The TV is talking about them. They believe the number of leaks from the new born Trump administration is excessive. The imply (they don't have the stones to come out and say it) that the leaks are coming from Trump appointees jostling for position inside the new administrative.
I wonder about that. The vast US civil service are Democrats to a man (or a woman) They are fire proof. We could not fire low level civil servants even after we caught them stealing stuff out the base warehouse. I'll bet you cannot fire them for leaking, even if you could catch them at it. Not when they can put gigabytes of data onto a single easily concealable thumb drive. And they all have broadband internet at home.
Judging from the hysterical response of Democrats to Trump, being shown on TV hour after hour, I bet a lot of those Democratic civil servants are just as rabidly anti-Trump. And they plan on leaking to damage the Trump administration.
Dunno what Trump can do about that. Civil servants are everywhere in the US government. They are the typists, the IT guys, the administrators, the janitorial staff, the receptionists, and every sort of paper pusher. And they can see everything, especially if someone has it typed up.
We may be in for the most transparent administration in history, where everything gets leaked, to the media, to the Congress, to the homeless in the streets.
Transparency may be OK, but American allies are already reluctant to share intelligence with the Americans for fear it will turn up on the front page and the New York Times, burning agents and undoing years of careful intel work.
Monday, February 6, 2017
Superbowl LI
First TV in months that wasn't all about Trump and the election. Refreshing I call it. Cliff hanger ending. Go Pats.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
Are cats trainable?
Perhaps, and with great difficulty. I have a closet, full of exciting smells from leather boots and shoes, small and dark. Stupid Beast loves that closet. Last week she nipped inside when I wasn't looking. I closed the closet door on her. I didn't miss her for half a day. When I did notice a lack-a-cat I checked her favorite nap places and then opened the closet just to check. Out she popped. Clearly happy to escape the closet.
This morning, I open same magic closet to get out a pair of pants. Stupid Beast slipped right in when I wasn't looking, and so I closed the closet door. But, I opened it again to get something else a few minutes later. And Stupid Beast popped right out. I believe she had learned that spending half a day in the closet was hungry and thirsty work.
This morning, I open same magic closet to get out a pair of pants. Stupid Beast slipped right in when I wasn't looking, and so I closed the closet door. But, I opened it again to get something else a few minutes later. And Stupid Beast popped right out. I believe she had learned that spending half a day in the closet was hungry and thirsty work.
Saturday, February 4, 2017
Are the Senate rules democratic?
We have been hearing a lot of talk lately about Senate rules. One that I never heard of before surfaced last week. In attempting to block "advise and consent" of president Trump's cabinet, the Democrats walked out of the committee meeting and claimed that the committee could not vote on the cabinet appointee unless there were some Democrats present. That's a new one on me. The next day the Republicans dredged up some rule that said they could too vote. And so a couple of cabinet appointees made it thru the committee votes to stand before the entire Senate, sometime now.
Then there is an older Senate practice, which allows any single senator to "place a hold" (a veto) on any judicial appointment. Somehow, letting a single senator veto any judge strikes me a profoundly undemocratic.
Then we have the filibuster. This practice was started in the 1950's by Democrats. It came from a Senate rule that allowed unlimited debate. Once a senator has the floor he can keep on talking as long as he can draw breath. Democrats would filibuster to block civil rights legislation in the bad old days. For the really big cases they used to bring in cots to give exhausted senators a bit of rest. Filibusters became so notorious that sometime in the early 1960's the Senate created the "cloture rule". Under cloture rule, a supermajority (60 votes) sufficed to take the floor away from a windbag filibusterer and move on with Senate business. As time went on, to avoid the tedium of waiting for Senator Windbag to become obnoxious, they dispensed with th need for Senator Windbag to actually take the floor and keep on babbling. Now any senator can merely declare he wants to filibuster something, and that something is blocked unless and until they dredge up 60 votes to impose "cloture". The effect is to require a supermajority to pass anything of substance thru the Senate.
And then the Senate gives the majority leader the right to personally veto anything. The majority leader sets the Senate agenda. Any bill he dislikes, just never appears on the agenda. Poof and it's gonzo.
I'm thinking it's time for a housecleaning on Senate rules.
Then there is an older Senate practice, which allows any single senator to "place a hold" (a veto) on any judicial appointment. Somehow, letting a single senator veto any judge strikes me a profoundly undemocratic.
Then we have the filibuster. This practice was started in the 1950's by Democrats. It came from a Senate rule that allowed unlimited debate. Once a senator has the floor he can keep on talking as long as he can draw breath. Democrats would filibuster to block civil rights legislation in the bad old days. For the really big cases they used to bring in cots to give exhausted senators a bit of rest. Filibusters became so notorious that sometime in the early 1960's the Senate created the "cloture rule". Under cloture rule, a supermajority (60 votes) sufficed to take the floor away from a windbag filibusterer and move on with Senate business. As time went on, to avoid the tedium of waiting for Senator Windbag to become obnoxious, they dispensed with th need for Senator Windbag to actually take the floor and keep on babbling. Now any senator can merely declare he wants to filibuster something, and that something is blocked unless and until they dredge up 60 votes to impose "cloture". The effect is to require a supermajority to pass anything of substance thru the Senate.
And then the Senate gives the majority leader the right to personally veto anything. The majority leader sets the Senate agenda. Any bill he dislikes, just never appears on the agenda. Poof and it's gonzo.
I'm thinking it's time for a housecleaning on Senate rules.
Friday, February 3, 2017
$130 million a year to UC Berkeley? A third of Berkeley's budget?
I heard these numbers on TV yesterday. US taxpayers give UC Berkeley $130 million a year. This is one third of Berkeley's yearly budget.
If true, this is appalling. It makes UC into a US government college, run by the Feds, indoctrinating the students with whatever party line the Feds want.
Someone will say that the $130 million is support for research. When they do, I would ask to see the results of all this research. What new products are on the market incorporating UC Berkeley research results? What textbooks have UC Berkeley research results printed in them? In short, what has all that research money produced? Other than salaries for tenured professors?
I doubt that Berkeley can match the results of the old Bell Labs, who invented the transistor, discovered the cosmic background radiation, performed the Davidson Germer experiment showing that electrons had a wavelength like photons. These are just the few things I remember from a long ago physics course. There are doubtless more successes to Bell Labs credit. Too bad the anti-trust people killed off Bell Labs in the 1970's.
Update: This morning's Wall St Journal says Berkeley receives a lot more money, like $400 million in research grants and $200 million in student loans.
If true, this is appalling. It makes UC into a US government college, run by the Feds, indoctrinating the students with whatever party line the Feds want.
Someone will say that the $130 million is support for research. When they do, I would ask to see the results of all this research. What new products are on the market incorporating UC Berkeley research results? What textbooks have UC Berkeley research results printed in them? In short, what has all that research money produced? Other than salaries for tenured professors?
I doubt that Berkeley can match the results of the old Bell Labs, who invented the transistor, discovered the cosmic background radiation, performed the Davidson Germer experiment showing that electrons had a wavelength like photons. These are just the few things I remember from a long ago physics course. There are doubtless more successes to Bell Labs credit. Too bad the anti-trust people killed off Bell Labs in the 1970's.
Update: This morning's Wall St Journal says Berkeley receives a lot more money, like $400 million in research grants and $200 million in student loans.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
The UC Berkeley riots.
Some good TV video of "protesters" dressed in black and wearing masks, smashing plate glass shop windows. This has got to be off-campus, no college campus I know of has shops with plate glass windows. The cops report NO arrests were made. Translation: The cops were egging them on.
Maybe 'cause the cops are afraid of getting in trouble if a "protester" resists arrest?
Maybe 'cause the cops are as anti Trump as the students? Does anyone believe that??
Maybe 'cause their superiors told the cops to cool it? And who might those superiors be??
Maybe the cops feared the "protesters" would kick the s**t out of them if they interfered??
Maybe something else?
Who knows?
Maybe 'cause the cops are afraid of getting in trouble if a "protester" resists arrest?
Maybe 'cause the cops are as anti Trump as the students? Does anyone believe that??
Maybe 'cause their superiors told the cops to cool it? And who might those superiors be??
Maybe the cops feared the "protesters" would kick the s**t out of them if they interfered??
Maybe something else?
Who knows?
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
President Trump picks a new Supreme
Honestly, I had never heard of this guy Gorsuch before. All I know about Judge Gorsuch comes from president Trump's fulsome introduction last night on TV and some kind words from Bill O'Reilly and Charles Krauthammer later in the evening.
Let's hope Judge Gorsuch sticks to his word, given on TV last night, to judge according to the written law, as understood by those who wrote it at the time they wrote it. The liberal notion of a "living constitution" is just propaganda advocating the courts to make up new law from the bench. It's a totally undemocratic notion. In a democracy, new law comes from the elected legislature, not appointed judges. Over the years, liberals have used the courts to pass laws that never would have passed a legislature. Some of them were disasters or disgraces. Dred Scott started the Civil War. Plessy vs Ferguson was a disgrace for a half century. Roe vs Wade touched off a culture war that lasts until this very day.
Getting Judge Gorsuch approved by the Senate looks to be real circus. I'm gonna get me some popcorn and watch the clowns.
Let's hope Judge Gorsuch sticks to his word, given on TV last night, to judge according to the written law, as understood by those who wrote it at the time they wrote it. The liberal notion of a "living constitution" is just propaganda advocating the courts to make up new law from the bench. It's a totally undemocratic notion. In a democracy, new law comes from the elected legislature, not appointed judges. Over the years, liberals have used the courts to pass laws that never would have passed a legislature. Some of them were disasters or disgraces. Dred Scott started the Civil War. Plessy vs Ferguson was a disgrace for a half century. Roe vs Wade touched off a culture war that lasts until this very day.
Getting Judge Gorsuch approved by the Senate looks to be real circus. I'm gonna get me some popcorn and watch the clowns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)