Sunday Funnies on Monday

There was a demonstration in London the other day. Here’s a picture.

Here’s a close up of one of the leaders.

There’s a reason I don’t watch anymore. In fact, the entire BBC is like this, including the news. Can you say CNN with a better accent?

Meanwhile over here.

Seven deadly sins, There’s an app for that

And finally, IDF soldier Orin Julie

Some from PowerLine, some from Ace‘s, some from other places that I can’t remember.

Advertisements

Democrats and Mobs (BIRM)

Steven Hayward over at PowerLine noticed something, well, so did I, and maybe you did too. The Democrats sure do love their mobs.

News item: Two GOP candidates assaulted in Minnesota.

News item: Antifa mob overruns Portland, and Democratic mayor stands aside. (And to think, I had dinner once with Ted Wheeler a few years ago, before he was elected mayor of Portland, and thought he was a sensible human being. Another case of misleading first impressions I guess.)

New item: Ricin sent to Sen. Susan Collins.

News item: Democrat assaults, critically injures Republican Senator in capitol.

Ok, that last one is from 1851, but it rather makes the point. Others could be added.

  • The New York Draft Riots during the Civil War

Not as clearly linked, but given the party’s history of racism, I’d guess there is some connection.

  • The East St. Louis riot in 1917
  • The Red Summer of 1919

And of course, the whole series in the 1960s culminating for a time at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

And Ferguson, and Baltimore – the list goes on.

And that’s just the high points.

Back when Abraham Lincoln was 28 years old, he gave what we know as his Lyceum Speech, in it, he said this.

But you are, perhaps, ready to ask, “What has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?” I answer, it has much to do with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil; and much of its danger consists, in the proneness of our minds, to regard its direct, as its only consequences. Abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg, was of but little consequence. They constitute a portion of population, that is worse than useless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. If they were annually swept, from the stage of existence, by the plague or small pox, honest men would, perhaps, be much profited, by the operation. Similar too, is the correct reasoning, in regard to the burning of the negro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his life, by the perpetration of an outrageous murder, upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizens of the city; and had he not died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law, in a very short time afterwards. As to him alone, it was as well the way it was, as it could otherwise have been. But the example in either case, was fearful. When men take it in their heads today, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one, who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of tomorrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them, by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defence of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil. By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained. Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation. . .

Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocratic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed—I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last.

Hat tip to Steve (link above) for the speech as well. As Steve points out, it seems that even non-radical Democrats think the Constitution needs to be replaced (with their cause of the day, as near as I can figure) so the government not lasting might be considered, by them, as a feature, not a bug.

Well, The Duke of Wellington said of the French after Waterloo, “They came on in the same old way, and we stopped them in the same old way”. One hopes that it doesn’t come to whiffs of grapeshot and the rattle of musketry, but what must be done will be done. That oath says all enemies, foreign and domestic, no exemption for the Democratic Party.

In Federalist #10 James Madison reminds us,  “… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” And that is exactly the point to the Constitution in this Republic.

Law and Disorder in Portland

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler

There was a story in The Washington Times last Sunday on the Antifa riots in Portland. It was rather interesting.

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing Antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.

“I was appalled by what I saw in the video, but I support the Portland Police Bureau’s decision not to intervene,” he said at a Friday press conference. “This whole incident will be investigated.”

The video posted by journalist Andy C. Ngo showed protesters, including members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, blocking an intersection and attempting to direct traffic at while officers on motorcycle watched from a block away.

I expect that we have all seen it multiple times by now. What we have now is the Mayor’s (He’s also the Police Commissioner) announcing Portland’s surrender to Antifa/BLM. Nothing more, nothing less.

“I’m willing to take criticism all day long from Fox News,” he said. “But I’m not willing to accept criticism from Fox News of the men and women of the Portland Police Bureau.”

Well, I saw the report on Fox news several times. I did not see any criticism of the individual police officers, which would indeed be inappropriate. They are required to follow orders. I did hear, and myself have, severe criticisms of the Portland Police Bureau, the Police Commissioner, and the Mayor. They have failed both the police force and the citizens of Portland.

The mayor argued that law enforcement is in a no-win situation.

“This is the story of Goldilocks and the two bears. The porridge is either too hot or it’s too cold,” Mr. Wheeler told reporters. “At any given moment in this city, the police are criticized for being heavy-handed and intervening too quickly, or they’re being criticized for being standoffish and not intervening quickly enough.”

Poor little snowflake leadership, I wonder if police morale in Portland is below periscope depth like it is in Chicago. I bet it is, with leadership like this.

Tell me again why we have police forces?

Sir Robert Peel, the founder (during the time the Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister) of the London Metropolitan Police, the first modern police force, after which all police forces in the English speaking world were patterned, had nine principles of policing. They are:

  1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
  2. To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
  3. To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
  4. To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
  5. To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
  6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
  7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
  8. To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
  9. To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

I think Mayor/ Police Commissioner Wheeler would do well to review Principles 1, 5, and 9 for starters. At the rate he is going, the people are going to apply number 7 and take back the police power for themselves. Some call that vigilantism, but it is necessary when the police refuse to be the police.

And likely at that point, you will see the military take over because it has reached the point that only Napoleon’s cure will work. His command was to “Give them a whiff of grapeshot.” That’s the progression that the stupid Progressives Regressives have us on.

Sunday Funnies; Kanye

Welp, I hear there is a new diner in DC, called the Kennedydodd, this is their menu.

Is it still Oktoberfest?

And a repeat from Brenna Spencer

Most from PowerLine and a few from Ace’s and elsewhere.

Political Correctness, and Other White Elitist Fads

Steven Hayward at Powerline wrote about a British study, and an Atlantic article based on it yesterday. It is interesting, to say the least.

But a new study just out from a British study group makes the left’s fanaticism about diversity and political correctness look even worse. The study, Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape, makes for rough reading for the progressive race-mongers.

Yascha Mounk, a Harvard liberal for the most part, summarizes the most embarrassing parts today in The Atlantic, in “Large Majorities Dislike PC Culture.” Some key samples:

Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.” Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages.

Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness—and it turns out race isn’t, either.

Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness. . .

Three quarters of African Americans oppose political correctness. This means that they are only four percentage points less likely than whites, and only five percentage points less likely than the average, to believe that political correctness is a problem.

If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and education.

While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.

I’ve glanced at the study, it looks pretty interesting, if it proves so, maybe more to come on this, but in the meantime, the Atlantic article ends with a pretty sensible thought, that I expect many will ignore.

The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue could do damage to the institutions that the woke elite collectively run. A publication whose editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next election.

Remind you of anybody you hear a lot about? Yeah, me too.

Not only in the US, either. I think much the same thing is happening in the UK, and perhaps all of Europe.

Tariffs, Trade, and the British Corn Laws

David Foster over at Chicagoboyz has some good thoughts on tariffs and such.

Stuart Schneiderman linked an article by Robert Samuelson on the 1846 British repeal of the tariffs on food imports, which further linked an Economist article arguing that:

With the repeal of the tariffs, instituted to protect British corn farmers, liberal economic policies ascended. Free trade, free enterprise, free markets and limited government became the rule. And the world has not been the same since.  (Schneiderman’s summary)

To me, it is highly questionable how much the elimination of tariffs had to do with limited government and internal free enterprise. The view that the British 1846 action was economically a very good thing for almost everybody is, however, generally accepted.  From the Economist article:

The case for getting rid of British tariffs on imported grain was not a dry argument about economic efficiency. It was a mass movement, one in which well-to-do liberal thinkers and progressive businessmen fought alongside the poor against the landowners who, by supporting tariffs on imports, kept up the price of grain…When liberals set up the Anti-Corn Law League to organise protests, petitions and public lectures they did so in the spirit of the Anti-Slavery League, and in the same noble name: freedom. The barriers the league sought to remove did not merely keep people from their cake—bad though such barriers were, and strongly though they were resented. They were barriers that held them back, and which set people against each other. Tearing them down would not just increase the wealth of all. It would bring to an end, James Wilson believed, the “jealousies, animosities and heartburnings between individuals and classes…and…between this country and all others.”

Again, this is all mostly generally-accepted thinking.  But Stuart’s post and the links reminded me of something I read–oddly enough, in a 1910 book on railroad history.  The author (Angus Sinclair) describes the transition to steel rails (from cast iron) and the heavier trains they enabled, and then discusses the political-economic impact of this transition:

The invention of cheap methods of making steel rails has exerted a tremendous effect upon railroad transportation, and has created social revolutions in certain part of the world…It threw many farms in New England and along the Atlantic seaboard out of cultivation; it caused a semi-revolution in farming business in the British Isles, and strongly affected the condition and fortunes of millions of people in other countries.  Irish peasants used to go in thousands to England and Scotland to work in the harvesting of grain crops and thereby earned enough money to pay the rent of their small holdings.  Steel rails and Consolidation locomotives stopped the cultivation of so many wheat fields in the British Isles that the help of the Irish worker was no longer needed…

The woes of Ireland were merely the preliminary manifestations of hardships inflicted through the grim ordeal of competition worked out by our cheapened  methods of land transportation.  (The heavier locomotive enabled by steel rails) is steadily forcing more grain raising farms of Europe out of cultivation and is raising a demand for protection against cheap land, just as our politicians have so long urged the necessity for protection against the cheap labor of Europe.

About 60 years ago Great Britain abolished all duties on grain…By curious reasoning the statesmen believed that this policy would not only make the British Isles the manufacturers of the world, but that it would increase the prosperity of the agricultural communities as well.  The first thirty years’ experience of free corn did not seriously  challenge the correctness of the free trade theory, for more of the American wheat lands were yet unbroken prairie or virgin forests, and our steel rail makers and locomotive builders were merely getting ready…In 1858 the rate per bushel of wheat from Chicago to New York was 38.61 cents.  The rate today is 11.4 cents…

The effect of that cheapening of transportation in the United States has been very disastrous to Great Britain, for during the last thirty years there had been a shrinkage of 3,000,000 acres in wheat and another of 750,000 acres in green crops; an enormous amount of land had reverted to pasturage…and the number of cultivators of the soil  had declined 600,000 in thirty years–1,000,000 in fifty years.

That is a high price to pay for the devotion to a theory which fails to work out as expected.

Keep reading, it’s well out my knowledge area, so I don’t know either. But it makes sense to me. The Great Plains could not be farmed until a way to get the crop to market could be devised – that was the railroad, and by 1900, it went almost everywhere.

The point I took here is this. Free trade is great, for those it helps, sometimes it doesn’t help some, sometimes it actively hurts people, like those Irish migrant workers in England.

The other point is that it’s not obvious who gets helped and who doesn’t. If you’re a farmer in the EU, it’s protectionist policies on food probably help, but if you eat, they probably hurt. Where exactly is the balance point, and how often does it change?

Questions without answers, mostly, I suspect. But things we should think about.

%d bloggers like this: