Monthly Archives: May 2015

17

GOP lets FOX take it over: @DoyleMcManus on why letting Ailes winnow the field to 10 is indefensible. fw.to/4WJFrzL

| 2 years ago on Twitter

20

“Google got it wrong. The open-office trend is destroying the workplace” wapo.st/1ECGY9D

| 2 years ago on Twitter

5

Peggy Noonan suggests a question for Hillary:

“Broad amnesty would worsen chronic unemployment and is in that sense a way of giving up, and on our own people, many of whom were blasted out of manufacturing jobs by globalist hacks in Washington—but it will keep wages down, give you a feeling of creamy moral goodness and nail down the Hispanic vote, so all good, right?”

Right. I detect incipient Moe Tuckerism! Can’t business be pleasantly surprised that Americans stood for globalized trade, and not try to also import the world to bid down pay in the few unskilled jobs that still have to be performed here? …

5

The Sunshine Fallacy: “Transparency” advocates need to face up to their own Heisenberg Principle kausfiles.com/2015/05/29/the…

| 2 years ago on Twitter

1

Mick Jagger talks about how he, Mick Jagger, came up with “Moonlight Mile” on his guitar, and worries that Keith Richards’ new guitar additions may make the live version “too cluttered.” It’s lucky there’s no rivalry between those two, because if there was this might cause tension. …

9 The Case for Secret E-mails

Byron York notes that the Presidential Records Act bans a president from using an un-official e-mail system unless the messages are then properly archived. He suspects President Hillary couldn’t be made to obey this law. Maybe. Certainly she shouldn’t be above the law. But it should also be noted that this particular law is insane. Decisionmakers — from presidents to parents — need a private zone of honesty where they can say what they really think. That used to be done in person, and over the telephone. Now it’s done through e-mails. Making all e-mails subject to disclosure, even decades down the road, just forces people to search for other, inevitably more cumbersome, ways to have the real conversatons that matter (as opposed to BS for-public-consumption discussions). When a Benghazi hits, do you want the Secretary of State focused on protecting American interests (actions for which she will be judged by voters) or protecting her own reputation in the archives? … It’s the Sunshine Fallacy, the idea that all human activities can be completely and accurately recorded for the public without humans reacting (in counterproductive ways) to all that public data collection. Obvious analogy: Heisenberg Principle. Cultural reductio ad absurdum: “We Live in Public.” …

Another way of putting it: The Records Act is the equivalent requiring a White House taping system, for the benefit of historians. Wasn’t the discovery of Nixon and Johnson’s taping system a huge scandal? When did historians become the most important people in the world?….

4

OLD CW: Enforcement can’t stop illegals. Demand amnesty! NEW CW: Enforcement works. They’ve stopped. Demand amnesty! bit.ly/1LOl7fp

| 2 years ago on Twitter

2

Big diff. between exercising prosec discretion & ANNOUNCING how to skate free. Marguiles’ point = beginning of wisdom bit.ly/1LMQGGn

| 2 years ago on Twitter

11

Does Obama test for scary Chagas disease before giving undocumented Central Americans “permisos” to move about US? ibtimes.com/chagas-disease…

| 2 years ago on Twitter

17

Jordan Fabian’s story in The Hill on the 5th Circuit’s immigration decision quotes four “advocates” of Obama’s amnesty (Fitz, Hincapie, Leopold, Smith) and zero people who oppose it — i.e. the side that won. This is standard procedure in MSM immigration reporting. The conventional rules (“talk to both sides”)  don’t apply. I’m not quite sure why it happens. Is it because a) Everyone knows there is only one credible side on the amnesty issue and anyone who opposes it is really too much of a nativist yahoo to quote (unless you’re quoting Steve King to mock him); b) The advocates’ phone numbers are the only ones journalists have — that’s who immigration beat reporters hang out with; or c) the advocates are the ones initiating the stories, and they might stop feeding them to you if you call the other side? …  All of the above, obviously. But I think (c) is often overlooked. …

7

It is? “It is undisputed that the Executive … is deporting .. immigrants at a faster rate than any administration” politico.com/story/2015/05/…

| 2 years ago on Twitter

11

There’s a reason lawyers usually say “We respectfully disagree ..” Obama brings Lehaneist war room idiocy to Con Law twitter.com/conncarroll/st…

| 2 years ago on Twitter

50

So $15 min wage law in reality becomes a club to force unionization. Unions a way to *avoid* paying “living wage.” twitter.com/conncarroll/st…

| 2 years ago on Twitter