Archive for 2017

JOURNALISM: “So, BBC asks ‘Why is Trump being criticised?’ That’s just a funny question, isn’t it? Whatever Trump does, he will be criticized. There’s a large sector of media that watches whatever Trump says and does and asks: What’s the best way to say that’s bad?”

Plus:

IN THE COMMENTS: Henry quotes — “The entire West Wing staff is required to vacate the premises in August while the building’s 27-year-old heating, air conditioning and ventilation system is replaced…. Other maintenance includes repairing steps on the side of the executive mansion facing the National Mall as well as painting, replacing carpets and curtains, and fixing, ahem, water leaks in the press office” — and quips:

Wait! So the White House actually is a dump?

You can’t trust the Fake News Media, can you? . . .

VIRGINIA POSTREL: Elon Musk’s Hyperloop Is Doomed for the Worst Reason: Regulations are killing America’s boldest dreams.

When Elon Musk tweeted that he had “verbal govt approval” to build a Hyperloop to carry passengers from New York to Washington in half an hour, everyone with a lick of sense about transportation rolled their eyes. It was obviously delusion, fantasy, and hype — science-fiction nonsense.

In a different era, skeptics would have focused on the technology: a magnetic levitation system shooting passenger pods along through a tunnel that maintains a near-vacuum for hundreds of miles. Gee whiz! That’s impossible!

But nowadays we’re blasé about technological challenges. If geeks can put a supercomputer in everyone’s pocket, we imagine they can build a mag-lev pod transit system. Musk does, after all, have his own space program.

No, what makes Musk’s Hyperloop plan seem like fantasy isn’t the high-tech part. Shooting passengers along at more than 700 miles per hour seems simple — engineers pushed 200 miles-per-hour in a test this week — compared to building a tunnel from New York to Washington. And even digging that enormously long tunnel — twice as long as the longest currently in existence — seems straightforward compared to navigating the necessary regulatory approvals.

We live in a world where atoms are much harder to do anything with than bits — and where atoms that require regulatory permission are the hardest of all. The eye-rolling comes less from the technical challenges than from the bureaucratic ones.

Well, Trump’s cutting regulations, but not nearly fast enough.

WELL, IT WAS ALL TWADDLE BUILT UP TO EXCUSE A HUMILIATING DEFEAT: Politico: Democrats fear Russia probe blowback. “We need to talk about what people think about when they wake up in the morning, and it’s not Russia. . . . The more we talk about stuff that voters don’t truly care about in their daily lives … it confirms that the Democratic Party’s brain has been eaten by the elites in Washington who have been sitting fat and happy for a lot of years while working Americans have lost their jobs and lost confidence in the future.” Trouble is, the Colbert base won’t let go of the issue.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, KAMPUS KANGAROO KOURT EDITION: Rape case against USC student dismissed after judge sees security video. “In May a USC student named Armann Karim Premjee was charged with rape after a sexual encounter with a female student. This week the charges against Premjee were dismissed after video surfaced showing the woman in question had signaled to her friend that she was going to have sex with him.”

JOHN HINDERAKER: Comey’s FBI Lied About Lynch-Clinton Meeting. “Several interesting points emerge from the DOJ’s emails, beginning with the fact that the FBI falsely claimed not to have any documents relating to the meeting.”

HEH: The funny thing is, I can almost see Trump doing this, and it would be devastating.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Michael Barone: Stephen Miller is right: Lazarus’ immigration poem is not US law.

Acosta kept reading and reciting the Emma Lazarus poem written before the Statue of Liberty was erected in 1886 but not inscribed at its base until 1903: “Give us your tired, your poor,” etc. His plain implication was that the United States had an open immigration policy back in the years before World War I.

That implication is flatly false. The early republic did not have a federal immigration policy, but as immigration started rising well after the end of the 1792-1815 world war between Britain and France, the state governments did inspect immigrants alighting from sailing and then steam ships, with a view to excluding those with communicable diseases or unable to support themselves economically and thus likely to become “a public charge.” For more information on this, see Vincent Cannato’s 2010 book American Passage: The History of Ellis Island.

In the 1880s the federal government took over the task of screening immigrants, building the Ellis Island inspection station which opened in 1892 within easy sight of the Statue of Liberty. Ellis Island processed millions between 1892 and 1914, when the outbreak of World War I pretty much cut off overseas immigration, and again from 1919 to 1924, when a sharply restrictive immigration act was passed, barring virtually all immigrants from southern and eastern Europe.

The Ellis Island regime was not, however, the kind of open immigration system Jim Acosta and an increasing number of liberals and Democrats seem to favor. For one thing, the most tired and poor seldom made it to the United States, because they lacked the money or the heartiness to afford or weather even steerage passage on a trans-Atlantic steamship. More importantly, the government excluded those deemed (at their Ellis Island inspection or elsewhere) suffering from communicable diseases, those deemed to be insane or “loathsome” and those “likely to become a public charge.” (Here’s a sample of exclusions for such reasons.)

Thus paupers were not allowed, or elderly people with no assets or relatives; there was even a political test, for “anarchists,” which is not so surprising considering that in the 1890-1901 period anarchist terrorists murdered the president of France, the empress of Austria, and the president of the United States.

Lefties don’t know much about history, because knowing it might interfere with feelings.