Election Day Thought: Hollywood celebrity endorsements will become less common?

Happy Election Day to readers who are in states with elections.

One feature of U.S. politics in the past few decades is endorsements of politicians, and media coverage of those endorsements, by Hollywood celebrities. For example, Kevin Spacey previously made the news for talking about the “greatness” of Barack Obama, for endorsing Hillary Clinton, and for righteously condemning Donald Trump. Today, however, he is in the news for allegedly having done some stuff that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton probably wouldn’t want to publicly support.

Now that celebrities are in the news as potential sexual harassers will we at least be freed from having to hear about their political beliefs?

[Foreign readers: what happens in parliamentary systems? Do people in Germany get excited when a German actor endorses a German political party? Does the media give a lot of coverage to the voting plans of German movie stars?]

How will our society change after the Las Vegas shooting?

I’m not a TV-watcher so I’ve been shielded from a lot of the sadness around the recent Las Vegas shooting. This seems as though it will be a significant shock to our society. After we recover from the immediate grief, I wonder what readers think will change.

Due to our Constitution and a lack of consensus to restrict gun ownership, I am not expecting a substantial change in gun laws.

Despite the shooting occurring in the middle of a downtown area and therefore in an area served by roughly 5,000 police officers (Wikipedia: “Metro is the largest law enforcement agency in the state of Nevada, and one of the largest police agencies in the United States.”), it was more than one hour before the shooting stopped (the shooter killed himself). Will this lead to a change in police equipment or tactics? [Correction from Bill Swersey in the comments below: “the shooting lasted less than 15 minutes”]

After 9/11 there was a reduction in mass gatherings. We had a population of 282 million back in 2000 and now we’re up to 325 million so, absent social change, there should be more crowded events in 2017 than there were in 2001. Will the government be reluctant to issue permits for gatherings that could be easily attacked? Or will Americans shy away from being in crowds?

Separately, what do folks think about this CBS lawyer fired for expressing her lack of sympathy for any Republican gun owners killed? (Daily Mail) She had previously been an “outspoken critic of Republicans [who] also helped organize a block party for the Hillary Clinton last year.” I’m troubled by this, especially if it was a private (friends-only) Facebook thread. There are a lot of people suffering on Planet Earth and Americans demonstrate no sympathy for most of them (i.e., despite any fine words we might utter we don’t take any practical steps to assist the sufferers). This firing seems like a move in the direction of mandated hypocrisy. The lawyer can be unsympathetic and keep her job, but she can’t admit the thoughtcrime of lack of sympathy.

Note that I will actually be in Las Vegas next week for NBAA.

Readers: I hope that none of you were personally affected by this shooting. Feel free to share your thoughts via the comments. I’m kind of stunned at how destructive seemingly obscure humans can be. This one guy killed roughly the same number of people as Hurricane Maria. That’s sobering.

[I’m aware that, statistically, the U.S. actually experiences less gun violence than we did in the 1990s, despite a much larger population (Wikipedia). But I still think that the shooting in Las Vegas will have a big impact because Americans are driven by emotions more than numbers.]

Related:

 

Trump: the Opera

Here’s a NYT Op-Ed that typifies the point of view of Americans who supported Hillary Clinton: “Tyranny of the Minority”.

Since Donald Trump’s cataclysmic election, the unthinkable has become ordinary. We’ve grown used to naked profiteering off the presidency, an administration that calls for the firing of private citizens for political dissent and nuclear diplomacy conducted via Twitter taunts.

See also “Billboard calling for Trump’s impeachment goes up in California” (CBS):

“There’s this pattern that seems to repeat: Trump does something absolutely unacceptable, unethical, just the thing you could never imagine even the worst of our previous presidents doing,” Kurtz said. “There’s this wave of outrage — it happened after Charlottesville, it happened even before he was elected when he admitted to sexually assaulting women — and then it settles down and his base is still with him.”

Is there an artistic medium for dealing with cataclysmic and unthinkable events? Where naked profiteering can be just another character trait? Where sexual assault is part of an ordinary day at the office? Let’s consider Tosca. Scarpia, the Chief of Police, uses torture to root out a political dissenter. He uses his position of power and privilege to get sex out of Tosca.

Conclusion: only opera is big enough to handle the character of Donald Trump. I think that I will need readers’ help in fleshing out the action, but I am going to start…

Act I, Scene 1: United Chorus comes on stage singing “America the Beautiful.” Sixty percent wear blue shirts and forty percent wear red. Trump and Hillary enter stage right and stage left. Hillary and Trump sing over and in between the verses of “America the Beautiful,” gradually ruining the song. The chorus is pulled apart into two groups, sorted by shirt color, each one behind a candidate.

Act 1, Scene 2: Bill and Hillary at home. Hillary sings about her Christian faith and how an omnipotent and benevolent God has selected her to lead the American people. Bill quietly sings “A redhead at breakfast, a blonde at lunch, a brunette before dinner.” (will become known as “The Intern Song”; tune from Don Giovanni’s Madamina, il catalogo è questo). Every 2 minutes, a foreigner arrives to empty a wheelbarrow full of cash for the Clinton Foundation.

Act 1, Scene 3: Debate. Trump repeatedly chants “Build the Wall.” Hillary sings a complex and hard-to-hear ballad about gender equality, foreign policy, fair government-determined pay rates, and higher taxes for the rich.

Act 1, Scene 4: Election Night. Stage divided by a wall in the middle. Right side depicts inside the Trump campaign headquarters; left side shows Hillary’s HQ. Hillary sings “New Drapes,” about her redecoration plans for the White House. Trump sings “It’s all Rigged.” Towards the end of the scene, Hillary, drawing on the profound Christian faith expressed in Scene 2, laments that God has forsaken her: “Oh why does Donald Trump have a friend in Jesus?”

Act 2, Scene 1: A derelict warehouse. Used syringes and trash litter the floor. Warm humid mold-containing air piped into the opera house to stifle the audience. Signage reading “JFK International Arrivals.” Trump tries to push passengers with headgear back into the jet bridges while singing “Your goats and camels are lonely at home” (tune lifted from Di Provenza il mar, il suol chi dal cor ti cancellò, Germont’s sentimental song about “the sea and soil of Provence” in La Traviata). Stage left: Tropical courthouse in Hawaii. Judge in the courthouse, with Hillary silently standing behind him, pulls the arriving passengers past Trump via long strings. Back of the stage: Canadian flag and Justin Trudeau standing next to it singing “You’re all welcome in Canada.”

Act 2, Scene 2: Chorus back on stage, a mixture of red and blue, once again united, singing “River of cash, keep flowing.” Chorus members cycle through the Social Security office to pick up SSDI checks, the physician’s office to get OxyContin prescriptions, and the pharmacy to pick up their Oxy, handing over their $3 Medicaid co-pay. Trump and Congress at the front of the stage. Trump sings “Repeal Obamacare” and Congress responds with “We will, we will!” This is repeated for a couple of hours, Robert Wilson-style, while the river of cash keeps flowing (enters at top left of stage and disappears into a pit marked “hospital” in the center) and the chorus keeps getting their OxyContin bottles. Just before the curtain comes down, a lone figure in a purple shirt labeled “Libertarian” comes on stage, the cash river falters, and the lone figure sings “Why would you vote to spend one day out of every five working to pay for your health care?”

Act 2, Scene 3: Stage split up into thirds: San Francisco Bay Area, Harvard University, New York Times editorial board. All singers unite in a chorus of “We’re so smart; why doesn’t he listen to us?” Hillary scolds from the balcony.

Act 2, Scene 4: Synagogue. Trump wears a kippah and, accompanied by Jewish family members, attempts to walk into Rosh Hashanah services while singing “Oh what a friend we have in Yahweh”. The family is blocked by chorus holding up signs condemning Trump’s anti-Semitism. Standoff until clock chimes 12 and protesters rush to the other side of the stage for an anti-Israel rally (signs flipped around to condemn Israeli apartheid system).

Act 2, Scene 5: White House. Stage left: Beautiful Melania sings sweet soprano lullaby to angelic Barron. Center: Aides attack each other with knives. Stage right: Trump sits on solid gold toilet holding Android phone and singing out a succession of Tweets.

Act 3: *** this is where I need reader help ***

Grand Finale: House lights down. Orchestra pit, previously completely hidden from audience, is raised by hydraulics until it is higher than the stage. In the darkness, the conductor turns around to face the audience. Spotlights on the raised orchestra pit. Audience sees that all musicians and the conductor are wearing Vladimir Putin masks. The curtain falls and the hall is plunged into darkness.

Readers: What did I miss? What goes into Act 3?

Export market for Confederate-themed statues?

“Subway Tiles That Look Like Confederate Flags to Be Altered” (nytimes) and “Confederate Monuments Are Coming Down Across the United States. Here’s a List.” (nytimes) suggest that there will soon be a lot of used statutes available.

Plainly we don’t want cities to sell them to private citizens to put up in front yards (also need a law to make possession and display of replicas illegal?).

We don’t want to destroy statues due to the effort put in by the artists and, in the case of equestrian statutes, the fact that the horses depicted were not guilty of secessionist or pro-slavery sympathies.

What about an export market? This would help cities with their pension deficits and also ensure that the hated statues are eliminated from the U.S.

The British were fond of pointing out American hypocrisy back in the 18th century, e.g., “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” (Samuel Johnson) Soviets took over this task in the 20th century.

How about a theme park at the end of one of the Moscow subway lines? Visitors would be assured of trains running to the park every minute on weekdays and every two minutes on weekends. Moscow tends to be rather spread out so there should be plenty of space for all of the statues and monuments that we are discarding.

Within the park, a Museum of Empty Words:

  • Room 1: Public school classroom. Animatronic schoolteacher explains to mannequin children (eyes glazed; staring into space) that seceding from Britain was noble while seceding from the Union was traitorous. Countdown clock shows days, hours, and minutes remaining before teacher can retire. Countup clock shows taxpayer pension obligation for the teacher growing (calculated using cost of TIPS).
  • Room 2: Silicon Valley. 1/3-scale three-bedroom house with $3 million pricetag next to the front door. Living room contains pussy hat knitting tools. Sign in front yard advocating for the suburb to be made a sanctuary city for undocumented immigrants. Tableau of childless worker-slave couple turning away immigrant family seeking sanctuary in their spare bedrooms.
  • Room 3: Sundar Pichai declaring Google’s commitment to hearing diverse points of view while simultaneously shoving James Damore into the parking lot.
  • Room 4: FBO. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton on the stairs of their respective chartered Gulfstreams talking about how Americans need to trim CO2 emissions.

Readers: Ideas for additional rooms of the Museum of Empty Words?

The Trumpenfuhrer and Mein Kampf

Based on my Facebook friends, whom I believe to be a reasonably representative sample of American Democrats, I’d say that their explanations for the Deplorable Result of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election haven’t moved much. Here’s a recent musing from a wealthy Volvo driver:

I used to think more free speech was the answer to Mein Kampf but I’m not so sure. People choose to buy into the Fox TV narrative and are avoiding more information.

A response from his friend:

I believe that when Trump is gone we will need a New Reconstruction, or a de-nazification. Whatever you want to call it. The poison needs to be drawn out.

Some of my other distraught Hillary-loving friends can’t find enough anti-Trump articles in today’s news media so they are re-posting year-old items, such as this USA Today article about how Trump’s real estate entities didn’t pay some contractors (the article itself is an illustration of the recycling phenomenon: the vast majority of the disputes cited by USA Today in 2016 stem from the Taj Majal casino project that went bankrupt in in the general real estate collapse of 1991, 25 years earlier).

According to Atlantic, Hillary Clinton blames her loss on Russia and misogyny. (The $2 billion tax-free family slush fund (“Clinton Foundation”) did not come up.)

As a libertarian, I don’t have a dog in the Democrat v. Republican fight, but it is interesting to me to see that Democrats are still working the Trump as Hitler, Russia is Responsible, and Americans hate Women angles. I guess one possibility is that these angles are correct. Trump actually is Hitler, but somehow much less effective in getting laws changed. Vladimir Putin persuaded a majority of white women (but not black women or Latinas) to hate their sister Hillary and vote for the Trumpenfuhrer. (Or maybe Russians rigged the voting machines so that white women’s votes were not correctly recorded?) The Americans who handed over crazy amounts of cash to see Wonder Woman don’t want to see a powerful real-world woman.

If Democrats want to win the next two elections, and these angles are not resonating with voters (other than their fellow passionate Democrats, of course!), won’t they need to start coming up with some new talking points soon?

Related:

College sexual assault tribunals back in the news

Betsy DeVos is taking a break from running what is essentially a massive financial services enterprise (the Department of “Education” spends the vast majority of its money on student loans to subsidize American colleges and universities). She’s contemplating dismantling the Obama Administration regulation that forced schools to set up amateur-run sexual assault tribunals with a 51-percent standard of proof. See “Campus Rape Policies Get a New Look as the Accused Get DeVos’s Ear” (nytimes) for example.

I think the best source of information about this topic is found in Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town (a.k.a. majoring in partying and football), a book by John Krakauer. The book gives the texture of modern campus life (debauched to the extent that the Roman would have been shocked) as well as the texture of the tribunals and regular criminal courts handling sexual assault allegations. You can learn a lot from the book even if you don’t agree with Krakauer that standards for convicting men should be much lower (he does not like either presumption of innocence or “beyond a reasonable doubt” when it comes to litigation following heterosexual sex).

It turns out the government has figured out the same thing that you will after reading Krakauer’s book, i.e., not every American is addicted to OxyContin… college students are usually too drunk to get through the child-proof pill bottle caps:

“Rather, the accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right,’” [Candice E. Jackson, the top civil rights official at the Department of Education] said.

I’m wondering if the Trump Administration can have any practical influence in this area. There are currently three systems that operate in parallel. A person accused of rape can be prosecuted criminally in a criminal court (penalty if guilty = prison; penalty if found innocent = $1 million spent on legal fees) and simultaneously prosecuted within the university (penalty = being kicked out without a degree and forfeiting $200,000+ in tuition and fees paid) and simultaneously sued in civil court (penalty = paying a guaranteed $1 million in legal fees to defend the lawsuit through trial and then, if a jury finds 51% likelihood of assault, paying additional money to the plaintiff). The civil and criminal courts aren’t going anywhere. But suppose that Secretary DeVos writes a “Dear Colleague” letter saying “You don’t have to run these tribunals anymore. You can tell people who’ve been assaulted to call 911.” Which universities are going to say “we will tear down this administrative process because we don’t care about rape anymore”?

Some comments from the Times article for the Zeitgeist (at least among Hillary Clinton supporters):

[soxared] It says here that Betsy DeVos is far less interested in sexual assaults on college campuses. She’s more interested in aiding and abetting her boss’s determination to chop down every and any Obama administrative rule, regulation, executive order or directive. She isn’t fooling anyone. Why should she care about victims of sexual predation in academic settings? Her job is to Christianize every American school in America and this charade is the merest show.

[gordy] This woman, DeVos, makes me ashamed to call myself Christian. There is nothing Christin about her shameless attitudes.

[pjswfla] There is something profoundly wrong and evil lurking in the alleged mind of Betsy Devos. She seems to be against anything that makes common sense for students, their decent education, their finances and their well being. Makes sense, come to think of it, when you consider the idiot who appointed her who denies truths – who would not know a truthful statement if it hit him in his orange mug like a brick.

[AP] During undergrad at a huge Big Ten school, I watched the ineptitude of faculty/administrators trying to manage basic behavioral issues with suboptimal results let alone rape cases. … As a woman I take offense at those who refuse to acknowledge the poor judgement and party culture of college life helps foster these crimes. While my friends and I hit the books for our honors degrees and grad school, we watched girl after girl weekend after weekend get amazingly drunk and with horror see them laugh over it and the compromising sexual situations that arose from it. …  Drop the idea that young adults are “entitled” to be in college, the notion that college means partying and some voyage of exploration that focuses on gratification and pulverize the thought that a woman is unable to use her cerebral cortex to comprehend that alcohol plus a dark room at 3am with equally drunk men is a potential set up for mayhem.

[Barry] I think maybe more women ought to be armed. That might cause some males to have second thoughts before proceeding. [Now there will be alcohol, sex, and guns at the party!]

[SD]  Campuses don’t generally share their outcome rates, but Stanford did on May 31: 24% of allegations were thrown out as invalid before ever getting to the investigation stage, and 50% of accused students tried in a hearing were found “not responsible”. Under a preponderance standard, that is equivalent to saying the accused was likely to be innocent. In other words, over half of the accusations were false, unfounded, or just too dubious to be investigated or to receive a decision of “responsible.” NCHERM [ National Center for Higher Education Risk Management!] reports rates of 60% (see their 2017 white paper, page 15). And those are under DCL conditions discouraging cross examination and participation by an attorney, and where there are no penalties for false testimony.

[aeg] [college students] may consider NOT proceeding with intimate behavior before a 24 or 48 hour “get acquainted” or cooling off period…or longer? Hum…no more “one night stands?” [Given the 48-hour interval, assuming that Lover N+1 is not contacted until one day after the student is finished with Lover N, this would limit a college student to no more than approximately 487 sex partners over a 4-year period.]

[Elly] My daughter’s first night away at school… Four drunk people in her dorm room have sex most of the night. [Consistent with Krakauer’s book.]

[William Case] The comments reveal that many readers think that Title IX investigations involve sexual assaults that take place on campus, but almost all take place off campus at private residences. Colleges and universities should not be held responsible for investigating crimes their students commit away from campus during non-school events.

[GSA101] Title IX, as written, prohibits Universities from failing to provide equal educational access on the basis of gender. Since extramarital sex is NOT part of the curriculum of any University that I know of, the Universities are simply not responsible for their students’ activities in that regard. Therefore, they are NOT required to investigate or adjudicate such activities.

[AMarie] Is there a reason the women can’t use the court system to get a restraining order? Those already exist, the burden of proof is much more reasonable (it isn’t a conviction, after all) and it would prevent the assailant, I mean, “accused,” from going on the campus. [Certainly this works for alimony and child support plaintiffs!]

[TOM] It is about time that people realize that perjury does occur for many reasons and no reason at all, and due process is the only way we have a hope of having justice, even if it is a slim hope. [See our litigation chapter for an attorney’s point of view on whether judges can discern the truth: “People who are crazy and sociopathic are great witnesses. They can lie without batting an eye and sound completely credible. That’s why con artists thrive. If we were good at assessing credibility none of us would ever get ripped off.”]

[Jon] I think Donald Trump is destroying this country and an oppose everything I have heard associated with him and his administration. I work towards preventing his policies being implemented. He must be stopped. But this could be the only exception among his policies… if this policy gets rescinded, then perhaps one single good thing would come out of Trump’s election. I never thought I would write something like that. [!]

[Michael] Ms. DeVos, like the man who appointed her, is manifestly unqualified for her role in government; that said, it is a huge relief that the Education Department is finally taking action to rein in the excesses of college sexual assault proceedings. In an effort to comply with the Dept’s Title IX guidelines, universities have adopted policies that would provoke alarm and outrage in any other setting: the accused are denied access to evidence in the cases levied against them; most are denied the right to counsel. Administrators who adjudicate these cases are vulnerable to campaigns of influence and intimidation by students or faculty members with a stated political interest in a guilty “verdict.” Even if exonerated, the accused are routinely forced out of their dorms and even their majors.

[Alina Starkov] Disgusting that those accused of rape are getting any sort of lenience from the government with regards to the schools.

[Deb] Somehow this doesn’t surprise. Betsy Devos’ boss publicly stated his fondness for and skill at successfully committing sexual assault, and how easily he got away with it.

It seems that even in a community of readers where nearly all could agree on the superior virtues of Hillary Clinton, they can’t agree on this issue. The commenters are divided and there seem to be almost as many rationales as commenters.

[You might ask what is my personal perspective? I wrote it up for the Times:

Stepping back from this I’m surprised that nobody asks (1) Why do colleges run dorms and sponsor fraternities/sororities and thereby take on responsibility for what happens during these parties? Why not run classrooms and labs and concentrate on education per se? (2) Why do Americans invest so much money in parking young people for four years in an environment so undemanding intellectually that they can be drunk every night?

]

Related:

 

 

A Gentleman in Moscow

A Gentleman in Moscow won all kinds of awards. The entire novel takes place within Moscow’s Metropol hotel, which I recently visited. The actual hotel is nothing like the one portrayed in the book, making the work questionable as a source of history. However, there are still some excerpts that interested me (below). The book concerns an aristocrat who is purportedly kept under moderately comfortable house arrest in this fancy hotel after the Russian Revolution.

For eventually, we come to hold our dearest possessions more closely than we hold our friends. We carry them from place to place, often at considerable expense and inconvenience; we dust and polish their surfaces and reprimand children for playing too roughly in their vicinity—all the while, allowing memories to invest them with greater and greater importance. This armoire, we are prone to recall, is the very one in which we hid as a boy; and it was these silver candelabra that lined our table on Christmas Eve; and it was with this handkerchief that she once dried her tears, et cetera, et cetera. Until we imagine that these carefully preserved possessions might give us genuine solace in the face of a lost companion.

And when the Count’s parents succumbed to cholera within hours of each other in 1900, it was the Grand Duke who took the young Count aside and explained that he must be strong for his sister’s sake; that adversity presents itself in many forms; and that if a man does not master his circumstances then he is bound to be mastered by them.

“It is a sad but unavoidable fact of life,” he began, “that as we age our social circles grow smaller. Whether from increased habit or diminished vigor, we suddenly find ourselves in the company of just a few familiar faces. So I view it as an incredible stroke of good fortune at this stage in my life to have found such a fine new friend.”

Picking up his chopper, Emile pointed at the rest of the rack and cautioned the Count: “Tell your boys that my lamb is served rare. If someone wants it medium, they can go to a canteen.”

“The Bolsheviks are not Visigoths, Alexander. We are not the barbarian hordes descending upon Rome and destroying all that is fine out of ignorance and envy. It is the opposite. In 1916, Russia was a barbarian state. It was the most illiterate nation in Europe, with the majority of its population living in modified serfdom: tilling the fields with wooden plows, beating their wives by candlelight, collapsing on their benches drunk with vodka, and then waking at dawn to humble themselves before their icons. That is, living exactly as their forefathers had lived five hundred years before. Is it not possible that our reverence for all the statues and cathedrals and ancient institutions was precisely what was holding us back?” Osip paused, taking a moment to refill their glasses with wine. “But where do we stand now? How far have we come? By marrying American tempo with Soviet aims, we are on the verge of universal literacy. Russia’s long-suffering women, our second serfdom, have been elevated to the status of equals. We have built whole new cities and our industrial production outpaces that of most of Europe.” “But at what cost?” Osip slapped the table. “At the greatest cost! But do you think the achievements of the Americans—envied the world over—came without a cost? Just ask their African brothers. And do you think the engineers who designed their illustrious skyscrapers or built their highways hesitated for one moment to level the lovely little neighborhoods that stood in their way? I guarantee you, Alexander, they laid the dynamite and pushed the plungers themselves. As I’ve said to you before, we and the Americans will lead the rest of this century because we are the only nations who have learned to brush the past aside instead of bowing before it. But where they have done so in service of their beloved individualism, we are attempting to do so in service of the common good.”

Some might wonder that the two men should consider themselves to be old friends having only known each other for four years; but the tenure of friendships has never been governed by the passage of time. These two would have felt like old friends had they met just hours before. To some degree, this was because they were kindred spirits—finding ample evidence of common ground and cause for laughter in the midst of effortless conversation; but it was also almost certainly a matter of upbringing. Raised in grand homes in cosmopolitan cities, educated in the liberal arts, graced with idle hours, and exposed to the finest things, though the Count and the American had been born ten years and four thousand miles apart, they had more in common with each other than they had with the majority of their own countrymen. This, of course, is why the grand hotels of the world’s capitals all look alike. The Plaza in New York, the Ritz in Paris, Claridge’s in London, the Metropol in Moscow—built within fifteen years of each other, they too were kindred spirits, the first hotels in their cities with central heating, with hot water and telephones in the rooms, with international newspapers in the lobbies, international cuisine in the restaurants, and American bars off the lobby. These hotels were built for the likes of Richard Vanderwhile and Alexander Rostov, so that when they traveled to a foreign city, they would find themselves very much at home and in the company of kin.

“Everyone dreams of living in America.” “That’s ridiculous.” “Ridiculous? Half of the inhabitants of Europe would move there tomorrow just for the conveniences.” “Conveniences! What conveniences?”

“I’ll tell you what is convenient,” he said after a moment. “To sleep until noon and have someone bring you your breakfast on a tray. To cancel an appointment at the very last minute. To keep a carriage waiting at the door of one party, so that on a moment’s notice it can whisk you away to another. To sidestep marriage in your youth and put off having children altogether. These are the greatest of conveniences, Anushka—and at one time, I had them all. But in the end, it has been the inconveniences that have mattered to me most.”

This posting is mostly a placeholder for me, but if you like the above, read A Gentleman in Moscow!

The book is somewhat topical given today’s panic over “inequality.” It portrays a world in which the lives of rich people are completely separate from those of the masses. Despite the vast cost difference between Hillary Clinton’s Gulfstream G450 and a middle class family’s Honda Accord, I’m not sure that the difference in day-to-day lifestyle is as vast as what is described in the novel between a European or Russian aristrocrat of the day and a peasant. Hillary and the rabble use the same air conditioners, refrigerators, smartphones, washing machines, etc. Maybe Hillary never has to personally touch any of these appliances, but pressing the “start” button isn’t all that onerous.

Harvard Law folks on the Comey-Trump soap opera

A Facebook friend who is passionate about Hillary, Trump-hatred, and demanding that Everyone Pay Attention, linked to this interview with a Harvard Law School lecturer:

it could justify a further investigation into obstruction of justice on the part of the president. The matter certainly warrants an investigation.

It was at a meeting in which he asked everyone else to leave, which is an enormously suspicious thing.

The difference between this and President Nixon in Watergate is that in Watergate there was a tape. [Trump = Nixon without a tape recorder]

The action of [Comey] releasing this information was incredibly self-protective. [Why would he need to protect himself? He is at home collecting taxpayer-funded pension checks? Or he is working as a lobbyist or for a government contractor getting paid $1+ million? Or maybe he will write a book for $10 million?]

The article was published by Harvard itself. The Facebooker described it as the “clearest explanation.”

Here’s a piece by a Harvard Law School professor (not published by Harvard, certainly!):

President Trump also had the constitutional authority to order Comey to end the investigation of former national security adviser Mike Flynn. He could have pardoned Flynn, as Bush pardoned Weinberger, thus ending the Flynn investigation, as Bush ended the Iran-Contra investigation. What Trump could not do is what Nixon did: direct his aides to lie to the FBI, or commit other independent crimes. There is no evidence that Trump did that. [Why didn’t Trump do this, actually? Just pardon both Hillary Clinton and this Flynn guy and move on?]

Throughout United States history — from Presidents Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama — presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.

It is only recently that the tradition of an independent Justice Department and FBI has emerged. But traditions, even salutary ones, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge. It would be far better if our constitution provided for prosecutors who were not part of the executive branch, which is under the direction of the president.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the attorney general, and his subordinate, the director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

In a world where people think that the legal system should be deterministic, at least to some extent (and you’d hope, on the definition of what conduct is criminal), how can we explain the discrepancy between these points of view?

It seems that the first opinions are those of a legal expert who was appointed by a Clinton family member (Bill) to a federal judgeship. The second opinions are those of a legal expert who was not similarly favored by Bill or Hillary.

[The other fun recent Facebook item was from a student at a liberal arts college. Citing a video of Senator Claire McCaskill talking about our government-directed health insurance schemes, she said “It is always women who fight against injustice and power.” There was a huge quantity of feedback on this observation, all of it positive, mostly from folks most of their way through $500,000 of U.S. K-12 and liberal arts education. I wonder how it would work for a student who cited Jesus, Gandhi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mandela, and MLK and concluded “It is always men who fight against injustice and power.”]

Cirrus Jet review

The AOPA review of the Cirrus Jet contains some interesting parts. For example:

as we’ve come to expect from Cirrus, this model has a whole-airplane parachute. … And, because of the jet’s greater speed operating envelope, a pull of the overhead T handle in the jet doesn’t necessarily immediately fire the rocket to deploy the chute. Instead, if the airspeed is above about 135 KIAS, the autopilot takes control, doing what is necessary to slow the airplane.

Finally an aircraft manufacture writes some software that vaguely makes sense! (Don’t think that you need a parachute given the historical reliability of turbine engines? Consider that our government’s elaborate regulatory apparatus didn’t bother to insist that the drones imported into the U.S. have an automatic collision-avoidance capability with respect to human-occupied aircraft! If you hit a drone you’ll be a lot happier in a Cirrus than in Hillary Clinton’s Gulfstream G450!)

The airplane has limited payload and range, but it promises to be simple to operate. My friends are heaping derision on this product, comparing it to a TBM (longer range, higher speed turboprop). I think the right way to look at this airplane is as an improved SR22 for about twice the price ($2 million instead of close to $1 million for a fully optioned SR22). What if you want to take a few friends to Bar Harbor, Maine from Boston or New York? Or fly from Boston to D.C.? Or SF to LA? JetBlue and United beat (literally beat in the case of United, of course!) any GA aircraft for a flight longer than that.

Disturbing omission from the review: interior noise. The fuselage is composite, usually a recipe for an oppressively loud cabin. The engine is bolted to the top of the fuselage instead of placed out on a pod or a wing.

Readers: Now that you’ve seen this review, what do you think of the Cirrus Jet? At what price would it be cheap enough to revitalize consumer interest in general aviation? [personal estimate: $500,000; Flying from December 1970 says that an A36 Bonanza, a mass-market 6-seater, had a base price of about $50,000 back then ($307,000 in today’s mini-dollars).]

Related:

Stocks for the long run: GE since 2001

Boston Magazine has an article on GE CEO Jeff Immelt. They note that the stock price has gone down from $40 per share to $29 during the 16 years that he has run the company. Adjusted for inflation, that’s nearly a 50-percent decline ($40 in 2001 is equivalent to about $55 today).

A Google Finance chart of GE versus the S&P 500 confirms the dismal performance of this stock.

What do readers think? Was GE just so crazily overvalued, even after the Crash of 2000, that the stock had nowhere to go but sideways? Revenue in 2001 was $126 billion and earnings per share were $1.41 (annual report). The 2016 annual report shows  $113 billion in “industrial segment revenues” and $1 in “continuing EPS” (GAAP measures) and $103 billion in revenue and $1.49 using non-GAAP techniques. So the company’s performance has become incomprehensible to laypeople in the intervening years, but revenue and profits do seem to have stagnated. How can this be in a world that is ever-more-friendly to the biggest companies?

[Not everyone is suffering. Boston Magazine notes that shareholders paid Immelt $21 million last year. He spent a full four months of salary on a modest dwelling: a $7.5 million Back Bay townhouse.]

Related:

  • 2003 Slate article on GE executives underperforming
  • Stocks for the Long Run, the investment classic that my money expert friend says can lead to infinite wealth. If you are in fact sure that stocks will outperform bonds over the next 10 years, for example, you can work with options and futures to pick up guaranteed risk-free cash. (This is in case you don’t want to get infinitely rich by starting a company with a 100-percent female workforce, which Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren say will do the same work at much lower cost than what your stupid competitors are paying their workers who identify as male.)