Monday, February 13, 2017

 

Between 1965 and 2011, the official poverty rate was essentially flat, while the government spending per person on poverty programs rose by more than 900% after inflation.

Peter Cove

 

Amnesty International Boss Endorses “Jihad in self-defence”

Amnesty and the UN vet refugees.

 

Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.

James Burnham

 

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

Done, at last.

 

 

 

The news has been uniformly depressing, but perhaps there are a few bright spots. One of them is that Mr. Trump – President Trump – has been resolutely unpersuaded to just give up and enjoy the perks of office, be a good guy, “grow in office” and become popular with the media. That is what happened to Arnold Schwarzenegger when, after a very unlikely series of events, he found himself Governor of California. He had been popular; he became governor; he devised a series of reforms, initiatives which would have deposed at least some of the elites who had previously passed offices around and were the Enlightened, True Rulers of California, who knew best for all and were in alliance with the experienced long serving governing class. The Schwarzenegger initiatives were not acceptable to the Enlightened. They were Benighted. They were not acceptable to the long serving experienced governing class. They would have eliminated many of their perks, and interfered with — well, they just weren’t acceptable.

And suddenly Arnold wasn’t popular any more. Uniformed nurses – at least they wore nurses uniforms – turned out wherever he appeared and called him names he’d previously only heard in locker rooms. Other demonstrations threatened terrible reprisals if those reforms passed. The media suddenly discovered that Arnold Schwarzenegger was not a nice man from Austria; he was a monster, worth talking about only in negative terms. He had been a popular movie star. Now he was an unspeakable imbecile, inexperienced, unable to do anything right. The initiatives failed, and after that it didn’t take him long to “grow” and become, if not popular with the media, at least not anathema. The demonstrations stopped, he was Governor, it was good to be Governor, and every day he did not wake up to headlines denouncing him.

That is probably a fanciful train of thought, but it is more or less as I remember it. I met Arnold Schwarzenegger many years ago at a Christmas party by my agent, back before he was anything in politics. It took me a while to realize I was talking to the strongest man in the world; he was just a nice young man, about as tall as I was, deferential even, and pleasant. A few days later by chance he met Roberta in a Beverly Hills department store and he took some time to help her choose a Christmas present for me. He enjoyed being liked and popular. When the media turned on him, many years later, it was devastating. He’s hardly over it yet.

President Trump is now experiencing that: not only is everything he does mistaken and wrong, it is worse: foolish at best, and more likely just plain evil and mean.

And he has no experience, and doesn’t trust the smooth experienced governing class which knows how things are smoothly done. His Acting Attorney General did not rewrite his executive orders: she denounced them and refused to pass on the orders. Now they are to be rephrased to escape the clownish decision of the Circuit Court to make it clear there is no conflict with the establishment clause: as if an executive order governing which non-citizens are to be admitted to within our borders has anything to do with making laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Query: if a religion of ritual cannibalism were to demand entry into the US, would prohibiting its non-citizen adherents be contrary to the establishment clause? There is no question of citizen rights here. There are no citizens involved. Assuming some vestiges of Thugee, which was abolished in India by the British government in a series of bloody incidents (hardly to be called battles) still exists, would its open adherents be compulsorily admitted by the courts? Would Baal worshippers, who want to put up bronze statues (of course on private property) and sacrifice abortable – say 7 months developed — fetuses by tossing them, still living, through the arms of Baal into a charcoal burner below be welcomed? What if they were refugees? Is this a matter for judicial review?

Perhaps we should have demonstrations in favor of allowing Baal worship, on the condition that all the infants sacrificed are certified fetuses and the abortions are performed with consent of both parents? Is this judicial discussion, or do the Congress and President have any say? Would the police – perhaps the Army – be required to protect the Temple of Baal from angry mobs, say on Sacrifice Day? Would officers who refused to give this order be subject to court martial?

So far Mr. Trump has shown remarkable patience with these courts; but it remains a Constitutional Crisis. He has deferred to the courts. Is he growing?

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States” (Article One, Section Eight, Constitution of the United States.)

This power is plenary and absolute, and was not relinquished by “home rule” laws granting officials elected in the District of Columbia to act as if they were the actual government. Since one Congress cannot bind the next, this delegated power could be rescinded at any time.

Congress also retains the right to take back any powers of government over the District of Columbia it sees fit to take back. This certainly includes the arts. I have always thought that the best way for the United States to promote almost anything would be to establish exemplars; as it does with art museums and such. In particular, before the Department of Education imposes an education system on the entire United States, perhaps it could be tried in the District school system? Perhaps as a voluntary opportunity? If it really improved education – not terribly difficult as I understand the DC system, where the teachers and government people almost unanimously do not send their own children into the public school system — then it might be more reasonable to tax people to pay for it being imposed on children all over the nation.

One thing is certain: if the Secretary of Education has any schools ultimately under her control – potentially, since for the moment Congress has delegated that authority to the DC teacher unions – it would be the DC schools.

So of course her attempt to get a first hand look at those schools was met with –

Protesters Meet New Education Secretary at First Public School Visit

The Associated Press

Feb 11, 2017

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ attempt to mend fences with teachers and parents across the country got off to a rocky start, when she was confronted by angry protesters during her first visit to a public school.

Several dozen activists gathered outside Jefferson Middle School in Washington, D.C., a predominantly African-American school, chanted “stand up, fight back.” Two protesters tried to block her way and one man was arrested.

DeVos, a wealthy Republican operative and promoter of charter and private schools, said she enjoyed touring the school, but warned her critics that they will not prevent her from doing her job.

“I respect peaceful protest, and I will not be deterred in executing the vital mission of the Department of Education,” DeVos said in a statement. “No school door in America will be blocked from those seeking to help our nation’s school children.”

There was also

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/318924-devos-blocked-from-entering-dc-school

It turns out that there was a scheduled meeting with the DVC school chancellor that the demonstrators tried to prevent her from attending. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/protesters-rally-at-dc-school-ahead-of-visit-by-education-secretary-betsy-devos/2017/02/10/faad4962-ef06-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.cb936e88c990­) No one was arrested, and Mrs. DeVos was gracious; but it was an act of rebellion the moment they physically blocked her entry into that building. Mrs. DeVos is the confirmed Secretary of Education, and it would only take a few minutes for the Congress to make her the President of all DC schools, with power to delegate control to whom she chooses. If they want to play this way, the rules are against them.

Congress is sovereign in the District; the Constitution says so. Of course at present she has no authority to retaliate; and the President has not chosen to do so.

I admire Mr. Trump’s restraint: that is, so long as it is not a sign of his “growing”, as Arnold Schwarzenegger “grew” as Governor of California.

 

Re: ‘There is absolutely no precedent for courts looking to a politician’s statements from before he or she took office, let alone campaign promises, to establish any kind of impermissible motive.’

On 10 Feb 2017, at 11:39, Roland Dobbins wrote:

> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/t

> he-9th-circuits-dangerous-and-unprecedented-use-of-campaign-statements

> -to-block-presidential-policy/>

There is no doubt in my mind that they know exactly what they’re doing.

If they’re successful, the resulting precedent that’s set will completely remove any pretense of objectivity from our judicial system.

When that happens, the extrajudicial will inevitably follow, as they’ll have left no other recourse open.

—————————————

Roland Dobbins 

 

        

 

 

‘What if the real objective is support for restricting the power of the USDC to judicially review certain actions of the executive branch, or certain congressional legislation?’

<http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_real_significance_of_the_temporary_immigration_ban.html>

—————————————

Roland Dobbins

Congress certainly has the power to establish a special immigration court which hears all admission cases and from which there is  o appeal except direct to USSC. It could do this with a majority vote in both houses. Whether it has that majority in each house is not so clear; possibly, particularly if the District and Appeals Courts continue trying to adjudicate clearly executive and legislative matters – what the USSC has usually called “political matters” – and substitute judicial judgment for that of the President or Congress or both. And continues active rebellion like the DC situation.  But that is the nature of a Constitutional Crisis.

We Live in Interesting Times

Jerry,

If there was any doubt about the Politicization of the Federal Judicial Branch, the rulings of the last week have laid that to rest.

There are now Federal Judges openly saying the equivalence of “We known more about the threats of terrorism to this Country than the Executive Branch.” The concept of following established rulings has been thrown aside to serve the egos and political preferences of at least four Federal Judges in the current instance.

The only legal way to have a Federal Judge leave the Bench is through retirement or impeachment. I would suggest that it is time for the Congress of the United States to show some backbone and have the House introduce and pass articles of impeachment against the four Justices and the Senate to hold impeachment hearings and then vote.

I doubt that the Senate will generate the votes required to remove any of these Justices. However, it should alert the American People to those Senators willing to defend the Constitution and those who are not.

Bob Holmes

 

Re: The So-Called Judge Crisis

Jerry,

I’m more inclined to agree with you, now that the three Ninth judges have spoken. There’s a good summary of the incoherent stretches they commit at http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444784/why-ninth-circuit-ruled-against-trumps-refugee-order

(ignore the obligatory NRO it’s-really-Trump’s-fault asides.)

I’m still not worried about a Constitutional smashup in this particular instance – there’s a clear path out of it: Confirm Gorsuch, then appeal it to the Supreme Court.

But what this makes clear is that there’s a significant slice of the US court system where the politically incorrect will be reflexively ruled against even if it takes ignoring black-letter law.

I was immediately reminded of the trouble and expense Rand Simberg et al are still having over Michael Mann’s lawsuit. Various DC courts have spent years failing to toss out Mann’s suit, despite Simberg’s snarky line about Mann’s abuse of climate data clearly being a statement of opinion about a public figure, thus doubly protected.

The trend is clear: Rule of law will be set aside for the politically incorrect. Even if eventually overturned, in the protracted meantime the process will be the punishment. This is indeed a problem.

A problem many times over if the standard is to be routinely applied to acts of a politically incorrect President. The chaos and damage will be near-term and ongoing, the remedy of eventual overturn on appeal increasingly delayed as the higher courts clog up with such.

The constitutional answer of course is, impeach a few of the most egregious ignore-the-law judges, pour encourager les autres. But in the current climate, is there anything which might persuade 15 Dem Senators to go along? I’m not sure there is.

So, yes, the Ninth panel’s decision supporting anti-Administration lawfare implies a major Constitutional trainwreck sooner or later.

Porkypine

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change

 

Cheated and got caught

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.

L

 

Fighting climate change

Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever read such utter bullshit in a scientific grant proposal.

His next try will assert that woolly mammoths cure cancer.

The Surprising Reason This Scientist Wants to Resurrect the Woolly Mammoth

http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/scientist-aims-resurrect-woolly-mammoth-mmoth-surprising-reason-n718616

 

These are not substantiated, but somehow I don’t expect them to be…

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/

Global Warming is About Destroying Capitalism? | Armstrong Economics http://www.armstrongeconomics.com A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels. Figueres admitted that the Global Warming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlLlD1YPKw&feature=share

 

 

 

 

 

carbon taxes 

Jerry,

A carbon tax makes more sense than the “carbon credit trading” scheme, particularly since carbon credit trading has the same economic effects as a tax but it’s payable to the carbon credit brokers instead of to the government.

Conversely:

1. If anthropogenic carbon is not a massive hazard to the planet – and I believe there is a lot of room for debate despite the “unanimity of the experts” on the subject,  it’s a massive drag on the economy for no reason.

2.  If the revenues go into the general fund to be handed out as favors, instead of accruing to productive endeavors or actually fixing the real (not hypothetical or perceived) problems of atmospheric carbon, it’s again a massive drag on the economy for no benefit.

If carbon is a problem, the “invisible hand of the marketplace” will fix that problem in due course and far more effectively than an carbon credit, tax, or government program.

Jim Woosley

 

Very likely.  If we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere we must do that – algae tanks, iron in the oceans, electro-mechanical systems running off space solar power, whatever it takes – and far more than the USA alone puts in.

 

Carbon tax is conservative

Dr. Pournelle,
To the article labeled: _A Conservative Answer to Climate Change_, despite disagreeing with some of their arguments, you responded that an “insurance policy makes sense,” but the proposal is neither an insurance policy, nor an embodiment of conservative principles, as the article claims. This is another case of crypto democrats (what you call country club republicans) undermining the republican party by presenting a false choice against an hysterical threat. Their proposal is an unnecessary tax, not providing insurance against anything — it is the same Al Gore formula for environmental activism without modification to the additional (if not prime) functionality of enriching Al Gore.
Baker or Schultz acting or speaking as fiscal conservatives would be a true turnabout, but they could get a Nobel for it if they’ve kicked in enough cumshaw and done a good PowerPoint.
And the science isn’t all settled yet on the ozone hole or the Montreal protocol either.
-d

I do not argue with that.  I do not know what the true state of climate change is, nor do I think anyone else does.  I think the best insurance is a good space program, but I have been saying that for so long that I suspect you are all tired of hearing it.

View

“”A Conservative Answer to Climate Change Enacting a carbon tax would free up private firms to find the most efficient ways to cut emissions.

…”

I do not accept all their arguments, but I agree that I could be wrong; and insurance policy makes sense. This one is worth thinking about.”

I emphatically do not accept their arguments. Today I read about 8 Icelandic volcanoes ready to erupt and throw us into a sulfur dioxide “nuclear winter”. If we are mired deep in a large program to reduce CO2 a the time these volcanoes erupt we may be corpsicles before it is all over.

In my poorly informed engineer’s mind I hold dear a strong opinion that humankind is the best most adaptable species on this planet unless it ties its own hands behind its collective back. Our best insurance policy is agility and adaptability. The best adaptation takes place post stimulus rather than trying to make wild guesses before any needs develop.

Get the government the heck out of the way and, believe it or not, EGBOK.

{^_^}

 

 

 

 

 

Scientific consensus wrong about most great advances.

Dear Jerry:
Dr. Henry Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and Dean Emeritus of the College of Arts & Sciences at Virginia Tech, writes about the failures of scientific consensus and the dangers that presents for public policy.
From
https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/508/
Science: A Danger for Public Policy?!
Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/02/08
…
The contemporary scientific consensus has in fact been wrong about many, perhaps even most of the greatest advances in science: Planck and quantums, Wegener and drifting continents, Mendel and quantitative genetic heredity; the scientific consensus and 1976 Nobel Prize for discovering the viral cause of mad-cow diseases was wrong; that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria had been pooh-poohed by the mainstream consensus for some two decades before adherents of the consensus were willing to examine the evidence and then award a Nobel Prize in 2005.
Historical instances of a mistaken scientific consensus being have seemingly not affected major public policies in catastrophic ways, although one possible precedent for such unhappy influence may be the consensus that supported the eugenics movement around the 1920s, resulting in enforced sterilization of tens of thousands of people in the USA as recently as the latter half of the 20^th century.
Nowadays, though, the influence of science is so pervasive that the danger has become quite tangible that major public policies might be based on a scientific consensus that is at best doubtfully valid and at worst demonstrably wrong.
…
The history of science is unequivocal: Contemporary scientific consensuses have been wrong on some of the most significant issues.
…
In absence of an impartial comparative analysis, public discourse and public actions are determined by ideology and not by evidence. “Liberals” assert that the mainstream consensus on global warming equals “science” and anyone who properly respects the environment is supposed to accept this scientific consensus. On the other side, many “conservatives” beg to differ, as when Senator Inhofe flourishes a snowball. One doubts that most proponents of either side could give an accurate summary of the pertinent evidence. That is not a very good way to discuss or to make public policy.
For a sweeping survey of the failures of science policy in our age of dogmatism, I recommend Professor Bauer’s book “Dogmatism in Science and Medicine”

 

 

Scarce Resources and Money 

Dear Doctor Pournelle,

Sometimes I just cannot help myself. I occasionally read something from one of your correspondent’s put forth as “Deep Thought” and it is just so “Can’t see the forest for the trees” that I laugh out loud. I suspect you often are well aware of the unintentional irony, but let it stand without comment. Res ipsa loquitur.

The most recent example is Mr. Alan E Johnson statement that he just cannot accept the allocation of scarce resources, in this case health care, by how much money one has.

One of the few things I know about economics is that you don’t need an “economy” in the strictest sense if you have enough of everything for everyone that needs it. “Economics” is the art/science of allocating scarce resources, and let’s face the Ugly Truth: Nearly Everything On Earth IS A Scarce Resource, at least in the sense that there is not enough for everyone to have as much as they would like to have of almost anything. I think “air” is the only exception requiring that “almost”, and once we start living in pressurized habitats in outer space, we must perforce add it into the equation.

“Money”, aside from it’s great utility as a means of exchange, is a rational tool for allocating resources in all but the most strictly controlled economies. Once you throw out money, you open the door to Government Permits as a means of allocating those scarce resources (i.e.

“Everything”). The Left believes that government is Wise, Beneficial and Much Better at doing things for us than we as individuals can ever be at anything,, and most especially at allocating those scarce things. It is the basic concept of Socialism.

It is increasingly common, apparently thanks to our public schools indoctrination of their students, to hear/read of people acting as if “Common Sense Equals Socialist Thought”. It’s important to point this out from time to time, when someone goes on a bit too much about the Emperor’s Fine New Suit of Clothes!

Petronius

Yes, I sometimes do.  Discovered!  

 

 

Snowden on a Stick

It looks like Trump might get a gift from Putin; not a superbowl ring but Snowden:

<.>

U.S. intelligence has collected information that Russia is considering turning over Edward Snowden as a “gift” to President Donald Trump — who has called the NSA leaker a “spy” and a “traitor” who deserves to be executed.

That’s according to a senior U.S. official who has analyzed a series of highly sensitive intelligence reports detailing Russian deliberations and who says a Snowden handover is one of various ploys to “curry favor” with Trump. A second source in the intelligence community confirms the intelligence about the Russian conversations and notes it has been gathered since the inauguration.

</>

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russia-eyes-sending-snowden-u-s-gift-trump-official-n718921

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins – Observer

http://observer.com/2017/02/donald-trump-administration-mike-flynn-russian-embassy/amp/

I find the above very troubling. And consistent with what I know about IC corporate culture.

Francis

I have of course seen mainstream press attacks on Flynn, whom I do not know. The problem is that the ,media and press attacks anything Trump does with little regard to importance and not much more to truth. I cannot see the wolf but I hear so many shouts of his coming… I have had little involvement with the company since the 80’s, and know few involved since General Graham died. I do know enough to know things are often not as they seem, and those who say they know are often sincere in their beliefs, but wrong.

The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet. It’s the End of the Middle Class | WIRED

I think they underestimate the danger. I believe it could be the start of the end of the species. As a species we are not wired to survive a life with no goals, no accomplishments, etc.

We need to get to Mars, the Moon and the asteroid belts ASAP.

We need a survivor contingent of the species out there living the hard life and continuing our existence.

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/ai-threat-isnt-skynet-end-middle-class/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits

John Harlow

We need to learn to live in space. Moon Base First.

Teachers Unions 

Jerry,
If Franklin Delano Roosevelt could oppose public-service unions as “organizing against the People,” I don’t see why Republicans approving an education secretary favoring non-public-school choice is unacceptable to Democrats — other than Democrats being in thrall to their donor base controlled by SEIU, that is
By the way, I’ve been enjoying Chaos Manor. Am I becoming more conservative in my old age or are you becoming more anarchistic in yours?
I am a bad anarchist, though. I voted for Trump.
I’m still waiting to add your endorsement of Alongside Night — the Movie to your 1979 endorsement of Alongside Night — The Novel.
Be well,
Neil

Teachers Unions are a conspiracy to rob the taxpayers of benefits of school taxes and thus preserve real education to those who can afford private education.

That mean, stupid, ignorant, lying, fascist, racist, misogynist, traitorous, Nazi Trump

Hello Jerry,

You noted this:

“President Trump is now experiencing that: not only is everything he does mistaken and wrong, it is worse: foolish at best, and more likely just plain evil and mean.”

as an accurate description of the media wide characterization of Trump.

I think it would be instructive for someone to look up the network that sponsored Trump’s long run TV shows, see how he was described by his employers at the time he was on TV and the commercials they ran urging viewers to watch him, and contrast that with how that same network, its subsidiaries, and its employees have characterized him since he began his run for the presidency and subsequent to his election. 

You would think that after paying him for several years to host a popular program on their network they would have noticed, and commented on, his now so obvious (to them) faults, but no, his universally odious traits only manifested themselves when he became a leading Republican candidate for president, finally blooming into an existential threat to humanity at large AFTER his election.

It would seem that as a group they are EXTREMELY poor judges of character OR that they are willing to say or do anything to advance a particular political agenda and/or destroy political opponents.  Neither case provides a strong argument that their pronouncements about the character of a political opponent should be viewed as credible.

Bob Ludwick  

 

 

Turnabout is fair play?

Dear Jerry –
In the case of the suit against the Trump travel ban, an obvious question was, “What standing does Washington state have to allow it to bring suit? How can it claim injury?”
The answer given is that the state economy is damaged by the dislocations which the ban produce, and so the state has been injured and has standing to sue.
I find this a most entertaining argument, since it turns the “interstate commerce” argument right around and aims it at the Feds. Since the Federal government has argued, for instance, that growing pot in one’s back yard for personal use means that the grower does not buy in the (illegal) market, and thus affects the interstate economy in marijuana, it seems perfectly reasonable for the state of Washington to claim that its economy is being damaged by the effects on individuals within its borders. Sauce for the goose, etc.
Granted, I don’t think either argument should be allowed to stand, but if the principle is going to be established it certainly seems that it should do so fairly.
Regards,
Jim Martin

The one thing certain is that the law does not much deal in fair play or easy comprehension.  Perhaps it should. Perhaps we need a new Twelve Tables.

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Between 1965 and 2011, the official poverty rate was essentially flat, while the government spending per person on poverty programs rose by more than 900% after inflation.

Peter Cove

Amnesty International Boss Endorses “Jihad in self-defence”

Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.

James Burnham

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

I have about had it with Firefox. I have been using it for years, and mostly it works well; but periodically it crashes and has lost all memory of anything I have done with it since last October. It restores back to then. Not always: sometimes, after a computer reset or just overnight sleep, it comes back exactly as it was. But once in a while the computer is working fine, but when I got to Firefox it is seriously dead; nothing for it but to shut it down with Task Manager, because clicking on the shutdown X or indeed anywhere does nothing. When I open again, up comes a months old session. I can always tell, because it also opens a window in which I am talking about the Heinlein Award from NSS. I can close that window, shut down Firefox, telling it to remember the current session, and when it comes back up that’s gone: but after any serious Firefox failure, up will come the months old session and I hear myself talking again. After that it’s a half hour task to rebuild the session from yesterday’s history, painstakingly opening a new tab and restoring tab at a time – if I fail to open a new tab, the restoration replaces what I have just done.

I’m not sure why I stay with Firefox. I have had bad experiences with Windows Explorer often enough that I have stopped trying the new “improved” version – in my experience Microsoft “improvements” are at the expense of what used to be called user friendliness – but I guess I will have to try it again, because Firefox doesn’t fix old bugs while often adding new ones.

I’m sure there is some arcane formula for fixing Firefox, and in the old days I would have found and published it, but now I seem to have fewer and fewer productive hours each day, and bug chasing doesn’t have the appeal it once had.

And now, I discover, each of my new tabs is opened in a new WINDOW although I did nothing to tell this officious drech of a program to do that. It will take time I don’t have to find the fix for that, and meanwhile Firefox is useless. If they don’t fix these interface bugs pretty fast, I’m giving up.

Later: well, Firefox, after being shut down and restarted several time, seems to be it’s old, somewhat cranky, but usable self again. It has ceased to make any addition a new window rather than tab (and driving Windows 19 to distraction and I’m going to put up with it a while longer, but I understand Microsoft is still improving whatever they call their browser, and eventually they’ll

let a real user get at the interface. So they may be catching up. Certainly everyone needs competition.

Everyone needs competition, but no one wants any for himself; one reason our schools for two generations or more have been easily mistaken for an act of oppression settled on us by a foreign conqueror. There used to be built in competition: schools were mostly paid for by the people who used them, in small enough school districts that it was actually realistic for competent people – like retired military, or police, or business people or even teachers – to run for them. They were usually depicted in intellectual circles as bombastic idiots whose main objective was to keep costs down – Miss Brooks was always in the right and the Board in the wrong – but even in fiction it generally worked out to the benefit of the students. Not any more. The problems and dissents in todays world ignore the students, and work out to the benefit of the politicians, educrat unions, and teachers with tenure regardless of competence, and everyone knows this. Few politicians send their own children to public schools, especially not to any they actually manage. They know better. Jimmy Carter sent his kids to public schools, as I recall. Never heard of them since, but perhaps I do not pay close attention to such news.

Recently there was drama in the Senate, with the Vice President called to preside over, and cast the deciding vote in, the confirmation of Mrs. DeVos as Secretary of Education. Not a single Democrat voted for her, including New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, when not all that long ago served on the Board of the school choice organization Mrs. DeVos chairs. According to the Wall Street Journal ( The Real Democratic Party) Mr. Cory Booker hopes to run for President, and since it is impossible to raise the money of superdelegate votes for the Democratic Nomination without the support of the Educrat Unions, he went along with the party Line and voted against his one time friend.

The unions can‘t even tolerate a debate on the subject lest their monopoly power be threatened. All that chatter about “the children” is so much moral humbug.

The official reason for the extraordinary opposition to Mr. Trump’s non-political nominee is her lack of educational experience. Of course to gain acceptable professional experience you would have to come up through the ranks of the educrats and become one of them – or break your heart in a classroom in a system of education indistinguishable from and act of war against the American people since 1983. I would have thought it obvious that whomever Mr. Trump appointed to Education Secretary it would not be an “experienced professional.” Instead he chose a very wealthy school choice activist; sort of like choosing a community organizer to be President? But perhaps that it too snarky.

The public school system has failed, and I doubt it will ever be reconstructed. If it is, it will be by returning control to the local neighborhoods and letting local school boards whose constituents pay school taxes run the show including choosing principals and key teacher; by rewarding competence and dismissing incompetence.

It has been shown more than once that one way to improve schools is to fire the worst 10% of the teachers. Don’t replace them. Just make do with the rest. The school will improve noticeably in numbers of pupils who can read and students who graduate – and can read when they do graduate. But in fact no school fires any incompetents, and teacher awards are given by seniority, not performance; the unions are unalterably opposed to rewards for competence in teaching.

Mrs. Betsy DeVos is now Secretary of Education. She is strongly for parental choice in school, and is aware that some parents will choose badly; but at present the school system is unimaginably bad; it is unlikely any parent would chose something worse than the system we have. They would really have to work to find one.

As to how do you choose the worst 10% of teachers, the other teachers know. So do the students. Try 5% to start; it’s still far more than the number fired for incompetence in the present system, which amounts to under 1% a year, ten or fewer in a system of tens of thousands. Yes: there might be some injustices, firings due to spite and factions; but the present system keeps them all, and the clock is ticking.

To give some idea of what schools once routinely did, I offer California’s

I have just learned that Senator Sessions has been confirmed as attorney general (without the need for the Vice President). The Cabinet is forming.

An Antipoverty Veteran Now Wages War on Dependency

How Peter Cove came to realize that jobs, not government aid, offered the route to prosperity

By

Jason L. Riley

Feb. 7, 2017 7:04 p.m. ET

100 COMMENTS

Peter Cove dropped out of a graduate program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison more than 50 years ago to enlist in Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. These days, he’s fighting a war on dependency.

“We have edged toward a moral cliff where the shame of being dependent on government aid has been replaced by a breezy bonhomie for entitlement,” he writes in a new book, “Poor No More.” “We have moved from a commitment to serve the deserving poor to an assumption that all are deserving. And much of this rests at the feet of politicians trolling for votes by larding on the largesse.”[clip]

The government has spent an amazing amount of money per capita since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. The poverty rate remains essentially unchanged since 1965, and there are more households on welfare now than when the war on poverty began.

If you take the annual expenditure on poverty and divide by the number of people on poverty, the result is a number above the poverty level; yet we are told of the misery of those in poverty. Where all the money goes I leave as an exercise for the reader. There is a great deal more worth reading in the article.

Finally, George Schultz and James Baker, two former Secretaries of State, give their views on climate change.

A Conservative Answer to Climate Change

Enacting a carbon tax would free up private firms to find the most efficient ways to cut emissions.

By

George P. Shultz and

James A. Baker III

Updated Feb. 7, 2017 7:07 p.m. ET

1426 COMMENTS

Thirty years ago, as the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer was dwindling at alarming rates, we were serving proudly under President Ronald Reagan. We remember his leading role in negotiating the Montreal Protocol, which continues to protect and restore the delicate ozone layer. Today the world faces a similar challenge: the threat of climate change.

Just as in the 1980s, there is mounting evidence of problems with the atmosphere that are growing too compelling to ignore. And, once again, there is uncertainty about what lies ahead. The extent to which climate change is due to man-made causes can be questioned. But the risks associated with future warming are so severe that they should be hedged.

The responsible and conservative response should be to take out an insurance policy. Doing so need not rely on heavy-handed, growth-inhibiting government regulations. Instead, a climate solution should be based on a sound economic analysis that embodies the conservative principles of free markets and limited government.[snip]

I do not accept all their arguments, but I agree that I could be wrong; and insurance policy makes sense. This one is worth thinking about.

Recycle rare earths

Dr. Pournelle,
Perhaps we begin to recycle and collect what we have, if China limits our access. Expensive, but better than some alternatives.
Thanks for years of information and entertainment, Sir!
Beverly Nuckols, MD

Agreed. Of course it requires energy; everything does. But we need the energy for other uses too…

Regulation and Draining the Swamp

Jerry,
In response to my post on the source of regulations, you wrote ‘It may start there, but I do not think the civil service is ever eager to declare any job redundant; certainly their union never has. It is also certain that it will take the cooperation of Congress to drain the swamp.’
You are right about the civil service and their protection of jobs, but surely, just like managing immigration, it is important to control the regulatory ‘borders’ even as we attempt to reduce the unnecessary burdens on the economy by eliminating over regulation. It is also difficult to see how a serious dent can be made in the regulatory burden if the case cam be made that the executive is no longer enforcing the laws as passed by the legislative. A serious draining of the regulatory swamp may require a serious refinement of existing legislation.
As for the number of civil servants, the plethora of regulations on the books certainly seems to provide justification for all of these government employees and making a serious dent in their numbers would put millions of people on the unemployment rolls with little prospect of finding a private sector job — a politically untenable situation. We need to figure out a way to get over our addiction to bloated government employment without going through a cold-turkey withdrawal.
We come to our bloated bureaucracy, though, from another set of forces other than having too many regulations to enforce. Early in my career I was a civil servant, a GS-1 working as an electronics technician for the Department of Defense. I saw highly competent engineers, doing productive work, stymied in their careers, unable to be promoted or given a pay raise in their GS-12 positions, because the rules by which civil servants gained promotion or pay raises did not allow them, no matter how deserving they were.
These engineers were at the maximum step within the GS-12 level. Their manager was not allowed to give them any kind of a merit pay raise above what that step specified. The only way to give them a pay raise was to make them a GS-13 level. This, however, required them to have a managerial role and, therefore, to have direct reports — lower level civil servants they would be responsible for. So, to solve the injustice of their stymied careers as highly competent technical employees, the manager creates a justification for new hires in his office, promotes the engineers to GS-13 and assigns them responsibility for managing the new hires.
The cycle continues from here. To get to GS-14, they need more direct reports, so more people are hired. And so on.
This plays along with the second driver of bloat in the civil service rules — an office may or may not get more money in next year’s budget, but will be guaranteed to get LESS next year if they do not spend ALL of this year’s budget. So, as the fiscal year begins to wind down, there is a frantic call to all levels of the office to SPEND MORE MONEY. On ANYTHING. The budget must be ‘justified’ by expenditure, not by production. No one is considered competent to judge the productivity of the various offices, so they have to look at the objective ‘measure’ of expenditures. A great way to spend money is to hire more people. Then you can promote people who may even deserve a promotion. And new people need cost of living increases, desks, supplies, you-name-its, so it is easier to justify a bigger budget for next year. Oh yes, and as the manager of the office has more people with more reports, he gets promoted, too.
If ever there was a prescription for inflation, these rules are it.

[

Kevin L Keegan

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Amnesty International Boss Endorses “Jihad in self-defence”

Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.

James Burnham

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

We are a nation of assimilated immigrants.

Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

Apparently I am nearly alone in seeing this judicial revolt as a true constitutional crisis, fully deserving impeachments by the House even though Senate convictions are unlikely. I am not arguing the wisdom of Mr. Trump’s immigration executive orders, other than to say they are hardly unexpected given his campaign; but their legality is manifest. Even those disliking them say so. The Constitution gives Federal authorities control over immigration; not states. That’s the Congress and the President; there might be room for judicial mediation if these two branches were in serious dispute on this, but they have not been asked.

Black letter law gives the President authority to suspend or delay admitting any class of immigrant he sees fit if he declares it a matter of national security. That law has been in effect for a long time. Mr. Obama used it in reverse to admit migrants and refugees; he did not see them as a threat to national security. That was his prerogative as President, whether we agree or not. A judge could not have ruled that he was wrong. Congress could impeach him, or strip him of the power (although he could veto that legislation; a simple majority ruling would not be sufficient). Neither was done and his rulings stood. The same is true now with Trump: he has black letter law on his side.

Mr. Trump does. This decision might be questioned by Congress, but even Congress has no authority to stop his actions without considerable more procedure than we have seen, and as a matter of fact it will not do so. So the President takes an action that his predecessor says is wrong, and the Courts suspend the order, because they do not find that this is a national security issue. That is not for them to find. That is a matter for the President and Congress.

This is a grave constitutional crisis, and it does not look like ending well.

SUBJ: Breaking news: Donald Trump cures cancer! The resulting headlines:

_The New York Times_ “TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON CANCER DOCTORS”

_USA TODAY_ “CANCER CURE WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE, MANY SCIENTISTS SAY”

_FORBES_ “TRUMP’S LATEST ACTION SENDS MEDICAL STOCKS CRASHING”

_NATIONAL REVIEW_ “WAS CANCER REALLY ALL THAT BAD??”

_The Washington Post_ “TRUMP’S MEDDLING MAY HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

– ONCOLOGISTS HARDEST HIT”

Shamelessly stolen from Ace Of Spades HQ website at http://ace.mu.nu/.

They’re having a contest there to see who can concoct the funniest headline. The entries in the comments are priceless.

Cordially,

John

 

 

This is a typical GOPUSA email:

Dear GOPUSA Reader,
This is an urgent alert for all American citizens born between 1931-1955.
For the last 3 years, a small team near Washington D.C. has been investigating chilling accusations of a secret U.S. government program…
The rumors? Confirmed: This program is quietly testing deadly ingredients on over 35.6 million unsuspecting senior citizens.
And today they’re releasing all the details in this shocking video exposé.[clip]

They almost never induce me to follow one of their links, but for some reason I followed this one. I have not the foggiest notion of what they want to warn me of, because after several minutes of dire warning teasing, with no possibility of fast forward, I gave up – and still had to click again to be allowed to close the window. I have no idea of who GOPUSA is, but I’ve had enough of them. If anyone knows what they are warning us of and can say so unambiguously and briefly I might look into it, but from here on, GOPUSA is junk mail for me.

 

GOPUSA

The link you got in the email from GOPUSA points, as you know, to a video presentation. I hate those things too. But if you click away from the video it offers the chance to read a transcript. From that, the following list of dangerous drugs can be seen. For some reason, they missed #4, which is Alzheimer’s drugs. Aricept is mentioned.

THE 7 MOST DANGEROUS
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

#1: Sleeping Pills
(Ambien, Lunesta, Restoril)

#2: Cholesterol Drugs
(Statins like Baycol)

#3: Blood Pressure Drugs
(Beta-Blockers, Calcium Channel Blockers)

#5: Arthritis Drugs
(NSAIDs like Celebrex)

#6: Diabetes Drugs
(Actos, Avandia, Byetta, Metformin)

#7: Chemotherapy
(Tamoxifen)

Richard L. Hardison, PLS, PE, CFedS

Waynesville, NC

I do not recall any opportunity to click away from the video?

 

I use Pale Moon, but it should work the same in Firefox as well. Just click to “x” to kill the open tab and you should get a dialog box that gives an option of staying on the page. The page you stay on should be the transcript.

Most of those video presentations work the same way.

Richard L. Hardison, PLS, PE, CFedS

Waynesville, NC

 

Russians Hacked Superbowl!

I cannot confirm these rumors on Twitter, but it seems the Russians leaked the Falcons playbook to the Patriots. Those evil communists may have meddled in our most precious American traditions. We might never recover from this. Until we can be certain, we must encourage the media to engage in autistic screeching so we can keep America calm and protect the national security! =)

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

Darn clever, those Slavs…

Ethics of Government

I believe the ethics of providing government services and paying for them by borrowing money and giving our children and grandchildren the debt ought to be questioned and discussed if we are going to discuss ethics

—————–

Keep in mind the mentality of elected officials.  The extent of their vision ends at the next election.  Do whatever it takes to win the next election.

Fabricate lies, smear your opponents, misrepresent the facts.  The electorate has a short memory.  By the time the election is done the people

will have forgot what you said, or promised.  And if they don’t, well, you won the elections and have to be recalled to correct that mistake.

B-

Lady Gaga was political

Hi, Jerry.
I hope you recover from the crud soon. It’s going around. I live in Ontario and I and my family have the same thing.
Re Lady Gaga, you said: “Lady Gaga’s half time show was spectacular, and didn’t make one political statement, or indeed any statement at all.” You seem to Have forgotten that Woody Guthrie, who wrote “This Land is Your Land” had “This guitar kills fascists” written on his guitar. It was a subtle reference but I’m sure she knew exactly what she was doing.
Regards
Keith

Perhaps you are more observant than I. I saw nothing more than a very well rehearsed spectacular and a very athletic performance in higher heels than Ginger Rogers ever managed.

‘So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation.’

<https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/>

—————————————

Roland Dobbins

No surprises there.

Dark matter and simplified models

https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/dynamics-and-the-dark-matter-mystery
It looks like the great disconnect between predicted and actual galaxy rotation may be due not to new physics or “dark matter” but an overly simplified gravity model used by astronomers to make the prediction.
The model is not reality, and the map is not the territory

I know it appeared yesterday. It cannot be repeated too often: the map is not the territory.

Subj: Squeeze play

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/03/chinas-secret-trump-card-could-beijing-deprive-our-military-critical-defense-components.html

J

Something else to be aware of. But after all, it’s free trade…

Immigration Order

Dr. Pournelle,
For many people, the main issue with the immigration order was not the fact that it temporarily limited immigration from the 7 specified countries–but the fact that it was applied to people who were already legal residents of the United States. Green Card holders were stopped at airports, reportedly against the interpretation the state department initially wanted to go with (a member of the administration reportedly told them it did apply to Green Card holders).
I don’t have a strong opinion on what security measures should be in place. I think reasonable people can support a more restrictive approach to war refugees, but (without some really clear and specific good reason) randomly and without giving them any warning making people who have already been accepted as permanent residents think they are being shut out as they are on planes to come back to the U.S. seems to violate the biblical prohibition against oppressing foreigners–and, more secularly, is likely to hurt our country’s reputation. That said, I think it was more likely a jerk negotiating tactic than (as much of the internet seems to think) a sign of an impending fascist coup. Now appointing Neil Gorsuch (who, I read, is known for taking a narrow view of administrative agency discretion in interpreting statutes) is likely to look more attractive to liberals.
Regards,
Ian Perry

Were any actually sent back?  Green cards are now accepted.

Green Card holders have been sent back if this is correct: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Assali-Family-Syria-Donald-Trump-Vote-Allentown-Immigration-Ban-Travel-Order-412238593.html

Of course if it was a policy that was a net benefit, the fact that some people were injured would not make it a bad policy, sometimes there are serious trade-offs. However, in this case the Green Card interference caused problems like this without a corresponding benefit. Restrictions on travel could have been put in place without stopping people who already have been given permission to stay in the U.S. legally. I at first wondered if the bureaucracy had possible interpreted the orders expansively in order to discredit them, but instead the reports are that it was first interpreted narrowly and then Steve Bannon told government officials that, yes, it did apply to Green Card holders.

Ian Perry

They seem to have been working it out. For eight years the immigration authorities have been working with UN and NGO supplied vetting of migrants, and very generous grants of green cards to favorites of the Obama administration officials. The case of the Iraqi translator who held a green card as a reward for service was worked out in less than a day of inconvenience to him.

However I am not making a case for the wisdom of the orders; but it is black letter law that President legally made them.

The medical industry, immigration & honesty

Good Morning Dr Pournelle,
Scattered thoughts this morning while I was reading your offering.
Our medical industry. Ever try & find a Canadian or four who gave up their Health Care Canada card to use the US services? Not going to happen, I tried on the internet through various RV groups/sites/lists, lot’s of stories of it happening but no real people. If you did I’ll bet they were immigrants.
That is not to say that the wealthy don’t cross the boarder & pay cash for things, just like Americans do for things (medical tourism).
Illegal immigration. I have to agree with the writer who said to make it more expensive for the US employer but I think what is really needed is a simple way to allow “Guest workers” into the country. Not a standard US govt operation that takes years to go thru either but something that makes more sense for the guest worker to do then just sneaking across the boarder.
We have a great deal of technology these days, the guest workers could be much easier to find if they didn’t abide by the rules. The way it stands now when the guest workers sneak in we have zero control.
Last night as I watched President Trump on the tube I realized that his telling the truth is probably scaring a lot of people, we are really used to being lied to & being told what we want to hear from our politicians!

Rob M

No, we aren’t.

“We are a nation of assimilated immigrants.”

This is not true, even as a hopeful statement, and plays into the Leftist claim that all immigrants, even illegal ones, should be welcomed in our country.

The statement conflates descendants of immigrants with their parents. People who are born here are not immigrants. Calling them such prioritizes the country of their parents, not our country. This is the Leftist agenda, which seeks to keep us divided.

The statement also disregards those of us whose ancestors did not immigrate to this country, but rather, migrated to it.

Migrants brings their culture to the new land and reseed it there. That is what my English & Scottish ancestors did. As you point out, immigrants either invade an established country or assimilate into its culture.

In short, we are, or at least used to be, a country of Americans, most by birth, some – a minority – by choice, and all by great good luck. 

Harmon Dow

Yes, we are, in the sense that those who use the phrase “Nation of Immigrants” generally mean it. Italians, Irish, Saxons, Jews, Irish, Poles, Balts, French, all came as immigrants; Few established ghettos and lived apart from their neighbors, and both the St Patrick’s Day and Columbus Day parades are led by the United States flag. Sometimes assimilation took two generations, rarely three; and those children of immigrants are what we refer to as a nation of immigrants. You generally have to ask their names before you can tell where they came from. That is what I mean by assimilation, and it is what used to be meant by the Melting Pot. There was no praise of “diversity” for its own sake, nor should there be. It once was possible to learn how to be an American, in a way that you can hardly learn how to be a Swede or A Dane or a Korean, or a Japanese. I know Americans of Japanese descent whom you must see, not just hear, to distinguish them from Americans of European ancestry, although their better than usual grammar is beginning to make that less true. I could say the same of Americans of Cuban and Mexican origin, or rather of their children, who were encouraged to grow up as American.

But you cannot flood the melting pot and encourage people to jump out of it and expect it to work.

supreme court

Dear Mr. Pournelle,
Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, was also highly qualified, and had been praised by both Democrats and Republicans. As you recall, Senate Republicans refused to consider his nomination. It appears that the Supreme Court is now politicized, perhaps irretrievably, and nominees will be political footballs.
My question is: how do we step back from this?
Yours,
Allan E. Johnson

Come now. When was the last Justice nominated in a Presidential election year confirmed before that election?

 

Supreme Court Justices Confirmed in Election Years

Jerry,
Since 1912:
Justice Pitney, 1912 (March) — President Taft (Republican), Senate control: Republican
Justice Brandeis, 1916 (July) — President Wilson (Democrat), Senate control: Democrat
Justice Clark, 1916 (July) — President Wilson (Democrat) Senate control: Democrat
Justice Cardozo, 1932 (February) — President Hoover (Republican), Senate control: Republican
Justice Murphy, 1940 (January) — President Roosevelt (Democrat), Senate control: Democrat
Justice Kennedy, 1988 (February) — President Reagan (Republican), Senate control: Democrat

Only once since 1912 has a Supreme Court nominee been confirmed by the opposing party in an election year. It also appears that in 1968, a heavily Democratic Senate refused to confirm Johnson’s (Democrat) appointment to the Supreme Court, at least in part because it was a Presidential election year. Reagan’s appointment of Kennedy seems to be the anomaly, but Kennedy was Reagan’s third attempt to fill the seat and Kennedy apparently was a Justice no one could find a way to disagree with without looking openly political about it.

Kevin L Keegan

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Amnesty International Boss Endorses “Jihad in self-defence”

Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.

James Burnham

If a foreign government had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war.

Glenn T. Seaborg, National Commission on Education, 1983

We are a nation of assimilated immigrants.

Immigration without assimilation is invasion.

I have had a mild cold that is not mild at all in that it pretty well saps my energy and leaves me sleepy. I discover that Roberta has had the same condition for a couple of days. We also have some other problems; the symptoms are sufficiently similar that I am pretty sure we’ve both got some form of crud. In my case it has the effect that my get up and go has got up and went, enough so that I don’t feel much like writing this tonight, so I’ll be brief, and most will be mail, with, alas, very brief comments; I’m typing badly and that’s sufficiently frustrating as to change my mood, which is likely to cause me to say things I shouldn’t – and if you could see the monstrosity I typed for ‘shouldn’t’ back in the last clause, you’d understand all too well.

I just watched Superbowl LI. I had figured the New England Patriots to win, but when the first quarter ended Atlanta 21, New England 0, I more or less stopped watching. Fortunately I did watch the half time show and thus the amazing third quarter, and if course I watched the fourth quarter and the first Superbowl sudden death overtime. Atlanta won the toss for overtime and oddly enough elected to let New England receive, but that makes so little sense that I must be misinterpreting what happened. In any event, New England received, and promptly marched up the field to First and Goal, then touchdown winning the game. Sudden Death.

Lady Gaga’s half time show was spectacular, and didn’t make one political statement, or indeed any statement at all. I’m not a big fan of such spectacular events, but that’s my age showing. She certainly is an amazing athlete, and the event was well planned, huge, with tons of special effects, and probably sold a lot of Pepsi.

A Federal Judge in Washington is trying to say that Trump’s executive orders regarding restricting immigration are not constitutional, and the need to suppress them is so urgent that he has issued a judicial order. This judicial order seems to me to be unconstitutional on its face, because he says that he finds that Trump’s finding of a threat to national security is not his finding, and is not in accord with the historical record since 0/11 2001.

This is sufficient judicial activism that I think it warrants a Bill of Impeachment by the House; there is little likelihood that the Senate would convict, but the impeachment would send a clear message. Whatever the scope of the Federal Judicial Branch it does not extend to finding of facts about foreign affairs; if there is one thing clear in constitutional law, it is that the President controls foreign policy and foreign affairs in general. Judges generally don’t find facts anyway; juries do that.

If the executive orders applied to US citizens., the courts could claim some jurisdiction under the constitution; but the President is in charge of who may and may not enter the United States absent relevant legislation: and the relevant legislation, black letter law, gives what amounts to absolute discretion to the President over non-citizen immigrants, specifically mentioning exclusion by country of origin. This appears to be a clear case of a judge saying that what he wants the law to be is in fact the law; it is an unconstitutional act, and deserves impeachment, if only for the encouragement of other judges. I doubt it will happen, but were I a representative I should certainly introduce such a Bill. I doubt it would pass, but I strongly believe in separation of powers, and Judges do not exist to protect non-citizens from being treated as threats to national security, That is the President’s job.

Behold Bat Bot, the Flying First Robot Bat.

<http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a25002/behold-bat-bot/>

—————————————

Roland Dobbins

Problem with a URL in the “Confirmation; Velikovsky…” post

There is a problem with a URL in the “Confirmation; Velikovsky…” post at https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/confirmation-velikovsky-first-dark-age-health-care-and-ethics-mining-the-moon-and-other-important-matters/
In the lead in to the article about Obama appointments to Federal jobs, the URL you posted is malformed, and points to your local cached copy. Oddly enough, I don’t have rights to access your user account on your personal machine. (Who knew?) Fortunately the correction is simple because the URL you want is embedded in the URL that was pasted.
The URL that was actually pasted:
mhtml:file://C:/Users/JerryP/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/T3NEI7AD/email.mht!https://federalsoup.com/articles/2017/01/20/agg-obama-staffers-get-permanent-federal-jobs.aspx?s=FD_230117
The URL you intended to paste:
https://federalsoup.com/articles/2017/01/20/agg-obama-staffers-get-permanent-federal-jobs.aspx?s=FD_230117
However, that article only consists of a three-sentence summary and a very few comments about this NY Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/trump-cabinet-picks-inauguration.html?_r=1

While you might want to point to the original article, the NYT article is about how ill-prepared the incoming administration was for the actual handover, but did not have to be because Chris Christie’s planning appears to have been competently if incompletely executed before he was removed from the Transition team. In spite of the thrust of the Federal Soup summary, it looks like the summary is talking about a different article entirely.

Here are two articles about the apparent “burrowing” of Obama appointees into career Civil Service jobs, all of which are more on point than the NYT article that the Federal Soup summary linked to:
http://nypost.com/2017/01/17/obama-rushes-to-fill-dozens-of-federal-jobs-before-leaving-office/
This one is about a specific case:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/26/obama-political-appointee-burrows-into-permanent-job-at-va/

I don’t know which way the NY Post and the Daily Caller lean politically but the Caller’s article looks like a responsible piece of journalism, except for leading above the fold with a picture of a mole. Granted that the caption explains the photo choice, it still seems gimmicky for a serious news organization. But in newspapers, the writers didn’t usually get to pick the headline or select the photos that accompanied their articles. (If they were also the photographer or accompanied the photographer, the writer could make sure that certain shots were or were not taken, but which one got used was the Editor’s choice.)

Thanks for all you do for us!

–Gary P.

Thank you

health care

Dear Mr. Pournelle,
I’ve been thinking about your comment: “As you point out, advances in science can develop procedures that, if given to all, would consume the national budget. They cannot be given to all; should they be available to those who can pay for them, but not to others? This is certainly inequality. Now what of those who contract a very expensive life threatening disease; a remedy, not precisely a cure but an effective treatment is found; should it be given to all those – a minority – who need it? Free? Means tested? It is also discovered that there is a rather simple way to make sure you never get that disease; the prevention is well known; yet there are some who continue to get it. Should they have the expensive remedy? Free? Make those who don’t get it pay for those who do?”
I find myself with questions, but nothing I trust in the way of answers. Any practicable system will at some point lead to triage: that will involve tragedies, and it will involve making decisions where there is no happy choice. I also presuppose we will find it impossible to do this well. We will be making decisions on the basis of inadequate information, and in any system there will be some incidence of waste, greed, and abuse. To paraphrase Mark Twain: we too are human, “and worse than that I can say of no man.”
In consequence, I need to stipulate that while I may find gross flaws in any proposal, that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t the best we can do. I don’t think there is any really satisfying way to do triage.
With that in mind: currently, we have what appears to be an example of a failing state-sponsored system in Britain’s National Health Service. Once rather excellent, it’s been the target of budget cuts for years. As a result, there aren’t enough beds in Britain’s hospitals: which means, for example, that surgeons have to decide which life-threatening emergency gets surgery, and who gets to wait on a gurney in the hallway for another couple days. Or, to address your question about disease and prevention, it’s being suggested that overweight patients will not be allowed to have hip or knee replacement until they lose weight. So yes, these questions are being asked, and nobody’s happy with the answers.
Any state-sponsored system will have to compete with other priorities, and the grim fact that it is paid for through taxes. If the system works, there’ll be the temptation to trim it a little. Then a little more.
Our own system has different problems. One of them, I think, is the “fiduciary responsibility” provision of laws governing any corporation with stockholders. I do see the point: if you’re responsible for other people’s money, you’ve got no right to direct it toward your private projects. The problem is, insisting that shareholder profit must *always* be the highest priority leads to its own unintended results. There’s plenty of profit in funding Viagra production, but not so much in the expensive research needed to develop new antibiotics before drug resistant bacteria whack us. As another correspondent pointed out, we’re paying a lot for this system, but the results are not commensurate. Decisions are being made: but I can’t say they’re being made well.
Likewise, insurance companies have an incentive — perhaps even a legal responsibility — to deny or delay coverage when any reasonable case can be made for that. In most cases, with standard treatments, insurance works well enough. If it didn’t, nobody would buy the stuff. But when we start getting toward the difficult decisions, this isn’t a system I’d want to trust with triage.
If allocation of limited medical resources were based on ability to pay, I would expect bad results. I’m remembering a hospital I used to visit regularly, more than twenty years ago. They built a new VIP ward; elegant rooms, special service. In this case, I’m not sure it did any serious harm to medical care for other people, and I was told it was a real money-maker for the hospital. But I don’t think much of this as a way to allocate scarce resources. I’d rather see people trained for heart surgery than for celebrity facelifts.
If resources for medical care were unlimited, a better argument might be made for “pay your way.” But I don’t believe wealth should carry an entitlement to lay claim to limited resources. Triage will be hard enough without people waving money at it.
Questions, not answers. In the end, I think the choices facing us with health care are unsettling enough it is not realistic to expect we’ll come up with a *satisfying* solution. And yet, these choices will in fact get made: by default, if not by decision. What I would hope for, is a “less bad” approach. Recognizing that it will be clumsy, there will be abuse, and unintended consequences will bite us.
What I would *not* trust, is any proposal offered as a way to fix everything, or as the obviously right approach. Not gonna happen.
I would hope for an approach which recognizes responsibility to the whole community, and does not leave the choices up to institutions or factions which will profit from (or be hurt by) the decisions. In our context, I think that means government involvement. We don’t have any other institutions which are even *allowed* to recognize that responsibility.
As a second factor: I think that in any situation where competing interests are involved, “checks and balances” are wise. In our economy, I don’t see any institution other than the federal government which has even a chance of balancing corporate power.
Will it do so? Or will they cozy up together? I can’t confidently predict an answer. But I don’t see a better candidate for checks and balances.
You raise important concerns about national defense, and about handing on debt to later generations; but those deserve separate response after I think about them more.
Yours,
Allan E. Johnson

This deserves a longer answer than I have the energy to prepare. Some is I think misconceived, but the thoughts are worth considering. It does not address the fundamental problem: why are my children obliged to accumulate debts to pay for elderly people who need medical care? We have spent more in the last eight years than in the last century, and much of it went for free stuff for the voters. It built a debt double the debt accumulated from George Washington until the inauguration of Obama, yet the infrastructure is not repaired. We do have generous health care, even for people whose health problems are self inflicted; to be paid for by borrowed money to be repaid by our grandchildren. Is this wise? And how is it ethical?

Tabloids School Media!

I know this will rankle anyone who buys into academia a bit too much.

I like to call them “skeleton people”. They rattle on longer than even I would and they know the words but not the music. But, I know you can appreciate the form and the irony of these words once you consider the source:

<.>

Journalists can’t seem to get their stories straight in the opening weeks of the Trump administration, whether in tweets or in articles where falsehoods have been spread almost daily.

The mistakes have not just been from newer liberal news outlets such The Huffington Post or BuzzFeed, but from legacy media like Reuters, The Washington Post, and The New York Times.

What follows are several botched stories or conflicting reports since President Trump took office.

</>

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/errors-from-the-press-are-piling-up-in-the-opening-weeks-of-the-trump-administration/

I stopped here out of respect for whatever beverage you may be holding as you read this. 😉 Pretty much anything negative you heard about Trump is a lie, according to this article but most of us did not need a UK tabloid to point that out to us — at least most of the people in my life didn’t and I would expect something similar or better as the case in yours.

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

Dark matter and simplified models

https://sinews.siam.org/Details-Page/dynamics-and-the-dark-matter-mystery
It looks like the great disconnect between predicted and actual galaxy rotation may be due not to new physics or “dark matter” but an overly simplified gravity model used by astronomers to make the prediction.
The model is not reality, and the map is not the territory

: john garnham

We need frequent reminders that we only know maps, and the map is not the territory. If you assume that the speed of propagation of gravity can very under certain conditions, and a gravitational field can be entailed – neither principle violates Newton – many observations can be explained without invoking unobservable substances or energies.

Automation

Hello Dr Pournelle,
I just saw this 15 min video on automation & bots. It scared me. It showed what you’ve been saying about automation in a way that was as clear as anything I’ve seen.
The key point I took away was that for bots to work, they don’t have to be better, just make fewer mistakes.
Humans need not apply https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU

Rob M

Paying for communist re-education centers

Hello Jerry,

“When I was young they built state colleges for those who were smart enough for college but couldn’t afford it.  I’m a beneficiary of that system. Now they loan you money to go to a school already paid for by taxpayers.  I say give the damned schools to the professors, and stop paying for them.  Let the professors collect money to pay for their salaries.  They demand to teach what they want to teach and tell me I am a Fascist and worse if I want them to teach what I want taught.  Fine.  Let them.  Just don’t make me pay for that.  They want to be paid to teach, let them go raise the money to pay themselves and all the administrators. Leave me out of it.”

My sentiments exactly.

Our problems began when legislators found that they could ensure re-election by identifying group constituencies and giving them money and power in exchange for the group constituencies contributing to and voting for their benefactors.  Young adults preparing to enter a society in which a ‘college education’ is mandatory constitute a VERY LARGE group.  

‘Higher Education’ is an endless rathole, down which we are apparently prepared to dump an infinite supply of other people’s money as an ‘investment in our future’  and opposition to which has become political suicide.  As a result, having a degree is now mandatory for essentially ALL non-menial employment.  To OBTAIN that degree means that the student has to subject himself to four (or more) years of forced indoctrination in the unacceptability of any political philosophy other than Marxist/communist/liberal/progressive/socialist/green/cover name du jour for the same thing, provided by conveniently installed higher education professors who ‘teach’ mandatory courses that require convincing regurgitation of the approved philosophy to obtain a passing grade.  And the coveted ‘degree’.

Governments should expend public funds ONLY to purchase the goods and services necessary to fund the necessary business of governing.  NO public funds should go to a private individual except to buy something that the individual is selling and that the government needs or to hire the individual as a government employee performing a constitutionally justified task.

If it is a sound ‘investment’ to loan a young person money so that he can purchase a college education, then banks should be chomping at the bit to do so.  Personally, based on the televised behavior of college students around the country subsequent to Trump’s election, I wouldn’t loan one a dollar to purchase a bottle of Dasani if he were on fire, let alone a few hundred $k to purchase a degree in (fill in the blank ethnic/sexual/racial) studies that will be used to justify the elimination of yet more of my former ‘rights’.

Bob Ludwick  

But unionized teachers have a constitutional right to teach what they want to teach, without regard to what the taxpayers want taught; how dare you question that? Don’t kids have a right to a real education? As defined of course by experts in education. Isn’t that in the Constitution? Judges say it is.

Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.