Sobering Thoughts

Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns. I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015). I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!" You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).

XML This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Thursday, January 31, 2019
 
The Abortion Party
The Washington Examiner editorializes:
Former President Bill Clinton famously said he wanted to keep abortion “ safe, legal, and rare.”
But after the passage of the Reproductive Health Act in New York last week, which allows for abortions to be performed right up to the moment of birth, and with Democrats in Virginia pushing for the same, it is clear that the party has moved far beyond the Clinton position.
Democrats have gone all-in on a mantra that can more accurately be summed up as “dangerous, imposed, and frequent,” as Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, put it this week.
The total embrace of abortion on demand was on full display last week as New York state lawmakers cheered the passage of their abortion bill, offering the odious bit of legislation a thunderous, standing ovation. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo even ordered for the One World Trade Center’s spire to be illuminated in pink light in honor of the bill, transforming the peak of “Freedom Tower” into a massive blood-tinted monument to pro-abortion excess.
In the Virginia House of Delegates this week, there was an equally ghastly display of pro-abortion zeal, as Democrat Kathy Tran introduced a bill that similarly allows for late-term abortions. In a video circulated online this week, a clearly discomforted Tran clarified for the state’s deliberative body that her bill allows for abortions to be performed even when the mother is “about to give birth” and even when “she's dilating ...
This is the modern-day Democratic Party. It’s all abortion, all the way down. That old, relatively moderate position championed by Clinton is not just antiquated by the party’s modern-day standards, it's totally irreconcilable with the party's current trajectory.
I didn't take Bill Clinton at his word back in 1992 when he claimed to want abortion safe, legal and rare. It was a rhetorical device to appear moderate. Few observers believed the Clintons when they said they wanted abortion to be rare just as few people believed Barack Obama when he said he supported the traditional definition of marriage back in 2008. Back in the '90s and aughts liberal politicians lied about their social liberalism, which is out-of-step with much of the American public, which while not socially conservative, are not as enthusiastic about moving "forward" on moral issues as many political leaders. (The majority of Americans do not support abortion-on-demand for all nine months.) Remember that despite all the talk about safe, legal and rare, twice in the late-1990s Bill Clinton vetoed partial-birth abortion laws. Hillary Clinton dropped the safe, legal and rare formulation when she ran for president in 2008. In 2006, Ramesh Ponnuru wrote a book titled, The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life. It was true then, and, indeed, long before. It's even more true today. The Democrats are the Party of Death, the party of unfettered, unquestioned abortion. Up to and even after the moment of birth.


 
The world is (still) a dangerous place and the Trump Doctrine
The (London) Times editorializes about global challenges -- some might say dangers -- presented by the development of the closer relationship between Beijing and Moscow:
Both countries have become active globally. Russia’s military intervention in Syria helped to decide the long war in favour of its client dictator, Bashar al-Assad. President Putin apparently believes that this has given Moscow a foothold in the wider Middle East. China has not only been flexing its muscles in the South China Sea but has been projecting power through its Belt and Road investment plan, which spans continents, in an attempt to build new strategic outposts.
These geopolitical ambitions sometimes coincide. Russia and China have an active interest in the accelerating meltdown of Venezuela. Caracas is an important oil producer and ideological ally of Moscow, and serves along with Cuba as a useful irritant to the US. China aims to expand its influence across Latin America and prefers a left-leaning anti-Washington government in Venezuela. In the North Korean crisis, China and Russia have been coordinating with the aim of thwarting sanctions policies against Kim Jong-un.
The two countries share a world view which holds that every international platform should be used to wrong-foot the United States. In the United Nations Security Council they use their veto to obstruct any western attempt to deploy financial sanctions against rule-breakers. Working together within the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation they embrace anyone who confronts the West. Iran finds ready support despite its pariah status and its active bankrolling of terror groups.
From a distance, it sometimes seems that Russia and Red China are not quite on the same side, but that ignores their shared, essential, anti-America and anti-West posture.
Earlier this week, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote about the (perhaps accidentally) emerging Trump foreign policy doctrine. Douthat is a Never Trumper who sees the broad outlines of a vaguely useful and wise foreign policy in the various foreign policy positions of the President:
This Trump doctrine, in practice, isn’t the isolationism that he sometimes promised on the campaign trail; nor is it the flailing bellicosity that many of his critics feared. It’s a doctrine of disentanglement, retrenchment and realignment, in which the United States tries to abandon its most idealistic hopes and unrealistic military commitments, narrow its list of potential enemies and consolidate its attempts at influence. The overarching goal isn’t to cede United States primacy or abandon American alliances, as Trump’s opponents often charge; rather, it’s to maintain American primacy on a more manageable footing, while focusing more energy and effort on containing the power and influence of China ...
The administration’s official European goals (if not Trump’s behind-the-scenes anti-NATO grumbling) also fit plausibly into its larger framework: Building up a stronger military presence on NATO’s Russia-facing flank while getting other countries to bear more of the military burden is the most plausible way to preserve the Western alliance’s basic purposes while the United States refocuses on China. And in the long run, Trump’s dream (whatever its motivations) of a better working relationship with Russia also fits with a retrench-and-refocus framework — with the major caveat that Putin seems too interested in disruption to make a genuine and cooperative détente imaginable for now.
I would argue that retrenchment in the Middle East and Europe and re-engagement in Latin America, requiring more of the allies (especially in Europe), and abandoning the foreign policy idealism of the George W. Bush/Obama years that resulted in a "maximalist posture," makes America stronger and therefore more likely to successfully counter the Beijing-Moscow partnership. If so, I will grudgingly join Douthat in applauding this nascent doctrine despite this President's undermining of international organizations and traditions that have served American interests very well over the past decades. It might be too much to say there is method to Trump's ostensible madness, but there might be the seeds of a defensibly useful foreign policy.


 
Project Fear (They were wrong before edition)
Reuters reports there does not appear to be a banking exodus from The City:
An analysis of job postings on eight of the world’s major investment bank websites show a modest push to recruit staff in other European cities but little to suggest London is set for a rapid demise as the region’s top banking hub.
Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, UBS, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank are seeking to fill 1,545 new roles in Britain, numbers up to January 22 show.
In Germany and France - the two countries predicted to see the biggest influx of financial services from Britain as a result of Brexit - just 301 roles have been listed.
Only Deutsche Bank is looking to hire more people in Germany than in Britain, with 133 German vacancies posted online compared to 132 in the UK.


 
Project Fear: No Deal edition
The Guardian reports:
Emergency “trauma packs” flown into the UK during terrorist attacks are being stockpiled in Britain by the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson over concerns of a risk to life from border delays in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The company said the move was being made due to the danger posed to the “routine and rapid” provision of the vital emergency equipment it provides to the NHS in times of emergency from a distribution plant in Belgium.
It is a fine line between scare-mongering and preparedness. Johnson & Johnson is probably erring on the side of preparedness. The media focus on these types of stories fall on the side of scare-mongering.


Wednesday, January 30, 2019
 
2020 watch (Who's in, who's out edition)
According to a close Clinton confidant, Hillary Rodham Clinton will not lose run a third time. Politico reports her former campaign manager John Podesta said, "I take her at her word. She’s not running for president."
Flakey spiritualist and Oprah advisor Marianne Williamson is running. She's in favour of reparations for blacks and was endorsed by Nicole Richie and Katy Perry when she ran for Congress as an independent in 2014, finishing fourth. She's seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Vox's E.J. Dickson reports, "it’s clear that she and her followers are taking her presidential run seriously, even if many other Democrats may not."


Monday, January 28, 2019
 
2020 watch (Kamala Harris edition)
Washington Examiner: "Kamala Harris draws bigger crowd than Obama for launch of White House bid." I've heard some whispers that if she wasn't a black woman -- or a black or a woman -- she wouldn't be a credible candidate because she is a first-term senator without any legislative accomplishments to her name. I remind people that Barack Obama was a first-term senator without any legislative accomplishments to his name when he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination against prohibitive frontrunner Hillary Clinton in 2008. Also, to the progressive Left, being black or a woman are each on their own better than legislative accomplishments. In the Age of Identity Politics, Harris checks two important boxes.


 
The paradox of liberalism
George Will on Elizabeth Warren:
Warren is too busy inveighing against “corruption” to define it precisely, but she probably means what economists call rent-seeking, which in the context of politics means bending government power for private advantage, either by conferring advantages on oneself or imposing disadvantages on competitors. Although Warren’s inveighing is virtuous, her program would substantially exacerbate the problem by deepening government’s involvement in the allocation of wealth and opportunity.
The modern left claims to hate crony capitalism and corruption, but enlarges the state to increase opportunities for precisely for those problems.


Thursday, January 24, 2019
 
How not to build a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland
Natalie Solent at Samizdata:
Here is my cunning plan to avoid a hard border in Ireland.
Don’t build one.
The UK doesn’t want it, Ireland doesn’t want it. Problem solved, I’d have thought, but the EU does not agree...
A hard border sounds like a wall. Doesn't the Left not like walls?


Wednesday, January 23, 2019
 
England's richest man
Bloomberg reports:
James Dyson, the inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaner, is now the wealthiest person in Britain after his company posted a record profit for 2018.
Earnings at Dyson Ltd. reached 1.1 billion pounds ($1.4 billion) for the year, up from 801 million pounds in 2017, boosted by demand for new hair products, the company said Tuesday in a call with reporters. The results added about $3.4 billion to his wealth, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a ranking of the world’s 500 richest people.
Dyson, 71, is now worth $13.8 billion. The firm’s press office didn’t respond to requests for comment on the fortune of its founder and chairman.
The gain catapults him ahead of Jim Ratcliffe, the founder of chemicals manufacturer Ineos Group, and highlights the waning power of inheritances among the wealthiest Britons. The family of Hugh Grosvenor, the seventh Duke of Westminster, had been the U.K.’s richest thanks to land they’ve owned since 1677 until he was overtaken by Ratcliffe last year. He’s now the third richest with a fortune of $12.4 billion.
Even taking into consideration that Dyson, a big-time Brexit backer, is moving his corporate headquarters to Singapore (for business reasons), the only offensive part of this story is the Grosnevor, whose family wealth has been inherited beginning at a time barely out of the Medieval Age. Like most billionaires, Dyson and Ratcliffe produced things consumers wanted and got rich doing so. Good for them.


Tuesday, January 22, 2019
 
Texas, the fourth largest oil producer in the world
The American Enterprise Institute's Mark J. Perry:
As a result of the impressive, "eye-popping," and ongoing surges in Texas’s oil production over the last decade, the Lone Star State recently surpassed Canada’s oil output for the first time this year (except for a few previous outlier months when production in Canada dropped sharply), and now produces more oil (4.6 million barrels per day) than all other countries except for Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
And if the recent year-over-year output increases of 25-35 percent in recent months continue in Texas, it won’t be long before the state’s crude oil production tops Iraq’s daily output (of 4.7 million barrels), and it will only be Russia and Saudi Arabia that out-produce the Lone Star State.
The near quintupling of oil output in Texas, from about 1 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2008 to what will likely be more than 5 million bpd by the end of this year—ranking the state as the world’s No. 4 oil-producing “nation,” fueled by 35 percent annual increases in recent months—has to be one of the most remarkable energy success stories in history.
Canada has more reserves than Texas, but our energy and environmental policies prevents Canadian oil producers from getting the product to the international market. Last year, the Fraser Institute's Kenneth P. Green, Elmira Aliakbari, and Ashley Stedman wrote in the Calgary Sun:
Even as the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price surges past $60 per barrel, Canada is unable to realize the full benefits of higher prices due to pipeline obstructionism and regulatory uncertainty from the Trudeau government in Ottawa and key provinces including Alberta and British Columbia, which recently proposed new regulations aimed at limiting oilsands bitumen shipments through B.C.
As a result, Canadian oil and gas producers are unable to reach new Asian markets, costing the Canadian economy billions of dollars. Studies show that barriers to building pipelines mean that Canadian oil producers must sell their products to the U.S. at dramatically discounted rates, 20 to 30 per cent below the world price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI).
In fact, the deep discount for Canadian heavy crude is only expected to grow larger in 2018 as Canada’s oilsands output grows but there are no additional transportation options to get crude to market. Export pipelines are already running close to their limits and no new export pipelines are expected to be built before late-2019. Rail companies are also reluctant to expand capacity due to concerns that demand for their service is short-term.
Sadly, while Canada is stuck on the sidelines, the United States is becoming one of the world’s largest oil producers. Sources predict the U.S. Permian Basin, which extends from Texas to New Mexico, will be one of the world’s “hottest oil plays” in 2018. In fact, spending is expected to increase by more than US$5 billion this year. Meanwhile, spending in Canada’s oil patch is expected to stay largely flat. As reported by Reuters, a number of foreign oil majors sold more than $23 billion in Canadian assets in 2017, and invested in more profitable U.S. shale plays.


Monday, January 21, 2019
 
Jesus wasn't a communist. Or a democratic socialist.
Randy England, author of Free is Beautiful: Why Catholics Should be Libertarian, writes at FEE.org: "What did Jesus have to say to support the welfare state?" The answer? Nothing. After quoting from Scripture, England says:
It is notable that Jesus never even hinted that third parties or the state should forcibly redistribute the rich man’s wealth. On the one occasion when Jesus was presented with an opportunity to work an equal distribution of wealth, he quickly declined:
Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” And he said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions” (Luke 12:13–15).
Jesus did not even suggest a distribution. Instead, he warned against greed while declining to play the busybody.


Friday, January 18, 2019
 
Is the UK a democracy?
Corporatist government -- one of the root causes of the Brexit backlash against the elite -- is alive and well. The Daily Telegraph reports:
Philip Hammond told business leaders that the “threat” of a no-deal Brexit could be taken “off the table” within days and potentially lead to Article 50 “rescinded”, a leaked recording of a conference call reveals.
The Chancellor set out how a backbench Bill could effectively be used to stop any prospect of no deal. He suggested that ministers may even back the plan when asked for an “assurance” by the head of Tesco that the Government would not oppose the motion.
He claimed next week’s Bill, which could force the Government to extend Article 50, was likely to win support and act as the “ultimate backstop” against a no-deal Brexit, as a “large majority in the Commons is opposed to no deal under any circumstances”.
A recording of the call, passed to The Daily Telegraph, recounts how the Chancellor, Greg Clark, the Business Secretary, and Stephen Barclay, the Brexit Secretary, spent nearly an hour talking to the leaders of 330 leading firms.
They included the heads of Siemens, Amazon, Scottish Power, Tesco and BP, all of whom warned against no deal.
The people have spoken and now they will be ignored. Philip Hammond and his pals at the companies whose boards he hopes to join in the future will now govern with only the mild inconvenience of pretending that the plebs matter.


Wednesday, January 16, 2019
 
Opioids causing more deaths than auto crashes
Vox reports:
For the first time in history, Americans are more likely to die from opioid overdoses than car crashes, according to a new report from the National Safety Council.
Based on 2017 data, people in the US have a 1 in 103 chance of dying in a motor vehicle crash over their lifetime, but a 1 in 96 chance of dying of an opioid overdose.
In comparison, a person has a 1 in 6 chance of dying of heart disease, a 1 in 7 chance of dying of cancer, a 1 in 285 chance of dying of a gun assault, a 1 in 1,117 chance of dying by drowning, a 1 in 188,364 chance of dying in a plane crash, and a 1 in 218,106 chance of getting killed by lightning.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the age-adjusted motor vehicle death rate hit 11.5 per 100,000 people in 2017, down from a recent peak of 15.2 in 2002.
By contrast, opioid overdose deaths — now largely driven by illicit fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid that’s spread in black markets for drugs — hit an age-adjusted rate of 14.9 per 100,000 in 2017, up from 2.9 in 1999.
It isn't quite accurate to say that opioid and motor vehicle deaths are preventable while heart disease and cancer are not (lifestyle choices contribute to the latter), but public policy could have a much larger impact on reducing fatalities from the former. The article lists some policies that have produced modest positive results:
Vermont saw its overdose death rate drop by around 6 percent in 2017 with the continued expansion of a hub and spoke system that integrates addiction treatment into the rest of health care. Rhode Island also saw a roughly 2 percent drop, as it implemented, among other changes, better access to opioid addiction medications in its prisons and jails. And Massachusetts saw a roughly 3 percent drop, along with a public health campaign that has emphasized more addiction treatment, including in emergency rooms, and fewer painkiller prescriptions.
There are copious links at the original article. Vox's German Lopez is not incorrect to point out that Washington has not provided the resources to battle opioid addiction, "And despite lavish promises, President Donald Trump has done little to change that."


 
Trudeau and populism
The CBC reported on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's response at a St. Catharine's town hall:
Asked about rising xenophobia in Canada, Trudeau talked about the lack of job security many people feel and their concern the Canadian dream of the post-Second World War will elude them permanently.
"A lot of people are wondering if the promise of progress no longer really holds," he said. "These are real anxieties."
At the same time, he said, there are those who would "amplify those fears" for short-term political gain and play to people's insecurities.
He cited the 2015 election in which he said he aimed to stay away from attack ads and strike a positive tone. It's the same game plan he plans to pursue in October, he said.
"Sometimes, packaging really simple easy-sounding solutions can be very compelling," Trudeau told the appreciative crowd. "What I'm trying to make sure we do in this coming year of an election year in Canada is come together to have real conversations, make sure there's room for us to disagree on a certain issue."
Some thoughts.
1. There is no demagoguery like accusing others of demagoguery while claiming to eschew the practice oneself.
2. The first part of Trudeau's answer suggests that xenophobia and populism are merely reactions to economic factors, ignoring that there are also cultural factors.
3. The second part of Trudeau's answer suggests that the Prime Minister understands that there are cultural factors and that he thinks he can charm people into buying into his worldview.
4. My semi-regular reminder: liberalism is the cause of populism. Many people don't like the progressive left but they can live with some of it; however their ability to tolerate it gives way when they are themselves forced to genuflect at every liberal totem. Trudeau's "conversation" may backfire if Canadians find that talking about the endless good of immigration chafes them the wrong way.


Tuesday, January 15, 2019
 
Trump's tariffs are a form of national sales tax
Bruce Yandle, distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, writes about President Donald Trump's tariffs on foreign imports at Investor's Business Daily:
The move to tariffs has occurred without any congressional debate or vote and without the White House ever mentioning a new reality: We now have a growing tariff-based national sales tax.
In fact, Mr. Trump often makes it sound as though tariffs aren't really paid by consumers. They just somehow get collected ...
In some cases, the new tariff-based sales tax falls directly on consumer goods through higher prices. Or, tariffs paid on inputs by, say, producers of machinery or houses may be shifted, partly or totally, onto consumers. We now collect tariffs on Canadian timber products, Chinese solar panels, on some $200 billion of other Chinese goods that range from bicycles to baseball gloves, and on aluminum and steel imports from countries worldwide, with exemptions for the European Union and a handful of other favorites.
The most recent data on federal government current receipts and expenditures tell us how this is playing out:
In 2018's third quarter, personal tax revenue fell to $1.622 trillion. That's down from $1.625 trillion a year prior — a reduction of just $3 billion. Not much change. But 43% of Americans pay no income taxes. Corporate income taxes were another story. Those taxes fell from $296 billion to $162 billion, a drop of $134 billion.
Meanwhile, our government collected $51 billion in tariffs (or what are termed custom duties) in 2018's third quarter, compared with $38 billion in the third quarter of 2017, for a gain of $13 billion — and we can be sure that someone paid it.
In all, then, tariff payments increased by $13 billion while corporate and personal income taxes were down by $137 billion. At the margin, the nation moved from taxing income to taxing consumption.
In other words: American consumers pay the tariff (tax), which is a form of national sales tax, which is not passed through the proper means (taxes should be passed by lawmakers, not imposed by executive branch fiat). Yandle strongly suggests there is a non-transparent, hardly acknowledged move from income and corporate taxes to tariff taxes. This might be over-stating the case considering how little revenue tariffs generate for the federal government compared to income and corporate taxation, but that does not mean these are not significant taxes that should not be punishing American consumers.


 
Planned Parenthood gets British taxpayer money despite sex scandal
The (London) Times reports:
Ministers have awarded £132 million of aid money to an international charity amid an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and corruption at the organisation.
After the Oxfam sex scandal in Haiti, Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, promised to withhold funds from charities that did not act to stamp out exploitation.
The Times has learnt, however, that her department handed millions of pounds to the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) while one of its most senior officials was under investigation after allegations of harassment and misconduct.
Internal documents refer to claims of sexual harassment, bullying, abusive conduct and intimidation of whistleblowers at one of the charity’s largest overseas offices. A female executive was allegedly sent a pornographic video in an attempt to intimidate her.
The Department for International Development (Dfid) has known of the allegations at IPPF, a global sexual-health charity, since August yet pressed ahead with funding for a two-year programme that began in September.
My colleagues in the pro-life movement has passed this story amongst themselves today, remarking on the double standard that being pro-abortion allows a free pass on sexual harassment. I think that's a helpful analytical observation only up to a point. I think the controversy here is better understood through the lens of bureaucratic inertia. Organizations (both governmental and private) will continue to work with the groups they have traditionally worked with.


Monday, January 14, 2019
 
Non-news
The Louisville, Kentucky, Courier-Journal reports that libertarian-leaning GOP Senator Rand Paul is going to Canada for surgery:
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one of the fiercest political critics of socialized medicine, will travel to Canada later this month to get hernia surgery.
Paul, an ophthalmologist, said the operation is related to an injury in 2017 when his neighbor, Rene Boucher, attacked him while Paul was mowing his lawn. The incident left Kentucky's junior senator with six broken ribs and a bruised lung.
He is scheduled to have the outpatient operation at the privately adminstered Shouldice Hernia Hospital in Thornhill, Ontario during the week of Jan. 21, according to documents from Paul's civil lawsuit against Boucher filed in Warren Circuit Court ...
Shouldice Hernia Hospital markets itself as "the global leader in non-mesh hernia repair," according to the clinic's website. The hospital's website outlines payments it accepts, including cash, check or credit card for those patients, like Paul, who are not covered by Ontario's insurance plan for its residents or a provincial health insurance plan.
The lead paragraph suggests that Rand Paul is a hypocrite for coming to Canada for surgery considering his ideological opposition to socialized medicine. The rest of the story is about how the Shouldice clinic, where Paul is going for surgery, is a private facility north of Toronto where many patients pay out of pocket for their care. Not sure how this qualifies as news, and it certainly isn't a gotcha moment.
Of course, NationalNewsWatch, a Canadian news aggregator links to the Courier-Journal article.


Thursday, January 10, 2019
 
Liberal government's extreme anti-impaired driving law
Global News reports:
It may sound unbelievable, but Canada’s revised laws on impaired driving could see police demand breath samples from people in bars, restaurants, or even at home. And if you say no, you could be arrested, face a criminal record, ordered to pay a fine, and subjected to a driving suspension.
You could be in violation of the impaired driving laws even two hours after you’ve been driving. Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road ...
Changes to Section 253 of the Criminal Code of Canada took effect in December giving police greater powers to seek breath samples from drivers who might be driving while impaired.
Under the new law, police officers no longer need to have a “reasonable suspicion” the driver had consumed alcohol. Now, an officer can demand a sample from drivers for any reason at any time.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau likes to say the Liberals are the party of the Charter. Under legal rights, the Charter enumerates three important rights: Right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, Protection against unreasonable laws, Protection against arrest without good reason.


Wednesday, January 09, 2019
 
Project Fear: No Deal edition
The Washington Post reports that Brits are practicing traffic jams at the border:
On Monday, Britain’s transport ministry had 87 trucks drive from Manston Airport to Dover, home to one of Europe’s busiest ports. The idea was to see how to handle traffic in the event of backup because of a border closure.
Critics said the exercise was an unrealistic simulation and a colossal waste of taxpayer money. “Less than a hundred lorries is a drop in the ocean compared to the more than 10,000 that go to the channel ports every day,” Charlie Elphicke, a Conservative lawmaker from Dover, told Reuters.
And the government is navigating the fine line between preparedness and scare-mongering, almost certainly falling over to side of needlessly ramping up fear of shortages, in this case medicine:
In December, Victoria Macdonald, Channel 4′s health correspondent, reported that Britain’s National Health Service had ordered 5,000 new fridges as part of its no-deal contingency planning. “The concerns are that so many drugs come in from Europe, the last thing they want to see happening is for them to be stuck at Dover, because they often have short shelf life,” she said.
“I’ve become the largest buyer of fridges in the world,” Health Secretary Matt Hancock acknowledged on BBC “Newsnight.” “I didn’t expect that.”
I don't think cynicism is out of order here. The fear-mongering of the government is almost certainly 90% theatre to convince a few MPs to vote along with the(ir) government.


Tuesday, January 08, 2019
 
The media ignores the most important issues
Last week, Scott Sumner blogged:
I encourage readers not to let the media set the agenda. The media will tell you that Brett Kavanaugh was the most important issue in 2018 and that the 4500 American soldiers who died in the Iraq war was the biggest American policy disaster of the 21st century. In fact, many of the issues of greatest importance are rarely even discussed by our media or by politicians. These include:
1. The nearly 400,000 Americans in prison for drug crimes (not to mention others in prison under dubious mandatory sentencing rules.)
2. Tight money during 2008.
3. Zoning and occupational licensing laws.
4. Above all else, our horrendously over-regulated medical-industrial complex.
The most important issue every year is increased bacterial resistance to antibiotics, but that doesn't substantially change the point that Sumner is making.
To be fair, politicians do not give these issues much credence either.
The main point is that there is not a strong correlation between what is important or consequential (and what needs fixing and addressing) and what is covered as news or talked about by politicians.


 
To broadcast Trump's speech live
Television news is not obligated to provide air time to the President. It is a news judgement. New York Times editorial page editor David Leonhardt suggests, however, news outlets should be making a political judgement:
I’ll confess to being torn about the major television networks’ decision to air President Trump’s speech tonight on the border wall. On the one hand, the networks said no to President Barack Obama when he asked for airtime to give a speech on immigration in 2014. They said it was too political to deserve a free prime-time spot — and Trump’s speech is clearly political, as well.
But if they had said no to Trump, the decision would have dominated the political conversation for at least a couple of days. The issue would be a fight between Trump and the media as much as it would be about the government shutdown or immigration policy. And I think fights between Trump and the media tend to benefit Trump. They turn attention away from his own presidential incompetence and misbehavior toward journalists, who aren’t exactly the most popular group of people in the country.
I could make an argument that CNN or Fox is there to cover the news and provide analysis and context, which can be done without carrying it live. Presidents make many speeches. Why is this one special? Because the President says so? But what Leonhardt's argument makes clear is that whether to cover it or not is no longer, and perhaps never was, merely a news judgement.


Monday, January 07, 2019
 
Amusement taxes are the minor league version of sin taxes. For now.
Jon Miltimore, managing editor of FEE.org, writes about the growing trend of jurisdictions (mostly Illinois) to use amusement taxes to raise revenue. Miltimore notes that in the 1970s, raised a total of $120 million in America, by 1997 they raised $1.95 billion and by 2014 they totaled $6 billion. In comparison, American jurisdictions raised $32 billion in sin taxes. Miltimore reports that Cook County defines amusement as "any exhibition, performance, presentation or show for entertainment purposes," but which has been broadened to include services such as Netflix. This is all background to the battle over applying amusement taxes to lap-dancing and stripping. Taxing strippers will get libertarians like those at the Foundation for Economic Education quite irate. I'm amused by the desire of the strip-joint operators to want stripping recognized as an art and therefore a form of free speech (and thus protected from many regulations, including the amusement tax) when they are specifically designated as amusement operators by the county and are obviously, first and foremost, commercial enterprises designed to titillate and entertain. Would American culture survive without pole dancing. Also, I find bureaucratic, legal, and economic distinctions sometimes quite silly and, ahem, amusing in themselves, in this case with pole dancing (protected free speech) and lap dancing (not protected free speech); I assume for those inclined, both are an amusement.
All that said and as inconsequential as it may seem, heavily indebted jurisdictions may look longingly at amusement taxes to raise revenue in the future. What Miltimore never gets to is that the companies that provide entertainment are presumably already taxed as corporations, many of them as smaller businesses. Amusement taxes are essentially surcharges on specific industries that are effectively double-taxed because of the sort of services they provide. This is wrong and should stop.


 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The (London) Times reports on the bullying at an anti-bullying and victim-support charity:
The head of a leading domestic abuse charity that receives millions of pounds in government contracts has been accused of mismanaging funds and fostering a bullying atmosphere.
Sandra Horley, the chief executive of Refuge, is one of the country’s highest-paid charity bosses, with a total remuneration package of more than £210,000 ...
“For a charity that empowers women in its services, the situation in head office is unfortunately very different. The atmosphere is toxic,” they wrote.
Refuge provides specialist support to victims of domestic violence. Last year 44 per cent of its £14 million annual income came from local authority contracts, in addition to funding from individual donations and corporate sponsors such as Google. It helps about 6,000 people a year through emergency accommodation, community outreach programmes, specialist caseworkers, independent domestic violence advocacy and a 24-hour helpline. However, former employees speaking to The Times claimed that the head office was an “abusive” environment where staff were “belittled” by management. Staff would regularly cry at their desks or take time off because of anxiety, they said.
There was also serious allegations of nepotism and financial malfeasance.


 
Baltimore homicide facts
The Baltimore Sun reports:
More than half of Baltimore’s 309 homicide victims in 2018 were shot in the head, according to the police department’s annual homicide analysis released Wednesday.
There were 175 victims with fatal head wounds last year, which accounted for 57 percent of all homicides. In 2017, 45 percent of the city’s 342 homicides involved head wounds; in 2016, 47 percent of the city’s 318 homicides did.
Other homicide facts:
The large majority of killings — 271, or 88 percent — were from gunfire. And of those, 199 victims were shot multiple times.
And:
Of the city’s 309 homicide victims, 13 were injured in shootings from previous years and died in 2018, so their deaths were included in the 2018 count. The number of victims dying from shootings in previous years has been increasing. There were 10 such cases in 2017, four in 2016 and three in 2015.
White middle class citizens might look at Charm City as dangerous, but 259 of the 309 victims had criminal records, most of them relating to drugs. Furthermore, the vast majority of victims are black (291) and male (275), with almost half between the ages of 25 and 39 (154). Ten victims were under ten years old.
The homicide clearance rate is around 43%, down about eight percentage points from 2017 but up about five points from 2016.