Happy Thanksgiving! I’m not cooking so there will be no pictures of turkeys.
For your amusement…. me dancing the rhumba pro-am. The pro is my exceptionally excellent dance teacher Vladyslav Nalyvachuk.
Note:Open Thread. I’ll be shifting a few comments and closing the previous one.
Not much to do with the impeachment. But…. Hunter Biden. What a swell guy
https://pagesix.com/2019/11/27/hunter-bidens-lunden-roberts-was-stripper-at-club-he-frequented
Dated brothers widow. (Nothing technically wrong with that, but odd.)
Got stripper girlfriend pregnant.
Crack smoker.
Stripper gf sues for paternity after he marries other women (after 6 day "whirlwind" romance.)
Yeah. Hunter is… colorful..
[Edit: just the sort of guy you want on the board for governance advice when you're trying to turn corruption around..]
mark….. Yeah. I hadn't paid that much attention to him. But …. not to stereotype the general behavior of crack smoking guys who get strippers pregnant, date their brother's widow and marry after a 6 day whirlwind courtship (while their stripper gf is pregnant?)…. He really doesn't sound like the sort of guy who would be LIKELY to have special skillzzzzzzz that warrant hiring him for a job is resume doesn't seem to suggest he's suited for.
lucia,
—————————-
not to stereotype the general behavior of crack smoking guys who get strippers pregnant, date their brother's widow and marry after a 6 day whirlwind courtship (while their stripper gf is pregnant?)….
—————————-
~grins~
Thank you. It's been a long day, I needed a chuckle.
[Re: stereotyping crack smoking guys who get strippers pregnant, etc., Heavens forbid we do that.]
It might be that Hunter could be considered an expert on corruption on the basis of his personal experiences and therefore was fully qualified to sit on the board in the capacity he did. Steve Martin lays out a similar argument here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgEOTc2qgVg in the movie 'Leap of Faith'.
And everybody says you can't put the shit back in the horse. Heh.
mark bofill, Lucia,
Hunter Biden has a long history of odd behaviors…. dating your brother's widow? Yikes! There is nothing wrong per se with that, it is just very, very, very weird. Strippers can be very nice people, I'm sure, and I hope the Bidens accept this child into their family; after all, children are born innocent and in need of love, protection, and acceptance.
.
Still, the coke, the debilitating alcohol abuse, and the endless selling of his family name, are much worse. If it turns out people at the State Department helped Hunter Biden, then Joe Biden is probably finished…. which is arguably a good thing for the USA. Joe Biden may be finished anyway: too old, too much very non-woke policy baggage, clearly losing his mental edge, and (at a minimum) long-term toleration of his son's dubious 'business activities' (AKA influence pedaling).
Lucia,
"stereotyping crack smoking guys who get strippers pregnant"
.
Throw in 'who are sons of Vice Presidents', and I think the Venn diagram shrinks to a single individual in all of history. No stereotyping needed. The guy has serious mental health issues that should have been addressed and treated a long time ago. That Joe Biden has enabled Hunter for a long time is a sorry commentary on Joe Biden's judgement.
My theory on Page's crime is bribery, regarding dropping of Russian sanctions in exchange for brokerage fees on sale of Rosneft. If this is correct, it means that without Steele dossier, FBI can't get FISA. The specific memo about Page and Rosneft was written the week the FBI applied for its warrant. My suspicion is the memo was commissioned to solidify the warrant application. It would also mean they sought a FISA on Michael Cohen, given what was in that batch of memos.
Another possibility is a FARA violation, or something regarding his previous work as an FBI informant against Russians.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Mike N,
Could be one of those or something else. We may never know. What we do know is that the claims of likely criminal activity were not shown to be true after 9 months of seeing all his calls and emails. That seems wildly at odds with the probable cause standards FISA warrants require. I think FISA needs to be modified to make such fishing expeditions effectively impossible. It is possible the IG report and prosecutions based on the Page FISA process will help to reduce the potential for abuse, but I would prefer to see much stronger protections for US citizens under FISA.
A healthy and happy Thanksgiving to all.
Nice moves Lucia! 🙂
SteveF,
.
The stripper may be very nice. It's a job lots of women would not want OTOH: it pays more than other jobs. So…. some will put up with the seedy nature and the *inevitable* annoying treatment by customers.
.
But the thing is, it's pretty clear that Hunter Biden met her because he frequents lots of strip clubs. To a large extent, IMHO, it's the customers who make strip clubs seedy. They are far from gems of humanity. (I'm sure a number of the strippers aren't either. But… it is a job after all.)
.
It sounds like Hunter got her pregnant (no doubt with her cooperation.) But meanwhile was… well open to whirlwind romances with someone else. Then he denied he'd had sex with her– which, based on the DNA is a lie. And so on and so on. Plus, the reports of the crack smoking. Let me see… did I mention it's the customers at strip clubs who make it seedy? Oh. Yes. I think I did.
.
Lots of people tolerate their son's misbehavior. In some sense that excuses Joe — and I'd say the excuse is just fine. It's good to be forgiving of people. With a caveat: If you overlook major things and expect ME to overlook them, I'm not going to vote for you when you run for a high office. High offices– like president– require judgement and the ability to exercise it even when it might be uncomfortable.
.
Of course, I also didn't (and don't plan) to vote for Trump. I really wish our candidates for president were decent people who's politics align at least somewhat with mine. Oh. Well.
Thanks Mark. Since May (when I started dancing with Vlad) the following have improved:
* Cuban motion.
* Arm styling (not claiming it's great. But some exists. )
* Balance, ability to MOVE. (I forgot to buy my Waltz-Foxtrot-Tango videos. I'd need to show these to explain.)
* A lot of other stuff generally.
But there are a number of things I'm working very hard to fix in the short run. Vlad made a list based on watching these. But one of MY priorities is posture. To look powerful and graceful, you want your sternum UP and no back rounded. I'm not going to claim I think I look like quasimodo, but if you see more advanced dancer, poster is ERECT. The thing about that is *even when the flub* they look more graceful!! So I need to fix that to "win" first places.
.
I came in 2/8 in the "three dance multi" and 3/8 in the "scholarship– also a 3 dance. There were more advanced dancers in that event. There are also heats which have a bunch of finegrained levels, I came in 1 out of 4 in all my "newcomer" heats and did pretty well, in the progressively more competitive heats.
.
My goal was to not come in last in Newcomer, so I was VERY happy because I didn't come in last in ANYTHING. 🙂 (I think Vlad's goal for me was much higher than mine. I think he wants to impress other teachers and pros in addition to wanting me to have fun and get the fun of winning. But that's fine. We were both happy. 🙂 )
Lucia,
It sounds like you've got that competitive drive working for you, and watching you dance it looks like it's working well. Alas, I've had to accept that at my age I'm never going to be a match for the twenty-somethings I take karate with. I mean, I guess it's not utterly physically impossible, but the cost in terms of hours per day and effort and pain are too rich for my blood. I'm happy if I can keep up (more or less) and manage to kick above the belt. AND it's fun, even if I'm just so-so.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/26/20978613/donald-trump-christians-william-barr-impeachment
Another perceptive analysis from a source that I wouldn't expect to be perceptive.
While perceptive about Barr and his reasons for serving Trump, the analysis is flawed by a lack of understanding of Christianity. His own data show that what has really happened is a growth of the "no religion" category at the expense of "mainline" which is the Protestant denominations that have become more and more left wing over this period of time. They have also abandoned traditional Christian doctrines. Evangelicals and Catholics have not suffered declines.
I disagree with Ezra Klein about many things, but he does come up with interesting analysis from time to time.
Lucia,
I suspect virtually all (heterosexual) men have visited a strip club or two. Those men who go frequently probably do tend to be people who are seedy. I agree that a willingness to work as a stripper (including having to put up with some very creepy customers), along with the need for an attractive body, combine make the number of women in that line of work pretty small. I have only known a couple of young women who at some point in their lives worked as strippers; they both had drug problems. I hope that is not too common, but I suspect it is.
David Young,
It is impressive that Kline is at least listening. But I think his focus on religion misses an equally important factor: the willingness, and indeed constant action to undermine the rule of law and the meaning of the Constitution to achieve ‘progressive’ policy goals. The consistent ‘interpretation’ of both law and the Constitution by judges appointed by Obama to undermine plain words and meanings is for many people more alarming than anything else. Had Hillary won in 2016, the SC and most lower courts would be dominated by ‘progressive’ judges…. actively undermining law and the Constitution. Among people who voted for Trump, Federal judges were as big a factor as anything else.
SteveF,
I agree most adult men have probably visited a strip club. But merely visiting one or two once or twice doesn't sound quite like the situation with Hunter.
.
Yes. I suspect most strippers have drug problems. A few don't.
SteveF, Carrie Severino has run the numbers, and if Trump loses re-election then every appeals court will have a majority of Dem nominees. If Trump wins, then majority of appeals courts will be Trump nominees. He is currently at 27%.
mark,
I don't compete *against* 20 year olds. My competition is in my age class. (Right now, that's 51-60. Next year I get to move into the 61-70 age class wooooo hoooooo!!!)
.
Vlad, my "pro" in the pro-am couple is in his 20s. He sort of looks like my nephew Hank, but Hank is older!! (Vlad dances better too. Vlad and his wife came in 5th in "Rising Star" at the Ohio Ball, which is pretty much the American Championship. Rising star is an all pro-competition for youngsters. So they are top class. Obviously, you can't see all his splendid moves when he dances with me, since, he has to be working to cover up my short comings!!)
.
I would rather win than lose. 🙂
Age classes! That'd be perfect if there were more of us. I like to think I'm competitive with the forty somethings. I turn 50 next year.
After Thanksgiving dinner today, I had a conversation with my granddaughter about global warming. She’s a sophomore at Cornell planning to major in Operations Research. Somewhere along the line she has become alarmed about global warming, but she is open to learning more about it. Can anyone recommend some reading for her that’s suitable for a lay person and that objectively explains the status of global warming knowledge.
Karl Kruse,
One of the best introductions is here: https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/
The information is technically accurate and presented in a reasonably fair way. But it is a complicated science, so not a 15 minute (or even 150 hour!) read. If someone wants a reasonable understanding, it will take time and effort. Most people are either unwilling or unable to understand much of climate science. Since your granddaughter is going to Cornell, she surely has the horsepower to follow scienceofdoom, but the further her interests are from math and science, the more effort it will take.
.
That said, I think the most important message your granddaughter can hear is that the controversies and disagreements surrounding climate change/global warming are not primarily about science, but rather about personal values and the balance between perceived costs and benefits of public policies…. where personal values have an enormous impact on the perceived costs and benefits of specific policies. Gaining a basic understanding of the science does allow you to dismiss cranks who know nothing without wasting your time, but does not address the question of fundamental differences in values which are the real source of policy disagreement.
.
The NASA climate model (GISS Model E) calculates a long term warming to doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere of about 3C, while the most credible estimates from measured temperature increase until now (called empirical estimates) place that sensitivity a bit below 2C for a doubling of CO2. But even if main stream climate science were to 100% embrace the lower sensitivity value, it would not change the political disagreement at all! Those who support immediate and draconian reduction in the use of fossil fuels, regardless of cost, would not change their desired policies. Those who oppose most of those policies would not change their position either. This is because people on opposite sides of the debate fundamentally disagree about costs and benefits of draconian reductions in fossil fuel use.
.
The unfortunate result is endless, pointless arguments about the scientific details, which are irrelevant to the real disagreement.
Thanks Steve. The points you raised are what I’d like her to understand. She seems to think the only choice is to deny anthropogenic climate change or accept the dire forecasts. If nothing else, I want her realize the science is not settled and there are legitimate debates about how serious the problem is.
I’ll keep at it.
Karl Kruse,
The other thing is that the effort to reduce carbon emissions must be global. If the EU and the US reduced their carbon emissions to zero but the rest of the world, mainly China, did nothing, it would only delay warming by a few years. China is building a lot of electric cars and nuclear power plants, but they are also still building a lot of coal fired electric generating plants. Also, the EU is largely failing to achieve the relatively modest reductions they agreed to in Paris. The US has achieved modest reductions in per capita CO2 emissions, mainly by replacing coal with natural gas. That was enabled by the invention of hydraulic fracturing, fracking.
For a good introduction to the practical problems associated with decarbonizing the global economy, I recommend The Climate Fix by Roger Pielke, Jr. For his pains to be honest about the problem, he was effectively tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming-ebook/dp/B003Z9JMQQ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3HSEYALYYRU7O&keywords=the+climate+fix&qid=1575080904&s=books&sprefix=climate+fix%2Caps%2C221&sr=1-1
China's emissions is more than EU+US+Russia. India is at half the US level and gaining. Together China and India are about the same as EU,US, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia. The rest of the world is approximately equal to China, and also growing.
The 90% reductions required are not available when the developed countries represent only one third of emissions, and the other two-thirds are growing.
Karl Kruse,
My two cents: We older folks learned in the 1970s that governments and media lie to us (e.g., Viet Nam). Your granddaughter is too young to know this, especially under the barrage of misinformation fed to the young these days. There is little chance she will hear or understand unless someone she trusts points it out carefully and completely where the lies come. It would help if she has a naturally skeptical nature. While links to non-alarmist information are important, understanding the motivations of the doom-sayers is critical for most people to avoid being caught up by emotional pitch. There is a middle ground between the falsely portrayed extremes. It takes stepping out of the pro and con arguments to see the bigger picture of political manipulation. Cornell, like most universities, is deeply sold out to the alarmist meme. One can survive the pressure to conform (I did), but it takes some wisdom and a dedication to understanding what's true and what isn't.
Thanksgiving discussions about global warming, that sounds like the 7th level of he**, ha ha. I had 20 relatives in town last week and we managed to avoid the political hot button topics.
.
SOD is a good site, but requires a big time investment and technical knowledge. Sadly there are almost no sites that aren't clearly on one extreme or the other.
.
It's pretty difficult to not come off as a conspiracy theorist on global warming when the MSM and most of academia are "all in" on the narrative of doom and gloom. Appeal to authority is 99% of any high level discussion on this topic. The fallacious logic here is that science shows the world is warming therefore all the (worst case) predictions of the future should be equally trusted and any expenditure is worth it. Not so much on closer inspection.
.
First of all Team Science doesn't actually make a lot of predictions reported in the media or amplified by activists, they are either single studies by people looking for publicity (it's worse than we thought!) or are couched in a lot of uncertainty and nuance that is dropped by those interpreting those studies.
.
My own path to skeptic-dom was built upon an examination of predictions of hurricanes and sea level rise. If you read the details of the IPCC reports on these subjects and then compare that to the political narrative or reports by environmental journalists there is a huge disparity. In these cases it is the reporting of the data that is fundamentally flawed and Team Science does little to push back on this.
.
As DeWitt also commented there is a major misunderstanding of the future emissions numbers themselves, the path to success is making unsubsidized clean energy cheap and reliable so poor developing economies choose them naturally, not artificially taxing gas in California or installing solar panels in NY.
.
With the shout down culture in place on this subject it would take a lot of dedication to battle the conformists and not a lot of payback for the effort. As it sits now the alarmists are winning the culture war right up until the moment they try to raise gas and energy prices noticeably, then the voters let them know exactly what they think in the voting booth.
Tom Scharf,
The sheep in California are already paying $4.50 a gallon and no voter revolt. I think absolute political power is hard to overcome… in California there isn’t even a real debate. I don’t know how high fuel and electric prices have to rise to start a voter revolt, but I suspect pretty high.
One of my pet peeves is the whole 'tipping point' thing. The activists say (and the MSM repeats without any apparent investigation) that the science says that we only have some number of years to eliminate fossil fuel use globally or the sky will fall. That certainly isn't in the IPCC reports, AFAIK. If it isn't there, then the science doesn't say that.
If it were true, then the sky is going to fall. China, for one, has said that they won't seriously start to reduce carbon emissions until 2030 or so.
SteveF, in my conversations with people from California, I found they didn't know their electricity rates, and they felt their bills were pretty low. The good weather may be reducing demand. One person said her bills were about $30 a month. They appear to use a tiered pricing scheme, so above a certain threshold, the rates go higher, for both electricity and water.
SteveF,
Most of the higher price that is paid for gasoline has to do with smog control (boutique formulations), not global warming. And they have been mostly paying north of $3/gallon for a decade in Los Angeles (about the same in San Francisco). Gas taxes in CA are only a little higher than North Carolina (admittedly something of an outlier), $0.5902/gallon vs $0.5365/gallon.
https://inflationdata.com/articles/historical-gas-price-comparison-chart/
http://www.richmondgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx
Note that the price of gasoline in CA has not tracked the price of crude oil very well. The problem is that even a large increase in gas prices would not reduce the use of gasoline much because there isn't a practical alternative to gas and diesel powered automobiles in CA yet. In LA, for example, it takes all day to get anywhere by bus and there won't be enough electric cars and charging stations for quite a while. Not to mention that electric power in CA isn't very reliable right now.
CA is also a long way from achieving their ZEV mandate. Right now they are counting plug-in hybrids as ZEV's when they're not.
"From 2013 to 2017, government entities in California registered almost 90,000 new vehicles. Only 3.24 percent (2,885) were plug-in hybrids, fully electric vehicles or fuel cells that qualify as ZEVs. In 2017, the vast majority of new vehicles (96 percent) purchased by government entities in California remained traditional gas-powered vehicles."
If even government entities in CA and the other states that have adopted the CA mandate are only purchasing a low percentage (including 0% for Maine) of ZEV's, then the ZEV mandate amounts to virtue signaling, not a serious attempt to reduce carbon emissions.
Oops, forgot to include the link for the quote:
https://autoalliance.org/energy-environment/state-electric-vehicle-mandate/
And so it begins: Google is blocking Trump ads on YouTube. They say the ads violate company policy but apparently won't say what is wrong with them or what policy they violate.
Well…. we'd need to see them to guess the policy they violate.
.
Ok. We can guess anyway, but we need to see them to make a fairly informed guess. Otherwise, everyone's guess is going to be "They advocate voting for Donald Trump." It could be something else though.
.
I suspect we'll eventually see the ads and perhaps be able to guess a different reason.
This is right up there with Bloomberg News promising to not investigate their boss Bloomberg or any other Democrats to be "fair", but still allowed itself to investigate Trump, ha ha. Other fact checkers started out with a real attempt to sort through some abuses but ultimately started making what can easily be perceived as ideological calls on a regular basis. These are the very definition of slippery slopes that only seem to go one direction.
.
Just like in football, the "no call" on marginal penalties is what makes a good referee. The good souls at YouTube will no doubt employ stringent rules for one side for the good of the country because we all know democracy is in danger.
.
I doubt very seriously that political ads have much real influence. Too bad these judges weren't around the last 5 elections in Florida where I was informed very confidently that Republicans were going to eliminate Social Security.
.
The good news is that nobody is really shocked or surprised here because media bias is baked into the electorate's viewpoint now.
NYT: ‘It Just Isn’t Working’: PISA Test Scores Cast Doubt on U.S. Education Efforts: An international exam shows that American 15-year-olds are stagnant in reading and math even though the country has spent billions to close gaps with the rest of the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/us-students-international-test-scores.html
.
NYT: U. Of California Leaders Support Dropping Use of SAT, ACT: Top leaders at the University of California say they support dropping the SAT and ACT exams from admission requirement.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/11/23/us/ap-us-college-testing-uc-admission.html
.
Curiously the new age dogma of standardized testing = BAD isn't increasing scores on standardized tests. Testing only reflects a parent's income is now unassailable truth on the left. Making education and admissions even less transparent and convoluted doesn't seem like a good plan IMO.
Tom
** Testing only reflects a parent's income is now unassailable truth on the left. **
Yeah. The alternative that a test that purports to measure level of preparation does reflect level of preparation is often just set aside.
.
I DO think parents income also predict level of preparation. That's not the tests fault.
.
Parent's income affects it for multiple reasons:
1) Stable income on the high side in and of itself allows stability for the kids. That makes those kids better able to take advantage of educational opportunities. So EVEN IF all kids went to the same school with similar teacher the kids from higher incomes will do better.
.
2) Parents with stable personalities and good habits tend to have stuck to getting education, made good decision, hold jobs. This results in kids being better able to learn.
.
3) To the extent that intelligence and personality is heritable, parents with intelligence and personality that allows them to make more money rather than very,, very little money, have kids who have the same DNA and traits. So they do better in school. This effect is not zero.
.
6) Families that value education will spend to get their kids an education. This same trait generally caused those same family members to get an education for themselves. But regardless, the will cluster in regions with "good" schools because relative to other families, they will spend money on this even if it means sacrificing something else.
.
5) There are probably more factors.
.
I think we will ALWAYS see some measurable trait related to ability to hold well paying jobs, hang on to property, have a stable family, investing in education and so on will be correlated with doing well in school. Sure, it might not end up being "income", but we will see "rich" (in something) families will have kids who, on average, out perform those of "poor" families.
.
I mean… seriously, you know why families from Asia have kids who do well academically? Because those families REALLY CARE about that. The insist kids study. The are willing to spend money when their kids lag. They themselves studied. And so on and so on.
.
They may also have a DNA edge, but we don't need that to explain why the recent immigrant Asians are doing well because we can see what they are doing. Studying. STicking to education. And so on.
lucia: "Because those families REALLY CARE"
Yep. The parents have way more to do with educational success than the schools. We keep crying about failing schools and throwing more money at the schools and putting this or that theory into force. But I suspect the real problem is failing families.
"The parents have way more to do with educational success than the schools. We keep crying about failing schools and throwing more money at the schools and putting this or that theory into force. But I suspect the real problem is failing families."
No, no, it's white privilege that's to blame. /sarc
Pat Moynihan got tarred and feathered for saying something similar about what was happening to black families back in 1965.
Mike M.
The families have way more to do with *relative* educational success. I'm going to do the nitpick because IF schools are really, truly horrible, students will not learn in the school. The baseline will be very low. Parents who care will *still* find someway to remedy this, BUT, their kids will not do as well as if the schools function well with competent teachers, expectations and resources.
.
Families matter. But there is a limit to what a family can do.
.
Having said that: if you look at kids in a *particular* school, in general those with stable families who care about education will outperform the others. AND, inside a particular system, if parents have a choice, parents who care about education will FIND the better schools, or FIND other resources to help their kids.
.
In both cases, stable families (who will, like it or not, on average have greater financial resources) will have kids who do better in school.
I think this thread has hit on what I view as a few insights into education and money spent on it. My take away may be different than others at this blog but I'll throw it out there anyway.
First of all like most government programs the motivation for spending on education is political. That is particularly so with federal spending but it is also there at the state and local levels. It easiest to garner voter attention and favor by spending money on a program and with the ever present thought that if you are against government spending on a program you are against whatever the program claims to be supporting. If voters need convincing that the spending is not resulting in the expected results the political hope and strategy is that by promising more spending the voter concerns can be mollified at least for awhile. This approach is not unique to education nor would it be for government attempts to mitigate climate change. When entities such as the NYT and those writing there, who overwhelmingly favor bigger government, express surprise about a government program and spending failing expectations it usually follows that they either want more government spending directly on the program in question and/or more spending on another factor that they have decided is influential in the matter and also needs fixing.
Politicians and the media, no matter their political persuasion, would not have the temerity to point to the parents as a probable, at least in part, source of the education problem. Or point out that throwing money at the problem has not worked because the primary causes cannot even be discussed.
I believe the point has been made here at this blog that it is not necessarily the wealth of the family that seems to correlate with better education outcomes but attributes associated with procuring that wealth. It has been my observation and close hand that there are examples out there of people with little wealth or financial help who were able to instill qualities in their children that lead to very good education outcomes. I know two single mothers who raised their families with no help and whose children all have college degrees and most with advanced degrees.
DeWitt,
"Most of the higher price that is paid for gasoline has to do with smog control (boutique formulations), not global warming."
.
It is complicated, but I don't think that is a fair characterization. See for example: https://www.kqed.org/news/11755264/why-is-gas-so-expensive-in-the-bay-area
.
While it is true the "official state gasoline taxes" are only a (large) part of the higher price, there are other state forced costs: CO2 cap and trade to reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions (producers have to by CO2 credits from other industries to refine and distribute gasoline), special "low carbon fuel standard" charges, as well as the special low-smog formulation mandated by the state EPA that you mentioned. There is also an "unexplained" difference of over $0.20 per gallon, but most of the higher price is due to state taxes and state regulations; even without the unexplained $0.20 difference, the average cost in California would be >$4.00 per gallon. I spent 10 days in northern California a few weeks back, (Oregon border to Monterrey to the Sierras), and I never saw a price below $4.20 per gallon, and more commonly $4.50 plus.
Gas in the California Central Valley is currently about $3.50 at minor stations, about $4 at the majors. The Ca coast is north of $4 at the minor stations.
.
The differance in cost of gas is more likely due to the major difference in land value which raises the minimum amout you have to charge to stay open.
.
For an example in land value differance, my house in Fresno ( central valley) is valued a bit less than $200k…..a bare lot on the central coast in the Pismo, Grover, Arroyo Grande area goes north of $450k, with homes $600k and higher as the norm. San Francisco and area are higher still.
I've seen several Bloomberg ads on Youtube, specifically saying he will beat Trump.
Trump should just start tweeting out names of Google's competitors as better search browsers.
>will cluster in regions with "good" schools
Which will make those schools score higher, even if the teaching isn't that good.
As a little anecdote. The county where I live proposed a tax hike to primarily pay for school renovation, with some "extras" tacked on like new sports facilities etc. I thought there was no way this was going to fail because "think of the children" right? Well it failed miserably. Not even close.
.
At a birthday party I attended of more affluent parents, some were bemoaning the loss because "think of the children". Some time later, one of the strident supporters of the tax, who decided to get involved at school meetings etc came out and apologized for their support of the tax, citing that the anti-tax side was correct. The money they were already receiving had been woefully mismanaged and they couldn't support giving them more until that issue was rectified (a new manager had already been appointed and had started by cancelling credit cards, which contained items such as trips to a nail salon…).
.
There's still hope left in the world!
MikeN
**
>will cluster in regions with "good" schools
Which will make those schools score higher, even if the teaching isn't that good.
**
There is a positive feedback loop:
(1) large fractions of "good" students make it possible for teachers to deliver high quality classes and hold kids to high standards.
(2) The "good" students, given these high quality classes tend to stick the the high standards and learn more than in other schools. (They also learn more than some other randomly chosen kid stuck in the good school would learn.)
3) Achievement scores to up.
4) The school attracts more "good" students.
.
If I had kids I would CERTAINLY explore options to find a school with the best possible outcomes available given my pocket book. I know *part* of the reason the school does well is it is full of kids who work. But I ALSO know that peer pressure and examples of families of students in the school will affect my kid's outlook of what is normal. So by picking that school, the kid is likely to form an ethic that working on school stuff is "what people do" and eventually see that if you do this, you get better outcomes finanacially and socially than otherwise.
.
Yes. Part of the reason the school does well is it is filled with "good" students, and not necessarily the teachers themselves. BUT I'm pretty darn sure a "good" kid will achieve more in a "good" school than they will achieve in a "bad" school.
.
It might not need to be the BEST school in the world– but pretty good.
DaveJR
**started by cancelling credit cards, which contained items such as trips to a nail salon…**
.
Yeah… at the school where my mom used to teach there was some scandal over a former superintendent. I think he spent discretionary money improperly. I think it was things like buying family members tickets to plays, getting clothing (ties I think?) and …. other stuff. I tried to google to find the details, but it's not a big enough story and I don't know what terms to use. (This was after she retired, but quite a few years back.)
.
Obviously, if this is allowed to go on, more taxes is NOT the solution. When things like this are uncovered, one might also suspect there is other mis-management that is not actual corruption but just bad management.
There is bidirectional cause/effect with income and test scores. The attempts to reduce these disparities to one cause is of course silly.
.
Family values that place a lot of importance on education are also somewhat inherited, although perhaps not so much from DNA even though arguments can be made here as well. "Inheriting" it from the parents care taking, the sibling's influence, and friends/neighbors are all real. These are big advantages and so they are also big disadvantages to those who don't have them.
.
It is forbidden to criticize an identity's culture for failings here, instead a twisty path is created to place blame elsewhere. After decades of blaming everything but these cultural issues and genetics the usual suspects scratch their heads as if there couldn't possibly be any other answer than bad teachers, income inequality, and racism.
.
The black community excels disproportionately in athletics, especially at the extremes. The same arguments of genetics and a culture that places emphasis on athletics can be made but this is yet another discussion that is forbidden. Taking pride in cultural success is crazily now instead a signal for group shaming. How dare you be smart or athletic!
.
The point here isn't to beat this dead dog. It is that science has been made to "not look there at all". It's almost unknown to people that the invisible poor immigrant Asians are some of the top scorers in NYC high school entrance testing. Seems like the social sciences might want to learn from that? They either don't look or they don't report it in the media. Either way it is likely IMO they don't look because they fear the answer that they already know from their own experience. This community cares more, and politicians want to penalize them for it.
There have been real issues with school funding in the past. Allowing wealthy neighborhoods to have spectacular *** public *** schools and highly paid teachers is unfair. You can't donate funds to a specific school in my district, it has to be donated to the general fund. Volunteering can be local though.
.
There are still funding disparities in some areas but this has largely leveled out enough to indicate that school funding by itself doesn't solve many problems. Spectacular teachers do indeed make a difference but this fades over time. It can make a large difference in an individual's life though.
When you vow to leave no child behind (a laudable aim) the most feasible way (avoiding the tangled issues mentioned above) to achieve that is to leave no child out in front. A solution that seems to underpin a lot of "equitable" policy.
lucia (Comment #178073)
"There is a positive feedback loop:"
I was going to mention this factor in my next post. I think it is a large and important factor in both very good and very bad schools with positive and negative feedback loops, respectively. Like earth's climate it is interesting to contemplate how one gets out of these loops for the better or worse. The feedback has to involve the parents, the students, the teachers and the administrators. It also would involve motivation of parents for moving in or out of a good or bad educational situation.
In my observations of different school systems and environments I see money wasted in schools with both bad and good outcomes. Wealthy communities can spend money through higher and more affordable (to them) taxes on showcase items that have little or no effect on basic education.
I had a work colleague who was a liberal Democrat but as frugal as they come in his private life. He was elected to the school board and promptly questioned some of the spending items that he told me the superintendent wanted and with which the board would comply without question. He continued questioning spending items throughout his term of office to the point of being considered an eccentric even though it appeared that he had put forth ideas of his own and was not merely being negative. He did run for a second term and was soundly defeated.
Anecdotally, I remember being at a Parent-Teachers meeting discussing an upcoming school spending referendum and asking about the basis for the prescribed student to teacher ratio and whether there were good statistical correlations on that ratio and learning outcomes when a supporter of referendum told me that it was historical and needed to be sustained. The principal finally intervened by stating that a smaller ratio was desired more for the teacher experience than better student performance. Another supporter of the referendum stated that if this one did not pass another one would soon follow and the money for doing a referendum would be "wasted".
My point here is that I judge that not much out-of-the-box thinking with regard to the educational process is tolerated in the public domain. It may well be technology like the internet that provides a way out – providing the government is kept at arm's length.
You can count me in on my inability to believe that in 2019 the model of "teacher droning on in front of a class of bored kids" is still the primary way education is done. This works for some kids, but others can advance on their own much faster or with light supervision.
.
Would you rather watch an interactive video of someone like Richard Feynman teaching elementary physics or a random selection from mediocre bureaucrats who hate their job do it live?
.
Innovation in education is at a snails pace. Motivated parents can home school or use some programs available in certain areas to advance faster. While my kids were in gifted classes in elementary school I was told by the teachers they were not legally allowed to teach more than one school year ahead. There is massive inertia in the education system.
.
I shouldn't be too harsh, we found ways to get our kids a good public education that resulted in merit scholarships to good schools, it's not all bad. I just don't see a lot of imagination in making education better, especially for the lower end, and some overt efforts such as in NYC to drag down the top end which is reprehensible.
.
You maximize the top end to produce wealth and innovation to improve society, you maximize the bottom end to reduce dependency on society.
Tom Scharf (Comment #178076): "There have been real issues with school funding in the past. Allowing wealthy neighborhoods to have spectacular *** public *** schools and highly paid teachers is unfair."
.
But does it really matter? I think that New York City has the highest public school spending of any large district in the country, but their schools mostly stink. Utah typically has the lowest spending per student of any state but their schools usually rank quite high. Yes, the quality of schools makes a difference, but it is not the main factor. I am guessing that spending has very little correlation with school quality. So spnding might not be a significant predictor at all.
Some states, such as Michigan and Vermont, have leveled school funding. It would be interesting to know if that has had any leveling effect on school performance.
One way out of the negative feedback loop is school choice. It does not directly eliminate the loop, but nothing can. What it does it to allow more individuals to escape the loop, which is a big deal for those individuals. Over time, that should shrink the number caught in the negative feedback loop.
.
The positive feedback loop is a good thing. It should not be destroyed just because it is not universal. It should be expanded.
.
School choice is also a way to encourage innovation in education. Competition does not always result in productive innovation, but I think that monopolies always stifle it.
School choice is an improvement over no choice in public schools but remains a government function and subject to all the politics that entails and including teacher unions using influence to limit and eliminate that option. School choice or any other positive changes are not going to immediately show more than incremental improvements and those small changes can be ignored or buried in analyses by those parties intent on doing away with school choice. In my view school choice is better because it lets parents decide what they think is better for their children and lets them as customers decide instead of a teachers union and politicians beholding to those unions.
If you wanted even more competition I think all educational money that is taken by taxes would have to eventually be allocated to all parents and guardians in voucher form. Unfortunately I do not think that politicians or their big government friends would accept that kind of independence without a major battle.
Another line of thought is that the evidence would suggest that all the low hanging fruit have been picked for improving educational success. One thing all the independent states and county school systems has provided is some experimentation, whether it be forced school busing to charter schools to higher teacher pay to the elimination of dual track classes (i.e. college prep). No silver bullets. We have been in a multi-generational slog of incremental improvement and it looks to continue. The current thinking of just manipulate scoring based on identity is a sign that many people have simply given up. The best advice to parents in some truly terrible schools is still to move out of the neighborhood. This can be very difficult if you have bad credit and no money.
> I'm pretty darn sure a "good" kid will achieve more in a "good" school than they will achieve in a "bad" school.
I think Freakonomics said the opposite. They looked at the results of the Chicago school lottery. The kids who failed the lottery and were stuck in bad schools did as well as the kids who won and were placed in good schools. The causing factor is that the parents put them in the lottery.
The correlation between per student expenditures and student performance (eg standardized 8th grade performance) is weak and noisy. The 'noise' most likely comes from large differences in regional racial/ethnic composition. I suspect if there were a way to accurately account for racial/ethnic composition, the correlation between per student expenditures and student performance would become extremely weak. Yes, large expenditures per student probably *do* make some difference in student performance, but other unrelated factors likely dominate. See for example: https://www.winginstitute.org/does-state-education-funding and compare with some basic ethnic data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_African-American_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Hispanic_and_Latino_population
Pat Moynihan said based on the evidence, the way to make schools better is to move them to the Canadian border.
MikeN,
Surely one of the funniest things he ever said.
.
But poor Moynihan was nearly tarred and feathered for trying to accurately identify the causes of poor educational (and life!) outcomes. I think he understood that culture is the most crucial variable for good educational outcomes. The left refuses to this day to accept the obvious problems Moynihan pointed to.
.
The interesting thing to me is that 'culture is destiny' clearly applies not just on the level of the individual and the local community, but at every scale up to the nation state. Why is Japan much richer than Brazil (where I am sitting at this moment)? It is not land area, nor soil quality, nor climate, nor natural resources… Brazil is infinitely better off in these things than is Japan. It is mostly culture: dedication to education, work ethic, lack of corruption, willingness to save and invest, accumulated expertise and 'organizational knowledge', etc.
MIkeN,
I googled Freakonomics blog on that subject and they had a variety of reports they related. Different "studies" contradicted each other– and most had issues that could interfere with the conclusion. I didn't find anything that was work by the authors themselves. Assuming they did their own study, do you have a link to what the actual Freakonomics authors found?
MikeN,
On freakonomics top page:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/05/24/more-evidence-on-charter-schools/
(note 2013). They quote someone elses study, but it shows the kids who got high lottery numbers (and so likely got into the school) did better than the ones with low lottery numbers (who did not get in.)
=========
The study examines the college readiness of Boston public school students who applied to attend the six charter schools between 2002 and 2008, with projected graduation dates of 2006–2013. In just about every dimension that affects post-secondary education, students who got high lottery numbers (and hence were much more likely to enroll in a charter school) outperformed those assigned lower lottery numbers. Getting into a charter school doubled the likelihood of enrolling in Advanced Placement classes (the effects are much bigger for math and science than for English) and also doubled the chances that a student will score high enough on standardized tests to be eligible for state-financed college scholarships. While charter school students aren’t more likely to take the SAT, the ones who do perform better, mainly due to higher math scores.
The upshot of this improvement in college readiness is that, upon graduation, while charter and public school students are just as likely to go on to post-secondary education, charter students enroll at four-year colleges at much higher rates. A four-year college degree has historically meant a better job with a higher salary, making a spot in one of Boston’s charter schools a ticket to a better life for many students. (We’ll presumably know in a few years whether things actually turn out that way in the longer run for the cohort the researchers are following.)
=======
http://freakonomics.com/2008/03/18/how-can-the-achievement-gap-be-closed-a-freakonomics-quorum/
Quotes stanford prof (2008)
======
In a recent study of New York City charter schools, I compared students who were admitted to the charter schools via random admissions lotteries to students who applied but were “lotteried out.†The beauty of randomization is that the lotteried-in and lotteried-out students were the same — not just in background and prior achievement — but also in motivation. The overall result was that New York City charter school students outperformed the lotteried-out students in math and reading, but not all charter schools had identical success.
======
Ummmmmm…..I was looking for something else and ran across this
.
Police shootings of unarmed black people linked to health problems for black infants
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-12-05/police-shootings-black-people-babies-health
.
"A study of nearly 1,900 fatal police encounters and millions of birth records in California suggests that police killings of unarmed black people may affect the health of black infants before they are even born."
"Joscha Legewie, a sociologist at Harvard University, has studied the ways that aggressive policing can lead to poor academic performance."
.
I think the term "linked to" is doing some mighty heavy lifting here.
Anyway… this was the article I was looking for. The latest extreme exaggeration in sea level rise by the media.
.
California must act now to prepare for sea level rise, state lawmakers say
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-04/sea-level-rise-special-committee-california-assembly
.
"By the end of this century, the sea could rise more than 9 feet in California — possibly more if the great ice sheets collapse sooner than expected."
.
When an unqualified 1M is not enough, go for 2M. If that is not enough then go for 3M. Apparently ice sheet collapse is a certainty now.
.
Hilariously observational SLR rates in CA are pretty low and the CA coast tends to have cliffs and so forth. The linked study shows current SLR rates of 0 mm/yr, 1mm / yr, and 2 mm / yr. The study introduces a new scenario H++ (way higher than RCP8.5) to get to 3M, the document gives no probabilities for this scenario:
"The H++ scenario corresponds to the Extreme scenario of Sweet et al. (2017) and represents a world consistent with rapid Antarctic ice sheet mass loss. Note that the behavior of the Antarctic ice sheet early in this century is governed by different processes than those which would drive rapid mass loss; although the world is not presently following the H++ scenario, this does not exclude the possibility of getting onto this path later in the century."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6168725-RISING-SEAS-SLR-FINAL-REPORT.html
.
The estimates for future sea level rise keep getting higher, unfortunately observations are not complying. This is yet another example of the facts being present to the journalistic and them being willfully ignorant in their reporting. It is shameful.
lucia (Comment #178095): "The beauty of randomization is that the lotteried-in and lotteried-out students were the same — not just in background and prior achievement — but also in motivation."
.
Actually they were the same before the lottery but not after. The ones who got in might have said "I got a break here and better take advantage of it" while those who did not might have said "no point in trying since I am screwed either way". In other words, the mere perception that the charter schools are better could lead to better performance in those schools. I think that is a variant of the Hawthorne Effect.
.
That said, I have little doubt that schools can have some effect. And the mere fact of choice can have an effect, even if all the schools on offer are actually the same. They need only appear to be different.
Tom Scharf,
Yup, the ‘alarming’ sea level projections are nutty. The last 27 years (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) average only 3 mm per year against a geographically stable elevation (the ‘3.3’ mm per year number includes 0.3 mm extra ‘rise’ to account for glacial rebound). There is some evidence of slight acceleration over 27 years, but that is by no means certain. To reach 1 meter rise by 2100 would require an *average* rate of rise of 12.5 mm per year over 80 years, meaning that the rate of rise would have to increase from 3.3 to 22 mm per year. This is much faster than the average rate of rise during the last deglaciation (25,000 to 8,000 years ago)! It is not going to happen. 2 meters? 3 meters?! Completely absurd.
.
The scare mongering about sea level is shameful, but those responsible are shameless political hacks, so they will never stop.
Lucia, I remember it was in the book, and dealt with Chicago Public Schools lottery.
I doubt sea level rise is going to slow down anytime soon and expect it to accelerate *** slowly ***. Decades of stable observed near linear SLR against an imagined 10x near future increase fails the engineering eyeball test miserably.
.
It's unlikely but ice sheets might collapse, nothing wrong with thinking about it. Assuming it will happen for political gain is another thing entirely. What is really scary is 20 feet of SLR in 10 minutes which is what happened in some areas of Japan after the earthquake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RDMc4sQT_2GGE&v=ovGtbp9upz0
.
I wish I could invest my 401K into a SLR gambling pool against my dutifully informed fact driven bastions of integrity MSM. The game now is for Team Science to imagine and publish low probability scenarios to get publicity and future funding followed by the media activists to parrot these extreme scenarios as business as usual findings. Team Science gets away with it because they include all the necessary nuance and uncertainty in the fine print. They include a talking point in a press release. It's embarrassing technically for those who parrot it, and then they lecture the doubters about facts and science.
Education is a collaborative endeavor. It shouldn't surprise that those that are selected either by happenstance of living in the proper neighborhood or by participation in an effective school choice program perform better. Many of the carter schools in my state perform worse than the public schools form which their students were drawn.
The public high school I attended drew from across the entire city and had, probably still has, the most racially and economically balanced student body in the metro area. My generation grew up in the age of busing and our city used magnet schools like mine to avoid forced busing. The only requirement was to score high enough on the entrance test to attend.
This school is regularly the top high school in the state and in the top 70 in the nation. It did however weaken the academics of the remaining neighborhood high schools. The question is should public education prioritize the education of the lucky over the collective.
The decades since have furthered the decline of urban schools due to middle class flight to suburban areas and school choice programs. Those schools are left with those with little to no parental support for education or those with disabilities, whether behavioral or cognitive, that are expensive to teach effectively. 80% if education is labor. An Urban district will have higher costs due to the more challenging students they teach. When teachers are being graded on their student's test scores, it only makes sense that they would prefer to work at schools where they have the best chance to succeed at that. Private schools also have the option to tell students they are no longer welcome. With a public school they are required to educate all the arrive, and at best in my state can expel students for six months before allowing them to return.
My current local suburban district hasn't passed an operating levy since the 90s. Tax levies in my state while voted in by millage, are adjusted yearly to return the same total revenue as the year they were approved by the voters. The schools were pretty effective when I moved there about two decades ago and had one of the lowest per student spending rates in the region. They are now in the bottom 5% of per pupil spending in the state. Academically that is not a group of which you want to be a member. Since they been cannibalizing themselves to balance the budget they are no longer as effective academically as they were. The levy on the spring ballot will probably fail and the decline will continue. I plan on voting for it, even though I've never sent a child through the system.
My step child goes to a private school whose full tuition is 20k a year. As an outsider, I can see that they provide a much better educational environment than my academically rigorous public high school did. He might not score as well on tests as those from my high school, but he will be better prepared for college and life.
Solving public education's problems is not something that can be done easily as much of it is cultural. There is a baseline cost to educate any student body that is dependent on the individuals within that body. It is in everyone's interest to ensure that that baseline is provided to public schools. For one there should beThe way our schools are funded usually provides more funds to those whose baseline needs are actually less. There are no easy answers and even things that should be helpful, like school choice, don't always turn out that way across the board.
MikeN (Comment #178100): "I remember it was in the book, and dealt with Chicago Public Schools lottery."
Seems to be Chapter 5. Summary here: https://www.gradesaver.com/freakonomics/study-guide/summary-chapter-5
Is it really about the same? Or is it no statistically significant difference? The latter is not the same as no difference.
Was performance measured against peers in the same school or against a common standard?
It could be that all it shows is that all Chicago public schools are equally bad.
Or it could be that the Chicago lottery is a mess: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-chicago-schools-elementary-enrollment-problems-investigation-20180220-story.html
Just pointing out some reasons why one study might give a different result from other studies.
Here's what I think is an interesting excerpt from a Terry Teachout play review in today's WSJ:
"Before “Angels in America,†there was “A Bright Room Called Day,†the 1985 history play in which Tony Kushner tried out some of the same expressionistic storytelling techniques that “Angels†would make famous a few years later. Oskar Eustis, whose association with Mr. Kushner is of long and productive standing, thinks the time is ripe for a revival, and it’s not hard to see why. The premise of the play, set in Germany at the moment when the Nazis came to power, is that Hitler triumphed for roughly the same reason that Ronald Reagan was elected: Both men assured their disaffected followers that liberal democracy was the reason for, not the solution to, the troubles of the time. President Trump, Mr. Kushner argued in a pre-opening interview that ran in the Nation, is doing the same thing today."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-bright-room-called-day-review-blaming-the-president-11575396999
If progressives in general actually believe that Ronald Reagan assured followers that liberal democracy was the reason for the troubles of the time, I understand why they don't like Reagan. But that is one of the most wrongheaded statements I've seen. Reagan said that the overly large and largely unconstrained government bureaucracy was the problem, not liberal democracy in general. Not that we actually have a liberal democracy, it's supposed to be a constitutional republic. The Federalist Papers spend a lot of ink talking about the dangers and problems of a democracy.
And speaking of the federal bureaucracy, there's another op-ed which puts a name on at least part of the deep state in DC, the Interagency.
"‘The Interagency’ Isn’t Supposed to Rule
The Constitution gives the president, not a club of unelected officials, the power to set foreign policy."
"Enthusiasm over entrepreneurship is now found in every corner of society—even, apparently, within the federal bureaucracy. Witness after witness in last month’s House impeachment inquiry hearings referred to “the interagency,†an off-the-books informal government organization that we now know has enormous power to set and execute American foreign policy.
The first to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, State Department official George Kent, seemed to conceive of the interagency as the definitive source of foreign-policy consensus. That Mr. Trump’s alleged decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine deviated from that consensus was, for Mr. Kent, prima facie evidence that it was misguided.
Next up, Ambassador William Taylor told the committee that it was the “unanimous opinion of every level of interagency discussion†that the aid should be resumed without delay. Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, gave the game away by admitting how upset she was that Gordon Sondland, President Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, had established an “alternative†approach to helping Kyiv. “We have a robust interagency process that deals with Ukraine,†she said.
What is the interagency, and why should its views guide the conduct of American diplomatic and national-security professionals? The Constitution grants the president the power to set defense and diplomatic policy. Where did this interagency come from?"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-interagency-isnt-supposed-to-rule-11575505183?mod=opinion_lead_pos6
The State Department apparatchiks are shocked and resentful that the President interfered on what they seem to consider as their turf. I suspect this column might have been written in response to Peggy Noonan's column that I noted in the previous thread that in retrospect looks more like a defense of the Interagency than an attack on Trump.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-defenders-have-no-defense-11574382421
Today was a particularly good day for the WSJ. Since the subject was public schools above, here's what I think is a particularly relevant op-ed:
"
Warren’s Insight on Teacher Pay
Spending rises, but layers of bureaucracy swallow up taxpayer money before it can reach the classroom."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/warrens-insight-on-teacher-pay-11575504939?mod=opinion_lead_pos8
"When education-reform activist Sarah Carpenter expressed skepticism about Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s plan to quadruple federal Title I funding for schools, Ms. Warren’s reply was remarkable.
“Listen, I understand that,†the senator said backstage after a November rally in Atlanta. “I got an increase in Child Development Block Grants of 85%, and I told all of my folks back in Massachusetts, ‘You’re gonna get an 85% raise at all of our little child-development centers.’ You know how much of a raise they got? Zero! Somehow it all went to the state government and never made it down.â€
This is an amazing admission. It raises questions not only about Ms. Warren’s and her rivals’ proposals, but also the across-the-board increases in school spending that governors and state legislatures of both parties have undertaken in response to teacher strikes."
"Governors are convenient targets because they are high-profile politicians who oversee billions of dollars. But the unions know that state officials can do only so much. They don’t determine teachers’ salary schedules or schools’ staffing patterns—local school boards do. But for decades, those boards haven’t made teacher pay a priority.
From 1992 to 2014, per student spending at America’s district schools increased 27%, adjusted for inflation. Over the same period, average teacher salaries fell 2%. Where did the money go? Disproportionately, it was absorbed by bureaucracies.
Kennesaw State University economist Ben Scafidi has been documenting the school staffing surge for years. He found that from 1950 to 2015, while the number of students in American public schools doubled and the number of teachers grew by 243%, the number of administrators and all other staff rose more than 700%.
Some of this can be explained by the growth of special education, but not all of it. If we look only from 1992 to 2014, after the special-needs revolution in American education, nonteaching staff grew more than twice as fast as the student population. If the growth in nonteaching staff had merely kept pace with student enrollment during that period, Mr. Scafidi estimates, American public schools would have saved almost $805 billion, or $35 billion a year—enough to give every teacher in the nation a permanent $11,000 raise."
If most of the increase in per-pupil expenditure went to bureaucrats, no wonder there hasn't been an improvement in student performance and teachers are complaining about poor pay.
DeWitt,
"If most of the increase in per-pupil expenditure went to bureaucrats, no wonder there hasn't been an improvement in student performance and teachers are complaining about poor pay."
.
Sure. My wife was finally driven to early retirement from teaching because not only did the massive cost of the ever-expanding, non-teaching bureaucracy keep teacher's pay from rising, it also imposed ever rising time demands on teachers via endless "district-wide programs"….. which accomplished little or nothing. In the end, she said, "I love teaching, but this is just becoming impossible."
.
Just like entropy and irony, bureaucracy always increases.
DeWitt: "If most of the increase in per-pupil expenditure went to bureaucrats, no wonder there hasn't been an improvement in student performance and teachers are complaining about poor pay."
.
But you don't understand. You have *got* to add all those extra administrators in order to ensure that the extra money is spent wisely.
MikeN,
If it's the lottery for Chicago elementary magnet schools:
(a) those aren't charters schools.
(b) those merely specialize in a topic (science, math and so on.)
(c) there's no attempt to have those schools be accelerated, different and so on. The rules aren't different, yada, yada…
In the process of attempting to better understand how the energy budget model, aka energy balance model, or EBM applies to the CMIP5 model workings in the 1861-2005 historical period, I did a rather extensive literature search and some analyses of own. The most bothering discovery for me was the fact that in order to reconcile the changes in individual model global mean surface temperature (GMST) over that period with the independently determined model parameters of climate resistance, Ï, and/or the feedback parameter , λ, required different radiative forcings for the individual models. Since forcing is an externally applied variable and can have only a single set of series values in the observed realization – that the skill of model attempts at reproduction are being measure against – the use of individual model forcings seemed artificial to me. The question also arises from another angle when one considers that the climate sensitivity of an individual model in the historical period is not a good indicator of the resulting GMST changes.
For whatever the reason different forcings were required in the historical period, I was curious about whether that requirement continued into the future period of 2006-2100 where model GMST changes cannot be tested against an observed value and thus are not as important for establishing model skill credibility. I was somewhat surprised to find that in the future period the correlation between individual model parameter like Ï and/or λ and GMST change was very good for almost all models. I also found that while intra historical and future individual model GMST changes correlated well across time and scenarios, the correlation between individual model GMST changes in the historical and future periods was low and negative.
The upshot of these observations to me was that without the connection (correlation) between the historical and future periods for GMST changes, the historical period cannot be used for hindcasting the future period and it reveals little about the predictive skill of the model. After writing up my investigation results in paper format, not for the purpose or any intentions of publication, but rather to test whether I might have gotten something wrong or not thought it properly through, it struck me that while the climate science literature touches on the issues of my investigation it never to my knowledge delves into it sufficiently to make the conclusions I make.
What I need is some feedback from laypersons with some knowledge in this area of climate science. To that end I am linking in this post a copy of my write up that has a main body, a section with tables and figures, a literature reference list and a supplementary information section. Included in the link is my email address for those who might have the time to browse through the write up and have comments on it. I have not taken the time at this point to make the writing more succinct but I think it is at least readable for those with some knowledge of the subject.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/umvbjbssywtii72/Disconnect_CMIP5_Historical_Future.docx?dl=0
A lottery with a testing threshold can be a good system. A straight out lottery just selects for parents who care enough to put their child into the lottery. This is basically a culture bias and is hard to normalize when comparing charter schools to regular schools.
.
We had magnet schools (in the hood …) and school choice for IB and other upper end high schools. Part of the bureaucracy is handling these systems. I was literally amazed at the paper work necessary to get my 2nd grader into a gifted elementary school (all our kids are gifted, am I right?!). They had to be IQ tested by school psychologists and then the "sign off" for the gifted program was like getting a mortgage. I signed like 16 different forms. These processes were "free" to me. I laughed and asked what was going on, and they told me they were being actively sued by both sides, the disadvantaged minority side and the side who thought the process was not based on abilities alone.
.
Our kids did go to the magnet school (in the hood…) and it was humorous that one of the very first things disclosed unprompted at the school program's open house was "your kids will not be in the same classrooms as the local children but they will eat lunch together". They would probably get fired today for saying that, but it was obvious that was on everyone's mind after the drive in and that question was going to be asked. 40 minute bus rides, it was kind of crazy for elementary school (did I mention my wife was Asian, ha ha). All the Harry Potter books got read on the bus and they did get some really good teachers.
.
I do think competition at the high end of education is getting out of control and a thresholded lottery system might help that.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #178130): "the climate sensitivity of an individual model in the historical period is not a good indicator of the resulting GMST changes"
.
That is a very succinct statement of what is wrong with climate studies.
When AR5 came out, I was still defaulting to expert opinion. But when I saw the range of sensitivities given as 1.5 to 4.5C, something clicked. How can that be unchanged from 20 years before? Shouldn't the range narrow as ideas get tested and either refined or discarded? So I downloaded AR5 and started reading. I was shocked to find that all models are treated as equal, no matter how badly they might disagree with actual observations. No effort whatever is made to discredit models and separate wrong from possibly right.
That violates the basic principle of what makes science science.
————
p.s. – I can not access the document. Seems to be in a proprietary format (docx?) that I don't use.
Tom
**I do think competition at the high end of education is getting out of control and a thresholded lottery system might help that.**
Do you mean university? A lottery for state funded universities will NEVER fly.
.
Nor should it. Among other things if a "lottery" is instistited, then connected people will have an "explanation" why some kid with lower credentials gets in while one with higher did not. The opportunities for corruption– to let kids with lower credentials get in– will explode.
.
If admission gets competitive, it gets competitive. Tax payers can decide if they want more state university slots or not. A lottery is not the solution to a decision to keep the total number of slots lower than meets demand.
.
**40 minute bus rides, it was kind of crazy for elementary school (did I mention my wife was Asian, ha ha)**
Long bus rides for k-12 are crazy! But… well… happens.
.
Mind you, the bus ride is crazy. That doesn't mean it isn't preferable to the alternatives available without a bus ride.
.
Bear in mind: The Chicago k-12 "magnets" are NOT "gifted" programs. They are "specialized" — meaning the focus on a particular thing. (Science/math, language, arts etc.) Also– based on googling, kids aren't bused long distances. They can apply to a magnet if they live within 0 to 6 miles. So, the kids are still more or less from a neighborhood.
So since they are *neither* charters NOR "gifted" NOR open to parents from "everywhere" who might consider them "best", parents pick them for different reasons than being "best". Obviously, it will be parents who have preferences,which is different from those who don't. So that's probably a positive. BUT, it's not like parents are trying for NY magnets like Stuyvesant- which require a test for aptitude.
Mike M wrote: "No effort whatever is made to discredit models and separate wrong from possibly right."
.
Reminds me of a Tweet from Mosher posted on Cliscep a few days ago. No idea where it came from originally.
.
"We think that the diversity of ECS across CMIP6 should be celebrated; it means that groups are daring their models to be imperfect, and this will ultimately aid understanding and drive progress."
.
The defense given is that this shows they are avoiding group think. One has to wonder what progress has been made so far and, more to the point, what measures are in place to judge whether things are actually "progressing".
Unlike Chicago, those living on the fringes of Cincinnati can generally reach the center in a half hour. The single school magnets tended to be towards the center of the district and we lived on the southeastern boundary line of the district. We caught the bus just after 6am for school 22 miles away. With all the stops along the way it was a 40-50 minute ride. Walnut Hills, the school I attended, requires passing an academic test. The only other magnet not lottery based is the School for Creative and Performing Arts which has auditions. Back in the day you would have parents camping out over night to get their kids spots as it was first come first served.
Mike M. (Comment #178132)
December 6th, 2019 at 10:22 am
I have converted a copy of my write up to a pdf (for those of you who cannot open the docx format) and linked it here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jvps550us39npd1/Disconnect2.pdf?dl=0
My biggest concern is the disconnection between the historical and future periods and the implication that the relative predictive skill of the models in the future cannot be determined from the historical. It puts the problem back to comparing a measure of climate sensitivity between the models and the observed. That process has its own limitations and large uncertainties. I do think that Nic Lewis has a good handle on that comparison and I look forward to his future original papers in this area of climate science and his criticism of others work in this area.
I have major reservations about interpretations of most studies dealing with human behavior simply because humans and their actions and behaviors are very complex and very individual and thus difficult to fit into any model. Those reservations would include modeling educational outcomes and grouping people into factors.
Some might think my views are too much colored by my adherence to individualism and the role of the individual in the betterment of themselves and society as a whole, but I judge that we should consider the role of self-fulfilling prophecy in these matters. If people are convinced that they belong to a group that on average has predicted negative outcomes that prediction can come true for that individual simply because they believe it will and their behavior will be aligned to fulfill those beliefs.
Of course self-fulfilling prophecy can work in a positive manner. Studies that get published and noticed in the media are often those involving negative outcomes that are used by politicians to call for a government program to fix it. What if the study instead focused on the end of the distribution that had positive outcomes for a grouping that would normally have expectations of negative outcomes? What would a further in-depth study of those individuals find?
> 40 minute bus rides, it was kind of crazy for elementary school
I was once stuck behind a Dade Co. school bus to Key West doing its dropoffs.
>Unlike Chicago, those living on the fringes of Cincinnati can generally reach the center in a half hour.
At the right times, this can happen in Chicago too. The ending of Blues Brothers is way off- they are really there not at opening time but several hours early if leaving Joliet after a night concert and headed to downtown Chicago.
Mike M,
“Shouldn't the range narrow as ideas get tested and either refined or discarded?â€
.
That is rhetorical…. but I will reply. Yes, of course the range should narrow. That it does not is as damning a commentary on ‘climate science’ as exists. The failure to discard (aka stop funding) the craziest of the models is bad politics…. and bad science. Funny how those two seem always hand in hand.
.
The only valid test of a model is comparison of predictions with observed (future!) reality. The models will always hind cast reasonably well… there is no limit to the fudges and tweaks which can be applied. The ‘problems’ with a legitimate model test are two-fold: such a validation would take decades, and the alarmed have already made up their minds=> stop using fossil fuels *now*, not in four to six decades. The obvious lack of global calamity after a rise of ~1.25C since the late 1800’s is why voters are not that interested, and why the projections by the alarmed become ever more unhinged: multiple meters of sea level rise in a century, much of the Earth becoming ‘uninhabitable’, global famine, the collapse of civilization, collapse of all ecosystems, and the extinction of humanity. It is all so nutty that it would be humorous were it not so so much a danger to freedom and liberty.
Kenneth,
I will read it over the weekend and post here what I think.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #178130)
“ The most bothering discovery for me was the fact that in order to reconcile the changes in individual model global mean surface temperature (GMST) over that period with the independently determined model parameters of climate resistance, Ï, and/or the feedback parameter , λ, required different radiative forcings for the individual models.â€
–
Why?
If models use different settings for response to the many parameters they use, and they do, then they must have different projections into the past and future from the other models
“the correlation between individual model GMST changes in the historical and future periods was low and negative.â€
–
“Since forcing is an externally applied variable and can have only a single set of series values in the observed realization – that the skill of model attempts at reproduction are being measure against – the use of individual model forcings seemed artificial to me.â€
–
When hindcasting to a known GMST with wrong assumptions, the so called emergent ECS that is already inputted, and with a fixed TOA something has to give.
In this case the one figure that should be constant has to be varied, ie the radiative forcing.
–
“I was somewhat surprised to find that in the future period the correlation between individual model parameter like Ï and/or λ and GMST change was very good for almost all models.â€
–
As it should be. Most of the common model parameters must be shared between all the model platforms. It is the hidden assumptions on the degree of cloud cover and how much energy might be gained or lost that separates the models and makes them diverge despite fixed TOA etc.
–
“The upshot of these observations to me was that the historical period cannot be used for (hindcasting?) the future period and it reveals little about the predictive skill of the model.â€
–
Curve fitting the past is obviously not helpful.
Using the past data to predict the future is sensible.
Comparison to reality shows that the built in assumptions in mosmost models (emergent ECS) is badly wrong and the predictive skills are lowish.
–
Thanks for all the effort you put in. I hope you find some people here who are able to help you or put you in touch with people who might be interested.
I'm shocked (shocked!) that a Saudi national would do this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7766473/Saudi-Air-Force-trainee-condemned-nation-evil-hate-fueled-Twitter-manifesto.html
.
Note two other Saudis are said to have filmed the attack as it happened, presumably for propaganda. The question in my mid is: Why would you EVER have Saudi nationals on a US military base? It's crazy. A large portion of the Saudi population loathes both the USA and Israel; that has not changed in decades, and is unlikely to change in the future. I hope the Trump has the good sense to end training of Saudi military personnel in the USA immediately.
Kenneth,
I think your paper is a useful contribution. The concept of using an impartial mathematical procedure (CEEMAN) to identify historical secular trends helps to discount any claims of bias in the analysis. Figure 3 really lays out the problem beautifully. I would say "for goodness sake, publish it", but I know it might be difficult to get past the gatekeepers.
.
I think it is probably widely recognized that 'past performance is no guarantee of future accuracy' with the models, but it is not something that is widely discussed, at least not publicly, and certainly not by those who push alarm. If you could get it published, that would be very good.
MikeN “bus ridesâ€
.
When I was in middle school the school system in my small farming town was impactd by a very large federal building project for a number years. The schools went to two split shifts, morning and afternoon sessions to cover the influx of new students.
.
I got on the bus at 6am and off the bus home in the evening at 6pm, for 4 hrs of school. Both shifts used a single bus route.
.
What fun
Thresholded lottery. The issue I see is the over-competition for the top spots is placing an undue burden on children for their parent's ego. The other issue I see is the middle and lower skilled brackets don't know the current group think in order to impress the admission's committees. The one person who got into a top school from my daughter's high school year was someone who created their own foundation for disadvantaged minorities. I might be a bit skeptical of where that idea originated and the efficacy of this foundation. These are the secret handshakes occurring with college admissions.
.
The reason I favor a system like a lottery is for transparency reasons. As it is there is no replacement for more, more, more application fillers. My daughter's school had a volunteer requirement of X hours per year. This might seem sane until you realize that you could not replace this with an actual paid job. California schools say they judge an applicant on 14 separate criteria. The current movement is to obfuscate admissions and I think this just opens the door for more corruption. The meritocracy was supposed to solve the corruption problem, but it seems to have fallen to the same weaknesses as the previous aristocracy did. The desire to maintain power is universal, and once the clever are in power, it gets even harder to root out corruption.
Tom Scharf,
"The one person who got into a top school from my daughter's high school year was someone who created their own foundation for disadvantaged minorities."
.
I am guessing that they were not holding down a part time job at 7-11 or McDonald's 6 days a week to make ends meet and save for college. I could NEVER have gotten into a competitive school based on my high school record if grades and test scores didn't count any more…. hell, I was working all the time when I wasn't studying or practicing varsity sports. Only the offspring of the wealthy can do things like creating a foundation for the poor. Which I guess is the whole point.
SteveF,
Also, only kids related to very wealthy people would ever even *think* of creating an entirely new foundation (which they then control). Someone middle class might come up with the idea of raising money and *giving* it to a charity (or foundation) *someone else* runs.
.
Creating a foundation requires understanding some legal niceties. In the end, it might not be horrifically, hard- but you it's a hurdle. Kids (heck lots of people) don't generally think to do that sort of thing. The would need to do some work to teach themselves what needs to be done.
.
The wealthy have attorneys, accountants and so on. They know about foundations. A wealthy kids parents or grandparents might suggest the foundation and guide the kid on the legal niceties. They might also help them contact people who might donate.
Lucia,
"Creating a foundation requires understanding some legal niceties. In the end, it might not be horrifically, hard- but you it's a hurdle."
.
For sure. Last year my wife started a non-profit corporation to accept donations for the sewing school she founded for poor people in Haiti (in fact poor *women* in Haiti, no men ever signed up). The paperwork was daunting, followed by a very long delay (many months) awaiting IRS approval. I really doubt a middle class kid working part time would (or could!) open a non-profit in their spare time. A non-profit foundation would likely be more complicated.
SteveF,
I doubt even a middle class kid who was NOT working could do it. This is something that would require help from motivated adults. These are generally going to be either
.
* Quite prosperous adults who work in law/finance or do something helping people set up small businesses. OR
* Really wealthy adults who hire staff to help them with money, laws etc.
.
I bet your wife talked to a lot of people in addition to reading things, interpreting rules and so on. A kid would rarely be able to do it on their own AND if you were a parent, you would want to be spending time making sure the process is not screwed up.
Tom Scharf (Comment #178150): "The issue I see is the over-competition for the top spots is placing an undue burden on children for their parent's ego."
.
That competition comes about because getting into the top schools is all about connections and credentials, not education.
.
Tom Scharf: "The other issue I see is the middle and lower skilled brackets don't know the current group think … the secret handshakes occurring with college admissions."
.
Working class families probably don't even know that there is a secret handshake.
.
Tom Scharf: "The reason I favor a system like a lottery is for transparency reasons. … The current movement is to obfuscate admissions and I think this just opens the door for more corruption."
.
Yes, I see the logic of that now. Doing that would be devastating to the fund raising of the elite institutions. That would be a good thing, but it will never be allowed to happen.
.
Tom Scharf: "The meritocracy was supposed to solve the corruption problem, but it seems to have fallen to the same weaknesses as the previous aristocracy did. The desire to maintain power is universal, and once the clever are in power, it gets even harder to root out corruption."
.
The understanding of how that works is as old as the term 'meritocracy'. It was coined by Michael Young to describe a dystopian future society in the novel "The Rise of the Meritocracy". I have not read it, but I have heard that it is remarkably prophetic.
SteveF (Comment #178148)
December 7th, 2019 at 12:03 pm
Thanks, Steve, for the feedback. I have no intentions of attempting to publish on my own. Now, if I could get someone with a good publishing record like a Nic Lewis interested it might be worth the effort to try. Unfortunately in my communications with Nic I find that he is currently very busy with something of which I am not sure but expect it might have to do with the CMIP6 models. Nic has always been helpful to me in taking time to answer questions I have presented to him in private communications or online.
As an aside, in getting responses from climate scientists in general the exception for me has been a non response.
angech (Comment #178146)
December 7th, 2019 at 8:03 am
"When hindcasting to a known GMST with wrong assumptions, the so called emergent ECS that is already inputted, and with a fixed TOA something has to give.
In this case the one figure that should be constant has to be varied, ie the radiative forcing."
Always happy to know others see this apparent contradiction. I was surprised to find that it was not immediately apparent to all climate scientists with whom I communicated. Thanks for the feedback, angech.
Kenneth,
You may be right about Nic Lewis and the CMIP6 results. Gavin already had a carefully worded post at RealClimate about the CMIP6 model results being significantly higher in sensitivity (on average) than either the GISS model or the CMIP5 ensemble. More divergence from the measured trend and from empirical estimates of sensitivity (like Nic’s!) will not help the credibility of the models.
Zeke Hausfather at Carbon Brief has presented some interesting data for the earlier publications of the CMIP6 models. While the data presented for climate sensitivities and hindcast temperature trends for 1880-2019 are not complete or synchronized at this point in time, it shows a higher ECS and a slightly lower hindcast trend than that for the CMIP5 models. Without some newer evidence and explanations of how increasing climate sensitivities can lead to lower hindcast trends, it will, I would expect, put the CMIP6 models even more disconnected between the hindcast (historical) period and the future predicted period than that I found for the CMIP5 models.
I look forward to having CMIP6 model data available to analyze.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained?utm_content=buffera5cb9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Only in climate ‘science’ can the expenditure of many billions of dollars of tax payer money lead to ever lower confidence in understanding, and ever greater discrepancy with measured reality. The stupid models are clearly wrong….. very wrong.
Tom Scharf
**Tom Scharf: "The reason I favor a system like a lottery is for transparency reasons. … The current movement is to obfuscate admissions and I think this just opens the door for more corruption."**
I oppose most lotteries because they open doors for corruption. You want to obfuscate admission? Claim it was done by lottery.
Certainly anything can be corrupted, but something like a lottery of "everyone who scores over 1400 on the SAT gets into the lottery pool and admissions are randomly picked from that pool" would be easier to validate than what we have now which is secret committees who don't like the personality of Asians.
.
This may be another "looks good on paper" idea which fails miserably in practice. There would be huge infighting on the lottery requirements, etc. but the middle and lower classes don't have a clue what it really takes to get into the highest end schools. Maybe kids who start their own foundations, win national physics competitions, get perfect scores on the SAT at 14 and so on deserve to win the slots. Most people don't even know about national physics competitions and couldn't graduate earlier even if they wanted to. For example my sister who lives in WV didn't even know what a PSAT was, this was given at my daughter's school and provides full rides to any school in FL if you score in the top 1%.
.
Education is supposed to be a great equalizer for equal opportunity. I believe the system is obfuscated to the benefit of the upper class. Motivated upper class parents are always going to work hard and take advantage of any system better for their children. The goal is to make the system immune to this as much as possible without artificially bringing the top kids down. I bet a Harvard admission's officer can read an essay and pick out the socioeconomic class of the child with 95% accuracy. "While participating in a lacrosse demonstration in Costa Rica I cried as my limo drove by the slums of those less fortunate then me" ha ha.
“While participating in a lacrosse demonstration in Costa Rica I cried as my limo drove by the slums of those less fortunate then meâ€
.
LOL!
"Education is supposed to be a great equalizer for equal opportunity. I believe the system is obfuscated to the benefit of the upper class. Motivated upper class parents are always going to work hard and take advantage of any system better for their children. The goal is to make the system immune to this as much as possible without artificially bringing the top kids down."
I think this discussion is too limited when referencing education and perhaps a bit hung up on social and wealth class. Education in a broader sense includes learning outside the class room and has practical consequences when applied outside the class room. The successes and satisfactions of outside the class room activities and experiences become less class related and more individual initiative related. The college kid who works during the summer and is exposed to a variety of real life experiences is probably going to be better prepared for both college and what comes after than the kid whose college is guaranteed and who spends summers at the beach.
That the difference of the kid working and the one at the beach has everything to do with family wealth or class is in my view and experiences not necessarily a valid one. In college I saw kids from relatively well off families work during the summer and the school year and those from families where parents worked hard to finance their offspring's education who did not work very hard at school or outside of school.
Whatever the class of the family, motivation for seeing their children prepared for world in my view is not going to be limited by wealth or social standing. Nor is their understanding of how that is best accomplished. Brand name colleges can probably open doors in a rather superficial way for a limited number of careers, but gaining the tools for a lifelong educational process and dealing with life in general is certainly not limited to brand name high schools or colleges or to schools alone.
A worst case scenario in these matters would be the wealthy parents who are motivated by class consciousness or their own ignorance of living in a real world to protect their offspring from that world and thinking that all that is parentally required of them is getting their offspring into a brand name college. Life's experiences can then be even more confined by the views of their progressive professors.
Thankfully, confining the offspring's world these days is not so easily accomplished – even by wealth and social status.
Tom Scharf
**Certainly anything can be corrupted, but something like a lottery of "everyone who scores over 1400 on the SAT gets into the lottery pool and admissions are randomly picked from that pool" would be easier to validate than what we have now which is secret committees who don't like the personality of Asians.**
Ok… but that's not a pure lottery anymore. It's limited to people who got over 1400 on the SAT. Get only 1399 and you don't make the cut. Obviously, the criteria for the cut becomes VERY important. If the criterion were the SAT, then wealthy parents might start hiring people to take their kids test. …. Oh. Wait….
.
But really, this "lottery" would not eliminate the advantage of rich parents NOR prevent people with "inside information" from figuring out which factors matter. In the above: the SAT and only the SAT. GPA? pfffftttt!
.
Obviously, if you have some criterion *in addition to* the lottery, people are going to argue what that should be. Why the SAT? Why not weighted average of SAT and class rank by percentile? Why not SAT, weighted average of class rank and making state finals in a sport? If we start having something IN ADDITION to the lottery, the lottery does nothing to avoid the "lets keep asians out" problems because the other things can be fiddled with just as much with as without the lottery.
.
And "lottery and nothing else" is CRAZY for higher education. It's quite obvious you can't have a high quality education program if kids who can't read have an equal chance of admission relative to kids who graduated top in their class and got great board scores.
.
AND unless a lottery is done in public and overseen by an independent accounting firm, there is NO WAY it can't be fiddled with. (And even if done in public, there is probably a way for someone to pull a fast one.) So no: I don't think "lottery" for higher education solves any problems– and makes lots of problems worse.
lucia,
**"It's quite obvious you can't have a high quality education program if kids who can't read have an equal chance of admission relative to kids who graduated top in their class and got great board scores."**
Some years back, CUNY had an open admissions program. They took everyone who wanted to go. It was a disaster. Some of the students were so far behind that remediation was simply not possible. The near bankruptcy of NYC in 1975 and the election of Rudy Guiliani as mayor in 1993 effectively ended the program. Of course the left blames it all on institutional racism and uses disparate impact as proof rather than putting the blame where it probably belongs, the rise of the welfare state, particularly AFDC, and the resulting decline of the black family as documented by Moynihan in 1965 and terrible public schools thanks in part to teacher's unions.
Here's a likely typical progressive view:
https://www.psc-cuny.org/clarion/february-2018/revisiting-open-admissions-cuny
Kenneth commented on this, but I will too
**"Education is supposed to be a great equalizer for equal opportunity. I believe the system is obfuscated to the benefit of the upper class. Motivated upper class parents are always going to work hard and take advantage of any system better for their children. The goal is to make the system immune to this as much as possible without artificially bringing the top kids down."**
.
That's A thing some hope education might be. But it's not the only thing. Good, appropriate, education for everyone at whatever level then can benefit from is also a way to raise the overall standard of living for a group because educated people tend to be able to add more value to "the economy" than they could otherwise. They add value to "the economy" by being able to provide goods and services OTHER people value. This increases the mean and median standard of living.
.
This is useful whether or not the education "equalizes" the opportunities of people born into different social or economic strata.
In fact, I think it is the more useful function of education. The "equalizing" opportunity aspect is useful, but, that only really suggests people "trade places" within a static economy. The improving the median and mean standard of living is more important and doesn't necessarily require any "equalizing" per se.
.
To achieve this more important goal, we need to make sure educational institution can remain *good* and not waste resources by trying to "fix" the situation by depriving those who could benefit from a good education merely because those people *lost a lottery*. Formalizing a random element like this is simply not an improvement.
DeWitt
**Some years back, CUNY had an open admissions program. They took everyone who wanted to go. It was a disaster.**
.
Yeah… My 87 year old Mom grew up in Staten Island. We were talking about what options a friends nephew might have. She said "City Colleges are always excellent and inexpensive.". I was like…. Uhmmm CUNY is NOT a good school.
.
I didn't know it has ONCE been a good school before they decided to institute "anyone gets in" and then try to deal with unqualified admits with remedial education.
.
That policy was bound to move the school into the academic toilet– for many reasons. It did so.
I made up the term "thresholded lottery" to mean a lottery with transparent entrance requirements, maybe a better term is available. I agree an overall random lottery would be crazy. Another advantage of this system is most kids and parents can stop stressing once they know they have made the lottery, and the real strivers can keep doing their thing because they want to. The point here is to remove hidden knowledge only accessible by wealth and class to entrance.
.
It would be even better if some of the magic elixir of making it into a top school was spread out to the almost top schools as their students are nearly equivalent. There are no "95% of MIT, Harvard, Princeton et. al." schools out there in the public's imagination.
Tom,
**Another advantage of this system is most kids and parents can stop stressing once they know they have made the lottery, and the real strivers can keep doing their thing because they want to. **
This isn't an advantage over the current system. Currently, students can stop stressing once admitted. The strivers who are not admitted can also keep striving. So the lottery changes nothing in this regard. All you've done is inject an utterly random elements so that some deserving strivers lose out merely because they didn't get a good number in the lottery.
.
Of course there are other almost MIT, Harvard, Princetons. People know these schools. There is Vanderbilt, Duke, Carnagie Melon, lots of top-state universities and so on.
Where does the NYT and most of the MSM go for authoritative comment from academia? When smart people show up in books and movies, where are they from? It's not 51% MIT and 49% Carnagie Melon. These institutions have an outsize cultural effect. It's a good thing for them but the question is how deserving are they at this point? Their reputation is based on their reputation. There is a huge battle to get into these places for a reason. The battle is *** admissions ***, not the classes. Go to College Confidential and you will find almost no Type A parents worried about their kids being able to handle the classwork but serious stress on a child's admission resume.
.
Is access to the top tier schools fair enough? Meh, it could be worse I guess, like maybe removing standardized test scores, bribing your way in, and awarding points by identity characteristics. I'm not arguing against a top tier if equal opportunity is good enough. It's getting worse, not better.
.
What I found rather illuminating is when there was liberal distress over the 2016 election, they went straight to Columbia and Harvard for explanations of what was wrong with rural America, not the almost top schools located in … rural America.
Tom,
I'm not under the impression NYT goes to MIT only for authorotative comments from academia. Admittedly, I don't read the NYT. We get the WSJ. In movies, professors are spread out all over the place.
DeWitt,
"It was a disaster. Some of the students were so far behind that remediation was simply not possible."
.
Been there, done that. I tutored 'disadvantaged' students when I was a junior and senior, and it was utterly hopeless. You don't go from not even grasping basic algebra and geometry to understanding calculus very quickly….. or maybe ever. They all flunked out, despite much remedial tutoring.
Lucia,
"In movies, professors are spread out all over the place."
.
Sure, but in the real world (or as real as Congressional hearings are), it is almost always professors from famous schools that are called upon to testify…. there is an overwhelming 'snoot' factor which remains terribly important. Same thing with SC nominations… all snoot, all the time.
SteveF (Comment #178212): ""You don't go from not even grasping basic algebra and geometry to understanding calculus very quickly….. or maybe ever."
.
Math is cumulative. Late last century, Sheila Tobias (Arizona State, I think) did an experiment on bringing math-phobic college students up to speed. She gave them a questionnaire to determine the point at which they last felt comfortable with math. It was often some point in grade school. Then the tutoring began at that point. If memory serves, it then took something like 6 weeks to bring them up to speed.
Mike M,
Of course math is cumulative. But if you can go from grade school math to competent in calculus in 6 weeks, that is nothing short of a miracle….. and I don't believe in miracles. It also means that everyone who is math incompetent (a frightening portion of the adult population) could 'come up to speed' (whatever that means) in a very short time. The juniors, seniors, and grad students (all with 3.5 GPA or better) at my school had to have been utterly incompetent. Color me skeptical.
Headline from NBC news: "Internal Justice watchdog finds that Russia probe was justified, not biased against Trump"
.
Horowitz actually said that the initial probe was justified under the (lax) rules at the FBI for starting investigations. What he could as easily have said is that he found no evidence in documents where agents stated plainly their motives were political. Of course he would never find that. If you read the executive summary in total, it becomes very clear: Either the FBI was VERY politically motivated, or the FBI is grotesquely incompetent and abusive of its powers. Neither is good for the FBI. Count on many heads rolling at the FBI… and some at the DOJ.. and new rules put in place essentially prohibiting investigations of political campaigns on flimsy grounds.
.
Any sentient person looking at the willful deception and withholding of key information in the FISA applications understands the entire process was designed to 'get Trump'; Trump was the target from day 1. Brennan (and Obama!) disclosed the existence of the Trump investigation to the Russians, but refused to tell Trump… for fear he would 'tip off the Russians'. It is all a pile of ridiculous lies. The Obama administration wanted to make sure Trump did not get elected, or if he did, could be driven from office. IMO, they should all be sitting in prison.
Steve,
I wanted to remark on that yesterday, but I didn't want to disturb the education related discussion.
———————-
"What he could as easily have said is that he found no evidence in documents where agents stated plainly their motives were political."
———————-
Yes. This irritated me. I get the sense that they read a bunch of documents and interviewed a bunch of people, and nobody they interviewed indicated that there was political bias, and nobody had written in any documents that political bias was motivating them. On this basis the media is trumpeting that it has been established that there was no political bias.
Puhleeze. What a whitewash joke.
.
The other thing I find interesting is the basis for the investigation of candidate Trump. Apparently, an FFG (friendly foreign government (Australia in this case? Here https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html ) can cause our FBI to investigate a Presidential candidate, while the President of the U.S. has committed an impeachable offense if he suggests to a foreign government that they investigate a U.S. Presidential candidate.
I sort of have an issue with that. I don't think our system ought to work this way. A 'friendly foreign government' can spawn a clandestine investigation of a candidate here in the U.S., but the President is impeachable if he suggests to a foreign government that they open an investigation into a candidate. Something's definitely off about that, in my view.
I had the white privilege (ha ha) of helping grade tests one semester when my wife taught high school math classes. The traditional (read not college prep) Algebra class was a complete utter disaster. They literally couldn't do fractions at all, among other missing pieces. A few didn't even fill out anything but their name on the test. My wife complained to colleagues that 80% of them are failing, she was told in very explicit terms that she had to pass them. Give them D's if they make any effort at all. This wasn't in some disaster of a school, it was the lower end students of a middle class neighborhood.
.
FL's "Nobody left behind" policy was intended to really be "leave behind people who fail until such time as they pass" in order to solve this exact problem. I have never grasped why this policy is a problem. Those with alleged empathy for failing students instead choose to pass them but I just don't see this as doing them any favors in the long run. They allow this to happen but carefully hide its existence and ask for more and more school funding.
I don't think outsourcing the responsibility for starting investigations to "friendly foreign governments" is such a hot idea. I don't see how [U.S.] voters hold Australia's government accountable.
There needs to evidence of political bias for a formal report to state there was political bias. If there isn't any, the report needs to make that clear. This was always going to be the conclusion I expected. Career bureaucrats aren't going to write this kind of stuff down or get caught saying it, it's how they got to the top in the first place. If they do something idiotic such as this, then they get Strzok'd out of the FBI early on. Career leadership isn't also likely to make any of these type of decisions based solely on rank partisanship without a high level of plausible deniability. They value their jobs more than anything.
.
They got their steaming pile of a Trump investigation, Trump got elected anyway, FBI leadership was embarrassed, got fired, and is under investigation themselves now. This was not a win by any measure for the partisans, and I very much doubt we will see anything like this again soon.
The FISA app was not included, so still no idea what crime they accused Page of committing. IG says they used Steele Dossier in probable cause section. However, no mention is made of the last minute reports from Steele that included bribery. IG report says Steele's source never said anything about brokerage fees- Steele made it up.
The third renewal of the Page FISA had one attorney faking documents to hide that Page was working with the CIA. This would weaken the evidence that Page is a foreign agent. It is not clear why this person was so desperate to preserve a fruitless wiretap in July 2017.
When FBI was pursuing its FISA, it was not verifying details Steele gave them. They were doing both simultaneously, and were very eager to have that FISA up by Monday October 17, according to Lisa Page. That same day, they had wired up Stefan Halper to talk to Carter Page, and the third debate was Wednesday Nov 19. Halper asked Page about 'October surprise' by the campaign.
SteveF (Comment #178216): "But if you can go from grade school math to competent in calculus in 6 weeks, that is nothing short of a miracle"
.
Yes, that would be remarkable. I am pretty sure the 6 weeks (or whatever it was) was full time immersion. It was an experiment, so probably had highly motivated tutors and students. I am pretty sure the subjects were not inner city kids from dysfunctional schools. The were probably middle class kids from suburban schools who were able to gain admission to a decent state university. So they would have had greater intellectual capacity than the average high school student and much greater than the average middle school student. And they had already taken and passed the usual math courses, so there would have been a lot of "oh, now I understand that".
The point is not the six weeks. It is the need to go back to wherever the student first got left behind.
Tom Scharf,
“This was not a win by any measure for the partisans, and I very much doubt we will see anything like this again soon.â€
.
I hope you are right about that. But Democrats in the House have already made clear they will never stop investigating (and trying to impeach!) Trump, even if he is re-elected. The only way the nonsense stops is if Democrats lose control of the House; IMO, their non-stop investigate-Trump mania makes that ever more possible. Really, all those moderate Dems elected in Trump districts who vote for impeachment will be at risk of losing in 2020….. and many of them will. It’s only a question if enough lose to flip control. A happy thought: Nancy Pelosi is driven to retire after losing control of the House (yet again); it always brings a smile to my face
Even if there were adequate grounds to initiate an investigation of the Trump campaign, it is criminal that the investigation continued to be renewed even after it turned up nothing.
Obviously the only function of the House is to investigate the opposing President. It's all very tiring and repetitive. The Republicans will impeach the next Democrat President at the drop of a hat once they get the chance, everyone knows it. I would not even show up for the impeachment vote at all if I was the Republicans.
.
One feature of corrupt foreign authoritarians is they can pick a fight with a foreign adversary to distract the locals from infighting when necessary.
MikeN,
“It is not clear why this person was so desperate to preserve a fruitless wiretap in July 2017.â€
.
The only way it makes sense to me is if the FBI is allowed (under its in-house rules) to ‘hop’ a FISA investigation once to people with whom the target communicated in the past, and/or a second hop to people with whom the target never directly communicated. Two hops would put the Trump campaign, and maybe Trump himself, under constant FBI watch so long as the Page warrant is in effect. Does the FBI ‘hop’ FISA warrants? AFAIK, nobody is even asking this crucial question.
.
I believe there have been multiple published reports that the (likely prison-bound) lawyer was stridently anti-trump and devoted to finding a way to drive Trump from office. Let’s see: an FBI lawyer willfully falsifies a document submitted to a Federal court, specifically to mislead the court into a mistaken decision. Should be worth a year or so in Federal prison plus permanent disbarment. That would be a reasonable outcome. I sure hope the DOJ settles for nothing less.
It would make sense if this lawyer did this on the first FISA, to get their spying on the Trump campaign. Why he's so eager in July is not clear.
It's possible the hops to Trump campaign don't exist, because one attorney at DOJ was very concerned about investigating a campaign, and placed in the FISA limits on who can see the info. He may have also placed limits on additional wiretapping or access to NSA databases.
MikeN,
The IG summary suggests that the FBI only became aware of Page’s previous contacts with the CIA after the first FISA application was filed. The final application came after the FBI had received formal notification on multiple occasions of this fact. The lawyer doctored an email to make it sound like exactly the opposite of what it actually said…. an obvious effort to keep the FISA observation going. I still think that it is important to know if the FBI can ‘hop’ FISA targets…. if so, it would explain the desire to keep open the FISA. Otherwise, it makes little sense, since they had found nothing on Page over many months.
The hopping makes sense, with this being the first time Mueller is running things.
I think the CIA had notified by the time of the first FISA, but no one picked up on it.
Correction- discussion of 'October Surprise' with Carter Page happened on August 20. FBI thought Page 'trailed off' and knew something.
If the MSM coverage of the IG report were a bullet just fired, the spin applied would cause the bullet to disintegrate.
A friend of mine was talking about that effect at lunch the other day. Someone he knew was testing a really hot load, i.e. a whole lot of propellant in the cartridge, and said that while watching through a scope, the bullet turned into a cloud before it could reach the target.
MikeN
**Late last century, Sheila Tobias (Arizona State, I think) did an experiment on bringing math-phobic college students up to speed. …. If memory serves, it then took something like 6 weeks to bring them up to speed.**
.
I would need to read the report to know what "up to speed" meant. Also, what level the "math-phobic" college students were at to begin with. These were probably not engineering students. Given you are going on memory, and haven't described much, for all we know "up to speed" meant "now understood 8th grade math".
.
Even apart from that it appeared:
1) The tutoring was custom tailored to start where the students actually HAD trouble.
2) The students were probably not being asked to use math in their *on going courses* at the same time. So, they weren't simultaneously being taught fractions while trying to pass their first class in economics which required them to understand what a slope is.
.
One problem with college remediation programs seems to be that sometimes, the students are expected to do the "remediation" while ALSO doing the college work. So the idea is they will somehow catch up AND do college level work at the same time. That's crazy.
He doesn't directly say two-hops, but Barr says the purpose of getting the FISA was to spy on the campaign. He refutes the idea that Page being off the campaign by that time meant they weren't targeting the campaign, saying they could go back and look at e-mails.
Someone here posted this is a crazy theory and I should read the FISA law. I did so, and found no clarity, but I think I will go with the attorney general on this.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1204476862581227520
This same person also said that Jeff Sessions was being misleading on a different topic, so perhaps Barr is doing so as well.
NPR: Lawsuit Claims SAT And ACT Are Illegal In California Admissions
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/786257347/lawsuit-claims-sat-and-act-are-illegal-in-california-admissions
.
"This policy illegally discriminates against applicants on the basis of race and wealth, and thereby denies them equal protection under the California Constitution."
.
There is no reason NPR should even be covering this madness, it's an unfiled lawsuit. This is your typical media ambush article of a favored narrative: assert claims with no ability for defendants to respond as they don't have any relevant info.
.
As always, I await the explanation of how these math questions are biased:
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sample-questions/math/calculator-permitted/1
DeWitt,
Your friend needs slugs made of spent uranium. 😉
Tom Scharf,
A man has a row boat that he can row at 5 miles per hour. He enters a river and rows for two hours against a 3 mile per hour current, he then turns around to return to his starting point, but is so tired that he just rides the current back to his starting point. How long does his trip take start to finish?
.
Answer: This is a racist question; it implies the man is black and lazy. If he were rich and white, he would have a 20 HP outboard motor and make the trip in a few minutes.
SteveF,
"… spent uranium."
Nitpick.
That would be depleted uranium, 238U, where the 235U isotope has been removed to create enriched uranium for nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons, depending on the degree of enrichment. Spent uranium implies to me it had been used in a nuclear reactor and would be highly radioactive. For strength and density, tungsten would probably be better. Except that unless you used a sabot or softer metal jacket, it would probably destroy the gun barrel in short order. In either case, though, for a given gunpowder charge and slug size, the mass would be higher and the muzzle velocity and the spin rate would be lower. For a hot load, muzzle velocity is generally the point.
Some types of armor piercing antitank rounds have a tungsten core.
DeWitt,
Very nice nitpick. Yes it is uranium mostly depleted of 235.
These rounds would need a brass jacket to not damage the rifle barrel. The round diameter could be reduced by ~25% compared to lead, meaning lower air resistance and greater range at the same projectile weigh and muzzle velocity.
Time magazine person of the year: Greta Thunberg.
*sigh*
I bought one of these a while back, just because:
https://www.amazon.com/Thunderbolt-Warthog-Collectors-Inert-Cannon/dp/B00I7EVQ0E
.
I was channeling my 14 year old self. No depleted uranium in these though. Apparently this shell is falling out of favor. If you have ever seen the A10's main gun removed from the plane (such as at Dayton's Air Force Museum) it is a sight to behold. It's probably not appropriate for home defense though.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20875/a-10-warthogs-may-stop-firing-controversial-depleted-uranium-ammunition-for-good
Here is a take on the IG report by a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/473784-misfired-hurricane-comeys-team-abused-carter-page-and-the-fbi
Two things Brock says are especially worthy of note. One is what the FBI should have done with the info that started the investigation:
"Here’s what that thin predication was adequate for in the FBI I grew up in: An agent from a field office, not headquarters, would have contacted Mr. Papadopoulos, interviewed him to get more details, enlisted his cooperation against the Russians, if warranted, and that would have been it."
The other is his speculation on how the IG might have treated the Epstein case: “While it is clear that Mr. Epstein abused minor girls, there is no documentary or testimonial evidence that he was motivated by a deviant sexual interest in those young girls.â€
I think that is significant in that it illustrates that motive is not normally an element of a crime. What matters is what was done, not why it was done. The question is whether Comey & Cronies (or Trump) misused their powers to do something that should not have been done. Why does not matter. Comey & Company clearly abused their power, Trump did not.
“Time magazine person of the year: Greta Thunberg.â€
Makes me gag.
I suppose some day the pendulum may swing back toward sanity, but probably not during my lifetime. The more worrying is the damage that can be done before sanity returns.
Ye olde switcharoo; IG did not clear FBI of political bias, but rather he did not find evidence that the FBI acted on the basis of political bias. Why did he not find evidence, surely that means it wasn't there. WRONG.
——–snip
WILLIAMS: So, the inspector general says he found no evidence to indicate that the FBI's decision to start this investigation was based on a political bias. Do you agree?
BARR: Well, what he — what he actually — I think you have to understand what the IG's methodology is. And I think it's the appropriate methodology for an inspector general.
He starts with limited information. He can only talk to people who are essentially there as employees. And he's limited to the information generally in the FBI. But his approach is to say, if I get an explanation from the people I'm investigating, that is not unreasonable on its face, then I will accept it as long as there's not contradictory testimonial or documentary evidence.
In other words, it's a very differential standard. And all he said is, people gave me an explanation and I didn't find anything to contradict it. So, I don't have a basis for saying that there was improper motive. But he hasn't decided the issue of improper motive.
———–snip
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/10/ag_barr_president_trumps_2016_campaign_was_clearly_spied_on.html
.
The whole thing seems vaguely reminiscent of the ClimateGate whitewashes to me somehow.
I get BTW that Horowitz had his procedure to follow and he followed it. I don't mean to suggest Horowitz is willfully misrepresenting anything. In fact in reading snippets of his testimony it sounds to me like he knows darn well that the FBI got up to no good, it's just not his place to talk about anything other than his findings. At least that's the impression I get. I badly misread Comey awhile back though, so I'd take my impressions with a big chunk of salt [if I were you].
mark bofill: "it sounds to me like he knows darn well that the FBI got up to no good"
.
Sen. Graham: “The former FBI Director James Comey said this week that your report vindicates him. Is that a fair assessment of your report?â€
Horowitz: “You know, I think the activities we found here don’t vindicate anyone who touched this.â€
.
Comey: "… the entire case was followed in a thoughtful, responsible way by DOJ and the FBI. I think the notion that FISA was abused here is nonsense."
Graham: “Would it be fair to say you take issue with that statement?â€
Horowitz: “Certainly, our findings were that there were significant problems.â€
Source: https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/11/horowitz-blasts-comey-ig-report-findings-dont-vindicate-anybody-who-touched-anti-trump-investigation/
———–
There are some things that I would add. One is that although Horwitz said that internal standards were met for starting the investigation, that was only because those standards are pitifully low. Second, that says nothing about the propriety of continuing the investigation after nothing was found. Finally, Horowitz only said that he had no direct documented or testimonial evidence that the investigation was biased. He never said that it was not biased or that one could not reasonably draw that conclusion. Also, such evidence might be provided by people he was not allowed to interview.
———–
It seems that Comey has allowed his security clearance to lapse. That is a valuable thing to give up, so why would he do that? One possibility is that if he had maintained his security clearance, he could have been required to answer Horowitz's questions.
Relevant to the claim that we can and should eliminate the use of fossil fuels by 2030 from the IEA's new Global Energy Forecast:
"Hydrocarbon Fuels Remain the Mainstay of Global Energy Supplies: Combined petroleum, natural gas, and coal use is forecast to grow 16% between 2017 and 2040. Each of these fuels is expected to grow, but at very different rates, led by natural gas at 43%, petroleum at 10%, and coal at 2%. Although the share of total global energy demand met by fossil fuels is forecast to declines by 2040, hydrocarbons still are expected to account for 74% compared to 81% in 2017. While the share of total demand from natural gas increases in 2040 compared to 2017 (by 3 percentage points), the share from oil and coal each decreases (by 4 and 5 percentage points, respectively)."
Hydrocarbons still are expected to account for 74% of the global energy supply in 2040. As I've said before, if there's a tipping point coming up, for which, btw, there is zero published peer-reviewed scientific evidence, then we're going over the edge.
https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/look-ieas-new-global-energy-forecast
I thought the Times person of the year was supposed to have the greatest influence on events during the year. I find it hard to believe Greta did. But perhaps no one influenced much of anything this year!!
I think TIME is not quite the respected journal it used to be. I remember getting Newsweek and Time every week back in the day. Now they are just competing for eyeballs like everyone else. As far as I am concerned the only outlet I find that attempts to be balanced at this point is the WSJ. I have no doubt others would contest this.
lucia (Comment #178256): "I thought the Times person of the year was supposed to have the greatest influence on events during the year."
.
That is so last century, when the title went to people like Hitler, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Khomeini. But somewhere along the way (probably when they renamed it "Person of the Year") they decided that it was an "honor" and stopped giving it to bad people, like bin Laden. Although I guess they made an exception for Trump.
Has the Flynn investigation been upset by the Horowitz report. They were waiting for it to come out. I saw a little snippet that suggested the FBI acted improperly?
Enough to influence the judge or not???
IG finding of a falsified document by Clinesmith might give the judge more reason to take a closer look. Flynn does not show up much, and Mifsud was not listed as an FBI CHS. It was the government that asked for a delay until the report came out.
Here's the quote from Time's editor on why Thunberg was chosen from a list that included Trump, Pelosi and 'the whistleblower':
"Speaking about why Greta was chose, TIME Editor-in-Chief and CEO Edward Felsenthal said: “Meaningful change rarely happens without the galvanizing force of influential individuals, and in 2019, the earth’s existential crisis found one in Greta Thunberg.
"Thunberg has become the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet—and the avatar of a broader generational shift in our culture that is playing out everywhere from the campuses of Hong Kong to the halls of Congress in Washington.
"This was the year the climate crisis went from behind the curtain to center stage, from ambient political noise to squarely on the world’s agenda, and no one did more to make that happen than Thunberg."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1215479/time-person-of-the-year-2019-finalists-magazine-announcement
Again, *sigh*
“….change rarely happens without the galvanizing force of influential individuals, and in 2019, the earth’s existential crisis…â€
.
Time’s selection of a child who knows virtually nothing about which she screeches is absurd and a sorry reflection on both the lack of knowledge and lack of judgement of the people who run that magazine. It is just another step in the long decline (and likely disappearance) of a once thoughtful news magazine. The need for such magazines is today zero, and nothing will be lost when they fold.
The news media chose to honor a person whose significance is entirely a creation of the news media, thus completing the process of severing the news from reality.
I took the time (40 minutes) to listen to Linsey Graham’s opening statement when Horowitz testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. An absolutely brutal summary of FBI malfeasance…. those investigating Trump were already talking about impeachment before he was sworn into office. I will not be surprised if the Senate simply rejects the articles from the House as illegitimate nonsense, and goes directly to a vote that Trump will not be removed from office. End of story.
CNN cut away from Graham's opening statement after showing all of Nadler's statement.
Mike M: "The news media chose to honor a person whose significance is entirely a creation of the news media"
.
Exactly what I was thinking. The "existential crisis" meme has gotten rather old and dusty. It's a worn out comparison, but climate activists truly treat this as a religion in almost every meaningful way. Saint Greta. A climate revival coming your way soon complete with people doling out miracle cures and enough shaming to last you at least a week.
SteveF (Comment #178265): "I will not be surprised if the Senate simply rejects the articles from the House as illegitimate nonsense, and goes directly to a vote that Trump will not be removed from office."
.
I will be very surprised if that happens, however justified it might be. It seems to me that would be a major political blunder since it would allow the Democrats to portray the Republicans as partisan Trumpistas unconcerned with the truth. Better to allow the Dems to put on their pitiful case and counter with testimony that probes Clinton/Ukraine collusion and Biden corruption.
.
My impression is that the first article of impeachment (without which there is no second article) depends on the claimed unfounded nature of the investigations Trump asked for.
MikeN,
“CNN cut away from Graham's opening statement after showing all of Nadler's statement.â€
.
I am currently sitting at a too-warm airport in the northeast of Brazil. The good thing is that I am not required to listen to an endless stream of tripe and misrepresentation on CNN as I await my flight.
In news of the weird variety, a vegan is suing Burger King for 'contaminating' the Impossible Whopper with actual meat, presumably because it's cooked on the same conveyor belt that's used for beef Whoppers. The suit refers to a grill, according to the NYT article, but I'm not sure that's accurate for how BK actually cooks burgers.
"The complaint said that he was “duped by Burger King’s deceptive practices into eating a meat-free Whopper Patty that was in fact covered in meat byproducts,†though it did not specify how he came to know this was the case."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/business/burger-king-impossible-whopper-lawsuit.html
UK vote results should start coming in soon. The exit polls show a big Tory victory, so it looks like Brexit will finally happen.
I saw in early returns that Labor (Labour) was able to hold on to a seat with only a plurality because the Leave vote was split between the Conservatives and the Brexit party. Maybe Labour will dump Corbyn. That should be of interest to the Democrats. Perhaps the progressive wave is more like a ripple.
Mike M,
When I saw Boris Johnson’s late campaign ad sendup of the ‘Christmas carol’ scene from the Love Actually movie, I figured the election would be a wipe-out: the ad funny, terribly clever, and honest. Ah, that our politicians could be so clever.
Yep. Looks Boris will continue as prime minister.
DeWitt…
Yeah! I read that about the suit over impossible burgers! Heh!
Two drive-by comments.
Pelosi says she will not whip the impeachment vote and that she wants members to vote their conscience. I will believe that if the vote fails.
Sen. Graham wants the Senate to vote down the impeachment without even calling any witnesses. I think that means we can be sure that would be a bad idea.
Mike,
Graham may be right. The question in my view is, does continuing the drama in the Senate hurt Republicans enough to outweigh the damage such hearings could cause the Democrats.
I think it's a likely possibility that it would hurt Republicans more. Be done with it is probably the thing to do.
[Edit: I suspect Pelosi just wants to get the whole fiasco behind her as well.]
We need another referendum on the snap election which was effectively another referendum on the original Brexit vote. The voters were obviously confused, again. Probably by bad ballot design. Voter confusion and ignorance can be measured by how much they don't do what the virtuous and enlightened think.
.
I'm sure the political junkies are nervous about a hard left candidate winning the Democratic nomination based on this, but UK and US politics are different. Trump and Boris do kind of resemble each other though, ha ha.
.
The NYT is calling it the end of globalization. A bit of an overstatement. The right analysis may be that globalization can be taken too far, too fast. And by the way, globalization's losers get to vote. If globalization's winners are not part of your citizenship then you might be getting the boot.
People are mostly ignoring impeachment as a boring fait accompli. Drawing the least attention possible may be the best move. Give the left senators the microphone and let them prattle on endlessly with predictable things nobody wants to listen to. Go through the legislative motions and move on.
Tom Scharf,
“The NYT is calling it the end of globalization.â€
.
The complete refusal of the NYT to consider even the possibility that a policy view different from that of the NYT editors could have some merit has converted the NYT into a twaddle machine that spouts almost all nonsense. Most everything they report is superficial, foolish, or factually wrong. Of *course* the British economy will do better without the burden of foolish EC rules and ‘directives’, but you won’t read that in the NYT. Of *course* the voters in Britain are alarmed at losing control of immigration, but the only twaddle you will read in the NYT is that the leave voters are ignorant, backward, and racists. Of *course* British voters don’t want their judicial system subservient to an unaccountable judiciary outside the UK; once again the twaddle in the NYT ignores a perfectly legitimate voter concern. The NYT is good for cleaning fish, but little else.
I looked over the UK election coverage by the usual suspects and it was fairly clean on blaming the voters for their insolence. Perhaps this will come later. It has taken about a decade but it seems the message is starting to sink in. You do not have a mandate to expand globalism, it has to proceed on a transactional basis and you must deal with the losers in a fair way.
.
I doubt Brexit will solve much of anything, except in the minds of some voters who feel abandoned. Detroit and Baltimore may be cesspools but at least they have a representative government, ha ha. This is actually important I think all kidding aside.
.
What really needs to stop is the smugness of the winners of globalism. I don't mean they need to more effectively hide it, they need to stop it. Being successful in the knowledge economy does not make one virtuous, it means you have valuable technical skills in today's world. Stop confusing the two.
mark bofill (Comment #178289): "The question in my view is, does continuing the drama in the Senate hurt Republicans enough to outweigh the damage such hearings could cause the Democrats.
I think it's a likely possibility that it would hurt Republicans more. Be done with it is probably the thing to do."
.
There are only two ways to be done with it. One is for the impeachment motions to fail in the House. The other is to use the Senate trial to move the needle on public opinion.
If there is no trial, then the story told by the Democrats and the press will be that Trump was obviously guilty and had no defense, so the Republicans used their majority in the Senate to cynically shut the process down. There will then be no way for Trump to get his side out to people who are neither his supporters nor committed to the resistance. Winning over a certain portion of those people is critical to Trump's reelection.
Any collateral damage done to Democrats by the trial will be gravy. Even without that, Trump needs a trial if impeached.
Mike M.,
"If there is no trial, then the story told by the Democrats and the press will be that Trump was obviously guilty and had no defense, so the Republicans used their majority in the Senate to cynically shut the process down. There will then be no way for Trump to get his side out to people who are neither his supporters nor committed to the resistance."
And you think a Senate trial will make any difference to how most of the press covers the story? I don't. CNN, for example, will carry every second of the Democrat's presentation of their case. They will, at best, summarize the Republican defense followed by a rebuttal by their talking heads. MSNBC won't even be that fair. ABC, NBC and CBS will engage in similar tactics and spin. The conclusion will still be that the Republicans had no defense to the charges and just ignored the overwhelming evidence of guilt on a party line vote. Of course that's what the Democrats did with the Clinton impeachment, but that was just about lying about sex, which apparently didn't count then. And so much for #MeToo, I've seen on TV at least one woman who says that even now.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #178300): "And you think a Senate trial will make any difference to how most of the press covers the story?"
It will make *some* difference since they won't be able to completely ignore the Republican side. Perhaps not much, but some. But more important is that the main stream media do not control the flow of information the way they once did.
With the media giving a one-sided view of the already one-sided Schiff hearings, the needle moved a little bit away from impeachment. Surely a vigorous defense of Trump will move the needle more.
It will make no difference to people already committed to the resistance. But some people not firmly on ether side will want to hear Trump's defense and some of those will be Red Pilled as a result. It might not be a lot of people, but it might well be enough to decide the election.
Mike,
Could be. I can see what you're saying. Personally I'd prefer a real Senate trial.
Shrug.
I can't help but think it'd be dangerous to let Congress cross examine Trump. The guy has a gift for saying really stupid things at times. I wouldn't put it past him that he might hang himself with pointless false statements.
On the other hand, I'd love to get to the bottom of Schiff's involvement with the whistleblower [not to mention the whistleblower's full story] and some of the peripheral players in Ukraine (some having involvement in the original Russian Trump Collusion conspiracy theory). It just seems like putting Trump in significant jeopardy to get at less important opponents.
I don't know.
Those wacky Dems in Congress. All of a sudden a fair trial has become important, after the absurdity we just went through in the House.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-white-house-impeachment-democrats/index.html
These guys have no shame.
mark bofill (Comment #178307): "I can't help but think it'd be dangerous to let Congress cross examine Trump. The guy has a gift for saying really stupid things at times. I wouldn't put it past him that he might hang himself with pointless false statements."
.
Trump would be under no obligation to testify. I can't imagine his lawyers would go along with that even though I think he is a whole lot smarter and more disciplined than most people give him credit for.
Mike,
Again, maybe. Refusing to testify before Congress has its own pitfalls. The press would certainly delight in spinning that!
.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying I'm not certain what the best course of action is. I still suspect that sending the circus packing might be the wisest long term choice. I could be wrong. Something I believe that's at odds with this is that a cost needs to be imposed on the Democrats for this frivolous impeachment. It's just not clear to me if the Republicans should try to extract this price in the Senate or if the voters are already fed up enough that they will take care of it in 2020. If the Republicans mishandle the Senate trial, it could just as easily be them who pays the price next election.
Regarding the other thing ("…even though I think he is a whole lot smarter and more disciplined than most people give him credit for…")
.
I've wondered this for years now without profit. I think he's probably not quite as stupid as he sometimes sounds in press conferences ('a beautiful dog, a talented dog…') and still I have no evidence I consider solid that he's particularly intelligent or disciplined. It all might be an act.
*shrug*
.
[Edit: and the other other thing: "With the media giving a one-sided view of the already one-sided Schiff hearings, the needle moved a little bit away from impeachment. Surely a vigorous defense of Trump will move the needle more."
It might have been the impeachment hearings. It might have been good economic news too. Hard to be sure.]
mark bofill (Comment #178317): "I still suspect that sending the circus packing might be the wisest long term choice."
.
I would agree *if* it could be sent packing with the support of some Democrats, either in the House or Senate. Otherwise, it is just a partisan move with very bad optics. That might happen in the House. A Democrat or three in the Senate might vote to acquit after a trial. But no way will any Democrat vote to shut down a trial. And a single Republican voting against shutting it down would be a disaster, especially if that Republican were a former presidential nominee.
It would be different if the public was already strongly against impeachment.
.
The boil must be lanced, not ignored.
No live witnesses were called during the Senate trial of William Jefferson Clinton. Witnesses Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan and Sidney Blumenthal were deposed on videotape and excerpts from these tapes were presented during the trial. Assuming they collectively have half a brain, there is no way the Republicans will allow a live cross examination of Trump, or probably have him testify at all. They will cite the Clinton precedent.
Thanks DeWitt. That's some comfort.
Thanks Mike.
There is an interesting parallel between Clinton and Trump impeachments, but also big differences. In both cases, the opposing party found the president generally unfit for office, which is the real underlying motivation for both impeachments.
.
But there are differences: Clinton was clearly guilty of felonies (perjury, obstruction). He was an immoral man who became involved in a sexual affair with a young White House intern, and had a long history of abusive sexual conduct toward women…. obviously way before the rise of 'me-too' among Democrats. Trump has committed no crime. He *does* often conduct himself in very offensive ways, and he was clearly unwise to try to do to Biden (investigate suspicions of wrong-doing) exactly what the Democrats have been doing to him continuously since the middle of 2016.
.
I suspect most normal people find Trump's request for an investigation into the Bidens perfectly understandable in light of Democrats tormenting Trump with investigations, even if that request was unwise, just as most people understood why Clinton perjured himself over an illicit and embarrassing sexual relationship with a woman less than half his age. (He also had to face Hillary after his escapade was exposed….. an unpleasant situation he surely wanted to avoid!)
.
In both cases, the lack of broad bipartisan support for impeachment dooms the effort to failure. The final parallel is that Republican over-reach with Clinton brought voter push-back and loss of seats in Congress; I suspect Democrats will suffer the same fate in 2020, and will have to deal with Trump in office until 2024. They will learn the lesson Republicans learned with Clinton: removing a President from office requires very broad bipartisan support; it is a fool's errand to try without first having that broad bipartisan support. Democrats still have time to limit the political damage, but I doubt they are smart enough to pull the plug on impeachment. I predict many Democrats will regret their impeachment effort for a long time.
So Trump saying that picking Thunberg as person of the year was ridiculous is cyber bullying because she's a child? Nope. But if she's a child, why should anyone pay attention to her? No one who has half a brain should. I believe that if one goes out of the way to make oneself a celebrity then one should be prepared to be mocked and one, or one's defenders, shouldn't whine about it when it happens. As the Harry Truman line goes: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I'm also reminded of the disastrous Children's Crusade in 1212AD. Greta Thunberg = Stephen of Cloyes. Although she is four years older.
The House has not opened an impeachment inquiry. They have created a vote where they labeled something already in place an impeachment inquiry, but this process is not following the House rules on impeachment. This is why Republicans are not able to call witnesses. Intelligence Committee voted not to provide any exculpatory material to the Judiciary Committee.
I do not think that Greta as a child needs to be chastised, but I do think that those, who like Time magazine, who would exploit her child innocence at the same time putting her message on a level of a serious scientist, are not doing their political agendas any favors. Greta probably knows as much or more about climate warming as a lot of adults – which is not saying she knows that much at all – and like a lot of adults has a view of climate warming that is more emotional than factual. If the Kardashians can exploit some mysterious attraction, why not Greta.
It is now standard procedure to use minorities, women, and children as political attack dogs against your opponents. When the opposition pushes back then they are called racist, sexist, and bullies. This is such a transparent stunt that it has almost no effect among non-partisans, people see it for what it is. Even Toobin on CNN said attacking Greta is a fair game but the rest of the panel was full of the typical hysterical outrage.
.
One of the reasons our Clown in Chief won the election is he didn't put up with this crap. Greta is a manufactured child celebrity that I think is being used by adults as a pawn on both sides.
I doubt anything that happens with impeachment in the Senate will change anybody's minds. The facts are known, or at least as known as they will ever be. There won't be any revelations, and distrust is so high that if there were most people would ignore them anyway.
.
The left will vote for impeachment, the right will call it a political witch hunt, the media will bask in the circus. Film at 11. The MSM who constantly warn us about the danger to democracy will be shocked to learn that using a non-democratic process by partisans and political elites to remove a duly elected President only reinforces what Trump supporters believed all along, that their voices were being ignored. Nothing that happens in the Senate trial will change any of this.
You just have to love the phrasing of this question:
Biden Vows to Ban Standardized Testing in Public Schools If Elected
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-vows-to-ban-standardized-testing-in-public-schools-if-elected/
.
Biden’s pledge came as a response to a question from an audience member at the MSNBC Public Education Forum.
“Given that standardized testing is rooted in a history of racism and eugenics,†the audience member asked, “if you are elected president, will you commit to ending the use of standardized testing in public schools?â€
“Yes,†Biden responded. “As one of my friends and black pastors I spend a lot of time with . . . would say, you’re preaching to the choir, kid.â€
.
I suppose there may be a difference between "banning the tests" and "banning the use of the tests".
Tom Scharf,
Of *course* democrats want to eliminate competence as a criteria for admission to college…. or anything else, including getting a job. Equality of outcome is the only thing that matters to them….. excellence (or even minimal competence!) be damned. Comes from too many ‘everybody wins a ribbon’ experiences, instead of striving for excellence, starting when they were hardly old enough to remember. A load of utter rubbish masquerading as education.
Is there any point to starting a conspiracy that will blow up in your face if made public, but that can not succeed without being made public?
Let's say that Trump was actually trying to use withholding the military aid to blackmail Zelensky into making certain public announcements. What would the possible outcomes have been?
(1) The whole thing becomes public before being resolved. Not a good outcome for Trump.
(2) Zelensky caves, the announcements are made and the funds are promptly released (they could not be much delayed, due to the end of the fiscal year). It seems to me that would give away the game. Not a good outcome for Trump.
(3) Zelensky refuses and the funds are withheld past the end of the fiscal year. Trump has to provide an explanation. That might work, but it would no better than a neutral outcome for Trump. And then only as long as nobody (Zelensky included) blows the whistle.
(4) Zelensky refuses and the funds are released so as to keep people from asking questions. At best a neutral outcome for Trump.
Would there be any way for Trump to win that game? I don't see one. So I don't see why Trump would deal himself in. Maybe I am missing something.
Mike,
You asked, "but that can not succeed without being made public?"
I don't see this part. If Zelensky announced investigations into Biden / Burisma and it never became public that Trump had anything to do with it, that seems like a win for Trump to me.
*shrug*
Back when politics wasn't as much of a winner take all blood sport and an administration wasn't full of people working actively against the President one could get away with wink and nod quid pro quo like this. It is now more important to take down the opposition than to build up the USA. Our cultural "leaders" have deigned patriotism as shameful. Renamed it as nationalism and worse with constant illusions to the Third Reich.
.
Kennedy made a secret agreement with the USSR to remove missiles from Turkey during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can't see a secret agreement like that being made in 2019 without being exposed for political gain.
Unions, looks good on paper but can be corrupt in practice. Here the WSJ uncovers unions directing their members to high cost retirement funds run by their own people.
Teachers Pay High Fees for Retirement Funds. Unions Are Partly to Blame.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/teachers-pay-high-fees-for-retirement-funds-unions-are-partly-to-blame-11576684664
.
"Ms. Sotir said just 1.5% of the money in NEA-endorsed retirement products is invested in the low-cost option. She said many union members want investment guidance, which the low-cost-funds platform doesn’t offer.
For its own employees, the NEA hired low-cost Vanguard to oversee a 401(k), resulting in investment fees a fraction of what many NEA union members pay.
Asked why the difference, Ms. Sotir said the “NEA, like many private employers, offers certain levels of online education and advice.â€
…
A federal appeals court said the union and its subsidiary didn’t have a fiduciary obligation to make sure that fees on retirement-plan products were reasonable. Generally, public-school teachers’ 403(b) plans are exempt from federal pension law requiring 401(k)-plan sponsors to act in participants’ best interests."
.
I think the investment guidance should have been "invest in low cost funds", ha ha. This is your typical highly technical legal scam on a large pot of money. Most people just don't understand investments.
.
I had to lobby my wife's small company for years to offer low cost funds. They also had an investment seminar to employees that I read and it never once mentioned fees or low cost index funds. Some people will clip coupons all day and leave their retirements in the hands of wolves.
Unions can be, often are, corrupt. So are the institutions against which they battle.
Lord Acton had some thoughts on that:
https://acton.org/research/lord-acton-quote-archive
In this case the "corrupt institutions" these specific unions are battling is the government, ha ha. There is definitely a place for unions to battle profit obsessed corporations to provide a balance. Unions would be better served by the German cooperative model than the US/ French adversarial model.
Thomas,
Presumably the institution against which the NEA "battles" is the government since it's the government who employs teachers.
However, it may very well be that the government exempts public school teachers 403(b) plans from federal pension laws because…. unions like the NEA lobbied long and hard to get the exemption, and also tend to work hard to get union friendly politicians elected. Which is to say, it may well be that union leadership worked hard to make sure they retained the legal right to rip-off union members in ways prohibited employers.
Tom Scharf (Comment #178389): "In this case the "corrupt institutions" these specific unions are battling is the government"
.
No, the corrupt institution they battle is the public. I am not joking.
If only union/government contracts were put up as taxpayer referendums …
Mike M.,
"No, the corrupt institution they battle is the public."
Yep.
In one party states like Illinois or California, the government is elected by and kowtows to the government employee unions.
Only for private sector unions are the unions adversaries of management. But they're in decline. They couldn't even organize the VW workers in Chattanooga.
As expected, a pure party line vote on impeachment. Which seems to me little more than a political suicide vote for a dozen or more Dem freshmen from overwhelmingly Trump districts. IMO, these folks are either nuts or recognize their chances of re-election were already slim….. or maybe that facing Pelosi after a no vote wouldn’t be worth increasing their chance for reelection. Trump’s base didn’t show up to vote in 2018. It will in 2020.
SteveF (Comment #178408): "Which seems to me little more than a political suicide vote for a dozen or more Dem freshmen"
.
Obviously, they voted their consciences, without any pressure from Pelosi, just like she promised. Yeah, right.
.
I have been struggling to understand the lemming-like behave of the Dems. The crazies from the far left districts might actually believe that they are doing the right and smart thing. But that does not explain the swing district Dems or a veteran vote counter like Pelosi. It is as if the Squad has something on them.
.
Of course. The Squad has captured the hearts and wallets of the Dem donor class. Pelosi, like the rest of the Dem "leadership", is the servant of that donor class. The way Pelosi controls her caucus is not via her skill at argument, it is via her control of the campaign purse strings. The swing district Dems are caught between a rock and a hard place: they must choose between angering their constituents or having their campaign funding cut. They see the latter as the surer path to defeat.
I do not believe that President Trump has been impeached. He will have been impeached when the House sends the bill of impeachment to the Senate, not before. It ought to be a distinction without a difference, but it might not be: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-pelosi-senate
I seem to remember just a few weeks ago that the line was that impeachment couldn't be held up by [waiting for] the courts, it had to be done *right now*.
Good thing the Dems hurried up the impeachment process so they can wait and make a decision as they go now.
[SARC]
Poor Nancy. She specifically instructed her peoples not to cheer; to be serious and solemn and regretful.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dont-cheer-pelosi-orders-democrats-not-to-celebrate-trump-impeachment-vote
And what do they do when the moment comes? Start clapping.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/475265-pelosi-reaction-to-democrats-clapping-after-impeachment-vote-goes-viral
It's almost as good as a Monty Python skit.
And in other news, the Babylon Bee isn't doing satire anymore. This is solid reporting by today's standards:
https://babylonbee.com/news/the-bee-explains-impeachment
Some of the red state Dems were being threatened with primary challenges if they voted against impeachment, the others are probably hoping Trump implodes before the election, a possibility. It's definitely better for the right that they voted for impeachment, it makes holding the seat harder. In the big picture I don't think it will make much difference, this was impeachment lite. This specific impeachment validates what Trump supporters suspected, they were out to get Trump at any cost. Beyond breathless coverage from the media I don't sense much excitement behind this effort. My guess is the only people talking about impeachment during the election run-up will be the right.
There is no requirement that House send over articles of impeachment, or appoint managers to present the case. The Senate has the power to try impeachments, with Chief Justice presiding. I believe they could right now take it up, and have Parliamentarian read the articles and go to a vote.
Only caveat is that Constitution says House has the sole power of impeachment, and perhaps 'impeach' includes presenting the case.
I'm not convinced McConnell has the votes to do what he wants.
Or that he wants to acquit Trump. He may be arranging to have 4 Senators go against him, and he can claim he has no choice but to do what the Democrats want.
Snort. You're joking. Set me up with a sarcasm tag next time.
.
Trump won Kentucky by 30 points. McConnell would never hold office again. I doubt McConnell has any treachery planned.
mark bofill (Comment #178420): "I doubt McConnell has any treachery planned."
.
That is also my gut reaction. But then there is this (the 'first domino' is 20 Republican senators voting to convict):
"But such is the lingering animosity about Trump by many in the GOP establishment, and there very well may be enough Republican senators willing to topple the first domino and set in motion a chain reaction — no matter the consequences."
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/474242-is-a-trap-being-set-for-trump-in-the-senate-trial
.
The people feeding MacKinnon his info all seem to be saying how awful that would be for the country. But that could be Pelosi style crocodile tears. So maybe his sources are just engaging in wishful thinking.
.
I don't want to believe our "leaders" would be willing to jump off that cliff. But at this point, I really can't be certain.
Well, it's not impossible. Strikes me as improbable though.
*shrug*
Mark, McConnell does things in the background. He wouldn't openly go against the President, but just find himself powerless to do anything about the events that are happening. There's always a 60 vote threshold in his way that keeps him from passing conservative priorities, or there's a handful of GOP Senators that deny a majority for things like dropping Planned Parenthood from government spending. Unless it is things he wants like tax cuts or guest worker programs, the Republicans just never have enough votes. I pointed this out some time ago that McConnell was sending a warning to Trump by producing 68 votes on a resolution Trump didn't want.
MikeN,
Ok. If voters don't think he's responsible, they may not hold him responsible.
But then again they may hold him responsible anyways. [Voters aren't always reasonable] It's risky.
I guess I now await legal blogs posting opinions on what happens if Pelosi doesn't send over the articles of impeachment.
“Poor Nancy. She specifically instructed her peoples not to cheer; to be serious and solemn and regretful.â€
.
I may hurl. Dems have been ready to impeach Trump since *before* the day he took office. Dems are both willfully dishonest and unable to see the country beyond their vacuous coastal bubbles.
Alan Dershowitz has weighed in on Pelosi sitting on the articles of impeachment:
"It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people. Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people"
https://www.newsmax.com/alandershowitz/hamilton-pelosi-tribe-senate/2019/12/19/id/946659/
I remember after Clinton's impeachment, there was a new session of Congress with fewer Republican members, and liberals were suggesting the House could just refuse to ratify the appointment of managers.
Happy Xmas all.
Glad to see 2019 going though it has been a momentous year.
Hope Lucia can see her way to becoming a little more active.
Blog wise of course.
That dancing is far too hectic for the likes of me.
Mike M,
Dershowitz said he already doesn’t get invited to parties on Martha’s Vineyard any more, so writing an honest evaluation of this Democrat clown show costs him nothing.
.
With Clinton, there were obvious felonies committed, which served as a fig leaf for an otherwise naked political effort by Republicans to get rid of a president they found unfit for the office. The Dems don’t even have a fig leaf…. a naked political effort to remove a president they find unfit for office. They will regret this.
Off topic,
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
There is something discordant about this. Burning an LGBTQ flag to express opposition to homosexuality will land you in prison for 15 years, but burning the U.S. flag is First Amendment protected free speech.
Shouldn't be able to have this both ways.
.
For the record, I think burning any sort of flag ranks among the stupidest and most pointless activities anybody can engage in, and I have no issue or concern with what consenting adults of any gender do in their bedrooms. Still. Shouldn't be able to have this both ways.
SteveF,
I would say that perjury, suborning of perjury ( at a very late date in the process, Bill personally pressured Monica Lewinsky to sign a false affidavit), and witness tampering are a bit more than a fig leaf. Imagine if Lewinsky had testified about that live on the Senate floor during the trial.
Saying the lying was just about sex is an explanation, not an excuse.
I remember all the speculation on how long Trump would last the week after the election. Seems he is a survivor. I laugh when I watch an old movie and his name comes up, "Who do you think you are, Donald Trump?".
.
I don't like Pelosi, but she is a formidable politician. The left is fortunate to have her, as she stops them from their very worst instincts such as from the squad, etc. If you want to go to war against Pelosi from either side, you better bring your A game.
Trump would probably commit perjury just trying to state his name for the record in a deposition. Not advisable.
Lindsey Graham at the time surprised everyone by pushing to have Sidney Blumenthal be one of their witnesses. Chris Hitchens submitted an affidavit that Blumenthal committed perjury.
Now Graham is again investigating Blumenthal for his role in the Steele Dossier.
Support for my claim that President Trump has not been impeached:
https://reason.com/2019/12/20/the-senate-should-ask-the-house-if-the-president-has-been-impeached-for-purposes-of-art-i-sec-2/
https://reason.com/2019/12/19/an-impeachment-counterfactual-could-the-senate-hold-a-trial-even-if-the-house-does-not-transmit-the-articles-of-impeachment/
Blackman also offers some suggestions as to how to resolve the impasse.
—–
Addition:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosis-problem-dems-own-witness-says-trump-not-truly-impeached-unless-articles-go-to-senate
DeWitt,
I noted that Clinton was obviously guilty of crimes. I think the key point is that in both cases the opposing party found the president’s behavior (independent of what he accomplished in office) completely disqualifying. The specific objectionable behaviors are very different, of course.
.
The lesson I hope both parties learn from this silly episode is that you never start impeachment against a president unless there is overwhelming bipartisan support. Anything less means the president stays in office, but with a more divided and distrustful electorate.
And in the pot calling the kettle black or people living in glass houses category:
Eric Holder rips AG Bill Barr for his 'loyalty' to Trump
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/william-barr-unfit-attorney-general-von-spakovsky-fund
"The recent commentary by Eric Holder in the Washington Post unfairly attacking William Barr only shows how unfit he was to be the attorney general of the United States, not Bill Barr. Contrary to his outlandish claims against Barr, there has never been a more “nakedly partisan†attorney general to serve in that office than Holder himself."
It's unlikely that the Pest was even aware of the irony in Holder's commentary.
**Trump would probably commit perjury just trying to state his name for the record in a deposition. Not advisable.**
Well… yeah. After all, one of the counts for impeachment is pretty much Trumps some specific steps Trump took trying to fight impeachment!!
MikeM,
I'm all for the Senate sending the note. Then, if they get a "Yes" and Nancy won't send more stuff on, they can decide if they should change their rules so they don't need to wait for the House to send stuff on before having the trials.
.
I mean… seriously… I don't think the Senate considered the possibility a House would VOTE impeachment but then SIT ON IT when they made rules (which actually require the Senate to act expeditiously.)
.
Well… impeachment is a political process. It was designed that way. So I'm not going to specifically say it's wrong for it to be poltical. It is. Feature. Not bug.
lucia (Comment #178465): "I don't think the Senate considered the possibility a House would VOTE impeachment but then SIT ON IT when they made rules"
.
Yes, but I think that the first order of business for the Senate in January should be to amend the rules to cover the case of a "pocket impeachment", independent of whether that turns out to be needed in this case
.
lucia: "impeachment is a political process. It was designed that way. So I'm not going to specifically say it's wrong for it to be poltical. It is. Feature. Not bug."
.
Yes, it is political. But it should not be partisan.
Anything political will tend towards partisanship. . .
.
The thing is, if the Senate doesn't get to vote, the Trump remains President. There's almost a year to Nov 2020. I'm betting one way or another a vote will take place by then. On the other hand… I'm not betting any actual money.
Lucia,
I think it looks a bit (or more) crazy for the House to say they need to vote on impeachment before the Christmas break, and then delay passing the impeachment to the Senate to delay resolution of their impeachment vote. I mean, either there is a need for immediate impeachment or there is not. Pelosi can’t have it both ways.
Impeachment now! Impeachment tomorrow! Impeachment forever!
The Senate would not have held a trial until January either way.
What is surprising is that Pelosi has sent the President an invitation to give the State of the Union.
MikeN,
Pelosi knows Clinton gave a SOU address while under impeachment; to refuse to invite Trump would only cause Dems further political damage. Pelosi can read polls, especially in swing states, and sees impeachment isn’t working anyway. Pelosi is caught between ‘moderates’ and her unhinged left base, who constantly threaten to primary out of office those moderates…… in districts where only a moderate can win a general election. I think that everything Pelosi does from now to November 2020 should be viewed in terms of trying to preserve a majority of Dems in the House. Endless open conflict with Trump places ever more first term moderates from districts Trump won in danger of losing.
.
I think Pelosi made a terrible political choice in placating the unhinged left with impeachment, but in light of the pressure she has been under from the left, it is understandable. I think she should never have allowed the ‘squad’ to set Dem policy agenda in the first place; assigning the leftist loonies to agriculture subcommittees and closet-like offices in the basement would have been a better tactic.
Mike M,
Yes, the crazies on the left are already talking about another impeachment effort after this one dies in the Senate. If that talk continues, Trump is almost guaranteed reelection. You can’t impeach Trump for doing what causes most voters to shrug their shoulders. Most voters see nothing surprising about wanting to investigate the ‘appearance of corruption’ by the Bidens; the drug addled son of the VP receiving millions from a corrupt company for no obvious reason beyond his last name is something most normal people would consider *worthy* of investigation.
The game here wasn't the impeachment. By having the inquiry, which they are keeping open, they can argue in court that they need access to Trump's financial records and the Mueller grand jury material, which they can then leak for maximum political damage.
MikeN,
I suspect any court will look askance at a need for court ordered access to Trump’s financial records when that is completely unrelated to the already approved articles of impeachment.
The House will just claim their impeachment inquiry is ongoing, and the financial records are a part of it. Judge Howley has already endorsed this argument.
It's been the plan since Mueller fizzled. I thought Dems were pretty open about their plans to investigate Trump ceaselessly. Itll be the norm for the next five years. I don't think itll much matter.
If the Dems really plan to ‘investigate’ Trump continuously (and not proceed with a Senate trial), then there will be a wait for the SC to hear the combined financial records case…. with no decision before June. Of course, if Dems lose control of the House in 2020, then there will be no more investigations: no House committees holding hearings. The FBI and DOJ are no longer controlled by Obama holdovers, so they won’t be investigating either.
I think the two aren't connected (Senate trial and investigation). I suspect they'll send it on to the Senate eventually.
.
I think Dems need a reset. Were they to temporarily abandon the appearance of trying to remove Trump from office and wait for some event of Trump's making that triggers widespread public disapproval, they'd be in a better position to act. As it stands now, of the roughly 10% of the populous who pay any attention to politics, I believe that over half dismiss Dem efforts against Trump as a continuation of their refusal to accept the 2016 elections. If they were to demonstrate that they were over that; that they indeed accept Trump as President and are willing to work with him and put the past behind them, I think future efforts against him would tend to be taken more seriously. As it stands, my inclination is to dismiss new controversies involving Trump out of hand.
They won't do this. But they ought to.
*shrug*
Perhaps I've underestimated the number of people who pay attention to politics.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/195749/number-americans-closely-following-politics-spikes.aspx
There's the number who *report* that they do anyway.
mark bofill,
No matter the percentage who claim to follow closely, it is clear that voter turnout is rarely more than 55% of the voting age population, and lower in off years. To me the shocking thing is so many people who don’t even bother to vote.
SteveF (Comment #178512): "voter turnout is rarely more than 55% of the voting age population"
.
That is somewhat misleading. With perhaps 10% of the voting age population being non-citizens and another 10% ineligible due to felony convictions, the turnout of eligible voters in presidential elections is more like 70%.
MikeM,
Accourdng to Michael McDonald (researcher at Florida State), the typical presidential year turnout of eligible voters was near 60% in recent decades. His data suggests an exceptional turnout in 2020 is possible, perhaps breaking the all time record of 65.7% in 1908. 70% of eligible voters has never happened.
"the typical presidential year turnout of eligible voters was near 60% in recent decades"
.
That would imply just 7-8% of the voting age population being ineligible. Just not credible.
Mike M,
According to the ProCon web site (advocates for convicts) 2.5% of the adult population was disenfranchised in 2016 due to a felony conviction. But that hides enormous variation. Most conservative leaning states do not allow ex-felons to vote, while most liberal leaning states allow ex-felons to vote after they serve their time in prison. This leads to huge differences, from >15% to less than 0.3% ineligible. The greatest uncertainty is in the number of adult illegal aliens in the country. Estimates for illegal aliens range from somewhere near 10 million to as high as 20 million; not all adults, of course. Somewhere near 8% non-eligible adults seems a perfectly credible number to me; it might be a bit higher, but not wildly higher.
I predict record turnout in 2020, and this will lead to Trump's defeat. There are enough new people who feel … strongly … against Trump to kick him out. Those who feel strongly for him are what put him in office and I don't think he has increased that number much at all. The anti-Trump forces will not be complacent this time around by media polls. Although I don't wish to have a Democrat in office I would say Trump is unlikely to be missed by most people, unless you count those who are simply entertained by his antics and don't take politics seriously. Never under estimate the left's ability for self sabotage though, they might put Warren or Sanders in there.
SteveF,
The census bureau says that 22M people (7% of the population) are non-citizens:
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
That is from the American Community Survey, which I believe is the source for 11 M illegals. So if there are really 22M illegals, we have more like 10% non-citizens.
2.5% of the adult population is either in prison or on probation. The number disenfranchised is surely much larger.
From 2010:
"about 3.4 percent of the adult voting age population have once served or are currently serving time in a state or federal prison. If we adopt a more inclusive definition of the criminal class, including all convicted of a felony regardless of imprisonment, these numbers increase to 19.8 million persons, representing 8.6 percent of the adult population"
https://www.libertariannews.org/2014/06/05/what-percentage-of-us-adult-population-that-has-a-felony-conviction/
Not all would be disenfranchised, but that is the norm, not the exception.
Correction: I got that last bit wrong. The norm seems to be to restore voting rights was the full sentence, including parole, has been served.
Steve,
Relatively low voter turnout surprises me too, but I take the complacency as a good sign that many people are happy just living their lives and perceive no need to try to 'fix' a system that's already working pretty well.
I wish they'd participate to protect our system from those who imo are likely to make things worse, but. Can't have everything I guess.
Tom Scharf (Comment #178536): "I predict record turnout in 2020, and this will lead to Trump's defeat."
.
You could be right. With a strong, moderate Democrat candidate I'd expect you to be right. Klobucher still has a chance to be that candidate, but she is a long shot. Otherwise, the Democrats will likely be stuck with a member of the B Team: Biden, Bernie, Buttigieg, Bloomberg. I don't see any of them being as strong a candidate as Hillary, as bad as she was.
120 million votes at 60% turnout means the eligible population is 200 million. US population over 18 is about 260 million.
Mike M,
I didn't make the number up; many states (and most of them have big populations of ex-felons) allow those people to vote after release and parole. See this site: https://felonvoting.procon.org/
.
It is unclear how many illegal aliens there are in the country, but assuming 22 million, that leaves ~308 million citizens, of which ~65 million are too young to vote, so about 243 million adult citizens.
.
The total number of people disenfranchised (as of 2016) was 6.1 million. Assuming an adult population of citizens of ~243 million, (6.1 million is in fact 2.5% of the total), that leaves ~237 million eligible voters.
.
Approximately 139.3 million votes were cast in 2016, so a turnout of 139.3/237 = 59%. Not 70%.
Tom Scharf,
It is clearly uncertain whether Trump will be reelected or not, but bettors currently have him as a strong favorite ($2.25 bet returns $3.25 if he wins), and that has improved a lot since the impeachment vote in the House.
.
Things can change, of course, but Trump's strength (in polls) in key swing states, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, is MUCH greater than in 2016. Dems are clearly more motivated than they were in 2016, but OTOH, Trump has a strong economy and has made some progress with blacks and latinos. I wouldn't bet against him if I were you.
SteveF,
You overestimate eligible voters by by using current population instead of 2016 and by overlooking legal resident aliens.
This says 251 M voting age in 2016:
https://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-2016-data-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-republican-democrat-popular-vote-registered-results/
About 10% non-citizen (2/3 illegel) and 2.5% felons (that seems low to me) makes it 63% of eligible voters. Yes, 70% was too high, as I said above.
Addition: The link provided by SteveF sounds like it is talking about people who are disenfranchised in spite of having completed their sentences. Adding the incarcerated and parolees roughly doubles that number, leaving 213M eligible of which 65% voted.
Mike M,
No, if you read the site, that 6.1 million is the total.
OK. This page makes that clear: https://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000287
"Macron’s experience since taking power hints at the potential risks of trying to govern with a * coalition of the credentialed and the content * in an era of growing class and cultural division"
.
The Left-Right Divide Isn’t the One That Matters
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/pete-buttigiegs-radical-centrism/603931/
.
This goes back to William F. Buckley Jr: "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
.
This is the primary path to a Trump victory, exploitation of class resentment. The left seems mostly oblivious to this weakness, in fact they tend to think of it as an advantage. Being ruled by the NYT's editorial board would make me move to Canada, ha ha.
Tom Scharf,
"I predict record turnout in 2020, and this will lead to Trump's defeat."
I vaguely remember people saying similar things in 1967, or maybe 1968 after the nomination of Eugene McCarthy. Young people were supposed to turn out in record numbers and elect McCarthy. Nixon was hated then about as much as Trump is now. Admittedly I don't remember anyone accusing Pat Nixon of being a prostitute.
McCarthy lost the election. The popular vote was fairly close, likely because George Wallace received 13.5% of the popular vote, but the Electoral College wasn't. Now if you want to compare to Clinton/Bush, then you would need a Ross Perot. I don't see one on the horizon. Note that even though Perot took 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992, he had no votes in the Electoral College. Wallace had 46, including one faithless Elector in North Carolina.
A Nixon advantage in 1968 was the disastrous Democratic Convention in Chicago. If the 2020 Democratic convention is brokered, which seems likely at the moment, then it could be as bad or worse than 1968. An Antifa presence would pretty much guarantee that.
Impeachment is a means for getting political dirt on Trump:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/23/breaking-house-argues-in-court-filing-don-mcgahn-testimony-needed-for-impeachment-evidence/
DeWitt, CNN had no problem putting up an author Kitty Kelley to promote her book that among other things called Laura Bush a drug dealer.
MikeN,
If a district court is foolish enough to order Trump's close associates (his lawyer!) to testify in an impeachment trial (and I have no doubt such a foolish judge… appointed by a Democrat…. can be found), then the SC will kill the order in a second. The Dems are delusional.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #178550): "I vaguely remember people saying similar things in 1967, or maybe 1968 after the nomination of Eugene McCarthy."
.
Your memory seems to be failing you. The Dems nominated Humphrey in 68.
Mike M.,
Yep. Getting older is so much fun. And I was looking right at the table in Wikipedia. You see what you expect to see and not necessarily what's there. But they were saying something like that before McCarthy lost the nomination. McCarthy did get more votes in the primaries than Humphrey, but Humphrey was nominated.
So let McCarthy be the equivalent of Sanders/Warren and Humphrey = Biden. A brokered convention that nominates Biden might alienate enough of the progressive wing that even though Biden might draw more independents, the turnout wouldn't set records. I wouldn't bet against riots at the 2020 Democratic Convention either if no one wraps up the nomination before the convention.
DeWitt,
"A brokered convention that nominates Biden might alienate enough of the progressive wing that even though Biden might draw more independents, the turnout wouldn't set records."
.
Maybe, but I suspect the left is so crazed about Trump that they would vote enthusiastically for my daughter's cat if that were the alternative to Trump. Trump's endless tweets and other nonsense offend many people, and not just those on the left. Pile on top of that substantive policies which are exactly *opposite* what the left wants, and you have a bunch of people on the left who are suffering hair-on-fire Trump derangement syndrome. Libertarians and conservatives are absolutely horrified by the wacko-green-socialists policies each Dem presidential candidate explicitly supports, and also very motivated to vote…. not for Trump (IMO, relatively few people really like Trump), but to keep crazy Dems from destroying the country.
.
I will not be at all surprised if % turnout sets records.
I like cats. I might vote for a cat if it ran against many politicians.
Stubbs the cat was major of a town and would have had experience in governance. Alas, he passed away:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stubbs_(cat)
Lucia,
Stubbs won as a write-in on the city ballots. Maybe that would work in 2020. Could an elected cat have a regent assigned to help? Nah, probably not.
But you'd have to find a 35 year old cat.
SteveF,
State of the Union addresses would likely be shorter if a cat was president. That would be an improvement.
MikeM,
I'm sure the constitution recognizes "cat years". This purina cat chow calculator indicates 5 earth years = 36 cat years.
https://www.purina.co.uk/cats/key-life-stages/ageing/cats-age-in-human-years
This pretty much says it all as to why it will be near impossible to shake my support for Trump:
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1207508280207011841
One of the funniest cartoons I've seen in a while:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/12/branco-cartoon-slow-down-you-move-too-fast/
Mike N,
I don’t think ‘they’ are coming after you personally , but I do think the left wants to do away with much of the historical jurisprudence and even simple traditions. They loath the country’s history, its founding, it institutions, and its constitution. The left wants to do away with all that to create a socialist’s paradise.
SteveF,
"…a socialist’s paradise…."
Now there's an oxymoron.
Now for something completely different:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/how-the-boeing-737-max-disaster-looks-to-a-software-developer
After reading the above article, I'm reasonably sure that the 737 Max should never be recertified. The plane's flight characteristics are inherently unstable.
DeWitt,
I read that article earlier this year when it first was published. Some very stupid (and dangerous) software was written to overcome the tendency for the plane to increase angle of attack with increasing power. Maybe writing sensible software is not the best solution, but I suspect the plane will be re-certified once sensible software is written. I do hope all the numbskulls who wrote and approved the software that killed all those people were already fired, but I doubt it.
.
BTW, I suspect the author is prone to a bit of exaggeration; he described the pistons in his Cessna 172 as “the size of dinner platesâ€. They are actually between 4†and 5†diameter…. awfully small dinner plates.
SteveF (Comment #178579): "I don’t think ‘they’ are coming after you personally"
.
They are coming after much of what I care about. And they will be coming after you and I personally if we refuse to submit. Unless they are stopped.
Steve,
I wouldn't call for the programmer's heads without more information. We work to requirements. Its not our job to know if the requirements are actually correct, and frankly I rarely have any idea. I'm contractually obligated to meet specific written requirements, right or wrong.
Merry Christmas all.
Merry Christmas Mark (and everyone else).
.
I guess my problem is that I have done both safety analyses in dangerous environments and a fair amount of programing as well. I just can’t imagine divorcing constant safety awareness and analysts from code writing.
Steve,
Sure. It's a nuanced thing though. For example, there can be lots of different systems on different planes. My supervisors aren't going to pay me to informally do jobs being done by other people, going over their analysis. If I hold up the schedule doing that on my own dime I'd get disciplined for it. There *is* a chain of accountability for everything. I just object to blithely assuming it's the programmers fault. Maybe, maybe not.
When I think something is wrong outside of what I'm responsible for, I do raise flags for other groups. I just dont have any authority (and sometimes I don't have the expertise) to run the whole show. I have to trust that people are reviewing at the appropriate level and are making good decisions. Not always the case.
Mark,
In the case of a system which relies on a single data input to make life/death decisions, I would expect (and hope) those writing code would say “there is no sensor redundancy here for a critical safety systemâ€, and push back against whoever made that design decision. If Boeing management doesn’t allow programers to act on that type of obvious shortcoming, then Boeing managers are at fault, of course. When a company kills hundreds of people through gross incompetence, then the incompetent people responsible need to be gone, no matter their job function. What I have not heard from Boeing is how many incompetents were fired and their job functions. We also haven’t heard how Boeing will change their safety reviews (indeed, their entire safety culture) to ensure nothing similar can happen again.
Yes. Something went seriously wrong. Whatever exactly it was needs to get addressed. Whatever allowed the situation in Boeing to occur ought to be addressed. No argument there.
DeWitt Payne. "The plane's flight characteristics are inherently unstable."
This is wrong. You should check out Juan Brown at Blancolerio https://www.youtube.com/user/blancolirio/videos
He is a professional pilot and has a series of videos detailing the shortcomings of the 737Max. The 737Max is not unstable. The MCAS system was designed to ensure the Max handled similarly to earlier versions of the 737 and therefore certified pilots could transfer without need for re-training. This is known as "cost cutting".
Boeing is under great pressure from Airbus because their #1 selling aircraft, the 737, dates from the 1960s and is hopelessly obsolete. It can't compete with the A320 and variants. You can only stick lipstick on a pig for a limited time. Boeing need to develop a completely new replacement for the 737. They won't because that takes lottsa money and their customers don't want to pay for their pilots to be re-trained and re-certified on a new type.
This is how you turn a company into pulp. And BTW, the ex-management of Boeing moved Head Office from Seattle (where the aircaft are made) to Chicago (or Detroit). It doesn't matter which. There's no way an engineer can bang on your office door and say "single point failure is unacceptable" when management are 1/2 a continent away from accountability.
Verifying my email address
🙂
So I see a lot of folk don't like Trump much.
What I don't see is which policy is the problem? You are all such a logical group, but I'm not sure what you wish he would do or stop doing.
I just think that personally he is a pig and a boor. That's not a policy issue. I'd like him to filter some of his tweets (though I admit sometimes they make me laugh.) I probably wouldn't want to have lunch with him!
Having said that, I often don't like Presidents. I didn't like Obama either. I disliked even hearing him speak– which was also not a policy issue. I didn't like Hilary. Definitely wouldn't want to have lunch with her. Also not a policy issue.
So the teasing and mocking he does is the issue? I get that if I'm understanding. His communication style is very, very, very poor for my own liking. I want detail!
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2019/happy-t-day/#comment-178629
Bloke in Japan,
"The MCAS system was designed to ensure the Max handled similarly to earlier versions of the 737 and therefore certified pilots could transfer without need for re-training. This is known as "cost cutting"."
No, it's called going out of business. The company I worked for made a somewhat similar decision to save money in a particular product line by not investing in new manufacturing technology. Eventually they couldn't compete and dropped the labor intensive product line and a lot of jobs. I'm not at all sure that management realized when they made the initial spending decision that it was a decision to lose that product line.
It's also still a software kludge for a performance bug. Worse, the kludge was buggy. While increasing angle of attack with increasing thrust isn't always inherently unstable, in a critical situation it could be. It's definitely a bug, not a feature.
Jeff Id,
I support Trump because of his policies; that is far more important to me than his style. I have not liked his style, but accepted it as part of the package. I am increasingly coming to the opinion that it is a feature, not a bug, in that it would not be possible to take on the entrenched elites and Deep State without being confrontational.
DeWitt,
I use the term 'buggy' or defective to indicate software that doesn't work according to design. Was that the case here, do you know, or was it that the software worked as designed but that the design was a bad idea in the first place?
Jeff,
I support at least some of Trump's policies. I just loathe listening to him speak.
My impression is that the MCAS started out as a reasonable design that would produce a very limited effect under very restrictive conditions. Then, for various reasons, the design underwent mission creep and became much more expansive in terms of when it would activate and how large an effect it could produce. But they never went back and re-examined assumptions and conclusions that made sense with the original design but not with the new one. Perhaps because of bureaucratic momentum, perhaps because they did not want to examine the conclusion that a new type rating would not be needed, most likely a combination.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I feel like there's a misunderstanding here about programming in the aerospace industry. My experience has been it's not like other industries where the programmer is more or less significantly in charge of what he's developing (in charge of the design, documentation, verification, etc). In my experience, the software developer in aerospace gets allocated well after the requirements have been gathered and processed and the system has been designed. Maybe a year or more after. He didn't get invited to the meetings; he might not even have been aware they were going on. Nobody is interested in his opinion on the design or whether or not the project is a good idea. Take me for instance. I get a list of requirements to implement, or a list of change requests. My job is to implement the requirements in a functionally correct, maintainable, verifiable way, as quickly as reasonably possible because time is money. That's it. Sure, if something is [obviously or blatantly] wrong I raise flags and make noise about it, but day to day it's not what I'm supposed to be doing with my time.
.
This is why I object to scrambling responsibility onto the programmers. It sounds to me like maybe Boeing management made bad business decisions and/or bad long term engineering decisions about product development. When management comes to the software engineers and pays them to do something that's a bad business decision, I don't see why the software engineers ought to get blamed for the bad outcomes. All they did was what they were paid to do, if the software works according to design.
Within reason, of course.
.
Anyway. I'll shut up about this now.
Since almost all politicians have the same weaknesses as Trump has, with the exception that Trump makes his more apparent with his inane twitting and off the cuff comments, it might be easy to give him a pass on his presentations. I do not because I consider Trump much too egotistical and a narcissistic (and much more than most politicians) to get over himself and at least present ideas with a modicum of reason. Again most politicians use emotional approaches and not reason, but Trump is way off the charts in his approach.
I do not trust Trump because I think he is an opportunist and has no or few lasting principles. I think he is wrong on trade and immigration and has shown no restraint on an issue that is important to me and that is deficit spending. So far he has gone along with the bigger government advocates spending requests.
Finally I think that Trump has turned off a sufficient number of the likely voters with his personality as to allow the election of a truly left wing President and members of Congress that would not only negate any of his accomplishments but begin putting in place government programs promised by the Democrat Presidential candidates that many on the right have thought of as mere pipe dreams to get the nomination.
Thanks for the comments folks. I have huge respect for this crowd and I’m listening and trying to understand.
mark bofill,
Implementation of MCAS was a management decision and can't be blamed on the programmers who implemented what they were told to implement.
"I use the term 'buggy' or defective to indicate software that doesn't work according to design."
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2019/happy-t-day/#comment-178743
Flying the plane into the ground when a single sensor failed is, or certainly should be considered, a bug. I doubt the design specs included that situation, although perhaps they should have. But again, that's a failure of management.
That's fine DeWitt. I'm not trying to pick nits just because, but rather because it's an important distinction in my world. For software guys, it's just not useful to call something a bug or software defect when the software is doing what it was required to do.
Jeff Id (Comment #178765)
January 2nd, 2020 at 1:09 pm
Jeff, if you are still here I was wondering if you knew what happened to Ryan O'Donnell. I have not seen him online for a long time. That entire Eric Steig affair was a fun time for me.
Im often here. The threads are endless with a lot of smart folk. I haven't heard from Ryan in years. It stinks because my business moved into his area and i have never met him in person. Maybe i’ll try again.
Kenneth Fritsch,
“I do not trust Trump because I think he is an opportunist and has no or few lasting principles.â€
.
I think politicians who are NOT opportunists and who hold lasting principles are rare. Those in high office, who have a big electorate to please, are even less likely to be principled…. most all sold their souls long ago, if they ever had one. Trump *is* much more offensive than most with his foolish tweets and off-the-cuff remarks, and that, unfortunately, is not going to change. But the alternatives (Warren, Bernie, et al) are determined to please their base of leftists by dramatically increasing public control of private activity, confiscating wealth, and of course, doing everything possible to ensure equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. Theirs is a vision of political control which I find far more offensive, and infinitely more damaging to liberty, than Trump and his ridiculous personal behaviors. Trump is a fool. The judges he has appointed are not. Trump’s pronouncements are often offensive and self-defeating. His policies are not. I’ll hold my nose and vote for him again.
Trump is much more honest and principled than any other recent, nationally prominent politician. Trump's "dishonesty" is confined to puffery and details; he is extremely honest about the big things that actually matter. That is the opposite of the typical politician.
I don't care for the puffery, but Trump's tweets and such are "offensive" chiefly by challenging the status quo and the accompanying comfort of the elites. I am good with that.
Ice Nine, anyone?
“There is a tragic flaw in our precious constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.†Kurt Vonnegut
Thomas William Fuller,
Speaking of Ice Nine, Cat's Cradle by Vonnegut is a good read ( https://www.amazon.com/Cats-Cradle-Novel-Kurt-Vonnegut/dp/038533348X/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1H18OMR24UDKO&keywords=vonnegut+books&qid=1578086401&sprefix=vonne%2Caps%2C179&sr=8-4 ). But then so is Harrison Bergeron ( https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt ), which is a short story about a dystopia based on government forced equality of outcome. As a man of the left, Vonnegut seemed to be much more aware of potential unintended consequences than are most progressives today. Nowadays it seems that the appearance of an unintended consequence means you need to double down.
Mike M.
That is really well said. Trump has a line which he uses for motivation and we all see it – well most if us anyway.
I don’t care for it either but i’ve used the same technique at times.
I tend to filter it whereas others may react to it.
My wife and I live within 20 miles of a military base. We heard a ton of air traffic two nights ago -after the Solemani was killed. Trump did a rally near there a short while weeks ago and we heard less traffic then.
I forget who on here was complaining about use of RCP8.5.
Well a self-described alarmist has joined in.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/climate-change-worst-case-scenario-now-looks-unrealistic.html
MikeN,
I read the article. The strange thing to me is the author’s child-like belief that global catastrophe will happen when warming reaches 2.5C above pre-industrial, even while humanity has prospered as never before as global temperatures warmed by nearly half that amount in the last ~120 years. By every rational measure, people are vastly better off due to the use of fossil fuels, but that doesn’t even seem to enter the thimble-sized cranium of the author. There *will* be some warming in the coming decades… likely near 0.15C per decade… but humanity’s condition will continue to improve, with extreme poverty nearly disappearing within the 2020’s. Unless, of course, the loony green left takes over and crushes economic growth.
That's a weird article from the world's number one alarmist. He should go to the doctor for a bipolar disorder check.
.
It takes all of about an hour for anyone versed in climate science to determine RCP8.5 was unrealistic and is constantly being misrepresented as a likely outcome. What one finds is this is the baseline assumption in most media articles, and many times it remains unstated to further obfuscate alarmism.
.
There is nothing wrong with using RCP8.5 as an upper bounds exercise for scientific analysis. In sea level rise articles in Florida they also refer to an "extreme" scenario which is RCP8.5 with the addition of fast ice sheet collapse. It's even more fantastical upon examination, but provides activists with the coveted "up to X meters …" quote from science authority they want to forward their political agenda.
.
Most climate coverage fits the dictionary definition of propaganda now, it's unreadable. I only read about one article a month now and it is always more of the same.
MikeN (Comment #178835): "a self-described alarmist has joined in"
.
I think there are four unrealistic assumptions made by the climate doomsters.
(1) RCP8.5 = business as usual
(2) ECS >= 3.0 C
(3) anything more than ~2 C warming since 1880 will be a disaster
(4) the model-predicted warming that has not occurred is hiding and will jump out to bite us
It is nice to see an alarmist realize that one of his assumptions is seriously flawed, even if he has yet to question the other three. The rest of the dominoes might or might not fall; but it is a start.
A WSJ editorial pointed out today that Soleimani was in Iraq illegally. There was a 2007 UN resolution that he violated. That made him a legitimate target as a military combatant in uniform in contested territory. It was no more illegal or illegitimate to target him than for us to shoot down Admiral Yamamoto's plane during WWII. Calling either an assassination is questionable.
"Those suddenly concerned about international law apparently weren’t worried that Soleimani’s presence in Iraq was illegal under a 2007 United Nations Security Council resolution that was still in force. If the terrorist ringleader had adhered to that U.N. travel restriction, he’d still be alive."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-iraq-and-iran-11578263875
Now the killing of Osama bin Laden might more accurately be considered an assassination, not to mention all the drone strikes during the Obama administration.
They made a big deal about the fires in Australia (and California) being a result of anthropogenic climate change at the Golden Globes last night. I agree that it's climate change, but I don't agree that the human contribution was necessarily the primary cause. The problem is that climate changes all the time because fluctuations in long term weather, what is called climate, are not white noise and long term averages were never stable. That was the real hockey stick fallacy. Also the implication is that the US and Europe can actually do something about it with no mention of China and India.
" Only nut cases want to be president.†Kurt Vonnegut"
Good sound bite.
I hope nobody here had a mother who said you could grow up to be President one day Jean/Johnny.
Certainly no one here has ever had a fantasy about it, have they?
Democracy is a great institution until it puts in a leader with policies
or personality that you don't like.
I think it is great that a leader with flaws who pushes the popular, read democratic, choice of most of the people can sometimes get elected when needed.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Another sound bite.
Followed through to its logical conclusion is interesting in many ways.
Who seems to have had the absolute power in America anyway?
Bolton?
DeWitt, the US declared war against Japan.
MikeN,
And we haven't formally declared war against anyone since while killing lots of people in multiple campaigns. So what? Real question. Are we supposed to not take action against murderous terrorists because they're Iranian and they might get angry? Again, real question.
And again: Obama drone killings of 384 to 807 civilians in 563 drone strikes from January 2009 to January 2017 in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.
"There were ten times more air strikes in the covert war on terror during President Barack Obama’s presidency than under his predecessor, George W. Bush."
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush
I have a big problem with a lot of the Obama drone killings, but not with killing Soleimani. The fact that he was a "murderous terrorist" is not enough, IMO, to justify an extrajudicial assassination. Soleimani was illegally in a country in which U.S. troops are present at the invitation of the government (at least for now). He was involved in attacks on U.S. troops and a U.S. embassy. And he was actively planning further attacks. He was a combatant in a combat zone. Definitely fair game.
Hardly anyone is arguing that Soleimani wasn't a valid target. It was basically an assassination, whether it meets the legal definition hardly matters to anyone except the legal department at the UN. Whether it was wise or not is debatable. If Iran was going to continue to test the US, then this or something like it was inevitable so I am ambivalent about the specific type of retaliation the US performed. The US has showed restraint over the past year. Iran is going to performatively overreact as part of their plan of escalation. The tears of their revered leader! It all looks like a daytime soap opera.
.
The people who are criticizing Trump as without strategy seem to be quite deficient in providing what is the correct strategy. The rest falls into a "now the ME is a mess, and it's Trump's fault!" hilarity.
Tom Scharf,
I suspect the leadership in Iran (mostly religious leaders) understands that they too can be targeted, and they put themselves at personal risk if they escalate the confrontation. I suspect they will climb down rather than risk their own demise.
Tom Scharf (Comment #178875): "Hardly anyone is arguing that Soleimani wasn't a valid target."
.
I think that is correct, although the conservative blogosphere has been trying to create a different impression. And the Dems have been so determined to attack Trump that it contributes to that impression.
.
Tom Scharf: "The people who are criticizing Trump as without strategy seem to be quite deficient in providing what is the correct strategy."
.
That seems to be generally true, whether the critics are neocons, Democrats, or Tucker Carlson types who worry that Trump is being manipulated by bad advisors.
My point is you can't say it is the same as Japan and Yamamoto because the US was formally at war with Japan.
Congress hasn't even authorized military action in Syria.
Granted Soleimani was in Iraq, where Congress has approved use of force.
MikeN,
And Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. Now that was an assassination. I still maintain that the killings of Soleimani and Yamamoto were not different in any significant way. Declarations of war are so 19th century.
Just as skeptics and lukewarmers are not required to provide their own trajectory for climate change when criticizing the consensus, neither are critics of Trump and his administration required to put forward a Middle East strategy when criticizing the current state of affairs.
I'll put in two cents' worth. Trump has no strategy and Suleimani died to distract us all from Trump's domestic political troubles. Sorry, Suleimani. (But not very–you were a turd.) Any American service members who perish as a result of Suleimani's deaths will have given their lives in defense of Trump's battle against impeachment.
Trump Derangement Syndrome. Iran crossed a bright red line when they killed US citizens in the rocket attack. If Iran behaves from here on out, the desk will be clear for impeachment. One might have noticed impeachment has been breathlessly covered by the media 24/7 and it has had exactly zero effect on the polls, so the imagined and hoped for effect that impeachment will bring is not likely to come about. Trump's character flaws are already baked in, continuously screaming it in the face of everyone as if they were on the moon the last 3 years has proven ineffective, and is probably counterproductive.
Hiya Tom, and Happy New Year!
Are we then in agreement that Trump is deranged? 🙂
American service members and contractors are killed every week without it providing a bright red line to anyone. They are pawns in The Great Game that shows no sign of ending. Ever.
I also agree that the percentages of those in favor of impeachment and removal have not changed much. Half the country supports impeachment and removal. I am among them.
Thomas,
I check https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/ all the time to see the current split on impeachment. For impeachment just ticked up to 50.2%. It's been wobbling around 50%. The uptick seems to be during the first week of January. (Timing is partly related to when polls are conducted and partly to when specific events happen.)
I figure Nancy will transmit documents now. 🙂
Hiya Lucia–and Happy New Year to you too!
Without understanding all the nuances of my former Congressional representative's position, I am not sure what she gains by sending the articles over now.
More evidence is coming to light of our fearless leader's misdeeds and misjudgments. Why not let them pile up enough to where she doesn't need witnesses?
OTOH, Bolton just got what he wanted, so maybe he'll reconsider testifying.
Thomas,
I just sort of figured the house was more motivated to be active on impeachment during the period when polls showed more than 50% favored it. When Nancy waited to send, I noticed the fraction favoring had dropped below 50%. I figured she'd send when it went back above 50%. If I was right, she'll send them now.
.
I'm sure she won't state the polls as being a motive.
.
Of course, I could be wrong and she still won't send them! (And of course, if I'm right, it could turn out I'm right for the wrong reason.)
I'm sure that next week's revelation will be the big one that changes everything and Trump will certainly be out! Oops, that was a comment from Nov 9th, 2016. Ha ha.
.
The only poll that actually matters is the Senate poll. I find it very unlikely anything will change that poll anytime soon. Not "sending" the impeachment over to the Senate is nakedly partisan and political, and nobody is surprised in the least because that is what it has been since the beginning.
.
Some people believe if you want a president to be removed from office, you have a vote by the people under the existing rules to do it, I am among them.
Thomas Fuller,
"I also agree that the percentages of those in favor of impeachment and removal have not changed much. Half the country supports impeachment and removal. I am among them."
.
I'm guessing you were in favor of removing Trump from office the day he was sworn in. Am I wrong about that? There is no constitutional way to hold a recall election, although that is what you and your ilk appear to have wanted since November 2016. The Federalist papers made clear that only an overwhelming consensus could justify removing a president from office… and that overwhelming consensus doesn't exist. Just as it didn't exist with Bill Clinton. Clinton's impeachment was a destructive error for the Republicans, and so is this impeachment for the Democrats.
.
In any case, Trump is not going to be removed; there are not 67 votes in the Senate, and there will not be. Nancy Pelosi knows this, so may not *ever* send over the articles nor assign house members to act as prosecutors in the Senate 'trial'. The urgency to vote on articles in the House without waiting for a SC ruling on forcing testimony from Trump's close advisers looks ever worse the longer Pelosi refuses to proceed. My guess is she wants to keep the country focused on the impeachment drama, rather than having the Senate proceed with a trial and then and refuse to remove him.
.
I believe she is making a big strategic mistake with her tactics. I'm OK with that, since she will likely end up with Trump re-elected in November, and losing control of the House. And that would lead her to retire…. which IMO, is as positive an outcome for the country as the entire impeachment brouhaha could ever yield.
Hi all,
Well, as a former constituent of Madame Speaker, I can only advise you not to underestimate her.
She wins. A lot.
TWF: "Well, as a former constituent of Madame Speaker, I can only advise you not to underestimate her.
She wins. A lot."
…….
Two of her more impressive actions. `1. Calling a border wall "immoral." I imagine that she and many of her Dem colleagues live in gated communities. The idea that a country can't erect a wall to keep out illegals is silly and beyond stupid.
2. Having an impeachment article called "Obstruction of Congress." To people who understand the separation of powers upon which the Constitution is based, this is pretty much in the category of what would otherwise be considered a Saturday Night Live joke. It is particularly stupid in light of the fact that there has been a 2.5 year witch hunt based on essentially gossip in a bar, and virtually none of the Dems are concerned with the attempted intelligence agency coup or the integrity of elections to be free of intelligence agency manipulation. No reason Trump should give the least bit of respect to the blatantly corrupt Dems.
JD
So 50% of the population of the US wants to remove Trump from office. So what? We don't elect Presidents by a majority the national popular vote, nor do we remove them from office by a national popular vote. A state by state poll converted to electoral votes would be much more interesting.
I would think about betting real money that most of the people who want to remove Trump are concentrated in coastal blue states and it's not at all clear that those states would result in a majority in the Electoral College. And the Senate is not at all one man/one vote. California and New York get only two votes each, just like every other state and you need 67 Senators to convict.
Btw, talking about Soleimani being an imminent threat was beyond stupid. What was important was that he was in a very vulnerable position that wouldn't last. Killing him in Iran wasn't going to happen. Iraq was probably the best location for the kill, if nothing else, for the 2007 UN resolution that made it illegal for him to be there.
DeWitt,
I think that tactically, Nancy would rather send the articles forward when more than 50% of americans favor impeachment rather than when fewer than 50% favor impeachment.
Lucia,
Which states the support for impeachment comes from is probably a lot more important than the national average. In key swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, removing Trump via impeachment does not have anywhere near 50% support (https://amp.axios.com/trump-impeachment-poll-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin-6776a580-9a0f-4362-a8a7-e6180f18ed14.html). I imagine that matters more to the Speaker than the national average. Damaging Trump’s re-election chances has always been the goal of the endless efforts “to remove†Trump from office. If Pelosi sees proceeding with impeachment will help Trump’s reelection chances, then delaying the Senate trial while insisting on searching for more/new evidence against Trump (which is just a continuation of what the Dems have been doing for three years!) makes sense. As I noted above, IMO the entire impeachment exercise is a big strategic mistake.
Tom Fuller,
>>Half the country supports impeachment and removal. I am among them.
.
This means Pence would assume the Presidency. I'm sort of surprised you'd be behind removing Trump given that this'd be a direct consequence.
*shrug*
The Iran airliner "crash" looks to stink to high heaven. Iran's immediate declaration that it was a technical problem with almost no evidence collected is part of a sea of conspiracy theories suggesting this was part of the ongoing tensions in the region. The timing is highly suspicious, a few hours after Iran launched their missiles. It seems that an over anxious missile on ultra high alert may have once again taken down an airliner, probably friendly fire. A lot more people were killed in this crash and the funeral stampede than the events that preceded it. We may never know what really happened here.
lucia (Comment #178924): "I think that tactically, Nancy would rather send the articles forward when more than 50% of americans favor impeachment rather than when fewer than 50% favor impeachment."
.
I can't see why that would matter. As SteveF says, which states is more important than the national average. And it is not public opinion at the time of forwarding that matters, it is public opinion at the end of the trial and in November.
.
Pelosi is now getting pressure from both members of her caucus and Senate Democrats. The gig is up. She blew it. Unless maybe the delay was for party fundraising purposes.
MikeM,
Of course her concern would be the public opinion poll in November. But she can't know that before November and like it or not, she's either got to transmit or not transmit those dang articles before November.
.
The main thing is: I expect her to consider polling when making this political decision. I agree she would consider more finegrained polls than I looked at. The national poll is an amalgamation, and I'm just not bothering to look at polls in greater detail.
.
**Pelosi is now getting pressure from both members of her caucus and Senate Democrats. **
Sure. I still suspect the initial decision to not transmit was influenced by the downtick in support for impeachment that happened during hearings and just after. She was hoping for an uptick….
The Pentagon says that the Ukrainian airliner that crashed in Tehran was shot down by an Iranian anti-aircraft missile. The crash site photos make it pretty clear that whatever happened, the plane was blown apart in the air.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrainian-airplane-shot-down-by-mistake-by-iranian-anti-aircraft-missile-pentagon-officials-believe
Thomas Fuller "More evidence is coming to light of our fearless leader's misdeeds and misjudgments. Why not let them pile up enough to where she doesn't need witnesses?"
Why not let them pile up before impeaching?
TDS in it's most … humorous? … form. The Atlantic works through some contorted yet predictable logic to blame the downing of the airliner on Trump.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/were-just-discovering-price-killing-soleimani/604705/
.
"Soleimani abundantly deserved to die a violent death. The 176 innocents he took with him did not. President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama both flinched from doing justice to Soleimani, because they asked, “And what will happen next?†Trump did not ask that question. Families over half the world are now grieving a consequence that Trump’s ego forbade him to imagine or ponder."
Tom Scharf,
Among the woke, all bad things which happen anywhere are either due to climate change or due to Trump being President. Nothing else matters to the woke; which demonstrates clearly both their stupidity and the fact that they are a$$holes. I note that my experience is the two characteristics are strongly correlated.
And among the woke some may well believe that Trump is directly responsible for climate change, so. That simplifies things a bit.
Thomas William Fuller
Good one Tom,
“Are we then in agreement that Trump is deranged? 🙂â€
–
Citing
“American service members and contractors are killed every week without it providing a bright red line to anyone. They are pawns in The Great Game that shows no sign of ending. Ever.â€
–
For him to be playing the great game is evidence by itself that he is not deranged.
–
Signs of derangement. Guide.
1. Complaining that you are not paying enough tax.
2. Complaining that The increase in American jobs is putting poor people overseas out of work.
3. Complaining that when Democracy is not working ( in your view) that we need to take away peoples rights and liberties to get them to see sense
4. Suffering from TDS.
Much?
BTW,
You and Steven have done great work in the past. I appreciate your continued efforts.
Happy New Year, Angech–hope all is well with you and yours.
My honest belief, evidence of TDS or no, is that we are saddled with an incompetent president with a black heart and a small soul. We have survived presidents with each characteristic. It is a lot worse when we see all three in the same corpulent frame.
Tom Fuller unloads a bunch of unsupported ad hom. How exciting.
.
I don't give a crap about the color of Trump's heart or the size of his soul. For eight years under Obama, I had to stay on my toes as I neared the end of each of my contracts because the economy sucked. For the past year and a half, I've had the luxury for the first time in nearly a decade of being able to ignore recruiters, who now call me three to five times a day. I made more money than I've ever made in my life last year.
.
Trump could have 'chiseled pectorals' like Obama or he could be a corpulent slob for all I care. Me and the people I'm responsible for are doing a heck of a lot better under his administration than we ever did under Obama. So put that in your hippie pipe and smoke it, Tom.
Should I inhale, Mark?
But even if such drivel mattered, somehow I doubt I'd hear you bellyaching if Madam President were sitting in the Oval Office, and by every account I've ever read she's as black-hearted and soulless a creature as Trump could ever aspire to be.
Yes. Inhale. Take it in and absorb it.
Is there anything in your view that Trump has gotten right or done well? I'd really like to know.
Thomas,
Now that marijuana is legal in Illinois, you should feel free to inhale.
Thomas
**It is a lot worse when we see all three in the same corpulent frame.**
We've survived fat presidents too.
Lucia, cue the theme from Shaft:
'Who's the president who's so stout
He gets in the tub but he can't get out?
Taft–Can you dig it?'
(h/t Steven Pearl)
He's not the only one-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5506823/Hillary-Clinton-fractures-wrist-slipping-bathtub.html
Oh wait, yes he is.
It's a bit uncharitable to assert people are pure evil and pure good. Of all the people I know well there are exactly zero people like this. Most bad behavior comes from incompetence, selfishness, lack of knowledge, failure to control emotions and a long list of other contributing factors.
.
The Mullahs and Trump are primarily defending their nations from perceived threats in the way they best see fit. Nuclear weapons are completely logical to Iran when a superpower is constantly hoping for regime change and engaging in armed conflict in the region. Their next door neighbor Saddam was just deposed by the US. The US sees an obvious goal from Iran to spread their religious ideology across the region by any means necessary. As they might say in divorce court, these are unreconcilable differences. Conflict is inevitable, and deterrence is required. Iran is constantly testing the boundaries of allowable behavior.
Tom
***TDS in it's most … humorous? … form. The Atlantic works through some contorted yet predictable logic to blame the downing of the airliner on Trump.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/were-just-discovering-price-killing-soleimani/604705/ **
This is true Trump derangement. After all, the Iranians insist the plane just blew up on it's own. That means we know it just blew up on its own. It can't be Trump's fault that a Ukranian passenger plane just decided to blow up on its own.
Tom Scharf (Comment #178963): "Nuclear weapons are completely logical to Iran when a superpower is constantly hoping for regime change"
.
No, that is not logical. The prospect of a theocracy getting nukes is the main reason that we would like to see regime change in Iran. There is exactly zero chance that we would invade Iran for the sake of regime change. But there is a tiny chance that we might attack them to stop them from getting nukes.
.
So the Iran nuclear program increases the risk to Iran from the USA. It does not protect the regime; it endangers it. Just as the North Korean nuclear program endangers the North Korean regime.
.
Both Iran and North Korea want nukes for the same basic reason: So that they can attack/dominate/control their neighbors from under a nuclear shield. Both regimes are willing to risk a lot and make their people endure a lot for the sake of that objective.
Tom Scharf,
"Conflict is inevitable, and deterrence is required. Iran is constantly testing the boundaries of allowable behavior."
.
There is no moral equivalency between countries who want to mind their own business and those who want to convert the world to conform with their ideology (or in this case, religion). The USA and the old USSR were not moral equivalents.
.
Iran's government is immoral: it is sponsoring terror, murdering dissidents, and trying to subvert its neighbors. The people in Iran, if given a choice, would vote the Mullahs out, but they don't have that choice. Of course the mullahs want nuclear weapons; they see them as the only way to expand their international aggression and not suffer consequences.
.
Iran's brutal and immoral theocracy is the lasting legacy of an idiot named Jimmy Carter. He is so dumb he couldn't tell the difference between murderous thug mullahs and normal politicians. The world suffers the consequences of his stupidity until this day.
Luica,
"The Atlantic works through some contorted yet predictable logic to blame the downing of the airliner on Trump."
.
I tried reading articles in The Atlantic for a while. The authors consistently know very little about which they write (most glaringly obvious when they try to write about any technically related subject), and all suffer from a bad case of TDS. I think The Atlantic is not worth reading.
Iran doesn't trust the US and has a lot of good reasons to not do so, and the reverse is also true. The US's implicit promise of "if you stay in your borders and stop developing nukes we will leave you alone" is just not feasible to them. They don't believe it and they think it is their religious duty to spread their "revolution".
.
The US isn't going to do anything hasty against countries with nukes. I see the Nork's and Iran's nuke programs as primarily regime self preservation. They would prefer to be an international pariah but have national security with nukes. I never believed for a second Iran would give up their nuke program. They would just do it secretly. Their announcement of starting full enrichment back up was met with a ho-hum.
.
It took us 3 weeks to militarily take over Iraq, Iran no doubt noticed. They know they cannot fight us, but they will also do whatever they can get away with up until the point we slap them down. They want to make life as miserable as possible so we just get fed up and leave. It's a transparent and not unwise strategy. These flare ups will likely continue to happen for the next decade at least. There is no solution here. Deterrence is a requirement, full stop.
SteveF " I think The Atlantic is not worth reading." One of the writers for the Atlantic stated that Carter Page totally screwed up his testimony before Congress when exactly the opposite was true. Unfortunately, almost certainly being wrong and uninformed has had no effect on the Atlantic career of that writes.
Don't know if James Fallows still writes for the Atlantic, but I used to enjoy many of his articles. Virtually everything I have run into from the Atlantic recently (and I have mostly stopped reading it) is garbage.
They confirmed a missile hit to the airline over Ukraine a few years back by:
1. Voice recorders picked up a large sound before they went down at slightly different times. This allowed them to triangulate the source to where the missile exploded.
2. Missiles explode and spread shrapnel. There was a shotgun pattern in the front of the plane with tell-tale inward facing shrapnel holes.
3. A few of the bodies had missile shrapnel in them.
.
This took a few years to determine with denials occurring to this day it was a missile. It will be difficult to cover this up if it was a missile hit.
The Atlantic has a few token non-deranged writers. The political and cultural coverage is very predictable with few exceptions, they know who their choir is. Don't miss "How Night Nannies Fit Into Affluent Urban Family Life", ha ha.
.
I never read their frequent anti-Trump run of the mill screeds. They courageously hired and fired Kevin Williamson in a few days because the Twitter police found something objectionable about abortion. It's longish form journalism in a sea of drive-by click bait.
.
One of their better ones:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
The Iowa caucuses are in 25 days. Three serious contenders, and Cory Booker, will be stuck in Washington for the impeachment trial this month.
Biden and Pete are happy with Pelosi right now.
Perhaps Bloomberg should make a play there.
Yep, the impeachment trial will make a mess of the Democrat primaries. If they end up calling witnesses, the trial won't be over before Super Tuesday.
Back in December I was wondering if McConnell would try to time the trial for maximum disruption of the primaries. Pelosi saved him the trouble.
Nate Silver has an interesting article up on the Dem primaries here
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/biden-is-the-front-runner-but-there-is-no-clear-favorite/
I know he leans leftwards but this:
"Since the primaries themselves are fairly complex process, the model is fairly complex also — which we mean as a warning as much as a brag. Models with more complexity are easier to screw up and can be more sensitive to initial assumptions — so we’d encourage you to read more about how our model works."
is somewhat refreshing. Climate scientists might take a page out of Nate's book here, could do them good.
Anyways – his model suggests the Iowa results are pretty darn important if not completely decisive.
Mike,
(Re:Back in December I was wondering if McConnell would try to time the trial for maximum disruption of the primaries. Pelosi saved him the trouble.)
I read someplace somebody suggesting that Pelosi did what she did with impeachment for precisely this reason. I wish I could remember where. I think the suggestion was based on the notion that she was trying to get Joe elected. I wasn't convinced, but.
*shrug*
mark bofill,
It would be weird for Pelosi to be trying to time things to sway who gets nominated. That's such a crapshoot and afterwards, the real prize is the election.
.
OTOH: I am no political strategist.
Lucia,
Yes. I thought it was a bit far fetched as well.
Yeah, it would be a complete shock to see someone with that amount of hubris.
.
.
.
/sarc
Earle… Well, I realize she might have quite a bit of hubris. OTOH, she has tended to be effective and practical. So…. I find it hard to believe she'd go for that level of crapshoot.
The problem with Nate Silver's model is that it is based on what happened in the past. But the rules for the Dem primaries and convention are radically different this year. It will be very hard for candidates to get disproportionate shares of the delegates. And that will make it very hard for the leading candidate to steamroller the opposition; which is what usually happens. So it is very unlikely that any candidate will get a majority of the pledged delegates. That will mean a brokered convention, since the ex-officio delegates will not be allowed to vote on the first ballot. The prospect of a brokered convention will encourage candidates to stay in the race, making it even harder for one candidate to get a majority.
.
Silver comes up with a 14% chance of a brokered convention. I'd say that is low by about a factor of 5.
Earle,
Washington is never short of two things:
1) Really bad sports teams.
2) Politicians with lots of hubris.
MikeM,
I will be very surprised if the convention is brokered. I think the odds-on favorite is Biden… even if he is a terrible candidate. Biden should have joined his son in collecting juicy salaries for the sale of influence….. lower risk and lower stress. And higher income.
The 15% minimum for getting delegates puts Biden in a strong position. Something that splits 14-20-25-30 Biden gets 40% of the delegates. Throw in some 30% states, as well as majority and in some states all of the delegates, his path to a first ballot win isn't that shaky.
For example, using the most recent poll at RealClearPolitics, after the first four states, the delegate allocation is:
Biden 74, Sanders 33 Warren 15, Mayor Pete 15, and 16 for Tom Steyer!. He is right at 15% and if he is a tad lower, the total is Biden 90- field 63.
“Iran's brutal and immoral theocracy is the lasting legacy of an idiot named Jimmy Carter. He is so dumb he couldn't tell the difference between murderous thug mullahs and normal politicians. The world suffers the consequences of his stupidity until this day.“
–
I am not an American but I remember the American hostages taken in their embassy and could not believe the non response.
Giving in to blackmailers and kidnappers only emboldens them.
–
Losing face, which America did then, is never easy to take. I think the current actions have a lot to do with that past situation and will resonate deep in the collective American psyche.
I am amazed that there is not an obvious groundswell for a Trump based on this one decision alone.
angech,
“I am not an American but I remember the American hostages taken in their embassy and could not believe the non response.â€
.
It was a violation of international agreements to which Iran was a signatory, and an act of war as well. Any sensible president would have decapitated the new regime with targeted bombings and captured any leaders they could for criminal prosecution, both for violating international agreements and for the wholesale murder of everyone in Iran who opposed the mullahs. They were and are a bunch of criminals, and should be treated that way.
.
Unfortunately, many voters (most?) are too young to have memory of Jimmy Carter and his stupidity.
I could be wrong, but I always had the impression that Jimmy Carter was a prime example of why having a big souled, good hearted guy in the White House probably isn't as wonderful an idea as it might sound.
[Edit: Yah, I was just a kid when Carter was in office.]
mark bofill,
I was 26 to 30 years old when Carter was in office. My problems with Carter had to do with his head, not his heart. Nearly every important decision he made was bad for the country, including his endless insistence on ‘fairness’ over economic efficiency. I thought he would be the worst president in my lifetime…. until Obama was in office: he was even more foolish and destructive (‘you didn’t build that’) than Carter; Obama (‘elections have consequences’) simply flipped the bird at anyone who disagreed with his leftist take on governing. IMO, both were truly destructive, dreadful presidents.
The Iran Hostage Crisis probably formed my right leaning politics as a young person more than any other event. It was humiliating and the hostages were released the day Reagan took office. I doubt the Iranians understand how much contempt the oldsters still hold against them for that. Carter blew it, he did attempt a rescue but … it didn't go well.
.
In other news the Iranians finally fessed up on them shooting down the Ukrainian airliner. I suspect they finally concluded it was impossible to cover it up, because they sure seemed to be trying. They look like a bunch of idiots. What, you don't know how to count your missiles and ask if any were fired? As I recall the US confessed in about a day after they shot down Iran Flight 655 in 1988.
.
The world's aviation authorities need to get a better grip on banning flights in zones of active hostilities. This happens too often.
MikeN (Comment #178990): "The 15% minimum for getting delegates puts Biden in a strong position. Something that splits 14-20-25-30 Biden gets 40% of the delegates."
.
That is a good point, but you are overlooking two things. One is that current undecideds will vote for someone, pushing candidates above the threshold. The other is that candidates who can't make the threshold will drop out, pushing other candidates over the threshold.
RCP averages for Iowa:
21% Bernie
21% Buttigieg
18% Biden
17% Warren
16% Other
7% Undecided
That would give Biden 23% of the delegates. Votes moving from Other and Undecided to the top 4 would make it unlikely that any of the top 4 will drop below 15%.
New Hampshire is similar, Biden has about 1/4 of the 73% going to the top 4. Nevada shows Biden with 43% of the above threshold vote but still has 15% undecided and 21% going to below threshold candidates; Biden's share of delegates will likely fall as people make up their minds. South Carolina is similar.
SteveF (Comment #178994): "Any sensible president would have decapitated the new regime with targeted bombings and captured any leaders they could for criminal prosecution, both for violating international agreements and for the wholesale murder of everyone in Iran who opposed the mullahs."
.
Any sensible president would have sacrificed the lives of 52 hostages? I don't think so.
I don't know Mike. It seems to me that we can never really prevent our people from being abducted or killed. All we can do is impose a heavy cost as a deterrent.
*shrug*
[Edit: well, that and of course don't cooperate with demands.]
mark bofill (Comment #179000): "It seems to me that we can never really prevent our people from being abducted or killed. All we can do is impose a heavy cost as a deterrent."
.
Has any President sacrificed the lives of abducted citizens to the cause of deterrence? Real question. I think the answer is "no", at least as long as there was hope of getting them free.
MikeM, good point on undecided, but they will move to Biden too. People moving to other candidates only applies to caucuses. Biden will get his low shares there, but still around 30%. It wouldn't surprise me to see no candidate break 15% in SC, even with the undecided, because I expect he will finish around 50. If the race stays split on Super Tuesday, he will have a large lead before they settle down to a few candidates.
Bloomberg's entry helps the field immensely, keeping Joe's share down.
Mike M,
Assuming the hostages would be executed is not justified. The Mullahs are consistently motivated to maintain 1) their lives and 2) their power; killing hostages would almost certainly mean they would quickly lose both. Carter should have asked Congress for a declaration of war and issued an ultimatum: immediately release the hostages unharmed, or face invasion, complete destruction of the country's infrastructure, targeting and removal of their regime, and (later) hanging the criminals for murder. It is no coincidence that the hostages were released just as Reagan took over. Carter was not a credible threat to the regime, Reagan was.
.
Beyond that, the left (including Jimmy the-dumb Carter) was played by the mullahs… the secular leftists in Iran, who were a big part of the success of the revolution, were promptly driven from government (if not murdered!) once the mullahs had consolidated power. The US Dept of State utterly misread what was happening in Iran.
Mike,
I don't know. I *do* know that accommodating hostage takers encourages the taking of hostages in the future.
I'm no leader and would refuse the job if offered. Thus I have the luxury of my personal opinion; I'd hold funerals for the hostages and proceed to annihilate the nation responsible.
Speaking of Bloomberg, we've been flooded with the Bloomberg healthcare ad. Since when has opposition to Obamacare been wild attacks on healthcare? The ad features two clips of Trump saying first that Obamacare has been a disaster and then that we should let Obamacare implode. Then a nurse from NYC comes on and says something like: these wild attacks on healthcare are hurting my patients. Personally, I think that's a complete non sequiter.
Bloomberg just ran the same ads multiple times nationwide during the NFL games. He is not doing well in the first four but is hoping to catch up on Super Tuesday, spending about 300 million by then.
MikeN,
“….spending about 300 million by then.â€
.
Didn’t watch any games, so I didn’t see any Bloomberg ads. But someone should tell Bloomberg that it doesn’t matter how much money he throws at it, he needs a message that resonates. That message can’t be “I’m a nicer guy than Trumpâ€, “Trump wants your family to have no healthcareâ€, nor “You deplorables need to learn how to write code.†Trump ran his 2016 campaign on a shoestring by comparison, but actually had a message lots of voters wanted to hear. I think Bloomberg is wasting (a small part of) his money.
I have not seen any Bloomberg ads, but I have seen Tom Steyer ads. They are very good. As phony as a stack of three dollar bills; but if I knew nothing about the guy, the ads would have me thinking the Dems have a decent candidate.
From what I have seen, Dem spending on TV ads so far has been about 50% Bloomberg, 25% Steyer, 25% everyone else.
Mike M.,
I actually agree with Tom Steyer on one point in one of his ads, we do need term limits for Congress people. But not for the reason he gives: that corporate America owns Congress.
Interesting letter in Friday's WSJ:
"Regarding your editorial "The Housing Shortage in Profile" (Jan.6): At the retirement party in 2016 for Diane Sugimura, the planning director for the city of Seattle, she chastised we builders in the audience about our "unwillingness" to create affordable housing.
I asked: "Why did you think high cost regulations would create low-cost housing?"
After a moment of silence, she asked me: "What do you mean?"
A classic example of politicians being clueless about the unintended consequences of supposedly well intentioned regulation. See also rent control and minimum wage.
I found it curious that both Steyer(!) and Bloomberg's initial ads didn't even mention climate change. These were basically "meet the candidate" ads but still they are quite vocal on this subject. This may signal that they see this as a toxic subject to lead with. No doubt they will get around to it, but preaching climate in national ads isn't likely to gain much support that isn't already baked in. Bloomberg probably has a better chance to beat Trump than Sanders/Warren. He isn't economically psychotic.
.
You can't read a story on Australia fires without getting a climate sermon. Very tiresome.
Tom,
I think for whatever reason we just haven't bumped into those ads. Apparently they are out there:
https://earther.gizmodo.com/billionaire-buys-climate-change-on-google-1840051709
I don't think Bloomberg is afraid of the issue. He's pretty clear about it – zero emissions by 2050 I think is his target.
[Edit: Sounds a little ecomonically psychotic to me]
Re comment 178981-2 and Pelosi's impeachment timing, maybe it was McCarthy (House Minority Leader) who was behind the idea. Apparently he thinks it was done to hurt Sanders and benefit Biden.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/13/kevin-mccarthy-nancy-pelosi-withheld-impeachment-a/
I still think that's sort of a wacky idea, although I confess I don't really have a good theory to explain Pelosi's behavior. Just a sort of footnote to tidy up.
*shrug*
mark bofill,
Ya, zero net emissions by 2050 is insanity…. both economically and technically. One of the interesting things about how politicians address global warming is how it shows they really don’t know much of anything about ‘the science’ nor where the energy that powers the economy comes from. It would all be comical were it not so potentially damaging.
Steyer interview with the NYT editorial board, long read.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/13/opinion/tom-steyer-nytimes-interview.html
.
I think he understands the future emissions numbers based on his comments about India and China, coal, and the need for global action. He has already given up on legislative action. He claims he is going to use emergency powers to force push through his climate agenda. Use military money for climate action and make new rules. This isn't likely to be very productive even if he was elected.
.
Since climate action is an article of faith at the NYT the only discussion was whether he was the most fervent activist in the field and how he would get it done. You can tell they have disqualified him already based on his ties to the financial industry. They kept saying he was the wrong messenger, he kept telling them they aren't representative of electorate ("a fancy newspaper talking to fancy people", ha ha) and he finally said if they were then he wouldn't get elected.
Tom Scharf,
"You can't read a story on Australia fires without getting a climate sermon. Very tiresome."
Indeed. In the real world, anthropogenic climate change is likely only a minor factor in the Australian weather, and I use 'weather' advisedly. Like California, there have been periods of severe drought in Australia leading to fires spreading rapidly. And also like California, environmental regulations have prevented proper land cover management outside the fire season to minimize fuel. There also seems to be a lot of arson.