vicariously the suffering of somebody else through our imagination. Even our idioms reflect this – ‘I can’t stand to watch someone suffer.’ for example. I firmly believe that the only way we build societies that minimize unnecessary human suffering and maximize prosperity is to keep always in the forefront of our minds that individuals matter most; each individual matters most to himself, this is how it is and how it should be. Political and economic systems that lose sight of this are never going to be a good idea.
.
[Edit: I made a bunch of rhetorical statements.. Rhetorical questions without question marks.. of the form ‘what else is X besides Y’. My answer to each of these is ‘nothing’.]
I asked the damn rhetorical question, now I have to pay the price.
.
Collectivism isn’t identical to slavery, I think; they are overlapping sets. I don’t believe collectivism as practiced by the many totalitarian communist regimes of the 20’th century differed from slavery in any respect that mattered to the individual suffering under them. This is what I was actually trying to say.
OK_Max (Comment #169786): “a person can have a favorable view of both. I do, depending on definitions”
In socialism, the state controls the means of production, at least above a certain size. It is incompatible with capitalism.
.
OK_Max: “Old people were less positive than young people about socialism, yet benefit more from it. Social Security and Medicare …”
Social welfare programs are not socialism and are compatible with capitalism.
.
People may have simultaneous good opinions of socialism and capitalism because they confuse socialism with social welfare programs. The left is trying to exploit that confusion. But the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, who are gaining control of the Democratic Party, are in fact socialists.
.
OK_Max: “This suggest lots of old folks don’t know where they are getting their bread buttered.”
Both snooty and wrong. Old folks paid into those systems and are getting out what they are entitled too. Well, more than what they are entitled to, since politicians like to be generous with other people’s money. But that part is widely overlooked.
mark bofill (Comment #169792): “Collectivism isn’t identical to slavery, I think; they are overlapping sets. I don’t believe collectivism as practiced in the many totalitarian communist regimes of the 20’th century differed from slavery in any respect that mattered to the individual suffering under them.”
There may have been some more benign systems of slavery, such as in the later Roman Empire, where being a slave was not so different from living in a communist country. But slavery in the American south was much worse. Slaves had no rights whatever. They could be punished, raped, and killed by their masters. They could be bought and sold and their children could be bought and sold. They received no education; teaching a slave to read was a crime. In the USSR there was enough freedom that there were black markets and even a samizdat press. Participation could get you sent to the Gulag, which was significant punishment. But still not as bad as slavery.
Mike,
.
That’s so. Still, slaves cost money, much as a draft animal. A plow horse had (has?) no rights whatsoever, yet merely because they could be abused without limit doesn’t mean they [generally] were, because at the end of the day they cost something to replace.
.
My impression was that people could be (and were) sent to the gulag for reasons so flimsy and arbitrary that in essence they were sent to the gulag for no reason. Wasn’t Solzhenitsyn (who was a soldier for the Communists and I believe at the time was indeed a ‘good communist’) sentenced for writing an innocent letter to a German? That’s my recollection anyway, I could be wrong.
.
[Edit: I also seem to remember him relating the story of some event where the audience was applauding. The applause went on for over ten minutes, because the first to stop clapping ran a substantial risk of arrest as a subversive. Indeed the man who first stopped clapping in that story was arrested according to Solzhenitsyn, once again if my memory serves, and it’s possible it does not.]
I think sometimes older folks do like to “forget” that the amount the get is (generally) greater than they paid in. They also like to “forget” that the tax on the young used to cover the current layouts paid right can be very burdensome.
The do remember they paid in.
Mike,
I guess another way of looking at it is the death toll.
.
I’m not indulging in slavery apologetics here, so nobody misunderstand me. Slavery is pure evil, no question.
.
Rather, what I am arguing is that the pure evil of American slavery had owner profit as its chief motive. I think this motive tended to encourage slave owners to keep their slaves alive, all other things being equal and if not too inconvenient.
.
Whereas I think the gulags were essentially death camps. It wasn’t as important that the prisoners produce anything of value so much that they suffered and died.
Mike M,
“The left is trying to exploit that confusion. But the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, who are gaining control of the Democratic Party, are in fact socialists.”
.
Sure. And Bernie Sanders, a host of talking heads on TV, many at the NY Times, and those involved in much of what passes for academia. The “toning down” of explicit socialist goals is just the means to an end… gaining sufficient political power to subvert the Constitution, institute socialism, and take away most personal liberties. The confusion, as you note, is willful. Very few people on the right think slavery is a good idea, but plenty on the left think socialism is a great idea. It is the ultimate political goal that makes numb skulls like Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk a real danger.
Yeah, here’s the applause story:
http://www.disappearingman.com/communism/men-wouldnt-stop-clapping/
Mark Bofill,
“Collectivism isn’t identical to slavery, I think; they are overlapping sets.”
.
The overlap is significant; “the collective” does not simply confiscate your economic output and completely control what you are allowed to say and do, it can (and in practice always does) persecute, imprison, or kill any and all those who try to resist. Like a slave, the collective citizen “has economic value”, but not so much value they are not jailed or killed for thinking or saying the wrong thing.
SteveF,
Yep, I think so too. I’m still chewing on it, but at the moment I’m thinking that to decide which is worse (at least for me) seems to hinge on the question, ‘Is it better to live as a slave in a system that is trying to keep you alive as a slave, or is it better to live as a slave in a system that’s more or less trying to kill you off?’.
It’s possible that living a long(er) life as a slave is worse than a short one. I don’t know.
Pretty awful anyway you slice it, I think. Maybe it’s just what’s more culturally familiar to me, but the horror of the applause story for me is overwhelming. It’s like an episode of the Twilight Zone in real history.
Hey the guy from Alabama is making the “slavery wasn’t so bad argument”! Ha ha. I kid. If you ever run for office make sure Lucia purges all your posts. Although I did screenshot it and will send you a … errr … bill for making it disappear in case you run. Impossible conversation, right up there with “all Nazis weren’t bad people”. Slavery = Nazis = Evil. Do not deviate.
.
It is curious that liberteriarian hyper individualist types are often lectured about slavery but are the least likely to accept any form of collectivist power over their lives. Slavery has been used forever in human history, blacks in the south were thankfully one of the last forms of slavery and a particularly bad form. I am pre-wired such that I hate being forced to do anything, even if it makes sense. I would have been a pretty bad slave, although I assume my will would have been broken after a few whippings. What a nightmare.
.
I’m an American with German ancestry, but my relatives emigrated around 1900. So … this means I get off scot-free for both slavery and the German atrocities, right? No reparation bills for me!
~grins~
Well, I calls ’em likes I see ’em. I’ll be darned if I’ll impose thought crime restrictions on myself. It can be done; like anybody else sufficient pressures could be brought to bear on me to cause me to recant my heresy and beg for mercy.
But somebody’s going to have to get up off their butts and do it (bring said pressures to bear against me) to make me shut up before I shut up. I’m not going to silence myself just because.
[Edit: which segues nicely into political correctness and freedom of speech, perhaps.]
Tom,
“No reparation bills for me!”
.
Nah. You benefited indirectly from all the white wealth, privilege, and influence you gained when your relatives arrived, so you are still just as guilty as slave owners, and have to pay up. As for German atrocities… well, maybe you are off the hook on those. Maybe. Depends on what political beliefs you have.
Tom,
Sure, you can skate scott free for those.
.
Just remember, don’t be the first to stop clapping…
Has anyone been following this thread? Starts with suspicious data in a graph, and gets rather dramatic.
https://mobile.twitter.com/gravity_levity/status/1027717419400392705
Not yet resolved, as far as I can see.
The socialist argument seems to be: I am benevolent, the people I know are benevolent, if we were in charge the government would be benevolent. A benevolent government with righteous benevolent power is the best system. The last sentence might even be true, but the first sentence is not. The belief that they are the most benevolent seems to be the core argument and they spend a lot of time trying to virtue signal this to everyone, thus the “intentions are what matter” mentality. When they are in charge government will have empathy.
.
Empathy doesn’t pay the bills. I’d like to take a poll of all the leaders in history and find out how many believe they were benevolent and had empathy. Approx. 100.0%. We had empathy when we saved the Koreans and Vietnamese from the scourge of communism. We relieved Iraq from Saddam, how much empathy can you have? We had empathy when we chose to not engage in Syria. We used “duty to protect” when we bombed Libya. The world is a complex clusterf*** and empathy isn’t a magic key that unlocks magic answers. People running around with masks, bats, and “Love Trumps Hate” shields is all you need to know about this form of empathy.
.
The empathy Olympics isn’t very interesting to me, how they would solve problems is.
Harold,
.
WTF. That is weird as … I don’t even know. Does it check out at all? (I’m too busy screwing around wasting my time in other ways to check this for myself so far.. :/ )
Another movement integrity test, another failure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html
.
Famous feminist NYU professor gets accused of sexual harassment. A year long investigation results in her guilt. She got due process, confidentiality, and the results or existence of the investigation were never publicly announced. She’s not fired, one year suspension. Her famous feminist colleagues defend her in an open letter without knowing any facts and attack the accuser.
.
“Diane Davis, chair of the department of rhetoric at the University of Texas-Austin, who also signed the letter to the university supporting Professor Ronell, said she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist.”
.
The most shocking part of this paragraph is there is such a thing as a department of rhetoric.
HaroldW,
Looks like either the data was partially fudged or fully fudged. I guess it could be some technician or grad student didn’t want to bother with collecting lots of data below the transition temperature they observed, and so did a single data collect and then copied that data for the other runs (with a bit of off-set), instead of actually collecting data for the other runs. But that is the most generous interpretation I can come up with. Nefarious seems more likely.
.
Like cold fusion, this paper seems too good to be true, but it won’t be long before independent researches attempt to duplicate the results.
Cold fusion with room temperature superconductivity should solve our global warming problems.
Tom Scharf,
“I am benevolent, the people I know are benevolent, if we were in charge the government would be benevolent. A benevolent government with righteous benevolent power is the best system. The last sentence might even be true, but the first sentence is not.”
.
Both sentences are blatantly false. The best system rewards achievement and allows people to resist tyranny. ‘Righteous’ government rewards whatever it thinks is righteous, and punishes that which it thinks not righteous. And that is tyranny. Pol Pot certainly considered himself perfectly righteous in eliminating everyone who disagreed with him or posed a possible challenge to his righteous government. Ditto Che Guevara… on a much smaller scale, of course.
mark, SteveF, Tom-
My first thought was faked data, but it could be something less nefarious. Perhaps something as simple as a spreadsheet/programming error. It’s got me very curious. I’m traveling at the moment and away from computer or I’d take a more direct look at the questionable graph.
Of course the more important question is whether the effect is real. Wouldn’t be as revolutionary as cold fusion, but it would still be a big deal. On the surface, though, it sounds implausible.
Correlated noise (which usually isn’t actually noise) could easily be an equipment or test setup problem. These could be real measurements of what actually happened and something physical is affecting both measurements.
.
I have no idea how carefully this was designed. This kind of thing happens all the time, RF interference can “magically” get into many independent circuits at once. One would expect they would check very carefully for this before an announcement of this magnitude is made. It’s most likely going to be a major embarrassment for somebody, then again maybe correlated noise is how it magically works, ha ha.
HaroldW (Comment #169814): “My first thought was faked data, but it could be something less nefarious. Perhaps something as simple as a spreadsheet/programming error. It’s got me very curious. I’m traveling at the moment and away from computer or I’d take a more direct look at the questionable graph.”
It looks to me like Skinner overstates his case in criticizing the data. He claims that in Figure 3(a) “For every green data point at T 225 K, there is a blue data point that is displaced downward by a constant amount”. But in his extremely blown up image, one can not distinguish the data points and I see blue data that lies above the green data. If one looks only at the lowest points, there does seem to be an odd correlation between the two data sets.
.
HaroldW: “Of course the more important question is whether the effect is real. Wouldn’t be as revolutionary as cold fusion, but it would still be a big deal. On the surface, though, it sounds implausible.”
I don’t know why it sounds implausible. 30 years ago, the record Tc suddenly jumped by a factor of four or so, I know of no reason why that could not happen again. But skepticism is warranted. I will believe it when they demonstrate the Meissner effect.
Mike M,
“I don’t know why it sounds implausible.”
.
It sounds implausible to me because the size scale of the gold core/silver shell nanoparticles they are forming (~10 nm core, and a somewhat larger shell) seems too large to produce the kind of lattice flexure responsible for other high temperature superconductors. Which is not to dismiss it out of hand…. it just seems implausible to me. I hope I am wrong, but fear I am right. I have measured the size distribution of many nano-gold and nano-silver materials. The one positive thing is that these particulates have a remarkably uniform size, so some kind of “crystal-like” structure is possible.
I sometimes mix up sayings by mistake. In my comment #169786
the metaphor “ know where they get their bread buttered†was an
unintentional integration of (1) the ancient metaphor “know which
side their bread is buttered on†and (2) Mark Twain’s “You tell me
whar a man gets his corn pone, en I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions isâ€
from the essay Corn-Pone Opinons.
In my defense, the mix does make sense, unlike combinations of
incompatible metaphors ( malaphors ?) such as the following:
“That train has sailed.â€
“When the cat is away, do as the Romans do.â€
“We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.â€
Actually, that last one may make sense.
Max,
One of my all time favorites. Words to live by. 🙂
Mike M. (Comment #169794)
August 14th, 2018 at 7:55 am
OK_Max (Comment #169786): “a person can have a favorable view of both. I do, depending on definitionsâ€
In socialism, the state controls the means of production, at least above a certain size. It is incompatible with capitalism.
________
Given that definition I would not view socialism favorably. But
definitions differ. Webster and Oxford online dictionaries, for
example, don’t completely agree on definitions of socialism.
Webster dictionary: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goodsâ€
I do not have a favorable view of socialism as defined by Webster, as I interpret it means collective ownership of ALL mean of production and distribution. This definition doesn’t say anything about services, such as those performed by Social Security and Medicare, which I do view favorably. I regard these services as socialist since they could be performed by the private sector.
Oxford dictionary: “A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by
the community as a whole.â€
Note “or regulated “ in the Oxford definition. It implies socialism can mean no more than regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. I take a favorable view of regulation.
Now, regarding capitalism, I have a favorable view of capitalism as practiced in the U.S. and many other countries. But if capitalism is defined as unfettered, with laws of supply and demand free of
any intervention by government, I do not view it favorably.
I’m not sure how I view the State Directed Capitalism practiced by some countries.
The survey did not define capitalism and socialism. The surveyed Republicans and Democrats may have defined these “isms” differently. The same goes for the old and the young. Who knows?
Sorry about my last post. I thought I had fixed it in editing. Don’t
know what went wrong.
I’d mentioned my puppy dog and the TV a while back. Something interesting this evening (at least to me 🙂 ) I had the TV on mute, took her awhile to even notice it was on. When she finally did, she started and then jumped and barked. Apparently she found it surprising that the stuff on the TV could be visible but silent. She got over it pretty quickly.
SteveF (Comment #169799)
August 14th, 2018 at 8:27 am
Mike M,
“The left is trying to exploit that confusion. But the likes of Ocasio-Cortez, who are gaining control of the Democratic Party, are in fact socialists.â€
.
Sure. And Bernie Sanders, a host of talking heads on TV, many at the NY Times, and those involved in much of what passes for academia.
______
I don’t know much about Ocasio-Cortez. I saw a news article that called her the Democrat’s Sarah Palin. Ocasio-Corteza is a socialist if she advocates collective or governmental ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of goods. If not, and she claims to be a socialist, she’s actually just a socialist in name only, a SINO. I’ll know what she is when I find out more about her views. I suspect she’s just a far-left leaning Dem.
Bernie Sanders says he’s a Democratic Socialist, which I think means he advocates the way capitalism is practiced in European countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries. Calling Sanders a socialist is like calling grizzly bears vegetarians because they eat berries,
mark bofill (Comment #169822)
August 14th, 2018 at 4:22 pm
I’d mentioned my puppy dog and the TV a while back.
Apparently she found it surprising that the stuff on the TV could be visible but silent. She got over it pretty quickly.
______
Perhaps she always was more aware of the sound than the picture. I have read that the eyes of dogs and cats are good at detecting movement but don’t focus on things as well as human. Don’t know that would make a difference in this case, but it’s something to think about. Distance from the picture might matter. Dog’s have good far vision, cats good close vision.
Both have good hearing (maybe in different ways). Their hearing may be much better than human hearing, but neither seem to be interested in music.
OK Max,
Yes, Sanders claims to support democratic elections, but all socialists do that… at least until they gain enough power to do otherwise. A better question is what parts of the Constitution he would like to change. Sanders has the unique distinction of so liking the Soviet Union that he went there on his honeymoon, not every democratic socialist can say that.
.
Ocasio-Cortez belongs to a party that actually does want the government to control the means of production…. yup, communists. With regard to comparisons with Sara Palin: yup they are both remarkably unaware of basic information about the world (eg why there is conflict in the middle East), economics, and history. They also both have dark eyes and hair, and say really dumb stuff.
OK Max,
Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. They describe themselves as an activist organization, not a party. But they sound like Communists by a different name:
Karl Marx himself couldn’t have said it better.
Say! I have dark eyes and hair too! And I sa…
Oh.
I had just about convinced myself my last dog specifically liked a certain song this one actually, Ludovico Einaudi’s Ancora). She’d growl softly when it’d start to play; for her that was indicative of something she liked.
I wonder if in retrospect parts of it reminded her of another dog or another animal whining. No offense to Einaudi intended; I really like that song. But I’ve no idea really how dogs perceive these things.
Huh, would you look at that. Dogs do have musical tastes, apparently. Einaudi is pretty much minimalist classical, makes sense Meg would like him.
If the text of this tweet is correct, Trump doesn’t understand how tariffs actually work:
No, we don’t. We win if we get a better trade deal. We lose if we don’t. The exporting country doesn’t pay the tariff, the importer is the one that pays. So US citizens and companies will pay vast sums of money in the form of Tariffs to the US government. IOW, it’s a tax, dummy.
We got Trump, they got Ocasio-Cortez. It’s a wash.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #169830): “We win if we get a better trade deal. We lose if we don’t.”
That is definitely the preferable result. That is also the result Trump is after.
.
DeWitt Payne: “The exporting country doesn’t pay the tariff, the importer is the one that pays. So US citizens and companies will pay vast sums of money in the form of Tariffs to the US government.”
It is only that simple if the exporter has no competition from U.S. companies. But such cases are not, I think, where tariffs are being applied. If there is domestic competition, then the exporter will either lose sales or lower their prices, effectively paying all or part of the tariff. Either way, there will be at least some benefit to the U.S.
SteveF (Comment #169826)
August 14th, 2018 at 6:18 pm
OK Max,
Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. They describe themselves as an activist organization, not a party. But they sound like Communists by a different name:
__________
Well, they do in ways, but their Preamble says this:
 “Global economic integration has rendered obsolete both the social democratic solution of independent national economies sustaining a strong social welfare state and the Communist solution of state-owned national economies fostering social development.â€
https://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand
A quick read of what the DSA stands for leaves me with
the impression they have identified problems that could
worsen with continued global economic integration but
offer as a solution only the replacement or partial
replacement of capitalism with some vague form of
democratic public ownership and control.
DSA’s solution doesn’t appeal to me.
BTW, if Bernie advocates doing away with capitalism
it’s news to me.
Mike M. (Comment #169832)
” If there is domestic competition, then the exporter will either lose sales or lower their prices, effectively paying all or part of the tariff. Either way, there will be at least some benefit to the U.S.”
_____
If Trump places a 20% tariff on say a $50,000 BMW imported
from Germany, and BMW reduces the price to offset the tariff,
surely you don’t expect BMW to in effect send us all or even
part of $10,000.
mark bofill (Comment #169829)
mark, thanks for the link. The following quote is from that source:
“The kind of music that the dogs listened to made a difference. When the researchers played heavy metal music the dogs became quite agitated and began barking. Listening to popular music, or human conversation, did not produce behaviors that were noticeably different from having no sound at all. Classical music, on the other hand, seemed to have a calming effect on the dogs.â€
I’m afraid my taste in music is dog like.
Max,
Ok.
What (if anything) bugs you about capitalism, what would you have change?
.
Reading back though the thread, it’s not exactly clear that anything bugs you about capitalism or that you’d want anything to change. You tried to clarify what DSA stands for, which doesn’t say anything about your position. So my question could be founded on unjustified assumptions. If so let me know if you’d like.
I hear on the news that we’ve moved on from investigating Trump from secular matters like collusion to the more serious infractions of heresy. There seems to be some consternation over the possibility that Trump once uttered The Unspeakable Word, during his time on the Apprentice.
What a bad joke our media and public discourse have become.
[Edit: Maybe not heresy. Maybe blasphemy. Taking the name of the Sacred Victim in vain is against the commandments..]
OK_Max (Comment #169834): “If Trump places a 20% tariff on say a $50,000 BMW imported from Germany, and BMW reduces the price to offset the tariff, surely you don’t expect BMW to in effect send us all or even part of $10,000.”
In that example BMW is paying all of the tariff, so yes, they are sending us all of the tariff.
mark bofill (Comment #169837): “Maybe not heresy. Maybe blasphemy. Taking the name of the Sacred Victim in vain is against the commandments..”
🙂
OK Max,
“BTW, if Bernie advocates doing away with capitalism
it’s news to me.”
.
Bernie is a politician, he is not going to ever come right out and say that. He does, however, invite Ocasia-Cortez to campaign rallies for ‘progressive’ candidates.
.
WRT to the DSA: Communism has failed in many different ways, on that I agree. But if the DSA thinks capitalism has failed, I don’t know what success would look like. People are richer, better fed, better educated, live longer, face a lower chance of violent death, and have more choices, material and otherwise, than at any time in human history. On current trend, extreme poverty will be eliminated almost everywhere within about 15 years; it is the wealth from capitalism doing that. Of course pockets of extreme poverty will remain, mainly where people as dumb as those in the DSA are in power.
WRT to tariffs on cars: large manufacturers will usually respond to tariffs by shifting production operations (both final assembly and components) to the country imposing the tariffs. Trump probably thinks that is a good thing. The Europeans obviously think so. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_General_Motors_factories and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_factories
In Brazil (for example) there is a flat import tariff of 35% of the car’s value at the port (purchase plus transport cost plus freight insurance), plus several mandated additional costs associated with customs clearance. After customs and payment of VAT, any car you purchase in the States costs approximately 2.5 to 3 times as much (in dollar terms) in Brazil. The result is that very (very!) few cars are ever imported, and those are mostly luxury cars driven by extremely wealthy individuals or politicians. Most major car manufacturers have large local production plants in Brazil.
Max,
I see here in comment-169820:
.
Basically answers my question. Thanks.
SteveF,
No one is going to build manufacturing and assembly plants if the tariffs aren’t permanent. They also aren’t likely to eat anything like 100%. Tariffs don’t make nations wealthy, they impoverish the citizens. Brazil is a good example of that.
DeWitt,
Trump may have just read the WSJ today. It’s a curious effect.
.
U.S. Policy Stirs Foreign Markets
“Investors’ allocations to U.S. stocks and bonds have climbed as White House moves intensified volatility in overseas markets”
.
“U.S. foreign policy has driven sharp swings in global markets this summer, drawing investors into the relative safety of the U.S. where growth and earnings are considered steadier.
The White House’s recent actions on trade and international sanctions have amplified steep declines across markets in Turkey, Russia and China at a time emerging economies were already grappling with a stronger dollar and decelerating global growth.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-hide-in-u-s-as-washington-stirs-markets-abroad-1534325401
.
I guess this is the it hurts the other side more and we look better relatively strategy
Tom Scharf,
Sure, until things fall apart. The problem with a strong dollar is that a lot of emerging market debt is in dollars, not the local currency. Tens of billions of dollars in Turkish debt, for example, is held by Spanish banks. The collapse of the Thai baht was the trigger for the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The global financial situation is a lot worse today than it was in 1997. There’s a whole lot more debt relative to size of the global economy than there was then. People who play with fire usually end up getting burned.
What does DSA believe in?
Like most socialist organizations, DSA believes in the abolition of capitalism in favor of an economy run either by “the workers†or the state — though the exact specifics of “abolishing capitalism†are fiercely debated by socialists.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/27/17509604/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-socialist-of-america
.
They want to remove the “profit motive” of industry. This is one of those things the right is gleeful to have the leftist media shout from the rafters – We love socialism and the people who advocate it! The most entertaining aspect here is that she received a degree in economics from Boston University.
.
She tries to describe it here although it comes out as gobbly gook:
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-doesnt-understand-socialism/
.
Some more difficult to interpret statements.
“I do think that right now, when we have this no-holds-barred Wild West hypercapitalism, what that means is profit at any cost. Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world. When this country started, we did not operate on a capitalist economy.”
Asked if democratic socialism, the system to which Ocasio-Cortez claims allegiance, “calls for an end to capitalism,†the candidate said:
“Ultimately, we are marching towards progress on this issue. I do think that we are going to see an evolution in our economic system of an unprecedented degree, and it’s hard to say what direction that that takes … â€
.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270776/ocasio-cortez-capitalism-wont-always-exist-matthew-vadum
.
If you just like social safety net programs and advocating for the working class, why call yourself a “socialist”. I think the answer is that this does not have a tarnished brand in the academy bubble. If you can’t tarnish real socialism in an economics major at the university then that truly makes my head spin.
.
The simpler answer is that this is just another cult of personality explosion by the media, the same they did with Trump once somebody interesting shows up. They could easily hold her feet to the fire on the history socialism, but a 1000 interviews later, nothing as far as I can tell.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169844): “I guess this is the it hurts the other side more and we look better relatively strategy”
Sure, until the other side catches on and decides to play fair. Then everyone will be better off.
DeWitt,
“Tariffs don’t make nations wealthy, they impoverish the citizens. Brazil is a good example of that.”
.
Of course, on average the economic impact of tariffs (and of other barriers to trade) is negative. However, the impact is not at all uniform. Farmers (eg corn/ethanol and sugar farmers in the USA, most all farmers in Europe and elsewhere) benefit enormously from protective tariffs and other economically destructive policies, even while the large majority of people are hurt by these policies. Concentrated benefits and dilute costs are a constant invitation for the soft corruption of political influence and crony capitalism.
.
But I think it is clear Trump is using tariffs and the threat of tariffs as a bludgeon to force trading partners to give the States better trade deals. He is doing this in a graceless a way, of course; he is Trump after all. We’ll see how it works out.
Tom Scharf,
“The most entertaining aspect here is that she received a degree in economics from Boston University.”
.
More accurate is that she received complete indoctrination into socialist rubbish at BU, understands very little about economics, and is too dumb to recognize that sorry reality.
Sorry. I’m off in my own little world over here. But it just came to me – I’d better hope the ‘Church of the Sacred Victim’ isn’t really a religion. Or if it is I’d best hope it’s never recognized as one. ‘Cause if it is, and if they come to realize it, think of all the protections and privileges it would enjoy… Tax free status, all sorts of protections from discrimination, from persecution.. Once recognized and accepted as a real religion, it would move outside the jurisdiction of logic, evidence, and reasonable debate. What a horrid thought. The only upside I can see right now is that (in theory) this status would get it out of our government.
.
Fortunately for us all maybe, I think most progressives would reject the notion that their views are religious out of hand.
It is currently worse than tax free status, it is actually taxpayer funded.
Mike M. (Comment #169838) 
August 15th, 2018 at 7:17 am
OK_Max (Comment #169834): “If Trump places a 20% tariff on say a $50,000 BMW imported from Germany, and BMW reduces the price to offset the tariff, surely you don’t expect BMW to in effect send us all or even part of $10,000.â€
In that example BMW is paying all of the tariff, so yes, they are sending us all of the tariff.
_______
I’m afraid either you misunderstand tariffs or we aren’t talking about the same thing. In the example, BMW lowers their price to offset the $10,000 U.S. tariff, either making less profit or taking a loss. The price of the car ($50,000) remains the same as it was before the tariff was imposed. If I buy the car, I don’t expect BMW to then send me $10,000.
Perhaps you reason the price would have been higher($60,000) had BMW not absorbed the tariff, thus by by taking the loss the company is in effect giving me $10,000. If that made sense we should all demand our State governments raise sales tax so merchants could in effect give us money by absorbing the tax.
I challenge anybody to read a bunch of the latest “first (fill in identity) to be elected to (fill in office)” and try to determine anything about the candidate other than their group identity. It’s an absolute obsession at this point, it’s all they say.
We have NPR cluelessly saying this in a new “analysis”: It was a big night for Democratic diversity – “And Trump has doubled down on that difference, catering to white grievance to win in 2016 and to keep his base behind him as president. Democrats seem more in line with businesses and universities, which are increasingly sensitive to embracing diversity, while conservatives react reflexively against “identity politics.”
One side is the celebration and embrace of identity, and the other is catering to grievances. How can you write text like this and not understand what you are saying. The academy is identity grievance 24/7.
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/15/638801062/a-big-night-for-democratic-diversity-and-3-other-primary-takeaways
SteveF (Comment #169840)
August 15th, 2018 at 7:43 am
OK Max,
“BTW, if Bernie advocates doing away with capitalism
it’s news to me.â€
.
Bernie is a politician, he is not going to ever come right out and say that. He does, however, invite Ocasia-Cortez to campaign rallies for ‘progressive’ candidates.
_______
Sure, he courts the extreme left. Trump, courts the extreme right.
That doesn’t mean either buy into extremist views. I don’t see Bernie
trying to do away with capitalism, nor do I see Trump becoming a
neo-nazi.
Tom, good point.
OK Max,
“Perhaps you reason the price would have been higher($60,000) had BMW not absorbed the tariff, thus by by taking the loss the company is in effect giving me $10,000. If that made sense we should all demand our State governments raise sales tax so merchants could in effect give us money by absorbing the tax.”
.
What? (not rehtorical)
Before: Selling price – $50,000
Net to BMW – $50,000
Taxes paid to Federal Government – $0
After: Selling price – $50,000
Net to BMW – $40,000
Taxes paid to Federal Government – $10,000
.
In this (unlikely) case, the consumer sees no difference in cost, but the Federal Government gets $10,000 it wouldn’t have before, and BMW has $10,000 less than it had before. I really am not sure how you can see that as anything other than a transfer of $10,000 from BMW to the Treasury. BMW would of course, not eat the entire $10,000… more likely they would raise prices, but somewhat less than the full value of the import duty.
According to Ecclesiastes, there is a time for every purpose under heaven. It may be that the time has finally come for the NYPost to serve as useful evidence of something:
.
https://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/
.
Or perhaps this time has not yet come, and the NYPost must continue to wait for some distant age to finally serve some useful purpose. I don’t know.
.
[Edit: I don’t know if Sanders is a communist. I don’t know if Trump is a neo-nazi. I get the impression that by examining the background of the two men that one could objectively make a stronger case that Sanders is a communist than that Trump is a neo-nazi, but this is just my opinion and I don’t think I’m interested in actually taking the time and energy to make this case.]
SteveF,
Your analysis ignores that Germany will impose countervailing tariffs in at least the same amount as we impose. Then there is no net wealth transfer. In fact, depending on the details, there could be a small increase in wealth transfer in the wrong direction.
Also, if German car manufacturers don’t eat all the price increase from the tariff, US car manufacturers will also increase prices. This is, in the end, almost as bad as that idi0t de Blasio in NYC limiting the number of Uber and Lyft drivers to protect the Yellow Cab drivers and blocking charter schools to protect the teacher’s unions.
And that’s cars, where the profit margin might be large enough that manufacturers can absorb a significant amount of the tariff. That’s not true for steel and aluminum. One reason that we don’t have the steel industry that we used to is that the US steel companies didn’t make timely investments in new technology to protect short term profits. That’s a decision to go out of business eventually.
The same thing happened where I worked when the company didn’t invest in direct spinning technology. That was actually a decision to leave the polyester fiber business, but I’m not at all sure that management realized it at the time.
OK Max,
“I don’t see Bernie trying to do away with capitalism, nor do I see Trump becoming a neo-nazi.”
.
Bernie is on record as supporting government takeover of heath care, banking, and electric power generation, which together represent probably 35% of the economy. He also wants to tax ‘investor speculation’ (AKA tax stock investments), and use the money to give people ‘free’ stuff. So he seems to want to do away with a substantial portion of capitalism. I will venture a wild guess that like every other ‘democratic socialist’ (eg Chavez) if he had the political power to do so, Bernie would discover a need to eliminate even more capitalism and to silence his political opponents… in the service of ‘the public interest’ and ‘economic fairness’ of course. The guy is a communist, whether he uses that description or not.
DeWitt,
“Your analysis ignores that Germany will impose countervailing tariffs in at least the same amount as we impose.”
.
And your analysis ignores that Europe already has higher tariffs on US goods than the USA has on European goods (on average, about double). Europe also imposes rather severe non-tariff barriers which effectively lock-out US competition. If the Europeans have half a gram of sense (and it is not clear if they do or not), they will agree to negotiate lower tariffs and non-tariff barriers, rather than risk losing access to the US market in a trade war. The Europeans have a lot more to lose (about $150 billion per year more) in a trade war than does the USA. Yes, it is all economically stupid. And yes, the tariffs and non-tariff barriers (in both directions) should never have been there in the first place. But that doesn’t mean the Europeans shouldn’t give US producers the same access to their markets we give to European producers. If the threat of tariffs is what it takes to make that happen, so be it.
Apologies for trashing NYPost before. I confused it with NYMag. Heh. I don’t regularly read either of the two.
SteveF (Comment #169856)
August 15th, 2018 at 12:35 pm
OK Max,
“Perhaps you reason the price would have been higher($60,000) had BMW not absorbed the tariff, thus by by taking the loss the company is in effect giving me $10,000. If that made sense we should all demand our State governments raise sales tax so merchants could in effect give us money by absorbing the tax.â€
.
What? (not rehtorical)
Before: Selling price – $50,000
Net to BMW – $50,000
Taxes paid to Federal Government – $0
After: Selling price – $50,000
Net to BMW – $40,000
Taxes paid to Federal Government – $10,000
.
In this (unlikely) case, the consumer sees no difference in cost, but the Federal Government gets $10,000 it wouldn’t have before, and BMW has $10,000 less than it had before. I really am not sure how you can see that as anything other than a transfer of $10,000 from BMW to the Treasury. BMW would of course, not eat the entire $10,000… more likely they would raise prices, but somewhat less than the full value of the import duty.
_______
Here I see how tariffs can make buying foreign goods the patriotic thing to do. By purchasing that BMW I transfer $10,000 from a German car company to the U.S. government, and help pay down the national debt.
Wait a minute ! I thought the purpose of tariffs was to discourage purchases of foreign goods in favor American made products, creating more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. No worry, buying an American car instead of a foreign car is another way to be patriotic.
Is this a dilemma? No, just buy two cars, one import, one domestic. Be a double patriot.
What kind of American are you anyway, if you don’t have two cars.
Max,
LOL. Love it!
Utilities are a special case and we likely want them to be effectively run by the government. Nobody want three sets of power lines and three sewers with different brand names running down their streets, or somebody buys your sewer company and ups the rates 10x and leaves you with untenable options. There are different ways to handle this problem than full on government, but we don’t want the exact opposite either.
SteveF (Comment #169859)
August 15th, 2018 at 1:10 pm
OK Max,
“I don’t see Bernie trying to do away with capitalism, nor do I see Trump becoming a neo-nazi.â€
.
Bernie is on record as supporting government takeover of heath care, banking, and electric power generation, which together represent probably 35% of the economy.
______
I didn’t find that record. Is it recent? I do know Bernie wants to break up banks. Believes the largest banks are two powerful. I haven’t given much thought to nationalizing banks, but see them as already nationalized in a way, what with the borrowing, insurance, and bail outs.
I was not a Bernie supporter against Hillary. I didn’t like his position
on trade, which is similar if not the same as Trump’s.
Max,
In fairness, Steve did mention (twice actually in that post) that consumers would see higher prices from BMW. But even if he hadn’t and even if this were not the case (even if BMW just ate the tariff completely), there’s no real need to posit that everyone buy two cars. It’s enough to say some would buy domestic because of the tariff and some would still buy the import.
mark bofill (Comment #169866)
Yes, Mark, Steve did say the tariff likely would raise car prices,
and I think he’s right. I doubt the car maker in my example
actually would absorb a 20% tariff. More likely part if not all
of this tax would fall on the car buyer.
No, I don’t own 2 cars, but my wife and I each own a car.
I’m fairly sure “the Germans†won’t be imposing tariffs on anyone. The EU is responsible, which is why Trump told May that if she followed her stupid “brexit†plan, the US wouldn’t be able to help the UK in trade. She seems determined to snatch utter defeat from the jaws of victory, but perhaps that’s the plan.
Tom (re 169853),
.
Playing LGBT bingo with the governor nominations. Identity politics gone wild. Doesn’t matter what you bring to the table, are you a lesbian? Perfect! Gay? Great! Bi? Alright! Trans?!? BINGO!
.
I can’t wait to see how this works out for those states.
OK Max,
“I thought the purpose of tariffs was to discourage purchases of foreign goods in favor American made products, creating more manufacturing jobs in the U.S.”
.
Then you thought wrongly. The main purpose is to force trading partners to level the playing field for US producers, and in the case of China, stop stealing intellectual property from US companies. I stipulate that tariffs are stupid, as are non-tariff barriers to trade. The fact that they are stupid and economically damaging doesn’t mean they don’t exist, nor that they are not worth trying to get rid of. When it come to import restrictions, the USA is not as pure as Ceasar’s wife, but the States are far better about opening our markets to foreign competition than are most of our trading partners.
.
BTW, earlier this year I purchased a German SUV (a Volkswagen Atlas). Had it been 10% more costly, I would have purchased one of the 5 other comparable SUV’s I looked at. Patriotic? No, just rational.
Government has legitimate roles to play to protect consumers from the excesses of capitalism. Assume for example that all credit card companies made people liable for credit card fraud that is beyond their control. The free market says somebody would stop doing that to gain customers and business, but the problem of industry collusion between companies is real, and when that happens somebody has to step in and fix it. Monopolies have to be broken up or regulated to protect consumers when they abuse their market position. These aren’t theoretical problems, but the government doesn’t need to step in and do something until the problem exists. Pre-emptive intervention is too heavy handed.
Tom Scharf,
Most true monopolies exist only because the government protects them. See, for example, Ma Bell, before the government changed it’s mind, and the Post Office. Standard Oil actually reduced the price of gas and oil to the consumer.
SteveF,
Do you really think the EU would impose tariffs against the wishes of Germany or the converse? I certainly don’t.
Existing tariff and non-tariff barriers are irrelevant to Trump’s tweet that I quoted above. He insisted that we will make lots of money even if new trade agreements are not implemented. That’s still obvious rubbish.
DeWitt,
“That’s still obvious rubbish.”
.
Of course it is. Tariffs always are economically bad, and lack of tariffs always economically good. But note what actually happened: Trump carried on about how swell tariffs are, and the EC immediately agreed to negotiate lower tariffs. What is not to like? I am pretty sure Trump’s economic advisers have been telling him (correctly) how bad tariffs are for both sides. His tirades are just histrionics to scare the miscreants into doing what they should have done long ago. It seems to be working.
SteveF (Comment #169870)
August 15th, 2018 at 4:56 pm
OK Max,
“I thought the purpose of tariffs was to discourage purchases of foreign goods in favor American made products, creating more manufacturing jobs in the U.S.â€
.
Then you thought wrongly. The main purpose is to force trading partners to level the playing field for US producers, and in the case of China, stop stealing intellectual property from US companies.
______
If a “level playing field for US producers ” just means zero tariffs in all directions, I’m not convinced, it would add significantly to jobs
in American factories, but I believe tariffs on imports would.
Competition from factories in low-wage countries is the problem.
Leveling the playing field doesn’t take away the wage advantage
these countries have. We have to equalize the wages with tariffs
if the goal is to create lots of jobs in manufacturing.
China stealing intellectual property from US companies doesn’t surprise me. I know little about the theft, but presume it’s a violation of patents not recognized by Chinese law. Threat of
tariffs could lead to an agreement, but agreements between
countries can be broken with little consequence.
OK Max,
“…presume it’s a violation of patents not recognized by Chinese law”
.
There is some of that for sure, especially in pharmaceuticals. But the Chinese force US companies to disclose trade secret information, which then (surprise!) ends up in the hands of Chinese companies.
I don’t know how it works at the top. Down with the grunts, security clearance isn’t a civil liberty. You only get one when you need one. You only keep it if you behave. I’ve always been of the opinion that you only get to keep it after you leave for awhile because it’s convenient for the government to have it that way.
.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t like our security clearance system. There’s lots of things wrong with it in my view. As usual though, I find all of the media attention Brennan is getting to be rather misplaced.
mark,
Generally, you can also only keep your clearance if you have a task on a project that requires a clearance. This is relevant to people at national labs who might have several projects with only one classified. If the funding for the classified one lapses for any reasons (even just disarray in WA) the clearances are yanked. Reassembling the team on restart is time consuming.
Lucia,
Interesting. Down in the contractor world in Huntsville my understanding is that people generally retain their clearances when they leave a position until the clearance expires (every 18 months). I suspect this is in part due to the practical reality that many (possibly most) of these people are leaving positions to take up other positions that require clearance, so it makes little sense to yank them.
Bottom line though, nobody owes you a darn thing regarding a clearance. If you get to hang onto one for awhile, be grateful. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
[Edit: Now that I utter this, I question why I think this is the case. It’s possible I’m just plain wrong here. I’ll check.]
Maybe it’s changed. But this is Jim’s understanding. They have a project with the Biowatch office. If it lapses, supposedly, all the clearances will lapse.
Some programs in Biowatch had some scrambling because of this:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/us/dhs-super-bowl-national-security-documents-left-on-plane-invs/index.html
The guy overseeing lots of programs was suddenly gone…..
Lucia,
.
I could be wrong. I might have gotten this impression for any number of reasons. For example, maybe they do get pulled and it’s just that the wheels grind really slowly sometimes. I don’t know.
Huh. I had this wrong apparently. My apologies.
.
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2016/07/02/long-security-clearance-active/
.
I guess you can keep an ‘inactive’ clearance for awhile.
Security clearances timed out back when I was protecting us from the evil Ruskies, and somebody has to pay to get you cleared. I’m kind of surprised people who no longer work for the CIA get to keep their clearances. I imagine it is so they can consult if necessary. Brennan clearly burned his bridge, he deserved it. The next president can give it back to him.
I guess today is the day the press unites and beats on Trump, pardon me while I go barf, the self adulation is a bit sticky.
mark
Ahh!!! That’s an important distinction.
It would still leaven Argonne in a bit of a lurch because Jim is also derivative classifier. So, “inactive” would probably mean he can’t do that and they need someone else to train. But at least if Biowatch funding has a 2 month glitch, people’s clearances can be reactivated when it comes back up.
Jim’s not really worried about this. But it would be a pesky issue for putting together teams to do the various field experiments, analyses and so on. You don’t need a clearance to work at the lab, and most of people funding is not-classified. Clearances going “poof” would be a glitch in the project matrix (as it were.)
Tom
I think given current stories (like Strokz, Comey) one could argue that there are people who are removed who we actively want to prevent from discussing anything with people who still work at the FBI and so on.
That’s true even if ordinarily we’d like the current high level FBI, CIA and so on people to be able to talk to former high level people.
No trade deal yet with the EU yet on cars and pickups.
Below are the current tariffs:
U.S. tariff on EU cars 2.5%
EU tariff on U.S cars 10%
U.S. tariff on EU pickups 25%
EU tariff on U.S. pickups 10% ?
Our tariff on European pickups got to be 25% because of the 1964 chicken war.
https://www.businessinsider.com/american-trucks-chicken-tax-explains-domination-2018-6
If the 10% tariffs on American cars is eliminated I doubt there will be a significant change in Europeans buying habits. Europeans
like cars and suv’s that handle well and are very stable at high speeds, sacrificing the softer ride for the necessary firmness in suspension. American vehicles are designed with an emphasis on softer ride.
IMoreover, American factories do not make the smaller cars that Europeans prefer, nor the diesels. Some sporty American cars,such as Corvettes and Mustangs, may sell well but not in high volume.
Even if the 25% tariff on European pickups is eliminated, I don’t see
them appealing much to American buyers. It’s an imagine thing.
There are other forms of trade fixing, such as the EU banning GMO’s which are prevalent in US soybeans. This is protectionism by proxy.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169884): “I guess today is the day the press unites and beats on Trump, pardon me while I go barf, the self adulation is a bit sticky.”
The L.A. Times sensibly refused to go along:
On one hand, I hope that more of the left/press won’t be smart enough to catch on that they are being self-destructive. On the other hand, catching on might make them less damaging to the country as a whole.
It’s eerie to watch Trump Derangement Syndrome metastasize over time. Here ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/08/15/why-did-trump-tweet-happy-birthday-to-maxine-waters-he-does-this-to-his-enemies-a-lot/?utm_term=.d2274250e285 ) the Washington Post cannot let this sinister tweet from Donald Trump escape scrutiny and corrective processing:
.
Seriously. To think this needs analysis suggests one needs a vacation at the very least, if not some psychological help.
.
Naturally, the Washington Post doesn’t find this worthy of a story, although it gets a mention in the Trump tweet article:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/15/maxine-waters-birthday-wish-trumps-impeachment/
.
Because #InDarknessDemocracyDies, and #Resistance, and #WeHaveOurHeadsCrammedUpOurRectums.
Basic civility has fallen by the wayside far enough back that some folk have no idea what they’re looking at when they see it anymore. The climate of our times:
.
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/queer-eye-star-not-all-republicans-are-racist-leftist-mob-get-him/
Needless to say, this did not endear him to his followers…
My exasperation gets the better of me sometimes.
.
Look, I get that calling Maxine the ‘leader of the Democratic Party’ is worth glancing at. She’s not the ‘leader of the Democratic Party’. So why did Trump say that. Well, fine. We can analyze that. There’s not all that much too it. Short form is that Maxine Waters has taken questionable position recently in encouraging activists to harass political opponents. Trump would like to suggest that this characterizes the Democratic Party. Fine. Got it.
.
Not what the analysis at WP was about at all. No. ‘This is how Trump handles his enemies, so he can justify subsequent attacks’ was the essence of the piece. I think this is a more advanced form of Trump Derangement, call it stage 2 – Early Trump Dementia syndrome.
It is safer for people in government to leak info to people who have a security clearance.
Not having a security clearance would make it harder for Brennan and Clapper to share info with the media, even in a not-revealing-classified info way.
The argument I hear is that revoking Brennan’s clearance is an attempt to silence him.
.
IS it a known and given ‘thing’, that Brennan uses classified information to attack Trump? I think this is rhetorical; it’s meant to be. My answer is ‘God, I hope not!’ But maybe I’m off in never land and am unaware of something everyone else is aware of (it happens).
.
If Brennan does use classified information to criticize the Administration publicly, I’m a little astonished that anyone thinks that’s a good idea; that he should have access to secret information for that purpose.
.
If not, then I don’t see what his clearance has to do with his criticisms. I think the argument that Trump is trying to ‘silence’ Brennan would be more plausible if Trump was threatening to revoke Brennan’s clearance.
.
That’s the way it works, right. I want to rob you, or to make you do something you don’t want to do. How do I do that. I threaten you with something – if you don’t comply, I will do this. If I just go ahead and do whatever the threat is, you’ve got no motivation to comply.
.
Whatever. The issue seems dumb to me.
What I think is really going on:
.
I think Trump does not trust Brennan to refrain from using classified information for political purposes that are contrary to the purposes of Trump’s administration.
.
Given the Russian collusion debacle, I think Trump’s point of view is understandable.
.
As a people, perhaps Americans need to sort out objectively if they want the role of the President to change. As it stands, he is the chief executive. I think this means the FBI answers to him. I think this means he can revoke security clearances. Maybe I’m wrong, but if I’m not — the rules don’t change just because you don’t like the guy in office.
mark
His role is set by the constitution, so changing it would be pretty darn difficult. Also: I kinda like the separation of powers. I’m not a huge Trump fan, but I wasn’t an Obama fan either.
I don’t see any big problem with Trump taking Brennan’s clearance away. I don’t see a big problem with it being discussed by others.
Thanks lucia.
I just heard the rest of the story – Trump has a list of people he’s essentially told ‘you’re next’ regarding the clearances. Ok, that is a threat. If the argument is he’s threatening these others, I have no quarrel with that reasoning.
Mark,
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/15/politics/john-brennan-security-clearance/index.html
The thing is: What do guys like Comey need clearances for now?
Seriously, real question. They no longer hold their former jobs. They shouldn’t need the clearance. Other than the (somewhat odd) tradition of letting them keep the clearances for some reason, and the publicity over revocation, I don’t see someone taking away their clearance as a “punishment”. It’s just a thing that, in terms of actual gain or punishment ought to be seen as neutral.
Notably, Clapper says he hasn’t used his clearance since 2017.
As it stands, the only thing removing the clearance ought to possibly do is prevent current FBI from consulting with these former FBI. If the president doesn’t want the current FBI from doing that, he could order so, but taking the additional step of removing the former staff clearances enforces that order better.
Now I know Trump does lots of things for show, so part of the removing clearance is show on his part. But I really can’t get very upset by this show.
lucia,
.
Yeah.
.
I don’t know why this issue specifically gets under my skin. It’s not like it’s categorically different from any of the other crap out there in the media in any obvious way. *shrug* Just a quirk of mine I suppose.
mark,
The problem with this issue is it is, to a large extent, “theater” on both sides.
Trump is being theatrical in yanking these things. But that’s just Trump. Then people are saying threatening to yank them somehow infringes people’s free speech. But they don’t really say how it does that. I suspect they don’t say how it affects their speech because it doesn’t.
Comey, Clapper, Brennan and so on can all yap in public with their clearances; they are yapping. They can continue to yap in public without them; Brennan is. I’m sure Comey, Clapper, and so on will if theirs are yanked. They lose no $$, no freedom, no job access and so on when they lose their clearances. If anything, they are rewarded with some publicity so people listen to their yapping during the kerfuffle surrounding the yanking.
Mind you: they do potentially lose credibility as someone a member of the press thinks might have inside information. Without the clearance, the press knows that they can’t (or shouldn’t be) speaking with anyone in the administration who does access classified info. But honestly, this is a good reason for yanking the clearances since staff in the FBI, CIA and so on should currently not be sharing this info!
So basically, the only thing they lose is the potential that someone with a clearance can share and discuss classified or sensitive information with them. But Trump doesn’t want that shared. He has a right to not want that shared. He has a right to enforce the Fed employees not sharing anything with these former Fed employees.
Other than the fact it’s all such a big story, this is a big nothing burger.
From the beginning, there have been outrageous leaks regarding the Trump administration. Sometimes classified,sometime not. Sometimes true, sometimes false. It has been a problem and I suspect it is regarded as such by most people who do not identify with the “resistance”.
Trump has every right to yank the clearances of people who no longer actually need them. Those people have no right to the clearances. Some of those people have declared themselves to be enemies of the administration; enemies, not just the loyal opposition. I, like many others, was surprised to learn that they still have clearances. All things considered, it is perfectly reasonable for Trump to yank those clearances.
As lucia says, it is mostly just theater. It really does not matter. The “resistance” will work themselves up in a lather, but most others will probably agree with Trump, if they care at all. When it comes to political theater, Trump is hard to beat. As usual, he is goading his enemies into playing a mug’s game.
Having a security clearance does not, I’m pretty sure, allow access to any and all classified information. There’s still ‘need to know’ involved. So sharing classified information with someone who doesn’t have need to know is still against the law. Wasn’t that what happened to Petraeus? He shared classified information with Paula Broadwell, his biographer, who I believe had a security clearance at the time.
DeWitt,
Correct. Which ought to mean that generally, after these guys leave their former position, they shouldn’t be allowed access to information anyway. That’s a reason why I think other than the political theater aspects, taking away their clearances is a big nothing burger because if they stayed within the law, they couldn’t really use the clearance for anything.
Yep. Which ought to be a sufficient reason for the administration to take the precaution of taking away their clearances. In principle, these people couldn’t use it. But in practice, not having it ensures that.
Basically, the way I see it is that the administration could have allowed them to keep the clearances as some sort of “courtesy”, which amounts to letting the former employees “feel” good about still having something they once had. But there is nothing wrong with yanking them even if that makes the former employees feel bad.
It would probably be better if the tradition was former employees from previous administrations lost it after 6 months unless officially “renewed” at the discretion of the current one. Then they could just not renew.
It’s likely but not provable that Brennan has been an anonymous source to the media for some leaks. He has shown he has motive to discredit Trump. Without a clearance it will make it a clear criminal offense for somebody to share new information with Brennan. This is what the point is I think.
… or just as likely Trump poking the media bear for his own entertainment. Quite frankly I think this is what the primary motive for Trump’s misguided tweets are, he is simply entertaining himself. He’s over 70, a few years left in his life, why not enjoy it? Trump’s most redeeming and most annoying aspect is he just doesn’t give a …
This is what has been happening for the past two years:
“The WH is considering eating lunch tomorrow”
Media: “Aaaaaaaagggggggghhhhhhhh!!!! Demacracy is dying! Only Hitler would do that! Let’s go ask people if they STILL support Trump even after this! We’re not sure what’s on the menu but it’s definitely a racist selection! Hamburgers are killing the planet!”
.
The longer and more intense the wailing scream the more clicks they get. I really wonder what’s going to happen to CNN after Trump is gone, they have really alienated his supporters and nobody will show up to hear how wonderful the new left administration is. I’m guessing their ratings fall through the floor.
> if Trump was threatening to revoke Brennan’s clearance.
But he is threatening to take away others’ clearances, and this threat is more effective now.
DeWitt, while it is illegal to leak, it is not as illegal to leak to someone with a security clearance.
The defenders of Brennan are arguing that the lack of a security clearance hurts Brennan or others, which means he is planning on revealing classified information.
One name on the list is Bruce Ohr, who would lose his DOJ job without a security clearance. He has already been demoted twice, and this likely means he’ll be fired soon.
mark bofill (Comment #169892)
Mark, I thought Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) referred to Americans who were crazy for Trump, strongly approved of him, 33% according to the Rasmussen poll.
But you seem to think TDS refers to Americans who strongly disapprove of Trump, 43% according to Rasmussen. Unlike those crazy for Trump, these are
people crazy against him.
Obviously, we get our definitions of TDS from different sources.I used the urbandictionary.com, my favorite source.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trump%20Derangement%20Syndrome
If we use both definitions, 76% of Americans suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, a statistic I find very disturbing.
Tom
Yes. And no one will be able to argue that Brennan has a clearance and a “need to know”. He won’t have a clearance. Done.
MikeN,
Yes. And it would probably be better to just take them away rather than say he might do so. He’s hardly doing anything like blackmail, or forcing them to do anything as a result of the threat. They can just keep on doing whatever.
Do they say how? (Real question.) He doesn’t need it to do his current job. He doesn’t need it to do anything he has to do. As far as I can tell, the most it does is hurt his feelings. I guess that’s ‘hurting’ him.
Ok. Then that person would lose something tangible– an income producing job. But he can be fired, and maybe he will be.
Max,
~grins~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Derangement_Syndrome
.
I lean against the wind. I used to be sympathetic to members minorities of almost any sort suffering from discrimination. I think [largely as] a consequence of the militant efforts of various parties to change our culture, I tend to be anti-sympathetic these days. One of the simplest unintended consequences maybe – some people don’t like to be pushed in a direction, even if it’s a good direction, and will push back just because.
.
Might be I support Trump more than I otherwise would because of this.
.
shrug.
.
[Edit: Probably I should add this. That’s an entertaining idea, the equivalence you seem to propose between Trump’s supporters and Trump’s detractors, and that both are deranged. The logical fallacy of persuasion by amusement is one I’m generally highly susceptible to. But in this case, I’m going to have to say ‘no’, I think is what I’m trying to get at. There may well be similarities. Certainly some Trump supporters are probably irrational; heck I’m sure some are crazy as loons. But, I don’t think I can view these groups as basically the same. But thanks for the fun thought!]
MikeN,
That couldn’t happen soon enough. He is heavily implicated in the whole Fusion GPS, Steele dossier, FBI investigation fiasco. Kimberly Strassel has a column about that in today’s WSJ.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-was-bruce-ohr-doing-1534462447
Why Trump doesn’t declassify all those documents remains a mystery.
DeWitt, timing.
DeWitt,
“Why Trump doesn’t declassify all those documents remains a mystery.”
.
As they used to say on radio game shows… that is the $64 question. Trump has the legal and constitutional authority to de-classify anything he wants, revoke the security clearances of whom he wants, and fire worms like Strzok and Ohr at will. It is a mystery indeed.
Max,
.
Kicking it around, I come up with this alternative way of expressing my idea:
.
Identity politics, SJW screed, and other progressive things irritated the heck out of me well before anybody dreamed Trump had a chance at the Republican nomination, let alone the Presidency. At least in part I think, (and maybe I delude myself, but I do think for my part to some extent) it’s not that I take positions I do because I support Trump. It’s that I support Trump because I take the positions I do. But the origin of those positions are a response to progressives progressing too far in their relentless march towards whatever the heck they’re marching towards [and dragging our society along with them].
.
[Edit: It’s really no different from what I said before I guess. Oh well.]
It has actually gotten to the point that many consider an ideology to remove race from everything as racist. It’s referred to as colorblind racism. You will find approx. zero people advocating out loud for treating all people the same independent of race on the left now, although I suspect most of them do support it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(race)
.
One of the few times I watched a CNN clip recently had the host and panelist berating another panelist that they need to look at them and see a black man and a black woman, not just a person, and acting like this should be obvious to everyone as the way to fix things. The answer to racism is “correctly” treating people differently by race. You fix perceived unfairness by implementing reverse unfairness. I’m just left confused. What do they want exactly? As far as I can tell it is special favorable treatment based on minority status of race or religion, but they never seem to actually say those words or ask for specific things. I just don’t know what actionable things they want. Maybe they just want to feel respected. Deplorables feel disrespected that way by the establishment as well.
I don’t know Max. Take this:
.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/402104-msnbc-analyst-virtually-certain-10-percent-of-gop-would-say-its-ok-for-trump
.
I think in a weird way he comes close. It’s not ‘the media is testing my loyalty to Trump’ though. It’s more ‘I am expressing my discontent with the enemies of the crude orange haired reality show host billionaire that I support largely to annoy them.’
.
Alright. I’ll hush now. [I’m trying to avoid what I’m working on, can you tell? :> ]
.
[Edit: holy smokes Tom, don’t get me started on colorblind racism, I’ll never shut up and my wife will divorce me for spending all day and night commenting on the Blackboard. I better self impose a time out before I get myself in hot water.]
SteveF, Trump is not just going after one or two, but a whole network. The arrest of James Wolfe doesn’t happen if Trump had acted all out from Day 1. Wolfe is threatening to call Senators as witnesses, implying he was acting on their behalf.
The Senate Intelligence Committee had the Carter Page FISA in March 2017, and Wolfe then leaked it to Ali Watkins. It’s why the date on the publicly released portion doesn’t match the actual date of the FISA, Oct 19 vs Oct 21. It was a leak hunt.
mark bofill (Comment #169916)
mark, I wish fewer people had strong feelings about Trump. The
poll showing 43% strongly disapprove and 33% strongly approve of
him is indicative of a very divided country. I didn’t check on the
numbers, but It may have been just as divided under Obama.
It seems like every change in leadership or power results in a large
proportion of the population being angry. I fear the division, the
back and forth, weakens America. It could eventually cause the nation to breakup.
All that said, I do not believe I have a patriotic duty to moderate how I feel, and just disapprove rather than strongly disapprove of Trump. Hopefully, he will change in ways that will make me feel less negative. He could start by keeping his mouth shut instead
of Tweeting about everything that crosses his mind.
lucia (Comment #169909)
The defenders of Brennan are arguing that the lack of a security clearance hurts Brennan or others
Do they say how? (Real question.) He doesn’t need it to do his current job. He doesn’t need it to do anything he has to do. As far as I can tell, the most it does is hurt his feelings. I guess that’s ‘hurting’ him.
One name on the list is Bruce Ohr, who would lose his DOJ job without a security clearance. He has already been demoted twice, and this likely means he’ll be fired soon.
Ok. Then that person would lose something tangible– an income producing job. But he can be fired, and maybe he will be.
_____
I read that former officials are left with a basic security clearance more for helping the nation than for their own benefit. It makes
sense. Current officials may seek their advice.
If the threat of losing a security clearance could interfere with someone doing his job, that would not be good.
Max,
I still think Trump is more of the symbol or … the shorthand representation of our disunity than the root cause, but I could be wrong. Maybe people truly love or hate Trump specifically more than I realize. Do you not think that were Thor to lightning down the Donald tonight and Pence take office, our disunity would remain?
Anyway. I don’t love the disunity. I think it would be preferable for us to back away as a people from certain doctrines that have been rising in recent years. Specifically, speech is not violence, period paragraph. We ought to cultivate the maturity, self discipline, and fortitude as a people to listen to points of view we disagree with, even those we find repugnant. …
Crud got more to say but out of time. I be back later. 🙂
I don’t know what this Q stuff is, but here’s the general idea for why Trump is so recalcitrant.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1016097462107291649.html
OK_Max
That’s supposed to be the reason. If true, it mean that
(a) taking it away wouldn’t hurt Brennan
(b) if the executive branch no longer wants any help from Brennan, and would prefer to ensure those employed to carry out the decisions of the executive branch don’t want people conferring with Brennan, yanking his clearance would be a reasonable and even wise thing to do. No harm could come to the executive branch by yanking that clearance.
Obviously, this is irrelevant to Comey, Brennan, Clapper who no longer work for FBI, CIA and so on. Potentially it applies to Ohr, who may be fired (and then have his clearance yanked.)
FWIW: Everyone with a clearance always has a possibility of losing the clearance if they (a) do their job wrong or (b) do something stupid like perhaps even getting arrested for drunk driving. Losing the clearance prevents someone from doing their job. The threat not so much.
The president is the head of the executive branch.
MikeN,
Trump should just declassify stuff.
mark bofill (Comment #169920)
August 17th, 2018 at 3:46 pm
Max,
I still think Trump is more of the symbol or … the shorthand representation of our disunity than the root cause, but I could be wrong. Maybe people truly love or hate Trump specifically more than I realize. Do you not think that were Thor to lightning down the Donald tonight and Pence take office, our disunity would remain?
______
Good question. Pence might stoke the disunity less than Trump.
I agree Trump is not the root cause of disunity, but he’s doing
little to promote unity.
12M believe lizard people run the country. Real stat. This just means somewhere below 10% of poll questions aren’t going to be reliable for anything. Another portion of the people just shortcut poll questions to “do I support or not support Trump” and answer accordingly regardless of the policy question at hand. “Do you support Trump’s …” Yes. Designing fair poll questions is hard, and partisan pollers work it the wrong way.
OK_Max,
I have never heard anyone utter the words “I can’t understand why people don’t like Trump”. I didn’t like Obama’s policies but I didn’t really dislike his style (except when it came to things like if you like your doctor). I like Trump’s policies but dislike his style (except when it comes to things like making the other side embarrass themselves). Policies are what matter to me, and style is second. Perhaps style makes a real difference to some people and diplomacy.
I’d rather have a sane Trump, but policy is what matters and it has been disingenuous of the media to pretend that style is all that matters, and rarely if ever contemplating whether Trump is following through on his policy pledges or being effective for conservatives.
Max ,
Yes. Trump does not promote unity all that well. He goes after things on Twitter that prior presidents would have ignored.
The NYT argues it’s illegal for a President to revoke a security clearance, ha ha. This clearance is a right!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/opinion/illegal-trump-revoke-brennan-security-clearance.html
.
You want TDS:
Trump: “I want to begin today by expressing my condolences to the family of a person I knew well, she worked for me on numerous occasions. She was terrific—Aretha Franklin—on her passing. She brought joy to millions of lives and her extraordinary legacy will
thrive and inspire many generations to come.â€
Response:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/aretha-franklin-trump/567760/
Regarding style vs. policy, my guess is almost all people who dislike Trump’s policies also dislike his style, and the majority of people who don’t have strong feelings about policy also dislike his style.
I like nothing about Trump’s style, and I have opposed his policies, with two possible exceptions. A peaceful settlement with N. Korea and zero tariffs with trading partners are goals I believe in, so I would favor Trump policies to achieve those goals, unless I found the details objectionable or the costs to great.
My previous post was in reply to Tom Scharf (Comment #169926)
Tom, I’m sorry for my oversight
Tom Scharf,
I’m sure there’s a federal judge out there that would grant Brennan an injunction.
Mark Bofill (Comment #169927): “Trump does not promote unity all that well. He goes after things on Twitter that prior presidents would have ignored.”
There is no possible way for Trump to promote unity. Or for anyone pushing conservative and/or populist ideas to promote unity. Because any such person would be demonized by the Dems and their allies in the press.
President Pence would be demonized just as much as Trump. For crying out loud, Mitt Romney was demonized.
Trump certainly tweets on topics that President Romney would have ignored. But Romney lost and Trump won. I strongly suspect those two things are linked.
Trump has found a way to counteract the establishment and the press. It ain’t pretty, but it works better than any alternative.
Mike,
Unfortunately for me, I was still too young during both Reagan’s terms that I wasn’t paying much attention to what was going on. I’m under the impression that Reagan did a reasonable job of uniting the country. Granted, this was 30-40 years ago. Is this impossible today? I don’t really know – I wasn’t paying attention.
I can conceive of both a yes and no answer to this. Neither seem preposterous to me. I believe the landscape has changed somewhat since Reagan’s day in real ways. I don’t know.
What do you think of this?
On Date August 16, 2018 SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS:
HANNITY: Now, for anyone who thinks that that man, that Trump-hating partisan, MSNBC hack, should have a security clearance — let me make this very simple and easy to understand. And, by the way, I will read to you to the official CIA rules.
– the rules of the CIA are. Quote:
“In the case of former directors, the agency holds their security clearance and renews it every five years for the rest of their life. However, that requires former CIA directors to behave like the current CIA employees.”
mark bofill (Comment #169933): “I’m under the impression that Reagan did a reasonable job of uniting the country. Granted, this was 30-40 years ago. Is this impossible today?”
.
The U.S. was nowhere near as polarized in the 70’s as in this century. The party’s were not nearly as polarized; there were some very conservative Democrats and very liberal Republicans. The culture wars and the sorting of the two parties did not really start until the 80’s.
,
Nevertheless Reagan was demonized at the time. Nothing like Trump or even Bush II, but the press depicted him as a dangerous, ignorant, buffoon. That was, I think, because he challenged the then established status quo. However, he was successful and was such a nice guy that he somewhat diffused the opposition by the end of his two terms. But only somewhat; he did not really get treated fairly until after he was out of office and the USSR came apart.
.
I think now there is no hope of reconciliation until the left goes so far that they lose all credibility. Or until the likes of you and me are marched off to the re-education camps.
I no longer see the “edit” option, even immediately after posting. Am I alone in that?
MikeM,
I see it when I’m logged in. But that doesn’t mean everyone can. If others don’t see it, I can look for another plugin tomorrow.
Mark Bofill (Comment #169927)
“Yes. Trump does not promote unity all that well. He goes after things on Twitter that prior presidents would have ignored.”
–
But they all twitter. Every single last politician. They must have special twitter units setup. Or they are twits or both.
angech (Comment #169934)
August 17th, 2018 at 8:18 pm
On Date August 16, 2018 SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS:
HANNITY: I will read to you to the official CIA rules.
– the rules of the CIA are. Quote:
“In the case of former directors, the agency holds their security clearance and renews it every five years for the rest of their life. However, that requires former CIA directors to behave like the current CIA employees.â€
———————————————-
I’m surprised the CIA isn’t more specific about what is expected of former CIA directors who want to keep their security clearances.
The requirement they “behave like current CIA employees†is
vague, but would have to cover behavior that could put security
at risk (revealing secrets, drug or alcohol addiction, fraternizing
with foreign agents,and getting deep into debt, to name a few).
I don’t know if critizing the president is prohibited behavior for
for current CIA employees or former directors.
> I’m under the impression that Reagan did a reasonable job of uniting the country.
The media was very hostile towards Reagan as well.
I e-mailed Steve Hayward, author of The Age of Reagan
If you substitute Trump’s name with Reagan’s how similar are the Trump is incompetent, insane, 25th Amendment stories?
Response: Close enough.
and
I asked my teacher, and she didn’t think the media was quite as biased back then.
Response: Your teacher is wrong.
OK_Max (Comment #169939)
“I don’t know if criticizing the president is prohibited behavior for
for current CIA employees or former directors.”‘
Umm.
Really?
There is a difference of course between unsolicited, unpaid criticism between FBI friends which might be your interpretation.
I am sure that CIA directors and staff are actually held to, professionally, what did James Comey call his book?
A higher standard.
Furthermore I am sure it is spelled out in gold plate legalese.
That is what makes Comey such a fool to actually put it in a book everyone can read and judge. The same for Brennan’s tweets.
Senility or hubris.
Spies are supposed to stay quiet, full stop.
It is just like that poor Greek guy trying to deny knowledge that the FBI or CIA had fed him.
Or Trump talking to Mueller.
Wrong and foolish.
Mike M,
“I think now there is no hope of reconciliation until the left goes so far that they lose all credibility. Or until the likes of you and me are marched off to the re-education camps.”
.
Seems to me the problem is that educators have been trying for a long time to diminish students’ exposure to the history of the USA, the constitution, historical juries prudence, and how the country developed. So now we have know-nothings like Ocasio-Cortez being elected to office. If you and your ilk (and me) are not going to be marched off to re-education camps, it is going to take a change in public education, something that I (sadly) don’t see happening. Heck, when I was 12 my sixth grade teacher was a screaming leftist (in Massachusetts, of course), and made sure the class was exposed to literature (not part of the curriculum) endorsing leftist views and white guilt for slavery in the 19th century. The inmates are in charge of the asylum, and the curriculum reflects that sorry fact.
lucia (Comment #169937): “I see it when I’m logged in. But that doesn’t mean everyone can. If others don’t see it, I can look for another plugin tomorrow.”
Logged in? Real question. I don’t see a way to do that, unless that is what happens when I enter my name and email when writing a comment.
The only scripts I am blocking here are the ones from google (gmodule). I noticed that the sites cookies were being autodeleted; so I changed that. If that makes it possible for me to edit, I will add a note to that effect. No note means no edit.
It’s easier to have unity when you have a clear and convincing foreign threat to your existence, the USSR. Their stated goal was to spread communism throughout the world and they used every available avenue to do it, as well as a stockpile of 10,000 nuclear warheads. The outcome of this was very much in doubt for decades. Too many people mistake what Russia is today for what the USSR was in the 20th century. Nothing unites like a shared threat.
The latest Chicago financial engineering scam. They are trying to borrow money to backfill the pension hole. This is of course another shell game to avoid having to use taxpayer revenue now to fill that hole. This would reduce their pension payments because the liabilities would technically be smaller (keep your eye on the ball). They would be obligated to make yearly payments on these new bonds plus interest, but that comes from a different pool of money.
.
Why on earth would this make sense? For Chicago it means that when they default it will be these bond buyers who take the loss and not the pensioners. Sounds great for everyone except any fool who would buy these bonds.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chicago-has-another-bond-for-you-1534546800
MikeN (Comment #169940): “The media was very hostile towards Reagan as well.”
Yes, the media were hostile toward Reagan. But it was nothing like their hostility toward Trump. Or even Bush the Younger.
.
MikeN: “If you substitute Trump’s name with Reagan’s how similar are the Trump is incompetent, insane, 25th Amendment stories?
Response: Close enough.”
I very much disagree. I don’t doubt that you can find stores from the 80’s for which that is true. But they would be the exception, not the rule. The Dems had large majorities in the House, but no one suggested impeachment. There was disdain for the man, but there were no claims that Reagan was a threat to Democracy or a would-be dictator. There were no claims that he was in league with our enemies. There were concerns that he might tick off the Soviets and start a nuclear war, at least until ReykjavÃk. His Strategic Defense Initiative was uniformly ridiculed, but even that does not come close to what we see with Trump. I don’t recall any calls for using the 25th Amendment, although during his second term concerns were expressed that he had become too old for the job.
.
MikeN: “I asked my teacher, and she didn’t think the media was quite as biased back then.”
Your teacher is correct. They were biased, but they tried not to show it and tried to be even handed.
.
p.s. for lucia: Still no edit, so it was not the cookies.
MikeM
You can’t log in. Only authors and administrators can. So SteveF, JD_Ohio and so on have been given “author” access and can log in. Most people can’t.
Tom Scharf
Glad I’m in the ‘burbs. 🙂
At this point, no one should buy Chicago bonds of any sort. I certainly wouldn’t!
Maybe. Having never filed bankruptcy and not working in the area, I don’t know what judges rule in bankruptcy proceedings. I have no idea if the judges ‘recognize’ different “pools” of money. I also have no idea if the “pension fund” is still owned by the city of if they actually give money to some external company (like an insurance company who then pays out annunities) to hold for them.
If the city still ‘owns’ that money, it might just be an “asset”, and maybe judges see assets as assets. I’m sure judges see most assets as assets in a private bankruptcy. I don’t think a private person can just say “Hey, I don’t have money to pay the mortgage! That $2 milliion in the the checking account. I’ve called that my “vacation” fund to pay for all my bucket-list activities”. It may well be a city can’t get away with that either. Or not. I have no idea.
Most of the time I can edit (without logging in). Once in a while the function disappears.
lucia: “I have no idea if the judges ‘recognize’ different “pools†of money. I also have no idea if the “pension fund†is still owned by the city of if they actually give money to some external company (like an insurance company who then pays out annunities) to hold for them.”
I am pretty sure that the money actually in the pension fund belongs to the pensioners and can not be used to pay the city’s debts. The issue is that there is not enough money in the fund to pay the promised pensions. Pensioners may be treated as just another creditor with respect to receiving that promised money.
If they issue bonds and put the money in the pension fund, the pensioners should be safe. But as Tom says, it would seem that only a fool would buy those bonds.
MikeM
I’m trying to figure out if this is true. I’ve googled a bit… still not sure.
https://www.ctunet.com/legislative/protect-our-pensions/questions-answers-about-the-chicago-teachers-pension-fund
So CTPF administers the funds. That’s not the same as owning them. ( U chicago operates Argonne National Lab. It does not own it and so on.)
I haven’t read anything that discusses who owns the pool of money. If you have something, it would be interesting to read.
MikeM, that was my assumption, but I had heard stories, like journalists celebrating when he was shot. I didn’t think it was possible to be as hostile as towards Trump. Steve Hayward wrote two big books on Reagan so his opinion makes me consider maybe it was as bad. Reagan faced his own third party Republican challenge from John Anderson.
Memories can fade. Even W had quite a bit of hostility. Even before Iraq War, there were protests of Ashcroft and Bush as fascists.
angech (Comment #169941)
“Spies are supposed to stay quiet, full stop.”
______
Anyone having a security clearance( including spies) is subject to
penalties for breaching security, and not staying quiet about
classified information would be a breach and against the law.
But I’m not aware of any law that says criticizing the president
is a breach of security if you hold a security clearance, unless of course, the criticism contained classified information.
On Reagan,
He had a light gentle touch with critics. It was possible to disagree with his politics– even violently. He was divorced, and some people didn’t like that. But there weren’t stories of his keeping his mistress in a hotel room upstairs from his current wife. He didn’t say piggish things. But it was hard to actually hate him.
Trump acts like a junk yard dog, attacking fairly often. He says pigging things — like grabbing women by the pussy. He is not just divorced but his first divorce involved behavior that was public and raised people’s eyebrows. It’s easy for people to dislike, hate or despise him. Many do.
Whether the nation is actually more polarized than during the 80s, I can’t say. I think it was just as polarized during the Obama administration but the press liked Obama while those who disliked him did not yet have large outlets making their views visible.
I think some people (e.g. “She who called others deplorable”) were blithely unaware of how polarized things were, and as a result just went around saying “things” that increased polarization. The took a certain amount of silence as lack of polarization. Until. Nov. 2016.
That said: many people seriously dislike the current president and dislike him on a level that is not even political. The press as a whole dislikes him. He acts very aggressively towards other people, that makes the polarization very evident. But I think it pre-existed him and is part of the reason he was elected.
Max_OK,
Here’s a way to view it:
I think there is something of an expectation that those in the FBI, CIA, IRS and so on not be overtly partisan. It’s true they aren’t forbidden to criticize individual politicians. But it’s hard to distinguish virulent criticism of a sitting president and partisanship. You would not expect the head of the FBI, CIA, IRS and so on to keep their jobs if they were openly criticizing the sitting president; it is their job to serve and carryout his orders and policies.
If they did not serve and did not carry out orders, they would be expected to resign. I think the same would be said if they carried them out, but were accusing the sitting president of treason.
To keep his clearance, the former head of FBI, CIA and so on is supposed to conform to behavior expected of current heads. Which would be: no vitriolic criticism of the president.
I don’t know if this is the right view, but it is one that can be put forward given the stated policy. If that’s the correct view, it’s entirely justified to yank the clearances of people– who like Brennan– are openly critiizing the president. (I think Brennan used terms like “treason”. This isn’t minor.)
Mike M. (Comment #169932)
“There is no possible way for Trump to promote unity. Or for anyone pushing conservative and/or populist ideas to promote unity.”
____
MikeM, unity requires compromise. The Parties don’t do it much.
I think it better both sides be a little satisfied and a little dissatisfied
than one side be very satisfied and the other very dissatisfied.
Heh
So, nothing short of treason ≠treason. Heh.
Lucia,
“…many people seriously dislike the current president and dislike him on a level that is not even political.”
.
For sure. The self-aggrandizing, the p
That time the edit function failed.
The self aggrandizing, the childish reaction to all criticism, the crude behavior, etc offend many. But no other Republican was offering anything except a guarantee that we would have the first career criminal and first woman as president, and worse, a continuation of disastrous Obama policies. It was a hold-your-nose vote for many.
Lucia,
Brennan’s behavior is consistent with someone who fears criminal prosecution. The fear may be quite rational; he clearly was a very bad actor when in office.
OK_Max (Comment #169956): “unity requires compromise. The Parties don’t do it much.
I think it better both sides be a little satisfied and a little dissatisfied
than one side be very satisfied and the other very dissatisfied.”
I agree. I also think that it is in Trump’s nature to compromise. He will drive a tough bargain, but in the end he wants a deal. The “resistance” never gave him a chance to do that. They declared their opposition right after the election, and have never let up. So, as lucia says, Trump attacks like a junkyard dog; his choices are limited to that and being entirely ineffective. That is why I accept Trump’s style even though I dislike it.
Being an employed high level CIA administrator and making the rounds on cable TV and harshly criticizing your boss would be career limiting, and a President should immediately fire anyone who did it that was appointed.
.
I know this doesn’t really need to be said but: Trump is no Reagan. Reagan did the aw shucks trustworthy grandfather act to perfection.
.
I have closely followed the news since the 1980’s and my perception is the media is much, much, nastier. 300 newspapers colluding to bash the President in the 1980’s would have been a scandal, and journalists would never have done it even if it was Trump. They didn’t do things like that even during Watergate.
CNN was straight laced by the book global journalism.
Things have changed though. Multiple 24 hour channels, social media, the Internet, so they must really compete at a base level to survive. People love outrage and so they serve it up.
They really didn’t go hyper-partisan until Obama with fawning coverage, followed by a united “danger to democracy” blatant biased coverage with Trump. They aren’t even trying to hide it anymore. How SAD! is it that they have resorted to telling us what we need to think about journalists.
.
I think the nation appears more polarized because they keep being told the other side hates them and the media gives the microphones to angry polemicists. There was a time when an angry panel of people yelling at each other and showing no respect on TV was considered bad journalism.
lucia (Comment #169955)
To keep his clearance, the former head of FBI, CIA and so on is supposed to conform to behavior expected of current heads. Which would be: no vitriolic criticism of the president.
I don’t know if this is the right view, but it is one that can be put forward given the stated policy. If that’s the correct view, it’s entirely justified to yank the clearances of people– who like Brennan– are openly critiizing the president. (I think Brennan used terms like “treasonâ€. This isn’t minor.)
________
Good point. But both former and current officials of these agencies
should not ignore what they believe to be criminal behavior by the
President or behavior that while not criminal they see as a threat to
the nations security. That doesn’t mean current officials who have
evidence of misdeeds by the president can expect to be openly critical of him without being fired.
Former officials, on the other hand, need only fear loosing their security clearance for speaking out against the president for any reason. Removing their security clearance does’t stop them from speaking out. All it does is prevent current officials from revealing classified information to them.
One could point out that what is called #Resistance now was called #Obstruction when the right was doing it. This is just another example of media framing bias.
Brennan knows FBI & CIA folks can’t expect to get away with publicly, openly and loudly accusing the sitting president of treason. He knows they’d be asked to resign.
For that matter: There’s a reason Comey didn’t write his book while still at the FBI. That wouldn’t be tolerated in a current high level employee of the FBI.
It’s not hard to make the case that Brennan and Comey’s current behavior would not be tolerated in a current employee. If the condition of keeping the clearance is to conform to behavior of a current employee, then they don’t merit the courtesy of a clearance as stated in policy.
Does that sort of squelch speech? Sort of.
But some squelching is allowed.
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/free-speech-and-government-employees-overview/
Consider if the current director (or high ranking official) in the FBI, CIA accused the president of treason, and the 3rd test for speech by gov’t. employees (The first two don’t matter in this case, because they just bump things to the 3rd and final tests.)
The sitting president may be the immediate superior of the head of the CIA. Would the head of the CIA accusing the president of treason
* create a disharmonious relation in the working relationship with the president? Yes.
*undermine Presidents’s discipline over the employee?
Yes.
*compromise the loyalty and confidence required of close working employees
Yes. In spades. I don’t see how the President can have confidence or expect loyalty of Brennan given what Brennan is saying publicly.
This sort of behavior would not be tolerated in someone currently heading the CIA or FBI. I’m pretty sure it would be acceptable to fire them without anyone calling it a violation of the 1st Amendment.
If the standard for keeping the clearance is conforming to expectations of the former job Brennan was not conforming to that . By policy, it seems his clearance should be yanked. He isn’t after all fired– because he’s not an employee. But the reason he is supposedly permitted to keep it is to continue to provide loyal service to the administration and to do so in a way that permits the current president to have confidence in his advise.
OK_Max
Precisely. People will often step down from these jobs if they can no longer support the President.
DeeDee Myers did not openly criticize Clinton when she stepped down. But I think I remember watching a TV show where she was a guest speaker. Then a fresh (and likely new to her) clip came on …. tv break. She was gone. Iwas like… whoa!!! She left the show.
Then she resigned. I think she needed to be closer to her family…. Or something…
And of course they can no longer “help” the nation with their expertise. But I think under the circumstances it’s safe to say the current president has reason to not trust that Brennan is committed to helping this administration and has every reason to fear he would undermine it if he could.
If he were current head of the CIA he’d be fired and we probably wouldn’t be hearing people complaining about the 1st amendment issue. Now he’s just having his clearance yanked.
You would have to be a complete fool to believe you could go to the media and say things like that, much based on speculation, opinion and/or without showing any evidence and expect there to be no career blowback. Professionals act professionally in trying times, that’s what makes them professional. Mueller is acting professional, he keeps his mouth shut and leaks contained. I may not end up liking his conclusions, but he isn’t acting like an unhinged partisan fool.
The line of ex-employees who think any behavior is justified and the rules should no longer apply “because Trump” is getting pretty long.
#obstruction was against what republicans saw as wrong. #resistance is against what democrats describe as evil. The type of response is therefore quite different. One was politics albeit heavily partisan. The other is personal.
Tom Scharf,
Exactly. Trump might actually like Mueller to go off like Brennan. It would give him a good excuse to fire him. But the fact is, Mueller is acting professionally at least as far as anyone can tell. If he’s doing anything unprofessional, he’s hiding it well.
They can have wide latitude provided they aren’t keeping the connection of supposedly continuing to “serve”. If they aren’t serving but are undermining the current administration, they shouldn’t have clearances. This is not hard.
I don’t like Trump, but he’s not wrong on this.
As for regaining them: supposedly they can’t get them back. But that’s something in an executive order. So it could be changed by executive order or Congressional action.
lucia (Comment #169966)
“And of course they can no longer “help†the nation with their expertise. But I think under the circumstances it’s safe to say the current president has reason to not trust that Brennan is committed to helping this administration and has every reason to fear he would undermine it if he could.
If he were current head of the CIA he’d be fired and we probably wouldn’t be hearing people complaining about the 1st amendment issue. Now he’s just having his clearance yanked.”
______
Not having Brennan’s expertise could weaken the nation’s security.
I’m not saying it necessarily would, but he is a valuable resource.
Current CIA officials still should be able to seek his advice, providing
they don’t reveal classified information, but they probably wouldn’t
because associating with him could displease Trump.
While Trump may have had reasons(other than revenge) to remove
Brennan’s security clearance, I see two costs:
1. It might appear Trump didn’t want Brennan to have access to future classified information that could be damaging to him or
his administration, which suggests such information could exist.
2. Removing Brennan’s security clearance did not set well with
many in the intelligence community. Giving this community
reasons to not like you seems like a bad idea.
OK_Max
At least hypothetically. But there’s a tension between his expertise and whether, given is behavior, the nations’ current administration can have confidence he will use it to enhance security. That’s the rub.
Bear in mind: if he died, we could probably figure out what to do without his expertise. So it’s not necessarily a unique thing.
I agree there is also an appearance problem. But strictly speaking Trump didn’t need to yank the clearance to prevent Brennan from having access to future classified info. He could just order CIA & FBI not to deal with him.
I also agree yanking the clearance probably does not sit well with at least some in the intelligence community. It may sit perfectly well with others.
As far as I can tell, vocal people — or at least those who have been quoted– have been former staff and members of Congress. I don’t consider people in either category members of the intelligence community. So they aren’t evidence for how this sits with the intelligence community. What the preponderance of current members of the intelligence community think is not something we can know for sure.
I haven’t heard of any resignations by members of the intelligence community over this action.
I agree. As they can seek anyone’s advice. Maybe they won’t consult with him for that reason.
There are things Trump does that are sub-optimal. No doubt about that. But the rhetoric we are getting around this isn’t saying this move is perhaps sub-optimal. It’s pretty strong.
Is it possible for McRaven to give up his clearance? If yes, I’ll believe he will consider it an honor to have it yanked when he takes whatever steps required to for him to give it up.
Fun fact: There have been 14,597 calls in SF to report human poop on the sidewalk so far this year. Welcome to progressive paradise, ha ha.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-francisco-poop-problem-inequality-homelessness
.
“The incidents are part of a broader failure of the city to provide for the basic needs of its citizens, and show the catastrophic, socially destructive effects of unchecked inequality.”
Apologies if I’ve said this already, but I’m going to throw out another conspiracy theory.
Mueller interviewed with Trump to be head of the FBI the day before he was named special counsel. Rod Rosenstein was at this interview.
Because of term limits, Mueller could only be head of FBI if Congress passed a waiver.
Is it possible Rosenstein and Mueller fooled Trump at this interview, telling him that if we appoint this special counsel, we can clear you of the Russia witch-hunt?
Well, that is not the conspiracy theory I am suggesting. Instead, is it possible that Mueller is working for Trump, and all this was plotted with Rosenstein. Trump has not blocked a single witness interview. There is no accusation of obstruction of justice as Trump goes after the team in the FBI and DOJ who was spying on him, as it is all being handled by the Special Counsel now. Meanwhile, Mueller gets a team of angry Democrats and can see everyone who talks to them.
Michael Flynn is not acting like he’s about to go to jail, signing with a consulting firm.
Papadopolous just tweeted ‘tick tock’, and is making noises about dropping his plea deal.
MikeN,
Possible? Sure. That theory doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermo after all.
I’m pretty skeptical of a complicated theory that involve newly elected Trump playing three dimensional chess and which involve him almost magically getting the cooperation of two people important people who were in no way connected to Trump before the election and so on and so on. So I doubt Mueller was working for and that both Mueller and Rosenstein plotted with Trump in some complicated scheme to clear Trump.
MikeN (Comment #169974): “Instead, is it possible that Mueller is working for Trump, and all this was plotted with Rosenstein. Trump has not blocked a single witness interview. There is no accusation of obstruction of justice as Trump goes after the team in the FBI and DOJ who was spying on him, as it is all being handled by the Special Counsel now.”
There is a lot of evidence against that. Members of the anti-Trump contingent at the FBI had high positions in the Mueller team. The Mueller team is entirely composed of Democrats. Those Democrats have not been rebelling against Mueller. There are trumped up prosecutions against Flynn, Manafort, etc. The investigation has not been wrapped up; that makes it seem like there is something to find rather than admitting that there is nothing to find.
From the Grauniad via Tom Scharf (Comment #169973): “The incidents are part of a broader failure of the city to provide for the basic needs of its citizens, and show the catastrophic, socially destructive effects of unchecked inequality.â€
The article manages to not mention that San Francisco is the most “liberal” and “progressive” city in the U.S. It also does not mention all the hypodermic needles littering the streets; less disgusting but probably more dangerous than the poop. Sounds like people need sanctuary from the sanctuary city.
Tom Scharf (Comment #169973)
August 18th, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Fun fact: There have been 14,597 calls in SF to report human poop on the sidewalk so far this year. Welcome to progressive paradise, ha ha.
_______
Give the homeless no place to answer nature’s call and they will leave? No, they won’t. Sounds like a failed unintentional experiment in getting rid of the homeless.
Solution: More public restrooms.
Solution: Provide no services for the homeless. Let other places deal with the problem.
Solution: Make panhandling illegal.
Solution: Make being homeless illegal.
Solution: Stop being a wealthy city with moderate climate.
Interesting discussions today, sorry I missed participating in them. Thanks to all who responded regarding Reagan.
The last 2 years has been like living on the edge of a soap opera.
Reality is pretty Blegh at times. So one of the saving graces for me has been this fantastic, enervating dance of death between Trump and the deep state [if it exists].
I thought he would last 3 months.
The amount of vitriol thrown post election far outweighs the pre election stuff and yet he so far survives. Any one of 100 spinning plates would seem to be enough to bring him down.
It is funny that the only reason I feel involved is because of my contrarian viewpoint on climate change. And that only because I like to support the underdog. People with missions to push always seem to go too many steps too far.
So Arctic ice this year jury still out, thick ice, small extent, heat should go to space and extent should stall.
Bruce Ohr, 10 days til questioned. Will Trump last that long, Will Sessions act, Will anything actually ever happen.
Usual day check ATTP, check something deplorable, check Delingpole and the real clear poll and look over here.
Who needs a life?
Brennan today: “I don’t believe I’m being political at all.”.
.
One critic of Trump’s decision, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, told CNN on Sunday that the relationship between Trump and the intelligence community was “dangerously close to being permanently broken; it is badly injured right now.”
.
There isn’t a two way relationship. You work for and report directly to the President. If you don’t like it, quit. You aren’t the only person who ever had to do their job while not liking their boss, stop being a petulant baby. Trump may be a 5 year old, but he has successfully shown there is quite a few more 5 year olds at top levels in our government.
I post this cornucopia of strangeness without any further comment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/style/white-guilt-privilege.html
While everyone was in an inconsequential Brennan tizzy, a consequential announcement that rules for coal plants were going to be rewritten was met with relatively little outrage.
Heh, more of the same. If you’re not with us and bend the knee, you’re a white supremacist. The irony is you don’t even need to be white to be a white supremacist. “POC” who argue against this twisted ideology are also white supremacists! It’s really quite an inclusive club!
Tom Scharf (Comment #169973)
August 18th, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Fun fact: There have been 14,597 calls in SF to report human poop on the sidewalk so far this year. Welcome to progressive paradise, ha ha.
_____
My previous reply to Tom’s comment now seems flippant to me,
disrespectful to San Francisco and its homeless.I will try to do
better here.
I wouldn’t say San Francisco is a paradise, but with living space going for $1,057 per square foot (Zillow June 2018 median)it must be very appealing, and it’s popularity is growing. An article in Business
Insider said â€San Francisco’s tech boom is so expansive that the city’s median home price rose by $205,000 in the first half of 2018, one of the biggest swells in its history.
The homeless can’t compete for space with the growing number of high-income people who want to live in the city. Space is limited because the city is surrounded by water on three side. The gentrification of poorer neighborhoods is leaving the homeless
with fewer areas where they can inconspicuously answer natures call.
More housing for San Francisco’s homeless seems like an obvious solution. Given the astronomical price of real estate it is a very
expensive solution. Fortunately, the city has wealthy taxpayers.
Max, I read an article decades ago in Massachusetts that some officials were buying one-way bus tickets to Texas.
MikeN, seems I recall reading about SLC inducing their homeless to leave town. Other cities should be glad SF doesn’t do that.
The linked 2017 article says San Francisco has bought one-way tickets out of town for the homeless, giving one man a ticket
to Indianapolis.
This practice could be helpful to a homeless person who wanted to
go to another place.
Woops, forgot to give the link. Here it is
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study
Tom Scharf (Comment #169981)
Of course not. He is merely standing up for truth and justice, whereas those who think differently are mere deplorables.
It is a very revealing quote, not just By showing Brennan’s self-righteousness, but also be illustrating why the left is such a danger to democracy.
San Francisco has been crazy expensive for a long time, in no small part due to progressive policies that drive up housing costs. But problems with poop and needles in the streets, aggressive panhandling, and dead bodies lying around have skyrocketed recently. That would not seem to be due to housing costs.
.
In any case, I don’t see where homelessness has much to do with housing costs. The homeless are typically not hardworking people who can not afford an apartment. They tend to be the mentally ill, drug addicts, and others who are unable or unwilling to be a functioning part of society.
.
SF has long been an attractive place for such dregs, but has become much more attractive due to extreme soft on crime policies. A place where drug laws are not enforced will attract addicts. A place where illegal immigrants are protected will attract illegals. And so on. They are beginning to reap the whirlwind of foolish policies.
OK_Max,
Guess what happens every time somebody in SF proposes low cost or high density new development? It is virulently fought by the local ascendant who endlessly try to help others. If only the heartless Republicans weren’t so mean. There are endless local building restrictions and requirements to effectively prevent any new development. They would love to fix the problem, just not in their neighborhood. CA proposed a law that would override local restrictions for low cost / high density dwelling near public transportation, it was eventually defeated and I’m guessing it wasn’t defeated by the homeless.
.
https://slate.com/business/2018/04/why-sb-827-californias-radical-affordable-housing-bill-was-so-unpopular.html
“Opposed by virtually every Californian in a position of power”
John Brennan has had many problems during his tour of duty with the US government that the left appears to have conveniently forgotten for the moment and that the right mostly appears hesitant to point out. The link below discusses a few of these problems but there are others.
Partisan politics requires that objective viewers in order to remain objective must measure what they hear by way of politicians and the mass media. It is analogous to what is required to obtain an objective view of climate science these days by way of climate science papers. It is not about false statements but rather about the spin and what is left out.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-08-16/trump-is-not-trying-to-silence-john-brennan
Mike M. (Comment #169991)
August 19th, 2018 at 2:59 pm
“San Francisco has been crazy expensive for a long time, in no small part due to progressive policies that drive up housing costs. But problems with poop and needles in the streets, aggressive panhandling, and dead bodies lying around have skyrocketed recently. That would not seem to be due to housing costs.”
________
San Francisco’s problem with the homeless pooping on the streets is a housing related problem. If a homeless person lives in a tent, as many of the city’s homeless do, and is prohibited from using toilets in restaurants and other retail places, where is he going to relieve himself ? There are cities with larger homeless populations that report less of a street pooping problem, which suggests they house the homeless better than San Francisco and/or have more accessible public restrooms.
I was surprised to find that San Francisco, known for being soft on crime and a sanctuary for drug addicts and illegal immigrants, had a lower murder rate than two-thirds of large American cities in 2017. It had a lower murder rate than 55 cities and a higher rate than 24 cities in my count from the following source:
https://www.thetrace.org/2018/04/highest-murder-rates-us-cities-list/
I also was surprised to find two cities I thought were fairly safe, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, with murder rates of 18.7 and 12.7 per 100,000 residents, respectively, were not as safe as San Francisco which had a rate of 6.5.
San Francisco does have a high rate of property crime (theft). It ranked third among large cities in 2015, only Tuscan and St. Louis had higher rates of property crime. I couldn’t find more recent data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
Tom Scharf (Comment #169992)
August 19th, 2018 at 3:16 pm
OK_Max,
“Guess what happens every time somebody in SF proposes low cost or high density new development? It is virulently fought by the local ascendant who endlessly try to help others.”
______
That’s me. I’m against anything that hurts my property.
Tom, thanks for the link. The slate.com piece was interesting.
SteveF (Comment #169913) “As they used to say on radio game shows… that is the $64 question.”
.
Google knows the answer. In the forties there was a radio program called “Take It or Leave It” and the grand prize was 64 silver dollars.
.
In the fifties there was a TV show called “The $64,000 Question” and clones. Those quiz shows are remembered for the scandals.
.
Sort of like more recent presidential debates.
OK_Max,
Lack of large low incomes areas and demographics are likely the explanation for SF’s lower crime rate. If you cross the bay bridge to Oakland the murder rate more than triples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco
Max,
My impression is that homelessness turns into a complicated problem pretty quickly as you dive into it. There are subcategories (vets with psychological problems vs recently unemployed people sleeping in cars) for which the root problems are different and thus the likely remedies are different. It’s hard to talk about in general terms in a meaningful / useful way. Which is why I mostly avoid talking about it. :/
FWIW, I don’t throw stones at SF for the poop problem. I don’t know enough about that situation to have an opinion.
Paris installs public urinals on the street.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/paris-installs-completely-exposed-urinals-near-popular-tourist-spots.html
.
Obviously SF could just put a bunch of port-a-potties on the corners. I suppose they don’t want to encourage the problem, but they seem to be losing that battle in the wrong way.
OK_Max (Comment #169994): “San Francisco’s problem with the homeless pooping on the streets is a housing related problem. … There are cities with larger homeless populations that report less of a street pooping problem, which suggests they house the homeless better than San Francisco …”
.
I am not sure what OK_Max means here since “housing the homeless” seems oxymoronic. I think that what he is trying to say is that although some cities have more homeless than San Francisco, they have far fewer “unsheltered homeless” than San Francisco. This report supports that claim: https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2017-10-23/homelessness-bay-area
It is long and so far I have only looked at the figures.
.
The homeless lack housing in the sense of living space that is legally theirs, whether owned or rented. But homelessness does not seem to be primarily a housing problem; it is mostly a mental health problem. The issue (at least for chronic homelessness) is not so much a lack of housing as people being unable to do the things (including applying for welfare) that would enable them to have housing.
.
The homeless can be classified as “sheltered” or “unsheltered”, the latter would be the ones responsible for things like poop in the streets. San Francisco has a huge number of unsheltered homeless. Maybe that is because they refuse to provide shelters, but then why don’t those people go to a neighboring community with shelters? Maybe the above report provides an answer.
.
I suspect that most of the unsheltered homeless are unsheltered by choice. Shelters have rules. Some people, such as drug addicts, are unable or unwilling to abide by those rules. I suspect that San Francisco has huge numbers of such people. Certainly something is different there other than high housing costs.
OK_Max (Comment #169994): “I was surprised to find that San Francisco, known for being soft on crime and a sanctuary for drug addicts and illegal immigrants, had a lower murder rate than two-thirds of large American cities … I also was surprised to find two cities I thought were fairly safe, Tulsa and Oklahoma City, … were not as safe as San Francisco …”
San Francisco is 6% black, compared to 15% in Oklahoma City and 16% in Tulsa. That probably accounts for much of the difference in murder rate, especially when one considers that the blacks in San Francisco are probably much more likely to be middle or upper class. On the other hand, Asians have far lower murder rates than other ethnic groups and San Francisco is 33% Asian.
I don’t think that either the homeless are much associated with murder. I think that murders are mostly domestic violence or committed by gangs and other career criminals. The Oklahoma cities have large American Indian populations, associated, I think, with high rates of domestic violence.
.
OK_Max: “San Francisco does have a high rate of property crime (theft).”
That is something I would associate with homelessness, drug addicts, and a certain subgroup of illegal immigrants.
I saw the video of the Mayor taking a walk down the street and someone shooting up as they walked past.
.
This article https://sf.curbed.com/2018/5/9/17336090/san-francisco-needles-syringes-exchange-numbers-sf suggests the city hands out 400k needles a month for a total of about 18 per person. Which would suggest something like 20k addicts.
.
Clearly, if addicts see San Francisco as the place to be to get high, with soft touch policing, free needles, safe spaces to shoot up etc, that’s where they’re going to go. Where there’s demand, there’s also sure to be a good supply, and everything that entails. It’s a downward spiral that’s just going to get worse.
Your link reported that Paris has installed exposed public urinals
because the French have a tradition of peeing in the street.
“Paris has struggled to prevent public or “wild peeing” for years, even implementing an “incivility brigade” to enforce fines for uncouth behavior in 2016.”
“Wild peeing” is a new term for me. Hilarious!
After seeing the accompanying photo of a street urinal in Paris, my
first thought was I would be too embarrassed to use one. But why?
I wouldn’t be exposing myself.
The street urinals are less expensive and not as unsightly as port-a-potties, but provide little privacy. Since San Francisco’s homeless don’t seem to be concerned about privacy anyway, a similar device to control “wild pooping” might work.
Mike M. (Comment #170000)
I am not sure what OK_Max means here since “housing the homeless†seems oxymoronic. I think that what he is trying to say is that although some cities have more homeless than San Francisco, they have far fewer “unsheltered homeless.
______
Yes, unsheltered is what I mean. Thank you, MikeM.
I looked a bit deeper into the article I cited above: https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2017-10-23/homelessness-bay-area
The section comparing San Francisco to the reast of the U.S. had something quite interesting:
It goes on to say:
Progressive politics at work. Good intentions, disastrous consequences.
Here’s an interesting video. If you think Hispanic ‘refugees’ are a problem, try Middle Eastern ones. And if you live in the UK and complain publicly, you risk prosecution for hate speech.
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ToDsfkwvikw
DaveJR (Comment #170002)
August 20th, 2018 at 10:51 am
I saw the video of the Mayor taking a walk down the street and someone shooting up as they walked past.
.
This article https://sf.curbed.com/2018/5/9/17336090/san-francisco-needles-syringes-exchange-numbers-sf suggests the city hands out 400k needles a month for a total of about 18 per person. Which would suggest something like 20k addicts.
Clearly, if addicts see San Francisco as the place to be to get high, with soft touch policing, free needles, safe spaces to shoot up etc, that’s where they’re going to go. Where there’s demand, there’s also sure to be a good supply, and everything that entails. It’s a downward spiral that’s just going to get worse.
_____
Interesting link by DaveJR
San Francisco hands out free needles to prevent addicts from infecting each other with previously used needles, but the
abundant free supply results in streets littered with used
needles, creating a public health hazard.
I definitely would be worried if stuck by one of those discarded
needles even if infection was not certain. Blood transmitted
viruses don’t survive long when exposed to the outdoors, but
the discarded needle could have been freshly used.
An exception might be Hep C which I have read can last up to
6 weeks at room temperature. SF does have a mild climate.
I don’t know if an innocent person has ever been accidently
infected by a discarded needle on the streets of San Francisco.
Now Trump and company are ripping even unborn babies from their parent’s arms. How SAD!
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/19/640022683/ice-detains-man-driving-his-wife-to-hospital-for-planned-c-section
.
This was all over the news a few days ago with all the usual immediate outrage and self righteous indignation from the major networks. Update:
1. The lady wasn’t in labor, she was going in for a scheduled c-section.
2. The man who was so heartlessly detained (her husband) is wanted on homicide charges in Mexico.
.
The spin is now that “she had to drive herself to the hospital”. Not a single story seems to say “people wanted for homicide should definitely be arrested immediately”, “what are people wanted for homicide doing in the US”, etc. Another poorly chosen martyr (Michael Brown) rush to judgment with nobody saying this is actually not an outrage after all. Can we get a follow up to see how much their 5 kids’ births have cost the taxpayers? I would die of shock if somebody brought this up.
.
But wait!!!! He may not be wanted for homicide, it’s really his brother. Vindication! Update: He is actually wanted for homicide.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170007)
August 20th, 2018 at 2:24 pm
Here’s an interesting video. If you think Hispanic ‘refugees’ are a problem, try Middle Eastern ones. And if you live in the UK and complain publicly, you risk prosecution for hate speech.
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ToDsfkwvikw
______
I listened to UK journalist Katie Hopkins in the link you posted.
The woman is an unabashed hate monger. She makes Trump
look moderate.
Mick Heaney, writing for The Irish Times, says Hopkins only discernible talent is her ability to be tiresome and repellent at the same time.
My reaction to her speech was a little different. I was repelled
by her speech before finding it tiresome. I got bored about
one-half way through and turned her off. Had I kept listening, however, I’m sure I would have found Hopkins simultaneously repelling and tiresome.
OK_Max,
I’m not surprised at your response. So none of the incidents that she reports in the speech actually happened or she somehow misinterpreted what she saw?
And she wasn’t reported to the authorities for child abuse? I’m waiting for Maxine Waters to pick up on that one.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170011)
August 20th, 2018 at 5:43 pm
OK_Max,
I’m not surprised at your response. So none of the incidents that she reports in the speech actually happened or she somehow misinterpreted what she saw?
_______
I had never heard of Katie Hopkins before viewing the video of her
speech. As I said, I didn’t watch the entire speech. I don’t know whether her reports are accurate. I did find that the Mail had to pay
150,000 pounds in damages to a muslim family because Hopkins slandered them in her column, said things that weren’t true. While that doesn’t mean her reports are always lies or exaggerations, it does mean one shouldn’t just presume what she says is fact without checking.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/19/mail-pays-out-150k-to-muslim-family-over-katie-hopkins-column
Tom Scharf (Comment #170009)
August 20th, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Now Trump and company are ripping even unborn babies from their parent’s arms. How SAD!
_______
ICE needs to work on its PR.
Of course the husband or boyfriend should have been arrested.
But leaving the pregnant woman on her own to continue driving
to the hospital for her C-section makes ICE look bad, if that’s
what happened. Hopefully, she won’t have to drive herself and
the baby back home.
That’s really just standard practice. When police arrest a driver and the passenger can’t drive, then they are told to call someone to pick them up. They aren’t a taxi service. This lady was not in labor, nor is there any indication she even asked for assistance. The standard practice for a medical emergency is to call an ambulance if requested.
She could have called someone to drive her, but I suspect she was perfectly capable of driving herself. Cops won’t leave people in a dangerous situation, but I have seen a few exceptions where the person of interest was cooperative and deemed “sympathetic enough”.
.
The people who need work is the media. It’s a bit hard to understand how ICE arresting a single illegal is worthy of nationwide coverage, since when is this breaking news. Why didn’t they wait until they had the facts, why jump the gun? Because it was an outrage competition with a favored “ICE is evil” narrative. After the facts came in it was an embarrassment for our self elected arbiters of truth and justice. Even after they knew the facts and were cornered, they still chose to distort the “illegal alien arrested for beating a man to death” story. Watch framing bias in action:
https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/08/19/ice-murder-illegal-alien/
.
I’m going to go out on a limb and argue the real victim here is the murder victim.
OK_Max (Comment #170013): “ICE needs to work on its PR.”
ICE is a law enforcement agency. I don’t want the police making decisions based on PR. I want them to make decisions based on the law and public safety. As Tom points out, they acted appropriately.
Any PR hit is a result of the media spinning the news rather than reporting the news.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170014)
Tom, I checked on your linked brietbart.com story, and found
the author of the story reads differently than I read. I think I
read better.
The breitbart.com headline was
“19 Times the Media Portrayed Illegal Alien Wanted for Murder as a Victim of Trump Immigration Enforcement”
breitbart quotes 19 tweets to support its claim that accused
murder Joel Arrona-Lara was portrayed as a victim for being
arrested while driving his pregnant wife to the hospital for
a c-section.
After reading the Tweets, however, it’s clear to me they are
portraying the arrested man’s wife as the victim rather than
him. That does seems more reasonable than making him out
to be the victim.
Right, she is the victim or her unborn child. Keeping the father and child apart is a non-story, so the whole story comes down to whether the authorities should have made sure she made it to the hospital OK, or driven her there. This type of situation (stranded bystander) happens all the time and they have policies to deal with it.
.
The basis of this being exceptional is that she is being treated poorly because she is an illegal immigrant. As far as I can tell a citizen being pulled over in the same circumstances would be treated the same, unless there is information available for this case to contradict that. She wasn’t in labor and there is no indication she ever asked for assistance. She was also * already driving the vehicle * when they were pulled over! This is readily available in the surveillance video they proudly show, but the media never noted it(?).
.
“Agents, who had conducted surveillance on Arrona-Lara before the arrest, were not aware that the couple were headed to the hospital, according to the agency.
Arrona-Lara’s wife was driving the vehicle before they stopped at the gas station, according to the agency, and ICE officers were confident that she was able to continue on her way after the arrest.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-arrest-warrant-20180820-story.html
.
I don’t see any there there. This is clearly knee jerk media propaganda.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170017)
August 21st, 2018 at 9:51 am
“Right, she is the victim or her unborn child. Keeping the father and child apart is a non-story, so the whole story comes down to whether the authorities should have made sure she made it to the hospital OK, or driven her there.”
“I don’t see any there there. This is clearly knee jerk media propaganda.”
______
You may not be sympathetic to the woman’s predicament.
While a woman could go alone to a hospital for a C-section, driving by herself, I can’t imagine a doctor recommending it. At the hospital,
before and after the surgery, the presence and support of a loved
one is important to the woman’s emotional state. After the mother
and baby are driven home, she will need to follow post-operative
instructions (no driving, stair climbing, heavy lifting for several
weeks). Obviously, she will need assistance during the recovery period.
In the case under discussion here, the mother no longer has her
husband to help with her recovery because ICE arrested him. It is not ICE’s responsibility to replace what they have taken from her in her time of need. Hopefully, she has family members and/or friends who will help.
Mike M. (Comment #170015)
August 21st, 2018 at 8:59 am
OK_Max (Comment #170013): “ICE needs to work on its PR.â€
ICE is a law enforcement agency. I don’t want the police making decisions based on PR. I want them to make decisions based on the law and public safety. As Tom points out, they acted appropriately.
_______
PR is important because law enforcement needs the support of the
public to do its job.
Without all the details on this case, I can’t say whether I believe ICE could have handled it in a better way.
Her husband (allegedly) beat someone to death. It is his fault, not ICE’s. The government is not responsible for making sure undocumented people have the correct support system when they have babies. The feds never called me up (an actual citizen) and made sure my babies were born the correct way. If I had a felony warrant and was arrested on the way to the hospital I wouldn’t be mad at the government, but maybe that is just my crazy thinking. If they left somebody in labor on the side of the interstate who had to walk 10 miles to make a phone call who subsequently delivered a baby without any medical help then maybe we have something to talk about. The burden should be on the media to show government malfeasance for this story, not the reverse.
Looks like Trump better start preparing some pardon paperwork, ha ha. Maybe he should get some boilerplate ready so it will be easier next time.
When a criminal gets arrested or convicted, it inconveniences all sorts of people (some of them children) who depend in some way on the criminal. That is the fault of the criminal, not the police or the courts.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170022)
Tom, I’m not troubled by Joel Arrona-Lara being arrested. Regardless
of whether he is wanted in connection with murder in Mexico, he had been living in the U.S. illegally, and that alone was grounds for ICE to arrest him.
What I didn’t like was brietbart.com claiming “19 Times the Media Portrayed Illegal Alien Wanted for Murder as a Victim of Trump Immigration Enforcement.†I read the 19 tweets. Unless I missed something, none portrayed him as a victim. If briebart wants media
to be fair, it can start at home.
I wonder what will happen to his wife, if she’s an illegal immigrant too, and their kids who were born in the U.S. ?
She is an illegal as well. Their kids are US citizens since they were born here. They let her go, and typically will continue to do nothing if she is behaving, but this is not guaranteed. I think the slight of hand by the media falls into a few categories through Twitter snippets and misleading headlines:
1. Her husband wasn’t arrested just because he was an illegal.
2. She didn’t need to be “rushed” to the hospital, not in labor.
3. She was perfectly capable of driving herself, as she was already driving.
Many stories buried this info 5 paragraphs in. This is a man arrested for murder story.
Tom Scharf (Comment #170024)
August 21st, 2018 at 2:59 pm
Looks like Trump better start preparing some pardon paperwork, ha ha. Maybe he should get some boilerplate ready so it will be easier next time.
__________
Too early. More convictions ahead. Anyway, pardoning a buddy can hurt you. Presidents usually wait until they are on the way out, lame ducks. It’s safer that way.
But with Trump, you never know.
Well he cannot leave office now can he? Or he will get prosecuted.
Can he give himself a pardon for any and all problems exposed both pre and during his presidency as outgoing president?
If so, the more rubbish produced the more he will be able to free himself. Finally when running a second time. He has to to stay out of trouble. Is he as a candidate no longer in that capacity the president hence liable to any misdeameanours in that time?
The law is strange.
Angech,
I doubt Trump has any plans to leave office prematurely. Congress would have to impeach and remove him.
The question regarding a President’s power to pardon himself is interesting to me. As far as I can tell, this question has not been answered definitively one way or the other yet by Constitution or precedent (I am no legal scholar however, and others here may give you a more informed response).
I don’t quite follow your last question (been a long day).
[Edit: for example, here is a discussion of the self pardon question.]
angech (Comment #170030): “Well he cannot leave office now can he? Or he will get prosecuted.”
Prosecuted for what? There is no evidence that Trump has broken any laws or, so far as I know, any reason to believe that he has broken any laws.
Mike M. (Comment #170032)
“There is no evidence that Trump has broken any laws or, so far as I know, any reason to believe that he has broken any laws.”
______
Many legal scholars see Cohen’s guilty plea as reason to suspect Trump broke campaign finance law and/or conspired to break it.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17765566/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump-mueller
Even if there is compelling evidence Trump has broken the law, my understanding is he can’t be indicted while President. He could be impeached, but I doubt he will be impeached unless evidence of even worse misdeeds surface.
Trump pardoning Cohen seems unlikely, since he no longer likes him.
Cohen’s lawyer says his client wouldn’t accept a pardon anyway, which I find puzzling.
Andy McCarthy has been declaring Trump a criminal ever since the Stormy Daniels story broke. Meanwhile, former FEC chair Bradley Smith declares that there is no violation of campaign finance law.
In John Edwards’s case, the FEC declared that the donors had committed no violation, and the case against Edwards was a hung jury and the government eventually dropped the case. To make the case of campaign finance violation, the government argued that the payment was needed to preserve Edwards’s image as a family man.
The difference here is that Cohen has pled guilty to saying the payment was campaign related.
The Obama campaign was convicted of breaking campaign finance law and fined $375k.
mark bofill (Comment #170031)
Mark, the following paragraph, quoted from your link, suggests that Trump could do a self pre-emptive pardon. I think that would
pardon him from any crimes he has ever committed, even crimes
he may have committed before becoming President.
“In the case of former President Richard Nixon, he was granted a pardon by President Gerald Ford for any crimes he might have committed during the Watergate scandal, even though Nixon wasn’t charged with or convicted of federal crimes. (This is known as a pre-emptive pardon.) Nixon was able to receive a pardon under the precedent of an 1866 Supreme Court ruling called Ex parte Garland, which allowed for a pardon granted by President Andrew Johnson to remain in force for a former Confederate politician.”
If I were Trump I would pre-emptively pardon myself on my last day
in office. That’s a no-brainer. I wonder if I could make it apply to the future?
OK_Max (Comment #170036): “If I were Trump I would pre-emptively pardon myself on my last day in office.”
The only way that would make sense is if the incoming president were a Democrat and it was clear that the Democrats were going to engage in vindictive political prosecutions. Otherwise it would be an effective admission of guilt. The self-pardon would probably be struck down by the courts. The paragraph cited only says that preemptive pardons are valid; it says nothing about self-pardons.
The fact that Vox could find a bunch of politically motivated experts to trash Trump proves nothing. Cohen’s testimony, on it’s own, can not even be used in court without confirming evidence.
Alan Dershowitz is a liberal Democrat who supported Clinton. He sees no basis for using Cohen’s plea to pursue Trump:
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/403072-did-president-trump-violate-campaign-finance-laws
Basically, if Cohen acted on his own then he arguably broke the law, but Trump is clear. If Cohen acted on Trump’s direction, no law was broken except perhaps a reporting violation. Dershowitz: “Failure to report all campaign contributions is fairly common in political campaigns. Moreover, the offense is committed not by the candidate but, rather, by the campaign and is generally subject to a fine.”
Mike M. (Comment #170041)
“If Cohen acted on Trump’s direction, no law was broken except perhaps a reporting violation.”
____
I thought Cohen pleaded guilty to two campaign felonies, and said as Trump’s lawyer, he broke the laws under Trump’s direction. Directing commission of a felony is a felony.
It seems reasonable that Trump would tell his lawyer what he wants done. Trump, however, claims Cohen is lying about what took place between them. Since Trump can’t be indicted and put on trial, how can the public find out if he too is a felon?
Since Trump can’t be indicted and put on trial, how can the public find out if he too is a felon?
corroborating evidence?
Always good.
Only crime here is blackmail.
Which Mueller seems to be the prime exponent.
OK_Max (Comment #170044):”I thought Cohen pleaded guilty to two campaign felonies, and said as Trump’s lawyer, he broke the laws under Trump’s direction. Directing commission of a felony is a felony.”
It is not at all clear that Cohen broke the law.
.
OK_Max: “Since Trump can’t be indicted and put on trial, how can the public find out if he too is a felon?”
Trump is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. There is no reason to believe that Trump did anything felonious.
angech (Comment #170045)
“Since Trump can’t be indicted and put on trial, how can the public find out if he too is a felon?
corroborating evidence?”
“Only crime here is blackmail.
Which Mueller seems to be the prime exponent.”
_________
Corroborating evidence would be of interest to the public. Evidence without a trial, however, does not result in a legal verdict, and if there is to be no trial, what official body, if any, seeks the evidence?
What blackmail ?
OK_Max (Comment #170047): “What blackmail ?”
Bringing exaggerated and/or bogus charges against people like Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, and Papadoupolous to coerce them into pleading guilty and perhaps providing, or “composing”, evidence that could be used against Trump. Not technically blackmail, but in that spirit.
Mike M. (Comment #170046)
“Trump is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else. There is no reason to believe that Trump did anything felonious.”
__________
Cohen’s testimony under oath is reason to suspect Trump. If Trump weren’t President, he likely would be investigated, and the result could be indictment. But as President,Trump is above the law. He has no need to worry about having to testify under oath.
Trump wanted to hide his affairs with the two women so he arranged for Cohen to pay them to keep quiet. The under-the-table way they went about it broke campaign law. I don’t know why Trump didn’t just pay the women directly out of his own pocket.
OK_Max “The under-the-table way they went about it broke campaign law.”
What law did that break? Real question. Cohen plead guilty to making illegal contributions. How does that implicate Trump?
Mike M. (Comment #170048)
August 23rd, 2018 at 6:47 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170047): “What blackmail ?â€
Bringing exaggerated and/or bogus charges against people like Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, and Papadoupolous to coerce them into pleading guilty and perhaps providing, or “composingâ€, evidence that could be used against Trump. Not technically blackmail, but in that spirit.
________
Mike M, I think you are suggesting the prosecution coerces the defendants into committing perjury, committing not only a crime itself, but adding to the crimes of the defendant. The “blackmail” could go something like this:
We have dirt on you, but make up dirt on Trump, and we will let you off easy.
Mike M, why do you have so little faith in the judicial system?
I have no faith in out-of-control prosecutors like Mueller (or Ken Starr) because they have shown themselves of being not deserving of faith.
Mike M. (Comment #170050)
August 23rd, 2018 at 7:46 pm
OK_Max “The under-the-table way they went about it broke campaign law.â€
What law did that break? Real question. Cohen plead guilty to making illegal contributions. How does that implicate Trump?
_____
Didn’t do it for himself, did it for Trump, because Trump wanted
him to, so he says. Makes sense.
Hard to imagine this happening: “WHAT, you paid that b*tch $150,000 ! Who told you to do that ! I should fire your dumb
butt. You are supposed to be a lawyer.”
OK_Max (Comment #170053): “Didn’t do it for himself, did it for Trump, because Trump wanted him to, so he says. Makes sense.”
Makes no sense at all. Why would Cohen spend his own money? And how does that implicate Trump?
The thing I have not been able to find, is whose money was used for the payoffs (which, in themselves, were perfectly legal). It does not seem to have been the campaign’s, since there is no accusation of improper campaign spending. If it was Trump’s, it was legal. So where did the money come from?
If Trump reimbursed Cohen, then this would be Trump paying the money, and the crime is that he didn’t report it on campaign disclosures. If done at Trump’s direction, this would be deliberately evading campaign finance law.
If Trump did not reimburse Cohen, then they are saying it is too large an amount, in excess of $2700 limit. Trump campaign would be liable for accepting such a large donation. If done at Trump’s direction, that would be a somewhat serious charge.
There is still the underlying issue that the payments are not illegal, and were not done with campaign money. Mark Penn points out that if Trump had used campaign money for this, he would be charged for that, embezzling of campaign funds for personal use.
MikeN (Comment #170056)
MikeN, thanks for the information. Some of it was new to me.
I don’t know the whole story on Michael Cohen’s campaign law violations and how Trump was involved. More information will come out in time, but I will try to lay out what I know so far.
Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making two illegal contributions to Trump’s presidential campaign (1) a corporate contribution of $150,000,and (2) a personal contribution of $130,000. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), the limit for a corporate contribution for a candidate is $5,000, and for an individual, $2,700.
Cohen’s attorney,Lanny Davis, said in a statement. “This is Michael fulfilling his promise made on July 2nd to put his family and country first and tell the truth about Donald Trump. Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen,then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump? ”
The illegal $150,000 corporate contribution refers the payment Karen McDougal received in August 2016 from American Media, Inc. (AMI), publisher of the National Enquirer, for her story about a 10-month affair she had with Donald Trump. AMI never ran the story. It looks like AMI’s intention was to prevent the story from being told (the company had exclusive rights) in order to protect Trump’s campaign, and thus amounted to a corporate campaign contribution.
The role of Michael Cohen here is not clear to me. but I presume he asked AMI chairman David Pecker, a personal friend of Trump, to buy the story as a favor to Trump. The question is was Cohen directed by Trump in this dealings with Pecker? I also wonder since Pecker was a good friend did Trump have direct dealings with him about Karen Mcdougal? And is Pecker himself guilty of breaking campaign law?
The illegal $130,000 personal contribution refers to amount Cohen himself paid to Stormy Daniels for her agreement to keep quiet about an affair she had with Trump. Had Trump himself paid for the agreement, my understanding is no campaign law would have been violated. Why Cohen made the payment with his own money, even mortgaging his house for the funds, is a mystery to me. Was this done in an attempt to conceal that the arrangement was for Trump’s benefit. Even though Trump later reimbursed him, Cohen still violated the campaign law. The question is did Trump direct
Cohen to pay Stormy Daniels in the way he did and why?
OK_Max (Comment #170057):
Thanks, that helps.
.
OK_Max: “It looks like AMI’s intention was to prevent the story from being told (the company had exclusive rights) in order to protect Trump’s campaign, and thus amounted to a corporate campaign contribution.”
I gather that is the claim. But how can the intention be established? Trump, or his friends, protecting his reputation and his family need not have anything to do with the campaign.
If they could somehow establish that the purpose of the payment was for the campaign and that Trump was involved in it (both iffy) then I can see where Trump would have a problem.
.
OK_Max: “And is Pecker himself guilty of breaking campaign law?”
If it was a campaign contribution, of course he is. But Pecker was granted immunity https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/23/national-enquirer-david-pecker-told-prosecutors-trump-knew-of-cohen-payments-report.html. He is not the witch being hunted.
.
OK_Max: “Even though Trump later reimbursed him, Cohen still violated the campaign law.”
I don’t see how. Trump using his own money would not violate any law, no matter the purpose.
.
Trump did nothing that was even a fraction as bad as what Hillary did. I agree with not prosecuting Hillary. Prosecutions should carefully avoid even the appearance of being politically motivated, since democracy can not long survive politically motivated prosecutions.
Mueller and his cheerleaders are working from the autocrats playbook. They are a far bigger threat to democracy than Trup could ever be.
I believe the situation is that if Trump would have paid the women off to protect the Trump brand even if he hadn’t been running for President, then it isn’t campaign related and isn’t a crime. Proving intent amounts to mind reading.
We’ve been through something like this before with John Edwards who was running for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. There was hush money involved there. It destroyed Edward’s political career, but he had an image of being a good family man, unlike Trump.
Edwards was indicted on six charges and brought to trial. He was acquitted on one charge and a mistrial was declared on the other five.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair
Mike M. (Comment #170058)
OK_Max: “Even though Trump later reimbursed him, Cohen still violated the campaign law.â€
I don’t see how. Trump using his own money would not violate any law, no matter the purpose.
_______
It may be like theft. Even if the thief pays the victim back, he still
has broken the law.
I hope we find out why Cohen used his own money to pay Stormy Daniels. That really puzzles me. The only reasons I can imagine are
(1) he liked Trump so much he was willing to mortgage his house to
pay Daniels for the silence agreement, hoping that Trump would
show his appreciation by reimbursement, or (2) he and Trump
wanted the agreement to conceal Trump’s involvement.
The wording of the agreement with Daniels may provide the answer.
I do recall her saying something about not being bound by the agreement because it was not between Trump and her.
Thank you for the Pecker link. I agree if the Karen McDougal deal
was a campaign violation, he looks guilty. The immunity must have
to do with that deal.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170059)
August 24th, 2018 at 9:21 am
I believe the situation is that if Trump would have paid the women off to protect the Trump brand even if he hadn’t been running for President, then it isn’t campaign related and isn’t a crime. Proving intent amounts to mind reading.
_____
Yes, proving intent is difficult, but the timing of the agreements with the two women may be incriminating. Didn’t Trumps affairs with the women occur long before he began campaigning for
President, while the agreements were made after he began? If so,
it would look like the purpose of keeping the women quiet was
to protect the campaign.
OK_Max,
Kimberley Strassel’s column in today’s WSJ raises questions about the one-sidedness of Mueller’s investigation.
Specifically:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-justice-is-partial-1535063261 (paywalled)
That’s just one example. There are several more in the article. Mueller is apparently only pursuing the Republican violations and apparently completely ignoring evidence staring him in the face of equally serious violations by the Democrats.
But of course he can’t look at the whole Fusion GPS mess without calling into question the validity of the origin of his remit, not to mention the FBI’s and the intelligence community’s dirty laundry.
OK_Max (Comment #170060): “It may be like theft. Even if the thief pays the victim back, he still has broken the law.”
According to Alan Dershowitz, that is not the case.
.
OK_Max: “I hope we find out why Cohen used his own money to pay Stormy Daniels.”
I think that is simple. It was the hectic last days of the campaign, so he made the payment, trusting Trump to reimburse him. I can’t count the times I spent my own money, expecting my employer to reimburse me. Never more than a few thousand, but then I wasn’t a high flying lawyer working for a billionaire.
.
OK_Max : “he was willing to mortgage his house”
I have not seen that claim except from you. What I have seen is that he used a personal line of credit.
.
OK_Max: “or (2) he and Trump wanted the agreement to conceal Trump’s involvement.”
Conceal it from whom? I am not saying they would not have wanted to conceal it, only that using Trump’s money directly would have made no difference.
.
OK_Max: “if the Karen McDougal dealwas a campaign violation, he [Pecker] looks guilty.”
For Pecker to be guilty the money would have to have been spent for the campaign and at the specific behest of the campaign or the candidate. A citizen can spend as much as he wants to support a candidate, as long as he does it on his own.
—–
OK_Max (Comment #170061): “Yes, proving intent is difficult, but the timing of the agreements with the two women may be incriminating.”
.
Trump did not control the timing. The two women did.
Max, in the payment by Enquirer there was a deal that Cohen would buy the rights to the story after they bought it. However, the deal was cancelled so Enquirer paid but Cohen did not pay Enquirer. This was probably at the request of Enquirer’s lawyers who might have pointed out that intent is clear if they sell to Cohen. The charge is not that Cohen donated, but that he arranged for the company to donate.
Trump paying with his own money is still a crime under the theory that this is campaign spending, because it would not have been properly reported.
Cohen paid and then charged Trump $420,000. I don’t know how they can argue that it is personal donation if they are also saying Trump directed it and reimbursed. It is not the same as stealing and giving back, as here there is no original crime.
I don’t see a difference between this and a printer providing $100,000 worth of signs and flyers, and you pay him afterwards.
Except that it is questionable if this really is a campaign expense. If Trump had paid the $130,000 with campaign funds, do you think this would have been OK, or would people argue he was embezzling?
DeWitt Payne (Comment #170062)
Kimberley Strassel’s column in today’s WSJ raises questions about the one-sidedness of Mueller’s investigation.
______
DeWitt, as you mentioned, Strassel’s WSJ column is paywalled, and
since I am not a subscriber, I don’t have access. The parts you quoted, however, do give me a good idea of her thinking. I’m not sure Mueller jurisdiction extends to investigating Hillary Clinton’s
campaign financing, which Strassel thinks he should do to be fair.
The scope of Mueller’s investigation is spelled out in Rosenstein’s
letter appointing him Special Counsel: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726381/Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.pdf
For The General Powers of Special Counsel, see
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600
The only language I saw which might allow Mueller to investigate
Hillary’s campaign financing is Section 600.4b of The General Powers:
“Section 600.4b) Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.”
RE Mike M. (Comment #170063)
It seems to me that would be the case. If not, individuals could
break the $2,700 contribution limit, and if caught, beat the charge by having the candidate reimburse them.
Regarding intent and timing , IMO Trump wanted to silence the two women because he was running for President, not to protect his
family. Had he been concerned about hurting his family, he would
not have been involved with these women in the first place.
MikeN (Comment #170064)
“Except that it is questionable if this really is a campaign expense. If Trump had paid the $130,000 with campaign funds, do you think this would have been OK, or would people argue he was embezzling?”
_______
Good question. I guess if he said campaign funds were used to prevent the women from damaging his campaign, it could be a campaign expense.
OK_Max,
Try actually reading the quote. She didn’t say that Mueller needed to be the one to prosecute the Clinton campaign.
Mueller’s team does not have to exceed their authority to prosecute someone when they find evidence of a crime in the course of their investigation. He didn’t prosecute Cohen. He referred the case to the US Attorney’s office in New York after the team uncovered the evidence. Again, where are the referrals for the known crimes of the Clinton campaign.
OK_Max,
And if you say that the Steele Dossier is outside the remit of the Mueller team, you aren’t paying attention. Steele’s sources were Russian. So if the Mueller team hasn’t investigated GPS Fusion, then there’s really something rotten in Denmark.
RE DeWitt Payne (Comments #170068 and 170069)
You say I said prosecute, but I didn’t. I said investigate.
Nor did I say the Steele Dossier is outside the remit of the
Mueller team. I didn’t say anything about it at all.
I’m not familiar with the “known crimes of the Clinton
campaign,†but if they are known maybe Mueller will get
to them before he finishes.
OK_Max,
This had been an interesting discussion, but now you seem to be suddenly playing dumb.
.
(Comment #170065): “I’m not sure Mueller jurisdiction extends to investigating Hillary Clinton’s campaign financing, which Strassel thinks he should do to be fair.”
Strassel said nothing about Clinton’s financing. The Clinton campaign paid to have Russian disinformation inserted into the campaign and fraudulently reported those payments. That is surely much closer to Mueller’s remit than things that Manafort did 10 years ago or that are Trump’s private affairs.
.
(Comment #170066): “If not, individuals could break the $2,700 contribution limit, and if caught, beat the charge by having the candidate reimburse them.”
You can’t be serious.
.
(Comment #170066) “Had he been concerned about hurting his family, he would
not have been involved with these women in the first place.”
Of course, but that is irrelevant. You need to acquire a greater familiarity with the real world. By your logic, people cheating on their spouses would never try to conceal what they are doing.
.
(Comment #170067): “I guess if he said campaign funds were used to prevent the women from damaging his campaign, it could be a campaign expense.”
You know perfectly well that would never fly.
.
(Comment #170070): “Nor did I say the Steele Dossier is outside the remit of the
Mueller team.”
Then you are being disingenuous since that is what the Strassel excerpt is about.
Or it might be like me wanting to buy my mother’s friends vintage china. Mom bought it, paid for it, then I reimbursed her. One big difference between this and theft is that everyone involved agreed to each step. Mom’s friend accepted the money– entirely legally. Mom chose to shell out– entirely legally. I paid her back– also legal.
I have no idea what the actual law says about the Cohen transactions. But merely saying it might be like theft isn’t a strong argument that it is anything like theft. “Like theft” seems to be a fairly poor analogy to me. But they might be illegal for other reasons for the same reason that other things that also are not “like theft” are illegal.
Mike M. (Comment #170071)
“This had been an interesting discussion, but now you seem to be suddenly playing dumb.”
_____
I get dumb when sleepy and don’t explain things well.
Re (Comment #170065) I meant to say Clinton’s possible campaign
violations, not just campaign finance violations. If you will read
Rosenstein’s letter in my link you may understand why I’m not sure
Mueller has the authority to investigate Clinton, although Section 600.4b of The General Powers would seem to give him that authority
if he requests it and the AG approves it.
RE (Comment #170066): Seriously, it would be a get out of jail free
card. Suppose, a very wealthy supporter of a very wealthy candidate
paid $500,000 more for a campaign expense than allowed by law, knowing that if caught, the candidate could erase the violation by
just repaying him. Since getting caught isn’t certain, why not do it?
RE (Comment #170066): If you mean by timing, Trump didn’t initiate contact with the women regarding hush deals, I would agree.
His need for hush agreements arose only after he started
campaigning. I doubt the women have initiated threats to expose Trump and he would have paid them for keeping quiet had he not been running for office. But I’m not sure what these or other women tried to do before he started campaigning.
Re (Comment #170067) I don’t know what you mean by “never fly,” but I can’t see him doing it. It would defeat the purpose.
Re (Comment #170070) I don’t understand what you mean.
OK_Max (Comment #170073): “Seriously, it would be a get out of jail free card. Suppose, a very wealthy supporter of a very wealthy candidate paid $500,000 more for a campaign expense than allowed by law, knowing that if caught, the candidate could erase the violation by just repaying him.”
No, that would not erase the violation.
That example is nothing like Cohen. There are two huge differences. (1) Cohen worked for Trump. He routinely incurred expenses that he billed to Trump or was reimbursed for. (2) Cohen was reimbursed by Trump shorty after incurring the expense, not aftre getting caught.
Lucia (Comment #170072)
“Or it might be like me wanting to buy my mother’s friends vintage china. Mom bought it, paid for it, then I reimbursed her. One big difference between this and theft is that everyone involved agreed to each step. Mom’s friend accepted the money– entirely legally. Mom chose to shell out– entirely legally. I paid her back– also legal.”
_______
lucia, in your hypothetical example, your mother’s payment didn’t break a law. Cohen’s payment did break a law. His payment to hush Stormy Daniels exceeded the legal limit for an individual’s campaign contribution by about $125,000, and he has pleaded guilty to this crime.
Consider my hypothetical example. Suppose my mother knows I want a bottle of wine costing $100, so she steals the wine, gives it to me, and I drink it. Later, she is charged for theft. Regardless of whether I then pay the wine merchant $100, she has broken the law.
I would be innocent of any crime unless I asked her to steal the wine (conspiracy to commit a crime) or didn’t ask but knew you stole it and consumed or kept it anyway (receiving stolen goods).
In Trump’s case the question is did he direct Cohen to make the campaign contribution, which exceeded the legal limit for Cohen,
or did Trump not know Cohen was going to make that illegal
contribution. Since Cohen has already confessed to breaking the law
by making the excessive contribution, the question many people
are asking is if Trump directed him to do it, wouldn’t Trump also have broken the law?
According to Cohen’s Lawyer, Cohen says Trump did direct him to break the law by paying Daniels with Cohen’s own money. He used
a line of credit on his house to pay her $130,000 to keep quiet about
her affair with Trump. Later Trump reimbursed Cohen in installments ( I forget the installment amounts).
Why the Daniels agreement was handled in this way is not clear.
I do believe Trump would have wanted a curtain between him and
the Daniels agreement to the extent possible, and having no trail
of money from him to her would be one way to conceal that he had
paid her for something. I suspect that’s why he could have wanted Cohen to pay Daniels. Reimbursing Cohen in installments suggests Trump didn’t have or couldn’t raise $130,000 in cash, but that seems unlikely. There must have been another reason.
BTW, my mother doesn’t steal wine for me, and I have never tasted
a $100 wine.
Mike M. (Comment #170074)
Don’t forget Cohen has already pleaded guilty to breaking
a law by making illegal campaign contributions. You seem
to think he needlessly pleaded guilty because he really
didn’t break that law. Why would a sane innocent person
plead guilty?
I anticipate your answer will be Cohen could have been
coerced by the prosecution to plead guilty to two crimes
he didn’t commit in exchange for reduced sentences for
crimes he did commit, the prosecution’s objective being
to imply Trump is guilty of the same two crimes because
he directed Cohen, and the judge could also have been in
on the scheme.
OK_Max
It is well known that many perfectly sane innocent people plead guilty. There are many reasons to do so, one is to reduce cost of defending themselves and risk of being found guilty even if they aren’t.
In fact, many people applauded Mark Cuban for fighting the SEC who charged him with insider trading. He spent loads and loads of money defending himself and was found not guilty. But it was expensive. He was wealthy enough that defending himself would require him to bankrupt his family and leave wife and dependent children homeless. That’s not the case for some other people, so they cop a plea because the punishment for the offense the confess too is less than the “punishment” of losing every penny they have.
well…. that wasn’t the reason I gave. 🙂 Perhaps Mike M would have given that reason.
But sometimes that is a reason since people have for pleading guilty to a lesser offense they did not commit to avoid being prosecuted for a heavier one they did commit. But as I noted: perfectly sane people sometimes plead guilty for other reasons.
I’m surprised, but maybe I shouldn’t be given my ignorance of legal matters. I’d have figured Cohen was Trump’s attorney-in-fact at the time of the Stormy Daniels payment. I wouldn’t have thought he was making a ‘campaign contribution’ as a separate individual.
The judge wouldn’t need to be in on the ‘scheme’, as you put it. I don’t find it far fetched at all to speculate that Mueller really doesn’t give a hoot about Cohen, but that he is after Trump. In fact, I’d call that pretty obvious.
OK_Max (Comment #170076): “Why would a sane innocent person
plead guilty?”
I doubt you are really that naive. It happens all the time, a recent example being Michael Flynn. It is extremely difficult for an individual to fight the entire might of the federal government. Many people decide that the risk-reward ratio is not worth it.
.
OK_Max: “I anticipate your answer … ”
Right.
.
OK_Max: “the judge could also have been in on the scheme.”
I see no reason to think that.
OK_Max
Your argument is circular. Cohen arranging and conveying the payment is only a crime if Cohen actually made a contribution. If he merely advanced Trump the funds, with an agreement that Trump will reimburse, then Trump paid it. If so, the money is not an individual campaign contribution. Trump buying himself things with his own money isn’t a contribution and doesn’t become so if he follows common business protocols of having an employee or representative do so on his behalf.
People are allowed to have others pay on their behalf. Many wealthy people have accounting firms or a manager of some sort do business, and things like write checks on their behalf. Those firms might advance money, send the check and so on. They then get reimbursed. When they do so, they are acting on behalf of their client.
Heck, assistants sometimes buy flowers for their boss’s wife and then get reimbursed. The boss might even have a standing order for the secretary to buy the flowers once a week and so on. That gift of flowers is from the boss, not the secretary. The character of this arrangement doesn’t change merely because the wealthy person involved later became President, nor because the item arranged for was covering up a sordid affair.
If done this way, a payoff from Cohen would be Cohen making and arrangement and conveying money on Trumps behalf. It would not be Cohen’s own contribution and so not a violation of campaign laws.
You can’t change this merely by just creating a non-analogous hypothetical in which my mom steals wine in the first place. Yes. Her stealing in the first place is stealing and can’t become not stealing. But that doesn’t necessarily turn Cohen’s writing a check or arranging a campaign contribution. It might have been, or it might not.
The whole Stormy Daniels thing is sordid. It reflects badly on Trump. But it remains to be seen whether the money is a campaign contribution because we do not yet know the source of the funds, who authorized it and so on.
I should add this is true even though Cohen confessed to conveying the money.
lucia (Comment #170077)
August 25th, 2018 at 4:35 pm
OK_Max
“It is well known that many perfectly sane innocent people plead guilty. There are many reasons to do so, one is to reduce cost of defending themselves and risk of being found guilty even if they aren’t.
In fact, many people applauded Mark Cuban for fighting the SEC who charged him with insider trading. He spent loads and loads of money defending himself and was found not guilty.”
_________
lucia,I wasn’t aware that many innocent people plead guilty, although if the penalty is a fine with no jail time and no further consequences, a guilty plea could be less costly than legal fees resulting from a not guilty plea and a not guilty verdict, and even much less costly than the consequences of a guilty verdict.
Mark Cuban is not an example of an innocent person who pled guilty.
He plead not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury. He claims
his legal fees were greater than the fine would have been had he
plead guilty, but believes it was worth it.
There must be examples of innocent defendants who pled guilty to
save money and/or for other reasons.
This may be relevant.
Max_OK
Whether “many” people do it, I can’t say. However, it happens, and not infrequently. This is widely known. However, evidently you aren’t aware of it. That merely means you are unaware of something that happens; it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
Oh? I guess you view it that way. Others disagree with you. Evidently the jury diagreed with you. Perhaps the SEC did not think he was innocent. But the jury disagreed with the SEC.
He was rich and preferred to spend the money rather than plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. Less wealthy people might have chosen to plead guilty even though they considered themselves innocent. Some do.
Obviously, if you decree that people who plead guilty must be guilty, and also decree that people who plead innocent are guilty it will be rather difficult to present you with an example of someone who was charged, but innocent who you will accept as innocent. I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time trying to find an example who meets your standards because it seems your standard may be that those who are charged must be guilty!
Max, I think it was in Enron case, or maybe Morgan Stanley, where the judge threw out a plea agreement, because he was pleading guilty to something that wasn’t a crime.
Max_OK,
You might find this informative: https://www.federalcharges.com/plea-agreements-in-federal-court/
Two snips:
And in fact it’s the opinion of a former FEC Chairman (Bradley Smith) that this is exactly the case with Cohen; that he has plead guilty to something that isn’t a crime.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/was_the_strange_language_in_michael_cohens_guilty_plea_a_setup.html
Things that would have been found out about the Clinton campaign from the Mueller investigation, or possibly earlier, and needed investigation or could be referred for prosecution.
Hillary Clinton campaign funded the Steele Dossier, thru Perkins Coie who hired Fusion GPS. This made Hillary’s opposition research spending get hidden on campaign finance reports as ‘legal expenses’. This is illegal, and is exactly the campaign finance charge Trump would be accused of if he had cut out Michael Cohen from the payment portion.
Person at the Trump Tower meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin testified to Congress that he knew Hillary Clinton, ‘some people who worked on her campaign’. It is suspected he is a major source for the Steele Dossier.
Material presented at this meeting was prepared by Glenn Simpson, who met with the Russian lady the day before and after the meeting, but he says he didn’t know about the meeting.
Also needing investigation by Mueller is that Steele was being paid by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who is on the US sanctions list. Recent text messages have come to light showing Steele talking to Bruce Ohr about helping ‘our guy’.
Deripaska’s lawyer/lobbyist Adam Waldman was communicating with Sen Warner, about getting in touch with Steele in early 2017. Waldman also represents Julian Assange.
Paul Manafort lobbied on behalf of Deripaska along with Waldman and Steele.
Only Mueller is conflicted, because he tried to get Deripaska’s help(tens of millions of dollars) to free an FBI agent 10 years ago.
lucia (Comment #170085)
lucia, I said “Mark Cuban is not an example of an innocent person who pled guilty. He plead not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury.”
You said “Oh? I guess you view it that way. Others disagree with you. Evidently the jury diagreed with you. Perhaps the SEC did not think he was innocent. But the jury disagreed with the SEC.
lucia, I don’t understand what you are saying. Perhaps my wording was confusing. Would it have been clearer had I said he was an innocent man who pled not guilty and was found not guilty by a jury?
Back to the subject of Cohen’s guilty plea, I find it easy to believe
Trump wanted him to pay for a hush agreement with Stormy Daniels,
and promised to reimburse him for its cost. The problem may be with the way it was done. According to Cohen the agreement was
between Daniels and his company, which I would take to mean rather than between Daniels and Trump.
In the eyes of the law I believe Cohen would be seen as the buyer and owner of the hush agreement, unless there was a previous contract between the two men stating that Cohen was buying the hush agreement for Trump to own and would be reimbursed. If there was such a contract, I think it would mean Cohen is not guilty of violating a campaign finance law. I don’t know if a verbal contract would work here.
These are just some thoughts. I’m not a lawyer and have no legal training.
M Bofill: “And in fact it’s the opinion of a former FEC Chairman (Bradley Smith) that this is exactly the case with Cohen; that he has plead guilty to something that isn’t a crime.”
I checked this out. Smith is not a fringe character. In addition to being former FEC chair, he is a law professor. The extremely relevant quotation from your article is this:
…..
“it has to be something that exists ONLY because of the campaign and SOLELY for that reason.”
…..
So, if it was 90% for the campaign and 10% to save embarrassment from his wife, there is no criminal violation according to the former FEC chair. If Cohen pled guilty to something that wasn’t a crime (with the assistance of Clinton lawyer) and the collusion of the NY AG (working hand in glove with Mueller) that is corruption of the highest order. Not a criminal lawyer, but I suspect one crime would be obstruction of justice.
…..
So, why did Cohen do it?
[From the article]”It was apparent to me that Lanny Davis’s primary charge was to rescue Cohen from the prison term his innumerable foibles and illegalities would generate. But there was also a political and personal side benefit to Davis’s retainer: embarrass and indirectly charge Trump with a crime. This would provide a fig leaf of legal grounds for impeachment should the Democrats take over the House of Representatives or, if that did not eventuate, to drive Trump’s approval down to the point that he would became essentially impotent and thus unviable in 2020.”
….
If there are substantial grounds to contend that this isn’t a crime, this could (and should) backfire big time on Mueller.
JD
OK_max
If you meant to say he was an innocent man, then, yes, it would be clearer if you said he was innocent. But you wrote this
When I read it, and even now that I read it, it appears you were saying he was not innocent.
I agree he plead not guilty. I did not suggest he was someone who plead guilty. I gave him as the rare example of an innocent person who spent tons of money rather than plead guilty to save money. In his position, lots of people plead guilty and many people were surprised he did not plead guilty despite his innocence because most people do plead down to avoid the hassle and risk of the trial and so on..
OK_Max
There may have been a problem or not. We don’t know yet.
Verbal contracts are generally binding. There are exceptions for certain things– like real estate purchases. They are harder to prove, but they are generally binding.
It’s a bit weird that Stormy’s contract is with Cohen’s firm, but paid for by Trump. But if Trump paid for the agreement out of his own personal pocket, I don’t know how the contract being with Cohen’s firm turns it into a campaig contribution.
In this case, Trump reimbursing Cohen is consistent with Cohen, Trumps’ attorney in fact, carrying out Trump’s request. So I’m pretty sure an unbiased jury would tend to believe Trump if he said Cohen was acting on his behalf– which is a perfectly ordinary thing for a lawyer to do.
The issue of which pot of money Trump used to reimburse Cohen might matter to whether there is a campaign finance violation. But if Trump paid from his own personal pocket, I think there wouldn’t be one. If it’s from a corporate account or from a “campaign” fund, I think there might be.
We don’t know yet. For what it’s worth, Cohen might not know. He might only know he got reimbursed.
Trump paid with Trump organization money, and this was then reimbursed from Trump family funds. NY AG is looking into whether this constitutes false expensing by Trump organization as legal expenses.
JD, it is not NY AG but SDNY that prosecuted Cohen. Andy McCarthy worked with the lead prosecutor on the Blind Sheikh case and considers him to be very ethical.
lucia (Comment #170094)
August 25th, 2018 at 11:03 pm
OK_Max
The problem may be with the way it was done.
There may have been a problem or not. We don’t know yet.
_________
No, we don’t know the details, but speculation is good exercise for the imagination.
Regarding verbal agreements, if there was one between Trump and Cohen on doing the Stormy Daniels non-disclosure deal, we could believe it if they agreed on the details of the agreement. I would
be surprised if they now would agree.
MikeN (Comment #170086)
August 25th, 2018 at 8:39 pm
Max, I think it was in Enron case, or maybe Morgan Stanley, where the judge threw out a plea agreement, because he was pleading guilty to something that wasn’t a crime.
_______
I doubt this happens much. The justice system would be a farce if lots of defendants were charged with non-crimes.
mark bofill (Comment #170083)
August 25th, 2018 at 7:04 pm
This may be relevant.
About 95% of felony convictions in the United States (and at least as many misdemeanor convictions) are obtained by guilty pleas, but only 15% of known exonerees pled guilty (261/1,702). It would be comforting to conclude that defendants who plead guilty are far less likely to be innocent than those who are convicted at trial, but it’s not true. …
______
Only 5% of convictions come from defendants who plead not guilty.
This could mean charges against the non-guilty are rare and/or
prosecutors do a lousy job of convicting defendants who plead not
guilty. We will never know what percent of defendants who plead not guilty and are found not guilty actually are guilty.
mark bofill (Comment #170088)
August 25th, 2018 at 9:14 pm
And in fact it’s the opinion of a former FEC Chairman (Bradley Smith) that this is exactly the case with Cohen; that he has plead guilty to something that isn’t a crime.
________
He wasn’t the judge. Had he been the judge, I think it would have been his responsibility to ask Cohen why he, a lawyer who should
know better, was wasting the court’s time by pleading guilty
to something that isn’t a crime.
JD, thanks!
.
Max,
I’m sorry if the link I provided was unclear. My point wasn’t about defendants who plead not guilty and who are found not guilty. My point was merely that innocent people plead guilty more often than one might think.
Here is what might be a more clear story explaining the phenomena in Harris County Texas. The short form of it was this: Harris County started testing drug evidence even in cases where defendants pled guilty. In many cases defendants pled guilty even when no illegal drugs were found.
.
Also,
Well, the article I linked discusses possible explanations for this and JD discusses them above.
OK_Max
Yes. But the circumstantial evidence would support the existence of such an agreement. We know:
(a) Cohen’s job was attorney in fact and “fixer”. This is the sort of task one expects in that job.
(b) Fixers and employees operating on verbal agreement is routine. (To do otherwise is cumbersome. No company writes a separate contract for every task incident to the normal job contract. You’d need a contract a day or more often and no work would ever get done.)
(c) Trump did reimburse Cohen, and did so promptly, long before the story became known to others.
(d) Trump didn’t fire Cohen for doing things behind his back. This suggest Cohen didn’t do anything Trump was surprised about when he reimbursed.
The hammer the USDA held over Cohen was the threat of jail time for both him and his wife at the same time for tax evasion…. very destructive for Cohen’s family. I suspect Cohen would plead to just about anything to keep his wife out of prison.
.
So whether Cohen was guilty of making an unlawful campaign contribution or not, the more substanrive legal issue was multiple counts of tax evasion for large undeclared income. The campaign contribution charge was just a two-fer for Mueller’s Trump posse, and an excuse to charge ‘high crimes’ should the Democrats gain control of the House in January.
Max,
Anyway, back to the idea that it’s some sort of conspiracy theory to think Mueller is systematically bringing legal pressure to bear on people in an effort to get to Trump – I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory if it’s widely known and reported. Here is a Reuters article explaining in quite plain, matter of fact language that this is the role of Andrew Weissmann on Mueller’s team, and that he developed this expertise in flipping organized crime witnesses. I expect one has to play pretty rough to flip mob witnesses. Of course I don’t really know, but the popular culture impression is that the stakes are life and death in ratting out the mafia.
[Edit: FWIW, SteveF may well be correct that what flipped Cohen was a threat to Cohen’s wife. Weissmann has used this tactic before:
]
Thanks to mark bofill (Comment #170088) for the link with the clarifying quote from former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith.
No matter how much OK_Max tries to obfuscate, the situation is clear. The hush money payments were not campaign contributions. So it makes no difference who made the payments or who directed the payments; no crimes were committed.
Cohen’s guilty plea is just a result of prosecutorial extortion. Completely unsurprising to anyone familiar with the many abuses of power by the FBI when Mueller was in charge.
Mike M: “Cohen’s guilty plea is just a result of prosecutorial extortion. Completely unsurprising”
I wouldn’t view it completely that way. It is part of collusion and an inside game between the prosecutors and Cohen to get Trump. Cohen is a willing participant since he wants to get Trump, and they have the goods on him in other matters. The other charges may be extortion, but the campaign finance charge is a valuable bargaining chip for him to reduce the other probably valid charges.
JD
DOJ has the position that these sorts of things are campaign spending, regardless of FEC’s conclusion to the contrary in the Edwards case. So it is not prosecutorial misconduct to charge Cohen with this. At the time there was one acquittal and five no decisions by the jury, reportedly just one voting in favor of conviction(opposite of Manafort jury).
A judge would have a hard time rejecting this plea deal as a non-crime with disagreement like this.
I don’t get how it stays a contribution by Cohen if he was reimbursed.
It’s different if a law firm compensates their employees for their donations, allowing them to exceed the contribution limit.
I also don’t see edit button.
Trump’s violation of campaign finance law is non-existent, because it requires knowing and willful violation of the law. While Trump did intend to have this payment be done, he had no intention or awareness that this was campaign spending. Easy to establish this, since even the FEC does not have this awareness.
MikeN,
I have to set aside time to find a new plugin. It’s not time consuming, but I just haven’t done it.
MikeN (Comment #170105): “DOJ has the position that these sorts of things are campaign spending, regardless of FEC’s conclusion to the contrary in the Edwards case. So it is not prosecutorial misconduct to charge Cohen with this.”
The DoJ does not get to decide what the law is. So for them to try to enforce the law differently from the FEC is prosecutorial misconduct.
As JD points out, the Cohen case is not just prosecutorial extortion, it is also collusion between the prosecution and the defense. It seems to me that might also be prosecutorial misconduct.
It seems the Edwards case was complicated by the fact that it was his campaign finance chairman who solicited the payments to the mistress. Even so, the jury refused to buy the DoJ theory. Cohen worked for Trump, not his campaign.
.
MikeN (Comment #170106): “Trump’s violation of campaign finance law is non-existent, because it requires knowing and willful violation of the law. ”
Sadly, that is not true for federal regulatory violations. The EPA (as well as other agencies) has sent people to prison for breaking rules that they did not know existed while trying to do something beneficial. It is a major way in which the regulatory state is out of control and needs to be reigned in.
The flip side is that it is the regulatory agency that sets the rules. So DoJ has no business second guessing the regulators.
mark bofill (Comment #170099)
I’m sorry if the link I provided was unclear. My point wasn’t about defendants who plead not guilty and who are found not guilty. My point was merely that innocent people plead guilty more often than one might think.
_____
mark, the exoneration site said 261 defendants who pled guilty
were later exonerated, and they represented 15% of all 1,702 exonerees. My mac would only hold this site for a few seconds, before it went blank. Not sure why. Anyway, I believe these
numbers are cumulative rather than for one year.
Quoting from the same organization, the following link said Only 7% of exonerations were for drug and white collar crimes, but didn’t
give the statistic for white-collar alone.
We need to know how many years the statistics cover. If say
10 years are covered , the averages are 170 exonerees per
year, 26 of who had pleaded guilty. Of the 170 total, we
estimate about 12 ( .07 x 170 )were convicted of drug or
white-collar crimes, 2 of whom had pleaded guilty(.15 X 12).
I think 2 per year isn’t many. But this is just an exercise, since
I don’t know the actual number of years represented. I did the
estimates fast, so am not guaranteeing mistake free numbers
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-2000-convicted-then-exonerated-in-23-years/
For whatever it’s worth, If I were charged with a crime I didn’t
commit, I can’t imagine entering a guilty plea.
OK_Max
If the number was 2 a year, it would not be many. But you are considering factors that reduce the number without considering other ones.
The number of exonerations is not remotely equal to the number of innocent people who were convicted.
Mark’s point is we have data that shows quite a few people plead guilty when, in fact, we know no crime was committed because the “drugs” the plead guilty of possessing turned out to not be drugs. He’s shown that.
FWIW Max,
Don’t get me wrong. Personally (as in: a speculative belief I don’t care to try to make an evidential case for) I think if Cohen’s not guilty of this he’s probably guilty as Cain of six or seven other things. I pretty much assume that to be the case when we are dealing with Federal level politicians, politics, [lawyers] and bureaucrats. So, it’s not that I think Cohen (or Trump) is any sort of saint. Rather, it’s just that what’s going on here / the case against him doesn’t have much of anything to do with justice, in my view. It’s not exactly just politics either. Special counsel is a strange beast, maybe.
shrug.
lucia (Comment #170110)
August 26th, 2018 at 12:16 pm
OK_Max
If the number was 2 a year, it would not be many. But you are considering factors that reduce the number without considering other ones.
_______
True. I was just trying to get some idea of magnitude. Available statistics may not show the number of white-collar crime
exonerees who had pled guilty. I didn’t find any in my search. The interest is in exonerees who had pled guilty to murder and rape.
Even if we had data on white-collar exonerees who had pled guilty,
it wouldn’t tell us how many pled guilty, were not guilty, and were
not exonerated. Who cares about them anyway. It’s those who were
executed or served long sentences the public cares about.
mark bofill (Comment #170102)
August 26th, 2018 at 8:14 am
Max,
Anyway, back to the idea that it’s some sort of conspiracy theory to think Mueller is systematically bringing legal pressure to bear on people in an effort to get to Trump – I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory if it’s widely known and reported. Here is a Reuters article explaining in quite plain, matter of fact language that this is the role of Andrew Weissmann on Mueller’s team, and that he developed this expertise in flipping organized crime witnesses…
_____
I suspect Cohen flipped because of the records the FBI confiscated
in the raid on his office. Although Cohen has already pleaded guilty
to several charges, he could testify about Trump, and those records
could back up his testimony.
OK_Max
My point is you are going about it entirely the wrong way.
No. If by “the interest” you mean the conversation we are having here, the interest is in innocent people who plead guilty for crimes they did not commit. This interest was triggered by your questioning the notion that Cohen might plead guilty to a crime he did not commit.
That could be murder and rape. That could be drug possession. That could be any crime they did not commit.
The relevant thing is that people plead innocent to crimes we know they did not commit because the exculpatory evidence is overwhelming. We know these people represent the absolute lower bound on the number of innocent people who plead guilty. We also know the lower bound is likely to be much lower because in most cases it is impossible to prove someone absolutely could not have committed a crime.
In the case of rape and murder, DNA can be exculpatory. But for most crimes, there is no way to prove the negative. So innocent people who plead guilty cannot be detected.
OK_Max
If the seized records point to Trump’s illegal behavior, the prosecutors probably don’t need Cohen’s testimony. But they’d probably like it. So getting Cohen to testify is something they might like enough to allow him to cop a plea to a lesser crime instead of to a higher crime. Cohen would have a strong motive to plead guilty to the lesser crime even if he didn’t commit it in order to avoid jail for the higher one. (And in Cohen’s case, avoid jail for both him and his wife.)
All this explains why Cohen might plead guilty to a crime he did not commit, which is something many here have been telling you he might very well do– as others have done before him.
That the records might back up Cohen testimony against Trump might be a reason the prosecutors offered him a deal. It’s not really a motive for Cohen to flip. Cohen’s motive to flip is to avoid huge jail time and fines for things Cohen did.
The difficulty with prosecutors flipping Cohen– or anyone who sings in exchange for reduced charges and sentencing– is now they have a witness who might be motivated to make up fact to allow the tapes to seem to make the case the prosecutors “want”. Not saying Cohen will do that. But under the circumstances, his flipping can be seen a few different ways.
In some way, we are going to need to hear what the tapes reveal independent of Cohen’s testimony. If they don’t make a strong case on their own or with evidence separate from Cohen, Cohen’s testimony should be looked at somewhat suspiciously.
OTOH: Cohent’s testimony may just turn out to be the frosting on the evidence cake. Prosecutors still like that– as they should.
OK_Max (Comment #170109): “For whatever it’s worth, If I were charged with a crime I didn’t commit, I can’t imagine entering a guilty plea.”
Maybe you need a bit more imagination.
I agree with regards to the things that most people think of when they hear the word “crime”. But the kinds of crimes that people can commit without knowing it are a different matter. Those tend to be highly subject to interpretation and the government’s interpretation tends to be what counts. So what if your lawyer tells you:
(1) Yes, you are innocent, but we have about a 10% chance of convincing a jury of that.
(2) If you plead guilty, you pay a $50K fine and spend 18 months in a minimum security “country club” prison with a bunch of other white collar criminals.
(3) Going to trial will cost you about $250K, win or lose.
(4) If you lose at trial you will likely spend 10 years in a maximum security prison, quite possibly with a cell mate who is a drug dealer serving a life sentence.
I don’t know if I am overstating or understating the case. My point is that there is a point where you would seriously consider pleading guilty.
lucia (Comment #170114)
August 26th, 2018 at 2:00 pm
OK_Max
True. I was just trying to get some idea of magnitude.
My point is you are going about it entirely the wrong way.
The interest is in exonerees who had pled guilty to murder and rape.
No. If by “the interest†you mean the conversation we are having here, the interest is in innocent people who plead guilty for crimes they did not commit.
_______
I didn’t think trying to find data on the subject was going about it the
wrong way, the subject being innocent people who plead guilty to white-collar crimes, until I failed to find such information. In my
search I saw instead a lot of information on innocent people who
had been convicted of murder and/or rape, some of whom had
pleaded guilty. While that wasn’t the information I was seeking,
I got side tracked wondering why an innocent defendant would
plead guilty to a crime that could result in a severe sentence,
even death.
Mike M. (Comment #170116)
August 26th, 2018 at 2:23 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170109): “For whatever it’s worth, If I were charged with a crime I didn’t commit, I can’t imagine entering a guilty plea.â€
Maybe you need a bit more imagination.
______
OK, Mike M, you got me on that one. I have pleaded guilty to
a traffic ticket when I thought I actually was innocent, as I
thought paying the fine was preferable to wasting my time
on a case I would very likely lose anyway.
While it’s hard to beat a traffic ticket, going to court isn’t
always a waste of time. I once pled not guilty and was found
guilty, but the judge reduced the fine.
But if the penalty is time in jail, and I’m innocent, I’m pleading
not guilty.
Mike M,
“…quite possibly with a cell mate who is a drug dealer serving a life sentence.”
.
And who seriously wants a ‘boyfriend’ sleeping in the same cell. White collar criminals have lots of reasons to cop a plea rather than go to trial, unless they are certain their case for innocence, to be made to a jury, is overwhelming. With complicated laws and differing reasonable interpretations of those law, many cases will be far from black and white. This is where a plea agreement might be very advantageous to the defendant, even if he honestly thinks he is not guilty of a crime.
OK_Max (Comment #170118): “But if the penalty is time in jail, and I’m innocent, I’m pleading not guilty.”
I do not believe you. Surely the length of term and type of prison would matter. As would the financial consequences for you and your family, both short and long term.
>I don’t think it’s a conspiracy theory if it’s widely known and reported.
This because you are defining conspiracy theory as crazy theory.
MikeN,
.
That’s quite true. I think many people use the terms ‘conspiracy theory’ to mean ‘crazy theory’, although perhaps this is unwarranted. For example, I think I can make a decent case that the Founding Fathers of our country were basically a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Darn good ones it would appear, our Constitution has stood a test of time and who knows how many conspiracies.
[Edit: Well, I don’t know if I agree with the ‘because’ part. But I agree that I was using ‘conspiracy theory’ to mean ‘crazy theory’.]
Bruce Ohr tomorrow . Closed session. Would imagine he will try the Strzok and Rosenstein defense of not talking about current investigations. Can this fly though if, as is said, he was not legitimately involved with the FBI and was doing it of his own bat..
As not a legitimate investigator he should have no such privilege.
If the DOJ use their or the FBI lawyers to help him they would be obstructing justice?
angech,
He remains an employee of the DOJ, and he will for certain be accompanied by DOJ lawyers. No doubt he has already been carefully coached about what he can and can’t say. The committee will get no information of any use out of him about how the DOJ and FBI colluded to use the “Trump dossier” for getting a FISA search warrant to spy of the Trump campaign, nor anything about how his wife, working for Fusion GPS (opposition research firm), fed him ongoing opposition research, which he passed on to others at the DOJ, the FBI, and probably the CIA. He will have no idea why is middle aged wife, while doing opposition research on Trump for Fusion GPS, had a sudden desire for an amateur radio operating licence. The fact that amateur shortwave radio is about the only means of global communication which is not continuously monitored by the CIA will come as a surprise to him.
.
The guy is a lying worm, motivated by implacable opposition to Trump, and used his official capacity at the DOJ to conspire with others to defeat Trump in 2016. He will ultimately be fired for submitting knowingly false declarations of conflicts of interest to the DOJ. But he will never be prosecuted for his criminal acts, and the public will get nothing out of him, before or after he is fired, thus protecting other people at DOJ who conspired against Trump. Like oh, say, Loretta Lynch…. and her former boss.
SteveF,
.
Wow. I had no idea Nellie Ohr had such wide ranging interests. She’s colorful.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/02/fusion-gpss-anti-trump-researcher-avoid-surveillance-ham-radio-license/
.
[Edit: OMG I love it. Dit-dah-dah; dah; dit-dit-dah-dit is Morse Code for WTF. I’m going to start using that.]
I expect (although as Steve mentions, nobody will ever prove) that the real story of Russian meddling and conspiracy was rather different from what is commonly believed. But there would be a certain delicious irony to pinning Russian collusion and election interference on Trump by means of his political adversaries colluding with the Russians and election interference.
Nobody will ever prove it, but it’d make an entertaining story. Steele and Nellie Ohr, the means by which Putin’s FSB conduct their little maskirovka to interfere with US politics. Heh.
Max_OK
Like others: I don’t believe you. I think you believe what you are saying, but I think you aren’t thinking of the sorts of extreme circumstances people might find themselves in.
If you own a large business or are the sort who can remain employable with a record and your choices are:
1) 30 days jail in a cream-puff facility because you turn states evidence so they can catch a bigger fish vs
2) losing your business, house and so on in order to pay millions of dollars for defense and risking 5 years jail time in a not-cream puff jail if you lose.
The fact is: if you have enough wealth, you’ll still be ok after 30 days in jail. But you won’t be ok if you lose your business, house and so on. And then go to jail to. This is very unattractive.
I think you like many people would pick pleading guilty in some circumstances. Or maybe you are a martyr. ou already paid a traffic ticket you thought you didn’t deserve and all you wanted to do was avoid wasting a little time. So you know people, including you, do trade off things.
The problem with your confidence is I suspect you just aren’t realizing how expensive some cases would be. In the current cases involving Trump affiliates not only are they going to have to pay for lawyers to deal with legal issues, they need to hire people to get in front of the press, they need to avoid talking in public and all sorts of other things. Also, the prosecution has very deep pockets and since the case is very public, they aren’t going to let things to lightly.
Also: Some of these people are almost certainly guilty of something. So it’s not a case of being entirely innocent– they just might not be guilty of the offense they plead guilty to. A person guilty of “X” offerred the opportunity to plead guilty to Y with a lower penalty vs. the DA going after “X” they are going to be very tempted by the lower. (The DA might even think the guy is guilty of Y. The guy knows he’s not… but… so? He still might plead to it to avoid being prosecuted for X.)
Mike M. (Comment #170120)
August 26th, 2018 at 5:02 pm
OK_Max (Comment #170118): “But if the penalty is time in jail, and I’m innocent, I’m pleading not guilty.â€
I do not believe you. Surely the length of term and type of prison would matter. As would the financial consequences for you and your family, both short and long term.
______________
Of course the possible consequences would matter,
but what would matter most is whether I committed
the crime, assuming justice is not like a crapshoot,
with the innocent and the guilty equally likely to be
sentenced.
Because I have never actually experienced
having to choose between a guilty or not guilty
plea, I can’t say with certainty what I would do
if charged with a white-collar crime. I imagine
my choice would depend on the circumstances.
If guilty, I would plead guilty, unless nothing was
to be gained. If not guilty, and my attorney and
I felt confident about my case, I would plead not
guilty. A guilty plea would be considered only
if we weren’t confident, and the prosecution
made an attractive offer.
Fortunately, I will never have to make such a
choice because I don’t break the law, and the
government must have a basis for charging
people with crimes. The conviction rate for
defendants charged with white-collar crimes,
about 85% as I recall, indicates prosecutors
are very efficient and don’t waste time on
cases lacking evidence.
lucia (Comment #170127)
August 27th, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Max_OK
But if the penalty is time in jail, and I’m innocent, I’m pleading not guilty.
Like others: I don’t believe you. I think you believe what you are saying, but I think you aren’t thinking of the sorts of extreme circumstances people might find themselves in.
_____
I’m sorry lucia, I didn’t see your post before I replied to Mike M,
a reply that I hope addresses some of your post.
Regarding the expense of a trial, I agree the cost could be financially
devastating. It doesn’t seem fair to defendants found not guilty.
Multiple charges do give the prosecution leverage, and IMO may increase the chances a jury would find the defendant guilty of a least one.
Anxiety over the uncertainty of a trial outcome can be very hard
to take, even for an innocent defendant who feels confident about
winning. There’s alway xanax.
I can’t say for sure what I would do in a particular situation
until I am actually in that situation. It has to be real.
OK_Max (Comment #170128)
That is pretty much what I would do. The point of this is to understand that just because Flynn or Cohen pleaded guilty, it does not mean they actually broke the law.
.
You don’t think you break the law. You don’t intend to break the law. But you, like most people, probably break the law in ways you don’t even realize. These days, many laws do not require mens rea for conviction. It is rarely a problem in practice (which does not make it OK), unless some prosecutor decides to pick apart your life looking for something he can use. Then you are screwed.
Lucia,
“Some of these people are almost certainly guilty of something.”
.
Truth is, with the vast array of Federal and State laws, it is probably pretty common for people to be in violation of some statute or another. The more complicated a person’s financial and business affairs, the more likely there is some violation somewhere. Most of these would never be prosecuted, of course (and at worst, a fine), but if you get on the wrong political side of a DA, or worse, the DOJ… then bad things happen. The troubling thing is this: none of the people that Mueller has indited, convicted, or gotten pleas from would ever have been prosecuted except that Trump was elected and Mueller is out to get Trump by any means, up to and including guns-drawn pre-dawn raids on non-violent suspects homes. It is abuse of the power to prosecute by the DOJ, nothing less. IMO, the real criminal here is Mueller.
Mike M. (Comment #170130)
August 27th, 2018 at 2:36 pm
OK_Max (Comment #17012
“The point of this is to understand that just because Flynn or Cohen pleaded guilty, it does not mean they actually broke the law.”
I believe you are saying Cohen may have pled guilty to the two campaign finance charges because, even though he believed he wasn’t guilty or doubted he was guilty, he feared a jury might
find him guilty. If so, I would agree that’s a possibility. On the
other hand, he may have pled guilty because he believed he
is guilty.
“You don’t think you break the law. You don’t intend to break the law. But you, like most people, probably break the law in ways you don’t even realize.”
Mike M, I’m not going to worry about that.
OK_Max
That’s only part of the issue in Cohen’s case. His problems include:
1) He may very know he’s guilty of “Y” with much more sever penalties and he knows a jury would find him guilty of that. If he cops a plea to thing “X”, the prosecutors will drop Y. So in this case, he would plead guilty of X which he is innocent of to avoid being found guilty for Y which he is guilty of.
2) He knows that defending himself against charges X and Y in court will ruin him financially even if he is found innocent. The jail time for pleading guilty for X is less bad than the cost of defending himself.
Either of these independently could be enough to motivate him to plead guilty to “X” even though he is innocent of X.
Of course he may also have plead guilty because he knows he is. But I suspect he wouldn’t even do that if he thought a jury would be convinced there is sufficient doubt to find him not guilty.
lucia (Comment #170133)
“Either of these independently could be enough to motivate him to plead guilty to “X†even though he is innocent of X.”
_______
Yes, that seems possible. I’m not sure the rules followed by the
court require the plea hearing to disclose the trade as a part of the plea, although the following section from Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11, says some disclosure is necessary:
“Disclosing a Plea Agreement. The parties must disclose the plea agreement in open court when the plea is offered, unless the court for good cause allows the parties to disclose the plea agreement in camera.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11
I’m just not sure this rule means the prosecution and defense have
to tell the court what was traded.
I suspect Cohen would want them to report that he was charged with “X” and the DA agreed to not charge him with “Y” in trade. That would prevent them from coming around later and charging him with “Y”.
Obviously, Cohen doesn’t get to say, “I’m pleading guilty for X even though I’m innocent.” You aren’t allowed to “plead guilty but please not that I’m really innocent.”
OK_Max (Comment #170132): “I believe you are saying Cohen may have pled guilty to the two campaign finance charges because, even though he believed he wasn’t guilty or doubted he was guilty, he feared a jury might find him guilty. If so, I would agree that’s a possibility.”
Yes, that is a possibility. Lucia pointed out another. Yet another is that both Cohen and the prosecutor know perfectly well that a jury would never convict him on those charges, but the plea deal reduces the penalties to less than he would get for the tax evasion alone. Yet another possibility is that the penalty is the same whether or not he pled guilty to the campaign finance laws, but he wanted to plead to the latter to cause trouble for Trump.
.
OK_Max: “On the other hand, he may have pled guilty because he believed he is guilty.”
I doubt it. Some people might do that. But my guess is that someone like Cohen would only consider the possible penalties and the odds of being convicted.
.
OK_Max (Comment #170134): “I’m just not sure this rule means the prosecution and defense have to tell the court what was traded.”
I am pretty sure it would include what each party commits to (for example, maybe it requires Cohen to testify against others). But I can not believe that the disclosure would have to include speculation on what might have happened without the deal.
lucia (Comment #170135): “You aren’t allowed to plead guilty but please not that I’m really innocent.â€
Actually, you are. It is called an Alford plea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
MikeM,
Interesting!!
Somehow, I doubt attorney’s would allow it in a plea bargain. But ok!
The tax charges against Cohen carry a max penalty of about 50 years. A judge could give him 65 years on his guilty plea, but prosecutor recommendation is 47-63 MONTHS.
MikeN,
“The tax charges against Cohen carry a max penalty of about 50 years.”
.
Consider this: in Brazil, the maximum sentence for ANY crime is 30 years (even multiple murders). 50 years for tax evasion seems by comparison pretty extreme. Of course, few people are sentenced to the maximum, but facing an extreme possible prison sentence (effectively a life sentence for someone like Cohen) in case of a conviction is yet another reason to plea to get a much shorter prison term. Draconian maximum sentences means very few cases ever go to trial.
All this Cohen pleaded guilty to X to protect himself from being charged with Y reminds me of a recent case here is Australian sport and how an early plea can reduce both the sentence and the reputation damage. 2 teams in different sports were both charged with doping (it is complicated because the materials used were not banned but were not approved and there was no physical evidence). Team A fought the charges vigorously all the way to the World Court for Arbitration in Sport in then most of the players were banned for a year, the coaches reputation for life and the club heavily fined, Team B pleaded guilty through gritted teeth and whilst letting it known they considered themselves innocent, they were banned for a couple of months and their reputations preserved. Sometimes you cop the lesser charge because the investigation and trial are the punishment.
This article on plea bargaining turned my stomach — and I have seen a lot as a lawyer. One reason the 36-year-old mother pled guilty to a drug offense she didn’t commit was to spare her two sons from being charged. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/
JD
In reference to the guilty plea of Cohen discussed by OK Max, Lucia and Mike M and others, I have a different opinion.
…..
Since there is strong evidence that no crime was committed (remember that a candidate has the right to spend any amount of his own funds on his campaign, and Trump spent his own money. Also, the expenditure has to be SOLELY for campaign purposes), I believe there is actual collusion (or wink and nod collusion) to finger Trump. The guilty plea to a phony crime (while pointing to Trump as an unindicted co-conspirator — technically unnamed) is simply a disguised benefit given to Mueller to reduce the other charges.
……
It is not like, Cohen and his lawyer said that he is facing 10 years in prison on the campaign charge and he can get his sentence on the campaign charge reduced by 5 years if he pleads guilty. It is more that the Cohen team knows that the charges are bogus and could be successfully challenged, but by going through the charade of a phony guilty plea, he puts himself in a position to get reduced sentencing and the withdrawal of other real charges. Somewhat analogous to snitches lying about defendants so that charges faced by the snitches can be reduced.
JD
JD_Ohio
I think this was what I was trying to suggest in response to Max_OK’s contention that if someome is innocent, they don’t plead guilty. But it’s possible Cohen has really done ‘Y’, but he pleads guilty to ‘X’. The prosecutors drop charges for “Y” in exchange.
Lucia : “But it’s possible Cohen has really done ‘Y’, but he pleads guilty to ‘X’. The prosecutors drop charges for “Y†in exchange.”
Sorry, I did miss about 80% of the thrust of your comment. However, I still think there is a significant difference in this case that needs to be made explicit. It is not unusual to, say, plead guilty to a drug selling charge when in actuality you didn’t sell any drugs. In exchange , for instance, a robbery charge may be dropped.
What is very different in this case is that the underlying behavior that is the predicate for the guilty plea of a campaign violation is not a crime. It is as though (somewhat over simplified here) an accused stated that he borrowed property from an uncle, and the court upon hearing that accepted a guilty plea for robbery. If this is what happened, and it appears to be the case, it is very, very corrupt for all concerned. Much worse than a typical plea bargain.
JD
JD Ohio (Comment #170145): “If this is what happened, and it appears to be the case, it is very, very corrupt for all concerned. Much worse than a typical plea bargain.”
I agree that it seems quite possible, perhaps likely, that JD’s scenario is what happened in the Cohen case. I also agree that if it is what happened, it is very corrupt. I’d call it a threat to the rule of law.
JD
Ahh.. I see the difference.
JD Ohio,
“Much worse than a typical plea bargain.â€
.
Of course. The stakes.. and the objective…. (driving Trump from office) are very different from a typical plea bargain. Mueller, his posse, and most of the DOJ are and have always been targeting Trump. They are acting like they would in an organized crime case… hammering the lesser individuals with “Trumped up”charges to force them to turn on the boss. No surprise there; the MSM has made clear for two plus years that Democrats believe Trump must be driven from office, no matter the means, and no matter if he “colluded with Russia”. Whether they succeed or not depends mainly on the November election. The rest is political posturing.
“Lanny Davis, a spokesman and attorney for Cohen, said in an interview this weekend that he is no longer certain about claims he made to reporters on background and on the record in recent weeks about what Cohen knows about Trump’s awareness of the Russian efforts.” – WP
.
Looks like more red faces in the media. This web is so tangled I can’t even tell who is deceiving whom.
JDOhio, the problem is that ‘not a crime’ is an opinion that is disputed by DOJ. Edwards case went to trial. So at least one other judge was not willing to declare ‘this is not a crime’, even with an FEC opinion to the contrary.
MikeN: “JDOhio, the problem is that ‘not a crime’ is an opinion that is disputed by DOJ.”
for what I would consider corrupt reasons. The DOJ is not an objective organization uninfluenced by politics. What possible reason is there to refer to Trump (in a very thinly veiled way) in connection with Cohen’s plea? The DOJ is a political organization mostly like any other. In the past, it was headed by Eric Holder who was involved in the very dirty Marc Rich pardon, and other questionable activities.
…..
I consider Bradley Smith (former FEC chair) to be a very reliable source. Also, Dershowitz has referred to this as being like a jay walking ticket. (Trump has the right to use unlimited funds from his own account to pay for his campaign expenses if you consider the non-disclosure agreement to be a campaign expense.) The only taint of illegality is that he didn’t report using his own money.
…..
However, the whole point of campaign laws is to make sure that people with money and influence can’t surreptitiously give money to campaigns. Everyone knew Trump was financially supporting his own campaign. So, even if you don’t buy Smith’s position, Trump is at worst, guilty of the equivalent of jay walking.
JD
I would add that the judge presiding over the Cohen matter is Kimba Wood who presided over the recent wedding of Soros. Not unexpected that she wouldn’t give the plea bargain stringent scrutiny.
JD
JD, have you ever served on a jury?
I was wondering about the impact of Gates’s lying in the Manafort trial.
Apparently they agreed at the beginning to just ignore his testimony.
MikeN: “JD, have you ever served on a jury?” Not surprised that they would ignore or possibly give Gates some credence. The jury evaluates the case from their own view of the big picture, and then goes from there. I did have 150 jury trials (civil), which is a lot.
…..
Will relate a story about my former boss. He sat on a jury that was called to try a man for breaking into his former home where his girlfriend lived to retrieve his own clothes and was charged with burglary. During the trial, he admitted to some sort of important lie. He essentially admitted to the burglary, but not another more serious crime.
…..
My boss and many of the jurors thought it was a BS charge. During the course of the deliberations, my boss said that if the defendant lied about the other matter, how do we know he told the truth when he admitted to the burglary. The jury acquitted him. When the verdict was announced, everyone’s jaw dropped, including that of the defendant.
……
The point being that jury verdicts are very unpredictable. Although less so with the Trump defendants, since there is a large paper trail.
JD
I was thinking if they hadn’t agreed to ignore Gates at the beginning of deliberations, his lies which were so obvious to the jury would have weighed down every charge and cast the paper trail in doubt.
I think your boss’s argument might be what CNN will use for their Mannian defense of ‘Cohen says Trump knew about meeting with Russians’ even after their anonymous source Lanny Davis has denied the story.
JD Ohio (Comment #170143)
JD, I will try to summarize how you and others here see Cohen’s plea on the Daniels hush
money charge. I apologize if the following summary does not accurately represent your view.
The prosecution wanted Cohen to plead guilty to a non-crime, so offered Cohen an incentive to plead plead guilty to the non-crime by promising to drop or reduce charges against him for a real and more serious crime, and he accepted the offer. The prosecution and Cohen then presented this deal to the court, and the Judge who is not supposed to accept pleas to non-crimes accepted it anyway.
Everyone involved knew Cohen was pleading guilty to a non-crime, yet they all lied by saying it was a crime. Their motive was to implicate Cohen’s old boss Trump, making it appear Cohen’s guilty plea meant Trump also was guilty.
_________
I guess anything can happen, but it seems far
fetched to me that the prosecution and Cohen would in effect lie under oath and the judge
would break her own oath to adhere to the law.
OK_Max,
.
Were the British colonists in the U.S. who fought against British soldiers revolutionary [freedom fighters] or terrorists?
Real question, and I promise you it’s not irrelevant to the discussion.
I’ll just cut to the chase. You characterize ‘crime’ and ‘non-crime’ as if the world is clear cut, black and white, and further as if the clear cut difference is readily apparent to everyone at a glance.
It’s not.
I don’t know. JD Ohio, when you see this, if you wouldn’t mind terribly I’d appreciate your opinion.
I have this idea that the questions lawyers and judges settle are complicated. Maybe I’ve got this wrong. Heck, I even have this foolish notion that some lawyers might think the arguments they come up with in court matter. Maybe prosecutors have a rationale, or at least a rationalization. Maybe defense attorneys do too. I expect everybody on opposing sides thinks their side is right sometimes, even though everybody can’t be right and the court eventually rules one way or another.
Maybe sometimes it’s not clear if someone has crossed a legal line or not. Does this ever happen, in your estimation?
Terrorist to the loyalist, freedom fighters to everyone else. Well. maybe not everyone else, as some people may have been neutral.
Hundreds of years later it doesn’t matter much, as Canada and
Australia ended up with the same deal without fighting for it.
On second thought, one of my ancestors got a lot of land in
Tennessee for his service to the American revolution. So if
the Revolution hadn’t happened I might not be here or I could
be part me and part someone else.
Regarding your other strange notion, judges are supposed to know what is and isn’t a crime. The prosecution and defense are supposed to know too. If they all had different ideas about what is a crime the criminal justice system would be a comedy.
I hope my sentences aren’t truncated this time.
Max.
.
Is shooting someone a crime.
.
The correct answer is it depends.
.
Because it does depend. Whether or not something is a crime depends heavily on the relevant details. Was Cohen acting on his own or on Trump’s behalf. Arguments could be made. So on – there are likely numerous details that actually matter. If the law was as simple as you are trying to make it appear I don’t think lawyers would make the big bucks or require people with brains to practice.
.
OK Max: “The prosecution and Cohen then presented this deal to the court, and the Judge who is not supposed to accept pleas to non-crimes accepted it anyway.”
……
Pretty much correct. The judge who presided over the trial was Kimba Wood, who officiated over the wedding of George Soros recently. Doesn’t surprise me at all that she let it slide, because she is undoubtedly very anti-Trump. (The ethics of her participation are slippery here because the law assumes that the prosecutors and Cohen were adverse parties with respect to the campaign finance guilty plea, and they really weren’t. A judge is supposed to mostly step aside when “adverse” parties reach an agreement.)
…..
You seem to be surprised by the depth of the corruption. I am not. In Cleveland (Cuyahoga County), a former sheriff (McGettrick) became judge and accepted a $5,000 bribe to let someone beat a murder rap. Can you imagine how many people McGettrick framed as sheriff. Also, one year (probably mid-80s), the whole of Cuyahoga County (pop about 2 million.) had approximately 10 criminal trials. It is beyond imagination how lazy and ineffective, the approximately 35 judges, as well as the prosecutors, were.
Mueller’s chief prosecutor, Andrew Weissman, has already tried the trick of getting a defendant to plead to a non-crime. “At one hearing, an incredulous district court judge looked down at an Enron defendant [being prosecuted by Weismann) and told him he was pleading guilty to a wire fraud crime that did not exist.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/22/christopher-wray-robert-muellers-top-prosecutor-kn/
…..
OK M: “Everyone involved knew Cohen was pleading guilty to a non-crime, yet they all lied by saying it was a crime. Their motive was to implicate Cohen’s old boss Trump, making it appear Cohen’s guilty plea meant Trump also was guilty.”
…..
Yes. Exactly how corrupt and despicable they were. (Will add that it is theoretically possible that Lanny Davis was too stupid to know that what Cohen and Trump did was not a crime. His most recent actions are amazingly stupid.)
…..
So, yes there is a lot of corruption, and it is much worse than most people can imagine. Until the texts were actually published, who could imagine that there was someone as despicable as Strozk being a main “investigator” on the Hillary Clinton investigation.
JD
Max,
.
I find this somewhat frustrating only because I feel like this is an obvious point that shouldn’t be a source of disagreement. I would like to try to walk through slowly.
1. I think we may agree that people tend to rationalize things. This is to say, they have a certain point of view and they come up with justifications for their point of view.
2. I don’t think being a lawyer or judge makes one immune from this, we might agree on that.
3. I think we could agree that people have existed and exist today who believe that there are cases where a desirable end justifies the use of questionable means.
4. Even if we cannot agree on (3), we might agree that people have existed and still exist today who act as if a certain desirable end justifies the use of questionable means.
5. I believe that people who rationalize, or who believe the ends may sometimes justify the use of immoral means, or who sometimes act as if in accordance with the notion that a noble end may justify immoral means — I believe these people are just as likely to be prosecutors and judges as defense attorneys.
.
Do we disagree on any of these points?
M Bofill: “I have this idea that the questions lawyers and judges settle are complicated. Maybe I’ve got this wrong. Heck, I even have this foolish notion that some lawyers might think the arguments they come up with in court matter.”
….
I will agree that much of what lawyers do is very complicated. The downside of that is when you have unethical lawyers, you can dream up “clever” ways to engage in corrupt behavior. For instance, consider the Clinton Foundation, which was mostly a disguised bribe endeavor. Not too hard to defend legalistically, but practically a very bad and unethical institution.
JD
JD,
Thank you.
.
[Edit: I point out that people are often morally grey. JD points out that sometimes people are out and out morally black. Max, I fail to see why you’d insist that people are morally white. It hasn’t been my general experience..]
mark bofill (Comment #170162)
August 28th, 2018 at 4:44 pm
Max.
.
Is shooting someone a crime.
.
The correct answer is it depends.
___________
Shooting is not the charge. Assuming the shooting kills a person, the charge could be murder (and the specific degree) or something else ((e.g. manslaughter) or if the prosecution believes the shooting was accidental or justifiable, no charge at all.
A jury doesn’t decide whether murder is against the law, the jury decides whether the defendant is guilty of the charge. Self-defense would be a grounds for a not guilty plea, despite the prosecution’s belief it was not self-defense.
A jury can, however, find a defendant not guilty of breaking a law
because they don’t believe that law should be a law. I think that’s
called jury nullification or something like that.
Max,
I don’t know what to tell you. I give you links to Reuters, not Fox News, discussing bluntly how Andrew Weissman operates. JD gives you a case where a judge told a defendant that Weissman had dealt with that he was pleading guilty to a non crime. People rationalize, things are complicated enough that truth probably isn’t always obvious, some people get noble cause corruption.
I give. I don’t know what else to tell you.
JD Ohio (Comment #170163)
August 28th, 2018 at 4:52 pm
OK Max: “The prosecution and Cohen then presented this deal to the court, and the Judge who is not supposed to accept pleas to non-crimes accepted it anyway.â€
……
Pretty much correct.
____
JD, your supposing that’s true doesn’t make it true.
My supposing it’s not true doesn’t make it not true.
But I believe supposing can be good. It works the brain.
Brains need exercise.
Max,
.
My apologies. My wife tells me I am out of sorts, and I can see what she’s talking about. On my word, I wasn’t consciously aware of it until it was pointed out to me. I regret that I took my personal … whatever… irritation I guess out on you.
mark bofill (Comment #170168)
I don’t know what else to tell you.
Tell me something I don’t know, but don’t tell me the SDNY, the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and Mueller are all out to get Trump by lying, cheating, and other wrongdoing.
It wasn’t too long ago, during the Hillary investigation as I recall.
that some on the right were reporting an anti-Hillary rebellion in
the FBI. If the same guys are now after Trump, I think that shows
the organization is impartial.
OK_Max (Comment #170156): “Everyone involved knew Cohen was pleading guilty to a non-crime, yet they all lied by saying it was a crime.”
I don’t think that is the case at all. Cohen plead guilty to actual crimes. It is extremely unlikely that he committed those crimes. With a plea bargain, I doubt it is the judge’s responsibility to try to decide if the defendant really did it; at least not as long as the defendant is competent and is competently represented.
I think that JD’s interpretation is plausible but not certain. I suspect it is not a case of the various participants saying “Bwa-ha-ha, we are really gonna get Trump now” (well, maybe Cohen). More likely it is what mark suggests: rationalization all around.
OK_Max (Comment #170171): “It wasn’t too long ago, during the Hillary investigation as I recall. that some on the right were reporting an anti-Hillary rebellion in the FBI. If the same guys are now after Trump, I think that shows the organization is impartial.”
I think the rebellion within the FBI (if it existed) was against the people who are out to get Trump now.
Max OK: “JD, your supposing that’s true doesn’t make it true.”
My opinion is based on a lot more than supposing. It is based on a lot of experience as a lawyer and the statement of a former chairperson of the FEC. It is mainly supported by Alan Dershowitz, maybe he pre-eminent criminal law attorney in the US.
It is also based on strong circumstantial evidence. The fundamental reason for campaign laws is to force potentially undisclosed financial donors to make clear what their monetary contributions are so the public at large can judge whether politicians are unduly or improperly influenced by donations. Trump contributed to his own campaign. Everyone knows that. An after the fact report of the contribution is of close to zero significance.
Also, other than political corruption by the prosecutors, there was no reason to name Trump as an unindicted conspirator other than to spear him politically. The guilty plea to the campaign violations was a political act, not a response to a legitimate prosecution.
Finally, Mueller doesn’t even hide the political/Beria nature of his prosecutions. He has virtually all Democrats on his staff, many of whom have proven to be incompetent. Weismann, in particular, is a bum.
JD
Mark M: “More likely it is what mark suggests: rationalization all around.’
…..
At this high level of politics, and the dirt that is part and parcel of national politics, I don’t think there is any rationalization. They know exactly what they are doing and mostly lack what most people would consider to be consciences which would force them to go to the trouble of rationalizing.
Not being a criminal lawyer, I was going to backtrack a little about the wrongfullness of naming Trump. However, I looked up wikipedia on unindicted conspirators, and the participants here are even lower than I thought. (Hard to believe)
…..
Here is what wiki states: “An unindicted co-conspirator, or unindicted conspirator, is a person or entity that is alleged in an indictment to have engaged in conspiracy, but who is not charged in the same indictment. Prosecutors choose to name persons as unindicted co-conspirators for a variety of reasons including grants of immunity, pragmatic considerations, and evidentiary concerns.
The United States Attorneys’ Manual generally recommends AGAINST [emphasis added] naming unindicted co-conspirators, although their use is not generally prohibited by law or policy.[1] Some commentators have raised due-process concerns over the use of unindicted co-conspirators.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unindicted_co-conspirator Interesting that I haven’t seen any main stream media mention that naming an unindicted co-conspirator goes against the general policy of the DOJ.
…..
So, not only is there an issue of no crime being committed, the colluders have violated the normal procedures of the US Attorneys Manual in naming an unindicted co-conspirator. In fact the wording of the naming of the un-indicted conspirator was made in an unnecessarily disrespectful way in the sense of naming Trump, but faking the non-naming: ” Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to federal tax evasion and campaign-finance charges, telling the Court that some of his crimes were done for the benefit of, and at the direction of, “Individual 1″[4] a certain un-named candidate for federal office, who later became President of the United States.” (wiki)
……
If a criminal lawyer were to tell that I am approaching this incorrectly, I would be predisposed to backtrack, at least on the unindicted conspirator part, but at this point, it doesn’t seem complicated to me.
JD
mark bofill (Comment #170170)
August 28th, 2018 at 6:19 pm
Max,
.
My apologies. My wife tells me I am out of sorts, and I can see what she’s talking about. On my word, I wasn’t consciously aware of it until it was pointed out to me. I regret that I took my personal … whatever… irritation I guess out on you.
_______
mark, thank you, but there is no need for an apology. I wasn’t offended.
Regarding your (Comment #170164), I agree with much of what
you said. Prosecutors and judges like all humans can have political views. But they are supposed to follow the laws and regulations that apply to how they do their jobs, regardless of their views. Those who don’t can lose their jobs.
Thanks Max. I enjoy the discussions, which wouldn’t be a quarter as interesting if we agreed all the time. Night all.
Many here may have already seen Cohen’s plea agreement, but if you haven’t it can be found at
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/read-michael-cohen-plea-deal/index.html
Cohen pleaded guilty to 8 counts. I have summarized the penalties for counts below:
Counts 1 thru 5 (tax evasion) each carry a maximum of 5 years and $100,000 in fines.
Count 6 (false statement to bank) carries a maximum of 30 years and a $1,000,00 fine.
Count 7 (corp hush payments) carries a maximum of 5 years and a $250,000 fine.
Count 8 (individual hush payment) carries a maximum of 5 years and a $250,000 fine.
This makes me wonder if Cohen pleaded guilty to the two hush payment charges in exchange for other charges being dropped, just what were the dropped charges and what penalties did they carry that totaled more than 10 years and $500,000, and whether that information is available?
Of course it’s possible the guilty plea didn’t involve any charges being dropped, but was exchange for the prosecution’s
recommendation of a less than maximums for for prison times and fines. The prosecution could have presented the package of charges to Cohen as a take it or leave it offer. There may have been no negotiating, no back and forth with offers and counter offers.
JD Ohio (Comment #170175)
JD, I didn’t mean to imply your views are without foundation. I
understand what you are saying.
Please excuse the sloppy writing in this post, I’m tired. Hopefully, the thinking isn’t sloppy too.
Cohen said he paid Daniels with his own money
and Trump says he reimbursed Cohen. I suspect
the details would determine the legality. I don’t
know (1) whether Cohen paid her directly or through
the straw company he set up, Essential Consultants
LLC, (2) whether Trump reimbursed him directly or through
the straw company, (3) whether the straw company had
deposits from other sources before the hush
payment to Daniels and before Trump repaid the
amount, (4) whether the straw company is a corporation
under campaign finance law.
If all monies were funneled through the straw
company, Essential Consultants LLC, and it
is legally a corporation, the hush payments
were in excess of what a corporation can
contribute under campaign law. Even if this
straw company is not a corporation, but
had contributions from corporations, which
Cohen drew on to pay Daniels, those payments
might still be a violation of campaign law.
Regardless of whether the money was
funneled through Essential Consultants
LLC, it seems odd that a man of Trump’s
wealth needed his lawyer Cohen to in
effect loan him $130,000 to pay Daniels,
a loan he repaid in installments. I can’t
think of a reason other than to buy more
time to figure out a way to conceal that
Trump was paying Daniels hush money.
But what was repayment in installments
about?
One might argue Cohen broke the campaign
law limit for individuals soon as he paid
Daniels with his own money, regardless of
whether he was paid back, unless there
was a formal agreement stating that he
was loaning Trump the money and was
paying it to her on his behalf. It could be
argued the Trump repayment was an
after thought, and the original plan was for
Cohen to recover his money from
contributions corporations were making
to Essential Consultants LLC, the straw
company Cohen controlled.
The other hush money deal involved
the company that publishes the National
Enquirer. It’s different than the Daniels
deal. I don’t want to go into it right now.
Max,
I want to briefly address this:
(1) I don’t think these organizations are monolithic implacable enemies of Trump. However, there’s this thing. #Resistance. I don’t know exactly what it means. It seems to be a social media thing, big enough that everyone has heard of it. It seems to have something to do with opposing or resisting Trump. Correct me if I’m wrong here, because I don’t actually have anything solid that says what #Resistance means – this is just what I’ve gathered anecdotally.
(2) I certainly do believe that there are elements in most or all of the organization you list that oppose Trump. Former CIA chief Brennan has connected Trump with treason in his statements, for example. This goes back to what I started with in comment #170158 – it’s almost certainly not wrongdoing in a patriot’s eyes to stop a treasonous President.
(3) Mueller isn’t just a DA. He’s special counsel tasked specifically with investigating any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign and the Russian government.
Some here believe (me included) that to accomplish this objective, Mueller needs to motivate people involved who would normally be disinclined to talk to him to tell his investigators everything they can about this. I think the primary tool he has at his disposal is to investigate everybody, figure out what they can be charged with, charge them, and then offer leniency if they help him pursue his mandate. I’ve already supplied links supporting this which don’t seem to impress you, seems pointless to link them again.
Yeah. Here’s the #Resistance:
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/resist
Max, I’m not going to continue to flood the thread with this, but I do want to say – you ought to watch some of Keith Olberman’s “The Resistance” episodes. Keith appears to be right there with us in saying that the plea deals from people like Flynn are all about impeaching and removing Trump from office. This appears to be the original source of #Resistance or #Resist and what it’s all about.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmkXR7EL_RY
OK_max
One reason some of your arguments lack force is you are constantly finding standard operating procedures for businesses and employers “odd”.
I don’t find it at all odd that Cohen paid and Trump reimbursed.
Your using verbs like “needed”. I had my Mom get Krona for me last summer and repaid her. I didn’t do this because I “needed” borrow from Mom. I did it because it was the most efficient way with the least accounting.
Trump is hardly the only wealthy person who has a standing arrangement were someone pays for things that are required and then the wealthy person repays. Yes. In some sense the employees is “lending”. But.. heck… when my husband goes on business travel, he pays, then he files the travel paperwork. Then stuff gets approved and Argonne reimburses him. That’s the way Iowa state, Pacific Northwest National Lab and so on all operated too.
I have no idea why this becomes unusual just because Trump is behaving like Argonne and Cohen like Jim. What I find odd is for some reason you can’t think of any reason for Trump to behave the way tons of employers routinely behave other than try to conceal hush payments. The goals was to prevent a story from surfacing.
That said: Yes. I think those were “hush” payments. But the alleged illegal aspect isn’t that they were “hush payments”. We don’t need to marvel that steps were taken to make the story easier to conceal.
The illegal aspect is whether they were campaign contributions. I’m not seeing how installment payments would turn the reimbursing into campaign contributions.
One might. You seem to be doing this. However, one can equally well point out that when my Mom bought my Krona for me using her “own” money, I owed her a debt which I had agreed to pay. So, in effect she did not buy them. I bought them since neither one of us considered these to temporarily be “her” Krona. Had I not repaid her, or she refused to hand over the Krona, we would consider the other in “breech”. (Not that eitehr of us would actually sue the other. She’s my mom for heaven’s sake!)
If we look at the Mom-Lucia’s krona analogy– which is the normal conventional way of looking at this, Trump, not Cohen is the one who paid the “hush” money. Sure “one” could argue otherwise. But then “one” needs to explain why the Trump-Cohen situation is somehow different from all other similar situations.
If Trump paid it, the remaining question is then whose money did Trump use? The answer to that one might create an illegal campaign contribution or it might not. But Cohen merely arranging and conveying doesn’t do it (as far as I can see.)
RE: OK Max: Straw Companies and LLCs
……
I haven’t looked at this closely because no one seems to be raising it. Dershowitz was on the air with a liberal commentator and said that Trump paid for the campaign contributions himself. The liberal commentator said that yes he paid for them, but Trump didn’t report them. From that I would imply that there is very little dispute that Trump actually paid for the non-disclosure himself. Otherwise, the Left would be all over it.
…..
Max OK: “it seems odd that a man of Trump’s
wealth needed his lawyer Cohen to in
effect loan him $130,000 to pay Daniels,
a loan he repaid in installments. I can’t
think of a reason other than to buy more
time to figure out a way to conceal that
Trump was paying Daniels hush money.”
…..
Of course, Trump was trying to conceal the payments. That was the whole point of the agreement. However, if he paid Cohen reasonably promptly (which he apparently did), in terms of campaign finance laws, Trump is at worst guilty of jay walking. Cohen funneling other business through his LLC may implicate banking laws and other matters, but it has nothing to do with the campaign law guilty plea, which appears to be the result of very corrupt collusion. All sorts of odd things may have been happening, but I have seen nothing indicating that they have anything to do with campaign finance laws.
JD
mark bofill,
There is a perpetually homeless crazy guy who lives in a tent next to a gas station in Naperville. (https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20160820/news/160829901/) The tent has moved around from time to time.
After Trump’s election, he’s put up “#Resist” posters– or something like that. (I’ll have to get a photo to show you.)
I have no idea what he actually means to communicate. He’s certainly been resisting getting regular non-tent accomodations for a long time.
Mark
This is more about the tent guy. The article shows his tent burning down in July 16. I was aware of the fire. He has a tent back up pretty quickly, and I guess that’s because people donated him new tents.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/ct-nvs-naperville-huber-tent-fire-st-0720-20160718-story.html
I betcha it was Trump that had that poor devil’s tent burned. Somebody ought to call Mueller.
Wait. Are we sure tent guy isn’t Robert Reich wearing a long beard disguise?!?
[Edit: Nah. Tent guy doesn’t sound nearly as batcrap crazy as Reich.]
Mark,
The amazing thing is people donated a new tent. At one point, he had tents on both sides of the street. I’m not sure that’s currently the case. But he’s got quite a complex. I don’t know if he has heaters in the tent or what, but it’s there year round.
That is nutty. 🙂
Well, it’s ‘Protest HQ’! Gotta have that I guess. I wonder if he got his support locally or it was a ‘GoFundMe’ sort of thing.
mark bofill (Comment #170183)
mark, yes, there is a strong resistance to the Trump Presidency. Democrats can’t stand him and many establishment Republicans never wanted him as the GOP candidate. The dislike of Trump results not only from his policies, but from his behavior as a person.
Polls measure the dissatisfaction with Trump. The Rasmussen poll,
which may have a Republican bias, today reported that 42% of
respondents strongly disapprove of Trump while only 35% strongly
approved. The proportion who strongly disapprove could be higher
among officials in the DOJ, CIA, and other government agencies
that can damage Trump in legitimate ways.
It’s possible some officials may dislike Trump enough to resort to
unethical or even illegal measures to tarnish his reputation and
hurt his chances of serving a second term. Given this possibility,
Trump supporters may suspect anything that makes him look
bad is the result of misconduct by his enemies rather than
what he actually did.
OK_Max
They can also damage him in illegitimate ways.
Sure. Given that it’s possible that it is the result of misconduct by his enemies, it’s possible some people whose brains work might suspect it might be the result of misconduct on the part of his enemies. It’s also possible it’s not the result of misconduct on the part of his enemies.
One has to look at the evidence all around. Merely saying that since A and (notA) are both possible, some people will think A is possible and others will think (notA) is possible. Both those things are true.
OK_Max (Comment #170193): “The dislike of Trump results not only from his policies, but from his behavior as a person.”
.
There is much more to the “resistance” than mere “dislike” or policy disagreements. There are a lot of people, both inside and outside government, who have become wealthy and comfortable due to the policies of the last 30 years. They are especially prevalent in the coastal cities of the east and west, leading to the shorthand name “coastal elites”. They have pushed the country into policies (trade, immigration, foreign intervention) that are good for them, but terrible for most ordinary people. They have also been promoting social policies that are an existential threat to a way of life many Americans hold dear. They advocate identity politics that likely will be catastrophic for our society. They push their views with bullying tactics that undermine free speech and democracy.
.
Trump is an existential threat to the coastal elites. He is unalterably opposed to the failed, divisive, and destructive policies of the coastal elites. He is smart, resourceful, and determined. He has the hide of a rhinoceros. He will not be bought off, he will not be dissuaded, and he can not be bullied. The coastal elites feel that they are in a fight to the death. I think that Trump agrees.
lucia (Comment #170185)
August 29th, 2018 at 11:32 am
OK_max
One reason some of your arguments lack force is you are constantly finding standard operating procedures for businesses and employers “oddâ€.
I don’t find it at all odd that Cohen paid and Trump reimbursed.
LLC, it seems odd that a man of Trump’s wealth needed his lawyer Cohen to in effect loan him $130,000 to pay Daniels,
a loan he repaid in installments. I can’t think of a reason other than to buy more time to figure out a way to conceal that Trump was paying Daniels hush money. But what was repayment in installments
about?
Your using verbs like “neededâ€. I had my Mom get Krona for me last summer and repaid her. I didn’t do this because I “needed†borrow from Mom. I did it because it was the most efficient way with the least accounting.
_______________
lucia , my wife and I actually do something similar to the
example you gave about you and your mother. My wife
borrows cash from my stash and replaces it sometime
later. There is no record of my loan and her repayment,
and none is needed for legal purposes.
For legal purposes, Cohen and Trump do need a record
of their transactions. A record could be believed. What
they say, unless under oath, is suspect because they
have a habit of changing their stories.
Max,
.
Heh. Trump doesn’t need the help of his enemies to look bad, he does just fine by himself.
.
I have been looking forward for quite some time now to hearing the results of Mueller’s investigation. It may be quite the rare and beautiful flower that blossoms from such a deep and rich foundation of manure as the foundation I have heard thus far for the investigation. Political opposition research turned into FBI investigation from unsubstantiated bias sources, serving as the basis for FISA warrants, possibly substantiated by FBI leaks to the media. The exposure of bias at the FBI in investigators. The different FBI precautions (or maybe I should say utter lack of precautions) taken in dealing with Clinton as opposed to Trump. A special counsel investigating a President for suspicion of activities that aren’t even crimes.
.
Yeah, I can’t wait to hear what comes of this. I would love to hear all about the collusion with Russia. How on earth did Russia tilt the election for Trump, if that’s what they did. If not, exactly what is it they did for Trump, and in particular where is Trump’s crime in all this. I can’t wait to hear precisely how the Trump administrations efforts to collect dirt on Hillary are fundamentally different from the opposition research Steele and other foreign outfits collected on Trump.
.
It’s not like I believe the slate is blank so far, Max. But by God Yes. If Trump colluded with Putin who used the magic Russian Thought Controller or whatever to swing the election, or if Russians hacked the election results (which liberals never seemed to tire of telling me was categorically impossible before Hillary lost the election) – you bet I want to know it.
.
But if all we find is that Trump used the N word, and Trump screwed around with women left right and center and tried to cover it up, and Trump did all the same crappy dirty things that a plurality of rich men tend to do anyway, all the petty crimes and infractions, [oh, like campaign finance violations, that’s right.] I don’t know where that leaves us. Because the matter is apparently never settled with La Resistaunce.
.
Anyway.
Mike M. (Comment #170195)
Trump is an existential threat to the coastal elites.
_________
He threatened we elites by giving us a big tax cut.
There’s talk of a new threat, deflating capital gains subject to tax.
JD Ohio (Comment #170186)
“The liberal commentator said that yes he paid for them, but Trump didn’t report them. From that I would imply that there is very little dispute that Trump actually paid for the non-disclosure himself. Otherwise, the Left would be all over it.”
_______
JD, there are records of the transactions somewhere, possibly
in what the FBI took from Cohen’s office, that can verify payment details. What was the reporting requirement for Trump?
OK M: “What was the reporting requirement for Trump?”
Interesting question. Couldn’t find out much about this or the transaction records in quick internet search. However, John Edwards had much worse problems (large amounts of money came from outside donors) and was ultimately found to have not violated campaign laws. See https://heavy.com/news/2018/05/trump-john-edwards-campaign-finance-donald/
Of course, under Bradley Smith’s analysis, it wouldn’t matter because part of Trump’s motivation was non-political.
JD
Max_OK
We already have records of the relationship between Cohen and Trump. Cohen was Trumps lawyer and was charged with handling contractural matters and so on.
A check from Trump to Cohen would constitute a record indicating Cohen was repaid. Has Cohen publicly denied being repaid? (I admit I’m not following every detail. I figure it will trickle out over time.)
Sure. But given our legal system, that would favor the accused, which would be Trump if someone wants to charge him with something. If those accusing have unreliable sources for their case, there is reasonable doubt.
According to this (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/21/how-the-campaign-finance-charges-against-michael-cohen-may-implicate-trump/?utm_term=.e65a6c19252d) , Cohen was repaid:
So it appears, records showing Cohen was repaid by Trump exist. Or at least that he was repaid is not in dispute.
Mark Bofill, I predict that rather than publicly exonerate Trump, Mueller team will look to hide behind the Galindez case and not issue a public report of their findings. It will be up to Rosenstein or Trump to release it.
Re lucia (Comment #170202)
lucia, thank you for the info and the link. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the WoPo article, as I’m not a paid subscriber.
I did’t mean to imply Cohen was never reimbursed for paying Daniels the hush money. My interested is the payment details. After reading your post, I did find a nationalreview.com article by Andrew C. McCarthy that addresses the details.

McCarthy doubts the Trump organization did anything wrong in making the payments but believes Cohen could be in trouble for
the manner of reimbursement.


 “At issue is the manner in which Cohen was reimbursed for the $130,000 hush-money payment to Stephanie Clifford (the porn star better known as Stormy Daniels). Specifically, there are peculiarities in the way Cohen’s reimbursement was totaled up, invoiced, and processed for payment.â€
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/new-york-state-probes-michael-cohen-trump-organization-payments/
OK_Max,
I don’t subscribe to WAPO. I just clear my cookies every time I reach their limit or that of the NYTIMES.
On the reimbursement: Yes, the devil is in the details. But remember, the are at least two defenses for Trump and only 1 needs to be ok for him to be clear.
1) If the main or sole purpose was not for the campaign, it’s not a contribution no matter how it was processed or paid. (This is what got Edwards off and what the SEC guy says.)
2) If it was was from Trumps personal stash, it is not a contribution because Trump doesn’t contribute to himself.
Merely being “secret” or “hush” or “processed oddly” doesn’t turn it into a “campaign contribution”. It might create some other problem, but then someone has to explain what problem it creates and charge with that.
Cohen deciding to not dispute prosecutors contention that something was illegal and/or was somehow for the campaign doesn’t even turn it into a campaign contribution. Edwards disputed and courts four prosecutors wrong and Edwards right.
Even with Cohen claiming to have been acting in his “campaign” role instead of his “personal attorney” role is going to be a problem for prosecutors. Cohen was Trump’s personal attorney and did do tons of personal work. So to “get” Trump prosecutors are going to have to show Trump knew Cohen was wearing his “campaign hat”, which, afterall, is both a metaphor and invisible. And prosecutors are going to have to show how outsiders can possibly tell. And heck Cohen is going to have to explain how he knew when he was wearing his campaign hat vs. his personal attorney hat and show how he informed Trump which hat he was wearing so that Trump could know. And Cohen is going to have to show he informed Trump he was wearing his campaign hat.
If there was a trial, the benefit would go to Trump not prosecutors. And that is true even if the entire business arrangement between Trump and Cohen is designed to make it hard to tell which “hat” Cohen is wearing at any time. The fact is: anything Cohen did to make it difficult for anyone (including Trump) to tell what Trump authorized and “which hat” Cohen was wearing favors Trump saying he couldn’t tell and didn’t know.
Remember: while lots of people don’t like Trump, it’s unlikely a prosecutor is going to get 9 Trump hating jurors who will convict him regardless of the strength of the case. If 8 want to convict and 1 doesn’t, that’s a hung jury.
Mind you: in impeachment, all bets are off. But imagine if Trump were impeached for this, and the either:
1) Not tried or
2) Tried and was found not guilty on some counts and hung on others just like Edwards.
How do you think that’s going to go down with much of the country? I think pretty badly. Because sure, lots of people don’t like Trump. But they do like our Representative democracy and they don’t want impeachment to just become a tool for Congress to get rid of a president they just personally dislike.
OK Max. Virtually all browsers have a private mode that gets you 5 or 10 free articles from paywalled sites. On Firefox, it is called private mode. On Google Chrome called incognito mode. Opera also has private mode.
WP, I believe gives you 5 free articles a month. So, with 3 browsers you get 15 free per month. Once you reach 15, you simply refresh. If you have a tablet and a computer, you would get 30 free articles per month. And, on and on…
JD
Pleading guilty to a crime you didn’t commit can be completely rational, especially in an imperfect justice system and an imperfect world. People almost always plead guilty to lesser crimes, and it is a risk decision on whether they can convict you of the charged crime regardless of whether you are guilty or not.
.
A two time felon watches his drug dealing friend get shot, the perp throws down the gun, the felon picks it up and fires at the perp. Witnesses see the last part, a felon firing a murder weapon right next to the murder victim. You are offered 25 years for 2nd degree murder. What are you going to do?
.
Your not-friend gets murdered and three of his friends all falsely claim they witnessed you killing him. What are you going to do.
.
The cops pull you over and plant a murder weapon of a recently shot cop on you. What are you going to do?
.
You have zero trust in the justice system, barely understand how it works, not too bright, are a high crime minority in a small town accused of a violent crime against a white woman. What are you going to do?
.
You are being accused of something you didn’t do, but are guilty of much worse things in the related case, you want the investigation in this case closed ASAP. You plead guilty.
.
It can be rational, although it is likely the large majority of plea bargains are guilty people pleading to lesser offenses so the justice system doesn’t have the costs of a trial of every case.
.
Don’t forget the other side, prosecutors offering plea bargains to people they know they don’t have the evidence to convict. It’s a pretty gray world in the details.
Right click on link, use open link in incognito window, and this will bypass many paywalls indefinitely (works on NYT, WP, not the WSJ). This works because the vendors want to entice new business and incognito mode does not allow them to track previous usage. Advanced bypassers (whoever they might be …) will open a incognito window on one monitor and browse to the front pages of news sites on their second monitor. They well then drag links from the front pages to the incognito window to save themselves precious milliseconds of labor.
“It’s alarming that Trump is aligning himself with anti-civil rights activist Edward Blum in this subversive attempt to say that civil rights protections cause discrimination, Asian-Americans have long benefited from policies to increase equal opportunity and still do. Our fear is that Harvard’s admissions system is just the latest target in a larger fight to roll back protections for people of color in all fields, including government and business.â€
.
Guess who said this? Jeannie Park, the head of the Harvard Asian American Alumni Alliance.
What a howler. It is apparent the NYT cannot find a single Asian who doesn’t support Harvard’s admission process from what I have read over the past couple years there.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/us/politics/asian-students-affirmative-action-harvard.html
Max,
Yes.
[Edit: Here is something similar from a law school I think, if you’d prefer that. I would like to find something by prosecutors and/or judges, but I haven’t yet.]
[[Edit: for balance, In Defense of Plea Bargaining.
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=213111027084001125065079118068065111054012095037049059100029106027113018105022083112107031020125060007097088091075103021126022054021013079086119080065022084100060076036005119026010005111104005096030092101109029089095086008126025120003098109095126&EXT=pdf%5D%5D%5D
Go to the new thread
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2018/aug-31-thread/
Re mark bofill (Comment #170228)
mark, the subject of plea bargaining is very interesting.
In reading up on it, I couldn’t find a developed country
that doesn’t have some form. Japan had been an
exception until earlier this year when it decided to start
plea bargaining with snitches. Some in the legal
community find fault with the plan.
The following quotes are from the linked Japanese Times article titled Japanese-style plea bargaining debuts but authorities fear spread of false testimony.
“Unlike the U.S. plea bargaining system, admitting to a crime does not warrant a deal with prosecutors in Japan. The new system, introduced in a revision to the criminal procedure law, allows suspects in such crimes as bribery, embezzlement, tax fraud and drug smuggling to negotiate with prosecutors. The bargaining only applies to crimes listed in the law, with murder and assault off-limits.â€
“To prevent suspects or the accused from lying to get a deal, Japan’s revised law penalizes false depositions and obliges defense lawyers to be involved in the bargaining process. If depositions are found to be false, those giving them will face up to five years in jail.â€
“Penalizing false depositions could “make it harder for informants to retract what they said,†Sasakura pointed out. Instead of discouraging false statements, the penalty may instead push informants to stick with their story even if it’s false, she explained.â€
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/31/national/crime-legal/japanese-style-plea-bargaining-debuts-authorities-fear-spread-false-testimony/#.W4mrVJNKgS4
Apparently, the Japanese authorities will plea bargain only in cases where they will get more than just a confession of guilt. To get a reduced sentence or go free, the criminal defendant must lead the authorities to other criminals. I guess if Cohen had been subject to Japanese style plea bargaining he might have benefitted from his guilty pleas on the two campaign finance charges, unless he was lying.