TahoeHorn

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/susan-collins-profile-in-courage/90835/ Susan Collins’ Profile in Courage Can you think of a vote, in modern times, which required more courage? ("This may well cost me my seat but it's the right thing to do.") (My last new topic [and probably post] under the name TahoeHorn - a name which I have used on Horn political boards for over twenty years)

https://www.city-journal.org/charter-cities A Hong Kong in the Congo? Would it work?

International Policy says that people who need it are entitled to political asylum. It also says that people are not entitled to economic asylum. I think International Policy is correct. Right now we have great difficulty figuring out how to deal with political asylum. Many are gaming the system. So, I have a solution. (I have solutions for all political issues. You know that though.) My solution grants political asylum to all who want it. No detention. No trial. No long wait. Not even any big costs. BUT, it does not grant economic asylum. Here's how: We identify a bunch of shithole countries which will take economic refugees for a fee. Think Haiti, Bangladesh, South Sudan, Burkina Faso. The list is actually very long. If you need political asylum the US will find you a spot in a shithole country. I predict that if your life is in danger you'll jump at the deal. Better Bangladesh than gangs killing your daughter. But if you're just looking for economic opportunity, you'll probably prefer your shithole country to a new one. Or maybe you'll go to some place like Mexico or Brazil - a place that isn't a shithole but isn't the USA. I'm looking for good ideas that make the Berkeley sociology crowd boil with rage. We need to have an open dialog on such topics - to further social harmony. We need teachable moments. I'm trying to conduct a "teach in" on such. This board has a bunch of such people who need teaching. How am I doing? My students don't seem to be learning very well but you can't always tell.

I think that sanctuary cities are a horrible idea. In fact, I think any instances of disdain for the rule of law are dangerous. If any of you have spent time in one of the bazillion countries in the world where people don't respect the law you know how fucked that type of thinking makes a place. But, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe people who think like me should take the Clayton Williams recommendation: if you can't do anything about it you might as well enjoy it. So I've been thinking about the angle "two can play this game". Let's think about some ways that "The Right" can construct "sanctuary cities" for the benefit of "its" groups. My mind goes straight to money. We could have a city that provided sanctuary for your company from federal taxes, in return for a generous kickback of course. Want to sell cigarettes without paying the fed's tax? We have a plan. Want to sell gasoline in our state without remitting the tax to the Feds? We can work something out. Another angle is intellectual property. Want to make counterfeit software/ Or music? Make it in our sanctuary. A third angle is access to things that the Feds get fussy about like Oxycontin or Class III weapons. We can make it easy to acquire. But you have to take it to Blue states. Now, like the Left's sanctuary cities, we can't guarantee that the Feds won't be able to nab you. But, like the Left, we can go to great lengths to make their enforcement difficult. A totally different thought on this sanctuary city thing is to use it to our advantage. San Francisco and Portland seem to like homeless and illegal aliens. Hell we don't. But maybe instead of trying to get San Francisco to help fix the problem we should just say "You like it. Here's some more." We'll have an aggressive program of sending ours to them. We'll have to worry about messy details like kidnapping laws, so we need to be clever. Free "Private" charter flights for "qualified" people is the place to start. Add a bunch of effective carrots (e.g. free booze on the flight) and sticks (e.g. avoid a midnight visit from "the boys"). And voila. Hey if the new game is to flaunt federal law let's not be timid. It's a new frontier and the rewards go to the bold.

We are in a political Cold War. We have not had such a war in over a century. I'm not clear how it ends. Each day I look at the work of the Senate and of the President. This is not the crap you see on TV, hear about on the radio or read about on the Net, like Trump drawing sharpie marks on a hurricane chart. It is the actual work - the bills signed into law, the nominations confirmed and the Presidential Actions taken. Like who was confirmed Commissioner on Children, Youth and Families, Department of Human Services. https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ We are in a vicious circle of having the minority behave like total dicks and have the majority respond by ignoring the minority. The President has about 715 spots to fill which need confirmation by the Senate. The minority can't stop any if the majority stays united, but they can dramatically slow them down. So for the past two and a half years the Dems have been Grade A asses about virtually every nomination. The Ambassador to SurlyLand has to wait years to get confirmed. In fact there will never be such because it isn't one of the places the Senate will spend its time. Even in a week like this week where the Senate is dedicating all time to nominations and maximizing the rules only 14 relatively low-level nominees get confirmed. In a typical week it's more like four. Voice votes for uncontroversial spots are rare. The Senate has made the confirmation of federal judges its highest priority. It has confirmed 146 Article III judges. That's roughly the number of vacancies which have come open during Trump's term. As such the 103 spots to fill are about the same number as when he entered office (although the SCOTUS spot is zero instead of one, and Circuit seats are four instead of 17). Of Administrative spots only 480 of 732 have been confirmed. Spots like the Ambassador to SurlyLand will never get filled because they are too far down in the queue. It doesn't make sense to have a nominee which will just sit, waiting to get Dem action till the end of Trump's term. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/ So how does it end? Surely you don't think that the Dems will or even can end the filibuster? (That would be insane and there have been enough GOP with good sense to avoid new nuclear options. There will be enough Dems with good sense as well [to refrain from a crazy escalation].) Or will change the rules for minority review of nominees? They have utilized the Harry Reid nuclear option, to the chagrin of Dems. The Harry Reid nuclear option was a bad idea. I think. But maybe it's necessary if the minority is going to behave like a total ass. (We have to have SOME government.) But it would be absolutely nutty to eliminate current rights for the minority party in the Senate. Suppose Warren is elected Prez and the Dems get control of the Senate. I am certain the there will be some Dems that have the good sense not to turn a Cold War into a Hot War. (No elimination of the filibuster, no court packing scheme, no elimination of a drawn out hearing process for nominees). That means Warren would have an Administration with Trump appointees and civil servants in many, many places. It means she'll have a bitch of a time getting new judges confirmed. And it means that she'll get no controversial legislation. (The last such was ObamaCare when the Dems had 60 Senators.) And it means that even pissant legislation (e.g. a$6 B for a Wall) will be blocked by the GOP if it means making her look bad on a key campaign promise. So: A. Some new peace plan? B. Continued Cold War? C. A real war? I predict a continued Cold War unless there is a President who acts in a bipartisan fashion. Clinton was the last President who had any major bipartisan positions.

Dude bounces up and down like a four year old boy about to wet his pants.

In a week, how often would you guess that you hear a colleague utter a curse word? A. In a formal work setting in a group (e.g. project leader addressing team) B. In a work setting with one person (e.g. your office mate snarling about spilled coffee) C. Not in a formal work setting (e.g. happy hour after work) Forty years ago there were environments where cursing was just plain not done and others where it occurred a mile a minute. I knew which was which. Today I have no clue.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/o-oberlin-my-oberlin/

I left out a fifth option for the Dems. I'll call it the Chris Christie option because he recently described it on This Week. But it's so impossible I think you'll understand why I forgot it. Christie argues that if the Dems want something like universal background checks that they can get it. All they have to do is make sure that Trump gets all the credit. ("Only a great negotiator like Trump could pull this off." Only a man with great courage and strength like Trump could stand up to the NRA and win" You get the idea.) There is a deal where Trump wins more politically from the gratitude of soccer moms and swing voters than he loses from the portion of the GOP which would be enraged and turn on him. The numbers are there and Trump has such an ego that he would go for it. But great fawning and obsequiousness would be required. The deal would have to assure that only Trump got the credit, and that Dems never could have pulled it off. Do they want the credit or universal background checks? Get real. You know why I didn't remember this option.

The Dems have four choices for addressing the gun problem (and I agree that there is a problem): (1) try to effectively control guns, (2) do something ineffective which is designed to fool their constituents, and score a political win, (3) address non-gun factors like mental illness, or (4) wail, gnash teeth and raise money on the issue. They will never try #1. That would involve repealing the Second Amendment, amending the Fourth Amendment and taking on Bundy-type fights times thousands. That's for starters. Impossible. They tried #2 in 1994. They might try that again. I doubt it. But this thread will reexamine that in more depth. #3 is also possible. But unlikely. They want a political win, not results. And that political win would go to the GOP. #4 has been the choice for 99% of my life. Why expect different? Let's look at the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. I encourage you to look at this yourself. You won't believe the stupidity I describe. But if you don't want to be played for a fool again you should look at it. To keep it simple I'll just discuss rifles. They grandfathered all old guns and prevented the manufacture or sale of new guns which had two or more of five essentially cosmetic features. Read that again. We're talking only about stuff which is, practically speaking, only cosmetic. It's like fire decals on cars. Why does a fire decal make a car more dangerous? (Hang with me here.) Also note that you could manufacture or sell a rifle with any one of the "scary" features. Just not two or more. Also note that you could manufacture the scary feature and somebody could add it to a gun without a scary feature. If he added it to a gun with a scary feature it was his problem, not yours. So the scary features were: collapsible stock, pistol grip, flash hider, grenade mount and bayonet mount. So now all you astute readers can observe that anybody planning to shoot up a school using a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount would have to : (1) use a pre-1994 rifle of which there were tens of thousands), buy a stolen gun (which is easy), (3) buy an illegally imported gun (and importing guns is easier than importing people or drugs), or buy a rifle with either a grenade launcher or bayonet mount and add the other yourself. How many grenade launchings did we have because of the ban versus how many we would have had without the ban? What the fuck does a grenade launcher have to do with anything? I've never heard of any grenade launching incidents. And if anybody wanted to launch grenades this law didn't even provide a speed bump. The impact of any of these features on the lethality of a weapon is more than specious. Flash hider? Do you really think any law enforcement is looking for a concealed shooter in these mass shooting incidents? Do you think that this law would do a whit to prevent somebody from having a flash hider if they thought they wanted one? After the law was passed there used to be a parlor game trying to figure out if a gun was legal if it was made after the ban. Even after studying the law carefully and taking a few hundred practice runs I'd get fooled. "No, this was after the ban and it's legal" "Can't be. It's got a pistol grip, a collapsible stock and a bayonet mount. That's not just two, but three scary items." "Wrong. The collapsible stock is welded uncollapsed, and the bayonet mount is plugged." Silly, silly law. Did it reduce gun deaths? That's as silly as asking if a fire decal ban reduced deaths due to speeding hot rodders. All the Dems acted like it did something. All the Pubs acted like they lost some important need to have a grenade launcher or bayonet mount. But there was massive political impact. So, what's an assault rifle in a new ban? Same thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Germans pay $.40/KwH. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power

But it does not depend on race, sex, or religion of the batter. Or pitcher.

In a baseball game some batters have had more advantages over others. Two people with the same athletic ability don't have the same opportunity to hit the ball. One may have had: 1. A culture (family or community) which introduced him to baseball later in life 2. Inferior coaching 3. Discriminatory treatment by Little League coaches 4. Unsupportive parents 5. Pressure to play other sports or study instead of practicing baseball. And many more. But if I'm the umpire I don't care. A strike is a strike and a ball is a ball. I'm not even going to pay attention to who the batter si or who the pitcher is. If it's a church picnic I'll give 5 year old Susie extra strikes and easy pitches. And I won't cut 14 year old Billy, who plays high school ball, any slack. But in MLB a ball is a ball and a strike is a strike.

If an umpire is deciding whether an act is unfair discrimination based on race, sex or religion the umpire does not need to know the race, gender or sex of the participants. As an umpire I can decide whether a pitch is a ball or a strike without knowing who the batter or pitcher are. This crap where people say that a pitch is a ball if the batter is Black and the pitcher is White but a strike otherwise is just plain nutty, and racist. Now I'm talking only about a prima facie case about the act itself. If you can prove malicious intent that's another matter. Let's look at some examples. In all cases I don't need to know anything about race, sex or religion to decide what is fair. Is it sexist to give the 1000th best runner in the nation a spot on the Olympic team while the 999th best runner has no dream? It's sexist if you say "Well, not if the 1000th best runner is female and she's the best female." I can look at performance or market value and tell how the athlete should be rewarded. It's sexist, and ridiculous logic, to argue the the 1000th best soccer player should get paid by special rules that treat her better than a man of equivalent ability. My ruling: It's clearly sexist but maybe it's fair, and maybe not. It's not fair to treat the 1000th best athlete better than the 999th, but if the rules are made by the world you play by their rules. Or you can play by the rules of the market. You can't play by rules of the government (including nuttiness like Title IX). Is it sexist for a business to pay swimsuit models based on market value if it results in the 1000 highest paid models being all female? My ruling: Of course not. I don't need to know somebody's sex to know if they are being paid fairly as a swimsuit model. If you sell swimsuits, you sell swimsuits. Is it racist to give a government scholarship to a rich person who is a poor student while denying a poor person who is good student because the kid getting the scholarship is Black. My ruling: Of course. If I'm granting scholarships I don't want to know anything about the race, sex or religion of the student. Any factors that should be weighed (e.g. grew up poor in Harlem) need to be cleansed by separate team so that I weigh poor in Appalachias the same way I weigh poor in Harlem. Is it racist to have an organization like the NAACP? My ruling: Of course. Is it racist to have an organization for the advancement of White people? Obviously. Is it discrimination to have a student at school be given an opportunity to go to a special room to pray? My ruling: The school system needs to have the same rule for all religions. Don't tell me you have a prayer room for Muslim students but not one for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Is it racist to write a joke book titled "You might be a Redneck if ..."? My ruling: Let's test. Write a joke book with a title "You might be a (Your choice of unflattering name for Black people) ..." and use all the Foxworthy jokes that have been universally used for ethnic jokes (I've heard many of those jokes about Rednecks, Blacks, Poles, Aggies and Aubarners.). Is it racial discrimination for Trump to tell AOC to go back to where she came from? My ruling: Maybe. Maybe not. The statement is not a prima facie case. You must prove intent. In 1982 I must have heard 1000 Houstonian tell various Michiganders to go back home. But others they wanted to stay. It wasn't about place of origin or race. It was about whether you bitched incessantly about how much Houston sucked. This is a universal reason for telling someone to go back home. So was Trump's intent because AOC bitches about the US, or because she's Puerto Rican ethnicity? Get serious. Is it prima facie evidence of discrimination if all the people rewarded are of one race, gender, or religion? My ruling: Don't be silly. If the 128 best cornerbacks are all Black then there is no problem if all NFL cornerbacks are Black. It's only a problem if a person is not an NFL cornerback because he is White. If you want to get rid of unfair discrimination start by making the umpires blind, as much as possible, to the race, sex and religion of the players. A ball is a ball and a strike is a strike. If you have to know the race of the batter to make a decision then you are a racist.