Monthly Archives: May 2016
I ran a poll. Limited response, but apparently for my conservative Twitter followers senate balance is not the primary motive for opposing DC statehood:
Question for conservative/GOP tweeps: If it were part of a senate-neutral package, would you support DC statehood?
— Will Truman (@trumwill) May 5, 2016
Also, this tidbit seems to have escaped off into Trump Retweet land:
Since 1984, in every election but one (1992) the more hated candidate in April won the popular vote. pic.twitter.com/TM8hwKWabs
— Will Truman (@trumwill) May 6, 2016
Yes, I do believe that 2016 will be another exception.
After a good deal of reflection, I have come to the conclusion that it is critical for the sake of this country that we all vote to elect Donald J Trump the next president of the United States. Our future depends on it. If we play it right, his presidency may exactly what we need.
Donald Trump obviously loves democracy a great deal. He was outraged at the shenanigans in Colorado, Arizona, and elsewhere. Those were undemocratic maneuvers designed to rob him of the Republican nomination. And Donald Trump, of course, loves democracy. So much so, in fact, that it seems more likely than not that having been elected, he will declare future elections a betrayal of the democratic election that he won. What good is an election if four years later it can be taken from you? If a mere two years after you’re elected some other election can deprive you of your ability to do anything because of congress?
Beyond that, elections are guided by the special interests. Since there is only one Donald Trump, that leaves an awful lot of Not Donald Trumps in congress. Which is, when you think about it, pretty disrespectful to the election that would put him in the presidency. So congress would have to go. So President Trump becomes King Donald I, Protector of the Republic. I’m afraid from here, things will get worse before they get better.
First, there would be a band of rabble-rousers who would not consent to be so governed. The good news is that the US is sitting on quite a bit of unused land in Alaska. It would not be difficult to imagine some sort of arrangement being struck where he would rule Alaska with something of a light touch. In fact, perhaps something could be worked out where Trump’s quality kid, Ivanka, serves as Princess Regent for the area. She can live in New York, for the most part, but act as a sort of conduit between King Donald and the intransigents. It will be important at this point for the people of Alaska to build a fortress for Ivanka, the importance of which will become clear later.
As it happens, Donald Trump is not a Spring Chicken. He’s kind of up there in years. Theoretically, when he dies the crown would pass from Donald Sr to Donald Jr, but there are rumors that Eric is the sharper of the two. It seems as likely as not there would be a contested coronation. Followed by a civil war.
Autonomous Regency of Alaska
From there, just hunker down.
When it is all over, and most of the country has been ravaged by war and self-destruction, it will be time to rebuild. There will, alas, be no functioning democratic institutions. The armies will be spent having been fighting one another. It will be easy for the Alaska Militia and Canadian Army to come in and take over. Chances are, Canada’s interest in administering over the United States will be somewhat limited. So it will be up to the good people of Alaska and Princess Regent Ivanka.
Ivanka has three children. It is critical at this juncture that we marry one of them off one of Prince William’s children. At that point, our royal families are united. I think there is a rule somewhere in there that means we become part of Britain again.
Which brings us full circle to where we were before the Revolution. Don’t let that get you down, though. Constitutional monarchies have proven to be kind of stable. Now, that is something we would have to ease into. It will be a long, slow rebuilding process. And baby steps are fine. Democracy is a weighty thing, and if there is anything this century and more particularly recent events have taught us, we are simply not equipped for popular democracy. certainly not one with a setup such as ours.
And only Trump can save us from it.
Feds announce much tougher e-cigarette, cigar rule
Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, says the rule announced Thursday falls short in protecting children because it doesn’t restrict the use of sweet e-cigarette flavors such as gummy bear and cotton candy even though the FDA’s own data shows flavors play a big role in youth use.
Industry experts say treating e-cigarettes, which don’t contain tobacco, the same as cigarettes could lead to such onerous and costly approval that all but the largest tobacco companies would be forced out of the market — and possibly those companies too. Zeller says he expects consolidation in the number and type of products and vape shops.
The Tobacco Control Act requires the FDA to use science to weigh the potential benefits of e-cigarettes against any potential health risk, for both the individual users and the whole population, which Stier says would be all but impossible.
That could force e-cigarette smokers back to regular cigarettes, he says.
E-cigarettes help people trying to quit smoking, says Patricia Kovacevic, general counsel and chief compliance officer at e-cigarette manufacturer Nicopure. She and other e-cigarette advocates cited a Royal College of Physicians’ report last week that showed e-cigarettes’ benefits.
Wells Fargo: FDA E-Cigarette Regs Are Good For Big Tobacco
Since almost all vapor products on the market were released after February, 2007, hardly any will avoid a PMTA and almost no businesses, with the exception of big tobacco companies, will be able to bear the regulatory burden.According to the FDA’s own analysis, the costs of a PMTA are so high approximately 99 percent of products on the market won’t even be put through the process.“Our main concern is that these final deeming regs could realistically stifle innovation, which could dramatically slow industry growth by dis-incentivizing consumer conversion from combustible cigs,” says Herzog.
Source:
Step 1: Create onerous regulations that stifle innovation, remove effective products from the shelves, and consolidate industry leaving only Big Tobacco Standing. Ban any language suggesting any health benefits or that it may be an effect aid to smoking cessation.
Step 2: Use the fact that the only remaining ecigarette companies are tobacco companies as further proof that the products are part of a nefarious Big Tobacco plot.
Step 3: Regulate further. Use the fact that all ecigarette marketing is geared towards things other than health as evidence that it’s all about hooking non-smokers.
Step 4: Let Big Tobacco continue selling their crappy products, inducing few people to quit smoking.
Step 5: Point out that non-smokers are barely switching to ecigarettes anymore, and it’s all about young people. Double down by banning all flavoring except tobacco flavoring.
Step 6: Use the fact that ecigarettes are all manufactured to taste like real cigarettes as proof that it’s all a big gateway effort by Big Tobacco, which as we know are behind all of the (remaining) ecigarette companies.
Step 7: Declare victory, and allow those smokers that could not quit in a way sufficiently inspiring to die.
Lyman Stone wants you to know that Oklahoma City is America and San Jose is not. It’s all America, of course, but some places are more representative than others. (Wasilla, of course, is not especially representative.)
Utah’s tech community is making some waves, and some people don’t like it.
I tend to be sympathetic to second-tier schools that want to hold on to their athletics programs, but Eastern Michigan is one of the few I simply can’t find much justification for. Their senate faculty agrees.
Johannes Haushofer got some publicity for his CV of failures, the degree programs and academic positions he was rejected for. It’s meant to inspire a keep-at-it attitude. Anna Peak has a more dour one.
I once had a(n IT!) job that was so miserably boring that we would draw straws to see who got to sweep the floors, so while I don’t approve of this lawsuit I can sort of understand the trauma.
As the “Public Health” community comes to a consensus that ecigarettes are a menace to be contained, some are still fighting the good fight. Kevin Fenton of Public Health England gives them a relatively clean bill of health.
Ross Douthat’s piece on conservatism’s defeat is worth reading.
First there was polygyny, then came STDs, then came monogamy.
Laurie DeRose writes of the increasing costs of cohabitation.
IJR looks at where, when, and how women experience street harassment.
Sweden is experiencing white flight.
Online dating fifty years ago?
What the Jurassic World may have really looked like.
Lifehacker debunks some traffic ticket myths. Some of them aren’t myths so much as “A lawyer might be able to do it, but you are less likely to.” Like Marco Rubio, I hired a traffic lawyer who got me out of a ticket where I was pretty clearly guilty.
America Is Finally Putting Home Foreclosure Crisis Behind It
It’s taken nine years, but the number of U.S. homes in foreclosure has fallen to a level not seen since before the 2008 housing crisis.
More troubled borrowers are making their way through the foreclosure process, which can take more than five years on average in some states. The number of properties in active foreclosure declined by 24,000 to 631,000 in March, according to Black Knight Financial Services. That’s the lowest since October 2007. Neighborhoods across the country were in the coming years flooded with more than 2 million notices from banks.
The wave of foreclosures crested in 2010 when banks seized a record 1.2 million properties and served even more with notices of default, auction or repossession. People suffering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression just “mailed their keys to the banks and just said ‘take it’,” said Ben Graboske, a chief technology officer at Black Knight.
The huge inventory of foreclosures has taken years for lenders and borrowers to work through. “We are finally getting back to a very clean slate,” Graboske said.
What could possibly go wrong? pic.twitter.com/0LO3CStW8F
— Will Truman (@trumwill) May 1, 2016
Profs: violates ADA for banks to consider poor credit history if poor financial choices result of mental illness. https://t.co/eYPSjcNCbV
— tedfrank (@tedfrank) May 1, 2016
What if he’s stuck with Ted Cruz?
It’s unlikely that Trump would choose Ted Cruz. There seems to be some genuine animus there. And beyond that, Ted Cruz would be a poor running mate on any ticket. Most politicians will do what they believe is best for them, but Cruz seems particularly inclined that what’s best for him is not to play along. For Trump in particular, Cruz doesn’t add much to the ticket that would really help Trump all of that much. Trump in particular wants people beside him that he would consider loyal, and that’s not Cruz. He would likely rather have a more submissive Chris Christie (words I never thought I would put together) than Ted Cruz.
The thing is, it may not entirely be up to Donald Trump.
Ahhh, but as you are reading in the papers, the Establishment is lining up behind Trump as we speak! That’s an overstatement, but it’s likely that after Indiana (if it goes Trump’s way) and before the nomination, most will. Not liking Cruz to begin with, they’d be hard-pressed to sign on to this idea.
The thing is, it may not entirely be up to them, either.
If and when Trump wins the nomination, it’s likely to be because he wins on the first round, with the votes of delegates who don’t support him but have to vote for him due to convention rules (and, in some cases, state laws). They are not bound to him for Vice President. Technically, the vice presidential selection doesn’t belong to the presidential nominee. This is a distinction without a difference because the party will almost always pick who the nominee wants. Trump, though, is an unusual nominee. Further, it’s entirely possible that Cruz will have more delegates loyal to him than Trump does to him. They get some pressure from the party, but they are not obligated to listen to it. And since the party itself doesn’t care that much for Trump, and are conflicted, it’s not clear that they’re going to go nuclear on Trump’s behalf in any event. And if Cruz has the delegates, there’s a pretty clear path here.
Now, theoretically, with that kind of delegate count, Cruz might be able to get them to change the rules and prevent Trump from getting the nomination altogether. This is theoretically possible, but I suspect they are not that loyal to Cruz, and unlike with the VP selection there may even be some legal recourse there. The Vice Presidental nomination, though, is pretty clear cut.
The main reason this wouldn’t happen is because Cruz probably doesn’t want to spend his political capital for so meager a prize. Not just a meager prize, but one that could actually hurt him more than help him apart from any political capital spent. If Trump were to choose him, he’d probably be more wise to decline than accept. Indications are that other higher-profile candidates (Rubio, Kasich, Haley) are poised to themselves decline.
Cruz’s calculations could be different, however, and mine could be wrong. It’s more likely than not that Cruz is going to run again in 2020. It’s often the case that the second strongest candidate in the previous round becomes the frontrunner in the next, but Cruz has a rougher road than most given the sheer animosity that the party has for him. Sneaking into the VP slot seems like it wouldn’t help, but it would keep his name out there and make it so that his failure to take Trump down isn’t the last thing people remember about him. He would become even more the “default” choice in an environment where party leadership can’t seem to decide much of anything. There’s something to be said for that.
Beyond that, he would be the first free agent Vice Presidential nominee ever. He wouldn’t owe Trump anything, and could expressly act in his own interest. He could use his platform to criticize his nominee in a way that Paul Ryan couldn’t and wouldn’t. Ordinarily that’s not such a big deal, but with Trump it could well be. If things go really south with Trump, as is not unlikely, Cruz could effectively distance himself him and become the standard-bearer for “real Republicans” by setting up a contrast. I’d have to evaluate the state laws, but Cruz could end up with more electoral college votes than Trump if he can pull faithless electors the same way he has convention delegates.
And though extremely, extremely unlikely, he could actually end up the presidential nominee! Though it would be unheard of, this is the year of unheard of things. There is a non-zero chance that in the middle of October, Trump pulls a Ross Perot and leaves the race. He may rather quit than lose, and if he quits he can claim that Crooked Hillary was going to steal the election and live out his life as a martyr. Alternately, Hillary Clinton may be able to tap into the something that he simply can’t get out of.
It’s difficult to say what, precisely, would happen if a nominee did pull out of an election at a late date. The court rulings are mixed, except insofar as they almost always seem to align with what the Democrats want. My guess is that most states would allow Trump’s name to be replaced. By whom? The vice presidential nominee would have the strongest claim. Even in states that wouldn’t allow the GOP to pull Trump’s name, at least Cruz’s name would be on the ballot.
Personally, I think that anyone who wants a future ought to distance themselves as far away from Trump as possible, and that includes being even a renegade VP pick. The party, however, appears poised to go in a different direction. Maybe Cruz, too. Though I doubt it will happen, I suspect Cruz has actually considered the matter. Right now, though, he may be more concerned with holding on to the delegates he has.
Kevin Drum explains why he never warmed up to Bernie Sanders, while Greg Sargent says lay off. Drum responds.
Henry Scanlon’s reasoning on why conservative women are so pretty seems rather specious. But the stereotype does comport with my experience, provided that we are gauging by conventional attractiveness. I have some theories, but none that I can really articulate.
Emmett Rensin’s followup to his original Vox piece on smug liberalism is worth a read. It’s still remarkable to me how many people read his original piece with the objection “Why do we have to be nice to bigots!” when that was very far from what he was saying.
Sheila Tone has written extensively on why she believes Lara Logan is a fraud, but she’s front-and-center on this story about bad folks raping and beating of female journalists abroad.
In the fight on copyright, Noah Berlatsky says that Google is just the champion that we need.
Hey men, marry a smart woman! Your lucidity will thank you for it.
Shaun Brown’s explanation for why men are attracted to crazy has a ring of truth to it.
James Ovenden on the hopes, fears, and weirdness of AI-driven sex.
One of the impressive things from my time as a phone jockey was how call centers really do take all comers.
Let’s see, no backbone and a sense of impending doom. I think the successor to the GOP has found its new mascot!
Weasel 1, Hadron Collider 0.
This reminded me of how surprised I was that they didn’t change the name of House Slithryn to House Snape or House Dumbledore or something.
Texas loves breakfast tacos. How much? More than 400x as much as the rest of the country.
In the online dating world, having an enhanced photo makes you more trustworthy to women, but less trustworthy to men.
Charles Krauthammer explains why doctors are quitting.