Images | Commentary | Digital Scrapbook
An interesting analysis. I think I would support this idea in a referendum.
“…Californians don’t “keep voting for this”. California is a huge state. Many residents consistently vote down intrusive regulations and excessive taxation. Unfortunately those voters face two gigantic problems. The first problem is that the interests of Californians who live in rural and suburban areas (which make up the majority of California’s geography) greatly rival the interests of those who live in urban centers. The second problem is that 80% of Californians live in urban centers – most notably Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego.
A look at the voting map from Tuesday’s primaries shows the problem in full detail.
Democrat Gavin Newsom pulled a “Hillary” and secured most of the coastal dwellers. Everyone else chose the Republican candidate…”
The Eagles tried to politically embarrass the president. The president kicked their butts up and down the street. If there is one thing the president knows, it’s how to manipulate politics and the media.
Daniel Henninger:
“…Donald Trump is a showman, who has been playing the media like a Stradivarius his whole life. Now he’s got Twitter , his own loud calliope.
In 2016, his Republican primary opponents didn’t recognize that we are living in an age of bread and circuses, an age Donald Trump didn’t create but into which he inserted his own circus. Curiosity seekers filled the tent and loved the show.
The sophisticates in the media thought they could beat Donald Trump at this game by burying him under waves of negative publicity. But he feeds off of it, just as he turned the Philadelphia Eagles’ White House no-show into a display of patriotic music, with the maestro at the center.
Now, fantastically, some Democrats are complaining that they can’t get their message out (the tax cut didn’t work, Medicare for all) because Donald Trump has blotted out the media sun. Gee whiz, whose fault is that?
The eclipse won’t end. The media has turned the Trump presidency into a phenomenon of constant self-absorption—their self-absorption in this one person. Donald Trump has become the biggest balloon in a political Macy’s parade of modern media’s own creation. They could let go of the ropes. But they won’t…”
Michael Barone looks at the primary results in California republican districts that went for Clinton in the last national election to distill predictions for the next congress. He finds some good news for republicans.
Michael Barone:
“…This would be in line with polling that shows Donald Trump to enjoy almost universal job approval among self-identified Republicans—higher than all but one post-World War II president enjoyed at this stage in their tenure from his fellow partisans.
The 1994-2014 partisan divisions have been unusually long-enduring, aside from the short-lived shift to Democrats in 2006-08, and the actual number of Obama/Trump voters that switched 100 electoral votes to the Republican was small by historic standards.
Will a reversion to that norm give Republicans a narrow House majority once again this year? That’s one result — though certainly not the only one — that would be consistent with the primary results we’ve seen so far. Opinion can shift: perhaps another blue wave is building. But the one almost everyone was expecting six months ago seems to have crested and ebbed…”
Google’s work force decided they should not work with the U.S. Military because it would be evil to do so and it would damage the Google brand. You can’t make this stuff up. These nitwits learn this stuff in college, and pay top dollar for the privilege.
Mark Thiessen:
“…Giving in to pressure from its workforce, Google recently announced that it is pulling out of Project Maven, a groundbreaking Pentagon program to harness artificial intelligence to sift through and interpret video imagery from drones. The move came after an uprising by 4,000 Google employees who signed a letter urging the company to cancel Project Maven and promise to never “build warfare technology.” Google should be ashamed.
In their letter, the employees said that working with the Pentagon would violate Google’s longtime motto “Don’t Be Evil” and “irreparably damage Google’s brand.” Excuse me? Are they saying that the U.S. military is evil? What would damage Google’s brand is the impression that its workforce thinks they are too good to support the men and women of the armed forces who face real evil on distant battlefields so that Google workers can sleep safely in their Google “nap pods,” enjoy free massages and take free guitar lessons.
Their objections to Project Maven are nonsensical. They fear that Google technology will be used to make drone strikes more accurate. What’s wrong with that?…”
Troops of the 20th Armored Division and units of the 9th Army whoop it up between raindrops as the S.S. John Ericsson nears Pier 84, Hudson River as they return from Europe—victorious.
Outstanding piece by Conrad Black. Here’s a little taste:
“…However, there is extensive public evidence that Messrs. Clapper, Brennan (who recently tweeted that Mr. Trump could “not destroy America”), Comey, his former deputy Andrew McCabe, and Mrs. Clinton and her entourage all lied to Congress or to federal officials. The former attorney general and deputy attorney general (Loretta Lynch and Sally Yates), and Mr. Rosenstein himself, are among those implicated in misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, and all are in the gray zone of potential indictability and conviction…”
Two CV-22 Osprey aircraft fly close together during the Cannon Air Show, Space and Tech Fest at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., May 26, 2018.
I am not entirely satisfied with the Supreme Court decision in this matter, but this take from Scotusblog seems to interpret the Court’s decision about right. It also predicts the next actions from the progressive left in their lawfare campaign against traditional American institutions.
“…What the Supreme Court said was different but may ultimately come to nearly the same place. The court said that the inconsistent treatment of Phillips and the protected bakers showed hostility towards Phillips’ religious faith. Colorado had violated its duty “not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or a religious viewpoint.” The state must “proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs.” The commission had been “neither tolerant nor respectful”; it had proceeded on the basis of “a negative normative ‘evaluation of the particular justification’ for his objection” (quoting Lukumi).
There is a practical holding and an ideal holding here. The practical holding is that the unequal treatment of Phillips and the protected bakers is evidence of unconstitutional hostility. Conscientious objectors embroiled in litigation will have to send testers to smoke out uneven enforcement of anti-discrimination law. We expect that states are unwilling to require socially liberal vendors to produce goods with conservative religious messages they find offensive or against their conscience. If that is so, then those states cannot require religiously conservative vendors to produce goods in violation of their conscience.
The Supreme Court has announced a powerful ideal. Even when a law has no explicit exceptions, hostile enforcement is unconstitutional. Single-issue agencies that enforce state civil-rights laws must approach claims to religious exemptions with tolerance and respect. And this is apparently an absolute rule; the court does not consider whether hostility might be justified by some state interest, compelling or otherwise.
But a requirement of tolerance and respect, or even the avoidance of hostility, is difficult to enforce. The opponents of religious exemptions will now start doing the sorts of things done by many other government officials resisting constitutional mandates. They will seek doctrinal and rhetorical manipulations to cloak their hostility to the constitutional right, and their unequal treatment of objectors they agree with and objectors they don’t…”
God bless these brave men.
First wave beach battalion lays low under the fire of Nazi guns on a beach in southern France on D-Day.
Like global warming, recycling was more about progressive and secular faith-based policy beliefs than hard science.
“…Some Inconvenient Truths About Recycling…
It has become an article of faith in the U.S. that recycling is a good thing. But evidence is piling up that recycling is a waste of time and money, and a bit of a fraud.
The New York Times recently reported that, unknown to most families who spend hours separating garbage into little recycling bins, much of the stuff ends up in a landfill anyway.
One big reason: China has essentially shut the door to U.S. recyclables.
The Times notes that about a third of recyclables gets shipped abroad, with China the biggest importer. But starting this year, China imposed strict rules on what it will accept, effectively banning most of it. That, the Times reports, has forced many recycling companies who can’t find other takers to dump recyclables into landfills.
One company, Oregon’s Rogue Disposal and Recycling, sent “all its recycling to landfills for the first few months of the year,” the Times reports.
Bloomberg says Massachusetts has issued dozens of landfill waivers so recyclable material can be dumped in them. The Florida Sun Sentinel reports that in Broward County, Fla., up to 30% of the stuff residents put in recycling bins ends up in landfills...”
I see indicators that Black Americans are taking a second look at the democrat party.
“…Voters feel young black Americans are better off under President Trump than they were under Barack Obama, the nation’s first black president.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey shows that 32% of Likely U.S. Voters believe life for young black Americans has gotten better since Trump’s election. Slightly more (36%) say life for these Americans has gotten worse, while 26% think it has stayed about the same…”
and
“…Even black voters are nearly twice as likely (28%) to say young black Americans are better off now than they were in the closing year of Obama’s presidency (15%).
Forty-seven percent (47%) of all voters, however, believe race relations are worse since Trump’s election. Still, that compares to 60% who felt that way after eight years of the Obama presidency. Just 20% say those relations are better now, while 30% rate them about the same…”
An interesting analysis of recent international trends.
“…Without fanfare elements of a new cold war are being put into place by the Trump administration, the European Union and China. Although the disconnected components separately make headlines, the underlying pattern is evident despite the carnival-like distractions of the Mueller investigation and the reluctance to declare the old order dead…”
I don’t believe global warming was ever a serious scientific issue—by that I mean one that required a consortium of governments to solve immediately so humans could survive. It has been obvious for some time that the science did not match the political and media hype. It has also been obvious that the science was used by the progressive left in an attempt to force their will on western countries.
Steven Hayward:
“…Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.
Judged by deeds rather than words, most national governments are backing away from forced-marched decarbonization. You can date the arc of climate change as a policy priority from 1988, when highly publicized congressional hearings first elevated the issue, to 2018. President Trump’s ostentatious withdrawal from the Paris Agreement merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.
A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.
The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm—a blaring noise people are tuning out…”
Said to have been the last full-rigged ship built in Massachusetts, the Mary L. Cushing was launched in Newburyport in 1883 by George E. Currier. Registered to Pendleton, Carver & Nichols of Searsport in 1895, and eventually sold into the salmon trade; disappeared from the register in 1907.
Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and big tech in general have been trending left for some time. A few people in northern California, directing an army of carefully selected recent college graduates, is deciding what information the American public sees, and more importantly, what speech the American public may express on social media sites. Censorship of conservative ideas and speech is real. Because this is the new media, and because it has such an over-sized effect on the public, it is time for government oversight.
“…Most Republicans are now convinced that high-level federal law enforcement officials tried illegally to stop Donald Trump from being president.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 72% of Likely Republican Voters think senior law enforcement officials are likely to have broken the law in an effort to prevent Trump from winning the presidency, and that includes 55% who say it’s Very Likely. That compares to 66% and 47% respectively in early February.
Democrats are slightly more convinced, too, although only 29% believe these officials are Very Likely to have broken the law. Still, that’s up from 22% in the earlier survey. Twenty-five percent (25%) of voters not affiliated with either major political party share that view, down a bit from 29%.
Among all likely voters, 51% think it’s likely senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to stop Trump, with 36% who say it’s Very Likely. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree and consider it unlikely that these officials illegally attempted to stop a Trump presidency, including 26% who say it’s Not At All Likely…”
An interesting chart that shows 500 day own party approval of modern presidents.
