KEEP A TIGHT HOLD ON YOUR RIGHT TO WORK: It takes a close reading to see how they do it, but 140 congressional Democrats have found a way to nullify Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Mark Mix of the National Right to Work Committee and Mike Watson of the Capital Research Center explain the small type.
Archive for 2019
May 14, 2019
WELL, THAT’S NOT GOOD: Study links low-dose aspirin to bleeding inside the skull.
AT AMAZON, save on Office Supplies.
DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Harvard Is Punishing a Law Professor for Representing Harvey Weinstein, And They Should be Ashamed. “This singling out of [Harvard Law School professor Ron Sullivan Jr.] seems like an attack on the very foundation of our legal system, but what do I know? I didn’t go to Harvard.”
HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, CULTURE OF CORRUPTION EDITION: Former USC coach pleads guilty in college admissions scandal. “A former University of Southern California assistant soccer coach pleaded guilty Tuesday to her role in a college admissions scandal. Laura Janke, 36, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering with William ‘Rick’ Singer, the mastermind of the scheme, and agreed to cooperate in the government’s investigation into the admissions scandal. Janke is one of five USC coaches charged in the case, but the first to plead guilty.”
REALCLEARINVESTIGATIONS: New Russiagate Prober Has Haunted FBI for Months.
John Durham, the prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William Barr to investigate how Trump-Russia allegations emerged and spread within federal law enforcement, has already been looking into whether the FBI’s former top lawyer, James Baker, illegally leaked to reporters.
In fact, the U.S. attorney from Connecticut appears to have begun that work more than seven months ago, to judge from an underreported transcript of an October congressional interview with Baker. The Baker interview, at which Durham was not present, suggests that the prosecutor nevertheless has some people very worried.
Baker testified about the Trump-Russia affair on Oct. 3 before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. . . .
Suddenly, Baker’s lawyer, Dan Levin, jumped in: “One second,” he said before he and his client had a conversation off the record.
When the microphones were back on, Levin declared he would “not let [Baker] answer these questions right now. You may or may not know, he’s been the subject of a leak investigation which is still – a criminal leak investigation that’s still active at the Justice Department.” And so Levin concluded, “I’m sorry. I’m cutting off any discussion about conversations with reporters.”
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows wanted to make clear what Baker’s lawyer was claiming: “You’re saying he’s under criminal investigation? That’s why you’re not letting him answer?”
“Yes.”
Levin and the lawmakers sparred a bit over whether Baker was invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, and the congressmen finally got around to asking who was leading this criminal probe:
“There is an ongoing investigation by whom?” Jordan said.
“The Justice Department,” Levin responded.
“I mean, is the inspector general looking at this or is this—”
“No,” said Levin, “it’s Mr. John Durham, a prosecutor.”
The specter of Durham haunts the rest of the interview. Baker can’t talk about what he told his old friend David Corn in their conversations about the dossier because it would put Baker in legal jeopardy.
Time and again, when Baker was asked questions about reporters – even hypothetical questions about FBI policy regarding contacts with the press, Levin said, “I’m not going to allow him to answer that question” or “I am not going let him answer any questions about leaks.”
Read the whole thing.
PANIC: Why Do You Grab Your Bag When Running Off a Burning Plane?
Imagine trying to get out of a plane, but the passenger ahead of you is blocking the aisle as he tries to wrestle his carry-on free. Frustrating, right? And, oh — did we mention that the plane is on fire?
After an Aeroflot jetliner burst into flames during an emergency landing in Moscow recently, some passengers who had just escaped were seen walking across the tarmac luggage in hand. It raised a rather basic question about human behavior: Why would anyone evacuating a plane waste precious moments retrieving his Sudoku book and suitcase?
The online hate was instant, if based on sketchy information. The carry-on grabbers were accused of having hindered the escape of fellow passengers, dozens of whom died in the flames.
No one may ever know how true that is, but the passengers did violate one of the most basic rules of air safety. As a headline in the Travel section of The Times put it after the accident, In the Event of an Emergency, Leave Your Luggage on the Plane. Really.
Psychologists caution, though, against being too quick to judge. That guy in front of you who enters the subway — then stops dead and looks at his phone? He probably is a jerk. That passenger reaching for the bag with his favorite sweater or maybe a present for his kid? He’s probably just acting human.
Decisions made in moments of intense emotion are often the least rational, said Debra Borys, a forensic and clinical psychologist in Los Angeles. And it surely does not get more intense than it was for the passengers on Aeroflot Flight 1492 last Sunday.
“They’re feeling so utterly terrified and powerless,” Dr. Borys said.
It may also not be quite accurate, she said, to view the passengers’ actions as a conscious choice. “I don’t think we should think of it as a decision when they grab their stuff,” she said. “I think we should think about it as an impulse.” The goal may not have been safeguarding possessions; they may simply have been seeking a little emotional comfort.
I get that, but civilization requires control of one’s impulses at important moments, even at the cost of emotional comfort. And evacuating a burning plane is an important moment.
YOUR DAILY TREACHER: Anthony Weiner Gets Sprung (From Halfway House). “I’m glad Weiner is getting a fresh start, and I look forward to his inevitable return to politics. Not because I think that he’s right about anything, or that he’s a good public servant or a decent human being, but because I miss all the fun headlines.”
And thanks for making possible one of the late Andrew Breitbart’s most epic moments, when he spoke to the press at Weiner’s own press conference.
MAGNANIMITY, THY NAME IS TLAIB: A prejudice exposed cannot be ignored.
I think she was trying to be nice. Or, if not nice, magnanimous—or what she believed to be magnanimous.
The problem with what Rep. Rashida Tlaib said over the weekend about Jews and Palestinians is precisely this—precisely that she meant to be nice. Her attempt at magnanimity was, in essence, to say this: “given what Jews went through, I feel less enraged and, indeed, even a little ‘calmed’ when I think of the evil they did to my people—my people, who welcomed and helped them!”
This is why Congressional Democrats and figures in pop culture have come to her defense and say that Republicans need to apologize to her. They believe it is exculpatory that she intended to be nice. But she can’t be. Her essential view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is distorted and wrong and mendacious.
Fortunately, Tlaib did receive the apology she deserves: Liz Cheney to Tlaib and Pelosi: I’m sorry — that so many House Democrats are anti-semitic.
NEVER MIND THE NAYSAYERS: Young People Still Love Cars.
21st CENTURY HEADLINES: Reaching Challenger Deep, American Businessman Completes Deepest Submarine Dive in History.
THE PLANET’S ON F**KING FIRE: Colorado wedding plans disrupted by winter avalanche cleanup.
Breckinridge and A-Basin are still open for skiing and snowboarding, and expect to stay open for another two or three weeks.
I EAGERLY AWAIT THE MEDIA’S CONDEMNATION OF THIS ATTACK ON THE FREE PRESS: Liz Warren: ‘Fox News Is a Hate-For-Profit Racket That Gives a Megaphone to Racists and Conspiracists.’
GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE: The History and Results of America’s Disastrous Public School System, Part I.
I’ve covered some of this ground myself.
YOU KNOW, I’M BEGINNING TO THINK SOME HEADS MIGHT ACTUALLY ROLL: CIA Joins Barr in Investigating Origins of Trump Campaign Surveillance.
CHRISTIAN TOTO: Why Woke Gender Swap Remakes Are a Bad Bet.
The original 2000 comedy “What Women Want” earned a spectacular $182 million. The gender swap remake, starring Taraji P. Henson in the Mel Gibson role, generated just $54 million earlier this year.
Last year’s “Overboard” remake, which gave Anna Faris the Kurt Russell role from the chipper 1987 comedy, scored $50 million domestically. It helped that the film’s budget came in at a trim $12 million. It’s still far from a smash. Some of its box office might likely came from popular Mexican star Eugenio Derbez.
This past weekend, the ghost of “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” did little to stop the “Avengers: Endgame” juggernaut. “The Hustle,” a very faithful remake of the 1988 Frank Oz comedy, cast Anne Hathaway and Rebel Wilson in place of Michael Caine and Steve Martin.
The results? A modest $13 million for its opening weekend. The original only made $42 million, but it’s become a beloved con caper. The remake mostly played down the feminist angle, but that didn’t save it from some scathing reviews.
For every remake, reboot, or gender-flip re-do, how many quality original scripts get passed over because they don’t have a “brand?”
SAY NO TO OLIVE OIL? “Unfortunately, we’ve grown used to this kind of dietary flip-flop. Many Americans have begun to wonder if even the experts know what they’re talking about. One day margarine is good for you, the next it’s bad. One day vitamin E protects against heart disease, the next it offers no benefit at all. Now it’s olive oil’s turn.”
A one-shot study with ten subjects is far from dispositive. (And note the presence of bread, giving the non-salmon meal a lot more carbs). But I’m cooking everything in beef tallow and bacon grease from now on, just to be safe.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Journalism is Dead — Long Live The Media!
LOGISTICS: The U.S. Air Force Fears for Its F-15s and F-35s vs. Russia’s S-400. But…
Russian air defenses can’t fire and reload missiles quickly enough to stop a NATO air and missile offensive. “The fact that it is possible to knock down no more than one target of a single SAM, apparently, does not need to be explained to anyone,” says Khramchikhin. “This is basic arithmetic. The combat algorithms for the S-300P and S-400 imply the use of two missiles for the same target in automatic combat mode; you can only switch to the option ‘one missile – one target’ manually. That is, if the regiment has 64 ready-to-launch missiles, then it can knock down a maximum of 64 targets, or actually 32. After which the regiment is ‘reset.’ The standard for reloading one launcher for an ‘excellent’ [inspection] rating is 53 minutes. That is, it will take at least an hour to restore the regiment’s combat readiness, which is a bit much in the context of a modern war.”
But Khramchikhin doesn’t believe even an hour’s reload time is realistic. “The regiment will not be restored in an hour or in two,” because the anti-aircraft batteries don’t have enough spare missiles or the machines to reload the launchers, he explains. “All this should be brought from the bases of storage and preparation of missiles. Accordingly, we are talking about many hours, if not days. What makes the regiment, in fact, ‘one-time’ (if we are talking about a war with a serious opponent).”
Russian air defense reminds me a bit of the old Soviet navy, whose job was to try to sink an American aircraft carrier or two shortly before ceasing to exist.