This looks interesting, but I’d like to see some numbers. Like, how much does it cost, and what kind of reductions are they seeing? I often see studies that amuse me, as though a barely-statisrically-significant 10% risk reduction for some expensive drug with unpleasant side effects is actually worth it.
And is it a permanent solution, or does it require periodic retreatment? Also, are there side effects (like insufficient blood flow to the brain on suddenly standing up)?
Yes, the Iran deal is.
But it’s not like it’s his first impeachable offense. The Founders would be aghast at a Congess that has let a president get away with so much. But it happened because the separation of powers becaame severely weakened with the development of political parties (that most of them hoped would never happen), in which loyalties to one’s own party, even in another branch of government, has superseded loyalties to the institution of Congress and its Constitutional prerogatives. Plus, while electing Barack Obama was clearly an act of color blindness, impeaching and removing him over his repeated abuse of his power would obviously be racist (do I need a sarcasm tag on that one?).
Ultimately, of course, as we saw with Bill Clinton, what constitutes a “High Crime And Misdemeanor,” even when it involves multiple federal felonies and flouting of one’s oath of office, is a political judgment. So we’re stuck with him for another year and a half.
[Monday-morning update]
“The Lawless Underpinnings of the Iran Nuclear Deal”:
Rivkin and Casey are right about the Constitution’s treaty power being circumvented, with the unfortunate blessing of a cowardly Congress. They’re also right that the Administration’s decision to obtain a speedy U.N. Security Council resolution prior to the Corker-Cardin congressional vote is a blatant and reckless end-run around U.S. sovereignty, bypassing our national legislature in favor of a multi-lateral, extra-sovereign body. Any future President wishing to unravel the Iranian nuclear deal–which Secretary of State has assured us repeatedly is “not legally binding“– will now be branded by the U.N. as an international “law breaker,” a point I made back in April.
I hope States do, indeed, continue to refuse to do business with companies doing business with Iran. The financial impact probably won’t be enough to trigger an Iranian accusation that the Obama Administration isn’t enforcing the deal, however, and consequently the Administration is unlikely to march into court claiming that the Supremacy Clause trumps States’ actions. So I doubt States’ doing this will “prompt the [nuclear] deal to unravel.” Nonetheless, this is one interesting and creative way that States can constitutionally push back.
The States need to start reasserting their rights in general, and restore the 10th Amendment and federalism from a federal government run amok (with the aid of both Democrats and Republicans, for decades).
Yes, call him out on it:
These liberal/progressives deserve to be called out–every single time–on their hypocrisy. Don’t hold back calling them the “r” word, because they surely would not, if the tables were turned.
Yes (though they’re neither liberal or “progressive” — their ideas are some of the oldest ones in the book). I long ago lost any compunction in calling them racist, because they have no problem whatsoever falsely accusing me of that. And in their case, calling them out on it has the additional virtue of actually being true.
How’s that new minimum-wage working out for you, Seattle?
The notion that employees are intentionally working less to preserve their welfare has been a hot topic on talk radio. While the claims are difficult to track, state stats indeed suggest few are moving off welfare programs under the new wage.
Despite a booming economy throughout western Washington, the state’s welfare caseload has dropped very little since the higher wage phase began in Seattle in April. In March 130,851 people were enrolled in the Basic Food program. In April, the caseload dropped to 130,376.
At the same time, prices appear to be going up on just about everything.
Some restaurants have tacked on a 15 percent surcharge to cover the higher wages. And some managers are no longer encouraging customers to tip, leading to a redistribution of income. Workers in the back of the kitchen, such as dishwashers and cooks, are getting paid more, but servers who rely on tips are seeing a pay cut.
Some long-time Seattle restaurants have closed altogether, though none of the owners publicly blamed the minimum wage law.
“It’s what happens when the government imposes a restriction on the labor market that normally wouldn’t be there, and marginal businesses get hit the hardest, and usually those are small, neighborhood businesses,” said Paul Guppy, of the Washington Policy Center.
And then there was this exchange I had with Asantha Cooray over on Twitter earlier in the week:
@acooray Then why do you say it's a good thing? Minimum wage is a war on the young. Keeps them off first rung of career ladder.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) July 22, 2015
@acooray Why should you get an exception? You should be protesting the terrible policy itself.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) July 22, 2015
@acooray It's not like you have some issue unique to you. Every employer has the same problem when the govt interferes with the market.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) July 22, 2015
Over at PJMedia, I point out that we shouldn’t be at all surprised about the organization’s callous inhumanity.
Stephen Smith has some for the presidential candidates:
U.S. Census statistics show that more people alive now were born after Apollo (185 million) than before (123 million). For the majority of the population, the 1960s Space Age is a page in a history book, and has little personal emotional resonance.
So do yourself and the nation a favor. Don’t invoke Kennedy.
As your campaign staff develops its space policy white paper, begin with a fundamental question — why should people be in space?
Yes.
How Obama is using him to nuke the US-Israel alliance.
You know, Obama doesn’t have to go before the voters again. A lot of Democrat senators do.
When you’ve lost Ron Fournier…
Here’s all you need to know: The Clinton campaign doesn’t—and can’t—deny the nut of this story. Two Obama administration inspectors general want a criminal investigation into whether her personal email system contributed to the release of classified information.
A rogue email system that:
—violated clear White House policy.
—shielded her work from congressional oversight, media inquiries, or any accountability.
—contributed to a conspiracy of secrecy worthy of criminal inquiry.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for the (In)Justice Department to do anything about it.
Could attack several different strains of flu, and make the annual shot obsolete.
I hope so.
What effect might it have on California and the drought? It’s hard to imagine we’ll get a rainy season drier than this past one.
[Late-afternoon update]
More over at Anthony Watts’ place.