Banner ad

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Cruising the Web

Myron Magnet writes about what has happened to New York City under Mayor de Blasio as he describes a couple of random attacks on tourists.
A few more incidents like this will stop tourists from coming to Gotham and choke off a rich growth industry, as top cop Bill Bratton recognizes. So while Mayor Bill de Blasio blathers about raising taxes on “the rich” to fight his chimera of inequality (which some days seems like his version of Kryptonite), his heavy anti-cop rhetoric, and the ongoing efforts of his city council allies to decriminalize quality-of-life offenses like fare-beating and public urination, threatens to sweep away many of the unskilled hospitality-industry jobs that the orderly New York of Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg nurtured. Think of de Blasio as the Inequality Grinch who could steal Gotham’s earned prosperity.

Take a walk around the Grand Hyatt and neighboring Grand Central Terminal these days. It’s often like stepping out of H.G. Wells’s time machine straight back into the 1970s or 1980s. Vanderbilt Avenue, in particular, is becoming once again the urinal of the universe, with one block wall-to-wall “bum stands,” as my son, with childhood inventiveness, used to call them: the stolen supermarket shopping cart, the garbage bag full of scavenged cans and bottles for redemption, the prone figure wrapped mummy-like in a filthy blanket. The heart sinks. It took so much effort by so many people to clear up the human wreckage that so many years of liberal “compassion” had created in a dying New York. And to see it all—I can’t put it any better than the esteemed New York Post—“pissed away” by a mayor not smart or perceptive enough to have learned one thing from the experience of the last 20 years, since his own personal demons have left him stuck in the politics of the 1950s and 1960s, is tragic. It is so hard to build; so easy to destroy.
I guess New Yorkers got what they voted for it. And they're getting it "good and hard."



How many times have we seen this sort of hypocrisy from union officials?
Union officials in Los Angeles are fighting to be excluded from minimum wage rules that they have lobbied to put in place.

Los Angeles city council is set to vote on a union-backed clause to its $15-an-hour minimum wage bill that would exempt workers covered by a collective bargaining contract. The debate is expected to start later this week when the council returns from summer recess.

In May, the Los Angeles city council voted in favor of raising minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020. As the council prepared for a final vote on the legislation, the Los Angeles Times reported local union leaders had suggested an exemption that was common for such laws: to make companies with unionized workforces exempt from such wage increase.

The proposal was made by Rusty Hicks, executive secretary-treasurer at the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. Hicks has been a leading voice for raising the minimum wage. He declined to comment for this story, referring the Guardian to previously released statements when he first introduced the proposal for the exemption clause.
This is reminiscent of unions hiring non-union people, even the homeless, to protest contractors who don't use union labor. High unemployment rates seems to provide plenty of people to accept hourly wages to protest employers who don't hire union workers.
"For a lot of our members, it's really difficult to have them come out, either because of parking or something else," explains Vincente Garcia, a union representative who is supervising the picketing.

So instead, the union hires unemployed people at the minimum wage—$8.25 an hour—to walk picket lines. Mr. Raye says he's grateful for the work, even though he's not sure why he's doing it. "I could care less," he says. "I am being paid to march around and sound off."
The Washington Post reported eight years ago that unions were outsourcing their picketing. So hypocrisy has long been a trend among unions.





Hillary Clinton has looked at the economy and found the culprit for its sluggishness - businesses and their shareholders.
But Mrs. Clinton then offered an analysis of this sorry state of affairs that was nearly 100% Obama-free. Aside from a vague reference to the disruptive impact of a government shutdown, the President’s policies were off the hook. Instead, Mrs. Clinton blamed “quarterly capitalism,” in which company shareholders pressure management to return cash to them instead of re-investing it in new factories and workers....
She thinks businesses are not investing in expanding their businesses because of pressure from their shareholders to pay out dividends or buy back stocks. She wants to put a stop to that. She really doesn't understand how businesses work.
Forget for a moment that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t seem to respect the rights of property owners to manage their properties as they see fit. A significant problem for Americans hoping for economic revival is that for all the time Mrs. Clinton has spent collecting money from Wall Streeters, she still doesn’t understand market incentives.

Activist shareholders win some and lose some. When they can convince most of their fellow shareholders that a business has few compelling opportunities to invest its cash flow and that shareholders would be better off investing that cash elsewhere, they win. On the other hand, if most shareholders are confident that management can generate a good return by building more plants and hiring more workers, the activists lose.

If the activists are having more success in this era, it means investors are less optimistic about the potential for growing the businesses they own. Is that because managements are suddenly less competent than they used to be, or is this era of slow growth putting a damper on investor expectations?

The emerging Clinton strategy is to first ignore the impact of President Obama’s record-setting volumes of federal regulation and his tax hikes on income, investment, health care, and much else. Step two is to pretend that the “new normal” of stagnant wages results from investor demands for returns that have existed for as long as there have been corporations.

“I’m looking for new creative, innovative, disruptive ideas that will save capitalism for the 21st century,” said Mrs. Clinton on Friday. How about disrupting just one of the barriers to growth created by Mr. Obama?

Ah, yes. Hillary Clinton, woman of the people.
Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton locked down part of Bergdorf Goodman, the luxury goods department store, to get a $600 haircut Friday at the posh John Barrett Salon.

Clinton, accompanied by a huge entourage, slipped into the Fifth Avenue store through a side door Friday, the New York Daily News reported.

The store shut down an elevator bank so the Democrat candidate could ride up alone and enjoy her hair cut in a private area of the salon, a source told the Daily News. "Other customers didn't get a glimpse," said the source.

Salon owner John Barrett normally charges $600 for a hair cut and blow-dry, and hair color costs an additional $600. Whether Clinton paid $600 for the haircut remains unknown, as she did not respond for a request comment.
Can you imagine if Mitt Romney had done this?



The next time Democrats talk about how much they care about veterans who have been neglected by the Department of Veterans Affairs, remember where their priorities really are.
The White House says President Obama will veto legislation that would let the Department of Veterans Affairs fire corrupt or negligent officials, in part because that change would make the VA a less pleasant place to work for federal employees.

Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., introduced the VA Accountability Act in response to the VA's failure to hold almost anyone responsible for the VA healthcare scandal, massive cost overruns at new construction projects and other problems.

But the White House said in a statement released late Tuesday that Miller's bill would be unfair to the VA, since it would create a "disparity" between VA workers and officials at other government agencies.

"It would make conditions of employment in VA significantly less attractive than in other federal agencies or in the private sector, and as a result, would discourage outstanding VA employees from remaining in VA and dramatically impair VA's ability to recruit top talent, including veterans," the White House said in a statement on the bill.

The White House says President Obama will veto legislation that would let the Department of Veterans Affairs fire corrupt or negligent officials, in part because that change would make the VA a less pleasant place to work for federal employees.

Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., introduced the VA Accountability Act in response to the VA's failure to hold almost anyone responsible for the VA healthcare scandal, massive cost overruns at new construction projects and other problems.

But the White House said in a statement released late Tuesday that Miller's bill would be unfair to the VA, since it would create a "disparity" between VA workers and officials at other government agencies.

"It would make conditions of employment in VA significantly less attractive than in other federal agencies or in the private sector, and as a result, would discourage outstanding VA employees from remaining in VA and dramatically impair VA's ability to recruit top talent, including veterans," the White House said in a statement on the bill.
Just like Democrats protect ineffective teachers from being fired are sticking up for corrupt or ineffective VA employees.

Michael Barone ponders our New Victorianism. He notes that thee has been a steady decrease in teens engaged in sex and teen pregnancies.
Conservative millennial author Ben Domenech sees these trends as a “triumph of soft conservatism over time,” but also as “another aspect of modern risk aversion.” That latter trend is also apparent in the decline in unsupervised play for children and removal of jungle gyms and slides from playgrounds.

A tendency to risk aversion also helps explain the movement against the supposed plague of sexual assaults in colleges and universities, with administrators running kangaroo courts in which the accused (almost always men) are assumed guilty and denied due-process rights. This has been carried, as my Washington Examiner colleague Ashe Schow has documented, to ridiculous extremes.

But one can also see it as an updated version of the college rules against male-female sexual contact that were being dismantled as “Hair” was premiering on Broadway. Students, headed to Aquarius then, are subjected to quasi-Victorian restrictions now.

California and New York legislators have chimed in with “yes means yes” statutes applicable to students (but not other adults). The American Law Institute is considering a similar approach, which Judith Shulevitz in the New York Times called “the criminalization of what we think of as ordinary sex.”

The 1960s saw a sharp decline in birth rates — the end of the baby boom — especially among the highly educated and affluent. But as Charles Murray documented in his 2012 book Coming Apart, the highly educated abandoned Aquarian rates of divorce and extramarital sex in the 1980s, while these rates have remained high among the less educated.

Now there’s been a trend since the 1990s toward higher birth rates at relatively late ages, and lower childlessness among highly educated women. And more women with higher educations are deciding the stay at home with children and pause their careers. Queen Victoria, a teen bride and mother of nine (the last at age 37), might approve.

Even the legalization and vastly increased approval of same-sex marriage has a Victorian aspect. The early same-sex marriage advocates Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch argued that marriage would domesticate homosexuals. There’s logic to that — marriage inevitably includes elements of restriction and restraint — and we will see how it works out.



The desire to divorce the Democratic Party from its previous heroes Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson continues. I guess all they have left are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Obama. Their bench is shrinking.

Political correctness never ends. Now we need to warn university students to not use the word "American." We wouldn't want to offend those from South or Central America or Canadians and Mexicans. Geesh! I wonder how many people from all those other countries actually use the word "American" themselves instead of the recommended terms "Resident of the U.S." or "U.s. citizen."

A lion gets killed and what is important to report -- the hunter's donation to Mitt Romney. Seriously. With all that is going on today, the killing of a lion is the story that has the world's attention? As John Hinderaker writes,
These are perilous times: Iran is on its way to getting the bomb, Russia is on the march, China’s economy is teetering, the U.S. has a historic election in prospect. So what is the number one news story in the world? Cecil the lion.
Daniel Halper writes tongue-in-cheek about the lion tragedy.
t's been a tragic couple years for Africa.

The death of Cecil comes on the heels of the tragedy of Ebola and the continuing murderous terror of Boko Haram.

Consider Ebola: "More than 23,200 people in Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal and Sierra Leone have contracted Ebola since March, according to the World Health Organization, making this the biggest outbreak on record. More than 9,300 people have died," the New York Times reported in January of this year.

And consider the terrorist group Boko Haram. "During 2014, Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 3,750 civilians died during Boko Haram attacks. .. Attacks in the first quarter of 2015 have increased compared to the same period in 2014, including seven suicide bombings allegedly using women and children."

At least the death of Cecil has been getting widespread coverage, especially here in the United States.

"[T]he news shows did find more than 14 minutes for a more important story: the “outrage” over the shooting of Cecil, a famed African lion, by an American dentist. Tuesday, the networks spent 5 minutes, 44 seconds during their evening news shows on Cecil -- and that’s not even counting the teasers. Wednesday morning, ABC, NBC and CBS lamented over the lion for 8 minutes, 17 seconds," Newsbusters reports.
And, of course, that is a whole lot more attention than the Planned Parenthood or Dr. Gosnell stories.

1 comment:

Greg Toombs said...

And whatever did happen with Darfur?