Halloween blend: almost spooky edition

Happy Thursday Halloween!

It feels like a scarier, more foreboding Halloween than last year. Enjoy!

---

One of the best Dilbert's in a while:

click for whole cartoon

--

Harvard Now Offering Advanced Degrees In Unconstitutional Law:

Some experts were quick to point out that Harvard has technically taught Unconstitutional Law for decades, but this latest move makes it official.

 --

White House Orders Daring Mission Into Afghanistan To Mark Stranded Americans' Passports As 'Non-Binary'

--

Picard Suspended From Twitter For Saying He Sees Only Four Lights

 

---

You may have read about some "Youngkin supporters" with tiki torches (presumably an effort to resemble the tiki torch-carrying extremists at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017). 

Anyways, they were plants (shocking!): Lincoln Project takes credit for tiki torch stunt McAuliffe campaign passed off as genuine Youngkin supporters:

“Today’s demonstration was our way of reminding Virginians what happened in Charlottesville four years ago, the Republican Party’s embrace of those values, and Glenn Youngkin’s failure to condemn it," the Lincoln Project, a political action committee made up of ex-Republicans, said in a statement. 

Before the source of the stunt was known, former Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s campaign portrayed the group as genuine supporters of his Republican opponent. 

The five people pictured outside Youngkin’s campaign bus holding tiki torches in the rain wore khaki pants, white button-up shirts, sunglasses, and baseball caps.

--

The Bee is quick to follow up: Youngkin Keeps Lincoln Project Away By Holding Rally Within 500 Feet Of A School

Ouch.

---

‘Frustration is at an all-time high’: Behind Biden’s falling poll numbers. The headline is right but the article is a Democrat sympathy crying circle along the lines of "Biden is not polling well because he's just too moderate! He needs to move further left!" Riiight. Now you know why Democrats are always shocked when Republicans win.

---

Biden preparing to hand out treats this year:

The Wall Street Journal first reported on Thursday that the Biden administration is in talks to offer separated migrant parents and children around $450,000 per person. That would mean that if a parent and a child were separated at the border, together they would be eligible for a combined payment of $900,000.

The talks are part of negotiations between the Justice Department and lawyers representing the separated families in a number of tort cases that have claimed the families experienced harm when they were forcibly separated.

---

In defense of dumb TVs (old but good):

Decreasing prices and decreasing margins on TVs combined with long replacement cycles have driven companies to take advantage of built-in smarts to enable a new revenue source: user data and advertising. As of Q2 2020, Vizio and HiSense are the only major brands making TVs that ship without advertising enabled in their UIs. Sony, Samsung, LG, and others have ads enabled by default, most of which can’t be disabled. All of the above brands have built capability to aggregate data on what content is being viewed, and again, not all of them have the option to disable that. TVs smart enough to help you are also smart enough to harm you.

---

The forever Covid strategy has its advantages for the ruling class:

A senior NJ Transit worker, who was absolutely adamant that he/she must not be identified because they could get in serious trouble for talking to the media, later told me that employees who ordinarily work in that maintenance facility were instructed by their higher-ups to stay home that day. No chance that they’d be allowed to attend this event, it was decreed, even though the event was taking place in their literal workplace — a public facility to boot. The justification? Who knows. Probably some half-baked combination of COVID, terrorism, and whatever other hyped-up existential danger is said to be lurking in the background on any given week. They won’t explain their reasoning if you ask; just as with all manner of completely arbitrary policies deriving from COVID which still remain in effect, people in positions of authority typically can’t be bothered to even offer a rationale for this or that leftover measure — content instead to blithely acclimate to the “new normal” rather than buck the bureaucratic inertia.

Just this afternoon I spoke to my local city council member here in Jersey City, who’s up for re-election next week, and she claimed to me that the primary reason for requiring children as young as two to wear facemasks when playing outside at recess — something I continue to see around town disturbingly often — is “psychological.” Or in other words, children that age need to be taught that wearing a mask for hours on end, each and every school day, is the “right” thing to do. It was a candid admission in a sense, to acknowledge that children’s health is not really the thing guiding this policy calculation

We need to increase the cost of this strategy. Read the whole thing.

---

One of the few newish and good things still on Netflix is the Witcher. Here's the trailer for the 2nd season:

---

Last but not least,

The list of major Biden administration failures

• The Del Rio Haitian border crisis.
• Don't forget Afghanistan.
• Unity. Biden may be the Great Divider. Every president fails on this, but we should start holding them responsible.
• TBA 

Thursday blend: the Biden list of failures

I'm going to keep a list of the growing Biden failures and re-post it every Thursday blend. The list is starting out small, but not insignificant. I can add more, but I'll try to keep it to major/huge and obvious failures. That said, happy Thursday!

---

Gen-Zer Wishes Socialism Had Some Historical Examples Of Whether Or Not It Works

Border Patrol Agents Accused Of Patrolling Border

Idiot Immigrants Enter Country Legally

Trudeau Re-Elected Sultan Of Canada

Above image is satire, barely

Actual photo of Trudeau - click for story

---

It appears misinformation and sloppy immigration policy was largely responsible for the immigration crisis. 

The left seems increasingly disinterested in carrying water for old man Biden: Joe Biden's Disastrous Approval Ratings Show No Sign of Rebounding (note that is from the lefty rag Newsweek).
 

President Biden's ambassador to Haiti resigns over 'inhumane' treatment of Haitian migrants.

Gee, I wonder why Biden is rarely accessible by the press? Could it be that he's a terrible president, or that he has extreme difficulty answering basic questions? My money is on both.

President Joe Biden pitched the merits of democracy during his inaugural United Nations address, but hours later, White House aides' treatment of reporters raised questions about whether he is leading by example. ...

"Biden hasn’t completely shut out the press, but he has been less available to them than any president in recent memory," Schnur added. "The White House has the prerogative of deciding on the format, but the president should be much more available to questions from journalists than has been the case until now."

---

2 men arrested for trying to sneak KFC into Auckland

Above image satire, but only barely (again)

 

Reminds me of a South Park episode.

---
Last but not least,

The list of major Biden administration failures

• The Del Rio Haitian border crisis.
• Don't forget Afghanistan.
• TBA
  

Border insanity

I get that the images of mounted border patrol agents trying to prevent further entry of illegal immigrants is anachronistic; in some contexts it is shocking, especially if you think they are using the reins as whips. 

I have not seen any video, I've only seen the images circling. And only after a brief analysis, it's obvious the worst thing photographed is an agent grabbing an immigrant by the shirt, which is hardly damning since their job is to literally stop illegal crossings. I suppose reins could have been used as whips, but it's impossible to determine that from still photos--which is why I suspect we will never see video--because it likely provides contra-narrative context.

Mounted officers corralling humans IS anachronistic, whether or not it was done as humanely as possible--but so is having a humanitarian crisis right outside our borders because thousands of desperate people are under the impression they have a good chance of walking in and starting a new life.

Both of these facts lend support to a border wall. A wall is not just a physical barrier, it is a symbolic and psychological barrier as well. With a massive wall there would be less need for mounted border patrol agents chasing down and/or corralling immigrants, it would prevent (or at least hinder) illegal crossings, and would visibly and psychologically serve as a deterrent. I think a wall is morally and ethically ugly, but still way better than humanitarian crises and mounted agents corralling humans. If we had better immigration policy and rhetoric we wouldn't need a wall.

We need a realistic immigration policy and sane immigration rhetoric from both parties. Somewhere between open borders and amnesty for millions (or some Orwellian synonym for "amnesty"), and total isolation is probably where it needs to be. I would even support allowing hundreds of thousands of skilled AND unskilled immigrants from virtually all countries if they pass reasonable background checks, but that has to come with better security, better rhetoric, stability and predictability--we can't just significantly change the law every other year or we'll continue to have humanitarian/immigration crises.

The previous paragraph is fantasy. You know that right? I will continue to support such a policy or one close enough to it, but the big ugly wall is more realistic. Build the wall.

Kurt Schlichter: Trump punked the GOPe by getting punked by Chuck Schumer, or something

I guess when you're a prolific social media whore, you tend to say a bunch of things, things which may not always conform to what you said the day before.

You hate libertarians one day, they're your best friends the next.

Whatever gets you to point B right?

So I'll just get straight to the point: on Monday, Kurt wrote an article about how the GOP establishment/NeverTrumpers were spinning Trump's "deal" with Pelosi and Schumer as defection to the Democrats. But Trump is always 10 steps ahead in 3-dimensional chess:

No one outside the Beltway cares if the Smarmy Dope and Elderly Mutant Establishment Turtle got disrespected. We avoided was a fight right now that would have taken up the 12 whole days of legislative work that Ryan and McConnell somehow stuffed into the 30 days of September after taking August off. Now the Congressional GOP is free to focus its entire attention on failing at tax reform.

Trump isn’t “betraying” the base. He’s treating the Congressional GOP like the hacks they are. They have done nearly nothing except posture, pose and issue passive aggressive proclamations about how Trump offends their tender sensibilities. Trump doesn’t respect them because they haven’t earned any respect; this week, he saved them from making fools of themselves once again, at least until the holidays.

The rest of the article reads much the same. Some great points. I sure don't give a flying rat's ass about the GOPe, and it's always good to see them get mud on their face.

But three days later, Kurt's saying something a little different:

So, though the haters like to personalize it, it's not so much that Trump is changing his position, because he’s always telegraphed that this was his position, but that he's being so stupid as to let Chuck Schumer make a fool out of him. He and Nancy Pelosi have dinner with him, then walk out and basically disrespected him in public in a way sure to turn his base against him. It was actually a brilliant move on the Dems’ part, in a volcano-lair supervillain kind of way.

So first Trump saved the GOP by making a deal with the Dems, but now it was all an epic supervillain play by Schumer and Pelosi.

The pseudo-right component of the bipartisan cartel will be only too happy to deliver, using Democrat votes, while actual conservatives are left cut out and fuming. It's the same sucker play George H.W. Bush fell for when he went back on his "Read my lips" pledge. Democrats offer a gullible Republican some magic beans and get him to split his base apart.

Wonder what he'll say tomorrow.

None of the above?

I really do not like Donald Trump. And I like Hillary Clinton even less. I will say that Trump has made the debates vastly more entertaining. If only we were voting for fake TV-show presidents.

I tend to disagree philosophically with much of the big Democratic Party positions, and have since I first started researching politics. I am theoretically open to voting for Democrats, and have liked a few of them in the past. It's just that even among the ones I like, they tend to go along with and support their caucus on everything that matters.

And that's another of many weird things about American politics. At least for the ideologically aware, even superior candidates on the other side of the isle you like are more likely to be worse than a bad candidate on your side of the isle you dislike. And when I say worse, I mean worse for the party line (or political philosophy) you tend to agree with. [This view may and will likely not hold true for small, local politics.]

Unless you're a centrist with little care or knowledge of political issues, supporting a perfect, brilliant, charismatic, and caring politician who happens to be with the Bad Guys is very difficult to justify.

I don't think most voters even think about this, let alone have put much thought into their political philosophy. So unfortunately, the point is largely moot. But I'm a nerd and nerds like to talk about stuff that barely matters.

This is why this election has been difficult for me. Not because Hillary Clinton is a perfect candidate, but because a twisted version of my point is what ideologically aware, right-leaning voters are facing.

Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate and Donald Trump is a bad candidate. Hillary Clinton is the devil we know and love to hate, but Trump is a devil we're not very sure about. He says he's on our side, but it seems that his side is how he defines "our side," at least for the times he hasn't explicitly opposed our side.

Maybe we should vote for Trump because that way, at least we have a chance of getting the things we care about, as opposed to guaranteeing getting things we don't want with Clinton--or so the thinking goes. Maybe that's enough for some. It was for me in the past. It's a gamble, but now the odds of "my side" getting what we want are the lowest ever. Trump is no conservative. Trump is definitely no libertarian. Clinton less so. In hyperbolic terms, it's like choosing Hitler or Stalin. Yea so Stalin killed more people, but he had a nicer mustache.

From there I just venture into wildly speculative questions about who would do the least damage. I can't answer that. Nobody can. We shouldn't even be in this situation. It's Douches and Turds all the way down.

But we still try. Scott Alexander suggests we support Clinton, because least variance. That makes sense, if you don't want variance. I however, am very open to variance. And I have my doubts any presidential candidate, from Jill Stein to Gary Johnson would introduce significant variance into the American equation. I guess it depends on what you think is significant, but it's all hypothetical at this point. If we were electing dictators it would be another matter (the office of the president holds enormous power, but we're still a constitutional democratic republic, or however the hell you want to label it--checks 'n balances yo). Judging by history, every new president will attempt to gain more power and will probably acquire some for the office. But short of revolution or coup, will not become a dictator.

So the implication is that the Donald will mildly shake things up just enough to allow the opportunity for things to worsen, or possibly improve. One attractive thing about Trump is that he is the FU vote. A revolution without the actual revolution. A cheap and easy signal that you're fed up. A tempting turd to vote for in that regard.

Let me collect my thoughts and summarize where I'm at after all this back and forth:

• Political philosophy is out the window, there is virtually no hope for that.
• Both are terrible candidates I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole.
• One is maybe kinda sorta more likely to change things for good or ill.
• One is maybe kinda sorta more likely to keep things the same.
• In either case, the power of the president will increase some.
• Things will probably not change much, either way.
• Third party candidates have no chance, and may actually help elect someone you don't want.
• My vote is insignificantly small and won't help decide the election, so the only thing that matters is how I'll sleep at night (If you live in a swing state, this point is slightly less applicable).

In my right-leaning libertarian mind, this thinking points me in the direction of Johnson, maybe Trump, or abstention. Clinton represents no change. I want change, but I don't want to roll the dice for a low chance of getting things I want, with a moderate chance of getting things I don't want, from a person I dislike. I won't be sleeping well if I vote for either of them.

That leaves Johnson, who I agree with more than the other candidates, but believe would make a bad president. Which is a good thing since he has no chance.

He's a libertarian, I'm a libertarian. He doesn't seem crazy or corrupt. Not too smart about foreign affairs, but that's what advisors are for. Besides, the foreign policy guru candidate doesn't exactly have the best record on foreign policy. This might be a plus for Johnson.

Since he and third party candidates in general have no chance at winning, this is a luxury vote. At best, I can hope to send a message to the political powers that be that more of the country is more libertarian-oriented than they are, and nudge them to accommodate me and my interests. That's a nice thought. And even though Republicans and some Democrats seem to be tending libertarian more here and there, the trend of increasing statism is vastly more prominent.

At best, I will be able to sleep at night by hoping to send a signal to Washington by voting for Johnson, or any third party candidate. In fact, voting in any safe state your best hope for change via your vote is signalling. Strength in numbers. Does the winner have a mandate? Are the third party candidates really cutting into Pepsi and Coke's bottom line? Do we have to start paying attention to this bloc of voters?

At this point you're looking at poll numbers, thinking of how your vote could possibly have the most impact for the things you care about--strategic voting. This is all nice and nerdy except in the year 2016. Donald is the signal vote. If you're fed up, you vote for Trump. If you hate Trump, or want least variance, you vote for Clinton.

If you're both fed up and hate Trump, you still kinda have to vote for him--if "fed up" is what you're really wanting to say. Otherwise it's very likely your vote for Johnson will be interpreted as a right-leaning anti-Trump vote. In the world of Clinton v. Trump, your Johnson vote will be interpreted through that lens. Libertarian what?

I dislike Clinton enough to vote for Trump. I'm fed up enough to vote for Trump, but I'm wary of and dislike Trump enough to vote for Johnson. And yet I'm pretty sure my Johnson vote, if it even matters, will be misinterpreted.

I'm at a loss. Logic has failed me. I can't endorse anyone. I can at least endorse not voting for Clinton. Abstaining is weak, but it is there, and it's about as tempting as Trump or Johnson. Good luck deciding.

Obama's sinking in New Mexico

From the PPP no less:

PPP's newest New Mexico poll finds the race for President there getting a lot more competitive. Barack Obama continues to lead but his advantage is down to 5 points at 49-44, a far cry from the leads of 14 and 15 points he had on our previous two polls of the state.

The big difference between now and April comes with Democrats. Previously Obama was winning them 85-12 but now that lead is down to 73-21. New Mexico is a state, like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where any chance at victory for Romney is going to require winning over a significant number of conservative Democrats. Right now he's doing a pretty decent job of that.

via Legal Insurrection.

I 'm not sure why he's losing support in New Mexico; maybe it's his stellar record on the economy, maybe it's record-breaking deportations, or maybe it's because his policies negatively impact New Mexico in direct ways. Or all of the above.

This potentially gives Romney and the GOP a huge opportunity. I've always believed Hispanics tended to be socially conservative, it's just that they more easily identify with the political party portrayed as the most pro-immigrant. Right or wrong, that's the Democrats. If the 'conservatives' would logically extend their free-market, limited government principles to immigration issues we could easily add in a whole new demographic to the GOP's base.

It's okay to be anti-illegal immigration, but it's politically cancerous to ignore legal immigration--which is a fucking nightmare for most immigrants. It should be easier, not harder for good people to enter and stay in the U.S.

Mexico's IFE shows win for leftist PRI candidate. Updated

With over 95% of the votes tallied by Mexico's Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), the PRI Party candidate, Enrique Peña Nieto, is shown to be the clear winner in Mexico's General Election.

What does this mean, you may ask, for America? Well, not much or a lot--depending on how you look at it.

I'm no expert on Mexico's PRI, but they have run its executive government for most of recent history. Official relations will probably not change much between our governments, but border violence and economics might.

What I'm expecting from them are re-emphasized socialistic policies. The PRI did base much of their policies on the Soviet Union's. More nationalization, more central planning, which generally means slow growth in today's global economy. And slow growth generally means more crime.

Which brings me to Peña Nieto. The Mexican drug war has been astonishingly violent, and so dangerous for and increasing number of Mexicans that security is their number one issue. Peña Nieto ran on trying a different approach to the drug war; instead of focusing on the big fish, he plans to stop the everyday crimes.

That might be effective for people in Mexico, but I don't see it doing much to stop the border violence nor drug smuggling in the United States. With less heat on the drug cartels it might actually get worse.

Short of dramatic events or significant change in American policy, I expect more immigrants from Mexico both legal and not, similar if not increased levels of drug smuggling and border violence, but otherwise little change.

Update: Maybe Peña Nieto will put the heat on the cartels:

Peña Nieto wants to boost Mexico’s Federal Police, and he’s for creating a new national paramilitary police force to fight the cartels. His campaign has also been “highly solicitous” of the United States, notes Patrick Corcoran of InSight, an organized crime monitoring group. This could mean a bigger U.S. role. Naranjo is also reportedly close to U.S. officials.

The libertarian case for... conservatism

Actually, it's a conservative case for libertarians... but a unique argument for why libertarians should be conservatives, from the much underrated GMU economist Bryan Caplan who happens to be an ardent libertarian.

Deep down, most former conservatives such as myself who embraced libertarianism, still hold conservative positions, it's just that they're more or less relegated to the personal, not the political. And no, that's not cognitive dissonance, it's tolerance for freedom being used poorly.

Still, a persuasive argument:

But just as liberals exaggerate the benefits of government, libertarians exaggerate its defects. Judiciously halving government's role in the economy is reasonable. Laissez-faire in the face of monopoly, imperfect information, irrationality, externalities and other textbook market failures is not.

On immigration however, open borders is a big pill to swallow. I'd have to agree with the conservative case here, but Caplan ignores, purposely perhaps, the unmentionable debate within conservative circles about what to do with legal immigration, especially after the borders have been secured.

A few liberals - and many libertarians - literally advocate open borders. I recognize that immigration is the greatest foreign aid program in human history, and I sympathize with the plight of would-be immigrants in the Third World. Most immigrants - legal or not - are nice people. But open borders is crazy. It seriously risks killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I'm very open to more cost-effective and humane ways to deal with the negative effects of immigration. But as long as immigrants are eligible for government benefits, hurt low-skilled native workers, and vote, the only people we should readily admit are the highly-educated and clear-cut humanitarian cases. I'd put Haitians in the latter category. Asking Mexicans to live on a $10,000 a year in Mexico is reasonable, but asking Haitians to starve in post-earthquake Haiti is a disgrace.

Be sure to read the whole thing, and the comments.