Can The New York Attorney General's Office Be Rescued?

/

You probably know that the population and economy of New York State are in long-term decline relative to the rest of the country.  For example, in the 1980 census New York had 17.6 million people, versus 9.7 million for Florida and 14.2 million for Texas; now in 2018 it is 19.9 million people for New York, 21.3 million for Florida, and 28.7 million for Texas.  For another example, back in the 90s New York had close to 9% of the nation's GDP; today it's under 8%.    

If you had to pick one factor as the most important cause of this situation, it would have to be the high taxes.  (Neither Florida nor Texas has an income tax at all.)  But taxes are not the only factor.  Don't underestimate the adverse business climate.  And at the top of the list of things contributing to New York's adverse business climate, we have the Office of the Attorney General.

At one time, the AG's Office in New York was relatively sleepy, particularly with most law enforcement jurisdiction vested in separately-elected county DAs.  In my lifetime up to 2000, none of the occupants of the AG's office ever was a serious contender for governor.  Then from 1999 to 2006 we got as AG the desperately ambitious Eliot Spitzer.  Spitzer figured out that he had at his command an old and vaguely worded securities-law-enforcement statute called the Martin Act, and that on threat of Martin Act enforcement, any bank would quickly pay a few hundred million dollars to avoid criminal prosecution.  After using that strategy and multiple shakedowns to keep his name in the news for years, Spitzer claimed the title of "sheriff of Wall Street," and rode that horse to become Governor in 2007 (a position in which he lasted barely more than a year).  Andrew Cuomo became Spitzer's immediate successor as AG, and next thing you know, he was governor too! . . .

So a new person will be elected to this office in November, with a primary in September.  Is there any chance that this ship can be righted?  The short answer is, the odds are poor.

The two leading Democratic candidates in the race appear to be Zephyr Teachout and Letitia James.  Teachout is a progressive professor at Fordham Law, who gave Andrew Cuomo a run for his money in a primary four years ago.  James is the current "Public Advocate" of New York City -- a job with essentially no real responsibilities, but which has been used in the past as a launching pad by ambitious pols, most notably Bill de Blasio. . . .

Read More

The Manhattan Contrarian Guide To Evaluating Environmental Scares: Glyphosate And Climate Change

/

You may have seen that last week a California jury handed down a verdict finding Monsanto civilly liable for some $289 million in damages to a man who claimed that his blood cancer was caused by the weed killer glyphosate (brand name Roundup).  That's enough money to notice!  Especially since there are a few thousand more potential plaintiffs lined up to sue for allegedly getting cancer from exposure to Roundup.  And it's especially noticeable to the people at Bayer, who just finished buying Monsanto for some $66 billion a couple of months ago.

If you've been a reader here for a while, you will know that I don't think much of the "science" supporting a supposed causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and cancer.  See this November 2017 post "Can Intervention By The Rational Stop A Pseudoscientific Scare Backed By Big Money?"   

And indeed, I'm far from alone in my views as to glyphosate, this jury's verdict notwithstanding.  There appears to be some kind of near-consensus of the relevant scientific community on the side that glyphosate does not cause cancer.  But then there's climate change.  Over in that field, we find advocates of climate alarm making frequent claims of "scientific consensus" for their position of a causal relationship between human greenhouse gas emissions and projected catastrophic global warming.  In that field, I would dispute that there is anything close to a "consensus," but I could not dispute the proposition that a substantial plurality of those calling themselves "climate scientists" are supporting the cause of global warming alarm.  Even so, I think their claims are nonsense.

So how can you, as a reasonably informed citizen, hope to come to a rational view as to which scary scientific claims to credit and which to dismiss? . . .

Read More

The Real Face Of Racism In America

/

Accusations of racism seem to have reached new levels in the past few years.  These days, treating everyone with fairness and respect is no defense to the charge.  A statement as seemingly innocent as "I think the most qualified person should get the job," might be deemed a racist "microaggression," while President Trump's calling out to an acquaintance at a rally "Look at my African-American over there," is repeatedly cited as a key proof of his racism.  Companies, universities and a criminal justice system all bending over backwards to practice racial fairness are widely accused of systemic racism and oppression.  And, if you go along with a New York Times column last week, if you are "white" you are a racial "oppressor" by virtue of your very existence, no matter what you do or say, or how hard you try to act decently to avoid the accusation.

So I thought I might contribute to the dialogue by pointing out something that, in my view, is truly racist.  

Here is a new (July 27) paper from Brookings titled "Employment status changes put millions at risk of losing SNAP benefits for years."  The authors are Lauren Bauer and Diane Schanzenbach.  . . .

Read More

Progressive Cities Go To Work On The Problem of "Homelessness"

/

A persistent theme of this blog is that progressive social programs supposedly intended to solve  societal problems inevitably make the problems worse.  Of course, few pay close attention while this happens; and the performance of the journalism profession in reporting on the phenomenon is nothing short of disgraceful.  But if you look into this subject enough, you will realize that it is not actually possible for a bureaucracy to solve a major societal problem.  To solve the problem would be to undermine the very basis for the existence of the bureaucracy, and to put it at risk of cutbacks or even elimination.  Bureaucracies have as their fundamental imperative the need to continue and to grow.  Therefore, no problem entrusted to a bureaucracy will ever be solved, nor even substantially ameliorated.  In fact, the problem will certainly worsen over time, the better to justify a bigger budget and more staff for the bureaucracy. . . .

Recently, the progressive movement has turned some of its focus to the problem of "homelessness."  Now here we have a problem that is clearly different -- obviously much less complex and intractable than "poverty," and therefore subject to being immediately solved by well-intentioned and well-funded progressive minions.  As super-progressive New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said in 2014, shortly after getting elected, "We are simply not going to allow this kind of reality to continue.”  After all, homelessness is just an issue of lack of housing.  So it's easy:  just hire some people, spend some money, build some housing, and presto! you're done.  Or at least, that was the fantasy. . . .

Read More

A Deep Dive Into The Psychology Of Progressivism

/

Back in my youth, we had a few people around that we referred to as "guilty liberals."  Somehow they had come to believe that they were personally to blame for all of society's failings, and they then had the brilliant idea that the proper atonement for their sins was to impose more taxes on somebody else so that the money could be handed out by government bureaucrats as a penance.  Or something like that.  It never made any sense to me, but in my youthful foolishness I assumed that these were such dumb ideas that over time they would just fade away and be forgotten.

Boy was I wrong!  In the intervening 50 years or so the level of guilt, and the number of people experiencing it, have grown and multiplied and mushroomed and exploded, until we end up with the so-called "identity politics" that have taken over today's progressive movement and Democratic Party.  

For today's lesson, we will use as our text an August 14 post from a New York Times blog called "The Sweet Spot."    . . .

Read More

Manhattan Contrarian Weekend Quiz: How To Identify Racist And Sexist Remarks And Slurs

/

You are a decent and fair-minded person.  You strive always to treat all people fairly and with dignity.  In your heart of hearts, you know that you are not a racist, nor a sexist.  But you also know that these are highly charged times.  In spite of your pure heart and your very best efforts, you still fear that someone might unfairly accuse you of making a racist or sexist remark or slur.  You want to avoid even the slightest appearance of engaging in racism or sexism.  

And yet, it has become so complicated these days.  Accusations fly everywhere, sometimes over words that to you seemed completely innocent.  What to do?  You need some guidance!  

To help you, the Manhattan Contrarian has put together this weekend's Manhattan Contrarian Quiz.  Take the Quiz.  Study the answers.  You will then know all there is to know about what is and is not racist and sexist in today's world.

The Quiz consists of ten questions, each of which is either an actual quotation or a hypothetical fact situation.  For each question, you are to answer whether the posited fact situation or quotation does or does not demonstrate racism and/or sexism.  Answers, and explanations, below the fold.  One point for each correct answer!

Question 1:  You say, "I believe the most qualified person should get the job."  

Question 2:  Teacher "polices the language" of students in class, and insists that they do not curse.

Question 3:  "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.  #CancelWhitePeople."  

Question 4:  You ask a new acquaintance, “Where are you from?” or “Where were you born?”

Question 5:  Teacher disciplines student for sleeping in class.

Question 6:  "I don't give a, I don't give a, I don't give a fuck.  I'm willin' to die for this shit.  I done cried for this shit, might take a life for this shit.  Put the Bible down and go eye to eye for this shit . . .  If I gotta slap a pussy-ass nigga, I'ma make it look sexy."

Question 7:  "Off a whole gram of molly, and my bitch think I'm trippin'.  Now I'm clutchin' on my forty, all I can think about is drillin'.  I hate fuck shit, slap a bitch nigga, kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga."

Question 8:  "Off a whole gram of molly, and my bitch think I'm trippin'.  Now I'm clutchin' on my forty, all I can think about is drillin'.  I hate fuck shit, slap a bitch nigga, kill a snitch nigga, rob a rich nigga."

 Question 9:  "Son, when I appoint a n***er to the court, I want everyone to know he's a n***er."

Question 10:  "Look at my African-American over there!"

Read More