Data Comparisons

Merry Christmas!

505 Comments

Jim and I had a nice Christmas Eve with his brothers. Now on to Christmas dinner with my Mom. Hope you all have happy, healthy holidays. Well…. not too healthy. Holidays without cake, cookies and butter would not be worth living.

Open thread.

505 thoughts on “Merry Christmas!”

  3. 🙂 It is sort of strange that it's just the solitary leg, when you think about it.
    I haven't put it in the window, no. The committee that selected me for this prestigious honor (wife) negotiated in advance that my eligibility was contingent on my commitment to display the award at work and *not* at home.

  4. Merry Christmas from Hawaii. Had classic Christmas gift goof up today. Bought 6 Hawaii T-shirts a couple of days ago. Then got 8 more for Christmas.

  6. Merry day after Christmas. I got my beloved sister a can of dehydrated water for a gift, she gave me a dog poop calendar (again).

  9. HaroldW, after reading your link I find your stating that the "Kuiper belt" is misnamed a rather mild view of its history as it evidently is a astronomical swear word not to be uttered in polite company and worse than calling Pluto a planet. It is TNO for me from now on.

  12. I am sick and tired of the new solar system patriarchy and the subjugation of Pluto. This humiliating oppression by the majority must be stopped. #PlutoRocksMatter.

  14. Kenneth —
    I did not know of Oumuamua, but if it is indeed a TSO (trans-solar [system] object), it allows us to recognize and overcome our solar privilege. Who knows the damage our micro-aggressions have inadvertently inflicted on extra-solar civilizations? Already we have driven away Oumuamua.
    .
    Incidentally, the link you cited has a "related" link to https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/climate-change-killed-aliens-it-might-kill-us-too-new-ncna880671 , an article with the intriguing headline, "Climate change killed the aliens, and it might kill us too, new simulation suggests". This refers to a June 2018 paper in Astrobiology (http://www.rescuethatfrog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Frank-2018.pdf), which demonstrates that by positing a differential equation and associated parameter values, one is able to prove that climate change can destroy civilization.
    .
    Don't know how I missed that when it came out. It must not have been promoted enough.

  15. New Democratic House under Pelosi.
    .
    Medicare for All!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-plan-to-hold-hearings-on-medicare-for-all/2019/01/03/7051eccc-0f6c-11e9-84fc-d58c33d6c8c7_story.html?utm_term=.7efcd6b8b187
    .
    Impeach Trump!
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/impeachment-house-democrats-brad-sherman-trump/index.html
    .
    Buy now, pay never!
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democratic-rules/index.html
    .
    WHOOPIE! It's play time children!

  16. Mark Bofill,
    .
    When I read all these nutty left proposals, which would easily double or triple the size of the Federal government (and taxes!), I am reminded of Mark Twain’s observation: “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
    .
    The far left ‘knows’ many things that ‘just ain’t so’. Heaven help us if they ever are in a position to act upon what they think they know.

  17. Steve,
    It is scary, at least to me. I just can't fathom how anybody could seriously propose we spend another 3.5 trillion a year when we're already borrowing a trillion a year just to stay afloat and we already owe 20 trillion.
    I know I get more freaked out by the debt than maybe I ought to. I get that the U.S. has been growing it's debt for two hundred years, and that we can make ourselves feel better about it by looking at debt as a percent of GDP. I tell myself that this is probably the way alarmists feel about climate change. It doesn't help.
    Can we borrow too much? How would we know when/if we are doing so? I don't think the majority of politicians give a hoot.
    [Edit: Sorry, I'm reading conflicting accounts. I see some claims that we currently only owe 16.9 trillion. I need spend some time investigating what the real story is.
    Nope. That wasn't counting the way it's usually counted.
    We owe 22.7 trillion-ish right now.]

  18. But no doubt the enthusiastic and rambunctious new Democrat majority in the House understand full well that with a Republican majority in the Senate and a Trump in the WH, none of these ideas will pass. So possibly (or probably) they are just making noise to please their more extreme constituents.
    Politics and the nutty things people do to satisfy other nutty people.

  19. Mark Bofill,
    Sadly, I have no doubt the wild eyed proposals are 100% serious, and not political posturing…. they really believe in pure socialism and public control of virtually all private activities. Any acceptance of a capitalistic economy is only a political stepping stone towards pure socialism. The Koolaid was drunk by these folks long ago.

  20. mark,

    The budget deficit and the debt ceiling are different because the budget doesn't count the government's borrowing from the various trust funds while the total debt is used for the debt ceiling. That's how the budget could be in surplus for a few of the Clinton years while total debt continued to increase each of those years.

  21. Example of those who have drunk the Koolaid: Paul Krugman in the NY Times argues that soaking the ‘rich’ with heavy taxes is a good thing, and supported Ms Occasional-Cortex’s 70-80% marginal tax rates as ‘optimal’ to support all the ‘free stuff’ O-C wants. What makes 70-80% marginal rate optimal? Based on economic models, that is the rate where total government tax take from the economy is the maximum possible. Driven insane by leftist Koolaid, Krugman could never understand why anyone would think maximizing total tax take is something other than optimal…. never mind that economic models are essentially rubbish, and incapable of predicting anything.
    .
    Like all on the left, Krugman ignores inconvenient data: actual tax take as a % of GDP didn’t change much even when top marginal rates were 90+%….. surprisingly enough, wealthy individuals find ways to avoid very high marginal rates, always have, always will. Confirming yet again that Krugman is dishonest, a fool, or both.

  22. Here is why Crazy Krugman is wrong about raising marginal rates and tax take as % of GDP:
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

    Almost no difference (as % of GDP) between the 28% maximum marginal rate of the Ronald Reagan era and the 90+% marginal rates of the 1950's. High marginal rates will lead only to the kinds of economic distortions that do real damage to economic growth… of course, the left probably considers lower economic growth is a feature, not a bug.

  23. Thanks Steve, thanks DeWitt.
    .
    I've spent a few minutes here and there looking at it, and I no longer think it's alarmist in the least to worry about the debt. It's on track to keep growing, and interest on the debt is projected to amount to a trillion a year in a decade. That's ridiculous.
    .
    We're not going to do anything about it, is the real kicker. Not till the last minute. We may in fact dig ourselves in deeper over the next several years.
    .
    It's disturbing.

  24. SteveF,

    By the way, eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes, as you have suggested in the past, would rather drastically raise the marginal tax rate on the highest earners, in effect taking it well over 50%. Krugman is probably in favor of that too.

    I noticed that one of the first things the Dems did on taking control of the House was to eliminate dynamic scoring of budget bills by the CBO. That makes tax cuts look worse and tax increases look better. Surprise!

  25. DeWitt,
    I have suggested increasing the SS maximum as one of the options to make SS whole in the long term…. increasing retirement age by a couple of years, indexing benefits to inflation rather than wage growth, and slightly increasing tax rates are all potential contributors. I think a far bigger ethical issue is special treatment of income to drastically reduce taxes (eg the carried interest scam, capital gains rates, etc). Carried interest is just legalized tax theft by donors to the Democrats, while special treatment of capital gains distorts economic decisions, while benefiting the most wealthy. Capital gains (and losses) should be adjusted for inflation, of course, since an asset changes nominal value over time automatically due to monetary inflation. But inflation adjusted gains should be then taxed at the same rates as other income. I know you disagree.

  26. SteveF,

    "I know you disagree."

    Yep. For one thing, that you seem to have left out, treating capital gains as ordinary income for tax purposes should require allowing full and immediate deductibility of capital losses against ordinary income as well as capital gains rather than limiting deductibility to $3,000/year against ordinary income (or whatever it is right now). That isn't going to happen either. And the US at the current rate taxes capital gains at a rate higher than most of the rest of the world.

    "Only taxpayers in Denmark (42 percent), France (34.4 percent), Finland (33 percent), Ireland (33 percent), and Sweden (30 percent) face higher rates. The U.S. rate is about 10 percentage points higher than the OECD average (18.4 percent) and 5 percentage points higher than the weighted average (23.2 percent). Nine OECD countries full-exempt most capital gains income."

    https://taxfoundation.org/us-taxpayers-face-6th-highest-top-marginal-capital-gains-tax-rate-oecd/

    And that's not to mention that the US experience is that very high capital gains tax rates realizes less revenue than lower rates.

  27. DeWitt,
    Yes, wealthy individuals have great political influence the world over, and pay much lower taxes on capital gains than individuals pay on income from labor. That doesn’t mean the very wealthy ought to get to keep a larger fraction of their income from capital, it just means they do.

  28. SteveF #172627,
    I was under the impression that it was *taxing* capital gains that distorted economic decisions, by impeding the flow of capital to where it would otherwise provide the highest return.

  29. Lower tax on capital gains means you have more capital being invested, increasing capital to labor ratio, and eventually increasing wages.

    I can see a case for not treating stock market investments as regular capital gains, and instead only direct investment and bank interest income.

  30. Dale J S,
    Low capital gains rates provide incentives for less than optimum allocation of business profits…. businesses have every reason to allocate resources (and make most decisions) that increase stock prices. The “buyback” of outstanding shares from the market is but the most obvious case.

  31. SteveF (Comment #172774): "Low capital gains rates provide incentives for less than optimum allocation of business profits…. businesses have every reason to allocate resources (and make most decisions) that increase stock prices. The “buyback” of outstanding shares from the market is but the most obvious case."

    Good point. Corporate income taxes also induce less than optimum allocation of business profits. They are largely payed, in effect, by employees. To the extent they are paid by shareholders, pension funds and small investors pay the same rate as the wealthy. It would be much better to eliminate the corporate income tax and tax unearned income the same as earned income. That would benefit the economy and make for a fairer tax system.

  32. Steve F #172774,
    Even if long term capital gains were taxed as ordinary income, companies would still have a direct incentive to make decisions that increase their stock price. Stock buybacks, like dividends, return capital from companies to investors. They aren't inherently a bad thing, and in the cases where buybacks are unwisely pursued I think poorly constructed executive compensation incentives are a more likely culprit than the capital gains tax rate.
    .
    It is true that those who qualify for long-term capital gains rate would benefit more from receiving capital from buybacks than from dividends, due to the disparate tax treatment. So for a given amount of return to investors, buybacks will put more money in the hands of investors instead of the government. Since investment grows the economy and taxation does not, I also do not see this as inherently a bad thing. The money returned to investors will be re-invested where it will provide the highest return.
    .
    If capital gains are taxed at a high rate, tax-free municipal bonds becomes more attractive as an alternative to investment in the private sector. This is the sort of economic distortion I am concerned about, because it biases investment away from activities that grow the economy into activities that do not. When capital gains are taxed but capital losses are limited as an offset, this also makes investment in the private sector artificially unattractive.

  33. Dale S'
    "Since investment grows the economy and taxation does not, I also do not see this as inherently a bad thing."
    .
    If we assume some level of taxation is required to support the 'legitimate functions of government' (what those are is disputed ;-o ), then there will be some reduction in economic growth due to taxes. The question is what in the economy is going to be taxed, and more specifically, at what rate. Currently, labor, and especially labor at upper middle income and higher, is much (MUCH) more heavily taxed than is return on capital… which has the unfortunate effect of tending to widen economic inequality.
    .
    Tax free municipal bonds generate gross economic distortion, and should not exist. Same with deductions for state an local taxes, deductions for 'preferred personal expenditures' (charitable, mortgage interest, health insurance, 401k's, etc.). All of it causes inefficient use of capital and all generate dubious reward for "good' economic behavior and dubious punishment for "bad" economic behavior. I would prefer it all go away… along with special treatment for capital gains and the corrupt 'carried interest' tax avoidance scam.

  34. Mike M,
    "It would be much better to eliminate the corporate income tax and tax unearned income the same as earned income. That would benefit the economy and make for a fairer tax system."
    .
    I agree. Corporate income taxes only make sense on corporate earnings *not* distributed as dividends. (Retained corporate earnings should be taxed at the highest personal rate.) It should be: add up your income from all sources, then look up the the total tax you owe…. a tax return should be smaller than a post card.

  35. SteveF,

    "Retained corporate earnings should be taxed at the highest personal rate."

    That would pretty much destroy the pharmaceutical industry which relies on retained earnings to finance new drug development. So what you're really arguing is that the highest personal tax rate should be the same as the current corporate tax rate, i.e. a lot lower.

  36. DeWitt,
    I doubt a change in tax laws would destroy the pharma industry. But retained earnings have always been subject to income tax, so what you are suggesting makes even less sense.

  37. SteveF #172780,
    .
    Haven't retained corporate earnings been subject to the *corporate* income tax, which is currently significantly lower than the "highest personal rate" you suggested? The last act lowered corporate tax to 21% and lowered the highest personal rate to 37%. Jacking the corporate tax rate up to 37% would make it higher than the previous nominal rate and completely undo the economic benefit we've enjoyed.

  38. DeWitt Payne (Comment #172779): "That would pretty much destroy the pharmaceutical industry which relies on retained earnings to finance new drug development."

    Not to mention the insurance industry,

    I don't see any logic to taxing retained earnings. It strikes me as being like a tax on savings. Corporations don't just shovel profits into a treasure room, they invest them. Taxing some profits but not others just distorts decision making.

    Ah, there seems to be a terminology problem. I guess that SteveF does not want to tax retained earnings since that would destroy corporations. He must mean that he wants to tax increases in retained earnings, i.e., undistributed profits. But what about losses?

  39. Dale S,
    "Jacking the corporate tax rate up to 37% would make it higher than the previous nominal rate and completely undo the economic benefit we've enjoyed."
    .
    It seems to me you look at this as independent of everything else…. it's not. Jacking up the corporate rate would only be for retained earnings…. *zero* rate is suitable for distributed earnings (tax the income once and only once). Yes, very low corporate taxes increase net cash flow at corporations, favoring shareholders over non-shareholders…. but lower personal taxes also contribute to economic growth, and increase personal 'net cash flow', so why a different tax rate? I can see no reasoned explanation other than to politically favor some individuals over others.
    .
    If a company wants to retain profits, then fine, retain them, but don't use that process to shift the overall tax burden to individual tax payers who are not going to benefit from the growth of that corporation…. which is what is actually happening right now. Combine the much lower corporate rate compared to the individual rate with the double taxation on dividends and you create a perfect storm of incentives that favor retaining earnings over distributing them and favor the shareholder over the non-shareholder; AKA economic distortion.
    .
    All I am looking for is a modicum of consistent treatment of income, rather than the intrusive, judgement laden, often corrupt, and frequently counterproductive differentiation of how income is treated for tax purposes. ALL of which distort economic choices and cause economic damage.

  40. Mike M,
    "He must mean that he wants to tax increases in retained earnings, i.e., undistributed profits. But what about losses?"
    .
    Of *COURSE* you only tax the profits once….I am not and have never proposed some bizarre 'wealth tax' on corporations. If a corporation doesn't make any money, then it doesn't owe any taxes on profits…. the same as it has always been. If the individual and corporate maximum marginal rates were the same, then there would be no incentive to favor retaining earnings over distributing them as dividends…. in fact, just the opposite, since some shareholders would not be paying the maximum marginal rate.
    .
    If on net your corporation loses money, tough luck, you lose money. Shareholders make bad investment choices all the time, and corporations go bankrupt all the time. Except in socialist paradises like Cuba, of course.

  41. SteveF #172783,

    I did respond without considering the effect of not-taxing corporate income which was immediately distributed. Indeed, I'm sympathetic to the idea that corporations themselves shouldn't be taxed, instead taxing the money when it reaches actual people. But taxing retained corporate earnings is taxing it before it reaches actual people, and it's certainly not clear to me that it's either fair nor economically sound. Consider two scenarios in a no-corporate-income-tax scenario:

    Company A:
    2018 net income $500M, distributes $500M in dividends
    2019 net income $500M, distributes $500M in dividends

    Company B:
    2018 net income $1000M, distributes $500M in dividends
    2019 net income $0M, distributes $500M in dividends

    The dividends distributed are exactly the same, the net income over the two year period is the same, but your scheme would apply no tax at all to company A and $165M taxes to company B, purely based on the schedule of distributing their income to investors — and that money is double-taxed, which you claim to want to avoid. Forcing companies to immediately distribute or invest their earnings or face very high level of taxations strikes me as introducing a substantial distortion to what economically would be best — letting the company decide when and where their earnings could most productively be used.

  42. SteveF #172777,

    You say:
    "Currently, labor, and especially labor at upper middle income and higher, is much (MUCH) more heavily taxed than is return on capital… which has the unfortunate effect of tending to widen economic inequality."

    It's not just "return on capital", since only long-term capital gains are eligible for a lower rate. Dividends and short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income.

    Not only that, capital losses are limited as an offset against income, and the income tax rate is progressive. The net effect of those things is that any investment income treated as income for someone who is a "upper middle income or higher" wage earner is going to be taxed at a *higher* rate than their income was, as it starts at their current marginal rate and will only increase. Meanwhile, if I lose a lot of money while investing, it only has a small effect on my taxed income. Taxes punish short-term successes while downplaying short-term failures.

    There's also a fundamental difference between a tax on labor and a tax on capital gains — a tax on labor, if high enough, may discourage marginal labor but it will not impede the flow of labor to better opportunities — if I transfer my labor from company A to company B, the fact that a different company is paying my salary doesn't usually have adverse tax consequences. Meanwhile, a tax on capital gains *does* impede the flow of capital to better opportunity — if I transfer my capital from company A to company B, I may have to pay the government for the privilege of doing so. Naturally, this will discourage movement of capital.

    I can't get too exercised about the government damaging the economy in the name of "reducing inequality". A large share of every dollar I've been paid in my career has come out of the pocket of companies funded by already-rich people; using tax policy to discourage investment and make those already-rich people decide to retire and live on their money instead may reduce inequality, but it won't actually help me make a living.

  43. Dale S (Comment #172785): "I'm sympathetic to the idea that corporations themselves shouldn't be taxed, instead taxing the money when it reaches actual people. But taxing retained corporate earnings is taxing it before it reaches actual people, and it's certainly not clear to me that it's either fair nor economically sound."

    I agree with that. The accounting required for a corporate income tax is of necessity highly complex and subject to manipulation. Ultimately, such tax is paid by actual people. Some of those people are rich, but a lot of corporate profits go to ordinary folk via pension funds. Also, corporate taxes are often paid indirectly by workers in the form of either lower pay or higher prices.

    Corporations should be allowed to distribute or invest their profits for maximum benefit, since that benefits the economy as a whole. All corporate profits eventually go to actual people. That is where they should be taxed, at a rate suitable to the income level of the recipient. And at the same rate as earned income.

  44. Dale S,

    "Company B:
    2018 net income $1000M, distributes $500M in dividends
    2019 net income $0M, distributes $500M in dividends"
    .
    Company B is obviously run by morons. But there is nothing to keep the individual tax on "dividends" from being limited to "profits distributed as dividends", rather than just "dividends"; thus resolving the above dilemma. Of course, a corporation run by people who want to declare dividends when there are no profits may not be the best run of companies.
    .
    "It's not just "return on capital", since only long-term capital gains are eligible for a lower rate. Dividends and short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income."
    .
    Aside from the rather silly concept of "long term investment" being a year, capital gains over any period are most certainly a return on investment…. you never get them unless you make an investment of capital. Aside for the need to index capital gains to account for inflation, I see zero need to differentiate between "long term" and "short term" gains.
    .
    "But taxing retained corporate earnings is taxing it before it reaches actual people, and it's certainly not clear to me that it's either fair nor economically sound."
    .
    I could not disagree more. If a corporation is allowed to be effectively a 401K of unlimited scale for the wealthy, as you appear to be proposing, then it is neither 'fair' nor economically sound. It is a way for wealthy people to avoid taxes on income. I think income should be treated as income, and taxed as income. I will stipulate that most of the structure of the Federal income tax code is the result of political influence, and those with the greatest political influence have gained through special tax rules (see the 'carried interest' scam). I just don't think that is how it should be.

  45. Dale S,
    "…if I transfer my capital from company A to company B, I may have to pay the government for the privilege of doing so. Naturally, this will discourage movement of capital."
    .
    OK, so you propose that all realized capital gains be tax free, so as to not discourage movement of capital? Sort of a 401K plan for the super-rich. I believe wealthy people will be inclined to fund your next campaign Senator. 😉
    .
    When something is sold, you realize a profit or loss; it is hard for me to see a better time to assess the realized profit that is subject to tax.

  46. SteveF,

    It sounds like you want to tax profits twice, unless they are immediately distributed as dividends. First when they are re-invested in the company, then when the stockholders sell their stock. That would be hugely discouraging to investment.

  47. SteveF, this is why capital gains tax cuts tend to produce more revenue. The capital is locked up, and with the lower rate, more gains get realized.

    There is a separate long term argument that a low rate produces more capital invested, producing more economic growth, and more overall tax revenue for the government, even if the capital gains tax is zero.

    Art Laffer once wrote that the optimal revenue generating capital gains tax rate was around negative seven percent.

  48. MikeM,
    Nope, one time, and one time only. Suitable accounting can easily handle this. If retained (and taxed) earnings are re-invested by a corporation, then capital appreciation should (of course) take that investment into account.
    .
    MikeN,
    I am aware of Laffer’s arguments. They are, well, laughers. The Federal government takes about 20% out of GDP. Unless a true loonie like Occasional Cortex gains power, Federal tax take will remain in that range. But right now, the wrong oxes are getting gored (IMO).

  49. SteveF (Comment #172792): "Nope, one time, and one time only. Suitable accounting can easily handle this. If retained (and taxed) earnings are re-invested by a corporation, then capital appreciation should (of course) take that investment into account."

    That would be even more complex than the existing regime. And therefore more prone to manipulation and providing a greater incentive to various carve outs that would become an avenue for cronyism. No thanks.

  50. Mike M,
    “That would be even more complex than the existing regime.”
    .
    I doubt that is true.

  51. SteveF,

    Of course your proposal is more complex than the existing regime. Corporations would still have to calculate net income, same as now. They would then have to subtract distributed profits, no big deal in terms of complexity. But there would surely be additional carve outs that would end up with complex rules that clever lawyers and accounts could exploit. And there would have to be a running tally of retained profits that would be different for each shareholder. I suppose that might be no more complicated than what is done with mutual funds.

    An obvious carve out would be for insurance companies. If they sell more policies, they are legally *required* to retain profits. There would surely be a carve out for pharmaceutical R&D. Then there would have to be a carve out for R&D in general. Extending the logic, there would have to be an exploration carve out for extractive industries. But wait, that would be unfair to renewable energy companies, so you'd have to …

    I think it literally never stops unless it never starts. Fat chance of that.

  52. Mike M,
    Carve-outs only seem inevitable because carve-outs are at present 'normal/accepted' political corruption of the tax code. Sort of like members of the House in very safe districts who raise vast campaign cash and use it to pay their family members giant salaries to do basically nothing during 'election campaigns' every two years. And where does that cash come from? Pedaling political influence, of course. That blatant corruption is 'normal/accepted' doesn't make it good policy.
    .
    Of course the basis for calculating capital gains depends on what has actually been invested…. and yes, it is exactly what is done all the time in mutual funds. If a company's investment in R&D makes financial sense, great. If not, that is OK too. If a company's new office building makes financial sense, great. If not, that is OK too. In any case, the taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing either investment. That goes as much for big pharma as for my own small technology intensive company.
    .
    WRT insurance companies: once again, the shareholders should be responsible for putting up sufficient capital to underwrite policies… or to pay for sufficient re-insurance. If an insurance company is going to grow, then shareholders should fund that growth with after-tax profits, not pre-tax profits. I don't think this (or any other objection I have heard) is complicated to resolve: we just have to stop using tax law to reward political influence while punishing the lack of it.

  53. SteveF (Comment #172796): "Carve-outs only seem inevitable because carve-outs are at present 'normal/accepted' political corruption of the tax code."

    Corporate income is non-trivial to define. As a result, different accounting systems can give widely different results (even as to sign) for profit/loss. The result is that tax laws must specify rules for exactly what are "expenses"; for example, treatment of depreciation. That makes carve-outs pretty much inevitable, unless you go with something independent of profits, like a gross receipts tax or VAT.

    Once you have some carve-outs, corruption of the tax code is pretty much inevitable. At least for humans. Better to just ditch the corporate income tax and tax profits when they are distributed to shareholders, as they eventually must be.

  54. Mike M,
    "At least for humans."
    .
    Well, maybe. Humans turn out to be remarkably adaptable. The problem with ditching the corporate tax is that it invites (almost) unlimited corruption of the system…. unless distributed profits are subject to normal income tax and retained profits are subject to a punitive tax rate. I suspect we will not agree here… or ever.
    .
    It seems to me it all boils down to if you want to protect special tax incentives that mainly benefit the already wealthy or not. I don't want to protect those folks from 'normal' tax rates on income. YMMV.

  55. SteveF #172778,

    Whether company B is "run by morons" depends entirely on their purpose in declaring dividends while breaking even. Money-losing companies do sometimes pay dividends, and money-making companies often don't pay dividends. An insurance company could reasonably have large swings of year-to-year profitability, yet wish to reassure their shareholders by keeping dividends consistent with their longer-term success. Besides, whether the tax system is rational should not depend on whether companies (or individuals) behave in a way we believe is rational. Sometimes they don't.

    The individual tax on dividends is the same for both companies, and *should* be the same. What differs is the *corporate tax*, despite having identical figures over a 2-year period. Your proposal to only tax retained earnings, but tax that at a high rate, punishes companies for retaining earnings instead of distributing them immediately. I don't think putting a thumb on that scale is wise, since it discourages reserves that can be used for future investment, acquisition, or just providing insurance against future losses.
    .
    Yes, capital gains over any time period are "return on capital". My point was that dividends and short-term capital gains are not taxed *at a lower rate* than other income, they are taxed in the same way as other income. And if you have other income, voluntarily taking short-term capital gains is taxed at a *higher* rate than your other income, because it is added to your other income and therefore gets higher marginal rates.
    .
    Taking capital gains is in most cases an optional thing, which is why it happens more often when the rate gets low, or when you can also take offsetting losses. This discourages flow of capital in a much more direct way than income tax discourages labor.

  56. SteveF #172789,

    Capital investments are *already* like a 401k, in that you aren't taxed until you liquidate. However, if I invest $10k in a 401k, my fund manager can invest in a set of stocks, sell that off for $20k and buy $20k (minus transaction costs) in a different set of stocks they feel will perform better. I'll get taxed in the end for every dollar made, but not until I stop investing. However, if I as an individual invest $10k in a set of stocks, I can't sell it off for $20k and immediately re-invest that $20k in a different set of stocks even though I'm not really intending to liquidate my position. In fact, I'll pay *a higher rate* on that extra money than I did on my income.
    That's simpler than tracking the original basis and adjusting for inflation, but I don't think it's either particularly fair or beneficial to the economy.
    .
    Is there anyway around that approach? I found the fair tax proposal intriguing, doing away with income-based tax entirely and instead hitting on the consumption side. It was accompanied by a "prebate" so that spending to the poverty limit would effectively be covered, at least for legal residents. The objection is that it would considerably less progressive than the current scheme, so a boon for "rich people" [high earners], especially rich people who are investing their money instead of spending it. However, I don't consider reducing inequality a compelling goal for taxation, and I do consider doing as little damage as possible to the economy with taxation a compelling goal. The dramatic increase in standard of living that has occurred in this country over the last two centuries has nothing to do with soaking the rich and everything to do with the economy expanding.

  57. SteveF #172798,

    How does allowing *corporations* to keep their money untaxed protect the already wealthy from 'normal' rates on income? Corporations aren't people, so even with a 0% corporate tax rate, you can tax the money when it actually flows to the "already wealthy". How does an already wealthy person get cash from a corporation retaining earnings?

  58. When politicians and their supporters of ever bigger government talk about "Fair" taxes what they really mean is a political appealing means to more taxes. It is really not about being fair. Further the politicians call for more taxes for government debt reduction really means more taxes and more debt. It is really not about debt reduction. If you are hesitant to accept these observations of mine you are probably stuck in the realm of Civics 101.

    As an aside, I see that SteveF and his buddy, P Krugman, at the New York Times are of similar frames of mind on the issue of capital gains tax.

  59. Kenneth,
    "SteveF and his buddy, P Krugman"
    .
    Ummm… no buddy of mine; I actually think he is as dumb as a box of rocks. I want lower overall taxes, lower government expenditures, and most of all, less government intrusion into people's private choices via regulations and "tax incentives". Krugman is for none of those things. He is for marginal taxes in excess of 70%…. I most certainly am not. The only thing I may agree with Krugman on (and I am not even certain of this) is more uniform treatment of all types of income for tax purposes.

  60. SteveF, I know well where you stand on these issues and Krugman. My strategy on taxes is and will always be that I would never be against a tax cut for anyone or any group and would always be against a tax increase on anyone or any group. Although I believe the fairness game is a political ruse, I would always favor reducing taxes on a group in the name of fairness – not raising taxes and conceding to the politicians' game.

  61. I'd like to take a moment to salute Thomas Fuller who has just been banned from ATTP. I won't pretend to know exactly what you were arguing over there or what you thought to accomplish, but. I salute you an[y]way.

  62. mark,
    Are Tom's comments still up? Or were they deleted along with the ban? (Just curious.)

    We all know Anders has a heavy ban hammer. Such is life.

  64. A thread on fact mongering? I am soooooooo glad I put off hemming the dress I am wearing to Maggie's wedding tomorrow. No time to read that. . .

  65. Yeah. I've glanced through but time does not permit much investigation for me either. Oh well!

  66. Mark, Lucia,
    The Ken Rice echo chamber does not tolerate comments from any POV except the radical-green-left. It is really a religious blog more than anything else…. and blasphemy in comments is absolutly not allowed.
    .
    But I still find the blog mildly entertaining when I need some slap-stick humor… similar to ‘caged monkeys throwing $hit at each other’. The funniest thing is: these monkeys don’t even realise they are just throwing $hit.
    .
    Thomas Fuller just went up a couple of notches on my table!

  67. I noticed Thomas Fuller in Oakland writing for the New York Times, but found out while the subject matter was similar to what I'd expect, it was a a different Thomas Fuller.

  68. Hi MikeN

    The funny thing is that I used to get his email and he mine. I was writing for the Italian supplement for the International Herald Tribune and he was writing for the parent company NYT. He's a fine writer, whatever one might say about his take on climate change.

  69. Tom,
    .
    I enjoyed your post over at cliscep (Math and the New Green Deal). It's funny how I color stuff in the way I want to. You don't actually say the New Green Deal is a really bad idea, although I don't think it's a stretch to say you imply it.
    .
    Ocasio-Cortez tells us that the world will end in 12 years due to climate change, so why worry about how we're going to pay for it. I don't think even AOC believes this is factually correct. Perhaps she feels that this is morally correct. Certainly, I think this is correct from a comedic perspective; it *does* make me chuckle. It could be correct from a tragic perspective as well, which might mean it's artistically correct. There may be all sorts of ways to spin the New Green Deal into correctness and yet strangely enough my wallet, my bank account, and by extension my mortal coil seem hopelessly locked almost entirely into this 'factually correct' frame of reference.
    Go figure.
    .
    What do you make of Cortez? Dumb idealistic kid in your view?
    .
    [Edit: On further consideration, I think I might allow that my wallet, bank account, and mortal coil also exist somewhat on the comedic and tragic frames of reference as well.]

  70. I don't know if it's a bug or a feature of Cortez, but I find I more or less *have to* straw man her to get anywhere. I have to figure out what she might mean and address that instead of what she actually says. For example:
    .
    "“I do think that a system that allows billionaires to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people are still getting ringworm because they don’t have access to public health is wrong,”"
    .
    I can't help but think she means *hookworm* in Lowndes County, which is a *sanitation* problem rather than a public health access problem… One solution to that problem might indeed be to drop about 70 million and buy everybody in the county a new sceptic tank installation. Or maybe develop some proper municipal infrastructure could be another approach.
    .
    Would preventing the accumulation of billions of dollars into the pockets of a relative handful of individuals prevent sanitation problems in Lowndes County and HOW, is the question I'd like to ask. Unfortunately, I can't fill in the blanks for AOC on that one.

  71. Mark bofill,
    Yes. People getting *any* kind of worm is a public sanitation or hygene problem. Also: the issues are worse further south where winter doesn't kill things in the soil, so you have to take more care with dog poops and worms in things like rabbit poop can live year round.

    Did I every mention I was born in El Salvador? Did I mention we had a dog? Did I mention there was a wild overgrown ravine next to the yard? Did I mention as a small child I sometimes wanted to make mud pies and sat o the wet ground? Oh…. did I mention we, the children, got treated for worms? '

    Well… all those things happened. *Getting* works is not a result of lack of access to medical treatment. Not having worms *treated* could be. I bet kids in Lowndes County are dewormed regularly. Worm medicine is not all that expensive.

    And when I went to visit, and lived in a "swanky" neighborhood in San Salvador, the family was VERY strict that we were never to walk barefoot on the lawn. Cuz' they didn't want us to get worms. (We didn't. )

    "Would preventing the accumulation of billions of dollars into the pockets of a relative handful of individuals prevent sanitation problems in Lowndes County and HOW, is the question "

    Rhetorical, but nope. Even preventing sanitation problems won't entirely prevent the possibility of worms in even warmer climates, especially if people own pets, farm animals and so on.

  72. Thanks Lucia.
    You're quite right on all counts:
    1. I think it *is* a rhetorical question for me, because I don't believe there's a valid answer. So, asking the question makes that point for me.
    .
    However and I really do mean this – it's conceivable to me that someone like Tom might want to take me up literally on that question, in which case I *am* somewhat interested in hearing their answer.
    .
    But anyway, I apologize for using a rhetorical question. I have chronic rhetorical question syndrome and never quite seem to get rid of it.
    .
    and
    2. Yes. It was a malformed question. 'Reduce to trivial levels' rather than 'prevent' might have been a better phrasing, although even that might not be exactly correct. Basically, whenever and wherever people are exposed directly by whatever device to fecal matter there is probably going to be some chance and some level of occurrence of parasitic infection. 'Reduce to whatever arbitrary level some unspecified person might consider acceptable' might be what I was really saying. [Edit: so I have something in common with Cortez! Hah.]
    and
    3. Yes. Hookworm is easy and cheap to treat.

  73. "…buy everybody in [Lowndes] county a new sceptic tank installation."

    Envisioning the following: "Son, you don't believe AOC? Get in the tank!"

    [Yes, I know it's just a typo. But some typos are more humorous than others.]

  74. Dang Harold. I specifically *checked* to make sure I typed septic instead of sceptic, and *still* I screwed it up.

  75. So, after reflecting on the reason for Lucia's injunction about rhetorical questions (which is as I recall, that it doesn't make clear [what point] the questioner is trying to make), I thought I'd elaborate a bit.
    .
    If you want money to help poor people who can't afford to help themselves, then it strikes me as illogical and counterproductive to claim that it is morally wrong that our system allows billionaires to exist. It's not a complicated argument. If you want to redistribute wealth, you need somebody to redistribute wealth *from*. If you never allow them to accumulate the money to begin with, I contend that what you are really going to do in many cases is cause them to never *produce the excess value to begin with* that you intend to confiscate.
    .
    I'm no billionaire or millionaire even. Working as a contractor at a job that is honestly harder than a lot of contracts I could be working at, I make a lot more money than I need to for my own [purposes]. I'm trying to get ahead and get my family ahead. I assure you, were I not permitted the *possibility* of advancing my own selfish interests, I wouldn't bother. I would do the bare minimum, easiest work I could do to stay alive and spend the rest of my time entertaining myself as best I could perhaps, or on some other pursuit.
    .
    Nothing complicated or profound or even original I think, but there it is all the same. AOC should *protect* her sacrificial billionaires. They're the geese with the golden eggs for pity's sake.

  76. Mark,
    Yes. The claim it's immoral for billionaires to exist while poor also exist rests on the assumption that *if billionaires did not exist* then the poor would be less poor. It is not at all clear that is true.

    Assuming being impoverished is bad (and I think it is), then the moral evil is to have a system that creates a larger number of impoverished people. We are all aware of a current example of such a system: Venezula. They achieved dire poverty among masses of previously well off people through the magic of corruption and socialism.

  77. I'll shush after this, really. Just thinking out loud.
    .
    So – redistribution. If it keeps society stable; if it keeps desperate poor people from rioting and taking what I've got and murdering me and my family in my sleep, well maybe some redistribution of what I produce isn't the worst or greatest price I could pay. So maybe I can tolerate a little of that.
    .
    A modicum of recognition and gratitude wouldn't hurt though. Rather than calling the wealthy (or people who are trying to get wealthy) evil, why not say thanks. Thanks for creating more, producing more, contributing more. Thanks for making a surplus so somebody who couldn't make any can have some. I think it'd be a lot more palatable for the people getting taxed. Maybe more importantly, maybe this would help prevent people from losing sight of reality so much and [help prevent people from doing] dumb counterproductive things, like marching the kulaks off to Siberia and causing millions to starve by destroying the ability of the over producers to over produce. If you recognize their value and honor and appreciate your producers, maybe that sort of thing wouldn't happen.
    .
    [Edit: Thanks Lucia! I didn't see your post until after I wrote this.]

  78. mark bofill (Comment #172824): "A modicum of recognition and gratitude wouldn't hurt though. Rather than calling the wealthy (or people who are trying to get wealthy) evil, why not say thanks. Thanks for creating more, producing more, contributing more. Thanks for making a surplus so somebody who couldn't make any can have some."

    The reason that AOC and the like can not say thanks is because they are idiots (or are pretending to be idiots). They think that economics is a zero sum game. So the only reason some people are rich is that they got there by taking it from the poor.

  79. Thanks Mike M. That's probably a good chunk of why not.
    .
    I wanted to rant and rave about the stupidity involved, but. I doubt that's really it. It's a wide world out there, full of complex, composite occurrences. I don't doubt it happens to some extent that people profit at the expense of other people. Maybe some make the mistake honestly and incorrectly abstract that it's the rule instead of the exception.
    ***Or maybe it's *ME* who's abstracting it wrong and my view is the exception. Maybe that's possible. But non zero sum has to be a big enough exception that it keeps us all [relatively prosperous], because the goods have to come from someplace, and on average each of us left to our own device in nature have to work our hides off to just barely eek by. If not flat out starve. The prosperity is coming from SOMEWHERE.

  80. mark,
    Some people profit at the expense of others. However, for the most part, under our current system in the US these people don't become *billionaires*. To become a billionaire, you generally need to *create something new people value*. Like it or not, that's what Bezos did– he created a way to bring goods to market that was of value to both producers and consumers of goods.

    I know I benefit from access to a larger variety of goods I could easily access than previously, and I don't need to leave my house.

    Sam Walton did a similar thing in his day. Heck, lots of merchants have.

    But it's actually possible for someone to see that as taking away from other merchants. So a better example that's very difficult to see as zero sum is Bill Gates creating new useful software, Jobs and Wozniak creating computing devices (and many others creating software and computing devices along the way).

    Some people do still become very wealthy– or at least control wealth which is almost the same thing– through crony-capitalism or by translating political power into what are, to some extent "donations" (e.g. to the Clinton foundation). Those people are generally politically connected. If sufficiently politically connected (like being president of the US) they can rake in quite a bit. This sort of thing is not a feature of *capitalism*. It happens when those in government can grant large monetary favors. It occurs in socialist countries often– often even more strongly there.

  81. Lucia,
    " So a better example that's very difficult to see as zero sum is Bill Gates creating new useful software, Jobs and Wozniak creating computing devices (and many others creating software and computing devices along the way)."
    .
    Sure, and the key is that creating useful things enriches the entire economy, not just the creator. When Watt improved on the atmospheric steam engine (external condenser, etc), he reduced the cost for fuel by a factor of ~50%…. enriching everyone who used a steam engine, and everyone who used the products made with steam engines, not just Watt and his partners. The frightening thing is that air-heads in Congress (like AOC) have apparently zero understanding of the importance of wealth creation, economic growth, and economic incentives, and they seek instead to punish the creation of wealth, all to to make things more "fair". I find it both bizarre and troubling.
    .
    I suspect part of the problem is that very few politicians have ever created anything of value. Heck, many have never held a job in a profit-making enterprise, so they understand very little about creating wealth. Karmela Harris is a perfect example…. politics from the day she left college. She never held a real job, and got ahead in politics by dating a much older and very powerful politician (Willy Brown) who got her put on high-pay-little-work public 'commissions'.

  82. lucia (Comment #172828): "Some people profit at the expense of others. However, for the most part, under our current system in the US these people don't become *billionaires*."

    True. Although federal prisoner No. 61727-054 was worth something like $17 billion before his Ponzi scheme collapsed.
    .
    lucia: "This sort of thing is not a feature of *capitalism*. It happens when those in government can grant large monetary favors. It occurs in socialist countries often– often even more strongly there."

    Spot on.

  83. Thanks all.
    .
    I appreciate the patience everyone has shown so far. One might wonder why on Earth I'm interested in talking about such rudimentary and obvious things. It's just the spectacle of the word 'socialism' becoming somewhat popular I guess. Millenials say they prefer socialism to free market by a 10% margin, but of course they don't appear to understand what they are talking about..
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/millennials-say-democratic-socialism-but-what-they-want-is-free-stuff
    The link is one opinion. I've read others that put forward different views on what the millenials are all about. Don't know, personally.
    .
    Wading deeper into the mire:
    Maybe I shouldn't scoff too loudly at the millenials for their confusion. Merriam Webster says socialism is:
    "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
    I can't tell if this is what AOC is talking about. I can say that Bernie seems to be talking about something else:
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/20/what-democratic-socialism-senator-bernie-sanders-explains
    Sounds like more of the millenial view highlighted in the link earlier; free stuff from the government.
    But careful! Some take exception to Bernie's labels, like the Danish Prime Minister who says Denmark ain't socialist:
    https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/
    .
    Seems to me there's a good bit of confusion out there. [And not without some reasonable justification…]

  84. Maybe the word socialism doesn't actually mean anything anymore. Maybe it's becoming a brand name, or a word indicating a certain style. A flavoring. Fine I guess, so long as it's not a bait and switch…

  85. Mark Bofill,
    "Socialism" seems to mean whatever the heck avowed socialists say it means. But one thing is pretty common: they want to take money from some (less deserving) people to give to other (more deserving) people. Until, as Thatcher noted, they run out of less deserving people's money.

  86. SteveF (Comment #172834): "Socialism seems to mean whatever the heck avowed socialists say it means."

    They *pretend* it means something other than what it means. The initial objective is to confuse and the eventual objective is socialism.
    .
    Mark Bofill (Comment #172833): "so long as it's not a bait and switch…"

    Which is exactly what it is.

  87. Steve,
    .
    There is that. It just seems strange that one could say the U.S. has become socialist, purely by redefinition. The idea that we'll take from some and give to others has been in practice in the U.S. since at least the Great Society programs [starting] 1964 – so apparently socialism has been pretty mainstream in the U.S. for over 50 years.
    .
    Huh.
    ..
    Nope. Not working for me. Call me a reactionary stick in the mud, but I think I'm going to adhere to the original meaning in my usage.

  88. Mike,
    .
    There is certainly precedent. Fidel Castro did much the same thing, as I recall.
    [Edit: Yeah, here for example:
    https://library.brown.edu/create/modernlatinamerica/chapters/chapter-4-cuba/moments-in-cuban-history/the-castro-touch-populism-and-ambiguity/
    "The vague and un-descriptive nature of his proposed solutions to Cuba’s economic and social ills further portrayed the Revolution as moderate and inclusive. This, in turn, minimized his early opposition. For instance, Castro spoke broadly of placing in power “men removed from all political machines,” of “mobilizing all inactive capital,” and distributing land (Castro, 30-1; 35). He unclearly posited that unemployment would “automatically disappear,” and public health would necessarily improve as a result of land redistribution and education reform (37)…"]

  89. But on to important matters.
    I've noticed when I make chocolate chip pancakes that sometimes the chocolate chips stick to the pan, making a mess, and sometimes they do not. I haven't taken good note and don't have solid observations, but here are my impressions so far:
    1. Seldom (maybe never) observed happening on the first few pancakes.
    2. Occurs at some random point towards the middle of the making of a batch of pancakes. Pancake #n will be fine, pancake #n+1 will have chocolate chip mess all over the pan and spatula.
    3. Once threshold condition has been hit, all subsequent pancake processing causes chocolate chip mess all over the pan and spatula.
    The variables I can think of are:
    A. pan temperature,
    B. batter consistency,
    C. amount of nonstick agent remaining in the pan.
    Any suggestions regarding this?
    q1) What causes the chocolate chip mess event, and how to mitigate it?
    q2) How can I most efficiently isolate the cause of the chocolate chip mess event during future breakfast preparation, without incurring undue overhead during the busy morning routine?
    q3) Any comments, thoughts, ideas, observations, or others are welcome.

  90. Oh. It's worth noting. My procedure:
    1. I mix the batter and preheat the pan with a small amount of margarine as the non-stick agent.
    2. I pour a pancake,
    3. I add 7-10 chocolate chips by dropping them onto the surface of the pancake.
    4. I allow the pancake to cook, then flip and allow to cook briefly on other side.

  91. Qs:
    Do you add more margarine with each pancake?
    What pan surface? (Non-stick, stainless, cast iron? Sounds non-stick)

    Speculation:
    The chocolate and possibly the pancakes contain some sugars. That could be coating the pan and forming a think layer of carmelizing sugars. That can be sticky.

    To mitigate: drop plenty of butter and replenish for each cake. Why butter and not margarine? Butter is yummier.

  92. Thanks Lucia! I'll try that. Good point on butter being yummier – already making *chocolate chip pancakes* for goodness sakes, might as well get it right.

  93. lucia (Comment #172841): "Butter is yummier."

    For sure. But isn't butter also healthier? Although I guess they have trans-fat free margarine now. But isn't cooking spray the healthiest option? I think so, but I am not sure.

  94. Mike M.
    I have no idea whether margarine or butter is healthier. I think current margarine's have fewer transfats every since those started having a bad rap. I can't help noticing that there has been some back and forth on precisely what is "best" both with respect to type of fat and total amount in the diet.

    I totally believe the following should be reduced: refined sugar, refined grains. The following should be increased: low calorie watery vegiies, like cucumbers, brocolli, green beans and so on. Some other plant products: depends. We should eat varied foods and obviously, no one should eat *sticks* of butter. Other than that…. I have no idea.

    I don't know if cooking spray is best for health. If your aim is very low fat, that's what you should use.

    However, I suspect it won't fix Marks's chocolate chip mess. I think you need a nice thick layer of oil between the thin layer of carmelized sugar and the pancake. Spray might be too thin.

    Also, it seems a bit overboard to drastically reduce the cooking fat when your *pancakes* already contain *chocolate chips*! If your weight is ok it's probably prudent to not eat too many chocolate chip pancakes; whether cooked with spray, margarine or butter, they contain foods you mostly want to eat relatively little of. (If your hobby is running marathons, you can probably cope with the calories though.)

    If you're actually overweight or obese and want to lose weight, you probably need to not eat any chocolate chip pancakes because they are high calorie no matter what you use.

  95. I don't know either, but thanks Mike M for bringing the question to my attention. I'd always simply assumed margarine was better healthwise.
    .
    Sorry Lucia that I didn't answer you very completely earlier (I tend to do that) but you appear to have understood my setup, yes. It's a non stick pan, and I haven't been adding any more nonstick anything after the initial step. [everything that follows can be tldr'ed, not really relevant to anything]: Actually, I had been long inhibited about changing conditions after the first pancake. In days of yore when the world was new and I began trying to make pancakes for the first few times, my first pancake was invariably unsatisfactory and deliberately sacrificed to prepare the pan for the subsequent pancakes, which would turn out all right. Over time I realized this appeared to be a matter of pan temperature and proper coating of the surface with the non stick agent (https://www.delish.com/kitchen-tools/a51181/heres-why-your-first-pancake-always-looks-awful/). Even though I now control for this, I think I was still habituated to the superstition of 'getting the pan in the right state and not messing with it'.
    .
    And yes – definitely not prepared with an eye towards what's healthy! More along the lines of 'I want to give my kids a treat'. I don't mind chocolate chip pancakes exactly, but I prefer traditional pancakes when I'm doing pancakes.
    .
    I read that kale pancakes are a thing, and that some claim they are delicious. Anyone have any first hand experience? I'd try it but I'm afraid it's a trap!

  96. Mark,

    The only other thing that I can think of at the moment is if your batter is slowly warming in the mixing bowl. But probably more likely is a veneer of sugars in the pan from prior pancakes. I would give a swipe with a paper towel between pancakes and see if that helps.

    I grew up with margarine and my wife showed me the light with butter. Will never, EVER, go back to margarine.

  98. mark,
    *Even though I now control for this, I think I was still habituated to the superstition of 'getting the pan in the right state and not messing with it'.*
    I am not an expert. But it seems to me that works with metal and cast iron pans. But no-stick is a different beast. Dunno.

    Chocolate chip pancakes are a treat. So I think the butter/no butter issue should be considered in context of ease of cooking and deliciousness.

    Kale pancakes? Yeah. I've hear of kale lots of stuff. Kale chips included. I'm sure vast quantities of potato chips and zillions of brand of said item will still be around in 10 years. Kale chips not so much. It will go out of fashion and some new "wonder veggie" will be in.

    Veggies are good for you. But some things are stupendously tempting.Unless the kale chips are fried in oil, they probably aren't a trap becuase they won't be all *that* tempting. In which case: what's the point? (None!).

    Heck, we have roasted garbanzos for snack. They are an ok snack and not to calorific. But actual nuts which while supposedly ok for you are calorie bombs are better. The calorie bomb aspect is strongly linked to the deliciousness.

  99. "The calorie bomb aspect is strongly linked to the deliciousness."
    Yeah. Evolutionary inevitability at work there I guess.
    Thanks.

  100. Mark,
    Delicious tends to be high calorie. But I find usually butter more delicious than margarine which is sort of neutral flavored. (The neutral is good in some dishes– just like corn oil is sometimes useful compared to olive).

    I also love tomatoes, ripe strawberries and so on, and they are not calorie bombs. It is hard to get the most flavorful ones though.

  103. I bought a used copy of "Eat this, not that" for restaurants, just to find out which chains make the tastiest food.
    .
    Apparently Cheesecake Factory is the tastiest, judging by how it dominates the "not that" list.

  104. One of the things I genuinely enjoy about talking with you Lucia, as soon as I think I've got my apples all piled up on the cart in a nice orderly way, you'll make an idle remark and I'll realize my cart is actually upset, with apples spilling all over the place.
    .
    Yah. Fruit, and some vegetables. Why do we like those, when they aren't calorie bombs? I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I'm betting the answer still lies in there someplace. Maybe they *were* calorie bombs, relatively speaking (relative to what we could normally find to eat), back in our evolutionary history. Or maybe something else, something else important about them besides calories. Other vital nutrients. I don't know. All of that type stuff may just be too …organic… for me to wrap my head around. [We must like them because they taste sugary. Possibly, we like sweet things *because* our ancestors liked fruit. Dunno]
    .
    I'm not sure I could wrap my head around a Dilbert comic strip right now anyway. I'm beat, it was a looooong day.

  105. Joseph,
    Turnip tarts! Wow. My twelve year old is appalled. Truthfully, I'm sort of thinking he's probably got a point. I've never cared for turnips or radishes (I'm sort of scrambling them together in my mind in my current state of exhaustion).
    [Edit: I was startled to see Bullwinkle smash the knave with a flail. Then I remembered, oh yeah! That's what cartoons used to be like all the time…]
    .
    Dale, sounds like the sort of strategy I'd be looking for. 🙂

  106. Seriously. The FBI shows up with CNN early this morning to arrest Roger Stone. "Roughly a dozen officers in heavy tactical gear" is what I read at the Hill.
    I'd just read the other day that Roger Stone knows perfectly well the FBI are eventually going to come to at least question him, if not arrest him. He has hired a legal team in anticipation of this and if I recall properly he's complained about the expense of maintaining that legal team in a ready state waiting for the FBI to get around to him.
    They could have sent a couple of agents quietly by the light of day; heck – they probably could have called the man's lawyers and asked him to come turn himself in. Therefore, I tend to think the FBI deliberately made a public circus out of this.
    I invite criticism of this though – how do I have this wrong, if I do.

  107. Once again, the process is the punishment. To hell with innocent until proven guilty. I have no idea who Roger Stone is. OK, Wikipedia says he is a political consultant renowned for dirty tricks. Sounds unsavory. But Mueller is scaring me. More to the point, the fact that Mueller can get away with what he is doing scares me. Even worse, it seems that Mueller's tactics are standard operating procedure in law enforcement, not just the feds but also state and local prosecutors. It is un-American.

  109. Mike M,
    The process is *always* the punishment in politically motived legal proceedings, criminal or civil (see Mann v Steyn or the IRS treatment of conservative non-profits). Of course the FBI could have asked Stone to turn himself in, and he certainly would have (same for any of Mueller’s other targets), but that reduces the punishment aspect. The terror of a guns-drawn-break-down-the-door arrest and hand-cuffed perp-walk (with CNN cameras in tow, of course) is the whole point of the process. The FBI is hopelessly corrupt politically and hopelessly dishonest. It should be broadly defunded.

  110. Not only does it seem overkill, it's curious that they (or Mueller?) decided that CNN deserves an exclusive. If you don't want to give the impression that the arrest is politically motivated, I would think that'd be the last choice.
    .
    Good to know that despite being shutdown, the FBI still has the resources to waste on a show arrest of someone who was fully expecting to be arrested.
    .
    Reading the indictment, the "Background" doesn't appear (to me) to have any smoking guns relevant to "collusion". Stone is in contact with wikileaks through mutual friends and has advance notice that there is material harmful to Hilary Clinton — though beyond that, he appears to have no details on what the information actually is and thinks it has something to do with her Foundation or her SoS stint. He is not working for the campaign at the time, but contacts the campaign and gives them a head up that something is coming, but there's no orders going either way. In fact, on October 3rd Stone says he'd tell [High ranking Trump official] about it, but he won't call him back.
    .
    The only mention of Russia in the background and intros is paragraph 4 (DNC through Company 1 [Crowdstrike, IIRC] claims the Russian government hacked them) and Paragraph 7 (As part of Russian investigation, they checked out Stone/Wikileaks connection). There's no hint at all that Stone himself had *any* contact with *anyone* associated with the Russian government. He's just talking to Wikileaks through Person 1 and Person 2.
    .
    So what about the crimes? He's indicted for lying to investigators and encouraging Person 2 to not contradict him, mention Person 1, and to take the 5th rather than provide information. If the indictment is accurate, he's guilty of that, though once again the crimes happened *because* of the investigation rather than being discovered by the investigation. If Stone didn't exist and had done nothing at all, I don't see how *anything* unfolds differently during the campaign at all. Look at counts 2 for 6 for the specific false statements (paraphrasing, and substituting names when it's obvious):
    .
    2. Denied he had any written documents that referred to or mentioned Assaunge. [That he was indirectly in contact with Assaunge was *publicly known* during the campaign, he just claimed there was nothing written to turn over.]
    .
    3. Claimed he had a single intermediary. [There were two instead of one.]
    .
    4. Falsely claimed he never asked intermediary to communicate anything or ask anything. [He asked for content — he didn't get it.]
    .
    5. Falsely claimed there were no written communications with Person 2 about Wikileaks. [Again, claiming he didn't have anything to turn over, not denying the contact existed. He *publicly* claimed that during the campaign.]
    .
    6. Falsely claimed conversations with intermediary weren't discussed with Trump Campaign. [He definitely told Trump Campaign Wikileaks had stuff on Clinton — but he also said that *publicly* on August 8th that Wikileaks had stuff on Clinton. If anything actually unique or useful to the campaign was passed privately, I don't see it detailed in the indictment — it's actually curiously vague about the timing and content of contacts with the campaign. "Summer"?]
    .
    And that's it. So the take home message is that the guy who claimed *publicly* in August 2016 that he had an intermediary with Wikileaks and knew there was more bad-on-Hilary stuff coming was telling the truth about that. And this guy, who publicly supported Trump, also let the Trump campaign know this. But the flow of information is all one way, and the timing is all at the convenience of wikileaks. If there's any coordination between the Trump campaign and wikileaks — let alone the Russians, who don't show up at all in the indictment — it's not revealed here. Poor Stone can't even get "High Trump Official" to answer his phone calls when he's dying to spill his gossip. But at least he got a WELL DONE text message from an *associate* of High Trump Official after wikileaks dumped the information they were going to dump anyway. Hopefully that made the whole arrest thing worthwhile.

  111. Dale S (Comment #172860): "Not only does it seem overkill, it's curious that they (or Mueller?) decided that CNN deserves an exclusive. If you don't want to give the impression that the arrest is politically motivated, I would think that'd be the last choice."

    !!!!!!

    The press was tipped off? All legitimate reasons for a predawn SWAT-style raid are 100% incompatible with tipping off the press.

    If so, then the raid was pure theater designed either to create the impression that Mueller has found the smoking gun or to intimidate other possible targets of the investigation. Or both.

    Robert Mueller belongs in prison.

  112. Mike M. #172861,

    To be fair, CNN is claiming they went to Stone's house early this morning because they noticed some unusual grand jury activity yesterday. Very prescient. My trust in CNN is low enough that I think a leak is far, far, far more likely.
    .
    As far as I know, there's no law against stage arrests or creating process crimes. But perhaps there should be. I realize that discouraging lying to investigators is necessary, but surely lies that do not cover up any actual crime should be treated more lightly, and "lies" that plausibly could be misremembering should be ignored if not material to the crime being investigated. Modest fines seem appropriate for process crimes, not prison terms.
    .
    Of course, Mueller's investigation is a special case because the underlying "crime" has yet to be identified; it's pure fishing expedition. Paragraph 18 states the scope of the investigations' inquiry: "into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible links to individuals associated with the campaigns." 18 a & b read as follows:

    "On or about January 13, 2017, the chairman and vice chairman of SSCI announced the committee would conduct an inquiry that would investigate, among other things, any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns, as well as Russian cyber activity and other “active measures” directed against the United States in connection with the 2016 election.
    .
    b. On or about January 25, 2017, the chairman and ranking member of HPSCI announced that HPSCI had been conducting an inquiry similar to SSCI’s."
    .
    "On or about?" Do they know the date or not? Is that all HPSCI says, since lying to HPSCI is alleged, so the scope should be vitally important? Here's the request from HPSCI to Stone:

    "Any documents, records, electronically stored information including e-mail, communication, recordings, data and tangible things (including, but not limited to, graphs, charts, photographs, images and other documents) regardless of form, other than those widely available (e.g., newspaper articles) that reasonably could lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publicly announced parameters."
    .
    So if 18b is the "publicly announced parameters", they are looking for links to *Russia*. If you suspect Russia hacked the stuff and funneled to Wikileaks, how the information got *to* Wikileaks is obviously of great interest. But Stone's inside scoop that Wikileaks *has* the information is absolutely useless unless he has information on how Wikileaks *got* the information — and nothing of the sort is alleged. So I think this claim by Stone (letter to HPSCI) is true, despite being called out as false in count 1:
    .
    "Mr. Stone has no documents, records, or electronically stored information, regardless of form, other than those widely available that reasonably could lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publicly-announced parameters."
    .
    Indeed, the presumption that Stone tipping off the trump campaign in "Summer 2018" that Wikileaks had dirt on Hilary is worth noticing *precludes* the idea that Wikileaks *getting* the dirt was the result of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

  115. Thanks for the link. mark.

    From the link: "CNN either acted on a tip…or had been camped out there (either is good journalism.)"

    I agree with that. As much as I dislike CNN, I see no reason to blame them.
    .
    From the link: "Shortell said the 'unusual activity' he noticed is that the grand jury met on Thursday this week when it usually meets on Fridays."

    That sound plausible. So maybe Mueller did not leak. But still, the predawn SWAT raid is outrageous.

  116. Dale S (Comment #172862): "As far as I know, there's no law against stage arrests or creating process crimes. But perhaps there should be. I realize that discouraging lying to investigators is necessary, but surely lies that do not cover up any actual crime should be treated more lightly, and "lies" that plausibly could be misremembering should be ignored if not material to the crime being investigated. "

    Yep. Stage arrests should be banned. But that might not make a difference since they are usually accomplished via leaks, which provides the authorities with plausible deniability.

    Off hand, I'd say that lying to the police should not be a crime unless it can be shown to have materially affected the investigation *and* can be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have been done for that purpose.

  117. Mike M. #172866,
    I'd say that if it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the lie was knowingly made, only a preponderance of evidence should be necessary that it materially affected the investigation. Honestly, I'd suspect the vast majority of false statements (probably unwittingly made) to police/investigators are shrugged off in practice, which would make elevating a few of them when politically convenient even more obnoxious.
    .
    Whether CNN was just practicing good journalism or benefited from a leak, to get their visuals they needed the FBI to show up for a heavily-armed pre-dawn raid. And if CNN hadn't been there, what purpose would providing the visual serve? They obviously weren't at all necessary to actually make the arrest. Or maybe that's SOP at the FBI when arresting anyone, because their research has shown that a group of armed men coming to the door at night reduces the chance of any unpleasant firearms-related incident happening.

  119. It might be that perp walks are just SOP for the FBI. I can't find much of substance. Here's some … something.
    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/harvey-weinstein-took-perp-walk-today-walk-shame-compares-celebs-184231953.html
    and
    https://www.npr.org/2011/07/07/137681216/perp-walk-the-history-of-parading-suspects
    Whatever I guess.
    [Heh. It says here Rudy Juliani made an art form of it:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eddie-strausskahn-perpwalk/perp-walk-blame-giuliani-idUSTRE74H71720110518%5D

  120. Yes, it might be SOP. I tried some google searches for FBI arrests and came across their timed arrest of 10 people in 2017 in connection with bribing high school basketball players to play at certain universities. Didn't run across any video of it, but I found a Chicago Tribune story about the whole affair the following year that had this in it about two of the Adidas executives:
    —
    Just after 6 a.m. last Sept. 26, about a dozen armed officers in bulletproof vests assembled outside the Greer, South Carolina, home that Code, the Adidas consultant who had never before been charged with a crime, shares with his wife and their 6-year-old son.
    .
    Adidas executive Gatto, who encountered a similar display of force outside his home in Oregon that day, also had a clean criminal record before this case.
    —
    Sounds like the Stone arrest, except for the clever network who knew to stake out a house in Florida because of secret grand jury proceedings in DC. Apparently the FBI really does think it's necessary to assemble a dozen armed officers in bulletproof vests to arrest a white collar criminal and unlikely flight risk in front of their family. I'd naively think this would be an obvious waste of FBI (and therefore taxpayer) resources, but maybe there's a good reason for it. Somewhere.

  122. The point of the perp walk is publicity, though. I think Guiliani wanted as much media as possible to record his arrests, and I don't think he arrested people in the dark when both suspect and officers could not be clearly seen. He wanted high-quality photos of someone in handcuffs.
    .
    No one would have seen this except Stone's family and neighbors, but for CNN.

  123. Sometimes you just gotta chuckle.
    Nancy Pelosi:
    "“The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people,” the Democratic leader said in a statement."
    .
    There was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to influence the 2016 election. You don't say… I think Pelosi has got them this time. Guilty as charged. Trump's campaign was *definitely* trying to influence the election.
    .
    Trump was not elected by popular vote but by electoral college. If one believes that Trump's campaign strategically pursued and orchestrated Trump's victory by prioritizing winning via electoral college vote, then the rest of her statement isn't false either. Trump's campaign subverted the will of the American people, or at least a majority of them.
    .
    TeeHee.

  124. I talked with a FBI agent I know. He says it's SOP to do 6 am arrest, bulletproof vests, and enough people to cover all the possible exits. It doesn't matter whether it's a violent crime or not, you never know how people will react when they get arrested.
    .
    He did say he thought he saw some riot gear in the video of the arrest, and that's not usual.

  125. Dale S (Comment #172874): "I talked with a FBI agent I know. He says it's SOP to do 6 am arrest, bulletproof vests, and enough people to cover all the possible exits. It doesn't matter whether it's a violent crime or not, you never know how people will react when they get arrested."

    I know that is SOP with many police departments, sometimes with tragic results. It is a disgrace.

    A former Deputy Assistant Attorney General writes: "Department of Justice protocol for non-violent defendants with no flight risk is to contact defense counsel and arrange a time to appear in federal court for arraignment."
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/26/toensing-mueller-stone/

    But she was in office in the 1980s, so things might well have changed. What she describes is the way it should be.

  126. Snow in the forecast for North Alabama tonight and tomorrow.
    .
    Let the mad rush by all residents to purchase absolutely everything I forgot to pick up this weekend in all local grocery stores commence!
    .
    I hope there's still milk and bread someplace when I get there. :/

  128. Hi Lucia,
    With the sub-zero temperatures recently in your area, I hope you have a back-up generator available to run the heat.

  129. I talked with a FBI agent I know. He says it's SOP to do 6 am arrest, bulletproof vests, and enough people to cover all the possible exits. It doesn't matter whether it's a violent crime or not, you never know how people will react when they get arrested."

    You never know how people will react when we break your door down and come at you with assault weapons early in the morning. How dumb can you get? I agree with Mike M.

    Where are the liberals with some awareness of civil liberties? And where is the CLU? Hypocrites all.

  130. "You never know how people will react" was a direct quote from the agent I know, and he's not a policy maker. At least in terms of time of raid, the wearing of bullet proof vests, and having "enough agents to cover all possible exits", it appears the agents on the ground were following SOP.
    .
    Whether it was necessary to send agents to arrest Stone, rather than just contact his lawyer and ask him to come in, is a separate question. I think the answer to that is obviously not, but I don't know where that decision was made. And I still suspect that CNN was tipped, though if FBI routinely arrests people at a predictable time it does make showing up an hour early with a camera crew more plausible.
    .
    (Though I would think having a standard arrest time would make it more difficult to find people at home….)

  131. "Wasn’t it about 5 years ago now that Rossi said he was ready to market a commercial E_Cat system."
    Comment over at Fusion article WUWT.
    –
    Problem is Mueller seems to get something on everyone even if it is not what he was hired to get.

  132. I'm not holding my breath on LENR. I'll admit I *am* sort of holding my breath on hot nuclear fusion.
    .
    What can I say. I know it's foolish optimism. I hope it's not ITER that reaches sustainable break even plus fusion first; I worry that a gargantuan sized and priced device like that isn't going to make for much of a practical solution. But better ITER than nothing I guess.
    .
    Mueller's process crimes aren't a problem in my view. The House can impeach Trump, but the Senate isn't going to remove him over that.
    *shrug*
    .
    [Edit: Well, not MUELLER's process crimes. The process crimes he's indicted people for is what I meant of course.]

  133. Steve,
    We don't have a back up generator. We almost never lose power, so I'm not worried. We do have lots of extra insulation in the attic. We also have a basement, so we will survive. 🙂

  135. If Rossi's movie is campy enough maybe it will become a cult classic like Rocky Horror. He'll have made a real contribution to society at that point. Sort of.

  136. I read Rossi's patent: US 9,115,913 B1 (B1 signifies a US version of a granted European patent, not a patent that was granted on actual merit in the USA).

    US 9,115,913 B1 is the purest form of nonsensical rubbish you will find. It discloses nothing and teaches nothing. Stoooopid. He's a scammer, nothing more.

  138. The ACLU aren't about defending liberties anymore, Kenneth. When DeVos proposed better due process safeguards for Title IX accusations, they said that "It promotes an unfair process, inappropriately favoring the accused and letting schools ignore their responsibility under Title IX to respond promptly and fairly to complaints of sexual violence". Better to inappropriately favor the accuser, I suppose, because anyone falsely accused just had it coming.

  139. SteveF,
    Honestly, I think the main problem for people up here won't be power loss. Our power supply is underground and gas furnaces are the norm around here. For many people the bigger problem will be furnaces that aren't sized for this weather. We are outside the design ASHRAE design temperature range. So some people's furnaces are going to have to run more than 100% of the the time to keep up with loss rates. The result will be colder than comfortable indoor temperatures.

    Obviously, we need electricity, but with gas furnaces going, we aren't going to over-extend the electrical power grid.

    Being prudent, I am not running the dryer. While it is gas, I worry it might encourage more infiltration than usual.

    Those worrying about the cat: he is not even trying to go outside.

  140. Yeah. I'd argue that it was inevitable that someday the ACLU would realize that they were taking contradictory positions in different instances. Had to come to a head eventually. Below is a link to their memo 'Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities':
    https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf
    .
    In my view, after getting in bed with the EDIC (Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Council), they're trying hard to assert that they aren't pregnant because of it:
    "…If the ACLU avoids the defense of controversial speakers, and defends only those with whom it agrees, both the freedom of speech and the ACLU itself may suffer…"
    .
    But later on:
    .
    "…The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression: Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which
    we are also committed, depending on factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur…"
    .
    Once upon a time, the ACLU defended Enlightenment ideas, but that day is passing. Post structuralism and the Enlightenment aren't compatible, and that doesn't bode for future utility of the ACLU. I think it's sad. The ACLU really was something special at one point in time as far as I'm concerned.

  141. Second Christmas didn't come to Huntsville; no snow [none really to speak of]. But everybody still got the day off.

  142. I didn't always agree with the ACLU, but I admired their single-issue purity on the issue of free speech. No more.

  143. trivia footnote – I see that I misunderstood this when I commented before. The EDIC referenced isn't a separate entity from the ACLU. Many organizations have an EDIC these days, looks like. The ACLU has one too.

  144. lucia (Comment #172889): "Honestly, I think the main problem for people up here won't be power loss. Our power supply is underground …"

    That would indeed make an outage much less likely than most places.
    .
    lucia: "… and gas furnaces are the norm around here."

    But the thermostat uses electricity. I have a gas furnace, but I know that if my power goes out, I don't have heat.

    So a power outage would seem to be a very low probability event with potentially very severe consequences.
    .
    lucia: "For many people the bigger problem will be furnaces that aren't sized for this weather. We are outside the design ASHRAE design temperature range."

    But surely there is a margin for error, engineers being engineers. Or does the design T range include a margin?
    .
    lucia: "So some people's furnaces are going to have to run more than 100% of the the time to keep up with loss rates. The result will be colder than comfortable indoor temperatures."

    And lots of people using space heaters.
    .
    "Obviously, we need electricity, but with gas furnaces going, we aren't going to over-extend the electrical power grid."

    But isn't peak winter demand in northern Illinois similar to peak summer demand? So the grid could get pushed pretty hard. The big question is whether the power company is ready for the demand.

  145. Hearing reports that the shutdown cost $6 billion, which makes refusing to shell out $5 Billion for the wall look senseless. However, since the back pay is what they would be paid anyways, it's not clear to me where that six billion "cost" was actually coming from. Politico has a story here:
    .
    https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/01/21/why-the-government-shutdown-actually-costs-money-000624
    .
    It has a breakdown of the $1.4 billion estimated from the 95-96 shutdown, but of that $1.1 billion was lost productivity from paying workers to do nothing. This isn't a cost in money, obviously, it's assuming that nonessential employees that consumed $1.1 billion are producing $1.1 billion of value. From the government's POV that may be true, but from the larger economy point of view it's certainly not so clear — in the case of the regulatory state, it may well be better for the economy for regulators to get paid to do nothing.
    .
    The remaining $300 million was from lost government revenue such as closing national parks and museums, claiming that it cost 7 million national park visits and 2 million museum visits. But further below a 2013 shutdown lasting 16 days cost just $7M in fees to NPS and $4M to Smithsonian, which would imply a pretty inconsequential part of $300M is parks and museums. Again this is a loss to government rather than the economy, I'm sure those 9 million lost visitors didn't just stay home and set their money on fire because they couldn't get their first choice.
    .
    The government also has lowered tax revenues from (presumed) harm to the economy from lack of government spending/activity, and less IRS enforcement during the shutdown. (From a financial standpoint, I don't see how furloughing people who *make you money* makes sense, but delaying the IRS in sucking funds out of the private sector surely isn't harmful to the larger economy). But I think it's safe to say that the *direct* financial costs to the government of the shutdown are very very far from $6 billion.
    .
    I still think shutdowns — and the debt limit — are stupid mechanisms that serve the purposes of politicians creating artificial emergencies for political leverage rather than serving any actual beneficial purpose. I like the proposal that in the absence of a budget, the government automatically continues with a 1% reduction of previous budget per quarter — if they want to spend *more* money, they need to do their job, and if they don't do their job let the government slowly shrink instead of paying workers to do nothing.

  146. SteveF, you make reasonable point for having a generator for a winter power outage, but like Lucia, and in my much longer living experience in this area, winter power outages are rare to non existent. In fact even summer outages have been become rare in my neighborhood.

    If one were somehow stuck in their home and had no option of going to a friends or relatives house or a hotel then a power outage in the winter would be much more threatening than one in the summer.

    I think one of the bigger potential problems with cold weather in our area are water pipes that can burst. This more likely to occur when a home is left unattended in the winter by people spending the winter in Florida and after enjoying all the fine weather down there by you, Steve, coming home to a flooded house.

  147. MikeM,
    Yes. Losing electricity would be a problem and cold can be a killer. I'm just saying that the much more *likely* problem around here is having an undersized furnace. Also: As I mentioned, I have lots of insulation and a basement. The thermal mass of a basement means I could coast out brief (as in less than 48 hour) power outages if they occurred. I might be cold, but the basement temp will not drop hugely, and I could set up a tent.

    Kenneth lives very near me. I can say that I have *never* had a power outage except during *tornado* season. Chicago has had brownouts or power loses when the *air conditioners* are drawing lots of power.

    People who leave homes unattended in winter should learn to drain and blow out their pipes especially any remotely near a wall. We did that for irrigation systems in Richland, WA and would definitely need to do it here.

  148. Hard to bring your site up on a search now. Not sure if directing to your site is being made harder. Used to just type in the blackboard to get you as one of top three hits but now……

  150. "I like the proposal that in the absence of a budget, the government automatically continues with a 1% reduction of previous budget per quarter — if they want to spend *more* money, they need to do their job, and if they don't do their job let the government slowly shrink instead of paying workers to do nothing."

    DaleS, I like that proposal also. I am wondering who made it. I doubt that it was any of the timid Republicans. Actually if the politicians in Washington would just not continue to increase spending the annual deficits could be shrunk significantly. The Democrats and their MSM buddies yell bloody murder when spending increases are denied in the budgets and prefer to call that a spending cut. The Republicans at that point start shaking in their boots and concede the point and often by "compromising" by getting the Democrats to agree to also increase defense spending – and without ever attempting to explain that they were not cutting spending, even though I would prefer they would and do a better job of explaining why.

    The Republicans should also be thinking seriously about a contested primary in order to avert a major disaster in the 2020 elections. The House lost 40 (or 41 seats depending a contested one in North Carolina) and most of those loses where due to Trump being associated with the Republican loser even when the Republican attempted to distance himself from Trump the person. In my district the only clear message from an otherwise not very formidable Democrat opponent was the Trump association and the seat that had been Republican for 50 years or so went the Democrat in a not very close race. These new Democrats are not center left but rather left and even the socialist wing of the party is being taken seriously by the party and their MSM supporters.

    The Republicans need a leader with some credibility who can at least attempt to articulate why we do not need more government much less socialism. Trump is absolutely not the person who could do that. He is all about Trump and not about ideas. Being wimps on this matter will make the 2020 elections a memorable disaster for the Republicans. I am thinking that they need a younger and libertarian leaning candidate to do this.

  151. Dale S (Comment #172895): "I like the proposal that in the absence of a budget, the government automatically continues with a 1% reduction of previous budget per quarter — if they want to spend *more* money, they need to do their job, and if they don't do their job let the government slowly shrink instead of paying workers to do nothing."

    I am strongly disinclined to government on autopilot. But then, that is pretty much what continuing resolutions are.

    The problem with the proposal is that it gives smaller government types a strong incentive to never pass a budget. I like smaller government, but that is not the way to do it.

    What baffles me is that even the people who were furloughed (as opposed to those who had to work without pay) are going to get paid. So they got a paid vacation? Admittedly, not a relaxing one.

  152. Kenneth Fristch (#172900),
    The autopilot cut as shutdown preventative was proposed by Republican Senator Portman. He's apparently been introducing this for years now, though, so I doubt it will get through this time. But it's certainly a worthy way to attack the problem. Democractic Senator Warner introduced his own bill, which doesn't affect funding for anything during a shutdown except the White House and legislative branch staffs.
    .
    I share your frustration with budget-minded pols not calling out the lie of "cuts" to agencies that are getting more money, just less than they wanted. Though it's possible there are plenty of pols that do call it out, they just aren't getting media coverage. It'd be a better world if journalists actually did what they tell themselves (and us) they are doing–providing factual, neutral reporting.
    .
    I don't think a contested Republican primary will do much in 2020, because barring some major scandal actually coming to roost, Trump would certainly defeat any primary challenger. Much as I wish Rand Paul or Ted Cruz had been elected instead of Trump, it can't be undone now. I'm disturbed both by the carnage in the House and the fact that so many statewide races against openly liberal candidates were close. However, as anyone but a Never Trumper encouraging democratic votes in the midterm would have expected, the carnage was greatest in moderate suburban districts that had the very Republicans least likely to align politically with Trump. In the Senate, the most prominently anti-Trump Senators didn't even bother trying to make it through the primary.

  153. Mike M. (#172901),
    I agree that the best way to shrink the budget would be for citizens to elect libertarian minded representatives and senators. But that's not happening, and passing budgets also isn't happening. Instead we have a steady stream of continuing resolutions and a series of shutdown or debt-ceiling brinkmanship, that always rebounds to the favor of whoever cares less about the collateral damage (most recently, that was Pelosi).
    .
    The natural tendency of government is to grow, I have no problem with the idea of putting a mechanism in place that causes things to automatically shrink instead. After all, it's not a mechanism that would be imposed, just a mechanism that would be enacted. Think of it as a budget for the next century instead of the next year….
    .
    While I'm wishing for political things that won't happen, there is one tiny bit of new government spending I would like to see. 97% (made-up estimate) of the people congresscritters see testify in committees are telling them how the government needs to do something and spend something on whatever issue it is they are testifying about. I'd like to see a small office whose sole job is to analyze bills and figure out hidden costs and unintended consequences, so they can tell congresscritters the reasons why they *shouldn't* do something for a change. I think that office would more than pay for itself.
    .
    I'd also like to see filibusters returned to its gory glory, instead of just folding tents if you can't get 60 for a cloture vote. If 40+ senators wants to prevent the majority for voting something badly enough to filibuster, make them do the work and talk on the floor.

  154. Dale S (Comment #172903),

    I agree almost completely as to political things that we might wish for but won't happen. The talking filibuster might have a chance.
    .
    Dale S: "a series of shutdown or debt-ceiling brinkmanship, that always rebounds to the favor of whoever cares less about the collateral damage (most recently, that was Pelosi)"

    I don't know about that. Government workers are almost all Democrats, so one would think that Pelosi would care more about them than Trump. I think the issue is which side can more successfully blame the other for the collateral damage. That is the Dems, thanks to their 100K strong propaganda department (a.k.a. journalists).
    .
    I don't know that Pelosi has won the latest shutdown. The government is only open for another two weeks. So I think it is halftime. Pelosi is ahead, but we have yet to see the final score.

  155. MikeM,
    When I worked at PNNL, many of us lab employees (contractors) were jealous of the DOE field office people who got paid vacations during a fairly brief government shutdown. Most of the field office people were decently paid– lots of routine stuff is done by outside contractors.

    We were better off than contractors who did things like sweep floors at the DOE field office. OUR contract was in place, so national lab people just kept coming to work without interruption in the normal way. But project managers at DOE got paid vacations. 🙂

    Of course, it did mean government workers should plan ahead for these somewhat frequent *delays* in pay checks, since they don't collect the pay for their vacation at the normal time for a pay check.

  156. Much has been said in recent years about the problems with reproducibility of many supposedly scientific results, especially when the results are purely statistical. To some extent, that could be explained away by the fact that science is largely a process of becoming gradually less wrong.

    But there is also a great deal of incompetence and malfeasance, as described in this article: http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/30/federal-agencies-nutrition-obesity-recommendations-junk-science/

    It sounds like nutrition is especially corrupt, but I think the same sorts of problems occur to a lesser degree in all fields. And are getting worse.

  157. Lucia,
    I do hope you go through tbe winter with no serious power losses.
    I lived for several years west of Philadelphis in a neighborhood with all underground utilities. All was OK until an ice storm brought down thousands of above-ground power lines in eastern PA, and we were left without power for 6 days in January…. in near zero temps,,,, yes, we had a basement, but the risk of ruptured pipes was real and serious. We managed (with a couple of 8000 BTU catalytic camping heaters and a fireplace) to keep the pipes from freezing (just barely!). Afterward, I said “never again”, and bought a 6KW generator. It was a decision that served me well.

  159. Evidently Chicago did have some power outages. John Kass's column in the Tribune reported he lost power for an hour or two…. it came back on….he lost it again… it came back on.

    His neighbor has a generator so he felt stupid. Obviously, if I lose power for any significant time, I'll feel stupid.

  160. If you go the generator route, ideally you want to get an interlock switch and socket installed. You can then plug your generator into your house and control which circuits need power from the fuse box.

  161. The problem with generators is that they are very expensive. I bought a $400 generator about 4 years ago from Harbor Freight. It will generate something like 5,000 or 7,000 watts, which sounds impressive. However, all that does is start something like a refrigerator because electrical appliances require a great deal of energy when they are first started. If the electricity goes off, it is nice to keep the refrigerator and a few lights running. However, can't imagine what a generator that would power a 2000 sq. ft. house would cost.

  162. JD
    I think the main goal in winter would be to keep the furnace and a few lights running during the outage. That would avoid the burst pipes and keep us alive. Right now, it's so cold I could put the food in the garage and it would freeze!

    In the summer, power outages main problem is the fridge and, if you can't tolerate heat, a/c. I can usually tolerate heat, so I wouldn't need the generator fr the a/c unless temperature were above 100. (I'd want it. Just wouldn't need it.)

  163. JD Ohio (Comment #172912): "It will generate something like 5,000 or 7,000 watts, which sounds impressive. However, all that does is start something like a refrigerator because electrical appliances require a great deal of energy when they are first started."

    The average house uses something like a kW. But that is averaged over time; startup transients would be a big problem. So one would need a way to manage what is on when.

    Huh. I just flashed back to "Green Acres".

  166. Sorry Mike. I understand what you were saying now. I think that's still a little light, but yeah. 900KWh per month, 720 hours per month. Yeah. A little over a KW on average.

  167. JD, From what I've seen, generators are often equipped to handle short surge periods. There's normally a surge and running watt figure ie 5000 running, 7000 surge. Promotional material will try to trick you by prominently featuring the surge watt rating.

  168. The inductive starting load for motors varies a quite a lot with the motor design, but it can easily reach 3+ times running load. So a refrigerator that runs 400 watts may need 1200 watts to get going. Washing machine motors seem particularly bad WRT starting load. Still, if you have a 5 KW (continuous) generator, that will usually have a surge capacity (less than 30 seconds) of somewhere near 7 KW. So there should be no problem starting a refrigerator. I used a 6 KW (8 KW surge) generator mto power my whole house for almost a week. I had to wire the water heater for 120 volts to reduce it's draw to ~1250 watts and turned off the central air. But I ran three 600 watt window AC units, TV, computers, refrigerator, etc with no problem at all. I could even run a couple of 1750 watt stove burners, so long as I made sure there wasn't too much other load. If you can't start a 'fridge with a 5 KW generator, something is really wrong with the generator, or you have other big loads on the generator and it is running near its limit.
    .
    New variable speed air conditioning units start very slowly, and have no excessive starting draw….. but cost quite a bit extra.

  169. On the face of it, it's strange to me that VA Governor Northam appears to be under more pressure to resign because of allegations of a racist photo in a yearbook than his comments touching on the boundaries between abortion and infanticide.
    I looked to Vox to hear the progressive side of the story:
    https://www.vox.com/2019/2/1/18205428/virginia-abortion-bill-kathy-tran-ralph-northam
    and I don't walk away with a sense that Vox is strongly defending this, or even defending it at all. It makes me wonder if relaxing the restrictions on late term abortions really have the heart and soul support of the democratic base.
    I thought the Federalist article (http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/01/democrats-inexorable-abortion-logic-finally-caught/) was worth reading. What is the limiting principle in the eyes of pro-choice supporters, if not that the desire and convenience of the mother trump the infants right to life, born or unborn. It appears to me that progressives in recent times have gotten so used to pushing as hard as they possibly can against their opposition that they have lost sight of the idea that there ought to be a line someplace (where exactly that line goes entirely of their own choosing) that they shouldn't push past.
    .
    But these questions are hard, so maybe it's no wonder that people fall back on the superficial issue of whether or not Northam did something thoughtless and stupid as a kid. At least the line there is clear and sharp, mindless as it may be.

  170. Marc,
    The governor was no kid… I think he was finishing medical school. But your point on abortion is well taken; there is broad support for the legality of early (first trimester) abortion, and very little at all for third trimester. The position of the most adamant supporters of abortion seems to be no 'line' at all. Roe v Wade drew an arbitrary line at 6 months, after which they said the interests of the state allow restriction/prohibition. The problem with Roe, in addition to usurping what had always been up to the individual states, is that is currently blocks a political resolution of the disagreement. The broad outline of what is supported by a large majority of the public is clear, so a political resolution should be doable, but Roe and the courts are blocking that resolution.

  171. Steve,
    That's interesting, the idea that Roe vs Wade is an obstacle to resolving the issue. Doesn't happen often, but I'm not sure I agree with you for once. I thought Roe vs. Wade leaves it up to the states to allow or outlaw 3rd trimester abortions. I don't see how that blocks a political resolution.
    Do you mean a federal political resolution, is that my mistake?
    .
    Regarding not being a kid at 24, yeah, you're right of course. I have the bad habit of thinking of twenty something year olds as kids because … it's usually the most charitable way I can construe my experiences of them.

  172. mark bofill (Comment #172920): "it's strange to me that VA Governor Northam appears to be under more pressure to resign because of allegations of a racist photo in a yearbook than his comments touching on the boundaries between abortion and infanticide."

    That is because he won't resign no matter how hard his opponents scream and the left has his back on abortion. But the photo thing is something for which the left usually demands blood.
    .
    mark bofill: "It makes me wonder if relaxing the restrictions on late term abortions really have the heart and soul support of the democratic base."

    A substantial majority of Democrats are opposed to late term abortion. But the far left wants no restrictions at all. Witness the recent celebrations in NY.
    .
    mark bofill: "It appears to me that progressives in recent times have gotten so used to pushing as hard as they possibly can against their opposition that they have lost sight of the idea that there ought to be a line someplace (where exactly that line goes entirely of their own choosing) that they shouldn't push past."

    They are pushing against society in the hopes of bringing it down so that they can replace it with something "better". So there is no line. It is not about right vs. wrong or good policy vs. bad policy. It is only about power.

  173. Mark bofill,
    I think in the case of viable fetuses, the law should be the woman who would qualify for abortion under the VA law should instead be allowed to have labor *induced*, provided she gives up *all* custody rights before birth. (If she prefers Ceasarean, that should be allowed.)

    The relinquishment should hold. After the baby is born the state or father take over care and costs and she in no way has any right to custody.

    The father could elect to give up rights also. Obviously, if the woman can't give up his rights. But if he is wishes to retain rights, he has sole financial responsibility. Also, the woman would be considered unrelated from the point of any future child custody hearings and so on. (Of course, if they happen to be married, the woman is still going to take a financial hit… but… well… there you go.)

    Perhaps they could have a provision that if the father is known, he would be contacted beforehand, informed that he will take on the sole financial burden, and make a decision to relinquish or not. Relinquishing clears the path for adoption if some couple is willing to take that on. (Not relinquishing would be through in action, but then he's basically stuck with the cost.)

    Precisely what to do about the cases where the father can't be informed or contacted is a bit tricky, but he shouldn't be allowed to force the woman to continue the pregnancy after a baby is viable.

    I think this would take care of the problem of the woman being force to continue a pregnancy when she no longer wants to (for whatever reason). But meanwhile, for the most part, the state which claims to value the life takes on the financial burden (if the father doesn't want to do so either.)

    I think situations where a woman would resort to the induced delivery will be rare. But we already have a medical event– abortion or delivery.

  174. Lucia,
    Would I understand properly from your position that if a fetus is viable it should be delivered rather than aborted?

  175. Roe v Wade gets all the press, but the companion case of Doe v Bolton eliminated the trimester regime of Roe v Wade, and allowed for abortions post viability.
    The Left largely doesn't support third trimester abortions, but the issue is seen as a slippery slope to banning all abortions. It is similar to why many gun control proposals are not passed.

  176. Mike [M],
    So the idea is that the far left or radical left (or whatever exactly, some extremists on that end) want to smash society. Probably. There are probably some leftover revolutionary marxists (or ex-marxists, or neo-marxists, or whatever) that think that way. I've got no handle on how many though or if they're a teeny percentage or a substantial fraction. I wonder how I'd go about estimating that.

  177. After previously apologizing for the photo, Governor Northam now claims he is not in the photo. Presumably he wouldn't have apologized for it if he had never been in such a photo, and it is not the type of thing one would forget.

  178. MikeN, thanks for Doe v Bolton. In reading it I see I didn't actually understand the situation (not sure I still do, gotta read a bit more) regarding abortion and how we got to where we're at.
    .
    I asked "Would I understand properly from your position that if a fetus is viable it should be delivered rather than aborted?"
    This is my position today. I wonder if it's controversial in today's climate. I don't always know off the top of my head anymore what people will find reasonable and what will be outrageous.
    .
    I like Lucia's qualification of rights and responsibilities. If the mother wants an abortion because she doesn't actually want to assume responsibility for the child, fine – she doesn't have to have responsibility for the child, but it doesn't mean abortion is the answer.

  179. Lucia,
    Yes. But I think if that's the law, the state has to take over the costs of the child or allow a willing– likely adoptive parent– to do so. As the reason for termination is, presumably, the mother doesn't want to keep the kid, she should be required to relinquish custody and so have no further say in medical or other decisions vis-a-vis the child.

    This should provide the correct balance between the bio-mothers rights, the child's rights and the states position with regard for both.

    As long as the state doesn't take over the costs and so on, they have two problems:
    1) the state and those insisting on abortion don't *really* believe the fetus has moral rights. Consequently,
    2) It really does look like part of the reason for insisting on 'no abortion' is to burden those carrying the fetus.

    So: if the state won't cover the costs, I sort of think the state should let the woman carrying the fetus decide *up to the point of birth*. After birth, if she doesn't want the baby, her choice should be to transfer rights (ad costs) to the state– which means put it up for adoption or relinquish to the state. If she won't relinquish, then clearly she must actually want the baby.

    To a large part, in my view, one of the *big* differences between *after* birth and *before* birth is that *after* birth, any number of people *can* nurture the child. Before birth, it's only the pregnant woman.

    Arguments that no "bright line" exists at birth are absurd. There IS a bright line at birth, It exist even if people who want to focus on "moral rights of the fetus vs. baby" would prefer not to discuss *this particular* very bright line.

  180. To be clear mark– I think the best law will *not* require a pregnant woman who wants to no longer carry a viable fetus to carry it. If it's viable, it's viable. It can be delivered.

  181. MikeN
    *The Left largely doesn't support third trimester abortions, but the issue is seen as a slippery slope to banning all abortions. *
    I think my proposal deals with this. It would ban abortion of viable fetuses, because they would be delivered. Unwilling pregnant women cease to be burdened, and the cost of all this is transferred to a society that (at least claims) the reason they don't want the abortions is to support the moral rights of the fetus/baby.

    Meanwhile those who (at least claim) the issue is not (in some sense) subjugating the moral right of a woman to her own body to that of a fetus would need to concede that is not being done. The woman will have a right to have the viable fetus delivered.

    Of course, this leaves open the issue of whether she has a right to abortion *pre* viability. But once it's viable, the solution *ought* to be easy. Relinquish to the state, deliver it either vaginally or by ceasarean.

  182. Regarding pre-viable abortion, I don't have strong convictions against it. I can make arguments both ways. I lean towards accepting it for various reasons I'm currently reviewing / still thinking about.

  183. mark bofill,
    I too have heard many of the arguments. I just think the post-viable is easier. If it's really viable, deliver it.

    If such a law is proposed or discussed, I can imagine all sorts of arguments, some of which my suggest motives those advocating for allowing abortion or banning abortion might prefer to claim they don't have.

    For example: suppose someone says they are *in principle* for having the viable fetus delivered, but they are concerned because the womb is a healthier environment. (It is.)

    Then, it seems to me that person would *actually* advocating that the *quality* of life for the fetus trumps the *quality* of life for the mother. Perhaps they could advance that argument– but at least it's clear they would no longer arguing that the fetus/baby's right to *actually live* is being over-ridden by the mothers *quality* of life. After that: if one beings *quality* of life is to be sacrificed for another's, then perhaps the person who is being used as an unwilling human incubator (in place of the less good hospital incubator) should be *paid* for that task. (After, of course, reliquishing the rights to the child.)

    Obviously, these angels on heads of pins argument can only happen after my proposal is floated seriously. The same goes for arguments for how to structure things to prevent "gaming" of the statute, and arguments about constitutionality would be required. (Both might, to a large extent, be resolved by identifying likely gaming and changing the statute. That's common enough in any law.)

    The angels on heads of pins arguments would, of course, move on as technology progressed. But I tend to think the position of : if it's viable deliver it and have the State take on the the financial and custodial burden will tend to be the one that balances things pretty well.

  184. Lucia,
    It is complicated, even with your proposed viablility law. One of the issues is personal responsibility. I mean, those folks who created the yet-born person didn’t get permission from the state to do so, yet the great cost of keeping a 2-month premature baby alive and well because the mother wants to end her pregnancy would fall on the state’s taxpayers. And why wait 7 months to make a decision? There is certainly a lack of responsibility there as well.
    .
    Then there is the political reality: in most states, voters object already to late term abortions except in cases of deformities inconsistent with life. In most places, I don’t think there would ever be support for what you propose.

  185. SteveF,
    Of course it would cost a lot per baby with the cost being less the further along in the pregnancy one is. Two week preemies don't need much of anything– my sister was two weeks premature and just came home in the normal time. Jim was about premature and had "late 1950s" care– which was not intensive. I think he was a 36 week baby– so back then scary.

    But if the state really believes fetus's have a moral right to life, they should be willing to cover the cost to keep it alive.

    The reason I suspect so is I strongly suspect the demographics of 3rd trimester abortions is not women who "waited". If you don't want the baby, why would you want period? Most women wouldn't. The motivation to not delay isn't just a matter of of worrying the law will lock out the possibility of abortion. It's the practical reality that being pregnant for 26+ weeks isn't going to be a picnic for the pregnant woman either. So most who want the abortion will get the abortion earlier provided it's permitted.

    I suspect the number of babies needing this financial support would be very small. But I'm flexible and willing to negotatiate. I'd be willing to mitigate the cost by having the state limit the "delivery" option only for *very* late term: say when the fetus is 36 weeks.

    I agree few are going to support what I propose. But I think that's, to some extent, because part of the reason people don't want women to have access to abortion always has been and still partly is social control.

  186. Lucia,
    >>But I think that's, to some extent, because part of the reason people don't want women to have access to abortion always has been and still partly is social control.
    Never really occurred to me. But I have no problem with people putting their money where their mouths are. If the good people of Alabama for example want abortion outlawed after the fetus is viable, fair enough that they should pay for it if the mother is unwilling to carry to term.
    .
    On an unrelated note, I've never been much of a super bowl fan. But now that I've read that the Patriots are the White Nationalists team I must confess my interest has spiked.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/tom-bradys-new-england-patriots-are-team-maga-whether-they-like-it-or-not

  187. Lucia,
    Sure there are some, though probably not too many, who really do want social control. I certainly don’t count myself in that group. But the very broad support for early term abortion being available (upwards of 80%) suggests to me that the objection to very late term abortions (again, upwards of 80%) is mainly a moral/ethical one: many people who have held a new born can’t countenance the idea of killing one just a couple of months (or less!) before due date. It *is* a sticky wicket, but I don’t think Roe helped much.

  188. SteveF,
    I don't think Roe helped. The trimester thing definitely didn't do much for to convince anyone on morals. It froze options on law.

    But I think if the idea of just letting women deliver babies early and give them up instead of abortion is floated, we can at least deal with the *latest* term abortion vs. no abortion issue. It wasn't long ago that doctors routinely thought 36 weeks wasn't "preemie". If the issue is cost of allowing women to decide to deliver to end the very late term pregnancies, one could call that age presumptively viable (which they are), and have those babies delivered and cared for at State expense without being too expensive.

    One is left with earlier term to slog out, but the whole "near infanticide" gets largely taken off the table.

  189. Oh– I know some who want social control. I wasn't saying you were. I don't know how many there are. Honestly, I think it's not something many want to volunteer as a reason they oppose abortion– but it's there in the "pro-life" crowd.

    Let's face it: official Roman Catholic doctrine is you aren't supposed to have non-procreative sex. I wouldn't say the majority of Roman Cathoics are controlling, but that belief underlies some ideas vis-a-vis anything that might happen with regard to sex.

  190. As someone on the pro-life side, I'd happily accept a law that outlaws abortion for viable fetuses, at the "price" of relinquishing parental rights/support to the state. I think the costs would be largely absorbed by the infant-hungry adoption movement instead of the state (especially if the state doesn't rule out religious adoption agencies for other reasons), since late-term abortions are comparatively rare. I also think that putting infants where they are wanted instead of with someone who would rather they be dead should lead to more positive outcomes for society. I'm not especially worried that it will lead to a vast number of relinquishments in place of birth control, because birth control is cheap and pregnancy unpleasant. If it leads to a vast number of relinquishments because a portion of the vast number of early abortions opt for a less destructive choice — good. Like most industrialized countries, our birth rate is too low anyways.
    .
    The demographic political irony of abortion, especially as it has become increasingly become unbalanced between the two parties, is that abortions performed are so heavily tilted towards Democratic voters. I'm no fan of abortion, but I'm entirely in favor of liberals using birth control as often as possible.

  191. Lucia #172940,
    There's an article referencing a survey just on the morality of abortion, birth control and other things discussed here:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/01/do-pro-lifers-oppose-birth-control-polls-say-no.html
    .
    The poll referenced has a 38-51 abortion split between morally acceptable/wrong, and a 89-8 birth control split. So even on a question of morality, let alone legality, the vast majority of pro-life people is fine with birth control. (The poll also broke down into Catholics and non-Catholics; Catholics found birth control acceptable by only a 82-15 margin. Catholic beliefs don't always follow Catholic dogma, surveys of Catholics who attend mass weekly have similar margins.)
    .
    Of the low percentage that thinks birth control is morally wrong, I haven't been able to find any polls that ask what percentage think birth control should be illegal — I'd be shocked if it weren't a small minority of that small minority. It's easy to find allegations of attacks on birth control in America, but they seem to revolve around the following:
    1) Being against forcing private employers/insurers (including the Catholic Church) to provide contraception.
    2) Being against government funds being used to provide free contraception.
    3) Being against government distributing contraception to minors without parent's consent.
    4) Being against RU-486

  192. Switching topics to battery technology — I came across this article ( https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/to-boost-lithiumion-battery-capacity-by-up-to-70-add-silicon ) which had this quotation: “Even for electric cars, you often don’t need more than 1,000 cycles.”

    My understanding is that one would tend to recharge a vehicle every night, or at least after each day it was used. In which case, 1000 cycles corresponds to only 3-4 years. Is it more common to let the battery run down further, and only recharge when below some threshold (x%)?

  193. DaleS,
    I know Catholic beliefs don't always follow dogma. (I was raised Roman Catholic.)

    I've never alleged general attacks on birth control and am not doing so now.

    The info you are posting tells us something about two specific issues. But it doesn't touch on whether people might want to control sexuality and whether that can be a motive for views on abortion.

    Survey almost never capture a lot of fine grained stuff and this one doesn't. (To capture fine grained stuff requires one bajillion different questions. People fall asleep during the survey and start not paying attention. So fined graines stuff just isn't ever captured either at all or not well.)

    One could, for example not be against birth control and *still* want to control sexuality to an extent. It's just when they put the pedal to the metal, these people don't want to have kids. So they then don't find birth control immoral. That doesn't mean they don't kinda-sorta want "control" of some behaviors. That desire can influence their view of abortion.

    So the survey question on whether birth control is moral does *not* in my opinion necessarily get that the view I suggest exists.

  194. HaroldW
    The fuller quote:
    "This allows batteries made with this silicon-rich anode material to perform well for 400 to 1,000 full charge-discharge cycles, which is more than enough for most applications. “Even for electric cars, you often don’t need more than 1,000 cycles,” says Yushin."

    Uhmmm… if done every night, 400 is just a bit past 13 months!

    I have no idea what car owners commonly do with the batteries. I know they need to have it charged *enough* to make it to the subsequent charge station before it runs out. If I could make a 1 1/2 round trips to work on a full charge, I'd be charging it every night. If I could make 7 1/2 round trips, I might do it once a week (provided recharging doesn't take more than 12 hours.)

    Depending on the route to downtown Chicago, the round trip is about 60-70 miles from my house. A Tesla supposedly has a range of about 300 miles. If I commuted downtown, and I could not recharge at work, I guess I'd recharge about every 3 days. ( After all, I'd also do things like getting groceries and so on.) I get nervous about getting back home, so I would not want to leave if I didn't have enough to drive an extra 20 miles relative to the round trip. That means I need 90 miles range left in the car or I get antzy.

    If I could recharge at work, I might stretch it a half day longer since I'd feel ok leaving home with only 50 miles rage left.

  195. I believe a battery recharge cycle is considered to be from more or less fully charged to more or less fully discharged and back again. Two discharges to 50% capacity followed by full recharge would be considered one cycle, und so weiter. Tesla does not recommend charging their batteries to more than 90% under normal circumstances.

    Non-plugin hybrids only use about 10% of their capacity, from 45-55%. That's why their batteries last a really long time. It would take at least ten of those cycles to count as one full cycle, and probably more.

    With lead acid automotive starting batteries, you're not supposed to discharge them much at all. If you do, you start to see a large reduction of active surface area on the plates (mostly the negative lead coated plate, IIRC) resulting in lower maximum current. At some point, it won't crank the car, especially if it's cold. If you don't, the lifetime limit is related more to oxidation of the lead grid in contact with highly oxidizing lead dioxide. Deep discharge lead acid batteries have lower surface area and can be cycled much more often. The expensive ones that last longer use more lead in the grid.

  196. Btw, for those who actually believe in Trump/Putin collusion, Trump's putting sanctions on Venezuelan oil is exactly what Putin wants. Chaos in Venezuela has lowered oil output without sanctions. Putin needs global low output to keep the price of oil propped up as high as he can get it. That's why he supports Maduro, not because he's a socialist.

  197. HaroldW (Comment #172943): "My understanding is that one would tend to recharge a vehicle every night, or at least after each day it was used. In which case, 1000 cycles corresponds to only 3-4 years."

    DeWitt Payne (Comment #172946): "I believe a battery recharge cycle is considered to be from more or less fully charged to more or less fully discharged and back again. Two discharges to 50% capacity followed by full recharge would be considered one cycle"

    I am pretty sure it is highly non-linear. So if you get 200 miles from a full discharge and charge only when you on on "empty", you might get 400 full cycles, good for 80K miles. But if you only use half the charge before topping up, you might get 2000 half cycles (just guessing, it might be a lot more), good for 200K. So if you only drive 40 miles a day and top up your battery every day, it should last for a very long time.

    The Tesla PowerWall is warranted for 5000 cycles, but is set up to never go below something like 30% of a full charge.
    .
    DeWitt Payne: "Non-plugin hybrids only use about 10% of their capacity, from 45-55%."

    That may have been true at one time, but I doubt it was ever that extreme. But they have gotten better. I think the cycle is now more like 30-80%.

    I suspect that is a big problem with plug in hybrids. There the idea is that you might want to use the full electric range every day. But you can't do that unless the battery is significantly oversized.

  198. IIRC, Hyundai is offering this spring an electric with ~258 miles range and a 'lifetime' (original buyer only) warranty on the battery. My recollection is that the expected number of cycles (near 10% to near 90%) is well over 1000, so well over 200,000 miles. Whether the actual battery life lives up to the projections is hard to say until the car has been out for some years.

  199. I think Tesla recommends/requires charging at 30% to 90%. The actual used capacity between charges is only 60% of the battery's real capacity.

  200. Thanks all for the comments about batteries. Mike M., I suspect that most cars are used mainly as you suggest, a partial discharge followed by topping up. Your calculations justify the original statement about not needing more than 1000 [equivalent full] cycles in a car's lifetime.

  201. SteveF,

    But you still have a vehicle with limited utility until the recharge time is reduced substantially. If you want to take a trip longer than 200 miles and not spend 40+ minutes recharging every three to four hours of driving (assuming that supercharging stations are conveniently located and you don't have to wait for a slot), you'll still need to rent or own a fossil fuel powered vehicle.

    IIRC, electric vehicles, other than buses, are sedans. Who buys inexpensive sedans any more? You have trucks, SUV's, crossovers and luxury sedans.

  202. If you use the 30-90% capacity charging rule to maximize battery life, then a nominal 258 mile range becomes 155 miles. That assumes that you're not running the heater or air conditioning.

  203. DeWitt Payne (Comment #172955): "If you use the 30-90% capacity charging rule to maximize battery life, then a nominal 258 mile range becomes 155 miles. That assumes that you're not running the heater or air conditioning."

    155 miles is probably at least three times what most people need, except on infrequent occasions.

  204. DeWitt,
    "If you use the 30-90% capacity charging rule to maximize battery life, then a nominal 258 mile range becomes 155 miles."
    .
    If you are the first owner of that Hyundai electric with a "lifetime warranty" on the battery, I suspect you wouldn't worry too much about keeping depth of discharge to 30%. Which is not to say that most people would not recharge when they are at home, even if the battery is not near 10%.

  206. JD Ohio (Comment #172958): "Saw this post about air cooling of power plants on Watts Up. Does it seem legit? Could be a major advance. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/05/a-cool-new-idea-could-revolutionize-the-electric-power-industry/"

    When researchers claim to have come up with the greatest thing since sliced bread, it is usually not nearly as big a deal as the hype implies. The article says nothing about cost or about how big the cooling fins would have to be. I am guessing that both are enormous.

    Power plants don't actually use that much water. They either recycle and use very little, or they discharge the cooling water into some body of water.

  207. Combined cycle gas turbine plants might be the use case for the air cooling. Especially in more arid areas. CCG is the plant of choice being commissioned now. As of November they make up 25% of the US generator name plate capacity. Coal steam which supplied roughly 50% of generation in 1990, is down to 22% of the name plate capacity.

    Fun Fact. The Zimmer power plant in the WUWT posting was originally designed as a nuclear plant. THE 1st reactor was over 90% complete when concerns of falsification of the weld testing led to its cancellation in 1983. The plant was converted to coal retaining just the cooling tower and part of the original turbine and started generating power in 1991. It has some oddities due to this like the feed water pump being turbine driven instead of electrical and the cooling tower is a bit undersized for the load during the summer months.

  208. Mike M.,

    "155 miles is probably at least three times what most people need, except on infrequent occasions."

    Now there's a classic elitist attitude.

    If people only bought the vehicles that somebody else thinks were all they needed, the car industry would be a lot smaller and there would be a lot fewer enormous pickup trucks on the road. Nobody needs to buy a new car every three years either.

    Speaking of cars, does anyone know if AOC has ever owned a car? I'm reasonably sure that she hasn't a clue how much New York City and the rest of the Northeastern Corridor depends on long haul trucks for its survival.

  209. DeWitt Payne (Comment #172961): "Now there's a classic elitist attitude."

    How is it elitist to say that most people only occasionally drive as much as 100 miles in a single day? Real question; I am baffled. By "occasional" I mean no more than a few hundred times over the life of the car.

  210. I don't know about 'elitist'. I do wonder what you mean Mike by 'need'. What did you mean, what most people need?
    .
    For my part / as far as I am concerned, I *need* to be able to drive as far as a reasonable modern car with an internal combustion engine can take me on a tank of gas.

  211. I guess I have some issue with the notion that if I only occasionally drive a certain distance, I don't *need* a vehicle that has more range. I don't think that's a reasonable thing to conclude from the observation.

  212. Off topic. If any of you all have ever worn blackface, I absolutely don't care. Not even a teeny tiny bit. I just thought everybody ought to know. That is all.

  213. I once went to a Halloween party with a box of corn flakes and a kitchen knife. I was a cereal killer. Hope that doesn't disqualify me from future public office.

  214. mark,

    The issue under discussion was battery lifetime. If you treat your Tesla's battery the way you treat your gas tank, it likely won't last as long as you want the car to last. But most people would not need to draw on the full battery capacity often enough to severely impact the lifetime.

  216. Mark
    * If any of you all have ever worn blackface, I absolutely don't care.*
    I have never worn blackface. I also never bought my *college* year book. I have no idea whether it contains photos of me, nor do I have any idea if it might or might not contain misrepresentations that suggest I wore blackface (by substituting someone who is not me into "my" page.)

    I'm not a Virginia voter. I'm willing to let those in Virginia fight this out. At a minimum, each will decide whether to vote for what's his (black face) in the next election or not. This *is* going to make it more difficult for him to smear his GOP opponent as racist (which he did in the previous election.)

  217. I'm not a Virginia voter. I'm willing to let those in Virginia fight this out. At a minimum, each will decide whether to vote for what's his (black face) in the next election or not.
    ~grins~
    Sure.
    .
    I remember a time when my perception was that the N-word was primarily just coarse, vulgar, and distasteful. I certainly don't miss it. Still, I think one can not miss it and still be unhappy with the fact that to utter a word publicly can be in our day and age to more or less annihilate a good bit of one's life. In short, I don't approve of the online social justice lynchers.
    This leads me to think maybe it's a good idea to say it publicly; that I don't care about things like blackface. After posting it here (and realizing that posting here is in many ways like saying something in public to a small group of friends) I posted it on Facebook.
    I could elaborate but. This is probably extremely boring… 🙂

  218. Governors do not run for reelection in Virginia. It's why the two Senators are former governors, while the third is considering a run for President.

  220. The Washington Post ignored the Virg gov story for awhile, calling it a local story that doesn't concern them. The Washington Post's owner has a bill in the state to be signed by the governor that gives them $800 million in subsidies for a headquarters.

  221. Mike,
    I'm thinking that the attitude I ought to adopt is a default skepticism towards the idea that a given claim of racism is of any importance. Something like that anyway. Your example is a good one. Say Elizabeth Warren has a little figurine in her house of an African American eating watermelon. The burden is on whoever wants me to care to demonstrate why I ought to, and in today's social justice climate I'm not much inclined; it ought to be a heavy burden.
    Unless I think it's obvious, I guess.
    .
    I'm a so called colorblind racist. I think with respect to our government certainly there ought to be no difference in the way people are treated due to non-essential characteristics such as race, gender, what have you — all citizens by default ought to be treated the same way from the git go. Some exceptions get built on this (felons can't vote, perhaps). So in my book, when policy is proposed (such as affirmative action) that is racist by my definition I have issue with it. Other than that, I'm thinking I ought to make a point of speaking out to say I don't care.
    .
    I've never noticed my speaking out on anything having any particular impact. There are those who say we have a lot more impact than we realize, due to the connective reach of the internet these days, but I'm pretty doubtful of that. When three billion people are online, virtually everything is just noise. But. What the hey. Maybe I'll rest with an easier conscience at night.

  222. Mark,

    Good for you for making the effort. Me, I'm of the opinion that you won't find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. Hopefully it's a little less wretched due the efforts of you and other like-minded folks.

  224. I've been taking a pretty long break from the poison we like to call the news cycle, but I did find the time to read a recent NYT article on the Va scandal(s). I have never laughed louder or more often at a NYT article. If one was to surmise I had reached peak cynicism on the media and politics before I stopped reading this stuff then I had all my beliefs confirmed when I read that article. It's impossible to take these people seriously, it's impossible to see how they can take themselves seriously.
    Democracy dies in darkness so I'm told during the Super Bowl by the WP, unless the alleged light is exposing sexual harassment by black Democratic politicians, in which case the "no corroboration" standard suddenly is put in place, where previously they published even there was evidence the accusation was false. All the tut-tutters have zero tolerance for race and gender issues, unless that means a Republican might get power, my didn't that change the equation.
    I didn't follow it very closely but I haven't seen sympathetic coverage of "believe all women" replete with endless artistic photos and videos. Where are the Handmaid women?
    The opinion pieces at the usual places are amusingly silent on the issue. All the interviews with moral preening softball questions are replaced by pondering how this might affect leftist political futures. What an embarrassment to the profession.

  225. Mark Bofill,
    "Say Elizabeth Warren has a little figurine in her house of an African American eating watermelon."
    .
    More likely she has a figurine in her house of a native American doing a war dance… or skinning a buffalo. Her decades-long use of her "native American" ancestry to gain career advantage ought to be disqualifying for any office higher than dog catcher. But you can be certain the organized left and their house organ (AKA the MSM) won't let that happen. She is and will remain a 'front runner' among Democrats. Apropos for these unenlightened (AKA leftist) times.

  226. Politicians are asked to resign over blackface 30,40 years ago, but late night entertainers named Jimmy get paid millions of dollars despite wearing blackface within the last 20 years.

  227. Is there any evidence that Warren gained career advantage from her silliness?

    I think her silliness is evidence that she has imbibed deeply of the postmodernist idea that facts are subjective. So the stories of her ancestor are a part of her self image. That is not uncommon and there is really nothing wrong with it. But if facts are subjective, she can think of herself as an Indian, rather than as just someone with an Indian ancestor. That is where the trouble starts.

    Speaking for myself, I don't want a President (or a Senator) who thinks that facts are subjective. I also don't want a President who both supports identity politics and is unable to realize that actual Indians might take objection to her self-indulgence.

  228. Thanks Steve.
    .
    I'm hoping that the tide might be turning. The media can tilt the game, but only so far in my view – I mean, despite the very real phenomenon Tom describes above, left leaning people are getting plowed over by the identity politics machine. Not just in politics; take Bret Weinstein for example.
    .
    I'm not sure what guys like Bret can do to reign in the radical far left, or to convince moderate leftists to separate themselves from the radicals. Still, if leftys are falling because of weaponized far left tactics, sooner or later some of them are likely to do what they can about it.
    .
    But you guys know me, so I don't need to tell you again that I know I'm foolishly optimistic in some ways.
    ~shrug~

  229. MikeM,
    >>>Is there any evidence that Warren gained career advantage from her silliness?
    .
    If there is, I am unaware of it.
    From a CNN article:
    "…there was "clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools…"
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html

  230. AOC's green new deal was unveiled today. There are a myriad of remarks I could make, but I'll confine myself to just this for now:
    .
    “…economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work…”
    .
    Heh.

  231. Lol, Mark. Reminds me of a thread on Reddit where a mother was upset her adult child wouldn’t apply for disability. The disability being she couldn’t get up in the morning and kept getting fired. First world problems!

  232. DaveJr,
    ~grin~ I hadn't run across that one. Yep, pretty similar idea.
    .
    I want to say that this is new in the discourse of the US, this open declaration that we the taxpayers ought to foot the bill for those *unwilling* to work. I'm not 100% sure. But it seems to me that there had always been at least a symbolic fig leaf before this, to allow everyone to *pretend* that there was some reason besides simple unwillingness to work to support one's self.
    .
    Maybe I ought to be ~grateful~ that AOC is saying it straight out. But I've been unable to dredge up much gratitude so far.
    .
    Her 'green dream or whatever' as Pelosi put it will go nowhere in Congress, so I'm not really worried. It's still appalling to me though.

  233. I'll muzzle myself after this, I really will. I promise.
    It's maddening to me that for some insane reason, the louts of our country would get a free ride at my expense because they are unwilling to work for themselves. I don't understand why it's unimportant that *I* am *unwilling* to work for their support, only for mine. I don't see why their unwillingness to work for themselves should outweigh my unwillingness to work to support them.

  234. It’s maddening because it’s highly irresponsible. That kind of insane crazy talk relies on the vast majority of people refusing to abuse the system. I’ve heard that the socialist lite systems of nordic countries were largely successful because their relatively small, highly homogeneous, cultures adhered to this ideal. Not so much in the US. Add in open borders and you’d have to be a raving lunatic to consider it. Assuming she isn’t a raving lunatic, then it’s a sickeningly transparent attempt to buy votes with handouts.

  235. DaveJR,
    She is a 20-something former bar tender who knows very little about anything of substance and ALSO a raving lunatic who imagines she knows a great deal. Dumb-down education and have it taught by looney leftists, and people like AOC are the inevitable result.

  236. DaveJR (Comment #172987): "I’ve heard that the socialist lite systems of nordic countries were largely successful because their relatively small, highly homogeneous, cultures adhered to this ideal. Not so much in the US."

    Living in Canada, I observed that the social welfare system seemed to work best in the provinces that were smaller (Saskatchewan) and/or more homogeneous (Quebec) and least well in the province that was largest and most diverse (Ontario).

    There are two reasons. One is that the welfare state only works if not too many people try to game the system. That requires trust, which ultimately depends on shared values. The other is that government programs tend to be one-size-fits-all, which works best in a society that is reasonably homogeneous.
    .
    DaveJR: "Add in open borders and you’d have to be a raving lunatic to consider it. Assuming she isn’t a raving lunatic, then it’s a sickeningly transparent attempt to buy votes with handouts."

    The left is not about effective policy. It is all about virtue signalling. The leftist elites don't care if what they advocate actually helps the people they claim to advocate for. They only care how they are perceived by the other leftist elites. The nonsense from AOC is just the reductio ad absurbum of that attitude.
    .
    Tucker Carlson had a terrific rant on this yesterday. Transcript here:
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-wearing-blackface-is-fairly-common-on-the-elite-left-modern-liberalism-is-all-about-hypocrisy.amp
    Not sure if that would be convincing to someone who has not already noticed this.

  237. Mark Bofill: Re: Warren — American Indian

    "If there is, I am unaware of it.
    From a CNN article:
    "…there was "clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools…"

    ..,..
    I am extremely skeptical of this. The Left gives preferences to minorities, but when any individual is examined with respect to the preference, the Left never likes to admit that that is the case. I believe I read that Warren was the first non-Ivy League professor ever hired by Harvard. Her public life provides no evidence of any sort of intellectual brilliance.

    …..
    I was given a free membership in the ABA,[definitely not joining] and it turned my stomach about how many articles were written about diversity and how such and such person was the first [Black, Samoan …] person in certain jobs. The benefits of diversity are simply a cliche that the Left considers to be a truth, and the Left is always trumpeting it.

    ……
    In fact, my half-Chinese son is getting a "diversity" benefit at the college he will probably attend. (Ugh. However, won't look a gift horse in the mouth. This "benefit" will help to balance out some unfairness, whatever it may turn out to be, that occurs in the future) The gpa to keep the diversity bonus is only a 2.5. The gpas for the merit based scholarships that he is getting are substantially higher.

    ……
    Finally, will add that even if Harvard didn't consider it, she thought it helped her — that is why should called herself an American Indian. Anyone who is interested in Warren should look at her wiki page and the various controversies that she has been involved in — she is a "worthy" successor to Hillary.

    JD

  238. Thanks much JD. I didn't know Warren's background and actually didn't know she wasn't an ivy leagure to start with. And I know Harvard is going through a controversy right now with Asian students and discrimination that I haven't been following attentively; maybe I ought to read up on these things.

  241. I read the Boston Globe article the CNN article linked to and relied upon. The burden of it is that decision makers were not interested in her minority status because they were interested in her gender status — that she was a woman was a huge plus in her hiring. Except at Harvard, they may not have even been aware that she self-identified as a minority.
    .
    However, once employed her ethnic minority status was helpful to her employers.

  242. lucia:
    When you earlier compared observations to models, how did you combine model uncertainty and observation accuracy? Did you sum them, add in quadrature (rss), or … ?

    I ask because Dr. Richard Betts, commenting here (https://cliscep.com/2019/02/06/met-office-try-to-hide-forecast-fail/#comment-33358) appears to add them:
    "You’ll see from this week’s forecast post that in HadCRUT4, 2017 was between 0.89°C and 1.09°C above 1850-1900 so the lower end of the forecast range [HW: 1.02 to 1.49°C] was within the range from the observations for 2017.

    2018 was between 0.81°C and 1.01°C above 1850-1900, so the lower end of the 90% confidence range of the forecast was 0.01°C above the upper end of the 95% confidence range of the observations."

  243. HaroldW,
    *When you earlier compared observations to models, how did you combine model uncertainty and observation accuracy?*
    I did various different things at different times.

    If you want to see if the "data" falls inside the spread of "models", you do need to consider "observation" accuracy. But remember: I did trends not absolute temperatures. "Observation" accuracy is almost certaintly a tiny fraction of the error in a *trend* relative to "weather noise".

    When seeing if the model mean matches the earth trend with "earth weather noice & accuracy" being estimated from residuals to earth data, I would not include "observational uncertainty" because that is *already* something that contributes to the uncertainty in the estimate of the earth trend. Counting it would be double booking.

    Bear in mind Richard is discussing *temperatures* not trends. So for that, you should include both the estimate of the observational accuracy and the uncertainty in the prediction. (Mind you, it might be clearer if forecasters stated this uncertainty prospectively rather than expecting others to know their estimate does not include it. But, it is right to include it.)

    OTOH:
    *2018 was between 0.81°C and 1.01°C above 1850-1900, so the lower end of the 90% confidence range of the forecast was 0.01°C above the upper end of the 95% confidence range of the observations."*
    This isn't how you do it. You should pool the uncertainties– as in a t-test.

  244. JD, Warren was at Penn when she was hired. She is the only (as of 2011) Harvard Law hire who did not attend an Ivy law school.

    I am also skeptical. In 1990, Barack Obama participated in protests in support of professor Derek Bell's protest for more minority hiring, particularly black women. Harvard eventually fired Bell and within a year hired Elizabeth Warren for a fellowship. Three years later they lured her away from Penn for good.

  246. “…economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work…”

    It seems that AOC is now denying that she ever said that. It is not in the actual bill submitted in the House. I am not sure of the origin of the quote. A tweet? The FAQ's she published on the Unicorn Plan? The latter seem to have been removed from her web page.

  247. On a lighter note: Ken Rice has yet another of his many posts on what to do about the political difficulty of implementing draconian policies to restrict CO2 emissions, always with the goal of ZERO emissions ASAP, but certainly well before before 2100. In this version of groundhog day, he entertains Judith Curry’s observation of the need to accept compromise and to implement ‘no regets’ policies immediately. As always, the echo chanber, and Rice himself, completely reject the possibility of compromise…. ‘my way or the highway’ is the overwhelming consensus among the denizens. I wonder if they can appreciate how irrelevant (and silly!) they make themselves appear. Not to mention disconnected from reality. I suspect not. It is a good read for giggles. Thomas Fuller tries to inject some sanity in comments, and he is shouted down and called a luckwarmer/denier.

  249. Dale S: "I read the Boston Globe article the CNN article …"

    I read the article and it was fairly convincing that her tale about being an Indian didn't seem to play into her hiring, but was useful to her career, and Harvard, after she was hired.

    JD

  250. Lucia,
    I suspect they would all accept that French drivers must carry yellow safety vests in their cars (as clear a manifestation of an out-of-control nanny state as exists). I actually find their rejection of any compromise, while ridiculous, at the same time troubling, because it suggests that their preference is to force their policies on an unaccepting populous. Like most on the left, and extremists of all stripes, they tend toward totalitarian government. Crazies in charge of a totalitarian government is a frightening prospect (see AOC’s green new deal).

  251. Steve,
    Yeah, I noticed that thread too. It's pretty silly.
    .
    Maybe Anders thinks he's being provocative. In a way he is, like a badly behaved kid throwing a tantrum. Don't want to look for common ground? Fine, don't. As Lucia points out, the Paris riots demonstrate the problems that crop up when the climate enlightened force their policies on an unaccepting populous.
    .
    AOC and the green new deal are the best thing that could have happened for conservatives, in my view. The crazy is easier to deal with when it comes out into the open and we can dispense with all the charades. Four Dem hopefuls have endorsed the GND so far. The Dems risk being driven to the radical extremes in trying to outcompete each other in a race to the Left Pole in the primaries, and whoever wins is going to have a heck of a time facing Trump as a result. They may end up making the man look like a sober and reasonable statesman.
    .
    Dems could still win. They'd do some damage. We survived eight years of Obama, we'd survive again. It's depressing to think of the cost, waste, and unnecessary suffering, but. The people know what government they want, and they deserve to get it good and hard I guess.

  252. SteveF,
    Yes. I think they are likely perfectly happy with a state that forces all drivers to have a yellow vest in the car and wear it when they break down. I also suspect they want to ignore the inconvenient fact that when a state leader (Macron) wanted to raise taxes on gas giving "Climate Change" as a reason, large numbers of otherwise disorganized, unassociated people very quickly joined together and used the vest as a unifying element of protest.

    The fact of those people, and the issue that made them protest joined together so quickly is something that *ought* to make people like Ken understand that they are going to *have to* compromise. These protests are huge and violent. There is some public sympathy for the protestors. When people hear of the protests, some join. This isn't something manufactured by the news or billionaires. It's people who are not reacting well to bearing the brunt of policies like climate change.

  253. Or maybe it's a suck up game. Anders can show how tough and ideologically pure he is to others in his hierarchy. I don't know really what motivates such things, I'm reaching. Who can say.

  255. Lucia,
    Yep, it is unrealistic. My idea was that Anders isn't taking this position because he's looking for a realistic path forward. Maybe he is just signaling his virtue (so to speak) for other like minded fellows, for his own status gain.
    It's not a charitable idea. But once nobody is looking for common ground, things like looking charitably at people who disagree with you has less utility, perhaps.

  256. Finally, I feel as if I should take a moment to express my gratitude for Willard's moderation over there. If it weren't for Willard, I'd probably be over there in the monkey cage, as you often put it Steve, flinging poo and getting poo flung at me by the other monkeys. But experience has taught me that no, Willard is on hand to tell me I'm peddling, or hippy-punching, or seasoning burritos, or whatever other random offense he can pull from his random wheel of fortune rulebook for blog discourse, and therefore I'd be wasting my time. Thank you Willard, for saving me from my foolish inclination to talk there.

  257. mark,
    I think often when people end up in echo chambers (and Anders hosts one), they no longer really see things their "group" prefers to ignore. It happens to both left and right wing. But the fact is: the protestors in yellow vests exist. There are sufficient numbers that Macron is having to march out lots of cops in force with some frequency. We can debate whether Macron could have gotten his tax to fly if he had given some reason *other than* climate. But the "Climate" reason is NOT accepted as a good reason for the burden to fall on the demographic who make up the "yellow vest" protestors.

    That demographic is, I think, foreign to most academics who like to believe *they* are the "under paid" or "poor" in their country who are laboring away for the good of others. (This happens to some extent because they compare themselves only to more financially successful highly educated people who do visit universities to give talks, recruit and so on. Most academics really don't go out and spend time in areas where most the town consists of laborers, farmers, and so on.)

  258. Lucia,
    Yeah. I think your point about the academic disconnect is interesting. I've got to run but I'll chew on that for awhile.
    Thanks Lucia!

  259. I just posted the following non-political comment at ATTP "common ground" thread. Just to see what happens. I can guess, but Iike experimental results.
    ————
    It looks to me like there is something funny in the Nordhaus numbers. For the base scenario, he seems to have about 75% of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere. With exponential growth in emissions, that number has been more like 50%. Slowing growth should reduce the percentage remaining in the atmosphere. So his 2100 atmospheric concentration appears to be much too high.

    Nordhaus says he uses an ECS of 3.1K and a TCR of 1.7K. That implies an ocean heat uptake coefficient of about 0.9 W/m^2/K. The actual value is more like 0.7 W/m^2/K. His base case numbers for 2100 imply a response of 2.6K. That is much to close to ECS for that time scale.

    Using 50% CO2 in the atmosphere and a TCR of 1.7K, the warming in 2100 is 2.2K above pre-industrial. Using the observational TCR of 1.3K gives warming of 1.7 K for the base scenario. Not so bad.

  260. MikeM,
    I tried (foolishly) to make some comnents at Ken Rice’s echo chamber years ago. I was instantly accused of:
    1) Being a ‘denier’
    2) Being dishonest
    3) Not caring about poor people
    I wish you luck, but really, they are as shallow, unaware, and intellectually dishonest as the worst sky-dragon slayer. Don’t waste too much time on that leftist rabble.

  262. In fairness, after dredging up my recollections, Anders was gracious enough to allow me to have a conversation I wanted to have with someone on an old thread, and nobody much troubled me so long as I conformed to that protocol.

  264. Mike M.
    There is a blog called "And There Is Physics". The blog owner used to be anonymous. While he was, someone (I don't know who) nick named him "Anders", which is a tweak on "And There's".

    Eventually, someone figured out who the blog owner was: Ken Rice. So Anders = Ken Rice.

  265. I thought this was mildly interesting:
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/429299-virginians-divided-on-whether-northam-should-resign-as-virginia-governor
    While Virginians are split on whether Northam should resign, a clear majority of African Americans polled don't care about this issue, they think he ought to stay.
    .
    So it's not so much that blackface and KKK pictures in yearbooks are offensive or hurtful to African Americans. Blackface and KKK pictures in yearbooks are offensive or hurtful to white people who are offended or hurt on behalf of African Americans who don't actually care about the issue, apparently, at least in this case.

  266. I saw a cute reference to watermellons which suggests a better name for Ken Rice’s blog: “The watermellon patch…. Green on the outside, red on the inside.”
    With the left, it is always about power and control. Compromise accepts and acknowleges a division of power and control…. that is why the left rejects it. Global warming is adopted by the left as just another excuse to gain control over individuals and businesses. Which fits right in with Trotsky’s observation that socialism changes the old addage “He who will not work, shall not eat.” to “He who will not obey, shall not eat.” It is all about gaining the power to control.

  269. Mark Bofill,
    Yes, most people become very poor in socialist utopias, but those with power become very rich…. and not just in money; they command people like despotic kings, which is hard to value in monitory terms.

  270. SteveF, Mark Bofil,

    The number who become very rich is necessarily small as the economies tend to perform badly. The very rich also tend to not disclose their wealth, so the 'inequality' springing from their existence tends not to be noted in the statistics.

    Also, only *some* of their wealth gets counted as "wealth". The politically powerful have access to "perks". That's also true in our system to some extent *but* in our case the "perks" (like access to airforce 1) are mostly known to the public. Also, these perks (like living in a governors mansion) are to *at least some extent* job related.

  271. Lucia,
    " The very rich also tend to not disclose their wealth, so the 'inequality' springing from their existence tends not to be noted in the statistics."
    .
    Sure. A good example is Maduro and his posse, including the military officers who are (until now at least) keeping him in power. They have plundered Venezuela and become extremely rich while nearly everyone else has become very poor. Since most of that wealth is illicit (eg simple corruption), or at best highly improper (eg ability to exchange near-worthless Venezuelan currency at the phony "official" rate for US dollars), that wealth is of course being hidden. Prison (and perhaps worse) awaits these folks if the Maduro regime falls, which I suspect is the main reason Maduro remains in power.

  272. Measuring inequality based on income tax reporting is flawed.
    Many businesses are S corporations that file as personal income tax.
    Income tax is for a single year and many in the top percentage, who are the ones that are claimed to have so much more income than the rest, change from year to year, particularly with people selling businesses.

  273. Mike M. (Comment #173015): "It looks to me like there is something funny in the Nordhaus numbers. For the base scenario, he seems to have about 75% of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere."

    ATTP sort of responded to my comment there, then ignored me. A couple other denizens called me an evil idiot or something (I did not pay much attention).

    Nordhaus is clearly in the alarmist camp. Even so, he finds a social cost of CO2 of $30/ton. That is far less than what it would take to pay for the actions he advocates.

    He does not give details of how he calculated CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, but it looks like a science-free extrapolation. In other words, nonsense.

    After going through his paper, I am more convinced than ever that we have nothing much to worry about.

  274. Mike M,
    The rabble at Rice’s blog is not interested in talking about calculations of costs (or benefits). Their position is: destroying the world through CO2 driven warming is possible, so no price (monetary, political, social) is too high to stop using fossil fuels. Besides, they think destroying capitalism everywhere with the policies needed to end the use of fossil fuels is in itself hugely beneficial, further justifying the policies needed to end fossil fuel use. Of course, nuclear is also verboten…. only wind and solar are acceptable. They are all delusional….. watermellons who have gone completely bonkers.

  275. SteveF (Comment #173032): "The rabble at Rice’s blog is not interested in talking about calculations of costs (or benefits). …"

    That seems to be so. I was surprised by the extent to which the site has been overrun by rotting watermelons.

    I used to regularly visit ATTP a few years ago, and remember it being much better, with people politely discussing actual science. I gradually came to realize that they were almost all firmly committed to the conventional climate science and that the politeness just masked condenscension towards the likes of us.

    There was a Finnish commenter who greatly elevated the discussion at ATTP. I think things started going downhill after he died.

  276. MikeM,
    It was destined to be an echo-chamber owing to the strong moderation. That echo-chamber happens to be watermelons, likely Ken himself is something of a watermelon.

  277. MikeM,
    In that thread, Rice insists multiple times that a climate sensitivity of 4.6C or more per doubling of CO2 is credible, and insists that sensitivity *has* to be the basis of all policies. That such a high sensitivity is improbable based on most all GCMs, and is wildly inconsistent with every published empirical estimate of sensitivity, makes zero difference. The rabble knows the policies they want, and costs, benefits, and factual reality are never going to dissuade them. Like I said above, they are bonkers.

  278. SteveF,
    Even if the ECS were 4.6C per doubling, using a realistic discount rate and conservative evaluation of future costs of adaptation and current costs of mitigation wouldn't support aggressive mitigation. I think we see with the watermelons their own spin on Pielke's advocacy for "no regret" policies–they advocate all the policies *they* wouldn't regret enacting, without any real thought about what effect it would have on CO2 emissions.

  279. Dale S,
    "…using a realistic discount rate and conservative evaluation of future costs of adaptation and current costs of mitigation wouldn't support aggressive mitigation."
    .
    Sure, but they don't want to use realistic discount rates…. only 0% per year (or very close to it) is acceptable when considering "inter-generational obligations". Which is utter logical rubbish, of course.
    .
    The fundamental disagreement is, and has always been, about priorities (eliminate fossil fuel use), goals (institute social control over all aspects of life, making everyone poorer but more 'equal'), and morals (any change in Earth's ecosystems due to humans is implicitly immoral). The disagreement has virtually nothing to do with economics, nor much to do about science. Which is why compromise is not happening… nor do I expect it likely will any time soon.

  280. Steve,
    There is something to what you say there. Look at AOC's New Green Deal. I think were AOC serious about climate change, she wouldn't include universal healthcare, universal basic income, and requirements about education in her proposal. These are contentious issues that, I think, guarantee that NGD will only have the support of the Left, maybe only the far Left at that. Ruling out nuclear power for no good reason I've heard yet is another example that suggests to me that AOC isn't really serious about addressing climate change.
    .
    Maybe she *wants* a polarizing position. She can use this to rally support among her base by demonizing the opposition. Maybe.
    .
    [Edit: I didn't think she was that smart, honestly, but she may be smarter than she 'plays'.]

  281. Here's an apparently more moderate Democratic hopeful saying much the same thing:
    .
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/delaney-takes-aim-at-green-new-deal-medicare-for-all
    .
    He says,
    "let’s not do things to make that it harder. If you actually tie climate change to universal health care, then you’re making it five times harder to do anything on climate change.”"
    .
    Sounds pretty reasonable, which causes me to list him at long odds for the nomination.

  282. "If you actually tie climate change to universal health care, then you’re making it five times harder to do anything on climate change.”

    You also make it a lot harder to do anything on health care.

  283. Marc Bofill,
    "I didn't think she was that smart, honestly, but she may be smarter than she 'plays'."
    .
    Nah, I listened to her once, and she is so dumb that she is an embarrassment to boxes of rocks. And knows not much of anything about anything. OK, maybe she knows how to mix bar drinks.

  285. Unless Biden comes out as homosexual, he doesn't really have any platform to stand on compared to most other Dem candidates.

  286. Dave, true. Old [straight] white guy is a tough sell for the identity politics types. While I think it's clear that the media outlets and …party noisemakers, lets say, are all about identity politics, I don't know how much that matters to democrat voters.
    He'd need to put together some sort of message and vision of course.

  287. mark bofill (Comment #173044): "He'd need to put together some sort of message and vision of course."

    Biden? Yeah, That'll happen. Well, maybe he could plagiarize it.

    He is only leading in the polls because people have heard of him.

  289. I think the plan is to encourage lots of candidates to get in the race, making it easier for someone like Biden to sweep in later.

    One thing to keep in mind with these polls is that Bernie Sanders is coming in 2nd, and I don't think he will run.

  290. Biden will be 78 in Jan 2021, and Sanders will be 79. Seems to me unlikely either will run. Sanders is less likely to win, but Biden might. Of course to placate the 'base', and help make sure they actually vote, Biden would have to pick a true lunatic leftist as running mate. And with his age reaching 82 before the end of his first term, his death in office would be a significant possibility…. and then we'd have a lunatic leftist president. Ugg.
    .
    Hillary (73 in January 2021) and Elizabeth Warren (71 in January 2021) are spring chickens by comparison. They say third time is the charm. Please Hillary, give it just one more try! (And lay off the sauce… you don't want to fall and hit your head yet again.)

  291. This isn't terribly important of course, but maybe you guys will share you view on this with me. I was talking with somebody about AOC's apparent reference to a universal basic income and the 'unwilling to work' thing. Somehow we got from that topic to the idea he put forward that it's basically impossible (was that his position? I'm not 100% sure honestly) to have a household where only one adult works these days, and maybe something ought to be done about it.
    .
    Unfortunately the conversation progressed no further.
    .
    1. Is it prohibitively difficult or impractical to just have one parent works in a household with kids? I don't really think so. I think it obviously depends on how much the single parent makes and what standard of living they're trying to maintain. I figure there must be some threshold of income under which one really couldn't make it with kids (depends on how many, again, where in the U.S., other things) and over which it ought to be doable, although maybe not as luxurious as one might wish. What do you guys think of this?
    2. *Should* something be done about this? I need to read about it, but I have the impression that this is the result of women entering the workforce en masse. My take is that this has been a good thing and has improved household income over where it would otherwise be. Serious question though – do I have this wrong? For example, maybe all the women entering the workforce drove down the cost of labor and families didn't actually profit from this; I think I've heard this argument before although I really haven't investigated it. What do you make of this? What on earth *could* be done? I'm sort of at a loss to imagine anything practical…

  292. Mark bofill,
    1. I know several families on my block where only one parent works. Obviously, the breadwinner needs to earn more than minimum wage to permit this, but it *is* possible for a family to have one income earner.

    2. I think the idea that there was a time when "nearly all" or the majority of families had only 1 person who works might be inaccurate. Sorry, but "farm wives" worked. There are other categories of people who worked. Both my grandmothers worked at *some points* in their lives and stayed at home at other points. One, the wife of a doctor wrote articles for a newspaper (occasionally). The other– wife of a lawyer– sold insurance. Jim's maternal grandmother took in laundry. His paternal grandmother did not work, but then again she died withing a few years of moving to the US.

    3. Many women prefer to work to staying home. Many don't. That said: I'm pretty sure Jim's laundress grandmother did not work out of love of a career– it was money. FWIW: *her* mother was a farm wife and worked on the farm. (Canning, cooking for field hands and so on.)

    Even looking back to the 50s or 60s…. Do you remember "Carole Brady" had a cook? That meant *the cook worked*. Same with lots of situations where "women didn't work". Well..yeah… women who's husbands made enough for them to "not work" and even enough for them to hire *other women* to do housework existed. But obviously the women they *hired* were working. There were a lot of those. (Heck, the grandmother who wrote news articles hired some babysitters and laundresses! The one who sold insurance hired a cook for Sunday dinner! She hated cooking– she did her own cleaning and sewed her own clothes. But Sunday dinner involved a cook who also served dinner, which made it a nice event.)

  293. Thanks Lucia,
    .
    So I've got a false idea in your view that a substantial number of women weren't already working. Ok. Your examples seem reasonable to me.
    .
    So this guy was talking about a myth, basically I guess.
    .
    Much appreciated.

  294. Mark Bofill,
    I have a bother who has been married for 25+ years, and his wife has never worked during their marriage; he has two daughters. His earnings have never been gigantic (systems programmer/analyst, mostly mainframes), but they have had a reasonable lifestyle. Which is not to say this is very common; with most couples I have known, both work, at least after kids reach school age, if not before.

  295. Thanks Steve,
    Yeah, my brother's wife doesn't work either. [At least I don't *think* she does.. hmm] I've lost track of what exactly he makes but I'm under the impression he makes pretty good money though, so I wasn't sure how representative that was.

  296. mark,
    My sister does work. Her husband makes lots of money. Sometimes women work even if they could stay home. There is a minimum level of income required to permit the family to live. So married women whose husbands don't make enough to cover that requirement must work. (Or if the wife is the breadwinner, the husband has to. But really, some of the 'duel income' is aspirational. Some is both adults want to work.

    Obviously unmarried parents need to work since they can't rely on the other adults income.

  297. Mark,
    I do think at this point most women work. The questions: Was there really every a time when most women just stayed home, raised kids and baked cookies? The idea *that* was a norm may be the myth. Lots of women have always worked. Some of the work was like "farm work"– they were "at home". But then so was the man. Similar things happened with running restaurants, boarding houses, taking in laundry and so on.

    It's really only since the industrial revolution that most work was outside the home, and most of it for an employer. Even then, lots of women worked in factories– but there was still farm work, work (other than raising children) in the home and so on.

  299. Finally! I've read this blog for forever and have always felt my additions were more secondary or worse. It is totally possible to be a one income family and with one reasonable income it isn't that hard.

    My wife had a stay at home mom through high school and I had one through fifth grade. Not Lucia's "doing not recognized" work but literally just mom's that ran the house. When my wife and I got married we decided that's what we wanted for our kids. We started planning early, maximizing retirement investments and getting used to living below our means. When my daughter was born in 99 my wife quit a six figure job to the massive consternation of both our extended families, technically she was the major bread winner then since I wasn't earning nearly $100,000.

    I was running my own business at that point so I rapidly increased sales, brought on a partner and made up for the lost income through working 75 hour weeks. In 2008 it was readily apparent that Chinese imports were going to completely destroy my business so I sold off the assets and since my wife was somewhat tired of "just being a mom" she returned to the workforce. Our tag team approach worked incredibly well to this day.

    I could bore you with the details but suffice it to say, live below your means and don't derive self esteem off of which car you drive. My wife hung out with the other wives with kids in our neighborhood and all the wives worked and also said they'd love to be able to stay at home with their preschool kids. Then they'd pack their kids into their $50,000 brand new cars and drive home.

  300. Jerry
    *Then they'd pack their kids into their $50,000 brand new cars and drive home.*
    Yep. As I said, sometimes two parents working is more aspirational than "need". No one needs a $50,000 car and if you ar "wishing" you were "able" to stay home with the kids, you don't need *new* cars. The families with stay at home wives I know do NOT have expensive new cars. (They do live in a decent neighborhood with good public schools.)

    Cars are an interesting thing. Lots of people do overspend on cars to the extent they feel overstretched. I have what I consider a very nice care– VW Alltrack bought new with the features I liked. (We went to the auto show to compare features of various models). But *every* new car Jim or I have bought we've kept *at least* 10 years.

  301. On the subject of women working outside the home, here are the ratios of number employed to population from official labor stats:

    1947 0.40
    1963 0.35
    1980 0.44
    1990 0.48
    2000 0.48
    2010 0.45

    So there was a big shift from the 60's to the 90's. If we assume that equal numbers of men an women worked in the 90's, then about half of women worked in the 60's. If no women worked in the 60's, then about 40% worked in the 90's.

  302. Looks like we have a lot of non-coastal elites here. A man with a good job in fly-over country can support a family on his own income. But the median household income is $61K; that includes a lot of two income households. Many such households could not afford a home on a single income. On the coasts, it can be much worse. In some metro areas, the median home price is close to ten times median income. Buying a house can be tough even with two good incomes.

  303. Mike M. #173061
    The coasts are really bad for cost of living, if you haven't been there forever and bought when houses where affordable. When I first started interning in the Bay area I could've afforded a modest house in south San Jose on my intern salary — when I came back permanently five years later those houses were way out of my reach. My wife did not work outside the home at the time (we had preschool children, and the work she had been doing in Illinois wasn't available in California), so even with what I considered a very good job we ended up living just inside the Central Valley and I was commuting for hours — we simply couldn't afford a house of any size nearer to work.
    .
    So we moved to Georgia within five years. This was likely a bad thing for my career, but a very good thing for my family. I'm grateful for the freedom we have to freely move between states, I would hate to be trapped in California. At the same time, I think the exodus from California of those who were seeking more family-friendly locations may have something to do with the increasingly leftist tilt of California politics.

  304. I have been reading about a wealth tax supported by Warren. I don't think it is constitutional.

    The constitution says "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." (16th Amendment).

    Wealth is not income. Wealth is income which has been previously taxed.

    I don't think this wealth tax thing is going to fly. At least without amending the constitution.

    Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

  305. RickA (Comment #173063): "I have been reading about a wealth tax supported by Warren. I don't think it is constitutional."

    You are correct. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

    A wealth tax is most certainly a direct tax. In 1894, the supreme court ruled (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.) that a tax on income derived from property, such as rents or dividends, was a direct tax. That is what made the 16th Amendment necessary to impose an income tax as we know it. Without it, there could be (and was) a corporate income tax and there could be a tax on earned income, but no tax on unearned income.

  307. Mitch McConnell is diabolical.
    .
    [Edit: From AOC, "McConnell thinks he can end all debate on the Green New Deal now and stop this freight train of momentum," said a statement from the freshman Democrat's office. "Unfortunately for Mitch, all he's going to do is show just how out of touch Republican politicians are with the American people." **priceless**]

  308. RickA,
    "I have been reading about a wealth tax supported by Warren. I don't think it is constitutional."
    .
    Based on the plain words of the Constitution, of course it isn't. You have to believe in the "living Constitution" (AKA the Humpty Dumpty school of Constitutional jurisprudence) to think it is. But whether or not it is struck by the SC (should it ever get passed by Congress!), will depend mostly on if Ginsberg or Breyer is replaced during Trump's presidency, since Mealy-Mouth Roberts will clearly allow Congress to do whatever it wants, no matter what the Constitution says. I think both Ginsberg and Breyer would rather be dead, embalmed, tied to their chairs during oral arguments, and having their clerks write their opinions, than allow Trump to replace them with a someone not in the Humpty Dumpty school of jurisprudence.

  309. Jerry: "I could bore you with the details but suffice it to say, live below your means and don't derive self esteem off of which car you drive."

    …..
    Lucia: "No one needs a $50,000 car and if you ar "wishing" you were "able" to stay home with the kids, you don't need *new* cars. The families with stay at home wives I know do NOT have expensive new cars."

    …..

    I have always lived below my means so that I feel I have a margin for error if something goes wrong. Then about 20 years ago, I married my first Chinese wife and it was uber savings. House was cold and for example, she didn't like to open and close the garage door because she felt it would wear out the motor. In our first year of marriage, we made $80,000 and saved $50,000. Currently, I am driving an 18-year-old Honda even though I could buy multiple good cars for cash.

    ….
    I have a number of tenants and the worst financial mistake they make is that they think if they break even in any month that they have had a good month. In reality, any month where you have broken even is a bad month because, for certain, you will have bad things happen in the future and with no savings, you are really in a poor spot when the bad things do happen.

  310. Jerry said in Comment #173057
    "I could bore you with the details but suffice it to say, live below your means and don't derive self esteem off of which car you drive."
    _____

    Jerry, cars are passé. For self esteem I need a big pickup truck. Well, I don't actually need one, as I rarely haul anything large, but having a truck would
    make me feel like a stud. The trouble is I'm reluctant
    to shell out big bucks just to appear more masculine.

    I'm too much like JD Ohio, who lives below his means, saves more than one-half his income. If more people were like us the world might be a better place. If everyone immediately began living below their means,
    however, the economy probably would tank.

    On an unrelated subject, some here have questioned the constitutionality of a tax on wealth. I feel property tax is a tax on my wealth, if that's relevant.

  311. Mars rover Opportunity has finally failed. What a fantastic mission that was! A moment to honor one hell of a good machine.

  312. Hi Max, been awhile. Hope life's been treating you well.
    .
    I thought that was a good question. Why is property tax not unconstitutional?
    .
    I read that the restrictions in article 1 section 2 clause 3 and article 1 section 9 clause 4 limit the Federal government (Congress) but do not limit states. The 10'th amendment makes this fair game for states.
    .
    Also, it should be noted in passing at least that there are opinions out there that Warren's proposed wealth tax is not unconstitutional of course.

  313. mark bofill (Comment #173071)
    February 13th, 2019 at 5:49 pm
    "Hi Max, been awhile. Hope life's been treating you well."
    ______

    Thank you, Mark. I'm doing well.

    I never liked paying taxes on my real estate. I know State and local governments have to raise revenue some way, but I would prefer being taxed on my income instead. Years ago some States taxed all personal property, even household items such as furniture. I don't know whether any still do.

  315. That didn't come out right.
    .
    I should have added, I'd prefer a higher sales tax *as opposed to* income or property taxes.
    .
    There.

  316. mark, I would benefit from a sales tax in place of other taxes, but low income families would't unless compensated.

    A national VAT with a distribution to the States might be a good idea, as it should reduce online tax avoidance.

  317. OK_Max,
    Taxing personal property is difficult. The states need to keep track of it. Suppose I own a ~$500K piece of art work I was given by my grandmother when I was visiting Florida. There's no sale. No salestax was levied in FLA. She just gave it to me– perhaps handed me a letter telling me I'm her fa_a_a_aaavorite grandkid so I get the family Van Gogh.

    I brought it back to Illinois in the trunk of my car. Illinois needs to detect that to tax it. This is not easy. I could keep it a long time. Perhaps, I move to Alabama before I die. Illinois will probably NEVER detect this expensive piece of property.

    Similar things happen with family furniture. Most is valueless; some is ridiculously valuable. The state can barely sort this out.

    Income is easier to detect. Some off-the-books stuff still happens. But the problem is no where near as bad as trying to determine the value of personal property. (I've got a HOLT Physics book– high school level — on the shelf. Is it worth the "new" price, or the "used" price on Amazon? These differ by a factor of at least 40. In reality, neither, it's worth *less* than the "used" price. I'd have to pay to ship it to a customer willing to pay the "used" price.)

    For what it's worth VAT taxes are a terrible idea. Sales tax is fairer and more transparent.

  318. Property tax is fine for property related services: streets, fire department, police, etc. But not for things like schools and social services.

    I am not a fan of sales tax since it seems regressive. Also, is it problematic in an online world. VAT is just a hidden sales tax; doubly bad.

    I think the fairest is a flat income tax with high zero bracket, minimal deductions, and all income treated equally.

  319. MikeM,
    “I think the fairest is a flat income tax with high zero bracket, minimal deductions, and all income treated equally.”
    .
    You should suggest this to AOC. You might at the same time suggest individuals get as many votes in federal elections as their federal tax paid divided by 10,000.

  320. VAT’s are horribly complicated, costly, inefficient, and specifically designed to hide high sale tax rates from voters. IMO, VATs are the worst possible kind of tax: regressive *and* willfully deceptive. Which is why they are so common in ‘progressive’ countries.

  321. On VATS, the year I lived in France, students would say something about VATS, like certain things has a higher "luxury" VAT, other things had lower "necessity" vats. The attributions seemed to have little relationship to actual "luxury" or "necessity" and were more value judgement.

    For example, *frozen* orange juice was taxed at "luxury" evidently because it was a "convenience" to the consumer who didn't need to squeeze the oranges. Never mind the *reason* frozen juice is cheap in the US is that it greatly reduces shipping costs and keeps forever at the store. So the costs of supplying the product of "oranges" for consumers diets is lower. This is not "luxury"; it's actually "frugality".

    Evidently *blue jeans* were a "luxury" while "work pants" were a "necessity". Of course the *result* was all blue jeans were very, very expensive, so they were only bought and worn as "fashion". In the US, they are both fashion AND useful for "work". But in France, you were never going to find a low priced brand like Sears "tough skins" because blue jeans were taxed as "luxury".

    I never actually checked what I was told by students and it could be wrong. But this was NUTS. Our sales tax is fairer and more transparent. EVEN when we have different levels for different things (e.g. groceries vs. everything else) at least we know it's different. So one is less likely to have a multiplicity of inexplicable (aka INSANE) designations for the level of tax.

    In anycase, a VAT is a fancied up, more complicated, sales tax with the potential for really stupid designations. It's hidden. It is no less regressive than our sales tax as it applies to everything one might buy. It does nothing to improve on our simpler method of salestax which is better.

  323. Mike M,
    .
    I don't have any particular problem with a flat tax with a large zero bracket. I'd prefer a flat tax to progressive income taxes.
    .
    What I like about both sales and flat tax is that they don't embody the idea that the more you earn, the more you have to pay (percentage wise).
    .
    I agree with the general discussion about the downsides of VAT.

  324. ucia (Comment #173082)

    "Online transactions are now taxable– the Supreme Court allows states to tax them."
    _________

    Yes, but not all States do it yet, and small online merchants may be excluded.

    The following is from the State of Vermont web site:

    "The recent Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair has made the out-of-state vendor provisions of Act 134 of 2016 effective. Certain out-of-state vendors are now required to register with the State of Vermont and collect and remit sales tax beginning July 1, 2018. An out-of-state vendor making sales into the State must register and collect sales tax if they made sales of at least $100,000 or 200 individual transactions during any preceding twelve-month period."

    I don't know whether these numbers refer to total sales
    to buyers everywhere or just sales to Vermont residents, but my guess is the former.

    $100,000/200 = $500

    This means if an online merchant sells no more than 199 items at no more than $500 per item to buyers everywhere, he doesn't have to collect tax on any sales to Vermont residents, even if Vermonters bought 198 of those items. However, if another online merchant sold a total of 200 items at $10 per item, one of which
    went to a Vermonter, the merchant would have to collect and send 60 cents in sales tax to Vermont. This is an extreme example, but I think it shows the tax law is more of a burden on the seller of small ticket items.

    I used to sell a lot through ebay, and did collect sales tax for in-state sales. Collecting for all States would have been a pain in the azz. I think ebay could do the collecting as a service to small merchants.

    VAT has some of the advantages and disadvantages of a sales tax, and like the sales tax is ultimately paid by the consumer. I don't know why you think it's worse than sales tax.

  325. Max,
    I thought Lucia was pretty clear.
    >>a VAT is a fancied up, more complicated, sales tax with the potential for really stupid designations. It's hidden. It is no less regressive than our sales tax as it applies to everything one might buy. It does nothing to improve on our simpler method of salestax which is better.
    This is why she thinks it's worse than sales tax, in her view.
    .
    It's understandable to me not to agree with her. I don't understand why you say *you* don't know why Lucia thinks it's worse. She said why she thinks it's worse.

  326. A great triumph for New York. They kept Amazon HQ out. Good for them, a great victory for the People.
    .
    "Can everyday people come together and effectively organize against creeping overreach of one of the world's biggest corporations? Yes, they can."
    .

    Heh.

  327. mark bofill (Comment #173085): "I thought Lucia was pretty clear."

    I thought so too.
    ————-

    mark bofill (Comment #173086): "A great triumph for New York. They kept Amazon HQ out. Good for them, a great victory for the People."

    That was my initial reaction. But Amazon will just get the people of some other city to lavish gifts upon them. So I am a bit disappointed by the news. Amazon and New York City deserve each other.

  331. Mike M.,
    I read the NYT article on Amazon cancelling their HQ in New York. The quoted some guy who has protested Amazon being welcomed to NY, who when Amazon left said something like the proved their petulance and instead of being willing to play ball, took their ball and went away.

    Sounds like NY locals decided to act likes a boyfriend who first wooed a girlfriend with a promise of a wonderful lavish life. He'd be a great provider. She'd live in a nice house, her kids could go to all the private schools. All she'd need to do is be a good wife who did all the expected wifely duties, ran the family social life, served him nice dinners every evening, took care of the kids and so on.

    Then once he thought he'd landed her, he decided to criticize her for being swayed by the promise of a nice house– but she's supposed to perform all the expected wifely duties, run the family social life, take care of the kids and serves wonderful home cooked meals and so on. Told her he didn't want her, asks for the ring back…blah… blah…

    Then she decided that ok… maybe she didn't want to marry this guy. She complies with his request,gives the ring back, agrees the engagement is over and goes on her merry way.

    Then for some reason he is shocked she actually went away instead of coming up with some sort of "compromise"!
    Of course she didn't "compromise". And of course Amazon took their ball and went away– just as some locals asked!

    This isn't going to help real estate prices in the NY city area. Heh.

  333. Mark Bofill (Comment #173088): "I should have made my sarcasm more clear."
    mark bofill (Comment #173090): "So what don't you like about Amazon?"

    Again?

    Assuming not, I do use Amazon. But I don't like the way they made every metro in the country bow and scrape when they had no interest whatever in many of them and the way they essentially demanded public money for the richest man in the world. I don't like their tech industry standard disregard for privacy and desire to rule the world. I don't like the way that they are increasingly becoming a merchant as well as running a marketplace; nobody should be allowed to do both.

  335. Really, Amazon doesn't need (nor deserve) tax incentives to locate someplace. They are hugely profitable. It is a sorry commentary that cities (and states) think they have to whore themselves out to get Amazon. Let them choose a location for a new office based on site acquisition costs, labor costs, cost of living for employees, etc, like any normal business would.

  336. mark bofill (Comment #173092): "Trump will use the national emergency approach to get the wall."

    Not settled yet, it depends on what might be hiding in the bill.

    Using a national emergency would be my second choice. Vetoing the bill would be my first. Maybe both.

  337. lucia (Comment #173081)
    "In anycase, a VAT is a fancied up, more complicated, sales tax with the potential for really stupid designations. It's hidden. It is no less regressive than our sales tax as it applies to everything one might buy. It does nothing to improve on our simpler method of sales tax which is better."
    ____

    Lucia, I'm sorry I neglected to read your reasons for preferring sales tax to VAT, and then said I don't understand why you think sales tax is better.

    Regarding transparency, yes, sales tax is more transparent than VAT, but I doubt that would affect my buying decisions. I can't imagine preferring to buy item A rather than item B simply because the former has a lower rate of VAT. I would base my decision on the absolute cost and desirability of the item, not how much VAT was built into the cost.

    I don't think the transparency of sales tax has affected my buying habits. For example, I know the sales tax on alcoholic beverages is higher than the sales tax on other consumables where I live, but that hasn't made me reduce my purchases of beer and wine.

  338. mark bofill (Comment #173085)
    February 14th, 2019 at 11:04 am
    Max,
    I thought Lucia was pretty clear.
    ____
    Mark, yes, she was, and I owe her an apology.

    Lucia (Comment #173081)
    "In anycase, a VAT is a fancied up, more complicated, sales tax with the potential for really stupid designations. It's hidden. It is no less regressive than our sales tax as it applies to everything one might buy. It does nothing to improve on our simpler method of sales tax which is better."
    ____

    Lucia, I'm sorry I neglected to read your reasons for preferring sales tax to VAT, and then said I don't understand why you think sales tax is better. There's
    no excuse for that.

    Regarding transparency, yes, sales tax is more transparent than VAT, but I doubt that would affect my buying decisions. I can't imagine preferring to buy item A rather than item B simply because the former has a lower rate of VAT. I would base my decision on the absolute cost and desirability of the item, not how much VAT was built into the cost.

    I don't think the transparency of sales tax has affected my buying habits. For example, I know the sales tax on alcoholic beverages is higher than the sales tax on other consumables where I live, but that hasn't made me reduce my purchases of beer and wine.

    But that's just me. My guess is others might feel manipulated by the lack of transparency in the VAT.

  340. OK_Max (Comment #173097): "Regarding transparency, yes, sales tax is more transparent than VAT, but I doubt that would affect my buying decisions."

    It would not affect my buying decisions, except in certain rare and marginal cases.

    But it sure would affect my *voting* decisions.

  342. Mike M. (Comment #173100)

    It would not affect my buying decisions, except in certain rare and marginal cases.

    But it sure would affect my *voting* decisions.
    _____

    Mike, I probably could come up with some examples of
    how a VAT or proposed changes in a VAT could affect my voting decisions, if I thought about it long enough,
    but I would rather read your examples.

  343. OK_Max,
    It sounds like you are evaluating tax law using standards appropriate to evaluating advertising. VAT and sale tax are taxes, not ad campaigns.

    Influencing buying decisions has nothing to do with why *transparency* is good in tax law. Transparency is an important good because it allowed those who are tax to be aware that they are taxed and how much they are taxed. VAT's aren't transparent, which often leaves people *uniformed*. Sales taxes are very apparent and so better.

  344. OK_Max (Comment #173101): "The wall is no emergency for me. Spam phone calls are. At least the calls are a big annoyance. I have yet to be annoyed by an illegal immigrant."

    How spectacularly selfish of you.

  345. Max,
    .
    What do you think of current events? Any of them. What would you like to discuss? Or are you just sort of hanging out.
    .
    I'd be up for hearing your views on AOC and the Green New Deal, or the State of Collusion and Collusion investigations, or abortion, … any of what's been going on, really.

  347. OK_Max,
    I can think of a very easy idea how VAT taxes would change my voting decisions. I'd vote against any politician who promotes them!

  348. lucia (Comment #173103)
    February 14th, 2019 at 4:36 pm
    VAT's aren't transparent, which often leaves people *uniformed*. Sales taxes are very apparent and so better
    ______
    The sales tax is on the receipt. I can't recall for sure, but I don't think the Vat is on the receipt. However, if it's important you, finding the VAT on an item isn't hard. For example, the linked site gives VAT rates by item for the UK:

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-of-vat-on-different-goods-and-services

    Looks like only 2 or 3 rates. I imagine most UK residents who care about the rates know them.

  349. Mike M. (Comment #173104)
    "How spectacularly selfish of you."
    _______

    I never considered it selfish for me to be annoyed by spam phone calls. But I guess those callers have to make a living, even the robots. My wife used to cuss
    out the robots. I thought that was pretty funny.

  350. mark bofill (Comment #173106)
    February 14th, 2019 at 5:56 pm

    "I'd be up for hearing your views on AOC and the Green New Deal, or the State of Collusion and Collusion investigations, or abortion, … any of what's been going on, really."
    ____

    AOC is almost as much of an embarrassment to her party as Steve King is to his party. Both are fringe.

    AOC is heroic and her Green New Deal is fantastic.
    She needs to come down to earth.

    On the investigations, I feel it would be a shame after all this time if Mueller doesn't make his findings public.

    Regarding abortions, I hope the SCOTUS does nothing.
    Too bad there's not some middle ground for a satisfactory comprise here.

  351. Max,
    .
    There's tension between the idea of someone being heroic and someone being an embarrassment, in my view. I'd agree about her needing to come down to earth. I wonder if it's her youth, her inexperience, or something else.
    .
    'Fantastic' is an interesting choice of word. Do you mean a)extraordinarily good or attractive, b)imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality. or c) both of the above?
    .
    Is Mueller free to release his report to the public? I didn't think so, but I realize I actually don't know. That is – I think he has to submit his report to the AG. I don't know what other constraints apply. Anyone know anything about this?
    .
    Regarding abortion, I was really asking about the expansion of third trimester abortions in NY and the debate in Virginia.
    .
    Thanks!

  352. I read here
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/you-may-be-disappointed-mueller-report-n971601
    .
    "…The special counsel operates under rules that severely constrain how much information can be made public.

    Those rules require that the special counsel's report to the attorney general be "confidential." And, while the attorney general is required to notify Congress about Mueller's findings, the rules say those reports must amount to "brief notifications, with an outline of the actions and the reasons for them…"
    .
    It sounds like we will hear the AG's summary to Congress, which will doubtless leak if it's not made public to begin with. It doesn't sound to me like Mueller could make his findings public if he wanted to.

  353. Meh, we have a "VAT" tax in NZ, "Goods and Services Tax". It is flat 15% tax on all goods and services except donations, secondhand goods, financial fees, rents, and supplies fine metals. Accounts for a 1/4 of government revenue. Businesses do complicated business of charging GST on everything they sell and claiming on GST charged to them, which makes for a nuisance monthly return but not exactly complicated accounting. GST is shown on every receipt, but given it is 15% no matter what it is sort of taken for granted. People will grumble about any tax but I am pretty happy with the way governments of either colour spend it. Since GST is a consumption tax that is very hard to avoid, it has a some redeeming features. You could do a lot worse. The fun comes when people propose x (fresh vegetables and books being common) should be except. Successive governments have strongly resisted any such exceptions in favour of simplicity. If individuals need books or software or accountants to fill out returns, then maybe tax is too complicated? Treasury have gone to considerable lengths over years to tax everthing at source so most people dont need to make a return.

  354. Between the Green New Deal insanity, saying bringing it up for a vote is "sabotaging" it, and the left literally celebrating(!) Amazon's departure from NYC I am once again convinced the left are self defeating with the very best of them.
    .
    CA is now abandoning their Obama era high speed rail project, with $3.5B in federal funding. The governor says he has no plans to send that money back to Donald Trump, ha ha. I think you would be sending it back to federal taxpayers actually. What a boondoggle that was.
    .
    Absolutely let's give this crew command over 40% of GDP with the Green New Deal and the wonderfulness that will come with it. As David Brooks noted that can't even manage to release a FAQ about it competently. I can't wait to fill out my "unwilling to work" federal form and start getting my checks.
    .
    How can you be proud of losing 25,000 jobs and billions of indirect economic activity? The $3B in incentives is far outweighed by the gains. It's just spinning an epic fail, but they just look foolish. It is the job of the elected to represent their citizen's interests, and this was not it. Amazon China and Amazon Mexico are on the way at this rate. Bezos does know how to play hard ball, he defeated a progressive favorite head tax in Seattle directly aimed at Amazon last year.
    .
    The power of the tech titans is getting a bit out of control, but imagine the US economy without them. If you don't want Amazon, then don't pretend like you do.

  356. Nancy Pelosi has a point here in my opinion, to an extent.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/430098-pelosi-warns-gop-next-president-could-declare-national-emergency-on-guns
    .
    "A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well,"
    …
    "I'm not advocating for any president doing an end-run around Congress," she said. "I'm just saying that the Republicans should have some dismay about the door that they are opening, the threshold they are crossing."
    .
    Two things:
    1. She has a point. I don't approve of the executive bypassing Congress, and emergency powers ought to be used for real emergencies. I don't think the border situation is sufficiently dire that it justifies Trump using emergency powers.
    2. I think she's full of cheese whiz if she is implying that, should Trump *not* use emergency powers, we'd have some assurance that a Democrat president in the future wouldn't do so. Lack of precedent didn't stop the Dems from exercising the nuclear option in 2013. It's not as if progressives pride themselves on being bound by the strictures of the past, that's sort of what 'progressive' means.

  357. Mark Bofill,
    IIRC, national emergencies are declared by presidents all the time…. I believe 41 times in the last three administrations, and even Trump has declared a couple, to no fanfare. So it is very common, and apparently legal.
    .
    The issue here is who has the authority to make such a declaration, and on that the law is clear: the President. If Trump does decare an emergency and directs the Corps of Engineers to start construction with existing funds, you can count on the Ninth Circuit to issue a nation-wide restraining order, which will most likely end up overturned by the SC. But unless the SC accepts immediate review, the appeal will not happen for the best part of a year. Which means Trump’s policies will again be delayed for a long time…. which is all the Dems can really do; Congress can pass a law to block expenditures under an emergency declaration, but they could never get the 2/3 majorities needed to override Trump’s veto. Eventually, Trump will probably get construction of his “wall” started, but unless he wins re-election, the project will halt when he leaves office.

  358. mark bofill (Comment #173117) quoting Pelosi "A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well".

    That ship has sailed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States
    "As of February 2019, 58 emergencies have been declared, and 31 are still in effect, having been renewed each year by the president."

    It looks like Obama declared 11 emergencies as well as annually renewing a couple dozen declared by his predecessors. So far, Trump has declared 3, plus lots of renewals.
    .
    There are rules governing what can and can not be done. The overwhelming majority ("Blocking the Property of Certain Persons …") seem to be pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is not applicable in this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act

    But there is a law that allows the President to redirect military construction funds in an emergency:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808
    That one would seem to be applicable to what Trump wants to do.

    It seems to me that construction to defend the border would definitely qualify.

  359. SteveF (Comment #173119): "you can count on the Ninth Circuit to issue a nation-wide restraining order,"

    Only if someone can plausibly claim standing in that circuit. Who might that be? I think the new construction will be in New Mexico 10th Circuit) and Texas (5th Circuit).

  361. I am curious as to whether anyone here (besides me) has ever heard of a place called Antelope Wells. I am asking because events there regularly make my local paper, sometimes on the front page, and ought to be national news (but not front page national news).

  362. Mike M,
    "Only if someone can plausibly claim standing in that circuit."
    .
    The judge decides who has standing… at least until they are overruled; until then, any order would remain in force. It would be easiest to justify standing in places where construction is planned, of course, and some judge in the 10th or 5th could issue an injunction, but would be far more likely to be overruled at the circuit level. I bet a restraining order most likely would come from the most frequently overturned circuit…. remember the lunatic judges on the 9th blocked a perfectly legal executive order because they didn't like Trump's tweets… they will find some reason to issue an injunction against starting construction, even if it is in New Mexico or Texas.

  363. I suspect Trump is probably has an argument he is acting legally if he declares a national emergency, because he has already sent troops to enforce the border. Whether it is a politically wise move is a different question, and my guess is that it is unwise.
    .
    I think he would be better off just waiting until automatic Federal expenditure cuts begin ($50 billion domestic programs, $60 billion Defense programs), as set in current law, at the end of the fiscal year, and refuse to sign an extension unless he gets wall funding. There is a very good chance the Dems would then fold.

  365. mark bofill (Comment #173112)
    February 14th, 2019 at 7:33 pm
    Max,

    'Fantastic' is an interesting choice of word. Do you mean a)extraordinarily good or attractive, b)imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality. or c) both of the above?
    __________

    I mostly mean "b" when referring to AOC.

  366. Phil Scadden (Comment #173114)
    February 14th, 2019 at 8:42 pm
    "Meh, we have a "VAT" tax in NZ, "Goods and Services Tax". It is flat 15% tax on all goods and services except donations, secondhand goods, financial fees, rents, and supplies fine metals. Accounts for a 1/4 of government revenue. Businesses do complicated business of charging GST on everything they sell and claiming on GST charged to them, which makes for a nuisance monthly return but not exactly complicated accounting."
    _________

    Phil, thank you for your post. I recall reading NZ was a country ranked near the top in tax policy by the Tax Foundation (can't remember the exact title of that organization).

    Up thread in a discussion with Lucia, I agreed sales tax was more transparent than VAT, but after finding out not all business-to- business transactions in our States are exempt from sales tax, I believe the VAT may be more transparent. Some States, for example, do not exempt sales tax on equipment bought by restaurants, and since the tax is part of the cost of doing business, it gets passed on to the customer, who actually is paying more for sales tax than his restaurant receipt indicates.

    VAT eliminates this tax on a tax, also called tax called pyramiding or cascading, which is a reason so many countries use VAT.

  367. OK_Max (Comment #173110): "I never considered it selfish for me to be annoyed by spam phone calls."

    You intentionally misread what I said. The selfish part is your not caring about the people who's lives are destroyed by illegals, just because you personally have not been directly affected.

  368. Tom Scharf (Comment #173115)
    February 14th, 2019 at 10:38 pm

    "CA is now abandoning their Obama era high speed rail project, with $3.5B in federal funding."
    ________

    Not exactly, Tom. The CA Gov said putting the Bay to LA line on back burner, but completing the Bakersfield to Merced line.

    High-speed rail is good for linking large population centers a few hundred miles apart. Bakersfield and Merced aren't large population centers. I don't understand why they were chosen. Perhaps I lack vision.

  369. Mike M. (Comment #173129)
    February 15th, 2019 at 11:32 am
    OK_Max (Comment #173110): "I never considered it selfish for me to be annoyed by spam phone calls."
    You intentionally misread what I said. The selfish part is your not caring about the people who's lives are destroyed by illegals, just because you personally have not been directly affected.
    _____

    Misunderstood, not misread. I don't know anyone who's life has been destroyed by an
    illegal immigrant or anyone whose life has been saved by immigrating illegally. I suppose
    there are some of both, and wouldn't be surprised if the later outnumber the former.

  370. Fire drill at the place I work today. Darndest thing I ever saw; people already outside the building in a smoking area with access to the parking lot and street *coming back into the building* to walk a considerable distance *through the building* a guard post to exit.
    God save the factory guys.

  371. Not to mention, we lost one of our best engineers in that simulated fire. I came back into the building, back into our group's ESD lab, and there was Richard, working away, completely oblivious to the fact that there was a fire drill.
    What a day.

  372. Trump has declared an emergency and is using it to reallocate funds. So far as I can tell, he is complying with the law.

    The Democrats are screaming "unconstitutional". But I have yet to hear a remotely plausible reason. I am wondering if anyone has heard a decent reason. A decent reason can not be based on what we think should be, it must be based on what is. So my dislike of civil forfeiture is irrelevant, as is my dislike of overly broad delegation of power to the Executive by Congress. So I might not like Trump's solution, but I can't see anything illegal about it. Unless someone educates me.

  373. Narrator (Ralphie as an adult): NOW it was serious. A double-dog-dare. What else was there but a "triple dare you"? And then, the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-dog-dare.
    Schwartz: I TRIPLE-dog-dare you!
    Narrator (Ralphie as an adult): Schwartz created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat!
    .
    Seriously, no. I don't think there's anything illegal about it.

  374. MikeM, one line of reasoning is that Trump said 'I don't need to do this.'
    Signing a bill that provides less funding and has numerous restrictions also goes against his emergency argument.

    On the other hand, most of the money isn't coming from declaring an emergency. There were actually three executive orders, and two other laws are being used as justification for spending money on the wall.

  375. From the list of national emergencies, declared by Barack Obama in November 2015:

    Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (Executive Order 13712)[99] – Imposed sanctions on four Burundi nationals – minister of public security Alain Guillaume Bunyoni, National Police of Burundi deputy director-general Godefroid Bizimana, Godefroid Niyombare, and Cyrille Ndayirukiye – in the wake of widespread unrest.[100]

  376. MikeN (Comment #173136): "one line of reasoning is that Trump said 'I don't need to do this'."

    I have no idea of the context of that.
    .
    MikeN: "Signing a bill that provides less funding and has numerous restrictions also goes against his emergency argument."

    That sounds like a good argument in isolation. An emergency should be a temporary state of affairs that either soon comes to an end or is dealt with by and act of Congress. But that is not required by the laws governing emergencies. They can be renewed every year by the President. We now have 32 ongoing emergencies. One was declared by *Carter* and has been renewed some 40 times. So although Trump's declaration does violence to the concept of emergency, so do all the 31 others. .
    .
    MikeN: On the other hand, most of the money isn't coming from declaring an emergency. There were actually three executive orders, and two other laws are being used as justification for spending money on the wall.

    Declaring an emergency permits the President to take certain specific actions, such as redirecting military construction funds from one military project to another. So the order redirecting funds is made possible by the declaration of an emergency.

    Trump is also taking money from slush funds obtained from civil forfeiture and drug interdiction. It seems that the executive is given wide discretion in the use of those funds, but I am unclear as to the details. I am pretty sure they have to be used for law enforcement, possibly restricted to drug law enforcement. But the border wall can be justified on those grounds.
    ——
    I do not like the laws that Trump is making use of. But Congress has passed them and other Presidents have used them. So Trump is entitled to use them as well.

    I get a kick out of Pelosi saying that a President you don't like could use the laws as well. Someone should have told Congress that when they were voting on those laws.

  377. Mike M.,
    >>"I get a kick out of Pelosi saying that a President you don't like could use the laws as well."
    .
    Me too. Pelosi suggested that emergency powers would be used for gun control. My answer to that is – give it a try, if you want. I don't think it'll go well for you.
    .
    In my view, the U.S. citizenry is easiest to govern when the vast majority of them don't give a hoot about what the government is doing. Nobody really knows how many gun owners there are in the U.S., but the FBI [shows] upwards of 25 million NIC background checks for firearm purchases every year. Maybe it's just a couple million people buying *an awful lot of guns*, over and over, but I rather doubt it.
    https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view

  378. Hiya Mark

    It actually is a few million people buying an awful lot of guns. I think about a little less than 30% of the population own guns. And IIRC, the average number of guns owned by a gun owner is three.

    And I'm cheating but I looked this up–here's a noisy chart from Statista that seems to indicate no real trend in the percentage of households with guns. It's been higher and lower over both the short and medium term.

  380. Tom, welcome! What a pleasure.
    I'm paywall blocked from access that. Do you know how they came up with their numbers? That's most interesting.
    Thanks!

  381. mark bofill (Comment #173139): ""Pelosi suggested that emergency powers would be used for gun control. My answer to that is – give it a try, if you want. I don't think it'll go well for you."

    But of course that would be contrary to both the law (since no law delegates such power to the President, even in an emergency) and the Constitution (2nd Amendment).

    The laws that Trump is using give the President very specific, limited powers in an emergency. That is the only thing that makes them at all acceptable. For instance, one law lets him move military construction funds from one project to another in an emergency. Trump can't use those funds for anything other than a military construction project and the only funds he can use for the wall are ones already appropriated for military construction.

    A border wall is perfectly reasonable as a military construction project.

  382. Hi Mark

    Sorry, I'm not subscribed to Statista–can't see the source. I will say that I've seen similar percentages bandied about in the media, so I wasn't surprised to see their chart.

  383. Thaaat's right. It's the median that tells the story.

    "Most of America’s gun owners have relatively modest collections, with the majority of gun owners having an average of just three guns, and nearly half owning just one or two, according to a 2015 survey by Harvard and Northeastern researchers, which gave the most in-depth estimate of Americans’ current patterns of gun ownerships.

    But America’s gun super-owners, have amassed huge collections. Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each."

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms

  384. Thanks Tom. I see estimates ranging from 3 to 30 percent. Truth probably in that range. I'm skeptical anybody knows.

  385. Most sources seem to be ballpark 100M gun owners and 300M guns.
    .
    mark bofill (Comment #173139): "the FBI [shows] upwards of 25 million NIC background checks for firearm purchases every year."

    That is a bit misleading, the number has recently gone up by something like 50%, that may or may not be a long term trend. Not all background checks correspond to transfer of a firearm. And many transfers are from one owner to another, not purchase of a new gun.
    .
    Thomas William Fuller (Comment #173145): "nearly half owning just one or two … Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each."

    So within that group, the median might be something like ten. I can easily imagine a person owning 10 guns. Two or three handguns in different locations for self-defense, shotgun, hunting rifle, target shooting, small caliber long guns that the kids learned on, a couple that are not longer used because the owner found something better, a family heirloom or two.

    I have a bunch of screwdrivers in my toolbox, but I am not a screwdriver nut.

  386. Here is a good summary of the wall funding by Byron York:
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-a-glass-quarter-full-reading-of-trumps-border-deal

    Highlights:

    Trump has four sources of wall funding, only one of which depends on the emergency declaration.

    $1.375 billion appropriated by Congress.

    $3.6 billion in military construction funds. This is the only one that requires an emergency declaration.

    "$601 million in wall construction from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund … Congress specifically directed that money from the Fund could go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection"

    "$2.5 billion in wall construction [from military construction funds] for combating drug trafficking."

    From a legal standpoint, Trump is not acting against the will of Congress. "Congress has not passed a law denying the President the authority to take measures to protect the border; in fact, in 2006 Congress passed a law by bipartisan majorities authorizing the construction of a wall."

    Bottom line: Trump is on solid legal ground.

  387. Tom,
    Sorry, I was busy earlier. I agree with your point – it is indeed the case that there are a relatively small number of people buying and selling a relatively large number of guns. The NIC statistic I cited doesn't tell us much.

  388. Mike,
    I was interested in your response 173143. Maybe I'm letting the Atlantic blow smoke .. in my face, I guess we'll say.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/
    Here's the gist of it:
    "At key points in American history, presidents have cited inherent constitutional powers when taking drastic actions that were not authorized—or, in some cases, were explicitly prohibited—by Congress. Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush’s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union.

    The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception. And while those exceptions have outlined important limiting principles, the outer boundary of the president’s constitutional authority during emergencies remains poorly defined."
    .
    I have to go review these examples (been a busy today so far), but if memory serves the Atlantic might have a point with at least some of these historical cases. I think this is the reason I'm reluctant to assume that legal boundaries will automatically protect us.
    .
    I think that it'd be political suicide for the Democratic party to attempt an emergency powers gun confiscation is the reason in my opinion that it won't happen. But if they are more subtle (don't ask me how, exactly; using emergency powers to enact some policy that slowly erodes the practical ability of people to retain guns, whatever that might be and if such a thing is possible), they might get someplace.

  389. Mike,
    Note that I don't dispute that Trump is acting legally. I agree with you there. I'm still on about Pelosi's future threat to use emergency powers for gun control.

  390. This is obviously not what "Emergency Powers" was intended for. People who are outraged have a right to be, it is bypassing what should be done by Congress. On the other hand, they ought to be complying with the laws Congress already passed. Enforce the laws, change them when necessary.

  392. Tom Scharf (Comment #173152): "This is obviously not what "Emergency Powers" was intended for."

    I disagree. I see no evidence that Trump is using the powers in any way other than intended. But it is obviously not what emergency powers *should* be used for.
    .
    Tom Scharf: "People who are outraged have a right to be, it is bypassing what should be done by Congress."

    It is one of thousands of ways in which Congress has shirked its duty by delegating power to the executive. Less objectionable than most, since in this case the powers delegated seem to have significant limits.
    .
    Tom Scharf: "On the other hand, they ought to be complying with the laws Congress already passed. Enforce the laws, change them when necessary."

    Yep. The law is what it is. If Congress does not want Trump to have such power, don't let any President have it.

    It is easily fixed. As it is, an emergency can't last more than a year unless the President renews it. Just require Congressional approval for the renewal .

  393. >A border wall is perfectly reasonable as a military construction project.

    No it isn't. The law includes a definition. It is for things like forts, roadways, etc, in service of a military operation(the emergency).

    Sending the military to supplement the border patrol might put him on stronger footing.

    Better yet, bring NATO troops to the border, and declare they will stay there until Congress funds the wall.

  394. When Obama did legally dubious things (eg refusing to deport huge classes of illegal alien residents, thumbing his nose at long standing statutes), the MSM cheered, and glossed over the damage it did to the rule of law. Now Trump proposes to do legally dubious things and the MSM acts as if it is the end of the world. They are shallow fools who don’t give a hoot about the rule of law, and they should simply be ignored.

  395. Big Mean Sex-Daddy Trump is screwing up the sex lives of right minded liberals but fueling the libido of his homophobic yet closet homoerotically sensitive followers.
    It says it right here:
    https://www.salon.com/2019/02/13/has-trump-wrecked-our-sex-life-post-trump-sex-disorder-is-real-says-sex-therapist/?fbclid=IwAR36X_0YVUEU27db8UhJYpKNjnYd-zYJ8snUaqJboLy3YOCwbATHC428Xqc
    .
    I'm really not making this up.
    "Most Americans of conscience, and decent people more generally, are appalled by Donald Trump's personal and public behavior. Yet, there are others who are aroused by Donald Trump and see him as a symbol of sexual potency and power."
    People of conscience, decent people == appalled by Trump == Liberals.
    People who see him as a sex symbol == The Deplorables.
    The *interesting* thing to me of course is that I'm pretty sure liberals profess to *celebrate* the LBGTQIAPKxyz.14159 community. This implying Trump supporters are closet homosexuals; it doesn't seem to jive with that idea.
    .
    Trump wants to spank us. No, sorry, we want Trump to spank us. Or something. I wonder what the BDSM community makes of this.
    ~grins~ I also thought 'ammosexuals' was an especially nice touch. ""ammosexuals" who substitute their favorite guns for a working penis."
    .
    It's a strange, strange world out there…

  396. SteveF (Comment #173156): "Now Trump proposes to do legally dubious things and the MSM acts as if it is the end of the world."

    Except that Trump is not doing anything that is legally dubious.

  397. Mark Bofill,
    “It's a strange, strange world out there…”
    .
    At least the part occupied by Salon and its ilk.

  398. Mike M,
    “Except that Trump is not doing anything that is legally dubious.”
    .
    Some is obviously legal (declaring an emergency) some probably legal (use of the smaller fund pools he has available) and some (use of military construction funds), very dubious. I read the applicable statute. The intent clearly was as Mike N suggests: construction in support of military action. My personal guess is the SC will affirm most of what he wants to do, but block the re-allocation of military construction funds approved for other (very different) projects. There is real disagreement about the legality of that, which is why I called it ‘dubious’. I think you can be sure the courts will issue immediate injunctions, and it will be the best part of a year or more before the legality question is resolved.

  399. MikeN (Comment #173155): "No it isn't. The law includes a definition. It is for things like forts, roadways, etc, in service of a military operation(the emergency)."

    Where the heck does that come from?
    .
    MikeN: "Sending the military to supplement the border patrol might put him on stronger footing."

    One of us missed something. Aren't the ~8000 troops sent to the border last fall still there?
    ———-

    SteveF (Comment #173160): "I read the applicable statute. The intent clearly was as Mike N suggests: construction in support of military action."

    Are you referring to this? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808
    "the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces."

    A barrier obviously supports the use of the armed forces to secure the border.

  400. Mike M,
    I’ll bet the courts stop Trump immediately, and the SC will ultimately not allow the use of military construction funds. The rest they will likely allow.

  401. SteveF,

    I think that you are too pessimistic. Even activist judges need a legal fig leaf to hide their biases. Some are unembarrassed by even a very skimpy fig leaf, but they do need something. An example is the various climate lawsuits; I think that all but one have been summarily dismissed.

    For two of Trump's funding sources, I have not seen even a hint of a fig leaf. The emergency does provide a couple of skimpy leaves. They might or might not be enough for an activist judge. But not enough, I think, for SCOTUS.

  402. Mike M,
    I’m not pessimistic, just realistic about nutty leftist judges…. they are shameless, and quite willing to go without a fig leaf if it means keeping Trump from building ‘a wall’, even if it means they are ultimately reviewed. They are like the nutty ‘progressive’ senators who tried to stop Kavanaugh…. shameless, and only care about political results, not honesty or treating people fairly.
    .
    The main problem is that circuit judges can issue nationally binding orders against the executive branch…. IMO this needs to change.

  404. Given that judges were able to stop Trump from *ending* a clear overreach of executive power (DACA), I expect that they'll stop this maneuver too and it may take a long time (if ever) to be overruled. And in the meantime we'll be governed by a cruddy compromise which seems to make border security intentionally more difficult.
    .
    On the plus side, if the whole emergency law ends up getting smacked down on constitutional grounds, I shan't cry. Congress should do their job and not cede power to the executive power. One of my great hopes from Trump's elections was that the two parties in Congress, having a common enemy in Trump, would attack the power of the executive branch. Instead virtually all the executive trimming has been by done Trump acting alone against his own branch. (To be fair, he has more enemies among the bureaucrats than he does amongst the Republicans in congress.)
    .
    Does the border "crisis" constitute an emergency? Compared to nearly all the other active "emergencies" under the same law, it's got a reasonable claim — and it is one of the few that directly affects people in the US, rather than just punish foreign nationals for bad behavior. The list is dominated by foreign, not domestic, "emergencies".
    .
    Using military construction to secure the border doesn't seem wholly inappropriate to me. One of the reasons to have a standing military in the first place is to keep uninvited armed foreign nationals out of the country. If the uninvited foreign nationals are (mostly) unarmed and (mostly) unorganized, they still represent an illegal foreign intrusion on U.S. soil; if it takes the military to prevent it, it should be done.
    .
    Still, the best possible outcome would have been for Congress to actually provide adequate funds for the border security already authorized by law; instead many Democrats are trying to transform coyotes into the modern day Underground Railroad and casting ICE and Border Patrol as modern day slave-catchers. It's beyond disgusting. If you want to take the position that we should have unfettered migration into the country, pass the appropriate laws for them to enter legally and with proper vetting. Actively sabotaging enforcement will have the obvious effect of encouraging more migrants to take the long and dangerous journey, where some will be robbed, raped, enslaved and murdered.
    .
    Personally, I *would* be in favor of a liberal guest worker program in this country and am pro-immigration generally. I would also favor taxing guest workers wages (and make it as difficult as possible to employ under the table) so that if a citizen is willing to work the same job for same legal wage, the citizen will be cheaper to employ. Immigration is all that stands between us and the demographic doom that comes from sub-replacement birth rates; but the process needs to be under our control and tailored to produce the maximum benefit for the existing citizens.

  405. >Aren't the ~8000 troops sent to the border last fall still there?

    I thought they weren't but maybe they are. They were also sent more as a logistical backup to Border Patrol.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2801
    “military construction” as used in this chapter or any other provision of law includes any construction, development, conversion, or extension of any kind carried out with respect to a military installation, whether to satisfy temporary or permanent requirements, or any acquisition of land or construction of a defense access road (as described in section 210 of title 23).

    The term “military installation” means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department or, in the case of an activity in a foreign country, under the operational control of the Secretary of a military department or the Secretary of Defense, without regard to the duration of operational control.

  406. My greatest concern in all of this is that judges are trying to establish the principle that there is one set of rules for Democrat Presidents and a different set of rules for Republicans. The Republic can not long survive that.

  407. Dale S (Comment #173166),

    We largely agree. But I would think that any ruling against the emergency would get fast tracked to SCOTUS. The legal system can move quickly when it must. It took maybe a month for the 2000 election dispute to make it to SCOTUS and be resolved.
    .
    There is one thing you said that I feel I must take issue with.

    Dale S: "if the whole emergency law ends up getting smacked down on constitutional grounds, I shan't cry. Congress should do their job and not cede power to the executive power."

    I agree with the sentiment. But although the courts can be useful against an executive that overreaches, they can do nothing whatever about a Congress that shirks its duty. When the government is acting against the people, as the bureaucracy often does, fine; knock down the power of the executive. But when the defense of the country is at issue; *somebody* has to step up. If Congress won't, it would be dangerous to block the President from doing so.

    ———
    p.s. – Can I actually edit this? If you see this, you know the answer.

  408. >But I would think that any ruling against the emergency would get fast tracked to SCOTUS.

    They couldn't get a fast track on previous judicial injunctions.
    The DACA case hasn't been settled by Supreme Court and it's been over a year. The travel ban took a year.
    Clarence Thomas gave a concurring opinion complaining about district judges issuing nationwide injunctions, but it has fallen on deaf ears.

  409. MikeN,
    “Clarence Thomas gave a concurring opinion complaining about district judges issuing nationwide injunctions, but it has fallen on deaf ears.”
    .
    Which is why only Congress can gain a measure of control over our wild-eyed lunatic judicial branch. Congress could just write a simple law: “Injunctions and orders by Federal circuit courts and circuit courts of appeal shall have the force of law and shall be enforcable only within the district of that circuit. Only the Supreme Court of the United States may issue injunctions and orders which can be enforced nation wide.”

  410. MikeN (Comment #173170): "They couldn't get a fast track on previous judicial injunctions"

    Those were not national emergencies.

  411. Mike M,
    It will be the waining days of Trump’s current term before the comming legal challenges are resolved. Yes, the SC could step in and resolve the challenges very quickly. But Mealy-mouth Roberts will vote with the four progressives on the court to block any immediate resolution, even if he ultimately votes to overturn most of the injunctions issued by lower courts.

  412. The US military is legally barred from law enforcement duties on US soil by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act ). They probably could be used to construct a wall, though. That law doesn't apply to the National Guard when acting under state authority or to the Coast Guard.

    The troops sent to the border by Trump have been used for support roles like flying helicopters. However, rules of engagement have been issued that may conflict with Posse Comitatus:

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/11/21/white-house-approves-use-of-force-some-law-enforcement-roles-for-border-troops/

    OTOH, Posse Comitatus was enacted to prevent the use of US military against US citizens. However, it's still not clear that they could be used against unarmed illegal immigrants, given the extension of Fourteenth Amendment rights to non-citizens which may well include non-citizens that entered the US illegally.

  413. Posse Comitatus is not the last word. It has been modified by the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

    It is impossible to imagine that it was intended to prevent the military from defending the border.

    Military action very near the border might be justified by the same logic used to allow Border Patrol checkpoints inside the U.S., e.g., United States v. Martinez-Fuerte.

  414. Isn't the point of constructing border barriers to keep illegal aliens *outside* the US in the first place? Has the fourteenth amendment really been extended not just to cover illegals already present, but aliens outside our borders who want to sneak in?
    .
    How did Eisenhower get around this when he used the 101st Airborne in Arkansas? What about National Guard use during riots?

  415. Re mark bofill (Comment #173157)
    February 17th, 2019 at 7:43 am

    Thank you, mark, for the link to the entertaining salon article. I see it got you to thinking about some things.

    You said "I wonder what the BDSM community makes of this."

    I don't know the answer, but your question got me to thinking about how churches regard BDSM. I know some Christians practice self-flagellation as a form of religious discipline.

    The salon article also mentioned "purity balls," which are balls for teen girls where they pledge to remain virgins until married. I hadn't heard of those balls. I doubt the pledges make much difference, but having a party to announce you are going to be good is as good as any other excuse for a party.

  416. Thanks Max.
    .
    I know some religious people, and I've known some BDSM people. The union of these two sets of people I know (union that I'm aware of) is the empty set, so I couldn't remark on that.
    .
    I don't know how effective the pledges are. We might be surprised.
    .
    So I've gotten the sense that you're not a Trump supporter. Would you say that Trump has messed up your sex life? Only answer if you're inclined; I don't talk about my sex life on blogs, so I'll fully understand if you don't want to go there.
    .
    I don't talk about my sex life on blogs, but I will venture out far enough to say – I don't think Trump has impacted my sex life even slightly. I don't believe *any* elected official has had any measurable impact.

  417. DeWitt Payne (Comment #173174): "The US military is legally barred from law enforcement duties on US soil by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878".

    I always heard that, but it turns out that it is not true. All that Act does is to provide penalties in the event that the military is used for purposes not permitted by law. It has never been used, even when it would seem to apply (Cleveland/Pullman Strike, Hoover/Bonus March, Eisenhower/Little Rock). So the Act might well be a dead letter.

  418. I don't see how posse comitatus is relevant to troops guarding the border.

    Trump may have more standing by looking at the Constitutional provision that the federal government shall provide states with protection from invasion.

  419. MikeN,

    "I don't see how posse comitatus is relevant to troops guarding the border."

    Guarding the border from an armed band like Pancho Villa's Division del Norte is one thing. There is no question that the use of US Army troops would be authorized. Arresting people who have crossed the border illegally is not, IMO, defending the border from an invasion. It's law enforcement. Crossing the border illegally is not even a felony for first time offenders.

    Attacking unarmed civilians before they cross the border could be considered an act of war against Mexico. Pershing chased Pancho Villa around northern Mexico with the permission of the Mexican government. When that permission was withdrawn, Pershing and his troops returned to the US.

    And it's not a one-off like the examples cited by Mike M. It would be a continuing operation. The Bonus Army, for example, was in DC, not a state and it could probably have been considered an armed insurrection.

  420. Sending the army around the country to arrest people might not be valid, but having them at the border to prevent crossings would be defending the border, and not the army acting as a posse comitatus.

  421. mark bofill (Comment #173178)
    "So I've gotten the sense that you're not a Trump supporter. Would you say that Trump has messed up your sex life?"
    __________

    You sensed right, I'm not a Trump fan. I doubt he has affected my sex life one way or another, but there is no way I can know for sure.

  422. The Jussie Smollet affair. Once you put an extraordinarily high value on victim-hood then it is bound to attract some less than honest people.
    https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/02/18/jussie-smollet-motive-staged-attack/
    .
    “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett, upset after a racist letter sent to the show’s studio didn’t get a “bigger reaction,” is suspected of paying two men to attack him a week later, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the investigation.

    “When the letter didn’t get enough attention, he concocted the staged attack,” a source told CBS 2 Investigator Brad Edwards. Other sources corroborated that information.
    .
    All the left's Presidential candidates ran to social media to condemn this "attack", but are now waiting for the process to work out before further comment, ha ha. For the most part the media is covering this reversal of circumstances as they should. This guy needs to be charged with a crime if the hoax is true. There has been a series of these things over the past few years. The more heinous and strange the alleged act, the more likely it is that it is a hoax. There were multiple red flags with this incident that were ignored.

  423. Tom,
    .
    I've been following that casually too. It seemed so misguided to me in that I couldn't imagine what Smollett thought he'd accomplish. I see in your post you suggest elevated victim status was the motive; that in fact makes more sense than anything that occurred to me.

  424. Does anyone think McCabe discussed his plans with Mueller?
    If so would that be enough to bring down the edifice?

  425. Angech,
    >>Does anyone think McCabe discussed his plans with Mueller?
    I don't, no. No point, no need, and I'm not sure they had the sort or relationship where that would happen. For example:
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/11/politics/andrew-mccabe-rod-rosenstein-recusal-russia-investigation-mueller/index.html
    I don't get the sense from this that McCabe thought Mueller was on his 'side', or that Rosenstein thought Mueller was on his 'side'. This gives me the impression that McCabe and Rosenstein both thought of Mueller as a separate entity.
    >>If so would that be enough to bring down the edifice?
    Which edifice?

  427. Enjoying life at the moment, Mark.
    Just general events plus some personal good news.
    Cannot see how the Trump/swamp thing will eventually settle but it is a bit like going up against the Govm'nt. He is only one man. Still, the wearing wire taps proposition makes me laugh. If he knew that way back then someone was blabbing.

  428. John Yoo, former White House legal counsel, cites Section 2293, Title 33 of the U.S. Code:
    In the event of a declaration of war or a declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] that requires or may require use of the Armed Forces, the Secretary, without regard to any other provision of law, may (1) terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense, and (2) apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.

  429. On the question of troops at the border:

    "Trump’s proclamation declares that it is necessary to increase the use of military forces at the border and to invoke the emergency military construction authority in 10 U.S.C. § 2808, which will provide funding for the construction of border walls. The Secretary of Defense will activate members of the Ready Reserve to assist and support the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security at the southern border."
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430340-national-emergency-declaration-a-legal-fight-trump-is-likely-to-win
    ——-
    Why is all of this controversial? Because Trump.

  430. Mike M,
    "Why is all of this controversial? Because Trump."
    .
    That is part of it. The Dems want to block everything Trump wants to do to discourage his voters from turning out in 2020. They also want to maximize votes in the Latino population by 'protecting' Latinos from a secure southern border. I doubt it has all that much to do with Trump; any Republican advocating a secure southern border would face the same resistance from Dems in Congress. It is usually about gaining political power with the left.

  431. Did anyone see the McCabe NBC interview this morning? McCabe, if I understand what he said, claims he opened a counterintelligence operation into Trump in May 2017 after Comey was fired. I thought he opened a criminal investigation at that time thinking Trump was obstructing the on going FBI counterintelligence investigation that supposedly was opened in July 2016 and which was subsequently given to Mueller. Why would McCabe open a new counterintelligence operation?

  433. Karl,
    It's hard to know what to make of anything McCabe says. I don't know what he's making up, what's legitimate, what's to sell books…

  434. McCabe the hero, another reason to not watch or read mainstream news anymore.
    .
    In more entertaining news, the Smollett affair is getting more hilarious every day. He apparently also had his two "assailants" send him a racist letter before the attack. They were about to testify in front of a grand jury to indict Smollett when Smollett's defense attorney made a 'Hail Mary' phone call to get it postponed. I can't imagine they could have said anything but "we will plead guilty and repay the Chicago PD".
    .
    A column at The Atlantic calls it victimhood chic.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/jussie-smollett-story-shows-rise-victimhood-culture/583099/
    "For Smollett, being a successful actor and singer might not have been quite as exciting as being a poster child for racist abuse in Trump’s America.
    Assuming, again, that the reports are accurate, Smollett’s clumsiness would be an especially poignant indication of how deeply this victimhood chic has taken hold—almost as if he thought this was such an easy score that he didn’t even need to think too hard about the logistics."
    .
    … or as someone else said, this is what happens when you let actors write the script.

  435. Some quick comments on the Smollett case:

    (1) People should not have jumped to conclusions when it was first reported and they should not jump to conclusions now.

    (2) When the story first broke, a lot of MSM type said things like "it is unbelievable that this could happen in America in 2019". They may have gotten that part right.

    (3) There is a report that Smollett may already be a felon. His crime: Lying to the police. It happened in LA and he got a suspended sentence. Note that the report has only claimed that it was someone with the same name and date of birth.

  436. There were two groups of people who jumped to conclusions when it was first reported — those who took Smollet's account at face value, and those who realized it was ludicrously implausible (at best) and smelled a fake. So far, time is vindicating the second group most handsomely.
    .
    Given the implausibility of the initial story and the verifiable things that have actually been released since, the alleged leaks from Chicago's finest are extremely plausible. At this point I don't think it's jumping to conclusions to say the preponderance of evidence supports a fake crime.

  437. I must admit that when the report had the MAGA-wearing goons actually *recognize* the actor, and his show, it immediately reminded me of how Gleick tipped off his role in the faked Heartland memo. He's so important and prominent that even the worst stereotypical bigot straight out of central casting would know him on sight, at night, when everyone is bundled up against the bone-chilling cold.
    .
    Funniest thing from the whole saga was the victim managing to hang onto his sandwich.

  438. An entertainer being a victim of a hate crime is certainly news, nobody expects them to ignore it. Nor is it appropriate to openly doubt his story without any evidence. The story was a bit fishy and that could have been talked about. The celebrity news can go hog wild with it, as this is what they do and everyone knows it.
    .
    The problem is the emotional entanglement the news media has with stories like this, and the need to paint with a broad brush against a group of people because the victim is a member of a protected class. Different rules for different groups, if only there was a word for that.
    .
    That someone would possibly fake a high victim points crime is a seeming impossibility to the news media, as they ironically create the incentives for people to do that exact thing.
    .
    Then there is "the left should be upset because it will place doubt on future hate crime reports" meme. Why would the right not think the same thing? Does the right want real hate crimes to be ignored?
    .
    This is why we have a justice system, as flawed as it is. Mob witch hunts have gotten worse in the public square, not better. Pitchforks and torches. I condemned it earlier and more forcefully than you, I win! I feel sadder and more outraged, therefore I am morally superior. It's so sadistic.

  439. I think the funniest thing was how the attack was staged directly under a security camera, only to find out it was pointing in the wrong direction.

  440. When I first heard the story I thought immediately that it well could have been staged. What surprised me about the media across the political spectrum was their reluctance to even questioned what had happened and even when evidence was pointing to some major suspicions. I was thinking though that the "victim" being gay and black could be major reason for the reluctance and even with the Chicago Police Department. The story probably informs us where we are at in this country vis a vis political discussions.

  441. In real news with potential lasting affect, the SC takes a hard line against asset forfeiture.
    .
    Supreme Court Rules Against Excessive State Fines
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-against-excessive-state-fines-11550680782
    .
    "The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that states may not impose excessive fines, extending a bedrock constitutional protection but potentially jeopardizing asset-forfeiture programs that help fund police operations with property seized from criminal suspects."
    .
    A person had his $44K Land Rover seized for $384 of heroin.
    .
    This case is saying that what is deemed excessive fines in the 8th amendment also applies to state laws, not just federal laws. The Indiana SC "ruled that the Eighth Amendment protection from excessive fines applied only to the federal government not the states."

  442. Tom Scharf,
    A widely expected ruling, but not all that good. The justices all beat up on the Indiana State solicitor for explicitly supporting absurd seizings…. like a new car permanently taken for a 5 MPH speeding ticket! Local police may be a little more circumspect than they were, but unfortunately, the SC didn't really place any limit on civil forfeitures, save for that they can't be absurd.
    .
    I wish they explicitly limited the value of seized property to the value of criminal penalties and property gained through criminal activity, and restricted forfeiture until *after* a criminal conviction. For sure, the court had a good laugh at the expense of the Indiana solicitor, but they didn't place the kinds of limits on civil forfeitures that I think they should have.

  443. I always thought asset-forfeiture programs went too far, but I don't know how to exactly determine what fines are excessive fine.

  444. Tom Scharf (Comment #173200)
    February 20th, 2019 at 11:31 am

    Then there is "the left should be upset because it will place doubt on future hate crime reports" meme. Why would the right not think the same thing? Does the right want real hate crimes to be ignored?
    _______

    The left and right tend to prefer believing what they like to believe.

  445. Indiana was arguing the Feds had no standing to even hear the case since the assets were seized under a state law violation, so I'm not sure the SC could have even ruled on the definition of excessive here. This paves the way for them to rule on this later though. It's a shot over the bow at the moment. Almost anyone who understands what asset forfeiture is really about doesn't support it in its current implementation.

  446. It seems that for all other law violations the fines are spelled out in something called the law instead of make it up as you go along asset forfeiture. The minor detail of the fine occurring after guilt has been determined is also part of the procedure.
    .
    I don't even agree with the reasonable explanation of asset forfeiture: "The basic principle behind asset forfeiture is appealing. It enables authorities to confiscate cash or property (at their discretion with limited judicial oversight) obtained through (allegedly) illicit means". I added the important parts in parentheses. There is some really wobbly legal justifications as to how this an action against property, not a person.

  447. OK Max,
    "Does the right want real hate crimes to be ignored?"
    .
    Of course not. They just grow tired of faked hate crimes… always set up to make 'the right' look bad, and to give the MSM yet another talking point about how horrible Trump's supporters are. The truth is, most Trump's supporters are normal middle class people, and neither Nazis nor the caricature bumpkins the MSM wants to portray. I supported Trump over the alternative, who I judged far more potentially damaging to the country than Trump; but I am neither a Nazi nor a bumpkin.
    .
    Yes, Trump is a constant liar (like most all elected officials), and he is both a blowhard and often badly uninformed. But I found the alternative far worse, for many reasons. I expect the same will happen in November 2020.

  448. Re SteveF (Comment #173209)

    Steve, the "Does the right want real hate crimes to be ignored?" was a question asked by Tom Scharf in his Comment #173200. I was quoting him. That's not to say your response is not relevant.

    I believe both the right and the left have engaged in dirty tricks. I believe the media does a pretty good job of exposing these tricks after initially falling for them.

  449. "I believe both the right and the left have engaged in dirty tricks. I believe the media does a pretty good job of exposing these tricks after initially falling for them."

    I think the agenda driven media exposes what it feels it needs to expose to support its agenda. They can never be accused of being dishonest even though their reporting is more in line with an adversarial lawyer presenting her case. It is not unlike what one might see in a climate science paper where the criticism could legitimately be what was excluded.

    In the case under discussion the media exposed nothing.

  450. "If Smollett did report a fake crime, he did an incredible disservice to the thousands of people who are victims of real hate crimes every year."

    Quoted from a Vanity Fair article on Smollett.

  451. OK Max,
    It would sure help the credibility of the ‘racial hatred’ meme if there were lots of clear racial hatred cases being brought nationwide. I’ve not seen much of that, nor at a minimun, much beyond two-way bad actors on both sides causing problems. What I have seen are false claims of racial hatred used for political purposes… too often completely fabricated or disengenuous.

  452. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #173211)
    "In the case under discussion the media exposed nothing."
    ______

    The media reports the Chicago Police is charging Smollett with filing a false report about being attacked. While it may be true that research by the media didn't raise suspicion about Smollett, but if not for the media, I wouldn't know he is being charged. So I wouldn't say the media has exposed nothing to me.

  453. SteveF (Comment #173213)
    February 20th, 2019 at 6:30 pm
    OK Max,
    It would sure help the credibility of the ‘racial hatred’ meme if there were lots of clear racial hatred cases being brought nationwide.
    _______

    Hate doesn't have to be overt to be hate. I have witnessed shocking expressions of racial hatred from Whites talking to other Whites about blacks. They wouldn't talk like that to Blacks, but it's still hate.

  454. OK Max,
    “The media reports the Chicago Police is charging Smollett with filing a false report about being attacked.”
    .
    I suppose if a large meteor struck Australia, the MSM eould report on that as well. I find it most odd that you miss the entire point: like other fabricated cases, this one looks crazy from the first, yet we all listened to days of lectures about how horrible Trump and his voters are (you know, racists, homophobes, xenophobes….. deplorables!) when the reality was a rather crazy gay actor who lives in Chicago made the whole thing up. Of course you will never simply say the guy should be in jail…. too politically incorrect, no doubt.

  455. OK Max,
    I have personally seen shocking cases of Arabs describing their hatred of Jews. Must I then conclude that all Arabs hate Jews? (Not rhetorical.) It is not OK to draw generalizations…. doing so just means you don’t know what you are talking about.

  456. Re SteveF (Comment #173216)

    "like other fabricated cases, this one looks crazy from the first, yet we all listened to days of lectures about how horrible Trump and his voters are (you know, racists, homophobes, xenophobes….. deplorables!) when the reality was a rather crazy gay actor who lives in Chicago made the whole thing up."
    ______

    I suspect almost all homophobes, racists, and xenophobes voted for Trump, but since I don't know their numbers, I'm not sure what proportion they represent of all Trump voters. I can understand why
    the others would resent being labeled as one of those.

  457. SteveF (Comment #173217)
    February 20th, 2019 at 7:32 pm
    OK Max,
    I have personally seen shocking cases of Arabs describing their hatred of Jews. Must I then conclude that all Arabs hate Jews? (Not rhetorical.) It is not OK to draw generalizations…. doing so just means you don’t know what you are talking about.
    _______

    I didn't say all Trump supporters hate blacks, gays, or illegal immigrants, but I suspect they are more likely than Trump foes to hate those groups.

  458. OK Max #173215,

    Perhaps our standard for "shocking expressions of racial hatred" differ, but I can't remember hearing anything like that from actual people in many decades. Racial prejudice, yes — my grandmother-in-law in South Chicago is a regular font of ethnic stereotypes, including her own Pollacks (her preferred term). But even that I've found that much more common in older generations, and much less common than 40 years ago. Perhaps you run in quite different circles than I do.

    But even hate is not a crime, and should not be a crime. If there's evidence that actual crimes motivated by racial hatred is common, trending up and primarily done by white males against minorities, I've missed it. The wide publicity given to this transparently questionable story and before it to the Covington kids suggests that real outrages are hard to come by.

  459. The media is definitely now throwing Smollett under the bus, big time. It is 180 degrees, he has zero defenders. This is all part of the herd mentality that is so pervasive now. Humorously there are now countless media people saying they secretly doubted this story all along.
    .
    An interesting point is Chicago had 3000 shootings last year, 8 every day. 561 murders. One account I read said they used 14 detectives the night of the alleged hate crime, and who knows how much tracking down the real story. Those are some interesting priorities. Smollett is going to find out what being on the wrong side of a "high priority" crime is all about, it may even have an old fashioned perp walk.

  460. OK_Max,
    The overwhelming number of people who are prejudiced against whites didn't vote for Trump, so that means? Are you aware that Blacks and Arabs are less accepting of homosexuality than whites? Views on acceptance of homosexuality are tied more directly with religion, not race.

  461. Tom Scharf,
    The guy sort of tossed himself under the bus. He will be prosecuted, of course. A perfectly normal outcome.

  463. OK Max #173218,

    In order for "almost all racists" to be captured by Trump, you'd have to believe either that almost all racists are white males, or that Trump was particularly attractive to racists in demographics that broke heavily against him. I don't find either claim plausible.

  464. Dale S (Comment #173220)

    Perhaps our standard for "shocking expressions of racial hatred" differ, but I can't remember hearing anything like that from actual people in many decades.

    But even hate is not a crime, and should not be a crime. If there's evidence that actual crimes motivated by racial hatred is common, trending up and primarily done by white males against minorities, I've missed it.
    ____

    Dale, I have witnessed shocking expressions of racial hatred time and again in recent years. I think the difference may be in our environments rather than our standards. And perhaps you are more selective in who you associate with.

    No, hate alone is not a crime, and I haven't seen statistics on crimes motivated by racial hatred.
    Nevertheless, I see racial hatred as a bad thing rather than a good thing or something that just makes no difference.

    BTW, Smollett is being charged with a Class 4 felony. If I recall reading correctly he faces 1 to 3 years in prison and a $25,000 fine, although probation is possible. I read he also is suspected of being behind the hate letter he received.

  465. I think people like to conflate racial stereotyping with racist hatred which aren't the same thing. The closer reality is most people don't care much about minorities either way and don't think about it very much.

  466. Max OK: "I suspect almost all …., racists, and xenophobes voted for Trump"

    I suspect that for some reason you are excluding Blacks and Muslims from your definition of "racists" and "xenophobes." There are many Black racists and many Muslim xenophobes in the US.

    JD

  467. Dale S (Comment #173225)
    February 20th, 2019 at 9:19 pm
    OK Max #173218,

    In order for "almost all racists" to be captured by Trump, you'd have to believe either that almost all racists are white males, or that Trump was particularly attractive to racists in demographics that broke heavily against him. I don't find either claim plausible.
    __________

    Dale, Whites do not monopolize racism, homophobia, and xenophobia, but Trump's campaign appealed to Whites with those tendencies, and he wouldn't have captured almost one-half of the popular vote without them. Whites cast about 59 million of the 67 million votes for Trump ( I may be off a little on the numbers).

    But you have a point. I should have said I suspect the large majority of anti-minority racists, homophobes, and xenophobes who voted for Trump were White.

    Trump knew he could't win by appealing to Blacks and Latinos with anti-white racism because these two groups don't have enough votes. He also knew the homophobes and xenophobes among these minorities might be worth a few votes if they could stomach his message to White racists.

    While appealing to hate can be politically profitable, I believe it causes divisions that weaken our nation.

  468. JD Ohio (Comment #173228)
    February 20th, 2019 at 11:29 pm
    Max OK: "I suspect almost all …., racists, and xenophobes voted for Trump"

    I suspect that for some reason you are excluding Blacks and Muslims from your definition of "racists" and "xenophobes." There are many Black racists and many Muslim xenophobes in the US.
    _______

    Of course, but I suspect their numbers are relatively small compared to White racists and xenophobes, which means the latter have more political power.

    I associate Muslims living in the U.S. more with homophobia than xenophobia.

  469. OK_Max #173299,

    I agree that "the large majority of anti-minority racists, homophobes, and xenophobes who voted for Trump were White." I also suspect that the large majority of non-racist, non-homophobe, non-xenophobes who voted for Trump were white — most of Trumps voters were white, so pretty much any attribute you care to name are going to be predominantly white. The claim neither tells us anything about Trump's campaign nor the reason *why* "racists, homophobes, and xenophobes" would vote for Trump. You're giving the impression that you think haters are single-issue voters who can be attracted by active support for hate, while non-haters will hold their nose and vote for an open hater because the issue just isn't important to them.
    .
    I think the idea that "appealing to [white] hate can be politically profitable" is dead wrong, and that it's no accident that the steady message from the *left* is that Trump is racist. If they can convince Trump voters that he really is racist, Trump is toast. This isn't 1948 or 1968 where open appeals to white racism can carry a handful of southern states while dooming you outside them — now it would doom you everywhere. Your position that "racial hatred is a bad thing" would be happily agreed to by the vast majority of the electorate, including those who harbor strong ethnic prejudices.
    .
    Indeed, the political utility of painting Trump and his supporters as racist is so compelling that it was a reason both for the Covington smear and the Smollett fake–and the reason so many pols and press leaped to publicize stories too good to check, to their discredit.

  470. Max,
    >>Of course, but I suspect their numbers are relatively small compared to White racists and xenophobes, which means the latter have more political power.
    .
    That's strikes me as profoundly racist of you Max. You appear to suggest that white people are more prone to exhibit racism and xenophobia than other groups.

  471. When a hate crime makes the morning news and turns out to be a fraud, it's only natural to wonder to what extent we are false accepting reports of hate crime.
    I hear Smollett is in custody now, facing felony charges. Good.

  472. Mark Bofill,
    Last I heard, his lawyers were “negotiating” with prosecuters about where and when he will turn himself in. His lawyers have so far refused to say where their client is. I expect they are asking for a time and place where there will be no reporters or cameras present. It is an interesting contrast with how the FBI has treated all the non-violent felony suspects who happen to know Trump.

  474. Mark Bofill,
    So it was very early this morning: No news cameras, no perp walk, no reporters. Maybe the FBI should tell these Chicago people how it should be done.

  475. Felony? Is it just me, or does that seem excessive to others? I might agree with that severity, had he falsely accused an individual, and thereby "filches [his] good name." But no individual was harmed. (Save perhaps those who jumped with alacrity on the
    victimization/demonization bandwagon, losing credibility in the end.)

    I would have expected a misdemeanor, with an expectation of restitution for wasted police resources.

  476. Re: Left-Wing Racism in the US. — Max OK

    After seeing your response and thinking about my post, I will add to my comment. Based on the hate and hysteria heaped on the Covington Catholic kid who had a bemused look on his face after being abused by Black Israelis for an hour and after some old coot invaded his space by pounding a drum in close proximity, I would guesstimate that 20 to 30 % of Dems are racists; the whole idea behind hating the kid was that he was White and had to defer to a non-white person. Consistent with that is the almost total lack of criticism of the Black Israeli adults who verbally assaulted children was barely noticed by anyone in my mind because racist hate against White people is tolerated (and sometimes encouraged) by many sectors of American society.

    JD

  477. I expect Fox will expel Smollett promptly. He will likely get probation and a big fine, but that won't compare to the long term damage to his career. This is a guy screaming victim who has a successful career as an actor and musician, he plays a gay black man on a prime time Fox drama of all things. Not a poster child of oppression.
    .
    He reportedly paid his attackers by check, ha ha. Called them before and after the attack. Police say the motive is he was unhappy with his salary. Man, was he in a psychological bubble.
    .
    No amount of tearful mea culpas in front of cameras is going to help this guy. If there is one thing the left and right can agree on is that faking a hate crime is pretty low.

  478. HaroldW (Comment #173239): "Felony? Is it just me, or does that seem excessive to others?"

    Entirely appropriate, IMO. He diverted significant police resources away from other tasks. That surely has consequences, although it is impossible to say just what consequences. Also, the false accusation was a threat to public order, even though there was no obvious damage.
    .
    HaroldW: "I might agree with that severity, had he falsely accused an individual, and thereby "filches [his] good name." But no individual was harmed."

    An individual would have recourse in the civil courts. Smollett's crime was against society; as such the only recourse is via criminal proceedings.
    .
    HaroldW): "I would have expected a misdemeanor, with an expectation of restitution for wasted police resources."

    I am sure there will be plea bargain negotiations. I hope they stick to the felony charge. If this is a first offense, I would expect restitution and a suspended sentence. If he is already a felon, I would hope he spends time in jail.

    p.s. It seems his previous record is for misdemeanors. I assumed a felony because of the 3 year suspended sentence.

  479. JD Ohio (Comment #173240): "… I would guesstimate that 20 to 30 % of Dems are racists; the whole idea behind hating the kid was that he was White and had to defer to a non-white person. Consistent with that is the almost total lack of criticism of the Black Israeli adults who verbally assaulted children was barely noticed by anyone in my mind because racist hate against White people is tolerated (and sometimes encouraged) by many sectors of American society."

    Almost all overt racism in America is directed at Whites and Jews. I don't doubt that there is more than a little stereotyping and prejudice among people of all skin colors.

  480. HaroldW,
    I read that almost all false report crimes are downgraded to a misdemeanor and probation.

  481. A false police report is indeed a felony under Ill. law. Yes, it will probably be bargained down to a misdemeanor, unless prosecutors are ticked off because of continuing public denials of wrongdoing. If they have any sense at all, they will offer him a plea only with clear, direct public admission of guilt for all the nonsense…. the phony hate-mail letter, the phony 'assault' report, and the continuous stream of public lies ever since the report. The FBI could probably bring additional charges for the phony letter, but I doubt they would bother, so long as he admits guilt. The only question in my mind is if he is stupid enough to refuse to admit guilt…. that may lead to jail time. But so far he has only shown incredible stupidity, so it could well happen.

  483. Tom Scharf (Comment #173244): "I read that almost all false report crimes are downgraded to a misdemeanor and probation."

    I don't doubt that. But few false reports lead to this level of police effort and public scrutiny. Also, Smollett is relatively rich and famous; prosecutors are often especially tough in such cases, probably to avoid being accused of favoritism. And then there is Smollett's prior criminal record.

  484. mark bofill (Comment #173234)
    February 21st, 2019 at 6:55 am
    Max,
    >>Of course, but I suspect their numbers are relatively small compared to White racists and xenophobes, which means the latter have more political power.
    .
    That's strikes me as profoundly racist of you Max. You appear to suggest that white people are more prone to exhibit racism and xenophobia than other groups.
    ____

    mark, you misread. I was referring to absolute numbers. There are fewer, thus they have less political power. You are not alone is misreading what I have said on this subject. Of course you could question whether there are fewer.

  485. Harold,
    What Smollett ended up doing (with the help of a sympathetic media) was to promote the idea that Trump supporters are violent racist homophobes based on a pure lie. He lied to effectively inflame public outrage against a group of people defined by their political convictions. I don't think agitating hatred for any group, be that group defined by racial, political, ethnic, sexual, or whatever other non-essential characteristic you care to choose should be OK. It's wrong, regardless of the legality and it's extremely counterproductive for our society.
    .
    I hope they nail him on felony charges, frankly. I think he's earned it.

  486. Thanks Max,
    Honestly, on further reflection it occurred to me I might have misunderstood you. So, you are simply saying that because they are ~minorities~, all things equal it is reasonable to assume subpopulations of minorities are ~also minorities~ compared to subpopulations of majorities. Something like that.
    OK.

  487. Max,

    But perhaps more to the point than whether or not you said anything racist, what you claim here:
    >> I suspect their numbers are relatively small compared to White racists and xenophobes, which means the latter have more political power.
    Still appears to be false to me.
    .
    Our *culture* is highly sympathetic to and protective of these minorities. Go post a tirade against straight white men on Facebook, use the word 'cracker', nobody much cares. Go post a tirade against gays, or women, or blacks, or muslims, or gay women, or gay black women, or gay black muslim women. Use the n-word. You will face a substantial pushback.
    Try to promote and host an event for straight white men, as opposed to an event for women, or black women, or blacks in general. You will face stronger pushback on the event for straight white men.
    Look at 'protected class groups' at Universities, or under various laws. Look at affirmative action.
    Finally, let me note that there exists a political party in our two party system that professes to stand for the rights of these minorities. We hear quite a lot on the subject from them on a regular basis.
    If you're going to suggest that minorities have less political power in the US, you're going to have to do better than say 'because numbers', in my view.

  488. Here's a hint for you future hate crime hoaxers. When the police ask you if the guys you just paid off are the ones who beat you, you say no. Otherwise they might just decide that turning on you is a better course of action than being convicted of a hate crime themselves.

  489. I think that generalizations about voters and backers of politicians and political parties, in both positive and negative terms, is merely one of many political means used by politicians to avoid discussing the real essence of political issues and the consequences of political actions. Unfortunately my Civics 101 view of politicians and government has not been reinforced by my observations over the years and what I see as a natural tendency of nearly all politicians to turn these discussions into dumbed-down and emotional conversations. Some politicians come across as dumb and emotional when dealing with these issues which in turn makes it easier for even the less informed to be suspect of what they are saying while others have the ability to articulate dumb and emotional issues in ways that give their presentations an almost intellectual credence. This latter approach is also used more frequently by some media types to deliver otherwise useless and agenda driven information- Sixty Minutes comes to mind here.

  490. In my ideal libertarian world I would agree with HaroldW that a civil suit against Smollett would be more appropriate than a felony charge. Actually a civil suit whereby Smollett compensated the CPD for their time and efforts would make more practical sense.

    Since the FBI was or is involved in this case an interview with them might make the truth more forthcoming from Smollett if he is aware of what happened to Martha Stewart. Of course, such an offense is not in the libertarian view of appropriate law and nor should it be in the US and particularly since lying by law enforcement is allowed in some cases to obtain information from those being interviewed by law enforcement.

  491. >had he falsely accused an individual,

    He was prepared to do exactly that, until he arrived at the police station and found that they had arrested his co-conspirators instead of two random white guys.

    CNN playing the video nonstop would have been their dream scenario.

  492. mark bofill (Comment #173251)
    February 21st, 2019 at 12:24 pm
    Max,

    "But perhaps more to the point than whether or not you said anything racist, what you claim here:
    >> I suspect their numbers are relatively small compared to White racists and xenophobes, which means the latter have more political power.
    Still appears to be false to me."
    _________

    mark, by "political power" I mean the power of the vote. About 14 million Blacks voted for Hillary and about 59 million Whites voted for Trump. Let's assume all Blacks who voted for Hillary were anti-white racists. If only 14 million of the Whites who voted for Trump were anti-black racists, then black and white racism on balance did not effect the election outcome.

    I suspect, however, that more than 14 million of the 59 million White Trump voters were anti-black racists. We are only talking about 7 percent of the total White voters here.

    I do believe that in general Blacks dislike Whites more than Whites dislike them, because the Blacks have more reason. Given their faster population growth, their relative voting strength will grow. Had the Black voting population been 10 % larger, I doubt Trump would have won.

  493. OK Max #173256,
    You suspect that *at least* 23% of white Trump voters were "anti-black racists"? What are you using as a definition of racism?

    But in terms of political impact, it doesn't actually matter what the raw number of racists are. It only matters how many voted for the candidate instead of voting for an opponent or staying home *because* they were racists. As I noted before, it's the left, not the right, that's trying to convince everyone that Trump is racist — people turn out to vote *against* anti-black racism, not for it.

  494. Max,
    Your example oversimplifies too far. You don't account for white liberal sympathy for racism alleged to be justified *on behalf* of minorities, for example. Or progressive professors and intellectuals supporting (nurturing?) minority racism with the various 'grievance studies' disciplines. Or a sympathetic media. Minorities wield political power out of proportion to their numbers.

  495. Max,

    Minority racists have greater social immunity and leverage. Affirmative action is racist, but widely accepted. Black lives matter can take racist positions without much penalty. Have you ever heard 'power + prejudice =racism'? There are some who hold that minorities *cannot* be racist, as a result.

  496. mark bofill (Comment #173258)
    February 21st, 2019 at 5:53 pm
    Max,
    Your example oversimplifies too far. You don't account for white liberal sympathy for racism alleged to be justified *on behalf* of minorities, for example.
    ______

    mark, I think I do account for it. Those are the among the Whites who voted for Hillary rather than Trump.
    I didn't even allow that some Whites who voted for Hillary might be anti-black racists and some of the Blacks who voted for her might not be anti-white racist. If you study my numbers, I believe they are generous to your point of view.

  497. OK_Max (Comment #173256): "I suspect, however, that more than 14 million of the 59 million White Trump voters were anti-black racists. We are only talking about 7 percent of the total White voters here."

    That is an outrageous claim. It is also bad math, that would be closer to 20% of white voters. Also, you are assuming that the only anti-white racists are black; there are latino and white ant-white racists.
    .
    Dale S (Comment #173257): "people turn out to vote *against* anti-black racism, not for it."

    Exactly. Being perceived as an anti-black or anti-latino racist is a huge political liability.

  498. Max, we aren't talking about the same thing. There is a lot more to political power than 'how many votes did Hillary get from this group.' I got stuff to do, so we can agree to disagree on this point.

  499. JD Ohio (Comment #173240)
    February 21st, 2019 at 10:05 am
    Re: Left-Wing Racism in the US. — Max OK

    "After seeing your response and thinking about my post, I will add to my comment. Based on the hate and hysteria heaped on the Covington Catholic kid who had a bemused look on his face after being abused by Black Israelis for an hour and after some old coot invaded his space by pounding a drum in close proximity, I would guesstimate that 20 to 30 % of Dems are racists; the whole idea behind hating the kid was that he was White and had to defer to a non-white person."
    ________

    JD, I hadn't been following the Washington Mall confrontation incident, but I read up on it after your post. The linked NPR article gave the most balanced view I found.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2019/01/25/688833473/unraveling-a-washington-mall-confrontation-frame-by-frame

    I doubt the students from the Covington catholic school misbehaved as bad as the media first reported, but they may have mocked the Native American drummer. I would not surprised if a group of teenage boys acted like jackasses. And they may have been provoked.

    I couldn't find sound-track videos of the scene, which was puzzling since the videos I take have sound.

    Sandmann, the student facing the drummer, is suing the Washington Post for $250 M for defaming him in it's coverage of the event.

  500. OK_Max (Comment #173263)" "I doubt the students from the Covington catholic school misbehaved as bad as the media first reported, but they may have mocked the Native American drummer."

    No, they did not mock anyone. They behaved admirably in the face of great provocation.

  501. OK_Max #173263,
    Whether you would be "surprised" by the behavior they were accused of is irrelevant. The problem is that the video evidence doesn't provide any evidence for bad behavior by them, and *does* provide evidence of bad behavior by other parties who were not condemned. If there had been no longer video, the original framing would have stood and minors would have been unjustly condemned.

  502. Mike M,
    “We are only talking about 7 percent of the total White voters here.”
    .
    Some, like OK max, take it on faith that many white people are grotesquely prejudiced. The great thing about such a belief is that it never has to confront factual reality. I have encountered a few white folk (very few!) who are grossly racist. But this is such a rare exception among those I know that it is quite remarkable when I encounter it.
    .
    The sorry truth is that

  503. SteveF (Comment #173266)
    February 21st, 2019 at 9:28 pm
    Mike M,
    “We are only talking about 7 percent of the total White voters here.”
    .
    Some, like OK max, take it on faith that many white people are grotesquely prejudiced.
    ______

    I erred in that post. It was about 14 percent or 1 out of 7. I don't take it on faith, I take it on experience.

  504. Mike M. (Comment #173261)
    February 21st, 2019 at 6:36 pm
    OK_Max (Comment #173256): "I suspect, however, that more than 14 million of the 59 million White Trump voters were anti-black racists. We are only talking about 7 percent of the total White voters here."

    That is an outrageous claim. It is also bad math, that would be closer to 20% of white voters.
    ________

    Yes, maybe outrageously low. I should have said about 14% of total white voters.

    Your math is as almost as bad as mine. According to Pew Research, a total of 100.4 million whites voted in the election.

  505. Max,
    I'd asked earlier, but maybe you didn't notice way up on the thread. Are you trying to make some point larger than disputing whether or not the Covington teens behaved impeccably? If so, I'd be pleased if you would say what it is. If not, fine; I'll quit paying attention to this.

Comments are closed.