A couple days back, a US plane -- a spy plane, I believe the news accounts said (if we can ever believe the media to get anything right at all anymore, even bland facts) -- was buzzed by a Chinese jet or two out in international waters.
Naturally, the US plane did nothing except escape, and tomorrow or the day after, we will all have forgotten the incident, if we even knew it had happened.
Sadly, the same thing has happened when Russian planes buzzed our own planes, and buzzed our Navy vessels. This is going to continue, and more countries, including Iran and its contemptible leadership, are going to keep on doing that. Iran pulled one of those little stunts just yesterday.
I'm sorry, but I'm buzzed out.
Now, I suppose that there is a thin argument to be made as far as what the risks are when you send a spy plane over a sovereign nation's territory and, say, get it buzzed on the way back. I suppose that should be considered.
But as far as having our planes and ships buzzed while out in international waters, I've had it. I am an American, and after having bailed out goodly parts of the free part of the globe in two world wars and in Korea, and having been a force for good and freedom for 200 years, the United States of America deserves the respect of the world.
And we need to show who we are.
I would like to ask the president to make a statement, an explicit statement, to the rest of the world. We will no longer tolerate the acts of sniveling tyrants against the USA, and buzzing our planes and ships will be regarded as aggressive acts. We should say in public that if we are buzzed, the offending planes will be obliterated.
Fair warning. We will not take such offense from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, whoever. Buzzing is an affront to the role that the USA has proudly taken for the last century, without coveting the land of other sovereign nations. We will not tolerate it.
Someone will push the challenge line, and we will act accordingly. It will be the last time we get buzzed. And it will show that the USA gives a new meaning to "red line", at least this administration does.
America needs a bit more of that.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Better Wages, Better Pizza
I'm going to give, for once, a shred of credit to Chuck Schumer and the Democrats. Don't get too excited; it isn't a lot and barely deserved.
So in the past few days, they came up with a new tagline for their platform, which believe it or not, is not just "Resist until the other side screams." I don't recall it exactly, but it was "Better wages, better jobs, ..." better something-or-other, but I forgot what. I'm sure it wasn't "... better pizza -- Papa John's", but I feel that "old" Papa John Schnatter is doing a bit better in sales this week thanks to the Democrats.
At any rate, the credit I give them is because for the first time since November 8th, organized Democrats have been speaking about an actual issue, not that they have a solution. So bully for Uncle Chuck, who also did say something about the fact that Democrats have to say they're for something, and asked what they did wrong in 2016 (i.e., admitting that they, in fact, did).
Words have meaning, however.
And I thought it interesting to see the line "better wages" and ask myself what manner of solution they were going to propose to get any of that done. You see, you can't just snap your fingers and wages rise. After all, wages are set, absent external meddling, based on the value that an employee provides to the employer.
So if you're going to promote higher wages, you have to raise the value that employees provide, because if you artificially raise them (q.v. "minimum wage"), you are tampering with the value proposition. If you tamper with the value proposition, employers will react to realign wages with value, by doing things such as hiring only people capable of doing multiple tasks and having three people do the work of four -- so that each employee now brings the value for which they're paid.
In other words, "Better wages, better jobs, fewer people working."
So I do wonder what Uncle Chuck and his troops have in mind. Since they're leftists, and since they're only concerned about power and winning elections (otherwise they wouldn't promote solutions that don't work, e.g., Obamacare), we can expect that they will jump right into some kind of pandering action. Perhaps a hike in the Federal minimum wage, since the unemployment rate is too good right now.
Of course, since the typical response by the economy to a minimum wage hike is to cut jobs, and since union jobs will be at least some of those cut, the AFL/CIO may not support that too vocally.
Ooh, ooh -- training. Yeah, that's the thing. We'll train people so they can do better jobs.
Sure we will. Who is this "we" of which you speak? Who is paying for that training? What jobs are we training people for? Who decides that? If the jobs are in North Dakota oil fields, where are you training the people, and will they be required to move as the price of accepting taxpayer-paid job training?
And who are we training? I mean, I have no issue with training, although it is completely outside the scope of the Federal government. But would a Democrat program require people trained to have a job in 90 days or lose the right to welfare or unemployment benefits? Would it require a repayment to the Federal government for all that training -- if you're going to take the training, don't you need to pay the taxpayer back? I'd be OK with that, call it a "student loan."
I don't expect to see that kind of discussion when the Democrats put out their plans. But I hope the press is at least marginally critical and asks that sort of question if they are ever allowed to ask questions.
Maybe Schumer will put ropes around him to keep out the press questions. Worked for Hillary, didn't it?
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
So in the past few days, they came up with a new tagline for their platform, which believe it or not, is not just "Resist until the other side screams." I don't recall it exactly, but it was "Better wages, better jobs, ..." better something-or-other, but I forgot what. I'm sure it wasn't "... better pizza -- Papa John's", but I feel that "old" Papa John Schnatter is doing a bit better in sales this week thanks to the Democrats.
At any rate, the credit I give them is because for the first time since November 8th, organized Democrats have been speaking about an actual issue, not that they have a solution. So bully for Uncle Chuck, who also did say something about the fact that Democrats have to say they're for something, and asked what they did wrong in 2016 (i.e., admitting that they, in fact, did).
Words have meaning, however.
And I thought it interesting to see the line "better wages" and ask myself what manner of solution they were going to propose to get any of that done. You see, you can't just snap your fingers and wages rise. After all, wages are set, absent external meddling, based on the value that an employee provides to the employer.
So if you're going to promote higher wages, you have to raise the value that employees provide, because if you artificially raise them (q.v. "minimum wage"), you are tampering with the value proposition. If you tamper with the value proposition, employers will react to realign wages with value, by doing things such as hiring only people capable of doing multiple tasks and having three people do the work of four -- so that each employee now brings the value for which they're paid.
In other words, "Better wages, better jobs, fewer people working."
So I do wonder what Uncle Chuck and his troops have in mind. Since they're leftists, and since they're only concerned about power and winning elections (otherwise they wouldn't promote solutions that don't work, e.g., Obamacare), we can expect that they will jump right into some kind of pandering action. Perhaps a hike in the Federal minimum wage, since the unemployment rate is too good right now.
Of course, since the typical response by the economy to a minimum wage hike is to cut jobs, and since union jobs will be at least some of those cut, the AFL/CIO may not support that too vocally.
Ooh, ooh -- training. Yeah, that's the thing. We'll train people so they can do better jobs.
Sure we will. Who is this "we" of which you speak? Who is paying for that training? What jobs are we training people for? Who decides that? If the jobs are in North Dakota oil fields, where are you training the people, and will they be required to move as the price of accepting taxpayer-paid job training?
And who are we training? I mean, I have no issue with training, although it is completely outside the scope of the Federal government. But would a Democrat program require people trained to have a job in 90 days or lose the right to welfare or unemployment benefits? Would it require a repayment to the Federal government for all that training -- if you're going to take the training, don't you need to pay the taxpayer back? I'd be OK with that, call it a "student loan."
I don't expect to see that kind of discussion when the Democrats put out their plans. But I hope the press is at least marginally critical and asks that sort of question if they are ever allowed to ask questions.
Maybe Schumer will put ropes around him to keep out the press questions. Worked for Hillary, didn't it?
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Monday, July 24, 2017
Do I Really, Really Want It?
This week, we hear, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY) is supposed to be shepherding through the Senate yet another attempt at a change to the dreadful Obamacare law. I say "Change", because it likely won't be a repeal and won't be a replacement; rather, it will be ... something.
This is somewhere about revision 21-A, perhaps.
I don't exactly know where to go with all this, as I believe it would be in the best interests of the country to pass a clean repeal and then, with no specific time limit, figure out what we are trying to fix and start from scratch with a new law that addresses that requirement.
And it bears noting that this bill will not become law as is, even if it is passed by the Senate, because it needs to go to the House of Representatives and presumably reconciled with the bill the House passed earlier this session. By the time the conference committee comes up with something for the full House and Senate to vote on, it may be practically in another language, let alone similar to either of the original bills each house passed.
So what do I hope happens? You see, you have three sets of Republicans in the Senate, at least in one way of looking at it. There is the vast majority of the Republican caucus there -- 42-45 or so -- who believe it necessary to pass a health insurance bill and will vote for one if it is reasonable. Then you have the two poles.
The poles are potentially irreconcilable. The staunch conservatives see no great role for the Federal government in health insurance, and want to strip out Obamacare in total, potentially legislating a small number of elements (such as allowing interstate sales of health policies) but getting rid of the entire law and starting over. I lean toward their view, notwithstanding political necessities.
The other small faction is politically sensitive. Since one of Obamacare's largest taxpayer giveaways was a large expansion of Medicaid, these senators are scared that to end that expansion could cause political issues (read: "votes") in their states. They opposed Obamacare, those of them who were in the Senate, at that time, but won't vote to repeal it because it has gotten its filthy hooks into the economy and they lack the will to stand up for the country's best interest.
So what do I really, really want as far as the bill to be introduced this week? Remember, I've not read it, but assume it is the most recent bill but with a few sweeteners in it to attract the remaining senators. Well, if that is indeed the description, then I would be perfectly happy if the effort fails.
Remember that as we speak, Obamacare is sinking to the bottom of the ocean. The law having made countless concessions to insurance companies, its implementation has proved so impractical that the companies are quickly pulling out of all the markets that they can't make money in. That number has grown so fast that in 2018 there will be hundreds of counties with no plan to buy and far more with only one company offering service. The rates, which skyrocketed last year and surely influenced the presidential election more than any Russians did, are going to go way up again, absent competition.
I think I will be perfectly happy if no bill gets passed and Obamacare stays the law of the land for a short time longer, long enough for the country to get so fed up with it that they rise up and demand its repeal.
I have questions as to whether even then the current crop of Senate Republicans can put together a bill that is productive and essentially repeals the whole mess, but I have to go with what I want and what I think is best.
Pretty sure I'm going to want my Senators to vote "no."
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
This is somewhere about revision 21-A, perhaps.
I don't exactly know where to go with all this, as I believe it would be in the best interests of the country to pass a clean repeal and then, with no specific time limit, figure out what we are trying to fix and start from scratch with a new law that addresses that requirement.
And it bears noting that this bill will not become law as is, even if it is passed by the Senate, because it needs to go to the House of Representatives and presumably reconciled with the bill the House passed earlier this session. By the time the conference committee comes up with something for the full House and Senate to vote on, it may be practically in another language, let alone similar to either of the original bills each house passed.
So what do I hope happens? You see, you have three sets of Republicans in the Senate, at least in one way of looking at it. There is the vast majority of the Republican caucus there -- 42-45 or so -- who believe it necessary to pass a health insurance bill and will vote for one if it is reasonable. Then you have the two poles.
The poles are potentially irreconcilable. The staunch conservatives see no great role for the Federal government in health insurance, and want to strip out Obamacare in total, potentially legislating a small number of elements (such as allowing interstate sales of health policies) but getting rid of the entire law and starting over. I lean toward their view, notwithstanding political necessities.
The other small faction is politically sensitive. Since one of Obamacare's largest taxpayer giveaways was a large expansion of Medicaid, these senators are scared that to end that expansion could cause political issues (read: "votes") in their states. They opposed Obamacare, those of them who were in the Senate, at that time, but won't vote to repeal it because it has gotten its filthy hooks into the economy and they lack the will to stand up for the country's best interest.
So what do I really, really want as far as the bill to be introduced this week? Remember, I've not read it, but assume it is the most recent bill but with a few sweeteners in it to attract the remaining senators. Well, if that is indeed the description, then I would be perfectly happy if the effort fails.
Remember that as we speak, Obamacare is sinking to the bottom of the ocean. The law having made countless concessions to insurance companies, its implementation has proved so impractical that the companies are quickly pulling out of all the markets that they can't make money in. That number has grown so fast that in 2018 there will be hundreds of counties with no plan to buy and far more with only one company offering service. The rates, which skyrocketed last year and surely influenced the presidential election more than any Russians did, are going to go way up again, absent competition.
I think I will be perfectly happy if no bill gets passed and Obamacare stays the law of the land for a short time longer, long enough for the country to get so fed up with it that they rise up and demand its repeal.
I have questions as to whether even then the current crop of Senate Republicans can put together a bill that is productive and essentially repeals the whole mess, but I have to go with what I want and what I think is best.
Pretty sure I'm going to want my Senators to vote "no."
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Policy and Politics
We all know people -- actually, we have probably been those people at least at times -- who, when asked if we are Republicans, Democrats or independents, answer routinely that they are not so much party members as conservatives, or liberals, or "social conservatives" or some other non-party description.
Now way, way back almost 700 columns ago in 2014, the very first piece on this site discussed the assortment of opinions within an individual, as an explanation for why parties arise. Please read it, at the link, but I wanted to hearken back to it as some fodder for this column.
As I watch the Republicans in the Senate show themselves to be politically incapable of doing what they were sent there to do, I was mentally exploring the options. That's when I started to do the separation that is the title of this article.
The policy -- in this case repealing and replacing Obamacare -- is based on a fairly straightforward belief. The topic is not health care but rather health insurance, and from a policy standpoint my baseline is that the Federal government has no business with its nose in health insurance, other than to ensure that insurance companies are behaving in a decent and non-exploitative manner in providing their service to the public. Even that role should predominantly be the province of the States, as it is not given by the Constitution. However, if you support companies offering plans across state lines, we are in interstate commerce-land and that is a Federal role. So OK, that's fine.
But Obamacare far overreaches that by mandating that citizens must be covered or pay a fine, and the rest of the law is an atrocious mishmash of things that Washington has no business being in and need to be removed from law.
Policy. You see the point? I agree with all the Republican senators who believe that fundamentally, Obamacare is a gross overstep by Washington and needs to be killed. But they're not doing it. Policy is being trumped by politics, in this case the fact that Obamacare so expanded the role of government in giveaways and subsidies that certain Republicans are afraid for their political future (i.e., don't have the integrity and courage to do what's right) and refuse to allow its complete repeal.
So what is a Republican?
Leftists are out there rioting in Berkeley, marching down streets calling for policemen to be murdered, and at the most benign, stepping far away from governing in favor of pursuing the rabbit-hole trip that is the Trump-Russia farce. Their 2016 presidential candidate sold a quarter of USA uranium to the Russians in return for a fat paycheck to her husband for a speech. If you are a liberal, can you say that you agree with all that and call yourself a Democrat?
I would have to say that if there ever was a "good old day" when the disagreements between liberals and conservatives were mostly limned in policy terms and carried out in politics, those days are long behind us. The policies remain, but the politics have so separated from the policy as to leave us incapable of doing anything productive to advance the policy. Get reelected; that's the purpose of being in Washington.
My policy support is clear. I want low, low taxes to enable business growth and economic stability. I want minimal regulation, enough to protect the public but not choke business. I want our nation protected, and I want strong borders and managed immigration. I want to advance the cause of domestic freedom. And I want the Federal government to do only what the Constitution allows it to do and not charge the taxpayer one dime to do anything else.
That makes me a conservative, and has always prompted me to vote Republican. But I have trouble identifying with the Republicans who are representing my values in the Senate anymore. I feel sure we share the policy beliefs, I really do. But I certainly have trouble being convinced that they have the courage or political will to act in accordance with those beliefs when it comes to the legislating and the politics of things.
Perhaps I am the Republican and they have left the party, much as the Democrat party long ago left the beliefs of 50 years back that characterized the party of JFK and LBJ. Either way, though, we have a failure of politics advancing policy, and it is something that needs to be fixed now.
Because right now the one guy I can rely on to manage that difference properly is the one in the White House.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Now way, way back almost 700 columns ago in 2014, the very first piece on this site discussed the assortment of opinions within an individual, as an explanation for why parties arise. Please read it, at the link, but I wanted to hearken back to it as some fodder for this column.
As I watch the Republicans in the Senate show themselves to be politically incapable of doing what they were sent there to do, I was mentally exploring the options. That's when I started to do the separation that is the title of this article.
The policy -- in this case repealing and replacing Obamacare -- is based on a fairly straightforward belief. The topic is not health care but rather health insurance, and from a policy standpoint my baseline is that the Federal government has no business with its nose in health insurance, other than to ensure that insurance companies are behaving in a decent and non-exploitative manner in providing their service to the public. Even that role should predominantly be the province of the States, as it is not given by the Constitution. However, if you support companies offering plans across state lines, we are in interstate commerce-land and that is a Federal role. So OK, that's fine.
But Obamacare far overreaches that by mandating that citizens must be covered or pay a fine, and the rest of the law is an atrocious mishmash of things that Washington has no business being in and need to be removed from law.
Policy. You see the point? I agree with all the Republican senators who believe that fundamentally, Obamacare is a gross overstep by Washington and needs to be killed. But they're not doing it. Policy is being trumped by politics, in this case the fact that Obamacare so expanded the role of government in giveaways and subsidies that certain Republicans are afraid for their political future (i.e., don't have the integrity and courage to do what's right) and refuse to allow its complete repeal.
So what is a Republican?
Leftists are out there rioting in Berkeley, marching down streets calling for policemen to be murdered, and at the most benign, stepping far away from governing in favor of pursuing the rabbit-hole trip that is the Trump-Russia farce. Their 2016 presidential candidate sold a quarter of USA uranium to the Russians in return for a fat paycheck to her husband for a speech. If you are a liberal, can you say that you agree with all that and call yourself a Democrat?
I would have to say that if there ever was a "good old day" when the disagreements between liberals and conservatives were mostly limned in policy terms and carried out in politics, those days are long behind us. The policies remain, but the politics have so separated from the policy as to leave us incapable of doing anything productive to advance the policy. Get reelected; that's the purpose of being in Washington.
My policy support is clear. I want low, low taxes to enable business growth and economic stability. I want minimal regulation, enough to protect the public but not choke business. I want our nation protected, and I want strong borders and managed immigration. I want to advance the cause of domestic freedom. And I want the Federal government to do only what the Constitution allows it to do and not charge the taxpayer one dime to do anything else.
That makes me a conservative, and has always prompted me to vote Republican. But I have trouble identifying with the Republicans who are representing my values in the Senate anymore. I feel sure we share the policy beliefs, I really do. But I certainly have trouble being convinced that they have the courage or political will to act in accordance with those beliefs when it comes to the legislating and the politics of things.
Perhaps I am the Republican and they have left the party, much as the Democrat party long ago left the beliefs of 50 years back that characterized the party of JFK and LBJ. Either way, though, we have a failure of politics advancing policy, and it is something that needs to be fixed now.
Because right now the one guy I can rely on to manage that difference properly is the one in the White House.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
I'm Still Not Getting It
Yesterday, on the news commentary -- I suspect that all TV news is commentary anymore -- I heard an otherwise reasonable commentator talking about the meeting that Donald Trump Jr., a private citizen, was a part of a year ago.
You know the one, set up by a business associate of one or more of the Trump organization through their Miss Universe pageants, and somehow connected to the people who commissioned the phony dossier on President Trump. It had 7-8 people or so in it, including the younger Trump, as well as Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman and Jared Kushner, the now-President Trump's son-in-law.
I'm trying to get why this meeting is of any interest whatsoever. The scandal, according to this commentator, was because there was misinformation -- the number of people at the meeting, the fact that the younger Trump had originally neglected to include it on disclosure documents as far as interaction with foreigners. That was just, oh so terrible, as the details of the meeting took a while to get out.
Now, let's see. As Donald Jr. pointed out at the time, the meeting was on fairly short notice, and was taken on the expectation of there being available adverse information regarding Hillary Clinton that would help the Trump campaign. When the existence of the meeting broke, he quickly published the emails relating to the meeting's origin, which indicated that it was to be about adverse information and that it was coming from a Russian. In fairness, the emails did suggest that the person (the Russian lawyer) was connected to the Russian government, although the relevance -- and ultimate accuracy -- of that is in question.
So the worst thing that we can deduce is that Donald Jr., a non-politician and private citizen helping out in his first-ever campaign, should have decided that information potentially from a foreign government was not appropriate to set up a meeting about. Certainly after the stories in the last year, no one except Hillary Clinton would have taken that meeting (given that her people did take such a meeting with Ukrainian operatives wanting to help her campaign, and this wasn't her first rodeo, I think it's fair to say that).
So are the media simply trying to make anything they can about this story? I mean, let's unpack it a bit. A businessman leveraged his business acquaintanceship with the Trump organization to set a meeting up for a Russian lawyer who claimed (or was portrayed) to work with the Russian government. She was supposed to have adverse information on Hillary. Donald Jr. expressed his happiness at that prospect and accepted the meeting, bringing Manafort and Kushner.
The lawyer and a few other Russians were there. No adverse information was provided, and the Russians swiftly moved the topic to fixing a law that prevented adoptions of children from Russia, whereupon Kushner and Manafort just left, and Donald Jr. shortly followed.
No information on Hillary. No intent to provide any, and the Trump people all left.
Outcome: Nothing happened.
So what am I missing? Obviously there was nothing criminal, as neither what we know happened nor what the left is trying to say happened is a crime, high or low. If the younger Trump has parceled out information (the accusation of the left as they struggle to make something out of this), it is more likely than not that, in his mind, the meeting was so much "nothing" in the midst of a campaign full of meetings that he just initially went back to his notes and emails, none of which mentioned extra Russians.
Moreover, he is sufficiently virginal in politics -- and let's remember that he is even now not in politics -- that he failed to anticipate the aims of an opposition that will not allow itself to be proven wrong without looking for something else. He clearly thought that releasing the emails immediately was the right thing to do (which it was).
But now we're left with ... well, that's the title of this piece: I'm still not getting it. What is the crime? What, other than taking the meeting in the first place without foreseeing that a year later meeting with Russians, even about adoption, would be a capital offense, did anyone do wrong? There was no content to the meeting!
I have got to find substantive topics; this one eludes me.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
You know the one, set up by a business associate of one or more of the Trump organization through their Miss Universe pageants, and somehow connected to the people who commissioned the phony dossier on President Trump. It had 7-8 people or so in it, including the younger Trump, as well as Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman and Jared Kushner, the now-President Trump's son-in-law.
I'm trying to get why this meeting is of any interest whatsoever. The scandal, according to this commentator, was because there was misinformation -- the number of people at the meeting, the fact that the younger Trump had originally neglected to include it on disclosure documents as far as interaction with foreigners. That was just, oh so terrible, as the details of the meeting took a while to get out.
Now, let's see. As Donald Jr. pointed out at the time, the meeting was on fairly short notice, and was taken on the expectation of there being available adverse information regarding Hillary Clinton that would help the Trump campaign. When the existence of the meeting broke, he quickly published the emails relating to the meeting's origin, which indicated that it was to be about adverse information and that it was coming from a Russian. In fairness, the emails did suggest that the person (the Russian lawyer) was connected to the Russian government, although the relevance -- and ultimate accuracy -- of that is in question.
So the worst thing that we can deduce is that Donald Jr., a non-politician and private citizen helping out in his first-ever campaign, should have decided that information potentially from a foreign government was not appropriate to set up a meeting about. Certainly after the stories in the last year, no one except Hillary Clinton would have taken that meeting (given that her people did take such a meeting with Ukrainian operatives wanting to help her campaign, and this wasn't her first rodeo, I think it's fair to say that).
So are the media simply trying to make anything they can about this story? I mean, let's unpack it a bit. A businessman leveraged his business acquaintanceship with the Trump organization to set a meeting up for a Russian lawyer who claimed (or was portrayed) to work with the Russian government. She was supposed to have adverse information on Hillary. Donald Jr. expressed his happiness at that prospect and accepted the meeting, bringing Manafort and Kushner.
The lawyer and a few other Russians were there. No adverse information was provided, and the Russians swiftly moved the topic to fixing a law that prevented adoptions of children from Russia, whereupon Kushner and Manafort just left, and Donald Jr. shortly followed.
No information on Hillary. No intent to provide any, and the Trump people all left.
Outcome: Nothing happened.
So what am I missing? Obviously there was nothing criminal, as neither what we know happened nor what the left is trying to say happened is a crime, high or low. If the younger Trump has parceled out information (the accusation of the left as they struggle to make something out of this), it is more likely than not that, in his mind, the meeting was so much "nothing" in the midst of a campaign full of meetings that he just initially went back to his notes and emails, none of which mentioned extra Russians.
Moreover, he is sufficiently virginal in politics -- and let's remember that he is even now not in politics -- that he failed to anticipate the aims of an opposition that will not allow itself to be proven wrong without looking for something else. He clearly thought that releasing the emails immediately was the right thing to do (which it was).
But now we're left with ... well, that's the title of this piece: I'm still not getting it. What is the crime? What, other than taking the meeting in the first place without foreseeing that a year later meeting with Russians, even about adoption, would be a capital offense, did anyone do wrong? There was no content to the meeting!
I have got to find substantive topics; this one eludes me.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
When a Judge Needs to be Removed
I believe that Federal judges have the right and the obligation to act on cases before them in the course of their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
But boy, it gets tough when they overstep their bounds.
So last week, Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii somehow decided that his court had jurisdiction over the application of a Supreme Court ruling in regard to President Trump's executive order suspending travel from six Middle East countries.
In case you were on Mars, the president issued an order suspending travel from those countries for six months, while DHS figured out how to protect Americans from people coming to this country, arriving without our ability to identify them or ensure that they are visiting for positive reasons. A couple of states sued on behalf of residents whose relatives or associates were not able to come here because of the suspension.
The states took their case to the Official Circuit Court of Overturned Rulings, i.e., the Ninth Circuit, which had earlier reinvented jurisprudence and ruled that the travel suspension was unlawful -- despite Congress granting the authority to the president quite explicitly.
The Administration took the case to the Supreme Court. In making the decision to accept the case for later decision, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction, allowing the travel suspension to proceed. However, they did a little creative benchwork themselves, so that yes, the suspension was put back in place but SCOTUS provided certain exceptions -- people from those countries could come in, but only if they had certain close relatives here -- children, parents, spouses, siblings, if I recall.
Naturally the whining states went back to their friendly Ninth Circuit, which is where Judge Watson took on their appeal. He responded with a ruling broadening the definition of "close relative" to include, well, more distant relatives -- cousins, grandparents, in-laws, outlaws, etc. The Trump Administration is in the process of appealing that ruling as we speak.
So here's the thing. We all understand what's going on; the left is doing everything possible to obstruct the Administration, we get it. But once your superior has ruled, it is a contemptible usurpation of judicial power for a lower court to go back and reinterpret an instruction by the Supreme Court, with its ink still dry, when the Supreme Court has stayed an injunction with a temporary ruling as to how things will go until they make their final ruling.
Got it? The Supreme Court has accepted a case to review. It is in their court, not Watson's. His political views have, or should have, zero impact on a case that is now in the highest court.
If I am Chief Justice Roberts -- heck, I don't care what justice I am -- I am livid that a stinking circuit court judge has decided what my Court and I have just said. I don't know who works for whom, but I'll tell you that in business, if something like that happened -- a middle manager changing how a CEO's clear instructions are to be done -- that middle manager is out on his or her butt. Fired.
Actions have consequences, and Judge Watson needs to be censured and then fired. For as bad as their track record of having their rulings overturned is, the whole Circuit needs to get looked at, but somewhere in the rules of judicial responsibility, someone up the Judicial Branch needs to have the right to send this guy back to county traffic court.
I don't know if you've had it with this stuff, but I sure have.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
But boy, it gets tough when they overstep their bounds.
So last week, Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii somehow decided that his court had jurisdiction over the application of a Supreme Court ruling in regard to President Trump's executive order suspending travel from six Middle East countries.
In case you were on Mars, the president issued an order suspending travel from those countries for six months, while DHS figured out how to protect Americans from people coming to this country, arriving without our ability to identify them or ensure that they are visiting for positive reasons. A couple of states sued on behalf of residents whose relatives or associates were not able to come here because of the suspension.
The states took their case to the Official Circuit Court of Overturned Rulings, i.e., the Ninth Circuit, which had earlier reinvented jurisprudence and ruled that the travel suspension was unlawful -- despite Congress granting the authority to the president quite explicitly.
The Administration took the case to the Supreme Court. In making the decision to accept the case for later decision, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction, allowing the travel suspension to proceed. However, they did a little creative benchwork themselves, so that yes, the suspension was put back in place but SCOTUS provided certain exceptions -- people from those countries could come in, but only if they had certain close relatives here -- children, parents, spouses, siblings, if I recall.
Naturally the whining states went back to their friendly Ninth Circuit, which is where Judge Watson took on their appeal. He responded with a ruling broadening the definition of "close relative" to include, well, more distant relatives -- cousins, grandparents, in-laws, outlaws, etc. The Trump Administration is in the process of appealing that ruling as we speak.
So here's the thing. We all understand what's going on; the left is doing everything possible to obstruct the Administration, we get it. But once your superior has ruled, it is a contemptible usurpation of judicial power for a lower court to go back and reinterpret an instruction by the Supreme Court, with its ink still dry, when the Supreme Court has stayed an injunction with a temporary ruling as to how things will go until they make their final ruling.
Got it? The Supreme Court has accepted a case to review. It is in their court, not Watson's. His political views have, or should have, zero impact on a case that is now in the highest court.
If I am Chief Justice Roberts -- heck, I don't care what justice I am -- I am livid that a stinking circuit court judge has decided what my Court and I have just said. I don't know who works for whom, but I'll tell you that in business, if something like that happened -- a middle manager changing how a CEO's clear instructions are to be done -- that middle manager is out on his or her butt. Fired.
Actions have consequences, and Judge Watson needs to be censured and then fired. For as bad as their track record of having their rulings overturned is, the whole Circuit needs to get looked at, but somewhere in the rules of judicial responsibility, someone up the Judicial Branch needs to have the right to send this guy back to county traffic court.
I don't know if you've had it with this stuff, but I sure have.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Strange Ruling by the Gods of MLB
So I was watching a baseball game on Saturday night, that I had taped from earlier that day and scrupulously avoided letting myself hear a score about all day. Knowing that it was the Red Sox and Yankees, I also added three hours of taping time to the already three hours scheduled for recording the game itself. Those guys take forever to play a game.
As it turns out, even that wasn't enough, but I digress.
The game went into extra innings, tied 1-1, and dragged out to about the 11th inning, when -- OK, let's say it was the 11th for argument's sake; it matters little. At that point there was a curious play that prompts today's piece.
[Aside -- I hate the New York Yankees with a white-hot passion that burns and churns, sort of the way I think of the left, MSNBC and members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon (that one may have worn off since college, though). I didn't grow up close to either New York or Boston, so my regard for the Red Sox and utter dislike of the Yankees makes no sense whatsoever but dates to preschool or maybe before. Bear with me; but know my prejudices.]
It was the top of the inning, with the game played at Fenway Park, and the Yankees were batting. They had a runner, Matt Holliday, on first and Jacoby Ellsbury was at the plate with no one out. Ellsbury grounded a ball to the right side of the infield, fielded by the first baseman, who moved in and a bit toward the mound to field.
As soon as the ball was hit, Holliday broke for second. He could see it was a ground ball; Ellsbury had clearly driven the ball into the ground in front of the plate, so he was forced to go to second. The Red Sox first baseman fielded the ball and threw to the shortstop covering second to force Holliday by 40 feet.
However, after being forced at second, Holliday did not veer out of the baseline, as 99.99% of runners do when forced by that much. Instead, Holliday stopped quickly, turned and headed back to first. Here is an article on the play, letting you start the video at the top of the piece and see for yourself.
As you can see, by returning to first, Holliday left no lane for the return throw from the shortstop, which arrived at first about the same time (A) Holliday was sliding back into the base, (B) Ellsbury was reaching first and (C) the first baseman was standing there awaiting the throw. The ball hit Ellsbury and rolled off, whereupon Ellsbury was ruled safe at first.
The Boston manager, John Farrell, came out of the dugout to complain. The rules forbid a runner who has been called out from interfering, intentionally or not, with an ongoing play. The rule certainly includes the case here; where Holliday should have ducked out of the baseline, he ran back to first, interfering with the first baseman's angle to catch the return throw. Ellsbury should have, by rule, been called out as well.
Bizarrely, however, the umpires ruled Ellsbury safe and called only one out (Holliday) on the play. Farrell asked them to reconsider, given, you know, the rules. So right there on the field, they called the MLB offices that handle replay reviews, but they asked not for a replay review but a review of the applicable rule. And the reply (they're in New York, by the way) was that the call was correct, even though the rule was pretty explicit (the inning went on and the Yankees failed to score anyway).
Farrell lodged a protest formally, which can be done only when the manager disagrees with the interpretation of a rule. There are not a lot of protests, and very few are upheld. The sarcastic soul in me thinks that's because the outcome of a sustained protest is to replay the game from that point, a logistic headache.
The Yankees went on to win the game in the 16th inning. Now, one could argue that since the Yankees ended up not scoring in the 11th, the protest was moot and should be dropped -- no harm, no foul. But that's certainly not true. Extra pitches were thrown, the batting order was affected and even if it didn't affect the Boston choice of pitchers, it shouldn't matter. [For the record, the Ellsbury at-bat was the first for the pitcher, Robbie Scott, who had been brought in after Holliday reached base. He only threw three more pitches to retire the side and was replaced for the next inning. Clearly the play did not affect the Boston bullpen, though it did create a one-position change in the Yankees' lineup turn.]
However, none of that (the small amount of change) should matter. The play was called incorrectly, as plenty of people familiar with the rule book have pointed out, and the MLB office got it wrong also. Baseball is a game that is hyperventilatingly finicky about integrity. It has put procedures in place to ensure that rule questions are properly resolved on the spot, and implemented protest rules that take into account that the answers from the office (in New York, did I mention that?) may be incorrect and a protest may be filed.
It will be interesting to see how they deal with it. To many of us, the protest should be sustained; the rules are pretty clear about the fact that what Holliday did was incorrect and that the remedy is for Ellsbury to have been called out at first on interference. For them to sustain the protest is to strike a blow for integrity in the game.
On the other hand, for them to reject the protest is frightening. Suppose it is rejected. What happens if you're an astute player who has reached first base in a game tomorrow, and a ground ball is hit that's an easy double play. You realize that immediately, stop, and as the ball is thrown to second to force you, you make your outline as big as possible, and head back to first, positioning yourself directly in the line of the throw.
The ball hits you, the batter is safe at first, and when the manager of the other team protests, you take out a copy of Farrell v. Holliday and say the magic word "precedent."
_ _ _
I hope that most of you realize this piece was not so much about baseball as about politics and life. The precedents set by the decisions of those with the power to decide are rock-solid when they come from the highest judicial authority. It is an awesome responsibility, for precedents are what guide the future.
Baseball can be an idiot sometimes. I hope they look a bit more forward here.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
As it turns out, even that wasn't enough, but I digress.
The game went into extra innings, tied 1-1, and dragged out to about the 11th inning, when -- OK, let's say it was the 11th for argument's sake; it matters little. At that point there was a curious play that prompts today's piece.
[Aside -- I hate the New York Yankees with a white-hot passion that burns and churns, sort of the way I think of the left, MSNBC and members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon (that one may have worn off since college, though). I didn't grow up close to either New York or Boston, so my regard for the Red Sox and utter dislike of the Yankees makes no sense whatsoever but dates to preschool or maybe before. Bear with me; but know my prejudices.]
It was the top of the inning, with the game played at Fenway Park, and the Yankees were batting. They had a runner, Matt Holliday, on first and Jacoby Ellsbury was at the plate with no one out. Ellsbury grounded a ball to the right side of the infield, fielded by the first baseman, who moved in and a bit toward the mound to field.
As soon as the ball was hit, Holliday broke for second. He could see it was a ground ball; Ellsbury had clearly driven the ball into the ground in front of the plate, so he was forced to go to second. The Red Sox first baseman fielded the ball and threw to the shortstop covering second to force Holliday by 40 feet.
However, after being forced at second, Holliday did not veer out of the baseline, as 99.99% of runners do when forced by that much. Instead, Holliday stopped quickly, turned and headed back to first. Here is an article on the play, letting you start the video at the top of the piece and see for yourself.
As you can see, by returning to first, Holliday left no lane for the return throw from the shortstop, which arrived at first about the same time (A) Holliday was sliding back into the base, (B) Ellsbury was reaching first and (C) the first baseman was standing there awaiting the throw. The ball hit Ellsbury and rolled off, whereupon Ellsbury was ruled safe at first.
The Boston manager, John Farrell, came out of the dugout to complain. The rules forbid a runner who has been called out from interfering, intentionally or not, with an ongoing play. The rule certainly includes the case here; where Holliday should have ducked out of the baseline, he ran back to first, interfering with the first baseman's angle to catch the return throw. Ellsbury should have, by rule, been called out as well.
Bizarrely, however, the umpires ruled Ellsbury safe and called only one out (Holliday) on the play. Farrell asked them to reconsider, given, you know, the rules. So right there on the field, they called the MLB offices that handle replay reviews, but they asked not for a replay review but a review of the applicable rule. And the reply (they're in New York, by the way) was that the call was correct, even though the rule was pretty explicit (the inning went on and the Yankees failed to score anyway).
Farrell lodged a protest formally, which can be done only when the manager disagrees with the interpretation of a rule. There are not a lot of protests, and very few are upheld. The sarcastic soul in me thinks that's because the outcome of a sustained protest is to replay the game from that point, a logistic headache.
The Yankees went on to win the game in the 16th inning. Now, one could argue that since the Yankees ended up not scoring in the 11th, the protest was moot and should be dropped -- no harm, no foul. But that's certainly not true. Extra pitches were thrown, the batting order was affected and even if it didn't affect the Boston choice of pitchers, it shouldn't matter. [For the record, the Ellsbury at-bat was the first for the pitcher, Robbie Scott, who had been brought in after Holliday reached base. He only threw three more pitches to retire the side and was replaced for the next inning. Clearly the play did not affect the Boston bullpen, though it did create a one-position change in the Yankees' lineup turn.]
However, none of that (the small amount of change) should matter. The play was called incorrectly, as plenty of people familiar with the rule book have pointed out, and the MLB office got it wrong also. Baseball is a game that is hyperventilatingly finicky about integrity. It has put procedures in place to ensure that rule questions are properly resolved on the spot, and implemented protest rules that take into account that the answers from the office (in New York, did I mention that?) may be incorrect and a protest may be filed.
It will be interesting to see how they deal with it. To many of us, the protest should be sustained; the rules are pretty clear about the fact that what Holliday did was incorrect and that the remedy is for Ellsbury to have been called out at first on interference. For them to sustain the protest is to strike a blow for integrity in the game.
On the other hand, for them to reject the protest is frightening. Suppose it is rejected. What happens if you're an astute player who has reached first base in a game tomorrow, and a ground ball is hit that's an easy double play. You realize that immediately, stop, and as the ball is thrown to second to force you, you make your outline as big as possible, and head back to first, positioning yourself directly in the line of the throw.
The ball hits you, the batter is safe at first, and when the manager of the other team protests, you take out a copy of Farrell v. Holliday and say the magic word "precedent."
_ _ _
I hope that most of you realize this piece was not so much about baseball as about politics and life. The precedents set by the decisions of those with the power to decide are rock-solid when they come from the highest judicial authority. It is an awesome responsibility, for precedents are what guide the future.
Baseball can be an idiot sometimes. I hope they look a bit more forward here.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Masking the Dems' Solutionlessness
After eight years of the Obamists in power, the nation had a chance to decide they were quite tired of what Democrats offered, and kicked them out of office. They had been kicking them out at various levels for several years -- let's face it, Obamacare led to most of that -- but the USA was absolutely ready for something else.
So we wonder today about the Democrats' strategy. Having had eight years of embarrassing leadership and lots of lost elections, it would appear that their best strategy is simply not to govern for a while; in fact, to be rather invisible as far as governing is concerned, until the Republicans can be in power long enough for the nation to grow tired of them.
I suspect that, to the extent that Democratic leadership sits around figuring out how to grab power again at all, this might explain the incredible legs that the Trump-Russia thing appears to have had, despite the amazing lack of any content. They appear to have decided that not trying to govern, by keeping scandals in the press (substantive or not), the voting public will somehow forget how vile and incompetent they actually are when they have power.
At least after enough time has gone by, I guess.
The Democrats have to be looking at 2018 curiously, after all. If their strategy consists of blocking, not legislating, and leveraging their control of the press to keep pointless non-scandals in the news for long enough to for the nation to have forgotten how bad their policies are, I get it. They've been successful, at least, in drowning out the positives of the current administration.
But 2018 is an odd target, which is why I think it is not a target for the Democrats at all. That particular election cycle for the Senate is skewed against them, with hardly any vulnerable Republican seats and several Democrats up in states where Donald Trump carried the vote in 2016. They can't win back the Senate and might lose seats there, so they have to manage the possibility that the Republicans could increase their Senate margin and have to spin that.
The point here, I believe, is that the real motivation for keeping the "zero" (scrupulously avoiding "nothingburger") that is the Russia issue in front of the public, is to keep Democrats from having to do anything.
Even this column has used the term "RussiaRussiaRussia", and I am starting to see that the "smoke" is not all the little incidents that amount to nothing, but the screen of smoke the Democrats are using to obscure what they actually want to obscure. They are using every non-governing incident, every whiff of scandal they can come up with -- even the use of intentionally far-over-the-top words like "impeachment" and "treason" -- to drag out the time from the end of the Obama era to the next target election.
Oppose and obstruct. Use over-the-top language. Inflate any hint of scandal far beyond its basis in fact. And keep all of that in the papers and the media daily, full time, non-stop. It's so, so much easier than helping try to govern.
Do that for a really long time, long enough to where perhaps the public will forget how awful Democrats are when they are in charge.
I suppose if I were a Democrat with nothing to offer, I'd do the same.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
So we wonder today about the Democrats' strategy. Having had eight years of embarrassing leadership and lots of lost elections, it would appear that their best strategy is simply not to govern for a while; in fact, to be rather invisible as far as governing is concerned, until the Republicans can be in power long enough for the nation to grow tired of them.
I suspect that, to the extent that Democratic leadership sits around figuring out how to grab power again at all, this might explain the incredible legs that the Trump-Russia thing appears to have had, despite the amazing lack of any content. They appear to have decided that not trying to govern, by keeping scandals in the press (substantive or not), the voting public will somehow forget how vile and incompetent they actually are when they have power.
At least after enough time has gone by, I guess.
The Democrats have to be looking at 2018 curiously, after all. If their strategy consists of blocking, not legislating, and leveraging their control of the press to keep pointless non-scandals in the news for long enough to for the nation to have forgotten how bad their policies are, I get it. They've been successful, at least, in drowning out the positives of the current administration.
But 2018 is an odd target, which is why I think it is not a target for the Democrats at all. That particular election cycle for the Senate is skewed against them, with hardly any vulnerable Republican seats and several Democrats up in states where Donald Trump carried the vote in 2016. They can't win back the Senate and might lose seats there, so they have to manage the possibility that the Republicans could increase their Senate margin and have to spin that.
The point here, I believe, is that the real motivation for keeping the "zero" (scrupulously avoiding "nothingburger") that is the Russia issue in front of the public, is to keep Democrats from having to do anything.
Even this column has used the term "RussiaRussiaRussia", and I am starting to see that the "smoke" is not all the little incidents that amount to nothing, but the screen of smoke the Democrats are using to obscure what they actually want to obscure. They are using every non-governing incident, every whiff of scandal they can come up with -- even the use of intentionally far-over-the-top words like "impeachment" and "treason" -- to drag out the time from the end of the Obama era to the next target election.
Oppose and obstruct. Use over-the-top language. Inflate any hint of scandal far beyond its basis in fact. And keep all of that in the papers and the media daily, full time, non-stop. It's so, so much easier than helping try to govern.
Do that for a really long time, long enough to where perhaps the public will forget how awful Democrats are when they are in charge.
I suppose if I were a Democrat with nothing to offer, I'd do the same.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Here is the Video!
Last week I wrote of a wonderfully moving performance by the quartet Signature, of the Luther Vandross song, "Dance with my Father."
I'm pleased to tell you all that the performance has been put out to YouTube and I do encourage you all to check it out. It is at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6FwopHVll8
Please enjoy!
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
I'm pleased to tell you all that the performance has been put out to YouTube and I do encourage you all to check it out. It is at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6FwopHVll8
Please enjoy!
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Friday, July 14, 2017
Trump and Macron's Message to the Senate
The United States Senate, the "world's greatest deliberative body", if they say so themselves, is having serious issues getting anything done, which is the absolute norm when neither party has 60 reliable votes. And even then, when one does, we end up with fecal bills like the one which gave us Obamacare.
And when they do talk, we get the imbecilic speeches associated with public congressional committee meetings, and we have Harry Reid broadcasting from the well of the Senate that he has it on good authority that Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes since the early Carter Administration. And we have Chuck Schumer ... which is a "nuf sed" moment all by itself.
I hear constantly that the senators are very, very friendly with each other across the aisle, although I'm sure that Elizabeth Warren isn't friendly with anyone, in or out of the Senate. But 99 of them presumably are.
Yet nothing gets done, and by "nothing" I mean "nothing." They go out for beers and then in the morning they talk past each other at best, and yell at each other at worst. And still nothing gets done. Even the Republicans, with a majority, inadequate as it is, appear to be ready to vote on a replacement to Obamacare that no one likes, that doesn't really come close to repealing it, and that leaves in place the soul-crushing taxes.
To which I say, "Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump."
President Trump was not exactly rooting for Macron in the French election not long ago. But sure enough, Macron won and is now the president of France, or whatever the French call their head dude or dudette in charge.
They met during the G-20 meetings and discovered something very odd. They actually seemed to like each other. There is some fundamental disagreement about things like global warming and maybe a little globalism thrown in, but basic civility enhanced by mutual "liking" from those meetings prompted Macron to offer an invitation for the president to go to France for Bastille Day (that's today) -- and for the president to set aside whatever he was planning, ob very short notice, and actually go.
Yesterday they met at length and held a press conference, and it was pretty evident from the unstaged photo ops that they get along really well. So, it should be said, did their wives, which could have played a non-trivial role in all this, though I've not heard that suggested.
They are pushing forward with some areas of agreement and getting things done. How much they do get done remains to be seen, but I expect positive action to take place, and that's from someone (me) not too inclined to give the French the benefit of the doubt on anything.
I hope Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer are watching. There has to be a lesson in that somewhere, that two world leaders who are not in lockstep on several issues manage to work through the others, and at least discuss the ones they disagree on without grotesque insults. Can not our senators consider the needs of the nation and try to work together? Is it acceptable that Senate roll calls get no votes from Democrats on Republican initiatives and vice versa? Can they really be that partisan (hint: "yes")?
Looking at Trump and Macron suggest that Trump and Putin might be able to get along a bit, much as Trump and China's Xi appear to have been able to. But none of that will matter if the leaders of the Senate cannot.
We in the USA are out here drumming our fingers.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
And when they do talk, we get the imbecilic speeches associated with public congressional committee meetings, and we have Harry Reid broadcasting from the well of the Senate that he has it on good authority that Mitt Romney hadn't paid taxes since the early Carter Administration. And we have Chuck Schumer ... which is a "nuf sed" moment all by itself.
I hear constantly that the senators are very, very friendly with each other across the aisle, although I'm sure that Elizabeth Warren isn't friendly with anyone, in or out of the Senate. But 99 of them presumably are.
Yet nothing gets done, and by "nothing" I mean "nothing." They go out for beers and then in the morning they talk past each other at best, and yell at each other at worst. And still nothing gets done. Even the Republicans, with a majority, inadequate as it is, appear to be ready to vote on a replacement to Obamacare that no one likes, that doesn't really come close to repealing it, and that leaves in place the soul-crushing taxes.
To which I say, "Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump."
President Trump was not exactly rooting for Macron in the French election not long ago. But sure enough, Macron won and is now the president of France, or whatever the French call their head dude or dudette in charge.
They met during the G-20 meetings and discovered something very odd. They actually seemed to like each other. There is some fundamental disagreement about things like global warming and maybe a little globalism thrown in, but basic civility enhanced by mutual "liking" from those meetings prompted Macron to offer an invitation for the president to go to France for Bastille Day (that's today) -- and for the president to set aside whatever he was planning, ob very short notice, and actually go.
Yesterday they met at length and held a press conference, and it was pretty evident from the unstaged photo ops that they get along really well. So, it should be said, did their wives, which could have played a non-trivial role in all this, though I've not heard that suggested.
They are pushing forward with some areas of agreement and getting things done. How much they do get done remains to be seen, but I expect positive action to take place, and that's from someone (me) not too inclined to give the French the benefit of the doubt on anything.
I hope Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer are watching. There has to be a lesson in that somewhere, that two world leaders who are not in lockstep on several issues manage to work through the others, and at least discuss the ones they disagree on without grotesque insults. Can not our senators consider the needs of the nation and try to work together? Is it acceptable that Senate roll calls get no votes from Democrats on Republican initiatives and vice versa? Can they really be that partisan (hint: "yes")?
Looking at Trump and Macron suggest that Trump and Putin might be able to get along a bit, much as Trump and China's Xi appear to have been able to. But none of that will matter if the leaders of the Senate cannot.
We in the USA are out here drumming our fingers.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Asynchronous Scandal Response
It was an interesting thing to watch the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Christopher Wray to be FBI Director yesterday. Aside from the interminable speeches (on both sides) masquerading as questioning of the candidate, there is the curious asymmetry on view for all.
Wray seems like a perfectly reasonable candidate, and I assume, since the Democrats on the committee seemed perfectly disposed to vote for him, that he has relatively unimpeachable credentials -- which we already knew.
The asymmetry, though, was what was odd, particularly given that the Republicans are the majority party of the Senate and hold the committee chairmanships, including, of course, Judiciary, chaired by Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley.
In those interminable lead-ins and speechification, I noticed that occasionally a Republican senator would raise an issue of comparable import -- or more, in fact -- to those flying around in regard to the Trump-Russia nothingburger I discussed yesterday. One senator (might have been Lindsey Graham, but I'm sure as heck not rewinding to see; life is too short) cited an article in the leftist medium Politico, published in January.
That article referred to a report that the DNC and Hillary campaign in 2016 had conspired with elements of the government of Ukraine -- a former Soviet nation, regardless of what they are now -- to dig up or simply create dirt on Donald Trump while the campaign was active.
The actual question to Wray was to ask whether he would investigate that which, of course, he said he would as FBI Director, assuming that Sen. Graham's office actually follows through and provides Director-to-Be Wray with the article and anything else needed.
"Did you know about the article?", Wray was asked. No, he hadn't, but he would be willing to investigate.
Did you know about the article? I know I follow politics, at least enough to write this column, and I had never heard of it until a passing reference -- yesterday, six months after the article appeared.
So what the heck is going on with the press? Is there one set of rules for scandals, even fictional ones, implicating Republicans and a whole 'nother one for Democrats? What other conclusion can you make from this?
Donald Trump, Jr., takes a meeting on the expectation of some opposition research purported to be from Russia, but which turns out to be about adoption. I mean, we know that's what it was. At worst, the offense was taking the meeting; since there was nothing there, nothing happened relative to any actual offense.
According to Politico, the Democrats did at least that and more -- there was this in their article from the January piece:
"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
Hmmm. So Donald Jr. took a meeting purporting to provide such adverse information on Hillary Clinton, but there was no such information and the meeting turned out to be about Russian adoption. Nothing happened, and the only "bad" thing was the willingness of the younger Trump to meet with someone from a foreign country with opposition research -- of which there was none.
Hillary's campaign people actually worked with representatives of a foreign government to obtain and disseminate adverse information on her opponent, of which there was such information and it was indeed promulgated.
Yet we have three days (so far) of Trump Derangement Syndrome bellyaching in the left-controlled media about something that ended up not even being about opposition research and has not been connected to actual (Russian) government officials; the only involved Russian denied such connection. And we are only now even hearing about the actual collusion with a foreign government to interfere in the 2016 election, by the Democrat Hillary Clinton and her team.
The silence on that one is deafening. Go figure. Donald Trump Jr. is accused of "treason" by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) but Kaine doesn't puff a breath about Hillary and the Ukrainians who actually worked with her.
Someone needs to explain the asymmetrical response by the media to the two events. I do hope that, after the confirmation hearings today and the commitment to investigate the Clinton side of the collusion scandal, the FBI will open a case up about Ukraine-Clinton and actually work it. Of course, there is probably nothing really illegal in what they did either, but any assumption of lack of illegality on that side applies in spades to the Trump Jr. meeting, where nothing actually took place.
I think I'm going to keep asking about that one in these pages.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Wray seems like a perfectly reasonable candidate, and I assume, since the Democrats on the committee seemed perfectly disposed to vote for him, that he has relatively unimpeachable credentials -- which we already knew.
The asymmetry, though, was what was odd, particularly given that the Republicans are the majority party of the Senate and hold the committee chairmanships, including, of course, Judiciary, chaired by Iowa's Senator Chuck Grassley.
In those interminable lead-ins and speechification, I noticed that occasionally a Republican senator would raise an issue of comparable import -- or more, in fact -- to those flying around in regard to the Trump-Russia nothingburger I discussed yesterday. One senator (might have been Lindsey Graham, but I'm sure as heck not rewinding to see; life is too short) cited an article in the leftist medium Politico, published in January.
That article referred to a report that the DNC and Hillary campaign in 2016 had conspired with elements of the government of Ukraine -- a former Soviet nation, regardless of what they are now -- to dig up or simply create dirt on Donald Trump while the campaign was active.
The actual question to Wray was to ask whether he would investigate that which, of course, he said he would as FBI Director, assuming that Sen. Graham's office actually follows through and provides Director-to-Be Wray with the article and anything else needed.
"Did you know about the article?", Wray was asked. No, he hadn't, but he would be willing to investigate.
Did you know about the article? I know I follow politics, at least enough to write this column, and I had never heard of it until a passing reference -- yesterday, six months after the article appeared.
So what the heck is going on with the press? Is there one set of rules for scandals, even fictional ones, implicating Republicans and a whole 'nother one for Democrats? What other conclusion can you make from this?
Donald Trump, Jr., takes a meeting on the expectation of some opposition research purported to be from Russia, but which turns out to be about adoption. I mean, we know that's what it was. At worst, the offense was taking the meeting; since there was nothing there, nothing happened relative to any actual offense.
According to Politico, the Democrats did at least that and more -- there was this in their article from the January piece:
"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
Hmmm. So Donald Jr. took a meeting purporting to provide such adverse information on Hillary Clinton, but there was no such information and the meeting turned out to be about Russian adoption. Nothing happened, and the only "bad" thing was the willingness of the younger Trump to meet with someone from a foreign country with opposition research -- of which there was none.
Hillary's campaign people actually worked with representatives of a foreign government to obtain and disseminate adverse information on her opponent, of which there was such information and it was indeed promulgated.
Yet we have three days (so far) of Trump Derangement Syndrome bellyaching in the left-controlled media about something that ended up not even being about opposition research and has not been connected to actual (Russian) government officials; the only involved Russian denied such connection. And we are only now even hearing about the actual collusion with a foreign government to interfere in the 2016 election, by the Democrat Hillary Clinton and her team.
The silence on that one is deafening. Go figure. Donald Trump Jr. is accused of "treason" by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) but Kaine doesn't puff a breath about Hillary and the Ukrainians who actually worked with her.
Someone needs to explain the asymmetrical response by the media to the two events. I do hope that, after the confirmation hearings today and the commitment to investigate the Clinton side of the collusion scandal, the FBI will open a case up about Ukraine-Clinton and actually work it. Of course, there is probably nothing really illegal in what they did either, but any assumption of lack of illegality on that side applies in spades to the Trump Jr. meeting, where nothing actually took place.
I think I'm going to keep asking about that one in these pages.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
An Insult to Nothingburgers
Oooohhhhh, gotcha!
So apparently some devilish conspiracy zombies have dug up the fact that, in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., along with Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, both of the Trump campaign's inner circle, had a meeting with a Russian lawyer.
According to those in it, and documented by the younger Trump's immediate release of the relevant emails, it was agreed to because there was some kind of indication that the lawyer had some damaging information on Hillary Clinton that would help with the campaign, which was the premise for the three men agreeing to meet. However, the information, such as it was or wasn't, turned out to be a pretense to discuss the lifting of a Russian government ban on adoptions of Russian children by Americans.
As of this moment, we think we know that Donald Jr. was unaware of the name of the lawyer prior to the meeting, and that apparently the meeting was set up (according to the lawyer) on short notice.
And, ultimately, nothing was done. The other two left shortly after the adoption topic took over the discussion, and Donald Jr. left soon after. There was zero adverse information presented, since that wasn't the purpose of the meeting from the Russian lawyer's perspective.
For this, we have the New York Times, and CNN and the entire leftist media in a fever. Now, remember that after six months of scrupulous journalism (and a lot of unscrupulous journalism) and two congressional committee investigations, a special counsel and the FBI, not a shred of evidence has emerged to suggest that the Trump campaigned collaborated with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.
In this incident, someone claiming to represent that government (and since denying it) obtained a meeting by lying about having adverse information on Hillary. No content. No adverse information. No collusion. No Russian government.
That's not good enough for the press, so they have expanded the definition of "Russian government" to include everyone with a Russian accent, and the definition of "conspired to affect the election" to include "met with someone with a Russian accent." So here we have a meeting that apparently accomplished nothing, whose American members walked out when the actual intended topic arose, and that's supposed to be evidence of ... something.
Naturally, the folks who consider the collusion thing to be a big joke, made up by the crying "Wah, wah, Hillary lost" crowd, see the June meeting as a "nothingburger." But I suspect that to be an insult to nothingburgers everywhere.
Let us go back to Occam's Razor for the moment. Occam's Razor is the logical principle that the simplest explanation for a set of facts is the likeliest explanation for them. So let's put this together.
The lawyer was in some way trying to advocate for an entity seeking to get the ban on adoptions from Russia (a Russian ban, not an American one) lifted, meaning that it needed to get raised in the consciousness of the potential next president. The entity, whoever they were, had a contact, a person in the entertainment industry, who knew Donald Trump Jr. well enough through the Miss Universe pageants to secure a meeting (we know that) with a lawyer who was a native Russian.
The pretense for the meeting was that the person (who turned out to be the lawyer) had damaging information on Hillary Clinton that would help the Trump campaign. And so Donald Jr., who was contacted through a friend trusted enough to make him willing to take yet another meeting, went -- and brought Manafort and Kushner to hear the person out, since it was supposed to be about opposition research. And every campaign wants dirt (q.v. Hillary's bringing up the "fat" comments about a pageant contestant on the debate floor).
We know that the "information" turned out to be vague references that were sufficiently vague that when the lawyer turned the topic to the intended one, Russian adoption, it quickly drove out Manafort and Kushner and brought the meeting to a swift end.
Duh.
How all this becomes anything other than the Occam's Razor inference I make from the facts, is beyond me. What, pray tell, was done that was different from what anyone else in the Clinton or Trump campaigns would have done? You are offered opposition dirt -- which, by the way, campaigns pay people to dig up -- and you take a meeting with someone who purports to have some of that dirt. It turns out not to be there, so you get up and leave.
This, friends, doesn't even rise to the level of nothingburger. This is especially true when one realizes that there is some involvement, somewhere, with the same organization that created the phony dossier on candidate Trump for the Democrats. What that involvement is has been poorly defined, but their name comes up regularly in the reporting, although without a "This is what they did" context.
But it will keep the press busy for a while, at least when they're not out there putting too much ketchup on their nothingburgers.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
So apparently some devilish conspiracy zombies have dug up the fact that, in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr., along with Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, both of the Trump campaign's inner circle, had a meeting with a Russian lawyer.
According to those in it, and documented by the younger Trump's immediate release of the relevant emails, it was agreed to because there was some kind of indication that the lawyer had some damaging information on Hillary Clinton that would help with the campaign, which was the premise for the three men agreeing to meet. However, the information, such as it was or wasn't, turned out to be a pretense to discuss the lifting of a Russian government ban on adoptions of Russian children by Americans.
As of this moment, we think we know that Donald Jr. was unaware of the name of the lawyer prior to the meeting, and that apparently the meeting was set up (according to the lawyer) on short notice.
And, ultimately, nothing was done. The other two left shortly after the adoption topic took over the discussion, and Donald Jr. left soon after. There was zero adverse information presented, since that wasn't the purpose of the meeting from the Russian lawyer's perspective.
For this, we have the New York Times, and CNN and the entire leftist media in a fever. Now, remember that after six months of scrupulous journalism (and a lot of unscrupulous journalism) and two congressional committee investigations, a special counsel and the FBI, not a shred of evidence has emerged to suggest that the Trump campaigned collaborated with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.
In this incident, someone claiming to represent that government (and since denying it) obtained a meeting by lying about having adverse information on Hillary. No content. No adverse information. No collusion. No Russian government.
That's not good enough for the press, so they have expanded the definition of "Russian government" to include everyone with a Russian accent, and the definition of "conspired to affect the election" to include "met with someone with a Russian accent." So here we have a meeting that apparently accomplished nothing, whose American members walked out when the actual intended topic arose, and that's supposed to be evidence of ... something.
Naturally, the folks who consider the collusion thing to be a big joke, made up by the crying "Wah, wah, Hillary lost" crowd, see the June meeting as a "nothingburger." But I suspect that to be an insult to nothingburgers everywhere.
Let us go back to Occam's Razor for the moment. Occam's Razor is the logical principle that the simplest explanation for a set of facts is the likeliest explanation for them. So let's put this together.
The lawyer was in some way trying to advocate for an entity seeking to get the ban on adoptions from Russia (a Russian ban, not an American one) lifted, meaning that it needed to get raised in the consciousness of the potential next president. The entity, whoever they were, had a contact, a person in the entertainment industry, who knew Donald Trump Jr. well enough through the Miss Universe pageants to secure a meeting (we know that) with a lawyer who was a native Russian.
The pretense for the meeting was that the person (who turned out to be the lawyer) had damaging information on Hillary Clinton that would help the Trump campaign. And so Donald Jr., who was contacted through a friend trusted enough to make him willing to take yet another meeting, went -- and brought Manafort and Kushner to hear the person out, since it was supposed to be about opposition research. And every campaign wants dirt (q.v. Hillary's bringing up the "fat" comments about a pageant contestant on the debate floor).
We know that the "information" turned out to be vague references that were sufficiently vague that when the lawyer turned the topic to the intended one, Russian adoption, it quickly drove out Manafort and Kushner and brought the meeting to a swift end.
Duh.
How all this becomes anything other than the Occam's Razor inference I make from the facts, is beyond me. What, pray tell, was done that was different from what anyone else in the Clinton or Trump campaigns would have done? You are offered opposition dirt -- which, by the way, campaigns pay people to dig up -- and you take a meeting with someone who purports to have some of that dirt. It turns out not to be there, so you get up and leave.
This, friends, doesn't even rise to the level of nothingburger. This is especially true when one realizes that there is some involvement, somewhere, with the same organization that created the phony dossier on candidate Trump for the Democrats. What that involvement is has been poorly defined, but their name comes up regularly in the reporting, although without a "This is what they did" context.
But it will keep the press busy for a while, at least when they're not out there putting too much ketchup on their nothingburgers.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Correcting for Romney
During a fairly good part of the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney polled at a slight lead. If memory serves, he was leading by 2-3 points much of the time. His best polling likely came after the first presidential debate, when Barack Obama looked awful and performed worse, showing little command of the issues and incapable of defending his atrocious first term. Never a good speaker sans prepared text anyway, he was particularly bad against the more polished former governor.
Of course, Romney's later references to the 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes were successfully spun by the left and the press (repeating myself, of course) as some kind of insensitivity. We can point out that the remarks were perfectly accurate and therefore reasonable, but the media were not exactly going for accuracy and fairness at that point.
I would share that Romney, gentleman that he was, was given the opportunity to end the campaign precipitously in a later debate. He had the last summary comment of the last debate, and could simply have ripped the Obamists' lies about Benghazi, the garbage about the "video", and landed the last blow of the campaign.
Gentleman that he was, though, he did not prepare such remarks and did not deliver them. Handed a free pass to demolish the White House's lies, he declined it. I remember feeling at the time that if Romney didn't win, he had only himself to blame, having blown a big opportunity to put Obama where he could not recover.
But I also remember that I saw Mitt Romney as a guy who could really do some good in the nation and the world, that he was someone who had a track record of fixing things, who cared about things like budgets the way a businessman did, and who respected the taxpayer dollar. I looked forward to a Romney administration.
As we know, Romney was not a big fan of Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, saying some rather unpleasant things about him even though the governor was not running for anything then. It was quite ironic that Romney ended up high on the list to be Secretary of State, and as much a commentary on President Trump as it was on Romney himself.
Did the USA view the Obama years as disastrous as they actually were? I don't exactly know, but I certainly believe that while Hillary Clinton was a historically bad candidate, the Republicans, voluntarily or not, intentionally or not, ran a candidate in Donald Trump that we subconsciously realized was a version of the Mitt Romney that we should have elected four years earlier.
Romney ran as a businessman who understood the real economy (as opposed to the mythical, utopian one, envisioned by the professorial, petulant Obama). He lost, but that was for having failed to take advantage of electoral opportunities given him, not for a rejection of his candidacy.
In other words, Donald Trump was effectively the correction for the mistake perceived by the voters that they had made in not electing Romney four years previously. It's overlooked a bit, perhaps, by the new president's bigger-than-life persona. But the notion of sensible approaches to economics, taxation and even foreign affairs that a deal-making businessman would bring, well, that was a 2012 theme as well.
Since the governor didn't win, history will be unable to record whether a Romney presidency in 2012 would have reached most of the same achievements that the Trump Administration will; we can't assume what the previous election results would have meant. But we can stop and realize that the nation seemed to recognize it missed an opportunity and, however different Mr. Romney and President Trump may be as people, they both offered the nation something it now knows it was seeking.
Similarities and differences, but one particular something in common.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Of course, Romney's later references to the 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes were successfully spun by the left and the press (repeating myself, of course) as some kind of insensitivity. We can point out that the remarks were perfectly accurate and therefore reasonable, but the media were not exactly going for accuracy and fairness at that point.
I would share that Romney, gentleman that he was, was given the opportunity to end the campaign precipitously in a later debate. He had the last summary comment of the last debate, and could simply have ripped the Obamists' lies about Benghazi, the garbage about the "video", and landed the last blow of the campaign.
Gentleman that he was, though, he did not prepare such remarks and did not deliver them. Handed a free pass to demolish the White House's lies, he declined it. I remember feeling at the time that if Romney didn't win, he had only himself to blame, having blown a big opportunity to put Obama where he could not recover.
But I also remember that I saw Mitt Romney as a guy who could really do some good in the nation and the world, that he was someone who had a track record of fixing things, who cared about things like budgets the way a businessman did, and who respected the taxpayer dollar. I looked forward to a Romney administration.
As we know, Romney was not a big fan of Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, saying some rather unpleasant things about him even though the governor was not running for anything then. It was quite ironic that Romney ended up high on the list to be Secretary of State, and as much a commentary on President Trump as it was on Romney himself.
Did the USA view the Obama years as disastrous as they actually were? I don't exactly know, but I certainly believe that while Hillary Clinton was a historically bad candidate, the Republicans, voluntarily or not, intentionally or not, ran a candidate in Donald Trump that we subconsciously realized was a version of the Mitt Romney that we should have elected four years earlier.
Romney ran as a businessman who understood the real economy (as opposed to the mythical, utopian one, envisioned by the professorial, petulant Obama). He lost, but that was for having failed to take advantage of electoral opportunities given him, not for a rejection of his candidacy.
In other words, Donald Trump was effectively the correction for the mistake perceived by the voters that they had made in not electing Romney four years previously. It's overlooked a bit, perhaps, by the new president's bigger-than-life persona. But the notion of sensible approaches to economics, taxation and even foreign affairs that a deal-making businessman would bring, well, that was a 2012 theme as well.
Since the governor didn't win, history will be unable to record whether a Romney presidency in 2012 would have reached most of the same achievements that the Trump Administration will; we can't assume what the previous election results would have meant. But we can stop and realize that the nation seemed to recognize it missed an opportunity and, however different Mr. Romney and President Trump may be as people, they both offered the nation something it now knows it was seeking.
Similarities and differences, but one particular something in common.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Monday, July 10, 2017
When You Can't Lose, You Can't Win
You may be aware that primary schools in the United Kingdom, or at least some of them, are banning competition in their athletic activities. They will play games and sports of some kind, whatever they do in the UK, but they will not keep score or have a "winning team" or winning individual.
To which I say "Yuk ... stupid and shortsighted."
I realize that it is not just in the USA that the left has so infiltrated the teaching profession in both the K-12 arena and, of course, in the colleges and universities. The teachers' unions are incredibly far left, and they press this whole utopian notion that play is all rainbows and unicorns, and that competition is an ugly notion that appeals to the testosteronized male, which is, by definition, bad.
Yes, it is stupid and shortsighted. No one likes to lose, let's face it. I certainly don't like to lose in any aspect of life, and I'm an expert on it. I'd been declined for dates way back when; I never got elected to a school office I ran for. I've sung in groups that finished last in competitions. I was a competitive golfer in high school and college, and lost as often as I won, I think. And I remember the losses more.
Professionally, I have been turned down for jobs more times than I can count. I write proposals for a living, and God knows how often those have lost, and that is never pleasant, especially when you have poured months into preparing them. And I was a Red Sox fan for 50 years before they finally won a World Series in 2004.
But here's the thing. You learn from all of that. When you lose, you may cry for a bit, particularly (but not exclusively) when you're very young. And if you have a parent or two who knows how to raise children, well, here is what they do. They stop you in your tracks, comfort you and then explain that losing is a way to let you know how and where you can improve. They might also explain that losing happens, and here is how you should respond -- by getting better, by understanding luck, by working harder.
There is no doubt about it. Losing hurts, but losing is necessary. Taking the option of "losing" away, by removing competition, takes away the lesson -- and the recovery.
My best girl saw the same little clip about the UK primary schools and made a fascinating analogy. Plants, she said, that get nothing but sunshine burn up and die. They need the things that aren't the most pleasant things for us -- like getting rained on and getting, um, pooped on. They're not pleasant, yes, but they are the equivalent of losing, in plant world. We all love the sunshine, but there is more to growing than unending sunshine; you need to get watered and fertilized.
And so do we.
I'm not advocating throwing our primary school students out in the rain and pooping on them. OK, some of the ones behind me on airplanes, yeah, I wouldn't mind if they got a little rain and poop.
But I am advocating a breadth of experiences for growing children. Let them know losing and winning, success and failures, if only so they don't grow up expecting a Utopia that does not exist. More importantly, so they learn the biggest lesson -- to respond to failure by turning to a regimen of self-improvement.
Would that not make for a better world? Well, at least it would make for a better set of UK primary schools.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
To which I say "Yuk ... stupid and shortsighted."
I realize that it is not just in the USA that the left has so infiltrated the teaching profession in both the K-12 arena and, of course, in the colleges and universities. The teachers' unions are incredibly far left, and they press this whole utopian notion that play is all rainbows and unicorns, and that competition is an ugly notion that appeals to the testosteronized male, which is, by definition, bad.
Yes, it is stupid and shortsighted. No one likes to lose, let's face it. I certainly don't like to lose in any aspect of life, and I'm an expert on it. I'd been declined for dates way back when; I never got elected to a school office I ran for. I've sung in groups that finished last in competitions. I was a competitive golfer in high school and college, and lost as often as I won, I think. And I remember the losses more.
Professionally, I have been turned down for jobs more times than I can count. I write proposals for a living, and God knows how often those have lost, and that is never pleasant, especially when you have poured months into preparing them. And I was a Red Sox fan for 50 years before they finally won a World Series in 2004.
But here's the thing. You learn from all of that. When you lose, you may cry for a bit, particularly (but not exclusively) when you're very young. And if you have a parent or two who knows how to raise children, well, here is what they do. They stop you in your tracks, comfort you and then explain that losing is a way to let you know how and where you can improve. They might also explain that losing happens, and here is how you should respond -- by getting better, by understanding luck, by working harder.
There is no doubt about it. Losing hurts, but losing is necessary. Taking the option of "losing" away, by removing competition, takes away the lesson -- and the recovery.
My best girl saw the same little clip about the UK primary schools and made a fascinating analogy. Plants, she said, that get nothing but sunshine burn up and die. They need the things that aren't the most pleasant things for us -- like getting rained on and getting, um, pooped on. They're not pleasant, yes, but they are the equivalent of losing, in plant world. We all love the sunshine, but there is more to growing than unending sunshine; you need to get watered and fertilized.
And so do we.
I'm not advocating throwing our primary school students out in the rain and pooping on them. OK, some of the ones behind me on airplanes, yeah, I wouldn't mind if they got a little rain and poop.
But I am advocating a breadth of experiences for growing children. Let them know losing and winning, success and failures, if only so they don't grow up expecting a Utopia that does not exist. More importantly, so they learn the biggest lesson -- to respond to failure by turning to a regimen of self-improvement.
Would that not make for a better world? Well, at least it would make for a better set of UK primary schools.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Friday, July 7, 2017
A Signature Moment
Not terribly long ago I did a piece in regard to the TV show "Long Lost Family", which reunites adoptees with their natural biological family members. I wrote it in the context of my membership in the Barbershop Harmony Society.
My point was that it feels good to tap into deep emotions once in a while, even if you're a guy and even if they make you tear up a bit. That's not, I believed then and do now, a bad thing. It is a healthy check on one's sanity to make sure we have empathy and the capability to be moved.
I made the connection with the emotions generated by watching "Long Lost Family" to barbershop singing, precisely because the stories we sing can generate that kind of response.
As I write this, the international convention and contests of the Barbershop Harmony Society are being held in Las Vegas, Nevada, and thousands are in attendance to hear the absolute best in an art form where the best are incredible (and the worst are unlistenably atrocious). The best, of course, are on display in Las Vegas this week.
The quartet competition, of course, features the best. On Wednesday, 55 competitors sing two songs, after which the field is narrowed to 20, who did a second round on Thursday. From them, ten are selected for the Finals on Saturday night, and the top five earn medals -- gold, silver and then three bronze medals for 3rd-5th.
Since champions automatically retire as competitors (the one quartet everyone knows, the Buffalo Bills from "The Music Man", were the 1950 champions), there is turnover every year in the medal ranks. And so it was that last night my best girl and I watched the webcast broadcast of the competition at home on our TV screen.
Last year, a Florida quartet called "Signature" moved up strongly from the previous year, earning fourth-place medals and showing a marvelous capacity to deliver songs with immense heart.
So we were looking forward to their performance in this contest. They had easily made the second round, we assumed (scores are not published for those who move on, so even now we don't know how they are doing in the contest except for having made the final round tomorrow), and we were settled in for their performance.
For their second song, they chose an arrangement (done for them) of the Luther Vandross song "Dance with My Father Again", an incredibly moving piece about a boy's reminiscence about his dad, that is worth seeing Vandross do on YouTube, so here goes.
Daniel Cochran (at bottom in the picture) is the lead singer, and he did what you are supposed to do as a lead, even (or especially) when in a contest -- you take us on a journey. Well, he took us on a journey all right. He is, let us say, a pretty big guy, and when a big guy is telling us a moving story, you go with him wherever it leads.
Of course, it led us in the audience, even 2,000 miles away, into emotional wrecks. But I was particularly taken when, toward the end of the song, at its emotional climax, there is to be a brief pause to set up for the final few bars -- the "tag", in barbershop parlance, this one a soft, quiet tag.
The pause, though, was not brief. As his quartet mates turned to him, this very large man who was telling us a story had stopped for the pause. It was quite obvious that the song had gotten to him somewhere in a very important place. Tears were running down his cheeks as he tried to compose himself for the final lines, which started with a solo from the lead. And we waited ... and waited.
Finally, he took a deep breath and was able to sing, clearly, his line, whereupon the other three, looking at him, joined at the appropriate place and they finished their wish -- to "dance with my father again." The audience, of course, went crazy, because this was the perfect delivery of a story. It is why I wrote the previous piece -- we want moments when the performance of the story joins the story itself for a perfect emotional moment.
I was a wreck on the couch watching it, and loved every minute of it, for just that reason. Two thousand miles away, but I got to take a trip. My Dad has been gone six years now, and we never "danced" together, but we had a childhood I got to relive last night for a moment. I can't thank them enough.
Later in the evening, Signature was interviewed about their set. As it turned out, they had planned for the possibility that they -- and Daniel in particular -- might be so moved as to have to adjust on stage for the intensity of their emotions. You can't practice that, of course, but you can plan for it. And they did. Their plan was to "just get together and support each other" if it happened, and that's what they were able to do. We don't know how things scored yet, but I can imagine.
At some point, that performance may show up on YouTube, and if it does, I'll link you in. You'll be teary too.
And you will love it.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
My point was that it feels good to tap into deep emotions once in a while, even if you're a guy and even if they make you tear up a bit. That's not, I believed then and do now, a bad thing. It is a healthy check on one's sanity to make sure we have empathy and the capability to be moved.
I made the connection with the emotions generated by watching "Long Lost Family" to barbershop singing, precisely because the stories we sing can generate that kind of response.
As I write this, the international convention and contests of the Barbershop Harmony Society are being held in Las Vegas, Nevada, and thousands are in attendance to hear the absolute best in an art form where the best are incredible (and the worst are unlistenably atrocious). The best, of course, are on display in Las Vegas this week.
The quartet competition, of course, features the best. On Wednesday, 55 competitors sing two songs, after which the field is narrowed to 20, who did a second round on Thursday. From them, ten are selected for the Finals on Saturday night, and the top five earn medals -- gold, silver and then three bronze medals for 3rd-5th.
Since champions automatically retire as competitors (the one quartet everyone knows, the Buffalo Bills from "The Music Man", were the 1950 champions), there is turnover every year in the medal ranks. And so it was that last night my best girl and I watched the webcast broadcast of the competition at home on our TV screen.
Last year, a Florida quartet called "Signature" moved up strongly from the previous year, earning fourth-place medals and showing a marvelous capacity to deliver songs with immense heart.
 |
| Signature, in a more benign and pleasant moment |
For their second song, they chose an arrangement (done for them) of the Luther Vandross song "Dance with My Father Again", an incredibly moving piece about a boy's reminiscence about his dad, that is worth seeing Vandross do on YouTube, so here goes.
Daniel Cochran (at bottom in the picture) is the lead singer, and he did what you are supposed to do as a lead, even (or especially) when in a contest -- you take us on a journey. Well, he took us on a journey all right. He is, let us say, a pretty big guy, and when a big guy is telling us a moving story, you go with him wherever it leads.
Of course, it led us in the audience, even 2,000 miles away, into emotional wrecks. But I was particularly taken when, toward the end of the song, at its emotional climax, there is to be a brief pause to set up for the final few bars -- the "tag", in barbershop parlance, this one a soft, quiet tag.
The pause, though, was not brief. As his quartet mates turned to him, this very large man who was telling us a story had stopped for the pause. It was quite obvious that the song had gotten to him somewhere in a very important place. Tears were running down his cheeks as he tried to compose himself for the final lines, which started with a solo from the lead. And we waited ... and waited.
Finally, he took a deep breath and was able to sing, clearly, his line, whereupon the other three, looking at him, joined at the appropriate place and they finished their wish -- to "dance with my father again." The audience, of course, went crazy, because this was the perfect delivery of a story. It is why I wrote the previous piece -- we want moments when the performance of the story joins the story itself for a perfect emotional moment.
I was a wreck on the couch watching it, and loved every minute of it, for just that reason. Two thousand miles away, but I got to take a trip. My Dad has been gone six years now, and we never "danced" together, but we had a childhood I got to relive last night for a moment. I can't thank them enough.
Later in the evening, Signature was interviewed about their set. As it turned out, they had planned for the possibility that they -- and Daniel in particular -- might be so moved as to have to adjust on stage for the intensity of their emotions. You can't practice that, of course, but you can plan for it. And they did. Their plan was to "just get together and support each other" if it happened, and that's what they were able to do. We don't know how things scored yet, but I can imagine.
At some point, that performance may show up on YouTube, and if it does, I'll link you in. You'll be teary too.
And you will love it.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Thursday, July 6, 2017
A Question for the Press
We're now into the sixth month of the Trump Administration, and if there is one contentious issue that has driven the opposition, it is the notion that the Trump people "colluded" with Russian interests to affect the 2016 election in favor of President Trump and against Hillary Clinton.
We obviously know now that the Russians tried to do something, confirmed by about three of the alleged 17 intelligence agencies we have. Who the other 14 are, and why they didn't sign up to the report on Russians trying to affect the election, we don't know, but we're quite comfortable with the fact that the Russians did try, and that they were not successful. Stipulated.
Even this past day, the leftist press, given the opportunity to ask the president about actually important things in Poland, tried to force him to say that the Russians tried to hack the election. This, of course, gave President Trump the opportunity to point out that Barack Obama knew about the attempt last year and didn't do squat about it, unless you regard a "stern professorial warning" to be squat.
The pomposity of the left and the press (but I repeat myself) in regard to the Russian hacking is about to be challenged by someone, and though I don't know who else, it will certainly be me and certainly in this column.
We know, or at least can assume by the utter lack of evidence, that there was no speck of collusion between the Trump people and Russian hackers. Six months into the presidency with a desperate press, you would have seen at least something, and there has been nothing.
But the press is still singing the hacking ditty over and over, which leads to this column.
The Russians tried. We know that. They didn't change a vote, and we know that, too. They have tried to hack pretty much every election since the czar tried to stop George Washington's second term, and we have always known that. And the press is incensed that they tried to hack the 2016 election, not because it was the Russians but because it robbed them of their sainted Hillary Clinton.
Since they can't admit that last line, they have to claim the high road and say that they're so upset "because the sanctity of our election process is so suspect."
OK, the sanctity is suspect. But does that mean that, as sensitive as they are about the sanctity of our elections, that they would be equally outraged at domestic attempts to rig the election?
Apparently not.
President Trump has formed a commission to investigate the security of elections in this country, specifically as relates to voter fraud. This commission has asked each state and the District of Columbia for publicly available voter rolls and registration information -- data that the states give to the party organizations already.
So far, though, 14 states and the DC government have refused to comply. And CNN has opined that the Commission on Election Integrity is a "sham" designed to suppress Democrat voters.
Let's get this straight. It is perfectly awful if the Russians try to influence our elections by doing whatever they were trying to do (and failed). That is terrible, and CNN can go on a months-long rant about it.
But if the president -- this president -- then tries to investigate voter fraud that we know has happened, by examining the voter registration rolls to start looking for duplication, dead voters and non-citizen registration, well, somehow that is not a good thing to do.
It is OK for the Democrat machine in Chicago and Philadelphia and wherever else to gin up phony voters all day without being investigated, and it's OK for the states to decline to give public information to the Federal government to help fix the problem. It's OK for non-citizens to vote for our leadership. But it's not OK to investigate.
So here are a couple questions for CNN and the rest of the press.
1. Dear CNN -- after six months or so of investigating, including the hiring of a special counsel to explore the actions of the president in regard to Russian hacking, zero evidence of any such collusion has appeared. Yet you continue to support an investigation to "see where it leads." There is evidence of voter fraud, but you regard the commission set up by the president to investigate it as a "sham." Why does zero evidence of collusion warrant an investigation, but demonstrable voter fraud does not?
2. Dear CNN and, by extension, the rest of the press -- you are so, so concerned about the integrity of the voting process in this country, to the point that you would repeatedly cry about our elections being suspect due to Russian hacking. Yet you defend the states -- the only time you ever claim states' rights, we should note -- for holding back information that would help the Federal government identify potentially thousands upon thousands of fraudulent ballots by ineligible, fictitious or dead voters. So do you actually care about the integrity of the American election system, or are you just being partisan because it was initiated by President Trump?
Let's ask those questions, shall we?
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
We obviously know now that the Russians tried to do something, confirmed by about three of the alleged 17 intelligence agencies we have. Who the other 14 are, and why they didn't sign up to the report on Russians trying to affect the election, we don't know, but we're quite comfortable with the fact that the Russians did try, and that they were not successful. Stipulated.
Even this past day, the leftist press, given the opportunity to ask the president about actually important things in Poland, tried to force him to say that the Russians tried to hack the election. This, of course, gave President Trump the opportunity to point out that Barack Obama knew about the attempt last year and didn't do squat about it, unless you regard a "stern professorial warning" to be squat.
The pomposity of the left and the press (but I repeat myself) in regard to the Russian hacking is about to be challenged by someone, and though I don't know who else, it will certainly be me and certainly in this column.
We know, or at least can assume by the utter lack of evidence, that there was no speck of collusion between the Trump people and Russian hackers. Six months into the presidency with a desperate press, you would have seen at least something, and there has been nothing.
But the press is still singing the hacking ditty over and over, which leads to this column.
The Russians tried. We know that. They didn't change a vote, and we know that, too. They have tried to hack pretty much every election since the czar tried to stop George Washington's second term, and we have always known that. And the press is incensed that they tried to hack the 2016 election, not because it was the Russians but because it robbed them of their sainted Hillary Clinton.
Since they can't admit that last line, they have to claim the high road and say that they're so upset "because the sanctity of our election process is so suspect."
OK, the sanctity is suspect. But does that mean that, as sensitive as they are about the sanctity of our elections, that they would be equally outraged at domestic attempts to rig the election?
Apparently not.
President Trump has formed a commission to investigate the security of elections in this country, specifically as relates to voter fraud. This commission has asked each state and the District of Columbia for publicly available voter rolls and registration information -- data that the states give to the party organizations already.
So far, though, 14 states and the DC government have refused to comply. And CNN has opined that the Commission on Election Integrity is a "sham" designed to suppress Democrat voters.
Let's get this straight. It is perfectly awful if the Russians try to influence our elections by doing whatever they were trying to do (and failed). That is terrible, and CNN can go on a months-long rant about it.
But if the president -- this president -- then tries to investigate voter fraud that we know has happened, by examining the voter registration rolls to start looking for duplication, dead voters and non-citizen registration, well, somehow that is not a good thing to do.
It is OK for the Democrat machine in Chicago and Philadelphia and wherever else to gin up phony voters all day without being investigated, and it's OK for the states to decline to give public information to the Federal government to help fix the problem. It's OK for non-citizens to vote for our leadership. But it's not OK to investigate.
So here are a couple questions for CNN and the rest of the press.
1. Dear CNN -- after six months or so of investigating, including the hiring of a special counsel to explore the actions of the president in regard to Russian hacking, zero evidence of any such collusion has appeared. Yet you continue to support an investigation to "see where it leads." There is evidence of voter fraud, but you regard the commission set up by the president to investigate it as a "sham." Why does zero evidence of collusion warrant an investigation, but demonstrable voter fraud does not?
2. Dear CNN and, by extension, the rest of the press -- you are so, so concerned about the integrity of the voting process in this country, to the point that you would repeatedly cry about our elections being suspect due to Russian hacking. Yet you defend the states -- the only time you ever claim states' rights, we should note -- for holding back information that would help the Federal government identify potentially thousands upon thousands of fraudulent ballots by ineligible, fictitious or dead voters. So do you actually care about the integrity of the American election system, or are you just being partisan because it was initiated by President Trump?
Let's ask those questions, shall we?
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
To My Russian Friends
As I've noted a few times, because I have had to, this column is an interesting read in Russia. Periodically, and for no particular reason, the report of IP address sources of those who read me starts getting heavy on Russian readers. That would be until I would point it out in an article, after which time the Russian reading would simply stop. For a while.
This week, it went nuts. Aside to vendors of borscht and vodka -- if you want to reach a receptive audience, definitely start advertising here. At one point, the majority of readers in the preceding 24 hours were Russians.
So this time, using the relatively primitive analytics and simplistic results available via the Blogger capability, I thought I would try to match the readers with the pieces and see what I came up with. And this is what I saw.
You would have thought that the Russians were interested in one or perhaps two pieces that I had done in which Russians were mentioned, or which were about a topic of great interest in Moscow or Dnepopetrovsk. I certainly would have thought that, myself.
But no, actually, it wasn't that way at all.
The Russians were reading all of the recent month or so worth of articles, without any apparent preference for one or the other or any specific piece. There was no one piece that was so specifically highly read by the Russians, as to think it was the specific content of a piece or anything I had written that encouraged their interest.
So what we are dealing with at this point is that, for reasons which escape me, the Russians really like the stuff I write. And so this piece is to celebrate my newly-minted Russian friends and tell them "hello."
Let's face it, I have not a shred of animosity against Russians simply for being Russian. As even Nancy Pelosi would have to agree, I'm not an anti-Russian bigot. My favorite hockey team for some reason is the Washington Capitals, and they are led by Russian Alexander Ovechkin, and their roster is led by Evgeny Kuznetsov and Dimitry Orlov, both Russians.
I'm not a real fan of their government, of course, but I am rooting for more global warming so that more of Russia will be able to be farmed for longer periods, to help feed the hungry around the world. I seem to be alone on that.
So to the Russians out there who are reading me, hearts and flowers to you all, but I sure wish that if you like my writing so much, that you would help keep this column alive by advertising in its pages. There over 680 pieces here and they're all really good essays that your Russian friends would surely love, even if they're all in English and I don't speak Russian.
After all, if they are reading not just one piece they deem inflammatory, but actually a whole month or two worth, it must mean that they like me, they really, really like me, and who couldn't be happy with that?
Hoping that they won't get scared off by being referred to yet once again.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
This week, it went nuts. Aside to vendors of borscht and vodka -- if you want to reach a receptive audience, definitely start advertising here. At one point, the majority of readers in the preceding 24 hours were Russians.
So this time, using the relatively primitive analytics and simplistic results available via the Blogger capability, I thought I would try to match the readers with the pieces and see what I came up with. And this is what I saw.
You would have thought that the Russians were interested in one or perhaps two pieces that I had done in which Russians were mentioned, or which were about a topic of great interest in Moscow or Dnepopetrovsk. I certainly would have thought that, myself.
But no, actually, it wasn't that way at all.
The Russians were reading all of the recent month or so worth of articles, without any apparent preference for one or the other or any specific piece. There was no one piece that was so specifically highly read by the Russians, as to think it was the specific content of a piece or anything I had written that encouraged their interest.
So what we are dealing with at this point is that, for reasons which escape me, the Russians really like the stuff I write. And so this piece is to celebrate my newly-minted Russian friends and tell them "hello."
Let's face it, I have not a shred of animosity against Russians simply for being Russian. As even Nancy Pelosi would have to agree, I'm not an anti-Russian bigot. My favorite hockey team for some reason is the Washington Capitals, and they are led by Russian Alexander Ovechkin, and their roster is led by Evgeny Kuznetsov and Dimitry Orlov, both Russians.
I'm not a real fan of their government, of course, but I am rooting for more global warming so that more of Russia will be able to be farmed for longer periods, to help feed the hungry around the world. I seem to be alone on that.
So to the Russians out there who are reading me, hearts and flowers to you all, but I sure wish that if you like my writing so much, that you would help keep this column alive by advertising in its pages. There over 680 pieces here and they're all really good essays that your Russian friends would surely love, even if they're all in English and I don't speak Russian.
After all, if they are reading not just one piece they deem inflammatory, but actually a whole month or two worth, it must mean that they like me, they really, really like me, and who couldn't be happy with that?
Hoping that they won't get scared off by being referred to yet once again.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Happy Fourth
Take a deep breath, everyone.
Take the day off. Jump in a pool. Watch fireworks. Play golf. Call your relatives. Watch a baseball game, and definitely grill something outdoors.
And somewhere during the day, remember that when people are in trouble around the world, the one flag they want to see coming over the ridge to help them out is the one that flies outside the houses of people all across this great country.
Celebrate that, and take a break from all the rest of the nonsense today.
Be Americans. Be proud.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Take the day off. Jump in a pool. Watch fireworks. Play golf. Call your relatives. Watch a baseball game, and definitely grill something outdoors.
And somewhere during the day, remember that when people are in trouble around the world, the one flag they want to see coming over the ridge to help them out is the one that flies outside the houses of people all across this great country.
Celebrate that, and take a break from all the rest of the nonsense today.
Be Americans. Be proud.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Monday, July 3, 2017
What is a "National Debate"?
A day or three back I was watching the news, when one commentator or guest pundit was addressing some topical issue. Maybe it was immigration, maybe defunding Planned Parenthood. Maybe it was Russia, or abortion, or Red Sox vs. Yankees.
The guest ended his remarks by saying that we "needed to have a national debate" on the issue. And boom, another column.
I have heard that term, "national debate", tossed around more times than I can imagine. But never, not even once, can I recall there having ever been a national debate on anything. Certainly I cannot recall anyone saying "Well, we had a national debate on that issue, and we decided X."
Let's say that President Trump responded to the call from that pundit by saying, "OK, cool, I agree. I call for and direct that there shall be a national debate on that topic." Then what? Follow what I'm saying? What is a national debate?
Well, obviously there has not been one, there never will be one, and we should probably stop talking as if that sort of thing is a possibility. Let's purge the term.
A "debate", in pretty much every acceptable meaning, consists of two sides with opposing views on the issue in question, making their cases to each other or two a third entity. In competitive debates, the third party is a judging entity that decides not who is "right" but who made the better case.
That's why a "national debate" doesn't match that at all. I don't care if tax policy or abortion advocates or their opponents make the better case; I care that we determine what is "right." Which, of course, we never will in the latter case, because abortion is a moral issue with half the USA on each side.
In a national debate on a non-moral issue, like tax reform, who makes the case for each side? And who votes? I mean, Congress can't be the forum, since the members are so completely unwilling to tolerate the arguments of those of the opposite party that we have Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren literally playing the "children will die" card on the health insurance issue when they know it to be total elk dung.
What if someone like Steve Mnuchin or, better, Mick Mulvaney took the side that tax cuts are inherently positive, and Schumer took the other side. Suppose Mulvaney gets 20 minutes to go through the historical precedents and show that Federal tax cuts invariable increase revenue and stimulate the economy. Then Schumer gets up for his 20 and says Schumer stuff, like "fairness" and "tax the rich" and "children will die."
Who then decides who won and, therefore, what legislation should reach the President's desk accordingly?
See what I mean? The next guy or lady who calls for a national debate needs to get called on it, and to say exactly what that means, the terms, the participants, the outcome, the jurisdiction and jurisprudence, and the outcome when one side is declared the winner.
Yeah, that'll do it.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
The guest ended his remarks by saying that we "needed to have a national debate" on the issue. And boom, another column.
I have heard that term, "national debate", tossed around more times than I can imagine. But never, not even once, can I recall there having ever been a national debate on anything. Certainly I cannot recall anyone saying "Well, we had a national debate on that issue, and we decided X."
Let's say that President Trump responded to the call from that pundit by saying, "OK, cool, I agree. I call for and direct that there shall be a national debate on that topic." Then what? Follow what I'm saying? What is a national debate?
Well, obviously there has not been one, there never will be one, and we should probably stop talking as if that sort of thing is a possibility. Let's purge the term.
A "debate", in pretty much every acceptable meaning, consists of two sides with opposing views on the issue in question, making their cases to each other or two a third entity. In competitive debates, the third party is a judging entity that decides not who is "right" but who made the better case.
That's why a "national debate" doesn't match that at all. I don't care if tax policy or abortion advocates or their opponents make the better case; I care that we determine what is "right." Which, of course, we never will in the latter case, because abortion is a moral issue with half the USA on each side.
In a national debate on a non-moral issue, like tax reform, who makes the case for each side? And who votes? I mean, Congress can't be the forum, since the members are so completely unwilling to tolerate the arguments of those of the opposite party that we have Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren literally playing the "children will die" card on the health insurance issue when they know it to be total elk dung.
What if someone like Steve Mnuchin or, better, Mick Mulvaney took the side that tax cuts are inherently positive, and Schumer took the other side. Suppose Mulvaney gets 20 minutes to go through the historical precedents and show that Federal tax cuts invariable increase revenue and stimulate the economy. Then Schumer gets up for his 20 and says Schumer stuff, like "fairness" and "tax the rich" and "children will die."
Who then decides who won and, therefore, what legislation should reach the President's desk accordingly?
See what I mean? The next guy or lady who calls for a national debate needs to get called on it, and to say exactly what that means, the terms, the participants, the outcome, the jurisdiction and jurisprudence, and the outcome when one side is declared the winner.
Yeah, that'll do it.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Televising Press Conferences?
I'm not a TV news junkie by any means, even though as I work through the day there is indeed a news channel on the TV ten feet away in my office. But I suppose I have enjoyed having the daily White House press briefings in the early afternoon as an appetizer, or amuse bouche, or whatever is the appropriate metaphor, according to the Food Network.
It would appear that this White House is mostly changing the pattern of those daily briefings, so that instead of a daily, cameras-to-the-ready TV-packaged broadcast, the press secretary will answer questions in a public, but not broadcast, "gaggle" with the various networks' White House correspondents.
So, is that a good idea?
Well, if you have not seen any of the public briefings in the Trump era, I can probably give you an idea. The press secretary, Sean Spicer, whose job I would never want, would make a statement for a few minutes, indicating what was on the president's agenda for the day, whom he was meeting with, and what had been accomplished between the executive branch and Congress that day or that week.
When that was over, the correspondents from the various networks would simply ignore anything that was briefed by the press secretary, and ask questions about the hoax involving President Trump and Russia. Then they asked more questions about the hoax, or about obstruction of justice, or whether [fill in the blank] should resign, again, none of which involved the actual news of the day.
So the question is, if the press is generally going to use the press briefing for the purpose of asking questions for which they already know the answer, about made-up stories that have no basis in fact and have no relationship to the needs of the public the president was elected to serve, then why have the briefing at all?
OK, there is no reason to have them, if the press members are going to embarrass themselves by trying to be the story, trying to be the one asking the question on camera that is the "Gotcha" question of the day. And remember, the press secretary and his deputy are more than smart enough not to embarrass their boss.
So now that fellow Acosta from CNN, the network whose leader already is on tape saying that they were pushing the Russia hoax regardless of its lack of veracity, is complaining that somehow "access to the White House is diminished" if the press briefings are not on camera. That, of course, is idiotic. Access is exactly the same, and the press will get the same amount of access whether or not the cameras are on them.
What the complaints by CNN are about is not access by the press to the White House, it is about wanting to be on camera themselves asking questions. It is not the answers that are being hidden by no-camera rules, it is the video of the reporters asking the questions. The USA will get the answers as long as the press asks the questions and prints the answers. If they feel that they can only ask questions if they have makeup on, well, that's not my issue.
So while I will certainly miss the daily briefings for their entertainment value, the media's pomposity in whining about one fewer option to be on TV is enough to get me to go along with the White House on this one.
Have a nice weekend!
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
It would appear that this White House is mostly changing the pattern of those daily briefings, so that instead of a daily, cameras-to-the-ready TV-packaged broadcast, the press secretary will answer questions in a public, but not broadcast, "gaggle" with the various networks' White House correspondents.
So, is that a good idea?
Well, if you have not seen any of the public briefings in the Trump era, I can probably give you an idea. The press secretary, Sean Spicer, whose job I would never want, would make a statement for a few minutes, indicating what was on the president's agenda for the day, whom he was meeting with, and what had been accomplished between the executive branch and Congress that day or that week.
When that was over, the correspondents from the various networks would simply ignore anything that was briefed by the press secretary, and ask questions about the hoax involving President Trump and Russia. Then they asked more questions about the hoax, or about obstruction of justice, or whether [fill in the blank] should resign, again, none of which involved the actual news of the day.
So the question is, if the press is generally going to use the press briefing for the purpose of asking questions for which they already know the answer, about made-up stories that have no basis in fact and have no relationship to the needs of the public the president was elected to serve, then why have the briefing at all?
OK, there is no reason to have them, if the press members are going to embarrass themselves by trying to be the story, trying to be the one asking the question on camera that is the "Gotcha" question of the day. And remember, the press secretary and his deputy are more than smart enough not to embarrass their boss.
So now that fellow Acosta from CNN, the network whose leader already is on tape saying that they were pushing the Russia hoax regardless of its lack of veracity, is complaining that somehow "access to the White House is diminished" if the press briefings are not on camera. That, of course, is idiotic. Access is exactly the same, and the press will get the same amount of access whether or not the cameras are on them.
What the complaints by CNN are about is not access by the press to the White House, it is about wanting to be on camera themselves asking questions. It is not the answers that are being hidden by no-camera rules, it is the video of the reporters asking the questions. The USA will get the answers as long as the press asks the questions and prints the answers. If they feel that they can only ask questions if they have makeup on, well, that's not my issue.
So while I will certainly miss the daily briefings for their entertainment value, the media's pomposity in whining about one fewer option to be on TV is enough to get me to go along with the White House on this one.
Have a nice weekend!
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Surprising Coins -- and License Plates (?)
The sound of jingling coins in one's pocket appears to be going the way of the Klaxon horn and the voice of Hillary Clinton, as something we will probably hear a lot less of anymore. I'm struggling with whether that's a good thing.
OK, never having to hear Hillary Clinton's voice is a great thing. We can all settle on that.
This is a non-political piece, and occurred to me only when my best girl was going for her nail appointment a day or so back. The place insists on the tipping being done in cash, which means you might have to have a few singles available. Now, I do indeed occasionally use one-dollar bills (or any bills, for that matter), but only to tip the bag guy at the golf course, and I happened to be low on them when she asked me.
So I said I would go to the grocery next door and buy a bottle of coffee creamer to get a bunch of singles in change (we actually needed creamer, otherwise I would have begged them to change a ten).
Along with the singles, of course, came change. Metal change, the kind that jingles in your pocket. three quarters and a nickel worth. And then I made the fatal mistake of looking at it.
I have not looked at change in I-don't-know-how-long. I haven't used change in months. Literally, months. And perhaps I should have, or maybe not. After all, the reason that we have not used change is that disruptive technology called the "debit card." You all have one; you spend only money that actually sits in your bank, so you are not going into debt when you spend it. You can't.
And with a pocketful of change for the first time in a year, I realized how different things were from the old days when cash was king. Cash was good, because it was universally acceptable, and spending it represented use of money you actually had, meaning no debt. But now the debit card has itself become so universally accepted that cash is far, far less touched for daily transactions -- particularly those involving sub-dollar amounts.
This was brought home, as I mentioned, when I actually looked at the coins and discovered that they weren't your grandfather's quarters and nickels. In fact, they weren't your older brother's quarters and nickels, either.
The nickel had this oppositely-profiled depiction of Thomas Jefferson versus what I had become used to since, well, birth. Yes, I know that has been the depiction on the nickel for a dozen years or so, but it just pointed out how little we look at coins anymore.
What was really surprising was the quarter. I mean, there were three as I said, but two of them were decades old, even before those "state" quarters that at least had the same picture of the Father of our Country. The other was -- well, it had only a slightly altered picture of George Washington on it, but the back was positively bizarre. As it turned out, it was one of the "America the Beautiful" series that has been going on for a few years, celebrating national parks and other sights in the many states.
But as I looked closely at what was a pretty newly-struck coin, I realized that I could barely read the words on the back, and not because my contacts were out of focus. The letters were small, and I mean "small" like the letters under the bust of Washington with the initials of the designer. That small.
I wouldn't really care, except that if the whole purpose of the quarter series was to celebrate the sights of the country, wouldn't it have made sense to make the name of the attraction big enough so that the user of the coin would actually know what park was being depicted? I'm only asking now, several years after the series started, because it's been that long since I handled a quarter, let alone paid attention to what was on it.
I know this is a pointless ramble, but I am going to make it even more pointless.
Looking at the silliness of the way the quarters are now designed, I was reminded of another thing that would be a pet peeve of mine, except that I'm not a cop.
Wherever you live, you are probably in a state that 50 years ago had one license plate style, with the same background color, same color lettering and numbering for everyone, and the only difference might be a slightly different numbering pattern for dealer plates, or for trucks. That was it.
Somewhere along the line, someone got the idea that the states could soak up a lot more revenue by designing and selling scads of different vanity plate styles. For example, when I lived in Virginia, I remember going to the DMV (you never forget going to the DMV) and seeing a display with at least 50 vanity plate styles, and with no fewer than ten that had colors of background and letters/numbers that were completely different from the normal, here-you-go Virginia plate that I ultimately got.
And I started to wonder. Suppose you are a state trooper in, let's say, Missouri. A car goes whizzing by, and you note down the plate number and state -- but wait a minute, what the heck state was that plate? If there are a dozen different styles from Virginia alone, how many hundreds are in use now overall from all the other states?
Like I said, I'm not a cop, so I really shouldn't care all that much, except that not only cops have to identify cars by their license plates in emergency situations. You and I do in, say, a hit and run case. If the cops can't track all the plates, how do the rest of us?
That quarter I looked at briefly, well, I thought at first it was Canadian (obligatory "no offense" issued here to the land of the loonies and toonies and moose). I really did. In fact, that's when my mind ran off to thinking about license plates.
And then I remembered that I shouldn't worry about coins any more than I concerned myself about whose face would be on the $20 bill in 2030. We won't use enough of either, thanks to the debit card, to care one bit.
And now, back to politics. Or sports, or something. Ramble, ramble, ramble.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
OK, never having to hear Hillary Clinton's voice is a great thing. We can all settle on that.
This is a non-political piece, and occurred to me only when my best girl was going for her nail appointment a day or so back. The place insists on the tipping being done in cash, which means you might have to have a few singles available. Now, I do indeed occasionally use one-dollar bills (or any bills, for that matter), but only to tip the bag guy at the golf course, and I happened to be low on them when she asked me.
So I said I would go to the grocery next door and buy a bottle of coffee creamer to get a bunch of singles in change (we actually needed creamer, otherwise I would have begged them to change a ten).
Along with the singles, of course, came change. Metal change, the kind that jingles in your pocket. three quarters and a nickel worth. And then I made the fatal mistake of looking at it.
I have not looked at change in I-don't-know-how-long. I haven't used change in months. Literally, months. And perhaps I should have, or maybe not. After all, the reason that we have not used change is that disruptive technology called the "debit card." You all have one; you spend only money that actually sits in your bank, so you are not going into debt when you spend it. You can't.
And with a pocketful of change for the first time in a year, I realized how different things were from the old days when cash was king. Cash was good, because it was universally acceptable, and spending it represented use of money you actually had, meaning no debt. But now the debit card has itself become so universally accepted that cash is far, far less touched for daily transactions -- particularly those involving sub-dollar amounts.
This was brought home, as I mentioned, when I actually looked at the coins and discovered that they weren't your grandfather's quarters and nickels. In fact, they weren't your older brother's quarters and nickels, either.
The nickel had this oppositely-profiled depiction of Thomas Jefferson versus what I had become used to since, well, birth. Yes, I know that has been the depiction on the nickel for a dozen years or so, but it just pointed out how little we look at coins anymore.
What was really surprising was the quarter. I mean, there were three as I said, but two of them were decades old, even before those "state" quarters that at least had the same picture of the Father of our Country. The other was -- well, it had only a slightly altered picture of George Washington on it, but the back was positively bizarre. As it turned out, it was one of the "America the Beautiful" series that has been going on for a few years, celebrating national parks and other sights in the many states.
But as I looked closely at what was a pretty newly-struck coin, I realized that I could barely read the words on the back, and not because my contacts were out of focus. The letters were small, and I mean "small" like the letters under the bust of Washington with the initials of the designer. That small.
I wouldn't really care, except that if the whole purpose of the quarter series was to celebrate the sights of the country, wouldn't it have made sense to make the name of the attraction big enough so that the user of the coin would actually know what park was being depicted? I'm only asking now, several years after the series started, because it's been that long since I handled a quarter, let alone paid attention to what was on it.
I know this is a pointless ramble, but I am going to make it even more pointless.
Looking at the silliness of the way the quarters are now designed, I was reminded of another thing that would be a pet peeve of mine, except that I'm not a cop.
Wherever you live, you are probably in a state that 50 years ago had one license plate style, with the same background color, same color lettering and numbering for everyone, and the only difference might be a slightly different numbering pattern for dealer plates, or for trucks. That was it.
Somewhere along the line, someone got the idea that the states could soak up a lot more revenue by designing and selling scads of different vanity plate styles. For example, when I lived in Virginia, I remember going to the DMV (you never forget going to the DMV) and seeing a display with at least 50 vanity plate styles, and with no fewer than ten that had colors of background and letters/numbers that were completely different from the normal, here-you-go Virginia plate that I ultimately got.
And I started to wonder. Suppose you are a state trooper in, let's say, Missouri. A car goes whizzing by, and you note down the plate number and state -- but wait a minute, what the heck state was that plate? If there are a dozen different styles from Virginia alone, how many hundreds are in use now overall from all the other states?
Like I said, I'm not a cop, so I really shouldn't care all that much, except that not only cops have to identify cars by their license plates in emergency situations. You and I do in, say, a hit and run case. If the cops can't track all the plates, how do the rest of us?
That quarter I looked at briefly, well, I thought at first it was Canadian (obligatory "no offense" issued here to the land of the loonies and toonies and moose). I really did. In fact, that's when my mind ran off to thinking about license plates.
And then I remembered that I shouldn't worry about coins any more than I concerned myself about whose face would be on the $20 bill in 2030. We won't use enough of either, thanks to the debit card, to care one bit.
And now, back to politics. Or sports, or something. Ramble, ramble, ramble.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Health Care and Health Insurance
So now the Senate will delay, slightly, the introduction of a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, which the bill is not actually going to do, which is one of the reasons that is, in fact, being delayed. At some point, the Senate may come up with something that it is willing to vote on.
As I wrote earlier this week, what they actually end up voting on will be a bit different from what the initial bill was, and will be further altered -- if it does pass the Senate -- when it gets into a conference committee with House members to settle on something that both houses can support.
But that's not today's point. As I wrote before, we can't debate the quality of a bill today that won't be what becomes law.
But we can debate the overall implications.
You see, this is perpetually referred to as a "health care bill", which it is not. The bill, like Obamacare was, has little to do with health care at all, and everything to do with health insurance. Much like earlier comments about opposing forces talking past each other, here both sides, in referring to it as a health care bill, are talking past reality.
"Health care" is what doctors and other medical professionals offer patients. There is "healthy care", like physicals and preventive actions, and there is "sick care", rendered to those in need of treatment, but it all comes under the umbrella of health care and that discussion is different.
When people say they have a "right to health care", they're still saying they have a right to "treatment", and that has to be properly regarded. I actually don't think we should say that anyone has a right to health care. I prefer to think of it that a just and kind society takes care of those unable to afford treatment for their ills, by offering at least a modicum of care.
"Modicum", of course, has to acknowledge that the delivery of health care to the poor, like any other charitable act of government, must respect government's stewardship of the taxpayer's dollars. Obamacare, for example, ignored that by trying to make an unlimited transfer of taxpayers' dollars into the health care system funneled through the government, even though government has never shown the capability to improve any such system.
What people have to distinguish is a "right to health care" vs. a "right to health insurance." They are so not the same thing. The left, which creates rights out of thin air, would have you believe there is a right to insurance, which is relevant because the bills being debated are about essentially the regulation of the insurance industry.
The attempt in Obamacare was to give everyone access to insurance by forcing everyone to buy it or pay a fine. The CBO scoring of the Senate bill talked about 20 million Americans "losing insurance", but that's only because they assumed that the 20 million, formerly forced into buying something that didn't make sense and was too expensive, would make the sane judgment and not buy it. To me and, hopefully to you, voluntarily declining to buy something is not the same as having it taken.
To me, health care becomes better and more affordable when the goal of the insurance industry is properly aligned with what is best for the country. If you really step back and separate care from insurance, I think you get this:
- There is a network of health care professionals out there available and physically accessible to all Americans to treat them.
- There are gradations of care that can be delivered, from basic to incredibly aggressive, with costs relative to the level of aggressiveness.
- Health care is a commodity.
- Because most people find it preferable to pay for health care monthly and predictably against periodic but unpredictable needs, we have insurance.
- Insurance is a business, predicated on the notion that people will pay in more in those monthly premiums than will cost the insurer over the life of the policy.
- Health insurance is also a commodity.
- The government's role in health insurance is not to provide it, but to do whatever is possible and constitutional to ensure that it is accessible to those who want it, at a price reflecting an open and competitive marketplace.
I grant you that starting from those principles is difficult, precisely because Obamacare made it so difficult to be dismantled. But we need to, if only so the American people can envision what a well-constructed, reasonably regulated health insurance system can even look like.
Start with access to insurance. To get prices down, you need to do two things -- lower costs (the costs of health care itself) and insinuate competition to the greatest extent possible. Health care costs can come down, of course, as soon as it is allowable, or even mandated, for those costs -- in physicians' offices, clinics and hospitals -- to be published and readily accessible to the public.
More importantly for this bill, health insurance needs to be as competitive as possible. Obamacare premiums are skyrocketing in most areas, precisely because competition has dropped to, in many places, no companies at all, and it has dropped because the Obamacare law made it impossible to make money selling insurance. So clearly, we have to work toward there being a larger number of companies, competing wherever they feel they can establish themselves.
But even as I write this, Chuck Schumer is on TV saying, "Sure, we Democrats will work with you, but you have to abandon tax breaks for the wealthy [sic], abandon cuts to Medicaid [of which there were none], and abandon repeal [of Obamacare]." Schumer clearly doesn't get it. The nation soundly rejected the Democrats in 2010, 2014 and 2016, predominantly because of Obamacare, yet in order to be blessed with St. Chuck's presence in a discussion, the Republicans have to abandon the notion of getting rid of the reason the Democrats were repeatedly rejected.
Aaaarrrgh.
We have to start with the insurance marketplace we actually would be best served by, which is one with the most competition, in which case the companies can actually provide insurance profitably but at competitive rates for the citizenry. We cannot mandate buying insurance, simply because it is remarkably unconstitutional at best, and odious at worst, that the Federal government would force the purchase of a commodity (the States, of course, can; q.v. mandatory auto insurance in order to register a car, but they have their own constitutions).
The work on the health-insurance bill appears to have been generally trying to pick apart at an entrenched Obamacare system, but that is like writing spaghetti code. They need to repeal and start again. Put a death date on Obamacare, like 31 December 2017, and that it will be repealed effective that date.
Then have something else ready that reflects reality, the Constitution, competition in insurance (like across state lines), and a capacity to provide health care through insurance for all who seek it. You've got time and a mandate from the people to do it right.
Not going to happen, but at least some thoughts there to consider, folks.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
As I wrote earlier this week, what they actually end up voting on will be a bit different from what the initial bill was, and will be further altered -- if it does pass the Senate -- when it gets into a conference committee with House members to settle on something that both houses can support.
But that's not today's point. As I wrote before, we can't debate the quality of a bill today that won't be what becomes law.
But we can debate the overall implications.
You see, this is perpetually referred to as a "health care bill", which it is not. The bill, like Obamacare was, has little to do with health care at all, and everything to do with health insurance. Much like earlier comments about opposing forces talking past each other, here both sides, in referring to it as a health care bill, are talking past reality.
"Health care" is what doctors and other medical professionals offer patients. There is "healthy care", like physicals and preventive actions, and there is "sick care", rendered to those in need of treatment, but it all comes under the umbrella of health care and that discussion is different.
When people say they have a "right to health care", they're still saying they have a right to "treatment", and that has to be properly regarded. I actually don't think we should say that anyone has a right to health care. I prefer to think of it that a just and kind society takes care of those unable to afford treatment for their ills, by offering at least a modicum of care.
"Modicum", of course, has to acknowledge that the delivery of health care to the poor, like any other charitable act of government, must respect government's stewardship of the taxpayer's dollars. Obamacare, for example, ignored that by trying to make an unlimited transfer of taxpayers' dollars into the health care system funneled through the government, even though government has never shown the capability to improve any such system.
What people have to distinguish is a "right to health care" vs. a "right to health insurance." They are so not the same thing. The left, which creates rights out of thin air, would have you believe there is a right to insurance, which is relevant because the bills being debated are about essentially the regulation of the insurance industry.
The attempt in Obamacare was to give everyone access to insurance by forcing everyone to buy it or pay a fine. The CBO scoring of the Senate bill talked about 20 million Americans "losing insurance", but that's only because they assumed that the 20 million, formerly forced into buying something that didn't make sense and was too expensive, would make the sane judgment and not buy it. To me and, hopefully to you, voluntarily declining to buy something is not the same as having it taken.
To me, health care becomes better and more affordable when the goal of the insurance industry is properly aligned with what is best for the country. If you really step back and separate care from insurance, I think you get this:
- There is a network of health care professionals out there available and physically accessible to all Americans to treat them.
- There are gradations of care that can be delivered, from basic to incredibly aggressive, with costs relative to the level of aggressiveness.
- Health care is a commodity.
- Because most people find it preferable to pay for health care monthly and predictably against periodic but unpredictable needs, we have insurance.
- Insurance is a business, predicated on the notion that people will pay in more in those monthly premiums than will cost the insurer over the life of the policy.
- Health insurance is also a commodity.
- The government's role in health insurance is not to provide it, but to do whatever is possible and constitutional to ensure that it is accessible to those who want it, at a price reflecting an open and competitive marketplace.
I grant you that starting from those principles is difficult, precisely because Obamacare made it so difficult to be dismantled. But we need to, if only so the American people can envision what a well-constructed, reasonably regulated health insurance system can even look like.
Start with access to insurance. To get prices down, you need to do two things -- lower costs (the costs of health care itself) and insinuate competition to the greatest extent possible. Health care costs can come down, of course, as soon as it is allowable, or even mandated, for those costs -- in physicians' offices, clinics and hospitals -- to be published and readily accessible to the public.
More importantly for this bill, health insurance needs to be as competitive as possible. Obamacare premiums are skyrocketing in most areas, precisely because competition has dropped to, in many places, no companies at all, and it has dropped because the Obamacare law made it impossible to make money selling insurance. So clearly, we have to work toward there being a larger number of companies, competing wherever they feel they can establish themselves.
But even as I write this, Chuck Schumer is on TV saying, "Sure, we Democrats will work with you, but you have to abandon tax breaks for the wealthy [sic], abandon cuts to Medicaid [of which there were none], and abandon repeal [of Obamacare]." Schumer clearly doesn't get it. The nation soundly rejected the Democrats in 2010, 2014 and 2016, predominantly because of Obamacare, yet in order to be blessed with St. Chuck's presence in a discussion, the Republicans have to abandon the notion of getting rid of the reason the Democrats were repeatedly rejected.
Aaaarrrgh.
We have to start with the insurance marketplace we actually would be best served by, which is one with the most competition, in which case the companies can actually provide insurance profitably but at competitive rates for the citizenry. We cannot mandate buying insurance, simply because it is remarkably unconstitutional at best, and odious at worst, that the Federal government would force the purchase of a commodity (the States, of course, can; q.v. mandatory auto insurance in order to register a car, but they have their own constitutions).
The work on the health-insurance bill appears to have been generally trying to pick apart at an entrenched Obamacare system, but that is like writing spaghetti code. They need to repeal and start again. Put a death date on Obamacare, like 31 December 2017, and that it will be repealed effective that date.
Then have something else ready that reflects reality, the Constitution, competition in insurance (like across state lines), and a capacity to provide health care through insurance for all who seek it. You've got time and a mandate from the people to do it right.
Not going to happen, but at least some thoughts there to consider, folks.
Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist." Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)