RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fetterman-is-the-democrats-stand-up-guy/

I was wrong about John Fetterman. I misjudged the man’s ability, his character, and his strength. Writing an encomium to a reliably Democratic senator is an odd position for a conservative opinion writer to find himself in, and yet I have done so before. Given current events, however, it feels like a particularly appropriate time to reiterate the point, and explain why I missed so badly on him initially.

It was overdetermined, really; I was deeply skeptical of Fetterman’s ability to serve as senator after his stroke while on the campaign trail in 2022. I never much cared for his working-man shtick — his personal dress habits may be slovenly, but he comes from family money. And I had my partisan desires regardless. (That this put me in the awkward position of preferring a quack TV doctor from New Jersey was merely another one of the many indignities Republicans have had heaped upon them since 2015.) And when Fetterman got to Washington, his first move of note was having the Senate dress code temporarily revised to allow his own peculiar brand of sweatpants chic, which didn’t help either.

But even at the time, one thing was pleasantly clear: Fetterman was making a surprisingly strong recovery from his stroke and, equally as surprising, from the crippling depression that accompanied it. (In all honesty, that was the most important thing of all.) And then, he started going a little bit off the reservation as well: When Senator Robert Menendez was indicted in one of the most amusingly sleazy corruption scandals of recent New Jersey history, which is saying something, Fetterman literally jumped the line ahead of anyone in the Republican Party not only to denounce Menendez but also to clown on him brutally in public. (“Today sure would be a great day to resign, Bob!” remains my favorite political line of 2023, and it was spoken by Fetterman to Menendez as they were sharing an escalator in the Capitol building.)

October 7 was his public turning point, however: Since that awful day, he has been a genuine beacon of moral clarity in the midst of a maelstrom of confusion enveloping the Left as the Gaza war unfolds.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/05/d-c-jury-convicts-great-grandma-for-walking-around-the-capitol-for-10-minutes-on-jan-6/

After being strung up on charges by President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ), a 71-year-old great-grandmother may be thrown in jail because she walked around the Capitol for a few minutes on Jan. 6, 2021.

Rebecca Lavrenz was convicted on four counts Thursday after just three days of jury deliberation for entering the Capitol on J6. Lavrenz entered the building through an open door around 2:43 p.m., according to the official statement of facts.

Lavrenz told The American Spectator‘s Jack Cashill that she “felt that if those doors [on the east side of the building] opened I was supposed to go through.”

Lavrenz exited the Capitol around 2:53 p.m., just 10 minutes after entering, having briefly spoken to at least one Capitol Police Officer before leaving, according to the statement of facts.

Two FBI agents showed up on April 19, 2021, to Lavrenz’s home in Colorado. Lavrenz told the agents she was in the middle of baking a cake for her son and asked if they could return at a different time, according to The American Spectator. The agents returned one week later for a “consensual interview,” according to the statement of facts.

After months of investigation, agents reportedly told Lavrenz she should be grateful the weaponized agency would only charge the self-described “praying great-grandmother” with four misdemeanor charges for entering a building her tax dollars pay for.

“Glad?” Lavrenz reportedly said. “I shouldn’t be charged with anything.”

Lavrenz was charged with entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a capitol; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a capitol, according to the criminal complaint.

https://quillette.com/2024/04/04/innovation-utilitarianism-conor-mckinley-tesla/

Utilitarianism is currently en vogue. Two of its important contentions are that all lives have equal value and that decisions should be evaluated on how much they raise average well-being (so-called utility). This philosophy underpins many left-wing economic policies because the same amount of money has more value to a poor person than to a rich one. For example, if you take $100 from Jeff Bezos and give it to a starving artist, Bezos won’t even notice but the artist will have ramen for weeks, and average utility will therefore increase. This is probably the rationale behind Bernie Sanders’ claim that the “obscene level of income and wealth inequality in America is a profoundly moral issue that we cannot continue to ignore.” Implicit in this is the assumption that the redistribution of wealth would provide much more benefit to the poor than it would harm the rich.

The problem is that this is only true if we restrict our view to the domestic arena. When inequality is measured on a global scale, most people in the developed world can be considered affluent. If we include foreigners into our utility calculus, we should recommend very different policies: in particular, we should loosen regulations on biotech; we should oppose excessive unionisation; and we should increase the number of highly skilled immigrants we accept.

All these policies promote the most effective foreign aid programme ever discovered: innovation. Figuring out how to do things is expensive, but once we develop that knowledge, it is relatively cheap to distribute. For example, US research institutions and venture capitalists have poured billions into AI research and, as a result, ChatGPT has given every kid with access to the Internet a personal tutor that is an expert in every subject. There is well documented research to show that this effect, known as “catch-up growth,” partially explains why emerging markets grow faster than developed ones. They can just copy what has already worked for us.

Biotech

Developing countries are generally unable to invest large amounts into the research and development of new drugs. But, thanks to innovation in the US, Japan, and Europe, this has not stopped them from accessing vaccines against polio, malaria, smallpox, and COVID-19.

Pharmaceutical companies get lots of bad press for their high profit margins on successful drugs (think of Martin Shkreli). But these criticisms fail to consider the underlying pharmaceutical business model: successful drugs have to pay for all the drugs that never made it to market.

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

As Americans we have choices, except when we don’t. When liberty is at risk, we have a duty to ensure that freedom reigns. In his Farewell Address (published in September 1796), George Washington wrote: “The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts – of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.” There are times when liberty needs defending.

While Washington, in the same Address, warned against foreign entanglements, he could not have foreseen how the world would shrink. By the dawn of the 20th Century, steamships and later air travel shortened distances across the Atlantic and Pacific, encouraging commerce, trade and tourism. Obligations, embedded in treaties and alliances, extended beyond our borders. By the late 1930s Europe was mired in a second world war, brought about by Hitler’s hatred for Jews and his desire for lebensraum – living space. Over the course of almost six years he and his NAZIs murdered seven million Jews. At its peak, in November 1942, Germany dominated Europe. Apart from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Portugal, Germany’s occupation extended 2,500 miles, from Brittany east to Stalingrad (now Volgograd), and 2,100 miles from Helsinki south to Athens. As well, they controlled a good part of North Africa.

On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked our naval base at Pearl Harbor. The next day, the U.S. declared war on Japan. In his address to Congress on December 8, President Roosevelt committed the United States: “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.”  Three days later, Germany declared war on the United States. Two years later, by early 1944, the momentum of the War, which in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East was in its fifth year, favored the Allies. Even so, some of its costliest battles – the invasion of Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima – were still in the future. Millions of soldiers and civilians were yet to die.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/drama-over-trumps-presidential-records-act-defense-in-florida-case/

I will have a lot more to say in the weekend column about Biden Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s dyspeptic response to Judge Aileen Cannon’s order – which I posted about on Tuesday – requiring prosecutors to respond with proposed jury instructions to two factual scenarios she posited. Both involved the 32 felony charges of unlawfully retaining national-defense intelligence in Smith’s Mar-a-Lago indictment against Donald Trump.

As I observed in the post, Smith had to be dumbfounded by Judge Cannon’s order because the two scenarios she laid out seemed to accept some or all of the former president’s Presidential Records Act (PRA) defense. Indeed, the second scenario appears to buy it wholesale — advising the parties to propose jury instructions on the assumptions that (a) a president is deemed to have designated documents as personal records simply by having caused them to be removed from government safekeeping, and (b) that a president’s decision to designate materials as personal records (which he can keep), rather than presidential records (government property that must be archived) is unreviewable by a court or jury. If that’s the law, Trump gets acquitted on the document-retention counts.

The first scenario is better for Smith in that it anticipates that the jury may review a presidential designation of personal (rather than presidential) records by applying the PRA (i.e., reading Congress’s definitions of personal and presidential records). Nevertheless, although Trump could (and probably would) be convicted in this scenario, Smith objects to it because he believes the PRA is irrelevant to the case — the question of whether Trump was in unauthorized possession of the documents is controlled by the Espionage Act’s plain terms and the executive order that governs handling of classified documents (EO 13256, promulgated at the direction of Congress in §3161 of classified-information law). For what it’s worth, I think Smith is substantially correct about that (see, e.g., here and here).

Given Smith’s notorious aggressiveness (which the Supreme Court took note of in unanimously reversing a conviction he’d gotten in United States v. McDonnell), the special counsel’s response to Cannon was sharp and monitory.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20545/lawlessness

On the eve of Easter Sunday, for as far as the eye could see, thousands of police officers lined a quiet suburban Long Island street to offer their solemn final salute to a fellow officer, who was shot to death during a traffic stop in New York City. They came from all over the nation to pay tribute to one of their own, yet another victim in the absence of a war against crime, a situation that has been made far more violent, far more dangerous in the wake of legislation such as so-called “bail reform” — now basically a catch-and-release, in which criminals are regarded as victims and victims are regarded as criminals — and similar progressive initiatives that are unraveling our society.

Detective First Grade Jonathan Diller was married to a nurse named Stephanie; they had a toddler named Ryan.

In her eulogy to her murdered husband, Stephanie told a packed church: “He was excited that Ryan’s first word was ‘Dada,’ and I remember I would playfully try to get him to say ‘Mama’ instead. But now I never want to stop hearing Ryan say ‘Dada’ to me.”

“Our lives were pretty much perfect until five days ago when everything changed forever…. He wasn’t the type to sugarcoat anything, so I won’t sugarcoat this: This is devastating; it’s a devastating, senseless and tragic loss for so many — our family, our friends, and the entire city of New York,” this courageous widow continued.

She asked, “How many more police officers and their families will have to make the ultimate sacrifice before the city protects them?”

Media reports that when she finished her tribute, “thunderous applause rose from the thousands of mourners inside and outside the church.”

Regardless of where you live, or what you have experienced in your communities, this tragedy speaks to a nation in turmoil. Entire urban downtowns have become wastelands. Legislation has been passed that harms the ability of police to perform their duties.

With blue flags flying throughout Diller’s community, they reflect the lasting support from neighbors seeking to stand in solidarity with a family shattered by a murderous felon. Those flags, however, cannot begin to reflect the seething anger and heartfelt grief that is a legacy of Diller’s death. There are those, including this author, who will ask why the murderer will likely be sentenced to life imprisonment. Why aren’t we prepared to bring back capital punishment for those who take the lives of those brave men who daily risk their own lives to protect our families, our communities, and our society? Why indeed?

https://amgreatness.com/2024/04/03/inspectors-thousands-of-american-bridges-in-poor-condition/

Following the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge after a collision involving a cargo ship, safety inspectors are now raising the alarm about the structural dangers of a significant percentage of American bridges.

As Fox News reports, federal data from the year 2023 suggests that at least 7% of bridges in the United States – roughly 42,400 total – are in poor condition. The primary cause is deterioration over time, which requires regular repairs that can regularly cost millions of dollars, as well as cause closures that negatively impact many residents’ commutes.

The National Bridge Inventory says that the bridges that are in danger are suffering from either their legs (the substructure) or their arms (the superstructure) being in poor condition; the legs hold up the bridges themselves, while the arms hold up their loads.

Notably, the number of bridges in poor condition has decreased by about 22% over the previous decade, with 16,000 bridges being rated poor 10 years ago but no longer being declared so today.

Although a portion of the 2021 infrastructure bill included funding for the improvement of bridges, it only funds bridge repairs to the tune of $40 billion; the American Road and Transportation Builders Association estimates that at least $319 billion would be needed to conduct all of the necessary repairs on every affected bridge.

Bridges in the United States have come under greater scrutiny following the incident in Baltimore on March 26th, where the Singaporean cargo ship Dali collided with one of the bridge’s central support beams in the early morning hours, allegedly after losing power on the ship and drifting in the water towards the bridge. The collapse resulted in six deaths, and a massive cleanup operation, as well as an investigation into the reasons for the crash, are currently underway.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/04/alvin_bragg_s_hush_money_case_no_due_process_and_a_judge_whose_objectivity_is_highly_suspect.html

From the second it was filed, it was clear that Alvin Bragg’s indictment against Donald Trump for the payments he made to Stormy Daniels was a due process disaster. The complaint alleges legal conduct and then concludes that this legal conduct constituted illegal action of an undisclosed nature. The case should have been tossed instantly. But now that we know that the judge trying the case has deep Democrat ties and is trying to prevent Trump from exposing those ties, it’s becoming clear why it’s proceeding to trial.

Last year, John Hinderaker, who is no Trump fan, eviscerated Bragg’s indictment:

You can read Alvin Bragg’s indictment of Donald Trump and a supporting statement of facts here. The indictment is what we expected. It all has to do with paying $130,000 to Stormy Daniels for a non-disclosure agreement, which was legal. The payment was made by “Lawyer A,” Michael Cohen. Trump reimbursed Cohen using Trump’s own money, which was legal. The “34 counts” arise out of the fact that by agreement, Cohen got reimbursed by sending monthly invoices to Trump or his revocable trust. So for each monthly bill from Cohen, we get three counts of falsifying documents: one for the invoice, one for the ledger entry, and one for the check stub. Pathetic.

The indictment alleges that all of this was done “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof,” but it never says what that other crime was. The second crime is mandatory because without it, falsifying a business record under New York law is a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitation has run. Presumably the second crime is alleged to be a campaign finance violation. But the payment to Daniels did not violate the campaign finance laws.

What this all boils down to is that, despite 34 counts against him, Trump has no idea what crime he is alleged to have committed.