Attention Yale Alumni

/

If you didn’t go to Yale, you probably don’t pay much attention to how insane that place has become in the past several years. I bring this up today because a guy named Jamie Kirchick is running an insurgent candidacy for Yale Trustee. He needs about 5000 signatures to get on the ballot, and apparently is a few hundred short. And today (at midnight) is the deadline for submitting signatures.

As to the insanity at Yale, here are some reminders if you need them: . . .

Read More

In Case You Didn't Realize, It's All-Out War Out There

/

If the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings have done anything for us, it has been to make absolutely clear that our political arena today is in a state of all-out war. The old term was “polarization.” That seems so quaint now.

It’s not my purpose to weigh in on the credibility contest between Judge Kavanaugh and his main accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. What’s more notable to me is that the Democrats, to a person, have shown that they care so desperately about stopping this guy. It’s not just that the principal accusation in question is so old, and so completely uncorroborated, and involving people of such a young age, that I would never have thought that Senators of either party would have brought a witness like this forward in such a context. But then there are all the surrounding indicia of no-holds-barred fight to the death: holding the accusation secret for six weeks and then springing it on the eve of a vote in a Hail Mary play for delay; dishonoring the accuser’s request for anonymity and turning her into roadkill of proceedings where all that counts is momentary political advantage; the sudden last-minute emergence of multiple additional accusers, each more preposterous than the next, including one alleging that the nominee organized a dozen or so gang rape parties.

And of course, meanwhile, as one example, there is the near total lack of interest in recent, credible, well-corroborated reports of physical abuse of two women by the Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee, who is also the Democratic candidate for Attorney General of Minnesota.

You could be forgiven for concluding that there must be something much more important at stake here than what did or did not happen at some house in the DC suburbs in the summer of 1982. Or, at least, something that is perceived as being much more important. . . .

Read More

The Never-Ending Saga Of Climate Futility

/

There are two essential elements to climate change advocacy, which are not necessarily that closely related. Element number one is the idea that human “greenhouse gas” emissions, principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels, are causing a crisis of global warming that poses an existential danger to mankind. Element number two is that our government must and can address the crisis by imposing laws and regulations to restrict use of fossil fuels and thus emissions of CO2, thereby “saving the planet.”

Maybe you accept element one. This post only addresses element two. Here’s the fundamental question: Even assuming that element number one is completely accepted, is there anything that the U.S. can do to address the question of CO2 emissions that is other than an exercise in total futility, particularly given what is going on in the rest of the world?

Let’s consider a few data points for this month. First up, we have the ongoing saga of the litigation over the Obama administration’s so-called “Clean Power Plan,” currently becalmed in the DC Circuit. . . .

Read More

With Elections Approaching, How Is Progressive New York Doing?

/

While you are probably focusing on the mid-term elections for the federal House and Senate, here in New York State we also have all the executive offices up (Governor, Comptroller, Attorney General), and the entire state legislature as well. (New York City elections are on a different schedule, next to occur in 2021.) So it’s an appropriate time to ask how our progressive blue-state model of government is doing.

The short answer is, in New York we pay far more for our government than those in other states, for below average results. New York State has been declining economically relative to the rest of the country since at least the 1930s, and there is every reason to believe that that trend will continue. Meanwhile, the voters will overwhelmingly vote for continuation of current policies.

At the City Journal, Nicole Gelinas summarizes the situation over the past 10 years in a September 21 article titled “New York’s Lost Decade.” She could just as easily have made it eight decades, but whatever. The short summary is that tax revenues, particularly from the securities industry in New York City, have increased substantially; and yet the money has been swallowed up by hiring more people and paying them more to do the exact same thing, with no notably changed results. Poof! and it’s gone. . . .

Read More

The Latest In The Cholesterol Wars

/

Do you take a “statin” to reduce your risk of a heart attack? The number of people who do is enormous. Looking around today to find some statistics on how many people take these things, and how much they spend per year, I can’t find completely up-to-date numbers. But this study from 2017, including data through 2013, found that some 27.3% of adults over 40 in the U.S., or some 39.2 million people, were using them. A study by a British firm called Visiongain in 2017 estimated the total world market for statins at $19 billion per year, and continuing to grow, despite price reductions due to patent expirations and entry of generic competitors in the past several years. More or less every big pharma company has an entry in the anti-cholesterol game (e.g., AstraZeneca plc, Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Novartis International AG, Merck & Co., Inc., Biocon, Concord Biotech, and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.).

But do statins actually do any good? Or are they a total waste of time? Or worse, might they even have negative effects on health or life expectancy? You would think that with the number of people using these things being so large, and the amount of money being spent being so huge, there would have to be definitive evidence of both positive benefit for life expectancy and of a causal relationship between blood cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease. Wouldn’t you? . . .

Read More

What Is This About Not Accepting The Results Of Elections?

/

The fundamental thing that distinguishes the United States from everywhere else in the world is our collective commitment to our Constitution. What does that mean? It’s not a long or complex document. It defines the structure of the government (legislative, executive, judicial), and lays out a series of rights in the first ten amendments. But most fundamentally, it provides for an electoral process for selecting our legislative and executive officials. Commitment to the Constitution means accepting the results of the elections, and the subsequent peaceful transfer of power. During my entire life up to now, that has been how it worked. Now, not so much.

Admittedly, the acceptance of the exercise of the governmental powers by the electoral winners took a while to get to the recent effective unanimity. Students’ of some of the more obscure corners of American history may be familiar with the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 (an armed uprising against federal authority during George Washington’s second term), or with the convention of New England states held in Hartford during the winter of 1814/15 to consider secession in light of the hardships of the War of 1812. And then of course, there was the Civil War in the 1860s, precipitated by the election of a President from the newly-formed anti-slavery Republican Party, and the attempted secession from the union of a group of states in the interim between Lincoln’s election and inauguration. But the very bloody Civil War really put an end to these things, at least for about a century and a half.

Consider ten years ago, when Barack Obama was elected President.

Read More