Tuesday, May 29, 2018

THE SKID (Poem)


Starting downhill, driving in slush.
No time to be in such a rush.
To be safe shifted down to third.
Car broke loose; it was absurd.

As the car shot fast across the road,
“Will that steel guard rail hold?”
I thought, “Turn, turn into the skid!”
I shouted and did as bid.

Although it would be nice to think
That skill saved us from the brink.
The lord who put us to the test
Brought the car safely to rest.

1981

CAN PRESIDENT TRUMP CANCEL THE NOVEMBER ELECTION?

When President Trump DEMANDED an investigation of the FBI asset who talked to three Trump members during his election campaign, I worried whether Trump could cancel the November elections if he fears a "blue wave" of Democrats getting elected.  This thought occurred to me also because of the President of the Senate postponing the selection of a member of the Supreme Court for a year in the hopes that Republicans would still have a majority so as to select a Supreme Court member.

It turns out that this matter has been under consideration, not because of a "blue wave,"  but because of the fear of a major terrorist attack.  Thus the President would have to dream up some sort of security attack.  It appears, however, that the elections could not be postponed indefinitely but that the House elections MUST occur during 2008 (even number year) according to the constitution.   Also in the constitution, Senators are to serve for 6 yrs so about a third of the Senators must face election in 2008 or their terms would extend beyond 6 yrs.

The following are quotes from a CRS Report For Congress report titled Executive Branch Power To Postpone Elections.

As for the President affecting the timing of an election, I found this:
 While the Executive Branch has significant delegated authority regarding some aspects of election law, this authority does not currently extend to setting or changing the times of elections*.

But Congress can get into the act:
Under a variety of possible scenarios that could arise as a result of a terrorist attack before or during an election, either the Congress or the states might pass legislation which would affect the timing of these elections. The suggestion has been made, however, that the Executive Branch might have some role in determining whether an election was to occur or whether it could be cancelled. While the Executive Branch does not currently have this power, it appears that Congress may be able to delegate this power to the Executive Branch. *
Though I can imagine the House passing such a measure, my hope is that there would be at least a couple of Senators who would stand up for America and prevent the U.S. from becoming a subject of authoritarian power.

What about the Constitution?
Article I, §4, cl. 1 The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature therof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing  [choosing] Senators.*

Article II, §1, cl. 4 The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the [Presidential] Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. The text of the Constitution does not appear to contain a constitutional role for the Executive Branch in such decisions.*

House And Senate Election:
Article I, §4, cl. 1 The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature therof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. Article II, §1, cl. 4 The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the [Presidential] Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. The text of the Constitution does not appear to contain a constitutional role for the Executive Branch in such decisions.
........................................................
It would appear that, under Article I, §4, cl. 1, Congress would have broad authority to postpone elections so as to account for emergency situations. The Supreme Court and lower courts have interpreted the language of Article I, § 4, cl. 1 to mean that Congress has extensive power to regulate most elements of a congressional election. For instance, the Supreme Court has noted that the right to
vote for Members of Congress is derived from the Constitution and that Congress therefore may legislate broadly under this provision to protect the integrity of this right.4 The Court has stated that the authority to regulate the “times, places and manner” of federal elections:.
.............................................................
Although the Congress has set the election date applicable to the 2004** election by statute, it would still appear to be within Congress’s power to change it. Thus, it would appear that Congress would have the power, by statute, to postpone the upcoming House and Senate elections.

I am somewhat placated by the quotations above although I expect the matter could be referred to the Supreme Court to delay matters.  Surely the Supreme Court would stand up for democracy, wouldn't it?  After the Supreme Court decided the 2000 Presidential election, I'm not so sure.

* https://fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32471.pdf
**  The article appeared in July of 2004.

Thursday, May 24, 2018

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN

No surprise to me is that the meeting between President Trump and Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un has formally been called off by Trump.  It never seemed as if it would have a good ending.  I have to wonder if either Trump or Kim ever really considered to have such a meeting?

At any rate, I feel it is all for the best.  I thought that Trump's demand for  North Korea to undergo complete denuclearization was a negotiating starting point.  If not, there is no point for a meeting as Kim would be crazy to give up all their nuclear weapons.  Why not just commit suicide and get it over with?

I thought that a freeze of North Korea's nuclear program in place might be a possibility.  Oh well.  There was talk that first the U.S. had to get out of the Iran deal or Kim would demand such a "mild" agreement.*  I suspect that the real reason that Trump got out of the Iran deal was that his boss (Netanyahu) ordered him to do so, just like Netanyahu ordered Trump to move the U.S. embassy to Jeruselum.

At least we got the release of three American hostages out of it.  And I guess we could count the destruction of the nuclear test site as an advance as well although there were speculations that the site was already destroyed.

For my earlier comment about a meeting "Two Sociopaths To Meet," see: http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2018/04/two-sociopaths-to-meet.html

* There’s some truth in this, but it misses a more basic point. Mr. Trump campaigned against the Iran deal not in principle, but because he saw its terms as bad for the U.S. Even if you disagree, taking his criticism seriously shows why the high-stakes negotiations with North Korea all but required Mr. Trump to dump the Iran deal. If he had kept it in place notwithstanding his power to withdraw, Mr. Kim could seize on its provisions as the starting point for the coming negotiations. Why would Mr. Kim accept a worse deal for North Korea than what Iran had obtained? Leaving one bad deal still active would have established the precedent for another bad deal. ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/before-meeting-kim-trump-had-to-repudiate-the-iran-deal-1527029167)




Wednesday, May 23, 2018

IN THE END LIBERALISM WINS (Republished from December 31, 2009)

[Last March I republished a piece called Snake Bit  because the URL didn't work.(https://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2018/03/snake-bit_8.html)  This reprint was more popular than the original so I thought it might be fun to look at a few other posts.  On December 31, 2009, at the end of my first  (partial) year of publishing this blog, I published a piece called In The End, Liberalism Wins so here it is and I warn you that it is rather long, however, once you start it may grab your attention.  Right now, liberalism is under attack and America is taking some steps backward, but, with any luck, it will make a comeback, exactly when is not known.]

IN THE END, LIBERALISM WINS

(August 16, 2003) Lots of people (well, two) have wondered why I'm not bombarding them with e-mails anymore. So here 'tis. At least in this country, in the end, liberalism wins, though it certainly takes awhile. The reason I take pen to paper (or more accurately fingers to keyboard) regards Rick Santorum, a Senator [now former] from Pennsylvania. You remember him, he is the one who became famous for intemperate comments about all laws regarding morality were off because of a Supreme Court decision that Gays have a right to privacy in their own homes and which struck down a Texas law. Less noticed in his speech was that he said this followed from an earlier Connecticut law, also struck down by the Supreme Court, in which it was against the law for married people to use contraceptives!

Well, now Santorum leads a charge accusing the Democrats of playing an anti-Catholic card to prevent a couple judges, who happen to be Roman Catholic, from promotions to be judges on higher courts (I suspect that once he is away from cameras and reporters, he laughs his head off.). Lost in all this is that President Kennedy was a Roman Catholic, and also, as it happens, a Democrat to boot. If you are old enough, you may recall that the Republicans opposed him on the grounds that he would be taking orders from the Pope, a charge that Kennedy vehemently opposed. Well, time moves on, and now we have Republicans wanting to appoint Roman Catholic judges to high court positions (even if they won't nominate one for President). If the Democrats have charged that they would be taking orders from the Pope, I haven't heard it. Boys and girls, this is a real advance. You also may recall that one knock on Adlai Stevenson, when he ran for President, was that he was divorced. By the time Republican Ronald Reagan, who also was a divorcee, ran for President, it was a non-issue. As to pot (Marihuana), it was a big issue when Clinton was running for president, but George "Dubya" Bush got let off by simply saying he had done some things when he was younger that he wasn't proud of. Whether I agree or disagree with what these people are doing or saying, liberalism is winning.

We now have in a Republican administration, a Black Secretary of State and a Black woman, of all things, as the Presidential security advisor. I mention the woman partly because it was just a few Republican administrations ago that a prominent official, male, of course, said that women don't understand things like throw weights (for rockets). I can hardly believe my eyes and ears. There are Republicans who grouse about such appointments, to be sure, and can hardly wait to get Secretary Powell out of there, but it looks like he will stay a whole term. For good measure, I believe we have an Asian-American woman as Secretary of Labor and an Asian-American man as Secretary of HUD. We also have a Republican Governor, Jeb Bush, married to a Hispanic American and former Senator Gramm married to an Asian woman. Ditto for a ''conservative" columnist (George Will, in case you can't guess).

Well, I grew up in a pretty conservative Republican neighborhood, and I can tell you people would have been shocked if I had come home with a Black, Asian, or Hispanic girlfriend. I also might mention that had I come home with a Roman Catholic girlfriend, it would have created a strained situation with my parents who would have at least gotten a lot of sympathy from the neighbors. It used to be said by the more liberal members about any of these groups that "They are nice people, but I wouldn't want my child to marry one!" I'll bet many of you remember this phrase. Yes, liberalism is winning.

While I am at it, I might mention that some aspects of liberalism have been adopted by Republicans that probably shouldn't be. The neighborhood I grew up in was fiscally very conservative, not to the point that they wouldn't take out a loan to buy a house and maybe an automobile, but they thought Federal deficits were immoral. I recall one neighbor telling me in the late 1940s that these Federal deficits would destroy the economy though he admitted he didn't know exactly when. So what I have in mind here is the adoption by Republicans of the liberal notion that the bigger the Federal deficit the better. But then, after all, it was President Nixon who said that we are all Keynesians now (though Keynes actually said we should pay back deficits in economically good times).

I might add that then, as now, you heard about the evils of handing Federal deficits on to our children. Well, here I am one of the children paying off for the Federal deficits from our parent's age and handing on even bigger ones to the current children. Make no mistake, I believe this is a serious matter. The deficit for the current fiscal year is estimated to be $450 billion. That is just about the sum of all the discretionary spending in the Federal budget (All the departments such as Interior, HUD, Treasury, Energy, Health (excluding Social Security and Medicare which are not discretionary because they are supported by special taxes.), Education, Veterans Affairs, etc.). So you would have to wipe all these out to just balance the budget, and, incidentally, you would probably run up a deficit next fiscal year which is expected to be bigger than this year. There still are a few fiscally conservative Republicans, but they seem to get rolled.

Well, if the Democrats want to get into our wallets, the Republicans want to get into our bedrooms. Santorum isn't alone in feeling frustrated that the Supreme court won't let him (so far). Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice, by the way, wrote that the verdict of privacy for Gays would destroy lots of state laws controlling morals, among which he mentioned masturbation (!). It would be kind of fun to see him take a lie detector test on whether he had disobeyed that law.

An update added November 8, 2008: We have just witnessed Sen. Barack Obama - a black man and a Democrat - being elected president of the United States on November 4, 2008, and the Republicans ran Sen. John McCain - Roman Catholic - against him. Walter "Fritz" Mondale selected Democrat Rep. Geraldine Ferraro of New York as his Vice-Presidential nominee in the 1984 election, the first woman nominated in that position. Ferraro was eventually followed by Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, who was selected by John McCain as his running mate in 2008. Although neither candidate became vice-president, it is now all right for women to be selected as presidential running mates. William Clinton had Madeleine Albright as the first woman Secretary of State. In the first term of George "Dubya" Bush, Gen. Colin Powell was the first Black Secretary of State who was followed by Condoleezza Rice -a Black woman. In the end, liberalism still wins in these United States.

An update added October 4, 2009: Now with Sonia Sotomayor, six of the nine Supreme Court justices are Roman Catholics, two are Jewish, and one is Protestant.

An update added December 31, 2009: There is lots more that could have been said about liberalism winning in the long run. Women and minorities being able to enter any university and graduate schools of any university is certainly not a minor advance. Getting rid of legalized Jim Crow was certainly another major advance. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was another major advance, in this case, put over the top by Republicans (This was before the solid south of the Democrats became the Southern Strategy of the Republicans.). Today you will even see women and minorities as CEOs of major corporations. And Hillary Clinton certainly put a whole lot of cracks in the glass ceiling of a woman running for president of these United States.


Original reference for this article is: https://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-end-liberalism-wins.html

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

WAR OF ELECTED REPUBLICANS ON APPOINTED REPUBLICANS

There are two main groups of Republicans attacking appointed Republicans, both in the House of Representatives.  One is headed by Rep. Devin Nunes (Chr. Permanent Select Committee on House Intelligence) where Republican members of the Committee (13) tend to follow his lead, and the other is called the Freedom Caucus headed by Rep. Mark Meadows with more than 30 members.

I find it curious that elected Republicans are going after appointed Republicans so fiercely.  Consider appointed Republicans Jeff Sessions, Rob Rosenstein, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Robert Muller, among others such as the four FISA judges,* are constantly under attack, particularly by the President but also by two groups of the House of Representatives.

 I think one of the smartest things Sessions did was recuse himself from what happened during the election as he is attacked mainly by the President.  James Comey shared his notes with three other top people in the FBI.  Andrew McCabe was actually fired two days before he was to retire on his 50th birthday.  James Rybicki (Comey's chief of Staff) reportedly voluntarily resigned.  FBI General Counsel James Baker was first reassigned and subsequently resigned.  

The latest Republican to come under attack by elected Republicans (NEWSER) – The FBI informant President Trump accuses of "infiltrating" his 2016 campaign was Stefan Halper, an American professor who taught at the University of Cambridge from 2001 to 2015, according to multiple reports—and this is far from his first rodeo. The 73-year-old served in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations and was accused of "political spying" on Jimmy Carter's campaign in 1980, the Washington Post reports. He has had Defense Department contracts since 2012. Sources say Halper, described as a moderate Republican with longstanding ties to the intelligence community, met three Trump advisers for foreign policy discussions in 2016, the same year he became a secret FBI informant. The professor and the FBI have declined to comment. In other developments:**

* And it is not only appointed Republicans who can be attacked by elected Republicans but other Republican congressmen as well for instance John McCain.  I even saw a sign at a Trump rally saying that McCain is treasonous.
** http://www.newser.com/story/259582/justice-dept-white-house-reach-deal-on-fbi-informant.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=uol&utm_campaign=rss_top




Sunday, May 20, 2018

BABY BUST

I haven't realized what a major issue the current Baby Bust issue has been having, but there are many references to it going back quite a way.

"The declining birth rates sweeping across America are going to have a profound [e]ffect on many businesses — some in the immediate term and others 5 to 10 years out," Jason Dorsey, president of the Center for Generational Kinetics, told CNBC via email. "The reason is that declining birth rates hit the obvious group of businesses first: diaper makers, toy makers, kids meals at restaurants, car seat manufacturers and the like."*
.........................................................
The U.S. has experienced birth-rate declines before. The longest period of continuous decline on record happened between 1958 and 1968, according to the CDC.


As the figure shows, the decline in birthrate has been going on for a long time.**  Even the Baby Boom did not approach the birthrates seen near the turn of the Twentieth Century.
(Click on figure to enlarge)

.... the decline in fertility has been far greater among minorities than among non-Hispanic whites. If we take age-specific birth rates from the peak-fertility year of 2007 and apply them to each age cohort in 2008-2016, the most recent complete data, we can create a counterfactual scenario of how many babies would have been born if age-adjusted fertility rates had not fallen after 2007. From 2008 to 2016, the deficit turns out to be between 4.1 and 4.6 million missing babies: basically, an entire year’s worth or more of childbearing vanished.***

* https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/18/more-pain-for-companies-that-make-baby-products-as-us-births-hit-low.html
** https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/05/17/real-time-economics-the-baby-bust-standing-firm-on-china-u-s-manufacturing-productivity-gains-are-abysmal/?guid=BL-REB-38485&mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1&dsk=y
*** https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-20/the-consequences-of-the-u-s-baby-bust

Friday, May 18, 2018

NELLIJA VALIDA OLEKS STORY - II (DISAPPEARING TENANT)

(This is the second of some stories about a woman who was talented but could not get herself to write up her own stories.  She is now deceased, and I have decided to write up some of her stories in her memory.  Part I is at http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2018/04/nellija-valida-oleks-story-i.html)

Nellija Valida Oleks rented rooms in her 4-bedroom townhouse.  As it turned out, two men rented one bedroom.  One morning, one of the men was missing (neglecting to pay his rent, of course).  It turned out that he flew to England where he was arrested upon departing from the plane because he had stolen the passport of his roommate who was wanted by the police in England.  Sometimes there is some justice in life.