If he wanted to get Hillary elected, what would he be doing differently?
Category Archives: Political Commentary
Perp-Walk Shots
Ken White has some questions for Reuters:
Who leaked the time and place of the arrest? Was it an FBI agent, a prosecutor, staff, a coordinating local cop? How high up in the government did the decision to leak the arrest go? Did the leak violate the law? Did it violate the defendant’s rights? What was the government’s purpose in leaking the time and place of the arrest? How does this instance fit into the pattern of which arrests get leaked and which don’t? Which nonviolent defendants without records get arrested, and which get summonsed in (or self-surrender through arrangement with their lawyers), and why? What impact does a front-page picture of a defendant in handcuffs have on the jury pool? Is that impact a feature, or a bug, of leaking it? Was the leak intended to inflict extra-judicial humiliation and punishment on the defendant? If the government lies about whether or not it leaked, would you still keep it secret?
“Journalism.”
Hillary’s Criminal Investigation
…continues to move forward. It’s really amazing to see all of the crimes that she’s committed. And I’d forgotten about this one:
All of her behavior has triggered the FBI investigation because she may have committed serious federal crimes. For example, it is a crime to steal federal property. What did she steal? By diverting to her own venue the digital metadata that accompany all emails — metadata that, when attached to the work-related emails of a government employee, belong to the government — she stole that data. The metadata do not appear on her paper copies — hence the argument that she stole and destroyed the government-owned metadata.
This is particularly troublesome for her present political ambitions because of a federal statute that disqualifies from public office all who have stolen federal property. (She is probably already barred from public office — though this was not prominently raised when she entered the U.S. Senate or the Department of State — because of the china, silverware and furniture that she and her husband took from the White House in January 2001.)
I didn’t realize until the 90s how completely corrupt and indifferent to the law Democrats are.
A Trump Nomination
John Hinderaker is thinking the unthinkable:
…what should principled conservatives do if neither party nominates a candidate of the right? I would certainly vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, but I think the most reasonable response is to provide no support to the non-conservative presidential candidate beyond the ballot, and focus instead on other races where true conservatives are running.
Apart from the fact that I don’t think he would make much of a chief executive, a Trump presidency could have the unfortunate effect of further disillusioning many on the right. Voters on the right often say that politicians lie, and sometimes, of course, they do. But usually the “lie” is a case of over-promising. When they are campaigning, conservatives, like liberals, often overstate what they will be able to accomplish in office. This engenders disappointment. But imagine if conservatives were to elect Trump under the misguided belief that he is one of them. He presumably won’t govern as a conservative; he hasn’t even promised to. More likely, he will govern in accordance with his belief that the Democrats are right on most issues, particularly the economy, and consistent with his acceptance of big government. I am afraid that conservatives who vote for Trump expecting something different will be in for a rude awakening, should he win.
Yes, Trump has no discernible political principles. This reminds me very much of the Perot phenomenon in 1992. I disagree, though, that Trump is likely to be the nominee.
[Update a while later]
Related thoughts from Frank Cagle:
I think a Trump presidency would be a disaster. While he talks a good game, he has no practical way to carry out his promises. Like Cas, he will say anything to grab attention, get a headline and get on television. But his success should be a warning to the political establishment. The American people are fed up with political correctness, and if you do not provide sensible solutions to the issues Trump has raised, don’t be surprised when he stands on the podium as the GOP nominee.
Yup.
[Thursday-morning update]
Thoughts from Max Boot on Trump’s profound and dangerous ignorance. Yes. When you don’t know what you don’t know, how can you possibly even choose competent policy advisors?
NASA’s Budget
The omnibus bill provides a boost, and full funding of Commercial Crew, for the first time ever. It also allows NASA to apply Soyuz payments for 2018 flights to the program, to get it flying in 2017 (I still think they could fly next year if they were serious about it). Loren Grush has more. Unfortunately, it also increases the SLS budget.
On the milspace side, it also lifts the restriction on the RD-180, which McCain is going nuts about on the floor right now, according to Twitter. He’s lambasting Shelby and Durbin by name.
[Update a while later]
The worst part of the NASA budget is that it overfunds SLS at the expense of (as usual) technology.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here‘s the McCain story. Nutty.
Raul Castro
Barack Obama doesn’t see him as an ideologue.
Of course not. Like Obama, he’s a “pragmatist.”
Dear Parents
Things you should know about the university you’re sending your kid to, but don’t. A long, but brutal critique of modern academia:
…what remedy is there for the problems of declining student competence and increasing student illiteracy? Ability and literacy are the true deliverables of a university education, aren’t they? How is their disappearance to be managed?
The first remedy is simply to juke the stats. Over the past 14 years of teaching, my students’ grade point averages have steadily gone up while real student achievement has dropped precipitously. Papers I would have failed 10 years ago as unintelligible and failing to qualify as “university-level work” I now routinely assign grades of C or higher. Each time I do so I rub another little corner of my conscience off, cheat your daughter of an honest low grade or failure that might have been the womb of a real success, and add a little bit more unreality to an already unreal situation.
I am speaking, of course, of grade inflation. For faculty, the reasons for it range from a desire to avoid time-consuming student appeals to attempting to create a level playing field for their own students in comparison to others to securing work through high subscription rates rather than real popularity to cynical acceptance of the rule of the game. Since most degrees involve no real content, it doesn’t matter how they are assessed. Beyond questions of mere style, there are no grounds for assigning one ostensibly studious paper an A and another a B when both are illusory. So let the bottom rise to whatever height is necessary in your particular market, so long as there remains at least some type of performance arc that will maintain the appearance of merit.
For students, the motives for grade inflation are similar to those of their professors in some respects and different in others. Given the way the university game is currently played, they too desire a level playing field and understand the importance of appearing to be, if not actually being, competent in their chosen field. But as practices change so do habits of mind and expectations. As students are awarded ever-higher grades, over time they will begin to believe that they deserve such grades. If this practice begins early enough, say in middle or secondary school, it will become so entrenched that, by the time they reach university, any violation of it will be taken as a grievous and unwarranted denigration of their abilities. Perhaps somewhere deep down they know, as do we, that their degrees are worthless and their accomplishments illusory. But anyone who challenges them will very likely be hauled before an appeal board and asked to explain how she has the temerity to tell them their papers are hastily compiled and undigested piles of drivel unacceptable as university-level work. The customer is always right. As one vice president I know of states on her website, she promises to provide “one-stop shops” and “exceptional customer service” to all. Do not let the stupidity of this statement fool you into believing it is in any way benign. The sad truth of the matter is that it more accurately describes the manner in which modern universities operate than the version I am arguing for here. We no longer have “students” — only “customers.”
None of what I am describing here is ever said in so many words. It doesn’t need to be, because in this regard the university operates much like a reality television show in which overt scripting is unnecessary, because everyone — the participants (students) as much as the directors (professors and administrators) — knows the script by heart: be outrageous, stupid, vulgar, and then cloyingly sentimental to bring the whole story to a satisfactory conclusion. The university’s narrative is not quite so lowbrow but it is just as scripted and just as empty: fill your classrooms with the rhetoric of experiential learning, e-learning, student-centered learning, lifelong learning, digital literacies and so on, and then top it all off with superlative grades to confirm the truth of the rhetoric, QED. Thus you may dispense with real learning and real intelligence, just as reality television has dispensed with reality.
We really need to end the student loan program. Or at least reform it.
“The 1%” “Escaping” To Mars
A dumb piece at Newsweek.
On the other hand, here’s a smart piece from Eric Berger: We’re going back to the moon, with or without NASA. Absent a major change of attitude in Congress, probably without.
The Clinton Email Saga Continues
I’m sure you’ll be just as shocked as I am to learn that the State Department can’t find the emails or backups of the guy who set up Hillary’s server and pled the Fifth.
Cruz Versus Trump
The National Journal seems to be afraid of Cruz. But this betrays the usual ignorance of the Left about what constitutes conservatism:
Cruz isn’t merely a toned-down version of Trump. He’s just as conservative and just as volatile, though probably a little less erratic. The thing is, Cruz isn’t merely a toned-down version of Trump. And this makes him all the more dangerous, from a progressive point of view.
As Jonah (and others, and I) have said, here’s nothing conservative about Trump. He’s a populist, willing to say whatever he thinks people want to hear. He must also be immensely frustrated that Cruz continues to refuse to take his bait. The debate tomorrow night should be interesting.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s a perfect example. Trump willing to “look into preventing people on the No Fly List from having guns.” Constitution and due process? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution and due process.
[Update a while later]
Annoying the media–OK, make that making their heads explode–is the only reason I can think of to vote for Trump, but it’s not a sufficient one for me.