Thursday, June 30, 2016
Trump Vetting Christie For VP - Who Else Would Take It?
The New York Times is reporting that the Trump campaign is vetting Chris Christie as a possible selection for Vice President. This certainly sounds plausible because I don't think there are too many other credible, potential candidates out there who would actually take the job. Christie's descent from the darling of moderate Republicans into the abyss of Trumpism has been something to behold. With his abysmal poll number in New Jersey giving him no chance at re-election and the Bridgegate scandal hanging over his head, Christie made an early gamble to bet his future on Trump. The gamble paid off with Trump's eventual nomination but at what cost to any national political viability for Christie in the future.
House Sets Gun Control Vote In Repsonse To Democratic Pressure
Democratic pressure on gun control is at least forcing Republicans to go on record and hold votes. The dramatic sit-in in the House has apparently led Paul Ryan to schedule some sort of vote on gun control when the House reconvenes next week. And last week, there was a small break in the firewall of Republican Senators as eight of them joined with Democrats in voting for the ban on gun sales for those on a terrorism watch-list. Now clearly some of those Senators took a CYA vote so they could say they voted for these restrictions in the knowledge that the bill would go down to defeat anyway. Whether they would vote that way if the bill actually had a chance to pass remains to be seen.
Just as in the Senate, the upcoming vote in the House will go nowhere. But it is clear that Democrats will continue to hold Republicans' feet to the fire on this issue through November. The real question is whether that pressure will continue after the election and on into next year. And to some degree, whether that happens or not, depends largely on how badly vulnerable Republicans fare in the fall and how much pressure gun control advocates keep putting on Democrats to keep fighting on this issue after the election.
Just as in the Senate, the upcoming vote in the House will go nowhere. But it is clear that Democrats will continue to hold Republicans' feet to the fire on this issue through November. The real question is whether that pressure will continue after the election and on into next year. And to some degree, whether that happens or not, depends largely on how badly vulnerable Republicans fare in the fall and how much pressure gun control advocates keep putting on Democrats to keep fighting on this issue after the election.
Gove Betrays Boris In Delicious Irony; Opens Door For May
The pure Machiavellian maneuvering of British politicians is something you wouldn't believe if they made it a movie. It's becoming quite clear that Boris Johnson, the man who betrayed David Cameron, has now himself been brutally betrayed by Michael Gove. And it looks like Gove's act of treachery not only has sunk Johnson but also his own chance of becoming Prime Minister as MPs reacted angrily to this latest betrayal. Said one, "Doing a Gove' will become like 'gerrymandering', a phrase to enter the lexicon. P[eo]pl[e] will forget who it was about, but not the act. What Michael Gove has done today will live on in political history for a long time. He's trashed his own reputation." But the best line of the day came from MP Nigel Evans who apparently said, "This makes House of Cards look like TeletubbiesHQ." Theresa May is now the odds on favorite to win the leadership contest and become the next Prime Minister, although at this point you have to wonder who would want to take on that thankless job.
States Start To Limit Non-Compete Clauses
It is nice to see that states are starting to crack down on the proliferation of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, especially in jobs where trade secrets are not really involved. There is absolutely no reason that summer interns or sandwich shop employees need to be restrained by a non-compete clause. It is hard to believe but nearly one-fifth America's workers are currently bound by non-compete employment contracts. Hawaii and New Mexico have banned these clauses in certain sectors of business while Oregon and Utah have limited the time such an agreement can be binding. Now Massachusetts is considering a bill that combines both of those approaches but also requires that companies pay 50% of a salary or a mutually agreed upon higher or lower rate during the length of the non-compete period. Studies have shown that these agreements have actually reduced technical workers' salaries in the state by about 7 percent.
Apparently, for many businesses around the country, the idea of a "free market" doesn't seem to apply to labor market. It's good to see at least a few states putting some reasonable limits on these restrictive and unnecessary restrictions on worker freedom.
Apparently, for many businesses around the country, the idea of a "free market" doesn't seem to apply to labor market. It's good to see at least a few states putting some reasonable limits on these restrictive and unnecessary restrictions on worker freedom.
Trump Solicits Foreign MPs And Triggers FEC Complaint
Following up on the bizarre story of UK MPs being bombarded with fundraising requests from the Trump campaign, it now appears that the British politicians are not alone. Government officials from Iceland, Denmark, Finland, and Australia have all received similar appeals. It is illegal to knowingly solicit or accept campaign contributions from foreign nationals so a couple of consumer watchdog groups have filed an official complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over these fundraising appeals. You can bet the Trump campaign will say this is just a simple mistake and they really had no intention to solicit these foreigners and that is actually believable when you see how disorganized the campaign is. In addition, the FEC is really a toothless tiger that will probably just level some puny fine sometime after the election that will hardly effect the Trump campaign in any way. But it is just another signal to down-ballot Republicans that the Trump campaign is just not ready for prime-time. You can hear the rumblings within the party every day - Mitch McConnell just yesterday said the Trump was not yet a serious and credible candidate. With his poor organization and weakening poll numbers, you wonder just how long Republicans can stick with Trump or simply abandon him to save their own elections.
Brexit Chaos Continues To Shock
There seems to be as much behind the scenes maneuvering in current British politics as there was in the courts of British kings and queens hundreds of years ago. On Tuesday, it was the Labour party's turn to rebel against their leader. Today's shocker is the Boris Johnson has announced that he won't run for Conservative party leader and, therefore, will not be the next PM. Michael Gove had abandoned his support for Johnson earlier and decided to make a run himself. This leaves the leadership battle between Gove, a leave supporter, and Theresa May, who supported remaining in the EU. May made it clear in a speech announcing her intention to run that Britain will leave the EU. "Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high, and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum". On the other hand, May also said that Article 50 should not be invoked until next year at the earliest and that there would be no early election.
Johnson's withdrawal is truly a shock and it's hard to know whether he was outmaneuvered by Gove or whether his backtracking on immigration earlier in the week crippled his chances. Perhaps Johnson is playing the long game, letting the Gove or May negotiate the exit and then mounting a general election challenge. I do find it hard to imagine that May can keep her promise to not hold an election until 2020 unless she delays invoking Article 50 until well into 2017. Correspondingly, it is hard to believe that the public and the business community will put with the continued uncertainty associated with such a long delay in starting negotiations to leave. Whatever she does, you have to believe a general election will be necessary to ratify any agreement Britain makes with the EU to leave.
I keep on reading stories by serious pundits that Britain will never actually leave the EU, either out of self-interest or because it will somehow be blocked legally. On the other hand, the next PM, whether Gove or May, has now explicitly stated that they will invoke Article 50 and Angela Merkel made it quite clear yesterday that the UK vote to leave actually meant leaving. “I want to say very clearly tonight that I see no way to reverse this,” Merkel said. "We all need to look at the reality of the situation. It is not the hour for wishful thinking." But neither Gove or May have laid out an endgame that is remotely within the realm of possibility. Both talk about somehow staying as a member of a single market but without the freedom of movement that EU membership demands. I don't see any way that other EU members would allow Britain to stay in the EU but have total control over its own borders. To negotiate that kind of deal with Britain is to invite every other member country to negotiate its own special deal with the EU - it's just not going to happen.
If Article 50 is eventually invoked, there seem to be only two possible solutions out there. One is for the UK to negotiate some pretty minimal changes to immigration from Europe that would still be in the context of "free movement" and try to sell that, as Cameron did with his renegotiation this spring, as a victory. Or the insurgency from the far right all over Europe becomes so great that the EU revokes the free movement requirement for every EU member. The former solution will strengthen UKIP and the xenophobes; the latter will mean victory for the far-right. In either case, it is a loss for a dynamic economy and a pluralistic society.
Johnson's withdrawal is truly a shock and it's hard to know whether he was outmaneuvered by Gove or whether his backtracking on immigration earlier in the week crippled his chances. Perhaps Johnson is playing the long game, letting the Gove or May negotiate the exit and then mounting a general election challenge. I do find it hard to imagine that May can keep her promise to not hold an election until 2020 unless she delays invoking Article 50 until well into 2017. Correspondingly, it is hard to believe that the public and the business community will put with the continued uncertainty associated with such a long delay in starting negotiations to leave. Whatever she does, you have to believe a general election will be necessary to ratify any agreement Britain makes with the EU to leave.
I keep on reading stories by serious pundits that Britain will never actually leave the EU, either out of self-interest or because it will somehow be blocked legally. On the other hand, the next PM, whether Gove or May, has now explicitly stated that they will invoke Article 50 and Angela Merkel made it quite clear yesterday that the UK vote to leave actually meant leaving. “I want to say very clearly tonight that I see no way to reverse this,” Merkel said. "We all need to look at the reality of the situation. It is not the hour for wishful thinking." But neither Gove or May have laid out an endgame that is remotely within the realm of possibility. Both talk about somehow staying as a member of a single market but without the freedom of movement that EU membership demands. I don't see any way that other EU members would allow Britain to stay in the EU but have total control over its own borders. To negotiate that kind of deal with Britain is to invite every other member country to negotiate its own special deal with the EU - it's just not going to happen.
If Article 50 is eventually invoked, there seem to be only two possible solutions out there. One is for the UK to negotiate some pretty minimal changes to immigration from Europe that would still be in the context of "free movement" and try to sell that, as Cameron did with his renegotiation this spring, as a victory. Or the insurgency from the far right all over Europe becomes so great that the EU revokes the free movement requirement for every EU member. The former solution will strengthen UKIP and the xenophobes; the latter will mean victory for the far-right. In either case, it is a loss for a dynamic economy and a pluralistic society.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Trump's Use Of Teleprompter Shows GOP Leader He Is Serious Candidate
In another sign that Donald Trump may be in a bit of trouble if his poll numbers do not improve by the July convention, earlier today Mitch McConnell basically said that Trump was not a credible candidate yet, but "[h]e’s getting closer. Getting closer." Definitely not the most ringing endorsement from the Majority Leader. He followed that up with some nice words about Hillary Clinton, saying "[s]he’s an intelligent and capable person, no question about it." It certainly sounds like McConnell is already positioning to dump Trump or essentially run as a counterweight to a near-certain Clinton presidency. Either way, it's not good news for Trump.
But what also struck me was McConnell's comment on how Trump was starting to look like a more serious and credible candidate. He says, "people are looking for a level of seriousness that is typically conveyed by having a prepared text and Teleprompter and staying on message." So seriousness is indicated by having a prepared speech and using a Teleprompter to read it. Hmmm, I guess I'm confused because my recollection is that Republicans used to think that having a prepared speech and reading it from a Teleprompter indicated that you really weren't ready to do the job as President. And my recollection turns out to be correct. When Obama was running for re-election in 2011 and 2012, he used the Teleprompter for many of his speeches around the country and that became a talking point in the right wing echo chamber. "It’s sort of a soft joke that the president needs a teleprompter because he doesn’t have a sound command of the issues and doesn’t know what he’s doing,” conservative strategist Greg Mueller said. “He’s still in job training." Other Republicans picked up on this pathetic attack including Romney, Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, and others.
Today, however, the use of the Teleprompter indicates that you apparently really are a serious candidate. Apparently that threshold has been lowered considerably over the last four or five years. But that's nothing new for Republicans these days.
But what also struck me was McConnell's comment on how Trump was starting to look like a more serious and credible candidate. He says, "people are looking for a level of seriousness that is typically conveyed by having a prepared text and Teleprompter and staying on message." So seriousness is indicated by having a prepared speech and using a Teleprompter to read it. Hmmm, I guess I'm confused because my recollection is that Republicans used to think that having a prepared speech and reading it from a Teleprompter indicated that you really weren't ready to do the job as President. And my recollection turns out to be correct. When Obama was running for re-election in 2011 and 2012, he used the Teleprompter for many of his speeches around the country and that became a talking point in the right wing echo chamber. "It’s sort of a soft joke that the president needs a teleprompter because he doesn’t have a sound command of the issues and doesn’t know what he’s doing,” conservative strategist Greg Mueller said. “He’s still in job training." Other Republicans picked up on this pathetic attack including Romney, Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, and others.
Today, however, the use of the Teleprompter indicates that you apparently really are a serious candidate. Apparently that threshold has been lowered considerably over the last four or five years. But that's nothing new for Republicans these days.
Senate GOP Judicial Obstruction Simply Staggering
I guess I'm sounding like a broken record, but Senate Republicans refusal to actually fulfill their constitutional responsibilities just keeps on staggering me. Take a look at this article describing just how many judicial appointments Senate Republicans are holding up in the increasingly unlikely hope that somehow Donald Trump will win the presidency. Earlier this month, not enough Republicans bothered to show up for a Judiciary Committee hearing to even make a quorum. And the most ridiculous thing is that some of these Senators are actually holding up nominees that they suggested for the post.
In Texas, which has a judicial emergency creating huge backlogs and caseloads, there are 12 judicial appointments waiting to be filled. Five of them have been publicly supported by Texas' two Senators, Cruz and Cornyn. But now those two will not let any nominees go forward.
Other Republican Senators holding up their own nominees include Coats of Indiana, Shelby and Sessions of Alabama, Graham and Scott of South Carolina, Tillis and Burr of North Carolina, Heller of Nevada, and Paul and Majority Leader McConnell of Kentucky. The Indiana vacancy has been open for about a year and a half; a South Carolina vacancy has been open for nearly three years, as has one held by the Senators from Alabama. Marco Rubio has actually pulled his support for his nominee to fill a vacancy open for nearly two years as has Senator Perdue in Georgia for a vacancy also open for about two years.
And I haven't even mentioned Merrick Garland who is still waiting for a simple hearing, not even a vote, 103 days after being nominated to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court.
The level of obstruction is just staggering and the disregard for our judicial system is equally stunning. Yes, we all know that judicial nominations slow down in a presidential election year. But this is not what's happening now - these are judicial vacancies that have been unfilled for two or three years already. Republicans love to talk about our Founding Fathers but I'm not sure that Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe ever considered that a group of people would ever get elected who would willfully sabotage effective government and not fulfill their duties as citizens and legislators. Perhaps we need a new Senate rule, or even a Constitutional amendment, that would require the Senate to actually hold a vote on any nominee within one year of being nominated by the President. As citizens, that is the least we deserve from our representatives.
In Texas, which has a judicial emergency creating huge backlogs and caseloads, there are 12 judicial appointments waiting to be filled. Five of them have been publicly supported by Texas' two Senators, Cruz and Cornyn. But now those two will not let any nominees go forward.
Other Republican Senators holding up their own nominees include Coats of Indiana, Shelby and Sessions of Alabama, Graham and Scott of South Carolina, Tillis and Burr of North Carolina, Heller of Nevada, and Paul and Majority Leader McConnell of Kentucky. The Indiana vacancy has been open for about a year and a half; a South Carolina vacancy has been open for nearly three years, as has one held by the Senators from Alabama. Marco Rubio has actually pulled his support for his nominee to fill a vacancy open for nearly two years as has Senator Perdue in Georgia for a vacancy also open for about two years.
And I haven't even mentioned Merrick Garland who is still waiting for a simple hearing, not even a vote, 103 days after being nominated to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court.
The level of obstruction is just staggering and the disregard for our judicial system is equally stunning. Yes, we all know that judicial nominations slow down in a presidential election year. But this is not what's happening now - these are judicial vacancies that have been unfilled for two or three years already. Republicans love to talk about our Founding Fathers but I'm not sure that Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe ever considered that a group of people would ever get elected who would willfully sabotage effective government and not fulfill their duties as citizens and legislators. Perhaps we need a new Senate rule, or even a Constitutional amendment, that would require the Senate to actually hold a vote on any nominee within one year of being nominated by the President. As citizens, that is the least we deserve from our representatives.
Unions Deny Ganim Request For Givebacks
With most Bridgeport residents in an uproar now that they have actually received their tax bill, the pressure will probably start to build on Mayor Joe Ganim and the City Council. And now it looks like Ganim will have a very hard time convincing the unions to help him with his budget problems. Ganim had asked one of the largest unions, the NAGE, to forgo their negotiated pay raises and take 10 unpaid furlough days. In the weeks since that request, the city has received $7 million in additional monies, more than half of that coming from the sale of land to Sacred Heart University. When Ganim's request was put to a vote, union members resoundingly rejected it by a 279 to 24 margin. Ouch! Ganim is now threatening layoffs if the unions don't cave in. It's certainly not looking like a very good start for Ganim 2.0.
Astrophotography Adventure - More Mars and Saturn
I'm still trying to get better images of Mars and Saturn which really just involves more trial and mostly error. These are the best I have done lately - they are OK but I know I can get better, especially with Mars. Both of these were composed from iPhone videos through the Starblast 4.5 at about 140x, converted to JPEG with PIPP, stacked with Registax, and post-processed with Curves tool in GIMP.
I think you can just make out some indications of some Mare on the left side of the Mars picture. The Saturn image was taken with a variable polarizing filter attached.
I think you can just make out some indications of some Mare on the left side of the Mars picture. The Saturn image was taken with a variable polarizing filter attached.
Cameron Tries To Blame Corbyn For His Own Failure
It really takes a lot of chutzpah for David Cameron to tell Jeremy Corbyn, "It might be in my party’s interest for him to sit there, it’s not in the national interest and I would say, for heaven’s sake man, go." Britain wouldn't be in this mess if Cameron had actually thought about the national interest instead of his own re-election when he was putting the Brexit referendum on the table. And then he threw the additional insult that Corbyn didn't try hard enough in support of staying. As I've said before, if you have to rely on your political opponents to get your policy passed, you have no one to blame but yourself if it doesn't. Whether or not you think Corbyn should go, for Cameron to blame him just doesn't pas the smell test. What arrogance.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
More Organized(?) Trump Campaign Solicits British MPs
I'm sure Paul Manafort's job of trying to bring some semblance of organization to the Trump campaign feels somewhat like herding cats. He does seem to have managed to get Trump to actually make a speech from a teleprompter without going totally off script - an incredible feat in itself - although I'm not sure unilaterally ripping up trade deals is the kind of thing that business-friendly Republicans really want to hear. And Manafort also has started to bring on board some real campaign professionals, announcing three hires of seasoned politocos today. But, in the Trump campaign, you always end up taking a few steps back as well. Apparently, British MPs are being barraged by email solicitations from the Trump campaign, indicating that its first foray into fund-raising may not be going so well. Now, intentionally soliciting political contributions from foreign nationals is absolutely illegal. But the operative word there is intentionally. With the Trump campaign, the defense that they didn't do this on purpose will probably have a ring of truth.
More problematic for Manafort and Trump is the candidate's slump in the polls. Yes, these are early days and polls this far out are far from meaningful. But an 8 point deficit or worse makes down-ballot Republicans extremely nervous and could create some chaos at the July convention if it is not somewhat reduced by then. And Trump's constant braggadocio about winning doesn't really fly when he is clearly losing. Manafort may be able to bring some order to the campaign but the real problem may just be the candidate.
More problematic for Manafort and Trump is the candidate's slump in the polls. Yes, these are early days and polls this far out are far from meaningful. But an 8 point deficit or worse makes down-ballot Republicans extremely nervous and could create some chaos at the July convention if it is not somewhat reduced by then. And Trump's constant braggadocio about winning doesn't really fly when he is clearly losing. Manafort may be able to bring some order to the campaign but the real problem may just be the candidate.
Supreme Court Saves Public Sector Unions
Today, the Supreme Court refused to reconsider its earlier 4-4 non-decision in March that let stand a lower court ruling that allowed unions to charge "fair-share" fees that are collected to offset the costs of collective bargaining but cannot be used for union political activity. The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, revolved around the requirement that non-union teachers be required to pay these fees to the union if their contracts were covered by the union's collective bargaining agreements. That would seem to make perfect sense as the non-union teachers would be the beneficiaries of the union's collective bargaining work.
In a novel argument, some California teachers argued that, since taxpayers pay the salaries and benefits of public sector workers, any bargaining over those issues by public sector unions is an inherently political activity. Remarkably, it appears that at least four Supreme Court justices actually bought this argument and it seemed as though Justice Scalia was leaning toward joining them. But he died before the case could be decided, leading to the March non-decision that affirmed the lower courts ruling upholding these fees. Obviously, if the simple act of bargaining for salaries and benefits by a public sector union had been ruled unconstitutional, it pretty much would have meant the end of public sector unions as there would be significantly less money to actually run an organized union.
This case shows once again how the death of Scalia has pretty much effectively neutered the conservatives on the Supreme Court. Because the Senate Republicans will not fulfill their constitutional role to advise and consent, the November election will determine the direction of the Court going forward. Assuming Obama or Hillary, if she wins, is actually able to get a nominee actually confirmed by the Senate, the liberal shift on the Court will be complete and a new, liberal era could conceivably last quite a long time.
In a novel argument, some California teachers argued that, since taxpayers pay the salaries and benefits of public sector workers, any bargaining over those issues by public sector unions is an inherently political activity. Remarkably, it appears that at least four Supreme Court justices actually bought this argument and it seemed as though Justice Scalia was leaning toward joining them. But he died before the case could be decided, leading to the March non-decision that affirmed the lower courts ruling upholding these fees. Obviously, if the simple act of bargaining for salaries and benefits by a public sector union had been ruled unconstitutional, it pretty much would have meant the end of public sector unions as there would be significantly less money to actually run an organized union.
This case shows once again how the death of Scalia has pretty much effectively neutered the conservatives on the Supreme Court. Because the Senate Republicans will not fulfill their constitutional role to advise and consent, the November election will determine the direction of the Court going forward. Assuming Obama or Hillary, if she wins, is actually able to get a nominee actually confirmed by the Senate, the liberal shift on the Court will be complete and a new, liberal era could conceivably last quite a long time.
Brexit Chaos Continues
The fallout from the Brexit vote continues to grow as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has resoundingly lost a vote of confidence from Labour MPs by a resounding total of 172-40. The vote is not binding on Crobyn, who was overwhelmingly elected by party members over the objections of many Labour MPs, and accordingly he is refusing to step down. It will now be up to at least 51 Labour MPs to unite behind a single candidate in order to mount a true leadership challenge and the person most mentioned to be that candidate is Angel Eagle, the former shadow business secretary and shadow first secretary of state.
Meanwhile, in London which voted overwhelmingly to remain, new mayor Sadiq Khan demanded more autonomy for the city. Using the very campaign slogan that the leave camp used in the Brexit vote, Khan demanded that Londoners be given "more control". He is looking to have more powers over tax-raising, housing, health, transport, and justice devolve to the London government itself. Khan stated that London needs, "[m]ore autonomy in order to protect London's economy from the uncertainty ahead, to protect the businesses from around the world who trade here and to protect our jobs, wealth and prosperity."
With leadership vacuums at the top of both major parties and potentially years of uncertainty ahead, Britain is quite frankly a total mess right now. It is hard to imagine that this situation can go on as it is until Cameron turns over the reins in October. Something will have to give long before then.
Meanwhile, in London which voted overwhelmingly to remain, new mayor Sadiq Khan demanded more autonomy for the city. Using the very campaign slogan that the leave camp used in the Brexit vote, Khan demanded that Londoners be given "more control". He is looking to have more powers over tax-raising, housing, health, transport, and justice devolve to the London government itself. Khan stated that London needs, "[m]ore autonomy in order to protect London's economy from the uncertainty ahead, to protect the businesses from around the world who trade here and to protect our jobs, wealth and prosperity."
With leadership vacuums at the top of both major parties and potentially years of uncertainty ahead, Britain is quite frankly a total mess right now. It is hard to imagine that this situation can go on as it is until Cameron turns over the reins in October. Something will have to give long before then.
Brexit Disaster May Have Influenced Spanish Vote
I don't want to read too much into one election, but the results from the general election in Spain on Sunday seem to indicate that the predicted disaster for the British economy after voting to leave the EU may have actually reduced the desire for radical change among voters within the EU. These elections were essentially a repeat of an election from six months ago in which no party was able to put together a governing coalition. The expectations were that the more radical Podemos Party would supplant the Socialists to be the dominant party on the left. But Podemos was not able to win any additional seats and the other left-wing emerging party, Cuidadanos, actually lost eight seats, while the Socialists lost only five.
The big winner was the Popular Party, led by Mariano Rajoy, which gained 14 seats and now look likely to be able to form a government. In the prior election, the Popular party had won the most seats but could not find enough partners to put together a governing coalition. Mr. Rajoy had campaigned on a platform of unity and continuity in the face of crisis within the European Union and it appears that the people responded to that message. Certainly, the collapse of the pound and stock market in the UK after the Brexit vote probably gave pause to many voters. And that disaster may be a warning to others who are thinking of an EU exit.
The big winner was the Popular Party, led by Mariano Rajoy, which gained 14 seats and now look likely to be able to form a government. In the prior election, the Popular party had won the most seats but could not find enough partners to put together a governing coalition. Mr. Rajoy had campaigned on a platform of unity and continuity in the face of crisis within the European Union and it appears that the people responded to that message. Certainly, the collapse of the pound and stock market in the UK after the Brexit vote probably gave pause to many voters. And that disaster may be a warning to others who are thinking of an EU exit.
Top Republican Ensures Job Losses for US Exporters
Almost every week, these days, we seem to find more and more examples of Republicans in post-policy mode - with no serious policy solutions, they seem to have chosen to simply make sure government does not work. Today's example involves the ever-cantankerous Richard Shelby and the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank. The bank was set up in the depths of the Depression in order to help facilitate US exports. It essentially acts like a corporation, offering financing and insurance for foreign purchases of US-made goods by customers unable or unwilling to take on that credit risk. With its help, it is much easier for US companies to expand into riskier overseas markets and the US companies that benefit from this range from the smallest to the largest of US businesses. The bank was such a success for the US that 60 other countries have now set up similar banks to help increase their exports.
Now you would think that Republicans would be supportive of an organization that is helping drive US exports, but, with today's Republican party, you would be wrong. Last June, Republicans decided that the bank was just another example of crony capitalism and corporate welfare and the mere fact of making these loans meant government was picking winners and losers. Although large US businesses are just a small fraction of the clients the banks serves, the dollar value of loans for those large businesses are the majority of the bank's portfolio. There were also some concerns about the government's credit risk in making these loans, despite that never being a problem in the past. So they voted not to renew the bank's charter, essentially shutting it down. After some significant backlash from the business community, some common sense prevailed and the bank's charter was renewed over the objections of tea-party Republicans.
After a six month hiatus, the bank was finally back in business but approval was needed by the bank's five-member board for any loan over $10 million. At the time of the bank's charter renewal there were only two members on the board - the others were waiting for Senate confirmation like so many Obama appointees. And this is where Richard Shelby comes in. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee he has personally put a hold on any of Obama's nominees to the board of the bank. And without at least three board member, there can be no quorum and no way to expedite loans of over $10 million dollars. For a year now, no loan of over $10 million dollars has been approved. There were indications that Mr. Shelby might relent after a strong primary challenge from his right ended in March. But that didn't happen and over 30 deals worth more than $20 billion are just sitting in limbo right now.
With no US Ex-Im Bank loans available, companies have gone to other countries banks in order to move their projects along. But often those loans come with strings attached requiring some investment in that foreign country. For example, GE alone has moved some of it manufacturing plants from South Carolina, Maine, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin to overseas plants in order to facilitate financing through other countries' banks. Not only have these moves cost thousands of jobs for GE workers but the negative effects on local suppliers to those plants have also been hit.
This is today's Republican party. Thousands of Americans must lose their jobs because they can't allow that a government program might actually help big business. Millions must not get health care because that would show a government program could work. How long will so many Americans have to suffer just because Republicans can't stand government?
Now you would think that Republicans would be supportive of an organization that is helping drive US exports, but, with today's Republican party, you would be wrong. Last June, Republicans decided that the bank was just another example of crony capitalism and corporate welfare and the mere fact of making these loans meant government was picking winners and losers. Although large US businesses are just a small fraction of the clients the banks serves, the dollar value of loans for those large businesses are the majority of the bank's portfolio. There were also some concerns about the government's credit risk in making these loans, despite that never being a problem in the past. So they voted not to renew the bank's charter, essentially shutting it down. After some significant backlash from the business community, some common sense prevailed and the bank's charter was renewed over the objections of tea-party Republicans.
After a six month hiatus, the bank was finally back in business but approval was needed by the bank's five-member board for any loan over $10 million. At the time of the bank's charter renewal there were only two members on the board - the others were waiting for Senate confirmation like so many Obama appointees. And this is where Richard Shelby comes in. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee he has personally put a hold on any of Obama's nominees to the board of the bank. And without at least three board member, there can be no quorum and no way to expedite loans of over $10 million dollars. For a year now, no loan of over $10 million dollars has been approved. There were indications that Mr. Shelby might relent after a strong primary challenge from his right ended in March. But that didn't happen and over 30 deals worth more than $20 billion are just sitting in limbo right now.
With no US Ex-Im Bank loans available, companies have gone to other countries banks in order to move their projects along. But often those loans come with strings attached requiring some investment in that foreign country. For example, GE alone has moved some of it manufacturing plants from South Carolina, Maine, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin to overseas plants in order to facilitate financing through other countries' banks. Not only have these moves cost thousands of jobs for GE workers but the negative effects on local suppliers to those plants have also been hit.
This is today's Republican party. Thousands of Americans must lose their jobs because they can't allow that a government program might actually help big business. Millions must not get health care because that would show a government program could work. How long will so many Americans have to suffer just because Republicans can't stand government?
Monday, June 27, 2016
Wimbledon Predictions
There's been so much going on lately, I haven't even had time to post about Wimbledon which started today. Grass court tennis is another game entirely so there many players, especially those with big serves, who are not usually on the radar but actually can make a pretty deep run in this tournament.
On the men's side, Rafa Nadal is not even in the tournament as he is still recovering with what seemed like a pretty severe wrist injury that forced him to retire at the French Open. Roger Federer will be here after skipping the French with his own back injury though I doubt he has regained enough match fitness to survive the entire two weeks on the grass. That leaves only Andy Murray of the big four to really pose a threat to Novak Djokovic. Murray took the warmup tournament at Queens for the fifth time which should give him some confidence coming into Wimbledon. But I just don't think he has enough to take down Djokovic who has been simply dominant all season long. In fact, with the possible exception of a big serving young gun like Milos Raonic, Dominic Thiem or Alexander Zverev, the only thing standing in Djokovic's way may be himself. Having won the Australian and completed his career Grand Slam at the French, every match that takes him closer to the Wimbledon final and winning the third leg of the calendar Grand Slam just raises the pressure on him that much more.
Big serving is rewarded on the grass at Wimbledon and there is no bigger server in the women's game that Serena Williams. Serena made it to the finals of both the Australian and French Opens but faltered at the finish line, losing to Angelique Kerber in Melbourne and Garbine Muguruza in Paris. In addition, Serena has had some surprising losses on the Wimbledon grass, losing to Sabine Lisicki and Alize Cornet in 2013 and 2014 respectively. So the rest of the field probably has the unusual feeling that Serena is actually vulnerable these days. But you can't point to any one player and say that's the one who poses a real threat which is why, if Serena does lose, it will still be considered a pretty big upset.
On the men's side, Rafa Nadal is not even in the tournament as he is still recovering with what seemed like a pretty severe wrist injury that forced him to retire at the French Open. Roger Federer will be here after skipping the French with his own back injury though I doubt he has regained enough match fitness to survive the entire two weeks on the grass. That leaves only Andy Murray of the big four to really pose a threat to Novak Djokovic. Murray took the warmup tournament at Queens for the fifth time which should give him some confidence coming into Wimbledon. But I just don't think he has enough to take down Djokovic who has been simply dominant all season long. In fact, with the possible exception of a big serving young gun like Milos Raonic, Dominic Thiem or Alexander Zverev, the only thing standing in Djokovic's way may be himself. Having won the Australian and completed his career Grand Slam at the French, every match that takes him closer to the Wimbledon final and winning the third leg of the calendar Grand Slam just raises the pressure on him that much more.
Big serving is rewarded on the grass at Wimbledon and there is no bigger server in the women's game that Serena Williams. Serena made it to the finals of both the Australian and French Opens but faltered at the finish line, losing to Angelique Kerber in Melbourne and Garbine Muguruza in Paris. In addition, Serena has had some surprising losses on the Wimbledon grass, losing to Sabine Lisicki and Alize Cornet in 2013 and 2014 respectively. So the rest of the field probably has the unusual feeling that Serena is actually vulnerable these days. But you can't point to any one player and say that's the one who poses a real threat which is why, if Serena does lose, it will still be considered a pretty big upset.
Brexit May Force Fed Easing By Year's End
It was less than a week ago that I noted how quickly the mood had changed within the Federal Reserve when it came to raising rates. And, with Brexit, it seems as though opinion has shifted 180 degrees from its earlier position. My go-to guy on the Fed, Tim Duy, is now floating the possibility of a rate cut before the end of the year. The collapse of yields on long term bonds (US 10 year below 1.6%) and the prospect of a long stretch of uncertainty associated with the negotiations for the British exit from the EU has certainly taken any September rate hike off the table. Former Fed member Narayana Kocherlakota is already pushing the Fed to cut rates in July but I doubt the Fed will go down that road. They will do their best to stand pat and wait and see what how conditions unfold over the next few months. But the risks are clearly to the downside and the doves on the Fed are clearly in control. A rate cut before the end of the year is certainly a real possibility. I'm sure the Fed is thanking their lucky stars that the weak May unemployment report forced them to hold off on the June rate increase that they clearly had on the table. In the wake of Brexit, a June rate hike would have been viewed even more dismally than the one in December and been a further blow to Fed credibility. Sadly, it may have only been luck that save us from that disaster.
Another Shocking England Exit
England exits Euro 2016 with a shocking 2-1 loss to Iceland. Yes, you read that right, Iceland! This is probably one of the biggest upsets in football (soccer) history!
Cameron Could End Up Worst PM In History
Hat tip to Jordan Weissmann over at Slate for pointing this out - Neville Chamberlain was only responsible for losing Czechoslovakia; David Cameron may be responsible for losing Scotland and Northern Ireland. Worst PM ever? Quite possible.
Supreme Court Upholds Another Gun Control Measure
In another ruling that once again shows that the Supreme Court does not believe in the NRA fiction of absolute 2nd Amendment rights, a challenge to the law that banned the ownership or purchase of guns by convicted domestic abusers was denied in an opinion issued today. Once again, the Court has upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions and I imagine there will be many more cases like this in the years to come as many states become more committed to rational gun control policies.
In an earlier post, I emphasized how important I think it is for gun control advocates to highlight these Supreme Court decisions. The only right the Supreme Court has ruled is that you have the right to own a gun in your own home - that is all. Once you get the NRA to have to admit that the constitution allows for reasonable gun restrictions, the debate turns in our favor - it is not about whether gun control is legal but rather what gun control restrictions are legal. Too many citizens have been brainwashed by the NRA's propaganda that the 2nd Amendment is all-encompassing and does not allow any restrictions whatsoever. And that is plainly false. Of course, the NRA will still wield enormous political power and be in a position to politically block all sorts of gun control efforts. But it is important to change the terms of the debate. Gun control opponents always hide behind the rubric of "protecting the right to own a gun". Pointing out that the Court has ruled the right is subject to restrictions strips away some of their cover.
In an earlier post, I emphasized how important I think it is for gun control advocates to highlight these Supreme Court decisions. The only right the Supreme Court has ruled is that you have the right to own a gun in your own home - that is all. Once you get the NRA to have to admit that the constitution allows for reasonable gun restrictions, the debate turns in our favor - it is not about whether gun control is legal but rather what gun control restrictions are legal. Too many citizens have been brainwashed by the NRA's propaganda that the 2nd Amendment is all-encompassing and does not allow any restrictions whatsoever. And that is plainly false. Of course, the NRA will still wield enormous political power and be in a position to politically block all sorts of gun control efforts. But it is important to change the terms of the debate. Gun control opponents always hide behind the rubric of "protecting the right to own a gun". Pointing out that the Court has ruled the right is subject to restrictions strips away some of their cover.
Top EU Officials Allow Room For Regrexit
After initial statements from top European officials indicating their desire to see the UK get on with leaving as quickly as possible and minimize the extended period of uncertainty and negotiations, a new tone has emerged yesterday and today. Angela Merkel's chief of staff said "[p]oliticians in London should have the possibility to think again about the fallout from an exit" and other officials indicated that there was no hurry to have the UK invoke Article 50 until after a new Prime Minister takes over this fall. In a classic statement that actually indicates the problem that people have with the EU political class, one senior official in Brussels remarked, "“[t]he [democratic] decision of the people today can overturn the democratic decision of yesterday." Yes, that is certainly true and it would be nice if it happened but it is typically and infuriatingly tone-deaf to the actual will of the people.
All these comments are quite an about face from comments made immediately after the vote. Whether that reflects an actual movement to somehow reconsider Brexit is still rather doubtful.
All these comments are quite an about face from comments made immediately after the vote. Whether that reflects an actual movement to somehow reconsider Brexit is still rather doubtful.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Retrictions
The Supreme Court affirmed the right to abortion under Roe v. Wade and struck down a Texas law that effectively shut down half of the state's abortion clinics and required many women to travel hundreds of miles to reach a clinic. The law required abortion clinics to have facilities that were almost equivalent to a hospital and abortion doctors would have to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The cover that abortion opponents used for creating these laws was that they protected the health and safety of women seeking abortion. Unfortunately, the state had to admit during oral arguments that they could not produce one credible instance where these regulations actually helped a woman's health and safety. The Court ruled 5-3 that these rules created on undue burden on those seeking abortions and struck them down. The four liberals, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor, were joined by Kennedy in the ruling. This decision will invalidate similar restrictive abortion laws that have been passed in other states under the guise of protecting a woman's health. This is yet another example of how the power on the Court has swung definitively in the liberal's favor.
Brexit - Thoughts And Analysis
It is almost impossible to describe what a massive own-goal the Brexit vote is for the UK and especially England. It is probably the worst policy decision made by any major country since World War II. The decision has torn the entire fabric of the UK to pieces. Scotland and Northern Ireland are now in impossible positions; the Conservative party is cleaved in half; even the Labour party is in open revolt after the results. And the most vocal supporters of getting out of the EU now seem to be having second thoughts as they see the predicted carnage of their vote actually happening.
Of course, there is plenty of blame to go around. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove fed their own ambitions, abandoned the PM and hitched their wagon to Farage and the xenophobes, while running a pretty dishonest campaign overstating the negative effects of the EU and understating the fallout from exit. We can also throw the pathetic Nick Clegg in there who was the kingmaker way back in 2010 and chose Cameron over Gordon Brown, paving the way for the destruction of Clegg's Liberal Democratic party, unnecessary austerity, and now the exit from the EU. The current accusations against Corbyn and the Labour party for not being as supportive as they should have been in supporting Cameron strike me as a little strained. You can maybe look back at the poor campaign of Ed Milliband that allowed Cameron's re-election. But you can hardly blame Labour. Cameron had asked them to be the adult in the room and support him in keeping Scotland in the EU and what did Labour get for their efforts - just the destruction of Labour dominance on Scotland as it was replaced by the SNP and, without those Scottish seats, a probable permanent minority party status in the UK. So it is a pretty hard ask to ask Labour to fall on their swords once again, do the right thing, and support Cameron in staying in the EU. Their reward will be a more powerful Cameron who will ram more Tory policies through Parliament. It is not surprising that a significant share of Labour voters made a "protest" vote without really believing they would leave the EU. A similar point could also be made about EU leaders. Perhaps if they had given Cameron more when he tried to "renegotiate" the relationship earlier this year, this disaster could have been avoided. But, again, Cameron put those leaders in an untenable position, just as with Labour. If they had given him anything of substance, every other country would want to carve out a "special" deal too. Lastly, the youth. It was their future and they just did not turn out like they needed to. Take a look at this graph that Kevin Drum had about the age breakdown of turnout and votes:
But, in the end, this is David Cameron's failure. His hubris to win the 2015 election led to the destruction of the UK and his own political career and legacy. It is a Greek tragedy.
However you look at it, the future looks pretty bleak. Yes, it will not be a new depression. But, like austerity, it is just another unnecessary self-inflicted injury that will make everyone's life more difficult and slightly worse off.
The Blame
Let's be absolutely, 100% clear. The blame for this debacle falls squarely and completely on the shoulders of David Cameron. There was absolutely no need to call this referendum, especially when everyone knew how divisive it would be. But in order to feed his own personal ambition to get re-elected, he needed to keep the anti-EU forces within the Conservative party in the fold while also blunting the impact of the ant-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP). And his method for doing that was to promise a referendum on leaving the EU after he got re-elected in 2015. There was always a glaring weakness in that idea - he would have to rely once again on significant Labour support for the referendum to fail. Relying on your political opponents for your success is not usually a good tactic. Yes, his short-term strategy worked, he surprisingly won re-election and actually increased Tory control in Parliament. But that strategy completely failed on Thursday - Cameron has been forced to resign; his legacy is in tatters; and the UK and England may never be the same.Of course, there is plenty of blame to go around. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove fed their own ambitions, abandoned the PM and hitched their wagon to Farage and the xenophobes, while running a pretty dishonest campaign overstating the negative effects of the EU and understating the fallout from exit. We can also throw the pathetic Nick Clegg in there who was the kingmaker way back in 2010 and chose Cameron over Gordon Brown, paving the way for the destruction of Clegg's Liberal Democratic party, unnecessary austerity, and now the exit from the EU. The current accusations against Corbyn and the Labour party for not being as supportive as they should have been in supporting Cameron strike me as a little strained. You can maybe look back at the poor campaign of Ed Milliband that allowed Cameron's re-election. But you can hardly blame Labour. Cameron had asked them to be the adult in the room and support him in keeping Scotland in the EU and what did Labour get for their efforts - just the destruction of Labour dominance on Scotland as it was replaced by the SNP and, without those Scottish seats, a probable permanent minority party status in the UK. So it is a pretty hard ask to ask Labour to fall on their swords once again, do the right thing, and support Cameron in staying in the EU. Their reward will be a more powerful Cameron who will ram more Tory policies through Parliament. It is not surprising that a significant share of Labour voters made a "protest" vote without really believing they would leave the EU. A similar point could also be made about EU leaders. Perhaps if they had given Cameron more when he tried to "renegotiate" the relationship earlier this year, this disaster could have been avoided. But, again, Cameron put those leaders in an untenable position, just as with Labour. If they had given him anything of substance, every other country would want to carve out a "special" deal too. Lastly, the youth. It was their future and they just did not turn out like they needed to. Take a look at this graph that Kevin Drum had about the age breakdown of turnout and votes:
But, in the end, this is David Cameron's failure. His hubris to win the 2015 election led to the destruction of the UK and his own political career and legacy. It is a Greek tragedy.
The Future For the UK
It is pretty clear that leaving the EU will mean the breakup of the United Kingdom. Scotland will vote to become independent and remain or rejoin the EU. Boris Johnson may say he sees no need for a new Scottish referendum but it will happen somehow - maybe not right away but, if the Scots are forced to leave the EU, it will happen. Northern Ireland is in a somewhat similar position and there will be great pressure for it to join a united Ireland and remain in the EU. This will place the Protestants in Northern Ireland in a difficult position and, whatever happens, probably exacerbate the sectarian tensions that are always just bubbling below the surface there. It will not be pretty. Wales voted to leave, but when they realize that Johnson and the Tories have neither the capability or the inclination to match the loss of current EU subsidies to rural areas like Wales, their tune may change. I would also throw in that Gibraltar's status could also be in doubt as they voted to remain and rely heavily on Spanish labor and EU trade.
This would pretty much just leaves jolly old England. It will definitely be old but I'm not sure quite how jolly it will be. It is more than ironic that the areas of England and Wales that received the most EU subsidies voted to leave. Conservative estimates are that leaving the EU will cost about 2% of GDP annually and the uncertainty of the long drawn-out negotiations to leave will probably make that impact even greater. Almost the very moment that Boris Johnson was noting in his victory speech that the UK had the fifth largest economy in the world, the crash of the pound and stock market had already reduced it to the sixth largest. If Scotland and Northern Ireland leave, that represents about another 10% of UK GDP gone and would leave England fighting with the emerging giants of India and Brazil, along with Italy, for the last three spots in the top ten of world GDP - still a powerful economy but a much weaker one. In addition, the idea that the EU is going to make things easy for the UK to leave just does not seem credible - they will extract a heavy price. Despite what Boris Johnson says, there is no way the EU is going to let the UK end up like Norway with free access to its markets without the EU responsibilities. The EU will want to make an example of the UK in order to send a signal to other EU members that leaving will be difficult and painful.
The financial power of the City in London will also be significantly weakened. All the major international banks will have to increase their presence in some financial center in Europe in order to have access to the EU and every job that moves is one less job in London. Already, HSBC is announcing a move of around 1,000 jobs out of London - that is just the opening of the floodgates. .
Politically, this could also result in a complete realignment in British politics. We have already seen a Conservative-Labour coalition emerge in the vote for Scottish independence and on the Brexit vote. Many of the remaining Labour strongholds in the North voted to leave although not necessarily by significant margins. Meanwhile, there is a significant bloc in the Conservative party that also voted to remain. It is quite possible we could end up with an anti-immigrant, anti-EU, nationalist party combining UKIP and Tories and a pro-EU, more liberal party of disaffected Conservatives and Labour.
The next few months will give the Johnson/Gove alliance a chance to lay out their vision for the future. They managed to advocate for leaving without having to articulate what exactly the way forward would be. My understanding, which could be incorrect here, is that they are looking kind of like a right-wing Republican dream - massive deregulation and probably more tax cuts that will fuel enormous growth. The same old supply-side story which always ends in more debt and slower growth. I'm not sure that is what the leave voters actually have in mind but it may be what they will get. And, if that does turn out to be the case, England may end up looking rather like Kansas. Rural voters, in total fear of these supposed waves of immigrants who barely even exist in their communities, vote against their best interests and endorse policies that make them even poorer. And without the EU subsidies to those rural areas and the increased cost of trade, they will be even poorer still.
Finally, a real question is what will happen with the youth of England. Although they might not have voted in enough number, it is pretty clear that they overwhelmingly supported remaining. Will they leave in droves, creating an even bigger drain on England's finances and ability to grow.
Finally, a real question is what will happen with the youth of England. Although they might not have voted in enough number, it is pretty clear that they overwhelmingly supported remaining. Will they leave in droves, creating an even bigger drain on England's finances and ability to grow.
However you look at it, the future looks pretty bleak. Yes, it will not be a new depression. But, like austerity, it is just another unnecessary self-inflicted injury that will make everyone's life more difficult and slightly worse off.
The future for Europe
The Brexit vote is a huge shot of adrenaline to the anti-EU forces all over Europe. The xenophobic right in France, Netherlands, Austria, and elsewhere will all push even harder to leave the EU and it will become increasingly harder to stop them. The only hope is that the EU elites take this as a wake-up call and actually try to mitigate some of the damage that the economic policies of austerity have created. In addition, they are going to have to do something to deal with the perception of massive uncontrolled immigration that the right feeds on. And clearly the responsibility for moving these changes along lies with Angela Merkel. She needs to finally step up to the plate and start spreading the German wealth around, helping the southern countries like Greece and Spain to recover much more quickly than the current path they are on. That may mean actually forgiving some sovereign debt. It will not make her popular in Germany, but it may be the only way to actually save the European project. Unfortunately, nothing she has done in the past indicates she is capable of that kind of leadership. The other rather sad possibility is that the damage that the UK economy endures by leaving is so bad that it actually makes other EU countries more reluctant to leave. What a grim irony that would be.Regrexit
Already, the leave side is retracting many of the "promises" made during the campaign. They have admitted the 350 million pounds per week that they said the UK sends to the EU is less than half that. And the promise to take those monies saved and invest them in the NHS has also been hedged. UKIP supporters that thought they were voting for a virtual ban on immigration are now finding out that the goal is merely to have "control over roughly who comes in and roughly in what numbers", as per Tory MEP Hannan. Cameron has reneged on the promise to invoke Article 50 which officially sets the leave negotiations in motion and is now leaving that step up to the next PM. Tellingly, there has been no push from Johnson, Gove, or Farage to actually invoke Article 50. Nicola Sturgeon has indicated she may have the Scottish Parliament veto the decision which could cause a huge constitutional crisis whose result is unclear right now. In any case, Scotland will have the opportunity to reject whatever agreement is worked out between the UK and EU. The chaos and disaster that was predicted if the UK voted to leave has actually come to pass and millions are apparently rethinking their vote. The next battleground for this issue will be election of the next Conservative leader - it will be interesting to see if anyone runs against Johnson specifically to stay in the EU. After that will come the general election. All of these are long-shot chances to somehow reverse this incredibly wrong-headed decision. But we have seen stranger things than that happen when it come to the EU politics.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Friday, June 24, 2016
Manzanar - Symbol Of Dislocation
In preparation for a Natural Weekend in the Owens Valley and Yosemite, here is a brief history of the town of Manzanar, California.
Manzanar is located in the Owens Valley, just down the valley from Bishop, California. As you can see from the picture in Bishop below, it has incredible natural beauty with the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the west and the Inyo Mountains to the east. It is the high desert - Manzanar itself is 3,700 feet above sea level but the mountains on either side rise to over 14,000 feet. So the valley itself is quite deep even though way above sea level.
But Manzanar's history is a story of displacement. It was originally settled by the Mono Indians in late prehistoric times. They were eventually displaced from Manzanar by miners in the 1840's as part of the California Gold Rush, although they still remained in Owens Valley. But competition from farmers and cattlemen that had moved into the area to sustain the mining towns eventually ended in war, with the most of Mono being moved to the San Sebastian Reservation in 1863 and the remaining fighters finally defeated in 1867. The first displacement was over.
By the early 1900s, the growing city of Los Angeles and its investors, desperate for water, began buying the water rights of Owens Valley, mostly through deceitful and underhanded methods, and began diverting water from the Owens Valley to LA. This is part of the story told in the movie "Chinatown". By the 1920s, the local farming and mining community was sabotaging the aqueduct, dynamiting sections of it numerous times. But the diversion of water eventually devastated the Owens Lake ecosystem - the lake itself ran dry in by the end of the decade. Without water, the mining, farming, and cattle industries all died and the town of Manzanar was essentially abandoned. This was the second displacement.
When the US entered World War II and Roosevelt ordered the internment of Japanese Americans, Manzanar was selected as one of the first 10 "relocation centers" as they were euphemistically called, primarily because of its remoteness. By July, 1942, over 10,000 Japanese were held captive there, in less than ideal conditions. When the war ended in 1945, the camp was closed and the internees were free to go. They were given $25 to send them on their way but no transportation - they had to take care of that themselves. But many had nowhere to go having been uprooted from their prior lives. These remaining internees were then forcibly removed from the camp. Over the course of the 2 plus years of the camp, 146 internees lost their lives. An interesting side note is the story of Ralph Lazo, an American of Mexican and Irish dissent, who was so incensed by the immorality of internment that he himself voluntarily joined his Japanese American friends when they were rounded up and sent to Manzanar. No one ever questioned his nationality or why he was interned and he remained there for over 2 years. This was then the final strange double dislocation - once into Manzanar and then out again.
Today, Manzanar is National Historic Site - a deserted reminder of the internment of Japanese Americans but also a symbol of the displacement of all who lived there.
I had never heard of Manzanar until we actually drove by there and saw the guard tower of the camp. It is incredible story of how institutional power can destroy so much and yet the natural beauty of the place still remarkably remains.
DA Does Not Want To Ruin Football Players By Actually Prosecuting Their Crime
Please tell me when exactly did college sports players became immune from prosecution. Was this another crazy Supreme Court decision? Or is it just an unwritten law?
On Wednesday, the District Attorney in Monroe, Louisiana admitted that he did not go forward with the prosecution of two Alabama football players on drug and weapons possession charges because he did not want "to ruin the lives of two young men who have spent their adolescence and their teenage years working and sweating while we were all home in the air conditioning". I guess I can see letting them off on the drug charge since it was just marijuana, but it does seem a little concerning that they were in possession of a handgun that was reported stolen in Alabama. You'd think the DA might be interested in finding out how stolen merchandise got across state lines into his state, but I guess not.
This follows on the heels of the Baylor football scandal and the ridiculous six-month sentence give to a rapist at Stanford where the father of this swimmer asked the court not to be too harsh just for "20 minutes of action." And too many other incidents that are too frequent to document.
Where do they find a DA who thinks like this. I guess I could understand covering up for Alabama football players if this happened in Alabama. But this is Louisiana - obviously this guy is not an LSU fan. What a joke.
On Wednesday, the District Attorney in Monroe, Louisiana admitted that he did not go forward with the prosecution of two Alabama football players on drug and weapons possession charges because he did not want "to ruin the lives of two young men who have spent their adolescence and their teenage years working and sweating while we were all home in the air conditioning". I guess I can see letting them off on the drug charge since it was just marijuana, but it does seem a little concerning that they were in possession of a handgun that was reported stolen in Alabama. You'd think the DA might be interested in finding out how stolen merchandise got across state lines into his state, but I guess not.
This follows on the heels of the Baylor football scandal and the ridiculous six-month sentence give to a rapist at Stanford where the father of this swimmer asked the court not to be too harsh just for "20 minutes of action." And too many other incidents that are too frequent to document.
Where do they find a DA who thinks like this. I guess I could understand covering up for Alabama football players if this happened in Alabama. But this is Louisiana - obviously this guy is not an LSU fan. What a joke.
Supreme Court Decision Allows Police To Use Illegal Stops
I've meant to write about the outrageous Supreme Court decision this week that strips away some our Fourth Amendment rights to improper search and seizure. Basically, the Court ruled that you can be stopped illegally but, if you happen to have an outstanding warrant, any evidence gleaned from that illegal stop would still be admissible in court. The case revolved around a police officer who was occasionally monitoring a house for "suspicious drug activity". Although he did not see when a man named Edward Streiff entered the house, he decided to stop and question him when he left the house. Mr. Streiff was not acting suspiciously and there was clearly no reason to stop him. After getting Streiff's personal information, he did a routine check and found that Strieff had an outstanding warrant and promptly arrested him. A subsequent search of Streiff found some methamphetamines.
Since there was no real reason to stop Streiff, the methamphetamine evidence should have been thrown out because it was the result of an illegal stop. Incredibly, however, the Court ruled 5-3 that the officer had just made "good-faith mistakes" and the evidence was valid. Justice Thomas wrote that since there was "no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct", it was, in fact, OK. His very opinion indicates that it was an unlawful stop but apparently we should just ignore that because the office didn't really mean it. He goes on to say that we shouldn't worry about police taking advantage of this ruling by making unlawful stops in the hope that there might be an outstanding warrant because "[s]uch wanton conduct would expose police to civil liability". Has he not heard of "stop and frisk"! As, Kevin Drum rightly notes, "This willful exercise in ivory tower fantasy is breathtaking. Does anyone seriously believe that Officer Fackrell just made an innocent mistake?"
Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg had ringing dissents that actually were grounded in the real world. I will let their words speak for themselves:
"The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent."
They continue:
"The Court sees things differently. To the Court, the fact that a warrant gives an officer cause to arrest a person severs the connection between illegal policing and the resulting discovery of evidence. This is a remarkable proposition: The mere existence of a warrant not only gives an officer legal cause to arrest and search a person, it also forgives an officer who, with no knowledge of the warrant at all, unlawfully stops that person on a whim or hunch...But the Fourth Amendment does not tolerate an officer’s unreasonable searches and seizures just because he did not know any better. Even officers prone to negligence can learn from courts that exclude illegally obtained evidence. Indeed, they are perhaps the most in need of the education, whether by the judge’s opinion, the prosecutor’s future guidance, or an updated manual on criminal procedure. If the officers are in doubt about what the law requires, exclusion gives them an 'incentive to err on the side of constitutional behavior'."
Finally, Sotomayor continues on her own in a description of real-world police power:
"Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more. This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants—so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact. That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how you behaved. The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction—even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous. The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. The officer may next ask for your “consent” to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand “helpless, perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised.” If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then “frisk” you for weapons. This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may “‘feel with sensitive fingers every portion of [your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.’” The officer’s control over you does not end with the stop. If the officer chooses, he may handcuff you and take you to jail for doing nothing more than speeding, jaywalking, or “driving [your] pickup truck . . . with [your] 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter . . . without [your] seatbelt fastened.” At the jail, he can fingerprint you, swab DNA from the inside of your mouth, and force you to “shower with a delousing agent” while you “lift [your] tongue, hold out [your] arms, turn around, and lift [your] genitals.” Even if you are innocent, you will now join the 65 million Americans with an arrest record and experience the “civil death” of discrimination by employers, landlords, and whoever else conducts a background check. And, of course, if you fail to pay bail or appear for court, a judge will issue a warrant to render you “arrestable on sight” in the future. This case involves a suspicionless stop, one in which the officer initiated this chain of events without justification. As the Justice Department notes, many innocent people are subjected to the humiliations of these unconstitutional searches. The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner. But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. For generations, black and brown parents have given their children “the talk”— instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them. By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged. We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are “isolated.” They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but. I dissent."
Thank you Sonya! The swing vote in this case was Justice Bryer who joined Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kenndy. What exactly was he thinking?
Since there was no real reason to stop Streiff, the methamphetamine evidence should have been thrown out because it was the result of an illegal stop. Incredibly, however, the Court ruled 5-3 that the officer had just made "good-faith mistakes" and the evidence was valid. Justice Thomas wrote that since there was "no indication that this unlawful stop was part of any systemic or recurrent police misconduct", it was, in fact, OK. His very opinion indicates that it was an unlawful stop but apparently we should just ignore that because the office didn't really mean it. He goes on to say that we shouldn't worry about police taking advantage of this ruling by making unlawful stops in the hope that there might be an outstanding warrant because "[s]uch wanton conduct would expose police to civil liability". Has he not heard of "stop and frisk"! As, Kevin Drum rightly notes, "This willful exercise in ivory tower fantasy is breathtaking. Does anyone seriously believe that Officer Fackrell just made an innocent mistake?"
Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg had ringing dissents that actually were grounded in the real world. I will let their words speak for themselves:
"The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent."
They continue:
"The Court sees things differently. To the Court, the fact that a warrant gives an officer cause to arrest a person severs the connection between illegal policing and the resulting discovery of evidence. This is a remarkable proposition: The mere existence of a warrant not only gives an officer legal cause to arrest and search a person, it also forgives an officer who, with no knowledge of the warrant at all, unlawfully stops that person on a whim or hunch...But the Fourth Amendment does not tolerate an officer’s unreasonable searches and seizures just because he did not know any better. Even officers prone to negligence can learn from courts that exclude illegally obtained evidence. Indeed, they are perhaps the most in need of the education, whether by the judge’s opinion, the prosecutor’s future guidance, or an updated manual on criminal procedure. If the officers are in doubt about what the law requires, exclusion gives them an 'incentive to err on the side of constitutional behavior'."
Finally, Sotomayor continues on her own in a description of real-world police power:
"Although many Americans have been stopped for speeding or jaywalking, few may realize how degrading a stop can be when the officer is looking for more. This Court has allowed an officer to stop you for whatever reason he wants—so long as he can point to a pretextual justification after the fact. That justification must provide specific reasons why the officer suspected you were breaking the law, but it may factor in your ethnicity, where you live, what you were wearing, and how you behaved. The officer does not even need to know which law you might have broken so long as he can later point to any possible infraction—even one that is minor, unrelated, or ambiguous. The indignity of the stop is not limited to an officer telling you that you look like a criminal. The officer may next ask for your “consent” to inspect your bag or purse without telling you that you can decline. Regardless of your answer, he may order you to stand “helpless, perhaps facing a wall with [your] hands raised.” If the officer thinks you might be dangerous, he may then “frisk” you for weapons. This involves more than just a pat down. As onlookers pass by, the officer may “‘feel with sensitive fingers every portion of [your] body. A thorough search [may] be made of [your] arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet.’” The officer’s control over you does not end with the stop. If the officer chooses, he may handcuff you and take you to jail for doing nothing more than speeding, jaywalking, or “driving [your] pickup truck . . . with [your] 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter . . . without [your] seatbelt fastened.” At the jail, he can fingerprint you, swab DNA from the inside of your mouth, and force you to “shower with a delousing agent” while you “lift [your] tongue, hold out [your] arms, turn around, and lift [your] genitals.” Even if you are innocent, you will now join the 65 million Americans with an arrest record and experience the “civil death” of discrimination by employers, landlords, and whoever else conducts a background check. And, of course, if you fail to pay bail or appear for court, a judge will issue a warrant to render you “arrestable on sight” in the future. This case involves a suspicionless stop, one in which the officer initiated this chain of events without justification. As the Justice Department notes, many innocent people are subjected to the humiliations of these unconstitutional searches. The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner. But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. For generations, black and brown parents have given their children “the talk”— instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them. By legitimizing the conduct that produces this double consciousness, this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged. We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are “isolated.” They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. They are the ones who recognize that unlawful police stops corrode all our civil liberties and threaten all our lives. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but. I dissent."
Thank you Sonya! The swing vote in this case was Justice Bryer who joined Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kenndy. What exactly was he thinking?
Ryan Reveals Obamacare Replacement "Plan" - It's The Same Old Story
Earlier, I wrote about Paul Ryan's nothing-burger of an anti-poverty plan which incredibly included rolling back the requirement of financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients. It was hard to see how that would help people in poverty, but maybe Ryan has a different financial threshold for poverty than the rest of us. As a side note, overriding President Obama and rolling back this very rule was the vote that Ryan scheduled last night as Democrats were demanding a vote on gun control. It was not the most politically adroit move, especially since the vote failed. Ryan must really love those Wall Street donations, so he keeps on pushing the issue.
But I digress. This week Ryan also released his long-anticipated plan for replacing Obamacare. We've been waiting for this with baited breath for about six years now. In any case, it wasn't really a plan - it was just an outline of what Republicans would do. And it contained the usual bromides that every Republican health plan has had for the last decade which I will tackle one by one with the resulting effect in parentheses:
But I digress. This week Ryan also released his long-anticipated plan for replacing Obamacare. We've been waiting for this with baited breath for about six years now. In any case, it wasn't really a plan - it was just an outline of what Republicans would do. And it contained the usual bromides that every Republican health plan has had for the last decade which I will tackle one by one with the resulting effect in parentheses:
- Allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines. (Create useless, lowest-common-denominator coverage at the highest possible price.)
- Provide a refundable tax credit to those who don't get coverage from employers or a government program. (Provide a subsidy to buy the useless coverage above.)
- Expand health savings accounts (which will get wiped out with a catastrophic illness.)
- Create "high-risk" pools for those with pre-existing conditions (with no limitations on how much those plans would cost so they would be prohibitively expensive as they were before Obamacare.)
Ryan has added in few other kickers this time - raising the Medicare and full Social Security eligibility age to 67; work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid adults; and repealing the Obamacare requirement for every citizen to obtain health insurance. This is just a continuing example of the post-policy mode that Republicans are in - all these ideas have been discredited long ago, but the GOP keeps on trotting them out like they are shiny and new.
Of course, there were a couple of key things missing from this "plan", as is the usual case when dealing with a Ryan proposal. There was no analysis of how much all this would actually cost. But more importantly there was no analysis of how many people would actually lose the coverage that they currently have now under Obamacare. And that's probably for a very good reason. If they actually put that number out there, it would make this non-starter of a plan totally dead in the water.
Of course, there were a couple of key things missing from this "plan", as is the usual case when dealing with a Ryan proposal. There was no analysis of how much all this would actually cost. But more importantly there was no analysis of how many people would actually lose the coverage that they currently have now under Obamacare. And that's probably for a very good reason. If they actually put that number out there, it would make this non-starter of a plan totally dead in the water.
Johnson Thinks Economy Collapse Below France Is "Glorious Opportunity"
In just a few hours after the Brexit vote, Britain's economy lost so much value that it fell below France to become the 6th largest economy in the world. Boris Johnson calls this a "glorious opportunity" - read his whole statement, it is almost Trump-like in its deceptions. Could the irony be any greater...
Delaying Brexit By Not Invoking Article 50
The next battleground in the British vote to leave the EU could very well be Parliament - this referendum is not legally binding in any way. I do not believe that Cameron invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty before he "resigned" and that is the specific act that triggers the negotiations about leaving. It is certainly possible, especially when you see the disaster for the British Pound and stock market, that he could put the question before Parliament for a vote and hope to hold a majority there. Cameron has insisted he would trigger Article 50 immediately after the vote but I have not read anywhere that he has actually done that at this point. And it could be that separation talks could begin informally without Article 50 being invoked. As the disaster that the exit vote has created for the British economy and the future of the UK, it is possible that the cries for delaying the actual invocation of Article 50 will grow. Cameron, despite what he has said, could then take the case to Parliament, ignoring the will of the people. But he's not running again so that may not be a problem for him. Or he could just hold off on invoking Article 50 and let the new PM take that specific act. In that case, the election of the new PM would start this battle all over again. Admittedly, both of these look like long-shots right now. But you do have to wonder, when Britons see how much they have lost in just this one day, how many of them would like to take a breath and reconsider.
Update: it is still unclear whether Cameron has invoked Article 50 yet, but Corbyn says he should do it immediately.
Update #2: A BBC report says the Cameron specifically said he would NOT invoke Article 50 in his resignation speech. I'm guessing he means that he will leave it to his successor. Jean-Claude Junker, President of the European Commission tells UK to essentially get on with leaving.
Update #3: Is Gibraltar going too? Spain calls for "joint control" of the Rock.
Update: it is still unclear whether Cameron has invoked Article 50 yet, but Corbyn says he should do it immediately.
Update #2: A BBC report says the Cameron specifically said he would NOT invoke Article 50 in his resignation speech. I'm guessing he means that he will leave it to his successor. Jean-Claude Junker, President of the European Commission tells UK to essentially get on with leaving.
Update #3: Is Gibraltar going too? Spain calls for "joint control" of the Rock.
The Domino Theory and Brexit - Re-posted
To give you a sense of what might happen now (which nobody really know), I am reblogging this post that I put up in the middle of May, discussing the repercussion of the Brexit vote:
For those of you old enough to remember, the Domino Theory was one of the reasons that we ended up in the quagmire of Vietnam. The theory basically was that if Vietnam fell, then all the surrounding countries in Southeast Asia would also soon fall to the Communists, like dominoes. And I guess what I am proposing when it comes to the British voting to exit the European Union, Brexit as it is called, is that it will be the first domino to fall. The referendum is up for a vote on June 23, a little over a month away, and the current polling is pretty much all over the place - Reuters shows "stay" up by 15 points while others show the vote neck and neck. The debate has split the Conservative party wide open, with former London Mayor Boris Johnson, a future PM hopeful, leading the "leave" faction and current PM David Cameron heading the "stay" camp. But for the purposes of this post, let's assume the "leave" vote prevails and the UK ends up leaving the EU.
In 2014, Scotland held a referendum on independence from the United Kingdom which lost by a 10 point margin, 55%-45%. The referendum was really a launch pad for the Scottish National Party (SNP) which, in less than a decade, has managed to displace Labor as the dominant force in Scottish politics. In an ironic twist, one of the arguments made against Scottish independence was that the country would lose its membership in the EU. Scottish support for the EU is higher than the rest of the UK and the SNP has said that it would put forward a second referendum on independence if the UK voted to leave. Scotland has long felt they were the forgotten stepchild when it comes to policies made in London and now the country no longer has a strong voice in either the Labor or Conservative parties that make up the majority of Parliament. In addition, Scotland's economy has come under pressure as the price of oil has fallen through the floor. Any vote for independence today would be quite close and the traditional powers of Labor and Conservatives that both opposed Scottish devolution would have less influence.
Northern Ireland also presents some potential problems if the UK leaves the EU. Again, the country is much more pro-Europe than the rest of England and the EU is Northern Ireland's largest trading partner, much of it with Ireland. In theory, a border would have to be maintained between Ireland and Northern Ireland, restricting the flow of trade and people between those two countries. The creation of that border would be seen as essentially a British decision and could lead to increased calls for reunification with Ireland in order to stay in the EU, adding another layer of resentment to the country's long internal struggle.
Finally, the departure of the UK from the EU will essentially break the taboo associated with an exit. It will not be long before you hear Eurosceptics in Greece, France, Spain and elsewhere point to the UK as an example of what could be done. In Finland, Parliament is scheduled to debate leaving the Euro this year and similar debates are in the offing in Denmark and Austria. And there is no telling what would happen when a far right party gets control of government in one of the eastern bloc member states. But you have to feel, eventually, one country will vote to leave and then the floodgates would really be open.
None of these events would happen instantly - it would be a long, difficult process in uncharted waters for any of these countries. As opposed to the EU, leaving or, for that matter, joining the Euro is an especially complex, arduous, and disruptive task with no certainty of the result. But the door would certainly be open if they chose to take it. Now, I happen to believe that the "stay" camp will eke out a victory and all this speculation will be for naught. Cameron has managed to lead a charmed political life, squeaking through when he has too. But, either way, the Brexit question will be a win/win for the Conservative point of view in England. If they leave, the more nativist Conservatives will take over; and if they stay, the UK economy will contract again and Cameron's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne can use that excuse to continue his push for increased privatization and his attack on the social safety net in Britain. But, if the UK leaves and the dominoes fall, David Cameron may well be remembered as the man responsible for the dissolution of the UK and the break-up the European Union.
In 2014, Scotland held a referendum on independence from the United Kingdom which lost by a 10 point margin, 55%-45%. The referendum was really a launch pad for the Scottish National Party (SNP) which, in less than a decade, has managed to displace Labor as the dominant force in Scottish politics. In an ironic twist, one of the arguments made against Scottish independence was that the country would lose its membership in the EU. Scottish support for the EU is higher than the rest of the UK and the SNP has said that it would put forward a second referendum on independence if the UK voted to leave. Scotland has long felt they were the forgotten stepchild when it comes to policies made in London and now the country no longer has a strong voice in either the Labor or Conservative parties that make up the majority of Parliament. In addition, Scotland's economy has come under pressure as the price of oil has fallen through the floor. Any vote for independence today would be quite close and the traditional powers of Labor and Conservatives that both opposed Scottish devolution would have less influence.
Northern Ireland also presents some potential problems if the UK leaves the EU. Again, the country is much more pro-Europe than the rest of England and the EU is Northern Ireland's largest trading partner, much of it with Ireland. In theory, a border would have to be maintained between Ireland and Northern Ireland, restricting the flow of trade and people between those two countries. The creation of that border would be seen as essentially a British decision and could lead to increased calls for reunification with Ireland in order to stay in the EU, adding another layer of resentment to the country's long internal struggle.
Finally, the departure of the UK from the EU will essentially break the taboo associated with an exit. It will not be long before you hear Eurosceptics in Greece, France, Spain and elsewhere point to the UK as an example of what could be done. In Finland, Parliament is scheduled to debate leaving the Euro this year and similar debates are in the offing in Denmark and Austria. And there is no telling what would happen when a far right party gets control of government in one of the eastern bloc member states. But you have to feel, eventually, one country will vote to leave and then the floodgates would really be open.
None of these events would happen instantly - it would be a long, difficult process in uncharted waters for any of these countries. As opposed to the EU, leaving or, for that matter, joining the Euro is an especially complex, arduous, and disruptive task with no certainty of the result. But the door would certainly be open if they chose to take it. Now, I happen to believe that the "stay" camp will eke out a victory and all this speculation will be for naught. Cameron has managed to lead a charmed political life, squeaking through when he has too. But, either way, the Brexit question will be a win/win for the Conservative point of view in England. If they leave, the more nativist Conservatives will take over; and if they stay, the UK economy will contract again and Cameron's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne can use that excuse to continue his push for increased privatization and his attack on the social safety net in Britain. But, if the UK leaves and the dominoes fall, David Cameron may well be remembered as the man responsible for the dissolution of the UK and the break-up the European Union.
Cameron Resigns
David Cameron resigns, saying, "I do not think it would be right for me to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination." Isn't that what the captain of the Exxon Valdez said when he grounded the ship and caused one of the worst environmental disasters ever?
Having willingly led Britain into this destruction, he just rides off into the sunset. Remember, it was his choice, his idea, to have this referendum; it was not something that ever had to happen. But he needed to keep his right flank in line and to somehow reduce the power of UKIP in order to win re-election and the referendum was how he did that. David Cameron put his own political fortunes before the well-being of the country and he lost. And now Britons will pay for his selfishness for years to come. Thanks David.
Scotland and Northern Ireland voted strongly to stay in the EU and they are already making noises about leaving the UK to re-join the EU. And you can be sure that there will be another country taking this same vote on the European mainland sometime soon. David Cameron could very well go down in history as the man who precipitated the dissolution of the United Kingdom and the European Union. What a legacy.
Having willingly led Britain into this destruction, he just rides off into the sunset. Remember, it was his choice, his idea, to have this referendum; it was not something that ever had to happen. But he needed to keep his right flank in line and to somehow reduce the power of UKIP in order to win re-election and the referendum was how he did that. David Cameron put his own political fortunes before the well-being of the country and he lost. And now Britons will pay for his selfishness for years to come. Thanks David.
Scotland and Northern Ireland voted strongly to stay in the EU and they are already making noises about leaving the UK to re-join the EU. And you can be sure that there will be another country taking this same vote on the European mainland sometime soon. David Cameron could very well go down in history as the man who precipitated the dissolution of the United Kingdom and the European Union. What a legacy.
Britain Votes To Blow Itself Up
Goodbye Europe. Goodbye David Cameron. Goodbye Scotland; and maybe say goodbye to Northern Ireland, too.
By a 51-48 margin, the leave camp won the vote. David Cameron has resigned. Scotland and Northern Ireland start to talk about leaving Britain to join EU. British pound and stock market get clobbered. World markets will be incredibly volatile. And who knows what the future of the EU will be now.
David Cameron risked the future of Britain just to hold off the right wing of his party. He lost and now Britain will too.
By a 51-48 margin, the leave camp won the vote. David Cameron has resigned. Scotland and Northern Ireland start to talk about leaving Britain to join EU. British pound and stock market get clobbered. World markets will be incredibly volatile. And who knows what the future of the EU will be now.
David Cameron risked the future of Britain just to hold off the right wing of his party. He lost and now Britain will too.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Trump is Frying Poor Kevin Drum's Brain
I've done a pretty good job of trying to avoid commenting and analyzing the daily atrocities that come from Donald Trump. It is just too exhausting and every analysis ends the same way - he is lying and he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. But some people just can't handle it. Take, for example, poor Kevin Drum. Trump has became the drug that is frying his brain. Have a read:
Here is Donald Trump talking to an evangelical audience on Tuesday about how he raised his children:
You might have noticed that this item is from yesterday. So was the picture of Trump with Jerry Falwell Jr. My post this morning about Utah v. Strieff is two days late. What's going on with that? Well, you know how your inbox can get filled up and you just get behind on everything? That's how I feel. My brain is hopelessly backed up and I'm behind on everything. Sometime tomorrow I'll finally figure out what happened today.
I blame Trump for this. He's brought a level of gobsmacking idiocy to the news that worms its way into my brain and won't let go. I get obsessed with what he's blathering about. Did he really say that? And people believed it? There has to be something more to it. But what? Has our national bullshit detector suddenly gone pear shaped? Why? How is it that 45 percent of the country apparently doesn't realize that he's basically just a talented used car salesman? It makes no sense. There's no way that anyone with even the slightest experience of real life could fail to see that he lies practically every time he opens his mouth. That he can't be trusted to do even the smallest thing he promises. What's going on? WTF. IS. GOING. ON?
This is my brain on Trump. It wants answers. But there are no answers. Just endless, endless spinning. It is trapped in a world gone haywire.
Here is Donald Trump talking to an evangelical audience on Tuesday about how he raised his children:
I always tell people, “No drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes.” And I add to some — if it’s appropriate: I say, if they go to church and if they start at a young age, that’s a tremendous asset.... I went to Sunday school at First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica.... It was like, you go to Sunday school, you have to do that.... Today, I don’t think it’s so automatic. And maybe we can get back into a position where it’s automatic.I know I'll never get an answer, but I have to ask: Did any of Trump's kids go to Sunday school back in the day? Does Barron go to Sunday school now? Does Trump ever attend church? How about his grown kids? Just asking.
You might have noticed that this item is from yesterday. So was the picture of Trump with Jerry Falwell Jr. My post this morning about Utah v. Strieff is two days late. What's going on with that? Well, you know how your inbox can get filled up and you just get behind on everything? That's how I feel. My brain is hopelessly backed up and I'm behind on everything. Sometime tomorrow I'll finally figure out what happened today.
I blame Trump for this. He's brought a level of gobsmacking idiocy to the news that worms its way into my brain and won't let go. I get obsessed with what he's blathering about. Did he really say that? And people believed it? There has to be something more to it. But what? Has our national bullshit detector suddenly gone pear shaped? Why? How is it that 45 percent of the country apparently doesn't realize that he's basically just a talented used car salesman? It makes no sense. There's no way that anyone with even the slightest experience of real life could fail to see that he lies practically every time he opens his mouth. That he can't be trusted to do even the smallest thing he promises. What's going on? WTF. IS. GOING. ON?
This is my brain on Trump. It wants answers. But there are no answers. Just endless, endless spinning. It is trapped in a world gone haywire.
Future Is Fast Approaching For Renewable Energy
I wanted to highlight a couple of items today that show just how quickly the transformation of our energy use is occurring. The first item is from a team of scientists in South Korea who have created solar cells that are thinner than a human hair. With solar cells this size and this flexible, solar technology could be built into virtually everything - clothes, buildings, roads, vehicles - the possibilities are endless. Of course, it will still be years before this technology becomes an actual, affordable product. But this is what the future will look like.
On the other hand, in Sweden, there is a pilot program that is actually working today and it is an "electric highway". Essentially it is the old tram system at work. Overhead wires provide power to electric trucks along a 13 mile stretch of highway that is being used as a test. The wires help increase the length of time between charges for these electric vehicles. When not running electrically, these trucks operate as a hybrid using biofuel. Sweden hopes this combination will help it have a fossil fuel free transport fleet in 15 years.
It is these kind of innovations that are pushing the use of renewable energy forward. The percentage of renewable energy produced grows every year - in the US it is already up to 18%. And it will only continue to rise as new technologies start to be delivered.
On the other hand, in Sweden, there is a pilot program that is actually working today and it is an "electric highway". Essentially it is the old tram system at work. Overhead wires provide power to electric trucks along a 13 mile stretch of highway that is being used as a test. The wires help increase the length of time between charges for these electric vehicles. When not running electrically, these trucks operate as a hybrid using biofuel. Sweden hopes this combination will help it have a fossil fuel free transport fleet in 15 years.
It is these kind of innovations that are pushing the use of renewable energy forward. The percentage of renewable energy produced grows every year - in the US it is already up to 18%. And it will only continue to rise as new technologies start to be delivered.
Jury Rules Led Zep Created Stairway To Heaven
A copyright infringement case that had been brought against Led Zeppelin about the origin of the rock classic "Stairway to Heaven"' has been decided in the band's favor. The case was brought by the trust of Randy Wolfe alleging that the opening riff of the song was actually taken from the song "Taurus" that Wolfe wrote for the band Spirit. Although the trust was able to show that Led Zeppelin did have access to that song way back in 1968, the jury ruled in Led Zeppelin's favor. It was going to be a pretty tough case to win as relying on aging rocker's memories of what happened in the late 1960s and 1970s is always going to get a pretty foggy result.
House Sit-In Created Bad Optics For House GOP
The optics last night for Paul Ryan and House Republicans were pretty terrible. Thankfully for them, they made sure it all happened in the middle of the night but there were still plenty of cameras rolling even at that hour.
After Democrats began their sit-in to force a gun control vote, Paul Ryan adjourned the House and then petulantly had C-Span turn off their cameras so as not to show the Democratic revolt. With all the technology available today, that kind of censorship move never works and soon the Dems were live-streaming on Periscope.
Then, at 10pm, Ryan gaveled the House back into order so that a vote to overturn the new Labor Department rule that investment advisers must act in the best interests of the client. Previously, those advisers could recommend investment products that actually made more money for the advisor as long as they were "similar" to the most appropriate product. Of course, that may have meant that the client made less money because of a higher fee structure. So, Ryan and the Republicans chose exactly the moment when the focus was on gun control to actually vote on what is essentially a gift to Wall Street - not the best optics, I would say.
Later in the evening, around 3am, the House also passed a bill authorizing over $600 million in funding to combat the Zika virus. This was one-third of the amount that the White House had requested and a little more than half of what the Senate has already authorized. It allocates no new funds but takes existing funds from the fight against the Ebola virus and from some Obamacare funds as well. And, because it's Republicans, the bill blocks any of the funds in the measure from going to Planned Parenthood for birth control services for women at risk of becoming infected with the virus. Of course, we are already at the end of July, so none of this money is going to do anything to deal with the spread of the virus this summer, but I guess the Republicans don't feel any sense of urgency on that count. Senate Democrats are already threatening to veto a compromise bill between the House and Senate and the White House has issued a veto threat as well. Having done their damage, Ryan adjourned the House until after the July 4th holiday.
All in all, a pretty horrendous night politically for House Republicans. And there is no doubt that Democrats will keep the pressure on regarding gun control.
After Democrats began their sit-in to force a gun control vote, Paul Ryan adjourned the House and then petulantly had C-Span turn off their cameras so as not to show the Democratic revolt. With all the technology available today, that kind of censorship move never works and soon the Dems were live-streaming on Periscope.
Then, at 10pm, Ryan gaveled the House back into order so that a vote to overturn the new Labor Department rule that investment advisers must act in the best interests of the client. Previously, those advisers could recommend investment products that actually made more money for the advisor as long as they were "similar" to the most appropriate product. Of course, that may have meant that the client made less money because of a higher fee structure. So, Ryan and the Republicans chose exactly the moment when the focus was on gun control to actually vote on what is essentially a gift to Wall Street - not the best optics, I would say.
Later in the evening, around 3am, the House also passed a bill authorizing over $600 million in funding to combat the Zika virus. This was one-third of the amount that the White House had requested and a little more than half of what the Senate has already authorized. It allocates no new funds but takes existing funds from the fight against the Ebola virus and from some Obamacare funds as well. And, because it's Republicans, the bill blocks any of the funds in the measure from going to Planned Parenthood for birth control services for women at risk of becoming infected with the virus. Of course, we are already at the end of July, so none of this money is going to do anything to deal with the spread of the virus this summer, but I guess the Republicans don't feel any sense of urgency on that count. Senate Democrats are already threatening to veto a compromise bill between the House and Senate and the White House has issued a veto threat as well. Having done their damage, Ryan adjourned the House until after the July 4th holiday.
All in all, a pretty horrendous night politically for House Republicans. And there is no doubt that Democrats will keep the pressure on regarding gun control.
Supreme Court Blocks Immigration Executive Action
In another decision announced this morning, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that blocked the Obama administration's executive action on immigration. The administration had sought to shield minors as well as parents of citizens from deportation. A number of states led by Texas challenged these actions as a violation of statutes and the Constitution. The administration argued that these actions were well within the purview of the executive's administration of law and that the states themselves had no standing to even challenge the action.
The 4-4 decision means that the lower court ruling will stand. It also highlights the importance of the Republicans unprecedented actions in not giving Merrick Garland a hearing as well as the importance of the election this fall. If Hillary wins and Republicans eventually confirm a ninth justice, this case will probably come before the Court again and that lower court ruling will be overturned.
The 4-4 decision means that the lower court ruling will stand. It also highlights the importance of the Republicans unprecedented actions in not giving Merrick Garland a hearing as well as the importance of the election this fall. If Hillary wins and Republicans eventually confirm a ninth justice, this case will probably come before the Court again and that lower court ruling will be overturned.
Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action
In a 4-3 decision, with Justice Kagan recusing herself, the Supreme Court voted to uphold the University of Texas at Austin affirmative action plan. About 75% of an incoming class is accepted based on a blind, "race-neutral" criterion. The remaining 25% of acceptances are based on a "holistic" review of the applicant with race being one of the factors considered. The challenge was to the consideration of race for those 25%.
This is clearly one of the first huge cases that reflects the shift of the balance of power on the Court away from the conservatives and to the more liberal justices.
This is clearly one of the first huge cases that reflects the shift of the balance of power on the Court away from the conservatives and to the more liberal justices.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Now Ireland Advances With Stunning Win At Euro 2016
And now it's Ireland advancing to the round of 16 as they score a late winner against Italy moments after Belgium went up 1-0 on Sweden. Those two one goal victories mean that Ireland advances as a 3rd place team. What an incredible afternoon at Euro 2016!
House Democrats Sit-In To Force Gun Control Votes
Taking a cue from their Senate counterpart Chris Murphy, Democrats in the House, led by the indefatigable John Lewis, have staged a sit-in demanding a vote an sensible gun control legislation. Speaker Ryan has gaveled the House into recess and has C-Span turn off the cameras. The Democrats seemed determined so the ball is really still in Ryan's court. It's nice to see Democrats holding Republicans feet to the fire on this issue.
Iceland Advance in Euro 2016
Iceland, a nation of just over 320,000 people has just moved on to the round of 16 in Euro 2016 with a 2-1 win over Austria. It has to be one of the great sports stories of the year. Sadly, Iceland's win eliminates Albania, another team that was a great story in the tournament this year.
Brexit Prediction
Well, we are just hours away from Britain's vote on leaving the European Union and I guess as an uninformed blogger it is my duty to venture a prediction on the result. Markets are clearly betting that the UK will stay while current polls suggest it is a virtual tie with a pretty high number of undecideds. My feeling is that those undecided voters have pretty much made up their mind to stay but just aren't saying so. So I would say that the "remain" vote will win by a pretty significant margin, perhaps by 6% or 7%. This will be another black eye for British pollsters. It will also leave a weakened David Cameron and a divided Conservative party. And that is about the best result possible.
Merrick Garland And Post-Policy Republicans
Merrick Garland received the highest rating possible from the ABA with one anonymous legal mind saying he might "be the perfect human being" in his evaluation. You remember Merrick Garland, don't you. Yes, he was nominated by President Obama to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court way back in mid-March of this year and he has yet to have a hearing in the Senate and he probably never will as Republicans have vowed to wait until after the election to consider his nomination. In response to this ABA recommendation, Republicans emailed that both President Obama and Vice President Biden tried to filibuster the selection of Samuel Alito, who also had the highest recommendation from the ABA. Do you notice the difference there? Obama and Biden were actually able to vote against Alito - Republicans won't even allow a vote when it comes to Garland.
We need to keep reminding ourselves of how unprecedented this action is, as Republicans break the traditional norms of governing once again. Nancy LeTourneau over at Washington Monthly has a great post today titled "What Happens When One Party Doesn’t Care About Governing?". I suggest you read the entire piece. As LeTourneau notes, Republicans quietly admit that they believe that making government not work actually redounds to their advantage. They have no new policy proposals just the same old songs - tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for social programs. There is no point in negotiating with them because a negotiation implies that both sides gain something and both sides give something. Republicans are not interested in that - they would like to win but it's more important that Democrats never win, even if that would be a win for Republicans too. They would rather lose just to make sure Democrats lose. We've seen it constantly throughout Obama's term. There was clearly a deal to be made with Obama's "grand bargain" that would have raised taxes and cut spending. But when the decision had to be made, Republicans could not allow Obama to "win" on taxes even if it meant giving up far more in spending cuts than they had ever proposed.
And it is the same with Merrick Garland - he is eminently qualified and probably a center-left addition to the Supreme Court. But Republicans cannot allow that "win" for Obama so they tear up 200 years of history in the meaning of "advise and consent" in the Constitution - they simply won't do their job. For most of us, not doing our job will result in being fired. It's time to do that to Republicans.
We need to keep reminding ourselves of how unprecedented this action is, as Republicans break the traditional norms of governing once again. Nancy LeTourneau over at Washington Monthly has a great post today titled "What Happens When One Party Doesn’t Care About Governing?". I suggest you read the entire piece. As LeTourneau notes, Republicans quietly admit that they believe that making government not work actually redounds to their advantage. They have no new policy proposals just the same old songs - tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for social programs. There is no point in negotiating with them because a negotiation implies that both sides gain something and both sides give something. Republicans are not interested in that - they would like to win but it's more important that Democrats never win, even if that would be a win for Republicans too. They would rather lose just to make sure Democrats lose. We've seen it constantly throughout Obama's term. There was clearly a deal to be made with Obama's "grand bargain" that would have raised taxes and cut spending. But when the decision had to be made, Republicans could not allow Obama to "win" on taxes even if it meant giving up far more in spending cuts than they had ever proposed.
And it is the same with Merrick Garland - he is eminently qualified and probably a center-left addition to the Supreme Court. But Republicans cannot allow that "win" for Obama so they tear up 200 years of history in the meaning of "advise and consent" in the Constitution - they simply won't do their job. For most of us, not doing our job will result in being fired. It's time to do that to Republicans.