We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, November 17. 2016
Thursday morning links
China's Xi urges cooperation among nations in governance of global internet
Secret Back Door in Some U.S. Phones Sent Data to China, Analysts Say
Nimrud: Photos show IS destruction of ancient Iraqi city
The USGS Just Found 20 Billion Barrels of Oil
Will the Surge of Support for Free Speech on Campus Do Any Good?
Slate: GOP stole the Supreme Court and ‘we need to go lower’
It’s Time to Stop Spending Taxpayer Dollars on Elon Musk and Cronyism
How to Make Drug Prices Fair to U.S. Consumers
Oregon Official Who Shut Down Sweet Cakes Loses Election Bid to a Republican
Trump’s campaign kills the ‘money buys elections’ cliche.
Research Guru saw Trump phenomenon coming before anyone else
She tries to measure the deep currents
The Exhausted Epithets of the Left - They didn’t work against Trump and won’t work against his aides.
Federal Judge Proclaims a Stable Climate to Be a Fundamental Constitutional Right
Four things you can do to stop Donald Trump from making climate change worse
The left is a regular riot
Press dig in for long battle against Trump
Trump Goes Out to Dinner, Press Has Hissy Fit
Boston Globe: I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly.
Why No One Pays Any Attention To The New York Times Any More
Guardian: Don't call Clinton a weak candidate: it took decades of scheming to beat her
What the elites still don’t get about American politics
Vox: Trump’s coalition won the demographic battle. It’ll still lose the war.
Hillary Clinton Was The Lady Ghostbusters Of Presidential Candidates - It turns out that people liked the original, male version of the Clinton candidacy a lot more than the expensive reboot.
Sultan: Let's All Go To the Arafat Museum
I Watched Donald Trump Blow A Hole Through The European Elite’s Minds - Looking
Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:51 | Comments (72) | Trackbacks (0)
Trackback specific URI for this entry
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I think the whole transgender thing being pushed so quickly and hard by Obama and his followers contributed to those typically voting Dem to go the other way. Fathers and mothers of young children, especially girls didn't like the prospect of men in women's clothes coming into public restrooms because they wanted to. In today's world there seem to be an increased number of deviants willing to do all sorts of things to get at their prey. Maybe the voters realized the Dems were going too extreme for their conventional beliefs. Not just this of course but this among a number of things influenced their election choice.
And remember that actual transgender people (I know several) aren't the ones benefiting from the whole leftist inspired stuff related to "transgenders".
They in fact suffer the consequences of increased bigotry and hatred towards them, as they're being blamed for the whole idiocy of allowing anyone into girls' locker rooms just on the premise of them stating that "I feel like a woman today".
Millions had to suffer and die from Communism so that a minority of world's population could learn the evils of socialism. I suppose millions will suffer from transgenderism before people learn,too. To that end, I hope tens of thousands of male children of Democrats and feminists have transgender treatment culminating in castration and transformation to womanhood by age 18. It's win-win. They want, it's best for society.
its more of a pollution case where the government fails to act, but she's a little nutty.
you can read the decision here.
I'd assume the govt or any of the private defendants will appeal.
This is probably another collusive lawsuit encouraged by the Obama administration. The format is always the same. Environmentalists sue the federal government to compel it to engage in actions not authorized by law. The federal government then rolls over. Cooperative judge then rules in favor of plaintiffs. Federal government then claims it is bound by court ruling to do certain things, even if not authorized by law. Court then awards environmental group its attorneys fees (paid for by taxpayers), thus funding the next lawsuit.
Private interests try to intervene to defend against the expansion, but are usually ignored and often are ruled by the court to have "no standing," while the tree-huggers always seem to have standing.
She's not only an idiot, she's anti-science. Climate change is a given; it's how the earth operates. The only question is how much human activity contributes to climate change, and whether said human contribution is a catastrophic addition.
Though I didn't finish the article, I think the "guru" researcher might have been on to something. It parallels what I was sensing.
Why are drug (and other medical prices) so high?
It's the same reason college tuition is so high: government subsidies. When the federal government subsidizes something, the supplier of the good or service produces a greater quantity because the price they get is higher (the sum of what the user pays plus the government subsidy). Users also demand more than they would without the subsidy because their cost is lower.
We noted to look at it from two aspects: (1) how much we, as a nation, are paying for the good or service, and (2) the price each individual is paying for the good or service.
As a nation, the cost is quantity x total price. Because of the subsidy, both quantity and total price increase. Thus, the cost to us, as a nation skyrockets.
From an individual perspective, the price we pay depends on whether or not we belong to the government designated class to which the subsidy applies. If we are part of that class, e.g. Medicaid beneficiary, we pay less. If we're not part of that class, we pay full price which is the (lower) price that we would have paid before the subsidy was in effect PLUS the subsidy amount, i.e. the supplier is going to charge us the full amount.
The solution isn't more laws, more subsidies, etc. It's to get rid of the subsidies so that the equilibrium price returns to its LOWER free market levels. If we choose to give "poor" people some help, we can give THEM the cash directly and let them choose between drugs (legal), food, clothing, etc. ensuring that the get what they WANT rather than what fed govt says the need.
Comments welcome (except from the Marxist known as Zach - I really don't give a rat's ass what you think).
In general I agree. If we all have $10 to buy something, the market price is $10. If somebody gives all of us another $10 to buy that something, the market price quickly rises to $20. The producers of that something get rich, and they take that new wealth and do something with it.
It happened with the intro of Medicaid in the 60's. Using round numbers from memory, they said it would cost $360M/year. As soon as it got started, the costs ballooned to $1+ billion. And everybody acted surprised. Well, when you give free money to people for healthcare, they buy more healthcare and the doctors and hospitals instantly charge more for their services.
The limit on healthcare spending is still how much you are willing to pay out of pocket.
So the real effect was to forcibly extract money from people and transfer it to healthcare. Healthcare gets pricier. But at the same time, healthcare gets better, because there's more money for research, capital improvements, improved care and therapies. Was it the right thing to do? Hard to say.
"Slate: GOP stole the Supreme Court and ‘we need to go lower’"
I am tired of the whining. If dems had won the election, they would be planning how to crush the rest of us under their heels.
"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I WON." (As near as I can remember it.)
I agree wholeheartedly. Hillary meant it when she called us deplorable. The irredeemable part was the give away. What do you do to irredeemable people?
mary: I am tired of the whining.
The complaint concerns the fact that the Senate refused to even consider Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court, a break with long-standing tradition and constitutional practice. The question raised is whether Democrats should thereby give deference to Trump's nominations.
Tit-for-tat is famous in game theory for this reason.
Horse hockey! The Senate considered Garland, and effectively rejected him.
B. Hammer: The Senate considered Garland, and effectively rejected him.
That's the whole point. They never considered him whatsoever, but said they would not consider any nominee from Obama.
Will Bithers: elections have consequences.
That's the whole point. Obama was the elected president, and the Senate refused to even consider his nominee.
you don't get it, Man From 2008. barry lost. you lost. deal with it.
you demoncraps are famous for screwing around with the USSC, FDR most infamously.
payback's a bitch, bitch.
#188.8.131.52.1 Will Bithers on 2016-11-17 14:36 (Reply)
Will Bithers: you don't get it, Man From 2008. barry lost
Obama was not on the ticket. Nonetheless, the Democrats did lose. That doesn't address the point raised, though. Republicans refused to even consider a sitting president's nominee. Just one more thing that's broken.
That's why we often point out that the center of gravity of the Republican Party is not conservative, but right-wing.
Will Bithers: FDR most infamously.
FDR's court-packing scheme was slapped back by Democrats, as well as Republicans.
#184.108.40.206.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-17 15:44 (Reply)
No one slapped anything back until two justices "resigned" so that FDR could then get his way on the court by installing his justices.
#220.127.116.11.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2016-11-17 16:31 (Reply)
indyjonesouthere: No one slapped anything back
The Judicial Reform Bill was held up indefinitely in the Senate and House Judiciary Committees by the Democratic chairs. Prominent Democrats came out against the bill. Many prominent Democrats also came out against the bill, and Roosevelt's plan went down to defeat.
indyjonesouthere: two justices "resigned"
Only Van Devanter resigned before the bill was defeated. Van Devanter said he would have retired sooner due to illness, but held on because he opposed the New Deal, and because until the New Deal, justices were not provided full pensions, and he needed the job.
#18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 Zachriel on 2016-11-17 17:53 (Reply)
The Constitutional requirement is that the Senate consent to an appointment. The Senate did not consent to Garland's appointment. Not finding someone acceptable to enough Senators to overcome the resistance is on Obama.
Reid nuked the filibuster with regard to executive branch appointments three years ago. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/ so Democrat deference doesn't mean a thing.
Christopher B: The Senate did not consent to Garland's appointment.
That's the whole point. They refused to even consider the nominee. They didn't advise or consent.
Barak seemed to get the advice they didn't consent.
#126.96.36.199.1 Christopher B on 2016-11-17 20:30 (Reply)
They refused to consider any nominee. That is clearly not how the Founders expected the system to work.
#188.8.131.52.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-18 07:10 (Reply)
"The complaint concerns the fact that the Senate refused to even consider Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court, a break with long-standing tradition and constitutional practice."
No, it's not, it was established by Democrat Senator John Kerry when he was the head of the Judiciary Committee, stating that Supreme Court justice nominations would not be considered in the president's last year in office.
The other good thing is that Harry Reid broke "long-standing tradition" by invoking the "Nuclear Option" to force approval of Democrat judges over the objection of Republicans. What goes around, comes around, as Republicans can now approve justices and judges to the bench based on the same procedure, which should now be called the "Harry Reid Rule." Certainly that will result in the appointment of one or more Constitutionists to the Supreme Court instead of the radical left judges Obama and the Democrats have been seeking.
Jim: No, it's not, it was established by Democrat Senator John Kerry when he was the head of the Judiciary Committee, stating that Supreme Court justice nominations would not be considered in the president's last year in office.
You're probably thinking of Joe Biden. It was much closer to the election than the current vacancy. There was no vacancy at that time, and Biden was proposing a revamping of the entire process. Biden says he has never refused to consider a President's nominee to the Supreme Court, and has repeatedly said that the President and Senate should work to find consensus candidates.
I think Ronnie said it well: “It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
OldFert: It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
We don't believe that long-established institutions should be changed without due consideration of the impact of those changes. That includes the responsibility of the Senate to give deference and consideration to the President's nominees to the courts. That's called conservatism, by the way.
So does the Constitution say, "advise and consent", or "give deference and consideration"? Why are you trying to change the Constitution? You just stated, "We don't believe that long-established institutions should be changed..."
One can consider something, even if it only takes a nanosecond, and say NO. That is what the Senate did. They considered him. They did not consent to Garland.
B. Hammer: So does the Constitution say, "advise and consent", or "give deference and consideration"?
They gave neither advice nor consent. They refused to even consider the president's nominees. This breaks long-established tradition, and is clearly not consistent with what the Founders intended. On the other hand, the only solution is political. It's just something else that's broken.
B. Hammer: They considered him. They did not consent to Garland.
They did not consider him, but refuse to consider any nominee the president might put forward. Before the election, there was talk of never considering any nominee made by Clinton.
#184.108.40.206.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-18 07:09 (Reply)
Essentially, you are saying that if they have the power, they should wield it. Lack of restraint is hardly a conservative notion.
#220.127.116.11.2 Zachriel on 2016-11-18 07:14 (Reply)
re New York Times
I don't read any media that's behind a paywall. Not worth it at any price.
Re: Boston Globe: I don’t want Trump to succeed. I want him to fail spectacularly.
Somehow I don't think the Globe or Michael Cohen will receive the lame ration of sh*t Rush got for making the same comment in the same context.
I wonder why the Democrats didn't realize that calling the electorate "racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic and stupid (not to mention deplorable)" is not the way to get them to vote for you. And bragging about putting people out of work and companies out of businesses would have the same effect.
the failure of the now legendarily disastrous Ghostbusters remake
That's a bit of an overstatement. The new Ghostbusters brought in about $229 million in worldwide ticket sales, about half of that domestically. Disappointing to the makers? Yes, but still turning a handy profit.
Nope: "Distributed by Columbia Pictures, the film premiered at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles on July 9, 2016, and was released theatrically in the United States on July 15, 2016, in 2D, 3D, RealD 3D and IMAX 3D. The film grossed $229 million worldwide against a production budget of $144 million, as well as a large amount spent on marketing, the studio has stated that the film will need to gross at least $300 million to break even and was considered a box office disappointment."
Woah, woah. Inconvenient facts have no place in Zachriel's mind.
Don't let them get away with this. Make up something right now. Check Snopes and The Onion.
Bill Carson: the studio has stated that the film will need to gross at least $300 million to break even and was considered a box office disappointment.
We already granted it was a disappointment to the makers, however, Sony disputes that it will be a loss when all is said and done. There are many avenues for generating profit on the reintroduction of the Ghostbusters franchise.
"Yes, but still turning a handy profit" doesn't quite sound like "We already granted it was a disappointment to the makers" to me.
"... however, Sony disputes that it will be a loss when all is said and done."
How does Sony's stance align with the previous "but still turning a handy profit" verbiage?
And, if you could, please point me to Sony's projections as to how and when they're going to break even on the film.
We will retract the "handy profit" claim. They are having to work at it. Nevertheless, Ghostbusters is considered a win by Sony and independent investors, and is certainly not a "legendarily disastrous remake". That's just an alt-Right meme because of the female cast choices.
"Sony’s film division increased sales by nearly 5%, at $1.9 billion, during the quarter, due to a rise in theatrical revenue as a result of the success of titles including 'Ghostbusters', 'Sausage Party' and 'Don’t Breathe'."
#18.104.22.168.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-17 15:40 (Reply)
"Nevertheless, Ghostbusters is considered a win by Sony and independent investors"
Please, if you could, explain the basis (or bases) upon which Sony and independent investors came to consider the Ghostbusters remake a win. That is, what in addition to the fact that the movie has to gross an additional $71M ($300M-$229M) to break even indicates "win". And one could send a lot of young women to college for $71M.
""Sony’s film division increased sales by nearly 5%, at $1.9 billion, during the quarter, due to a rise in theatrical revenue as a result of the success of titles including 'Ghostbusters', 'Sausage Party' and 'Don’t Breathe'."
Sales are not profits and none of the above passage explains in the least how Sony's going to get the aforementioned $71M in Ghostbusters remake revenue to reach the break-even point. And though I'm not sure if I'm allowed to divide here, $229M/$1.9B = 12%. A "win" for Sony generated only 12% of its film division sales? Granted, it was in the company of cinematic juggernauts such as "Sausage Party" and "Don't Breathe", but 12%?
#22.214.171.124.1.1 Bill Carson on 2016-11-17 16:08 (Reply)
Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group owns many different properties, including Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Sony Pictures Classics, Sony Pictures Animation, Tristar, and others. They produce a lot of product.
Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group is a division of Sony Pictures is a subsidiary of Sony Entertainment which is a subsidiary of Sony Corp.
#126.96.36.199.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-17 18:13 (Reply)
"Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group owns many different properties, including Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Sony Pictures Classics, Sony Pictures Animation, Tristar, and others. They produce a lot of product.
Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group is a division of Sony Pictures is a subsidiary of Sony Entertainment which is a subsidiary of Sony Corp."
Benkyo ni narimashita.
#188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 Bill Carson on 2016-11-18 07:00 (Reply)
Bill Carson: she would have had to not only break the glass ceiling but overcome the “six-foot tall” bias whereby all former presidents were six foot or taller.
Bill Carson: the “three-term party” bias whereby it is rare for one party to win three terms.
We ignore you as best we can.
#220.127.116.11.1 Sam L. on 2016-11-17 18:50 (Reply)
Regardless of politics, for Hillary to have won, she would have had to not only break the glass ceiling but overcome the “six-foot tall” bias whereby all former presidents were six foot or taller. She would also have to beat the “three-term party” bias whereby it is rare for one party to win three terms. After that Hillary would have had to overcome the “Ohio State” bias, whereby other than Kennedy in 1960, all presidents have had to win Ohio. Trump was always ahead in Ohio.
This is simple handicapping. Hillary had an enormous task from the get go.
Phil Taylor: she would have had to not only break the glass ceiling but overcome the “six-foot tall” bias whereby all former presidents were six foot or taller.
Phil Taylor: the “three-term party” bias whereby it is rare for one party to win three terms.
He said 'rare', not impossible. GHWB did it, too (not the height barrier, though)
He indicated all former presidents were six foot or taller. Poor Harry always seems to get lost in the crowd. Maybe if he stood on a chair.
On further reflection, FDR/HST didn't complete the Presidential 'three-peat' attempted by Hillary Clinton this year since both were incumbents at the time of the third consecutive election (FDR in 1940 and 1944, Truman in 1948). So far only Harding/Coolidge/Hoover and Reagan/GHWB have done this post 1900.
Neither Thomas Dewey nor HST were over 6' tall, though Truman was the taller candidate in 1948, however.
#10.1.1.1.1 Christopher B on 2016-11-18 08:18 (Reply)
There is another example you overlooked - Bush Sr.
Bush and Truman were the only examples in the last 100 years. I call that rare.
When Kennedy won in '60 without Ohio, wasn't it because of successful voter fraud in Chicago and Texas?
"Oregon Official Who Shut Down Sweet Cakes Loses Election Bid to a Republican"
First state-wide office Republican in 14 years.
And the Democrat ran on using the office to continue his Progressive war on citizens. Sadly, he has a couple years left in the office he used to attack the bakery.
How badly do you have to screw up to lose a statewide Oregon race to a Republican? About as badly as you have to screw up to lose the White House to the likes of Donald Trump despite the full-bore support of the media and 99% of the country's celebrities and beautiful hip people.
Hopefully, we will now see federal legislation to protect religious liberty, so that people won't be losing their jobs, businesses, homes and be threatened with prison for refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. One of the many forms of tyranny that has been forced on us the lat 8 years.
Hopefully, we will now see federal legislation to protect religious liberty,
You mean like the First Amendment to the Constitution?
Hopefully, we will now see federal legislation to protect religious liberty, so that people won't be losing their jobs, businesses, homes and be threatened with prison for refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. One of the many outrageous forms of tyranny that has been forced on us the last 8 years.
Jim: Hopefully, we will now see federal legislation to protect religious liberty, so that people won't be losing their jobs, businesses, homes and be threatened with prison for refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding.
Do you think businesses open to the public have the right to refuse to participate in mixed-race weddings?
Do you think that Jewish delicatessens open to the public have the right to refuse to serve non-kosher food? Or that they have to be open on the Sabbath? Or that they have to serve a party of neo-Nazis celebrating Hitler's birthday?
Jim: Do you think that Jewish delicatessens open to the public have the right to refuse to serve non-kosher food?
Sure, but they have to serve it to anyone who walks in their door, regardless of religion.
Jim: Or that they have to serve a party of neo-Nazis celebrating Hitler's birthday?
No. A$$hats are not a protected class. Now try and answer the question. Do you think businesses open to the public have the right to refuse to participate in mixed-race weddings?
#18.104.22.168.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-17 15:50 (Reply)
OK, so you are saying if Nazi A$$hats are made a protected class, the kosher delicatessen will have to make them ham-and-cheese sandwiches despite the First Amendment. And that the First Amendment can therefore be eviscerated just by the government declaring someone a protected class.
That is the problem and why your argument falls apart.
#22.214.171.124.1.1 Jim on 2016-11-17 21:40 (Reply)
Jim: OK, so you are saying if Nazi A$$hats are made a protected class, the kosher delicatessen will have to make them ham-and-cheese sandwiches despite the First Amendment.
No. It would mean they would have to serve them kosher food. But Nazi A$$hats are not a protected class, nor likely to become one. Protected classes are those that have suffered from generations of discrimination, such as race, gender, and religion.
Try to answer. Do you think businesses open to the public have the right to refuse to participate in mixed-race weddings?
#126.96.36.199.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-18 07:12 (Reply)
Why create a new nobility ("protected class") based on moralizing, false and tendentious interpretations of history? I'd prefer equality.
#188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 ErisGuy on 2016-11-20 01:59 (Reply)
Ticket sales is an indicator of attendance and popularity and standing alone is not an indicator of profitability. It's very similar to confusing "profit margin" with "profit".
The Grauniad once again shows they looooooooove Leftist writers. Ignorant, confused, misled, a combination of the three and what I left out, the writer demonstrates no understanding of Hillary or the USA.
Just dropped in to say thanks for Morning Links. I check it most every day. Good work.