16:30 takes a side trip into body language interpretation:
30 Whoever winks with their eye is plotting perversity;
whoever purses their lips is bent on evil.
I'm pretty sure this is an unreliable guideline, but it does give us
an opportunity to make fun of Hillary once more in our pic du jour.
"Let me try to make one of those facial expressions that I've
observed other humans
use to seem 'folksy'. Here goes…"
■ In an entirely predictable taxpayer sellout reported by Peter
Suderman at Reason: Senate
Reaches Bipartisan Deal to Keep the Government Open By Spending More
Money On Everything. Bottom line:
Republican leadership in Congress spent the better part of the Obama
years warning that mounting debt posed a dire threat to the nation's
future. But now, with control of both chambers of Congress and the
White House, it looks likely that the GOP's two most signifcant
legislative achievements will be a tax reform law that raises the
deficit by $1.5 trillion and a spending deal that increases the
federal tab by hundreds of billions more.
With reference to today's Proverb, I'm pretty sure there were plenty
of winking eyes and pursed lips in the Senate yesterday.
■ Is our infrastructure "crumbling"? Well, let's ask David Harsanyi.
Infrastructure Is Not ‘Crumbling.’ Repeat: Our Infrastructure Is Not
One of the great myths of American politics, no matter who is
president and no matter who runs Congress, is that our
infrastructure is “crumbling.” Barack Obama repeatedly warned us
about our “crumbling
infrastructure.” Donald Trump now tells us that our
infrastructure is “crumbling.”
The next president is going to hatch a giant plan to fix our
crumbling infrastructure, as well, because most
voters want to believe infrastructure is crumbling.
The infrastructure is not crumbling. Ask someone about infrastructure, and his thoughts will probably wander to the worst pothole-infested road he traverses rather than the hundreds of roads he drives on that are perfectly safe and smooth. That’s human nature.
I must admit, that's where my thoughts wander too,
specifically to the stretch of Oak Street between Portland Avenue
and Broadway on the Rollinsford/Dover NH boundary line.
But anyway, Harsanyi's article offers a good guideline: if you hear
a pol use the phrase "crumbling infrastructure", it's a sign of
ignorance or dishonesty. Or maybe both.
■ Or perhaps you're wondering: what does rent control need?
At Bloomberg, Megan McArdle answers: Rent
Control Needs Retirement, Not a Comeback.
According to the Wall Street Journal, rent control seems
to be making a retro comeback. Most forms of intelligent life
could be forgiven for asking why.
Serial experimentation with this policy has repeatedly shown the same result. Initially, tenants rejoice, and rent control looks like a victory for the poor over the landlord class. But the stifling of price signals leads to problems. Rent control starts by producing some sort of redistribution, because the people with low rents at the time that controls are imposed tend to be relatively low-income.
Megan makes the point which will probably seem familiar to our
readers, anathema to statists: if you want to house people in your
city, build more housing. Which means "loosening the legal
restrictions and community veto points that make it so hard to add
■ This is a point that (even) some California Democrats are figuring
out, as a Wired story relates:
Bid to Solve California’s Housing Crisis Could Redraw How Cities
Scott Wiener, the California state senator representing San
Francisco, has a pretty good idea for how to save the world. In
fact, sitting in a coffee shop in his city’s Financial District,
Wiener seems downright perplexed that anyone would be against it.
Here’s the idea: Build more housing.
So, with his fellow senator Nancy Skinner, he authored a bill, SB
827, that overwrites some metropolitan zoning—putting policies that
had been in the hands of cities under the authority of state
government—to allow medium-sized multistory and multiunit buildings
near transit stops.
This fumbling, limited, step toward letting market forces
operate is drawing expected vitriolic opposition from
rent-seekers and their political allies. For your amusement:
This isn’t some dry policy fight. The mayor of Berkeley called the bill “a declaration of war against
our neighborhoods.” A Los Angeles City Council member said it will make the residential areas he
represents in LA’s tony Westside “look like Dubai.” A community
organizer in LA wrote that Wiener is a “real estate industry
puppet” who supports gentrification and displacement, and compared
SB 827 to President Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act.
To repeat a point I've made before for Granite Staters:
it's easy, but
incorrect, to laugh
at those reality-challenged, state-obsessed Californians.
See the Cato study
"Freedom in the 50 States" rankings on
use regulation: California is (sure enough) near-bottom at #48.
But New Hampshire is #43.
■ The Google LFOD news alert rang for the latest effort by our
statist pols. In the Concord Monitor:
up for new fight in old battle over adult seat belt use in N.H.
For folks unfamiliar with the issue: New Hampshire is the only state
that doesn't have a law mandating adult seat belt use. And some
Democratic Rep. Tim Horrigan of Durham, a co-sponsor of the bill,
told the Monitor the state’s “Live Free or Die” motto might be
misapplied in this case.
“I think opposing the seat belt law you’re maybe mixing up the
slogan and maybe thinking it’s ‘Live Free and Die,’ ” he said
Ho ho! See what he did there?
[Personal note: at the University Near Here, Tim's mom was a great
assist to me when I was a grad student, and later a much-admired
Does the Union Leader take a different slant on this? Let's
lawmakers revisit mandatory seatbelt law. Well, at least the
article notes that LFOD was
quoted by an opponent of the legislation:
“I don’t wear my seatbelt,” [Merrimack Republican state Rep. Dan] Hynes told the House Transportation
Committee on Tuesday as it considered House Bill 1259, the first
effort since 2009 to introduce a seatbelt law in the Granite State.
“I think it’s a personal choice,” said Hynes. “I have the right in
New Hampshire not to do it. We’re the only state in the country that
doesn’t require it. That’s even more of a reason for us to continue
not requiring it. We shouldn’t be following what the other states
The state’s motto came up several times in the hearing. “Live Free
or Die’ is most applicable to this bill,” Hynes said. “It’s right on
our license plate … If this bill is passed, it’ll just give police
another reason to stop people.”
It's as if some legislators, like Tim, wake up wondering every
morning: "How can I use my political power today to shove people around?
Uh, for their own good of course."
And the Babylon Bee notes that some matters have proceeded to
their logical conclusion: Southern Poverty Law Center Adds Itself To List Of Hate Groups
In an update Wednesday to its Hatewatch blog, the Southern Poverty
Law Center announced the newest addition to its authoritative list
of hate groups: the Southern Poverty Law Center.
“We have identified an organization with a clear history of rank
intolerance toward faith communities based solely upon their
sincerely held religious convictions,” the statement reads. “This
organization has encouraged ostracism and threats toward people,
politicians, and businesses that do not adhere to its rigid
progressive agenda. It has existed and operated right under our
noses for years. It is known as the Southern Poverty Law Center
I recently reread Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. The
above reminded me of a joke therein:
One worm asks another, “Will you marry me?” and the other worm says, “Marry you? I’m your other end!”