Seattle Repeals Gravity

From Powerline. Well, not quite, but nearly that silly.

You know how liberals like to attach taxes on cigarettes so we’ll buy fewer of them, and on alcohol so we’ll drink less, etc? Funny, though, how the basic lesson of supply and demand and price sensitivity falls by the wayside when it comes to the minimum wage.

The Washington Post reports today on the results of the mandated minimum wage hikes in Seattle:

A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals

By Max Ehrenfreunde

When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city’s minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they’d hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.

The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They’ve cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.

The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.

On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.

Congratulations Seattle—you’ve managed to lower wages by $1,500 a year for the people who can least afford it. But I’m sure you feel good about how you’re fighting again inequality.

About that subtle little dig about peer review (which is mostly nonsense of a different color these days).

“This strikes me as a study that is likely to influence people,” said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the research. He called the work “very credible” and “sufficiently compelling in its design and statistical power that it can change minds.”

David Autor is one of the leading figures in America in this field. Good enough for me, particularly since NBER itslef is the gold standard in the field. Besided we all said this before it happened.

If I was a retail merchant in the Emerald City, well, I’d be Sleepless in Seattle and not in the good way.

---

In other related news, Andrew Bolt writes that:

Here in Australia, the Greens Party keep claiming coal is dead, just like they predicted runaway warming, permanent drought and draining dams.

The Greens said coal mining was dead:

The world is moving away from coal. A report released by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis finds that the global market for Australian thermal coal has entered “structural decline”, with prices falling 70% since 2009.

Wrong. Coal is roaring ahead:

The world’s biggest coal users — China, the United States and India — have boosted coal mining in 2017, in an abrupt departure from last year’s record global decline for the heavily polluting fuel and a setback to efforts to rein in climate change emissions.

Mining data reviewed by The Associated Press show that production through May is up by at least 121 million tons, or 6 percent, for the three countries compared to the same period last year. The change is most dramatic in the U.S., where coal mining rose 19 percent in the first five months of the year, according to U.S. Department of Energy data.

Coal’s fortunes had appeared to hit a new low less than two weeks ago, when British energy company BP reported that tonnage mined worldwide fell 6.5 percent in 2016, the largest drop on record. China and the U.S. accounted for almost all the decline, while India showed a slight increase.

The reasons for this year’s turnaround include policy shifts in China, changes in U.S. energy markets and India’s continued push to provide electricity to more of its poor, industry experts said.

The Greens would support providing electricity to the poor, wouldn’t they?

Reader Mark M rounds up the latest evidence for the climate catastrophe we were warned would affect even food supplies:

South Africa: Silos ready for record maize harvest

As farmers in SA get down to harvesting a record maize crop, operators of grain storage facilities say there is enough space to accommodate the bumper haul.

Maize is, of course, to us Americans, corn. Good on them although I must say if we ever had a corn harvest where we had enough space to store it – well, it would be a very poor year, indeed. We’re lucky if we have enough to store the food grade corn. Also:

Australia: “Australian farmers’ record breaking season confirmed at $62.8 billion: ABARES

ABARES said even with the dip, the figure is still 9 per cent higher than the five-year average to 2015-16.

USA: California sets cherry record; big Washington crop rolling

Exactly where is this catastrophe the Greens keep seeing?

Not a lot of point in adding much to any of these, people that read around here tend to be common sense types, who understand that if one (especially one’s government) gets out of the way, amazing things will happen. And so they are.

Frau Merkel und das Vierte Reich: Bedrohung für den Westen

There is a lot here, more than we are going to unpack today, but I think Nikolaas De Jong is on to something here.

In the mainstream media, the policies of the German prime minister, Angela Merkel, are often portrayed as a form of atonement for Germany’s past sins of imperialism and genocide. Letting in a million refugees is supposedly the absolute negation of the Holocaust, and pressing for further European cooperation is seen as the opposite of Germany’s old attempts to violently bring the rest of Europe under its control. And for these very reasons, progressive politicians and intellectuals around the world are now looking up to Merkel as the defender of pluralistic Western values. […]

Let us begin with the more obvious parallel: German support for further European integration. Despite all the German talk about subordinating narrow national interests to the European project, careful observers must have noticed the coincidence that the Germans always see themselves as the leaders of this disinterested project, and that the measures deemed to be necessary for further European cooperation always seem to be German-made.

Are the Germans really such idealistic supporters of the European project? It is more probable that in reality they see the European Union as an ideal instrument to control the rest of Europe. […]

You can be your own judge here, but I don’t see many (or any) sign that Merkel is doing anything that she perceives as against the German national interest. That doesn’t mean she is correct, like his successors, Kaiser Wilhelm II made plenty of mistakes, part of the reason that by 1919 he was unemployed, dreaming of being an American cowboy. That also includes trying to keep the British under their thumb by trying to derail Brexit. The British, even more than the Americans, are the traditional guardians of the European balance of power, engaged in, but not part of, Europe. And far more committed to individual freedom than Germany has ever been, and sixty years of Naziism followed by communism probably hasn’t changed that for the better. Tell me again what part of Germany Frau Merkel is from. Now tell me who runs Brussels.

Thus, on closer scrutiny, there is a strong continuity between the foreign policy of Wilhelm II, Hitler, and Merkel. And this continuity can easily be explained by looking at Germany’s position within Europe. On the one hand, Germany is the strongest and largest country in Europe, but on the other hand it is not strong or large enough to dominate the rest of Europe automatically. In consequence, ever since German unification in 1870, the country has been presented with the choice either to subordinate its wishes to those of the rest of Europe — which has always appeared rather humiliating — or to attempt the conquest of Europe, in order to ensure that Germany’s wishes would always prevail. […]

Lots of truth here, even in Bismarck’s campaigns (that unified Germany), Germany (or Prussia, by some reads) wasn’t quite strong enough, so it was reduced to bullying the rest of the continent to get its way. This didn’t work well, with the Soviet Union and the United States staring at each other in Germany, but with the demise of the Soviets, and the American attention being drawn elsewhere, it may well be so, again.

However, the most frightening thing is that the parallels between Merkel’s mentality and that of her authoritarian predecessors go deeper than mere geopolitics. Because the philosophical premises underlying modern German policies are also at least partly similar to those that motivated Germany in both World Wars. […]

I think he makes a pretty good case here, opposing the collectivism of the classical German, and the love of Ordnung, above all, especially as it contrasts with the classical liberalism of the Anglosphere. He includes the French here, but I find that including the French in classical liberalism is just a hair too far. Their model is far more often license, liberty without responsibility. I commented elsewhere yesterday that in some ways we are again facing the old Christian question that surfaced most strikingly in the Great War, “Gott mit uns” or “We are on the Lord’s side”. Although both sides are far less religious than they were a hundred years ago, there is still that dichotomy in how we view the world.

To conclude: far from being the defender of Western values like individual liberty and individual rights, the modern Germany is acting in a very German way indeed.

And that is very true, and rather frightening, indeed. Read the full article,  Why Germany Is Once Again a Threat to the West

Sweden National Police Chief: “HELP US, HELP US!”

Photo: Sweden’s National police chief, Dan Eliasson

Then there is this.

Sweden is being torn to pieces by Muslim immigrants and refugees. Law enforcement is crying out for help, and it is only a question of time before the country will need military intervention from abroad in order to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

A leaked report concludes that the number of lawless areas (commonly referred to as “no-go zones”) in Sweden now totals 61. That is up from 55 in just one year’s time. This increase includes not only the total number, but also the geographical size of these areas.

Sweden’s National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson, spoke on national television and pleaded for assistance: “Help us, help us!,” he said, while warning that Swedish police forces no longer can uphold the law and therefore must ask all good powers in the country to support them.

A research expert regarding destabilized countries and 2011 recipient of Sweden’s Order of the Seraphim medal, Johan Patrik Engellau, has been working with organizations such as the UN and others that operate in crisis areas. He warns:

“I’m afraid it is the end for the well-organized, decent and egalitarian Sweden we have known up to now. Personally, I would not be surprised if a form of civil war occurs. In some places, the civil war has probably already begun.”

10News recently reported how the Swedish state has lost large areas to armed, religious groups best described as Islamist militias. Police chief Lars Alversjø says that, “There is lawlessness in parts of Stockholm (Sweden’s capital) now.” He also observed how, “The legal system, which is a pillar in every democratic society, is collapsing in Sweden.” Per Magnus Ranstorp, a researcher into terrorism and radicalization at the Swedish National Defense College, notes: “In the worst areas, extremists have taken over. The whole sense of justice and peace are threatened by the fact that the police is breaking down and it’s only getting worse. Sweden is in a disastrous situation.”

The Swedish Security Service (Säkerhetspolisen – abbreviated as Säpo), recently warned that the country is crawling with “thousands of Islamists” sharing Islamic State’s ideology. In many places, public servants (i.e., non-Islamic authorities) require police escort or protection.

In related news: Sweden Changing: 150,000 Women Undergo FGM, Authorities Admit Large Areas UNDER ISLAMIST RULE

From: Sweden on the Brink of CIVIL WAR, National Police Chief: “HELP US, HELP US!”

Yeah, Well, No. I don’t think it’s going to happen.

Mostly because I don’t see why anybody would. The last time Sweden was involved really in Europe was when Gustavus Adolphus was king, and I don’t think he made too many friends.

And the other thing is, they’ve been asking for it, even more than the rest of Europe. They long since sold their souls (and I mean that very literally) for their multicultural beliefs. Even part of Europe, let alone the United States looked on rather bemusedly as they undermined every tenet of their former Christian beliefs.

There are lots of good Swedes, of course, and this will be a calamity for them. And that’s sad. But if you won’t fight for yourself and your culture…Well, really, why should anybody else?

Most of Europe is only a little better, and Great Britain is tending that way as well. And to be honest, in America, we’ve got our hands full with our own idiots. Certainly too much so to be wasting blood and treasure on those who will not fight. I suppose they could ask Russia, Vlad seems to have it pretty much under control. Or maybe they should take the Saudi’s advice:

The governments of the Gulf Cooperation Council nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, understand the threat presented by Islamic extremism and how illegal immigration is tied into that threat. Saudi Arabia experienced multiple attacks during 2003 to 2005 which brought the country to its knees economically and resulted in 100’s of deaths. Companies and government agencies were begging expatriate workers to stay, but could not halt the exodus of expertise until they hit back at the extremists, and hit back hard.

Part of that war on extremism was a recognition and subsequent action against people who were in the nation illegally. This became a real priority for them after the Arab Spring. The country had an estimate 2.5 million illegals and the Saudi authorities recognised these people as a significant threat to their culture, sovereignty and security. As a result, between 2012 and 2014, the Saudi Government rounded up approximately 1.5 to 2 million illegals and shipped them home. There was no fuss and no outcry. The police and security services arrested them as part of vehicle stops and sweeps of known areas. They were taken to holding areas where they were fingerprinted. Well over 90% of these illegals did not have any identification or passports. That was not an issue to the Saudis as they simply asked them their home country and put them on a plane to that country. The illegals knew that there was no point lying as it would only cause them more issues once they landed at the destination airport.

The Saudis also recognise the powerful roles Imams have in radicalisation. EVERY mosque in the country is monitored by the Ministry of the Interior. Every mosque has a member of the security forces, secret police, police or an informant monitoring what is preached. If an Imam is preaching a message which is against Saudi policy there is two possible results. If the Imam is not Saudi, they and their family are on a plane to their home country with their paperwork marked “never to return”. This process takes 12 to 24 hours. There is no courts, not AAT, not extensive detention whist various groups spend millions on lawyers. The Saudis recognise that these people have breached the conditions of entry to the country, cancel their visa and escort them to the airport. If the offenders don’t pay for an airline ticket, they are put in jail until the Saudi Government organises a ticket and then they are escorted to the airport for deportation.

If the Imam is Saudi, he is taken for “re-education”. This is a 6 month process and is a source of great shame to the Imams family. If the re-education does not work, they are jailed and their right to travel outside the country is revoked. The more offences, the longer the jail terms. We are talking years and decades here – not 2 months.

Today, Saudi Arabia still has an issue with extremism but in a far more controlled way. They have no issues with deporting or jailing people who are a threat to the community. Their government and population look at places like Europe and Australia and are amazed that we would allow the attacks which have happened.

That seems like pretty sound advice to me. Yes, it violates some of our laws, and so might have to be modified a bit, but in essence, it is what must be done.

Will Sweden, or Europe for that matter, do it? I doubt it, and if they don’t do that or something similar, they are simply doomed.

Is there anything much more despicable than a man who won’t fight for his own family? Not that I can think of.

The History of Pews

Luke T. Harrington wrote the other day about the history of church pews. He’s a Lutheran church historian and writes rather humorously, so enjoy.

Is there anything more reassuring than a church pew?

Simple. Humble. Sturdy. Two rough-hewn planks, fastened with a handful of nails, permanently fixed to the floor—and open to all. Occasionally padded, often not; not comfortable, exactly, but comforting. An invitation to the weary traveler to sit and hear the Word of God proclaimed; a simple reminder that we follow a humble, crucified carpenter; the perfect symbol that all are equal at the foot of the cross. From the greatest king to the poorest pauper, from the holiest saint to the most desperate sinner, all have sat in these pews before us, pondering their failings and begging for mercy. Despite the advent of stadium-style seating and auditorium-like worship halls, the simple, ancient pew endures—and no wonder, because it is, and always has been, the perfect metaphor for the faith.

Except—nothing I just said is even remotely true. In fact, it’s pretty much the exact opposite of all that. Would you like to know the true story of the pew? Okay, then—buckle up. (But not actually, though, because pews don’t have seatbelts.)

It turns out that there’s no evidence of churches having seating of any kind for at least the first 1,400 years or so of Christianity. In other words, Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin—all those guys very likely lived their whole lives attending churches that were standing-room-only. During ancient Christian worship, parishioners could stand, kneel, or even mill about the nave if they so chose. There’s no record of whether they engaged in stage dives and crowd surfing, so we’re forced to assume they did. […]

In other words, seating in churches didn’t really become a thing until parishioners got bored enough to wish they were sitting down—that is, about the time of the Protestant Reformation. In order to emphasize how not-Catholic we were, we began to jettison everything from our worship: confessions, creeds, communal prayer, a weekly Eucharist—basically everything except long, boring sermons. And when your “come to church” sales pitch is essentially “Listen to me yammer about Jesus for several hours!” the response is predictably going to be “Uh, can I at least sit down for that?”

And so, the pew was born.

Sounds scarily close to right to me.

When pews first began to gain in popularity, however, they weren’t anything you probably would have recognized as pews—they were more like those luxury skyboxes they have at sports stadiums. So-called “box pews,” which were particularly popular in England and America, were anything but the austere benches you’re used to, and featured four walls—often shoulder-height or higher—along with doors, windows, curtains, kneelers, tables, and sometimes even fireplaces. Basically you could hide in them and do whatever the 17th-century version of playing games on your iPad was (I’m guessing cock fights?).

They were also bought and paid for—and frequently custom-built—by each congregation’s wealthiest families, who held actual deeds to them and frequently passed them down to their children as real estate, like the world’s worst timeshares. On the rare occasion that the deed to a pew would free up, there was more often than not a public fistfight (a metaphorical one, usually) over which family would get it—being seen in a prominent pew was an important status symbol, like having the biggest beard at an Acts 29 church or having the dorkiest fedora at Hillsong.

If I recall, Boston’s Old North Church (and probably others) still has them, including their owner’s names on brass plaques. You know names like Revere, Adams, Washington, and such. Interesting history, I think. And at least it probably did minimize this.

Eventually, though, the more reasonable voices won out, and most parishes did away with their box pews, replacing them with the “free and open” wooden benches we know today, resulting in worship services where uncontained toddlers run rampant, ruling over their terrified congregations with tiny iron fists.

In any case, we had finally all learned our lesson, and now nobody goes to church to be seen, which is why we all cram into the back pews and leave right after communion.

Right, guys? Or is that just me?

Who? Me? Nah, you must be talking about that other guy over there, the one who gets his nap during the sermon and then leaves. By the way, I think that is the reason we tend to have coffee hours after church, so we’ll hang around.

Via: The History of Pews Is Just as Terrible and Embarrassing as You’d Imagine

Saturday Wrap up.

Welp, we made it to Saturday, again. Only two days left till we can try Monday all over again. Been a busy week, though. Mostly from Powerline.

Also from Powerline, this week’s Ammo Grrrll shouldn’t be missed.

[…]

They do all start with “R,” and that is close enough for the brain-dead, lazy, chickens**t losers who have to believe themselves to be part of something important and worthy. Instead of what they actually are: just cowardly, blackshirted criminals wearing little bandana masks like they wore when they were six, playing “Cowboys and Indians.” (Or Boys of Cow and Indigenous Peoples in pc language. Don’t bother learning the correct language – the game is virtually illegal now on playgrounds anyway, along with Tag, Monkey Bars, Dodgeball, and chewing your bologna into the shape of a gun.) […]

Resistance is risking torture and death in World War II Occupied France by helping to hide Jews or downed Allied pilots from the Nazis. If captured, trust me, Literally Hitler saw to it that the worst thing that happened to them was not to lose their New Year’s Eve hosting gig.

Resistance is women risking torture and death in Central American dictatorships by wearing white and making a fuss about the “disappeared,” who number in the thousands.

Resistance is trying to become some sort of law enforcement agent in Mexican cartel territory. Or being Coptic Christians in a Muslim country.

Resistance was smuggling matzoh into Communist Russia, or God forbid, trying to leave Russia, especially for Israel. Do you think those caught lost just their endorsement for the Squatty Potty? No. They lost everything – housing, jobs, families. “Wintering” in Siberia. Or lifelong confinement in a “mental hospital.”

And Resistance was the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King marching for the most elemental human rights and dignity and risking beatings, jail and death threats that were eventually carried out. The pusillanimous morons protesting white women selling burritos or demanding that all white professors exile themselves from a campus are not only NOT part of his legacy; they are simply crude and ugly racists themselves.

Noisy ill-bred louts that they are, they often remind me of something the Duke of Wellington (no not that one, although scum fits them far better than it ever did British soldiers) when he was Prime Minister, something about a “whiff of grapeshot”. Be interesting to see how fast they can run.

This is a stray comment from somewhere (I forget where, sorry)

I was having lunch with some Europeans recently (all obsessed with Trump) and they wanted to know if I thought Trump could change. I answered that Trump being himself has allowed him to become: (1) a billionaire; (2) President of the US; (3) married to a European underwear model. You think he believes he needs to change? One English lady laughed and said “I see your point.”

And, of course,

Happy Saturday.

Continuing the Mission

One year ago today, the day of the Brexit election, my post started with a quote from Thomas Paine, this one

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

It was true in the winter of 1776, and it was true last year, and it is still true. But the British, being the steadfast friends of freedom they have always been voted to leave the EU regardless. They’ve had a tough year. They will stay the course, I think. We’ll talk about that later, but just for comparison what happened in the year after we Americans declared independence? A quick overview from BritishBattles. com.

• Battle of Long Island:The disastrous defeat of the Americans on 27^th August 1776 leading to the loss of New York and the retreat to the Delaware River.
• Battle of Harlem Heights:The skirmish on 16^th September 1776 in northern New York island that restored the confidence of the American troops.
• Battle of White Plains:The battle on 28^th October 1776, leading to the American withdrawal to the Delaware River and the capture of Fort Washington by the British.
• Battle of Fort Washington:The battle on 16^th November 1776 that saw the American army forced off Manhattan Island and compelled to retreat to the Delaware River.
• Battle of Trenton:George Washington’s iconic victory on 26^th December 1776 over Colonel Rahl’s Hessian troops after crossing the frozen Delaware River; the battle that re-invigorated the American Revolution.
• Battle of Princeton:The sequel on 3^rd January 1777 to the successful Battle of Trenton: the two battles began the resurgence of the fortunes of the American Colonists in the Revolutionary War.
• Battle of Ticonderoga 1777:The humiliating American abandonment of Fort Ticonderoga on 6^th July 1777 to General Burgoyne’s British army.
• Battle of Hubbardton:The hard-fought battle on 7^th July 1777 in the forest south-east of Fort Ticonderoga.

The next winter will see the naked Continental Army starving at Valley Forge. We didn’t win our independence until 1783. I think the cousins will have a somewhat easier time, but their perils are also different. But amongst other things, they have us. As they started this trend, we picked it up last fall, not a little encouraged ourselves by Brexit.

Dan Hannan recapped the status the other day for us.

An unexpected defeat is always unsettling. I suspect many ConservativeHome readers were disoriented when two in five people voted for Jeremy Corbyn. We wondered how we had so misunderstood our own country; and that was following a vote that we had won.

In the days following the referendum, three false assertions became widespread. First, that Leave had won dishonestly. Second, that the country had become more racist. Third, that the 52 per cent had wrecked the economy.

The “liars” complaint is levelled the losers of every vote. Political campaigners are not trying to behave like neutral academics: they are trying to win. Both sides make good and bad arguments; both sides get to rebut each other’s claims.

Remain told us that a Leave vote would trigger a recession in 2016, cost every family more than £4000, cause Scotland to leave the UK and transplant the Calais refugee camp to Kent. In fact, Britain boomed after the vote, support for Scottish separatism plummeted and the Calais jungle was dismantled. […]

What of the idea that the referendum somehow unleashed xenophobia? The notion that the Leave vote had been “all about immigration” was endlessly repeated in Remain circles and on the BBC. In fact, every opinion poll showed that sovereignty had been the main motivator. Lord Ashcroft, for example, carried out a massive survey on the day, interviewing more than 12,000 people, and found that democratic control was by miles the biggest issue for Leavers (49 per cent of them named it as their main reason for backing Brexit), with immigration a distant second (which was cited by 33 per cent). But opinion polls, for many Remainers, were no match for anecdotes: “Well, one Leaver I spoke to said…” […]

Saddest of all, though, was the determination to believe that Britain would become poorer. To be fair, several experts thought there would be an instant crash. A week after the poll, 71 per cent of City economists surveyed by Bloomberg expected a recession in 2016; in fact, Britain grew faster in the six months after the vote than in the six months before it. Another survey, by Reuters, found that the consensus among economists was that unemployment would rise by 9,000 a month in the second half of last year; in fact, it fell by almost exactly that amount.

Well, almost none of that happened. In fact, Britain is booming.

From Euro-Guido:

UK manufacturers’ order books are at their highest level since August 1988. A CBI survey of 464 firms found a “broad-based improvement” in 13 out of 17 manufacturing sub-sectors, with food, drink and tobacco and chemicals leading the British-made boom. Meanwhile, export orders rocketed to a 22-year high. CBI Chief Economist Rain Newton-Smith said:

“Britain’s manufacturers are continuing to see demand for “Made in Britain” goods rise with the temperature. Total and export order books are at highs not seen for decades, and output growth remains robust.”

Outstanding!

Britain’s got some serious problems, many of them caused by uncontrolled immigration, and by a Conservative Party which seems to have lost its mooring in history. Not to mention a press that is at least as biased as the American one. So it ain’t all beer and skittles. But remember what Paine wrote, and hopefully they will get themselves back on track one way or another. Along that line, I was thinking the other day that Tom Jefferson and George Washington were miles prouder to be British (until arbitrary government forced them out) than Jeremy Corbyn ever dreamed of being. Sad for a prominent politician to owe his allegiance to something outside his country, mostly for his own aggrandizement. Right General Arnold? Was Peggy Shippen worth it?

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more