RACISM IN AMERICA: Justice Clarence Thomas – Liberal elites were the “worst” to me.
Archive for 2014
February 12, 2014
CHANGE: Why indoor shopping malls have lost their cachet.
So, why don’t luxury shoppers like indoor malls anymore?
The one word answer: crime. Violent crime in the United States roughly tripled between 1965 and 1975 and remained at a high plateau, spiking occasionally above it, from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. That coincides (“the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s”) with the vogue for enclosed malls. Shoppers couldn’t count on the public sector police to protect them, but they have more faith in the private police that patrolled enclosed malls. Those malls were private property: suspicious characters could be kept out.
With crime down sharply since the mid-1990s, shoppers are no longer so fearful. So outdoor malls (often with covered parking available) are more attractive. The market is responding to changes in consumer preference, changes which reflect changes in (accurate) perceptions of the risk of being a victim of a violent crime.
Interesting.
WHEN THE POWERS-THAT-BE SEEM INEFFECTUAL, PEOPLE LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVES: Anti-Euro Party’s Le Pen Gains Supporters, French Poll Shows.
POLITICAL HACK UPDATE: MPAA Head Chris Dodd: I’m Willing To Discuss Copyright Reform As Long As Nothing Changes.
HOW TO GET THE MOST from your reciprocating saw. I have a Sawzall, but not enough opportunities to use it.
UPDATE: Okay, based on a recommendation in the comments, I ordered some pruning blades, since I have some of that to do before spring comes. Which, judging by today’s weather, will be never. . . .
SWITCHING FROM PINK SNEAKERS TO FLIP-FLOPS: Wendy Davis: Sure, I’d Support a Ban on Abortions After 20 Weeks. There’s such a thing as wanting it too much. . . .
OCCUPY OBAMACARE! Dad threatens sit-in at Health Connector office as snafus rise.
PROBABLY BECAUSE IT’S TRUE: ObamaCare Lawlessness Charge Sticks. “Illegitimate moves by the executive shouldn’t have to reek of politics to get the media’s or the Congress’s attention. And, come to think of it, Obama’s machinations have reeked for a good long time. The president, of course, previously made unilateral changes to Obamacare (including an earlier delay on the employer mandate), attempting to change the law by press conference and/or administrative edict from the Department of Health and Human Services. There was also the president’s unilateral revision of immigration laws to provide a stop gap to so-called Dreamers. Republicans also cried foul when the imperial president invoked bogus privileges to avoid investigation of Operation Fast & Furious and even of a White House party crasher. . . . It would be wise for Democrats, while they still have the Senate, to clear away the president’s lawless fiats. They really don’t want to leave it to a GOP-controlled Senate and/or a GOP president to either mimic the behavior or enact far more sweeping fixes.”
LOS ANGELES: Eight Police Officers Fire 103 Times At Two Unarmed Women Delivering Newspapers . . . Commission Rejects Calls For Any Officer To Be Fired Or Even Suspended. But remember, only trained law enforcement professionals can be trusted with firearms. Yet, in fact, the law expects less of these “trained professionals” than of ordinary citizens: “It is also worth noting that citizens are regularly charged when they shoot at officers by mistake under the same chaotic circumstances.”
IN THE MAIL: From David Weber & John Ringo, Empire of Man.
TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 279.
HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Marco Rubio Goes To Bat For Higher Ed Reform.
His interest in the subject actually dates back to at least two years ago, when he co-sponsored (with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden) the Student’s Right to Know Before You Go Act. The bill aims to make data on graduation rates, transfer rates, average graduate salary, and future employment for every college program publicly available to policymakers, parents, and students. Versions of the bill have been kicking around Washington since 2012, but Rubio has renewed his push for the bill in recent months, joining with his co-sponsor last week to stump for the bill in an op-ed at Inside Higher Ed. . . .
This week Rubio devoted time to the proposal in one of his biggest policy speeches of the year. He mentioned a few other reform proposals as well, including a plan to allow investors to pay students’ tuition for a cut of future earnings and a measure to increase the use of income-based repayment plans for college loans.
As Marco Rubio and other fellow Republicans like Mike Lee begin to stake out positions on higher ed reform, their colleagues across the aisle may begin to follow suit.
It’s a winning issue if handled well. So is K-12 reform. So study up.
LIFE IN THE ERA OF HOPE AND CHANGE: Obama’s Workforce: Discouraged, Disincentivized, Downsized.
SEAN TRENDE: Demographics Not As Big A Threat To GOP As Claimed. “The minority vote share, which we all agree is overwhelmingly Democratic, doubled from 1992, yet Obama’s share of the popular vote was smaller than Clinton’s. There is really only one explanation for this: There has been an offsetting movement among whites. How much farther will that vote shift? I’ll obviously concede that at some point you run out of white people, and there’s a theoretical maximum to the share of the white vote that Republicans can win. But where is it? 60 percent? 65 percent? 70 percent? Remember, an analyst in 1960 would probably safely assume that Republicans could always bank on at least 30 percent of the black vote. Such projections are often infused with a lack of sufficient imagination.”
IT’S NOT QUITE TOO LATE: Deals On Top Valentine’s Day Gifts.
Also, Deals on Bestselling Products. Updated every hour.
And, today only: 75% Off Men’s Jackets and Coats. Winter is still here.
CHANGE: Republican wins San Diego mayor special election. And in spite of a flood of public-union money in favor of the Democrat.
UPDATE: Obama Turnout Machine Crashes in San Diego—Loses Mayor’s Race by Nine Points. “Kevin Faulkoner recaptured the mayor’s office in San Diego for Republicans in a special election yesterday. The polls were skin-tight leading into yesterday’s election, and unions poured in millions to keep control in the nation’s eighth-largest city. . . . Democrats were stunned at the margin. In the November open primary, Democrats had won 54 percent of the ballots cast and were convinced they could win the runoff between Faulkoner and Alvarez. Unions pitched in a record $4.2 million to promote Alvarez, compared to only $1.7 million from business interests backing Faulkoner. In the end, Alvarez outspent Faulkoner in total by a million dollars.” Some of this is probably Filner fallout. Dems better hope that all of it is Filner fallout, because otherwise it suggests a severely damaged brand.
JAIL OF TWO CITIES: De Blasio’s buddy sprung from jail after mayor calls NYPD. The more people talk about equality, the more you wind up with a functional aristocracy, with different rules for the ins than for the outs.
MOVING BEYOND THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON? First on CNN–Confidant’s diary: Clinton wanted to keep records for ‘revenge.’ Give CNN credit — unlike Andrea Mitchell, they at least mention the Free Beacon.
THESE CRAZY KIDS WITH THEIR CRAZY IDEAS: Jake Tapper: Hey, What If Obama Nominated Qualified People As Ambassadors To Countries They Knew About? “Now, there is one idea for assuring nominees get a smoother path to ambassadorship, one that might even help find an ambassador to France. It’s kinda radical. And maybe a little crazy: They could always try nominating someone qualified.”
JAMES TARANTO: The Marlboro Mandate: What if drugstores had to sell cigarettes?
Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose Congress enacted the following statute: “Any drugstore that is part of a chain with 20 or more locations doing business under the same name (regardless of the type of ownership of the locations) shall offer cigarettes and other tobacco products available for sale to its customers.” Call it the Marlboro Mandate.
You may object that this would be a foolish law. We agree, but it would not be entirely without precedent for Congress to pass a foolish law. . . .
By contemporary liberal lights, however, the Marlboro Mandate would be a legitimate exercise of congressional power. The Supreme Court has long held to a highly expansive interpretation of the power to regulate interstate commerce. Thanks to the ObamaCare decision, Congress doesn’t have the power to mandate that individuals purchase a product, though even that would have been an open question if the liberal dissenters had prevailed on that point. But a command to retailers, especially to a nationwide retail chain like CVS, clearly qualifies. In fact, we borrowed the “20 or more locations” language from Section 4205 of ObamaCare, which mandates nutrition labeling on chain-restaurant menus.
CVS would have no legal case for the injury of having its shelf space commandeered or being deprived of the ability to decide which products were consistent with its corporate mission. To shut down any legal challenge, the government would merely have to show a “rational basis.” That’s a very low threshold to meet, requiring only that the government show some logical relationship between the law and a legitimate governmental end–say, standardizing the practices of pharmaceutical retailers or curbing cigarette smuggling by encouraging legal sales. A rational basis is not a test of public-policy wisdom; foolish, counterproductive, even ill-intentioned laws can easily pass.
Which brings us back to Dana Perino’s point. The only way for a commercial regulation to be held to a higher level of legal scrutiny than rational basis is if the party challenging it makes a claim that it either violates a constitutional right or conflicts with a statute like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that is designed to function as an extension of rights against the government. If there were a Marlboro Mandate, it seems to us CVS would have a sympathetic case for a conscience exemption.
Well, it’s not as if they’re Christers or something.
CAN’T HE JUST ASK FOR THE DAVID GREGORY EXEMPTION? DC Man Set for Hearing After Arrest Over Inoperable Shotgun Shell. Would it be legal to mail inoperable shotgun shells to every member of the DC Council? Then report them as felons. . . I suppose that would be wrong, even if it was legal.