Fire Hydrant of Freedom

The $25/hr chickens come home to roost in CA. WSJ editorial:

California’s $25-an-Hour Minimum-Wage Boomerang
Gov. Newsom now says the law he signed last October would add to the state’s fiscal woes. He ignored warnings at the time.

Progressives in Sacramento rarely think twice before burdening businesses. But lo and behold, they are having second thoughts about California’s new $25-an-hour minimum wage for healthcare workers. Why? Because its burdensome budget costs are threatening liberal programs.

California’s Democratic Legislature is scrambling this week to delay the state’s higher healthcare minimum wage, which is scheduled to take effect on June 1. It’s not uncommon for politicians to reverse themselves, but California Gov. Gavin Newsom is walking back a law that he signed only last October. What’s changed?

The state’s budget deficit has ballooned to $45 billion. Mr. Newsom projects that the new healthcare minimum wage would cost the state $4 billion more a year owing to higher Medicaid costs and compensation for workers at state-owned facilities. Legislative analyses warned about these costs, but Mr. Newsom signed the law anyway.

Thus the minimum wage for healthcare workers is set to rise to between $18 and $23 an hour this Saturday, depending on the type and size of healthcare provider. California’s current minimum wage for all workers is $16 an hour. Nearly all workers at healthcare facilities including janitors will have to be paid at least $25 an hour by 2028.

Democrats shrugged when healthcare providers warned that the wage mandate could force cuts to patient services. Who cares if Californians wait longer before being seen at the ER? But now Democrats worry that the state’s higher health costs could force bigger government spending cuts. Oh no. Californians may have to wait even longer for their bullet train to nowhere.

Mr. Newsom is proposing to tie health worker minimum-wage increases to the state’s general fund revenue and to exempt state facilities. But once capital-gains revenue picks up again, California’s private healthcare providers will be stuck paying for the wage mandate, which they will ultimately pass on to patients. Far better to repeal the $25 wage minimum en toto.

As usual, Democrats don’t want to eat their own lousy cooking. Gov. Newsom this spring also signed legislation to carve out fast-food restaurants on government property from California’s new $20-an-hour fast-food minimum wage, which kicked in last month. Democrats don’t want the mandate interfering with government concession licenses.

California’s wage minimums are another illustration of how progressive mandates boomerang. Average weekly earnings for leisure and hospitality employees in California have declined by 2.6% over the last year owing to a steep drop in hours worked. By contrast, those average weekly earnings rose 3% nationwide, 3.2% in Florida and 5.2% in Texas.
````````
Average hourly earnings for California leisure and hospitality workers have also increased more slowly—2.1% compared to 3.8% nationwide—no doubt partly because the state’s softer labor market has reduced competition for workers.

When government raises wages above what the market commands, employers will increase prices and reduce labor. California, QED.

https://apple.news/A5Ap8FcbLSa6ci4OIWLpiGQ

I find this post interesting. Not only is there a lot of gamesmanship (‘scuse me “Progressives,” gamesfeatherlessbipedofallpossibleclaimedgendersship) but often it seems there is a race to be the first to assign a negative connotation to a meaning. Strikes me that this might rise to the level of being inducted into the fallacy of argument hall of fame:

Our Strange Politics of Meaning Assignment
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Orin S. Kerr / May 27, 2024 at 9:40 PM
[A thought.]

Recent stories about flags at the residence and vacation home of Justice Alito and his family remind me of something broader I'd been meaning to blog about: It's depressing, in our era of polarized politics, how much political attention focuses on interpreting the meaning of phrases and symbols that the other side uses.

The Alito flags raise one recent example, but I see this as a recurring dynamic. What does "from the river to the sea" mean? What is "critical race theory"? What does "all lives matter" mean? A surprising amount of politics ends up being channeled through contested meanings of used phrases and symbols.

I'm sure there's an academic phrase that already describes this.  But in the absence of knowing it, I will call this the strange politics of meaning assignment.  Here's the idea.  In a polarized political environment with little communication between the two sides, you can easily rile up your side by providing an uncharitable interpretation to the other side's symbols or phrases. This is what that means, you announce. Now you can see the real them. Finally, they are saying the quiet part out loud. This is who they are.

Sometimes that assigned meaning is correct, and being uncharitable is just being accurate.  In that case, fair enough. But, often enough to matter, meaning might be contested. A particular symbol or phrase may have different meanings to different people.  A particular use may be innocuous or in a context where the meaning is uncertain.  In that setting, assignment of meaning can cause a lot of trouble.  It can effectively create a meaning that isn't what those who use that symbol or phrase mean.

I have no personal knowledge of what particular flags mean, so I have no idea to what extent the Alito flag stories reflect this dynamic.  But it seems to me that a lot of attention in our politics raises this concern. A phrase or symbol is noted; someone on the other side will declare that this is what it means; and off the two sides go, with completely different understandings of the facts because they have assigned different meanings to symbols or phrases.

None of this is to doubt that there are real differences in political opinions, or that some symbols and phrases are profoundly disturbing.  But I wonder if something is lost when we focus on the symbols and phrases rather than try to address the underlying disagreements directly.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/27/our-strange-politics-of-meaning-assignment/

It appears the NYT had a big piece on Dobbs. Never heard of Tseytlin; seems like someone to watch (wonder if he’s in the lawfare crosshairs):

The Origin Story Of Dobbs
The Volokh Conspiracy / by Josh Blackman / May 28, 2024 at 4:56 PM
[A deep dive into how Dobbs came to be.]

The New York Times Magazine published a deep dive into the origin story of Dobbs. It covers a lot of ground, and based on my own recollection, it is fairly accurate. Here, I'd like to highlight a few items.

A lead protagonist in the story is former Wisconsin SG Misha Tseytlin. Misha may not be a household name, but he has been extremely influential over the years. For example, he was the brainchild behind the Obamacare challenge that became known as California v. Texas.(See profiles from the Houston Chronicle and Vox.) Earlier, at the West Virginia's Attorney General's Office, Misha helped develop some other influential cases that did not get as much press. More recently, Misha played an important role in the road to Dobbs. Shortly after the 2016 election, Misha began to develop an idea to target Roe: states should pass a fifteen-week abortion ban. This approach would allow the Court to eliminate the "viability" line, but would not require the Court to overrule Roe and Casey.

Now Tseytlin posed a theoretical question, according to people familiar with the discussion: What would happen if a state tried to pass an abortion limit at, say, 15 weeks? A slightly earlier restriction could force the court to examine the viability rule — and shake the very foundations of Roe. Could they push the number of weeks back just to the point at which their opponents would challenge it?

Tseytlin had a hard time believing that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. or Kennedy, who had come to inhabit a role as the court's swing vote, would strike down a ban that was just a few weeks earlier than 20. Many restrictions in Europe were drawn at 12 or 15 weeks.

Remember, at this point Justice Kennedy was still the fifth vote, so this incremental strategy had some value. But after Justice Barrett's confirmation in October 2020, the strategy shifted.

The article relays an internal debate about how to proceed: should Mississippi simply ask the Court to jettison the "viability" line, or should the state go all in to ask the Court to overrule Roe and Casey. I remember this debate well. Indeed, my widely-read post on the 2021 Federalist Society National Lawyer's Convention reflected this disagreement. The old guard, broadly defined, did not want to push the "overrule" Roe argument. The younger generation, broadly defined, thought this was the moment for change. Scott Stewart, the Mississippi SG, was talkin' bout my generation.

Stewart had to decide on a strategy. Fitch's petition for certiorari focused on upholding the Mississippi law and mentioned the possibility of overturning Roe only in a footnote: "If the Court determines that it cannot reconcile Roe and Casey with other precedents or scientific advancements showing a compelling state interest in fetal life far earlier in pregnancy than those cases contemplate, the Court should not retain erroneous precedent."

Stewart knew that a lot of lawyers would encourage him to continue down that easier path, to simply argue that Mississippi's law should be upheld. To not push for the complete overturn of Roe but to chip away — as the movement had for so many decades — and get the court to undo the viability standard. But for Stewart, these circumstances were different from those in the past. Trump had pushed their cause from the biggest bully pulpit in the land. Conservatives now had a majority on the court that seemed to be on their side.

It was not a moment for compromise, Stewart reasoned, according to people familiar with his thinking. It was a lesson he had learned from Thomas, his former boss and mentor, who was known to hold the line without deviation. He would be steadfast: Roe and Casey were wrong and must be reversed.

Even after Dobbs were argued, FedSoc lawyers over the age of fifty continuously fretted about the decision to push the Court to overrule Roe. I think it was some sort of collective PTSD from Bork, Casey, Harriet Miers, NFIB v. Sebelius, and more. They worried, correctly, about the aftermath of overruling Roe. In hindsight, Dobbs has been a political disaster for Republicans nationwide. But again, their concerns were pragmatic, and not legal. The yutes, as Joe Pesci would say, were content to let the heavens fall so justice could be done. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. And fall they did.

Finally, the articles identifies a list of cases that are primed for overruling: Employment Division v. Smith, CLS v. Martinez, and Troxel v. Granville. Seems like a good list!

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/28/the-origin-story-of-dobbs/

ATF’s head dodges and weaves while grilled about various awful ATF policies and operations:

Hard Questions, But Few Clear Answers as Congress Probes ATF Tactics and Overreach
TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2024 Hard Questions, But Few Clear Answers as Congress Probes ATF Tactics and Overreach
SUPPORT NRA-ILA
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) suffered two bruising days on Capitol Hill last week during oversight hearings attempting to get to the bottom of a fatal raid and other recent enforcement overreaches involving peaceable Americans. Many hard questions were asked but few clear answers emerged, as ATF and its apologists insisted the agency remained committed to public safety, while invoking pending investigations and lawsuits as a means of avoiding detailed responses. At the very least, the hearings made it unmistakably clear that ATF has a lot to answer for to regain the trust of pro-gun lawmakers and the gun-owning American public.

On Wednesday, the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government held a hearing on a March 19 raid on the home of Bryan Malinowski in Little Rock, AR, that resulted in one ATF agent being shot and Malinowski himself being killed. The SWAT-style operation to execute a search warrant featured 10 carloads of ATF agents and local officers who descended on Malinowski’s residence an hour before dawn, killed power to the home, covered up a security camera on Malinowski’s front porch, and broke in through the locked front door. Contrary to the established policies of the ATF and Little Rock Police Department, none of those conducting the raid was wearing a body camera to record what happened next.

The star witness at the hearing was Bud Cummins, a former U.S. attorney and the lawyer now representing Malinowski’s family and widow, Maer Malinowski. Cummins recounted how the racket of agents “caving in the door” awakened the frightened couple, leading Bryan to arm himself with a handgun and investigate. Maer followed her husband as he confronted a group of shadowy figures entering the darkened home. Cummins said Malinowski fired at their legs to drive them back out of the house, believing them to be home invaders. An agent was struck in the foot, and the entry team returned fire, shooting Malinowski in the forehead as his bewildered wife looked on in horror.

Cummins testified that only 57 seconds elapsed between the time an agent was seen on video covering up the security camera to when Malinowski was fatally shot. This meant, he said, the operation was a no-knock entry in fact, if not on paper, as Malinowski did not have time to appreciate what was happening before he reacted. Cummins noted that Malinowki’s frantic wife, not accused of any crime, was locked in the back of a police vehicle for four hours in the 34 degree morning air, wearing only a thin nightgown. She was not allowed to check on her husband or even to use the bathroom. When she finally persuaded agents to let her use the bathroom, she was taken to local firehouse, paraded before the firemen in her nightgown, and forced to relieve herself in the presence of a female officer.

The raid to execute the search warrant came after a months-long investigation in which ATF agents came to believe Malinowski was dealing in firearms without a license. Significantly, it occurred exactly one month before ATF published its controversial rule, “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms.” That rule was supposedly prompted by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, which changed the statutory definition of a “dealer” in firearms to focus on the intent to earn a profit, rather than to earn a livelihood. Proponents of the change said it merely codified case law, making clear that a person could be considered a “dealer in firearms,” even if the person had another full-time job or career.

Yet ATF treated the change as an opportunity for a sweeping expansion of the dealer licensing requirement, with a serious of presumptions about what sort of behaviors triggered the requirement or its requisite intent. ATF in particular focused on advertising sales via the Internet and selling at gun shows, circumstances that would have explicitly required a license in the failed Manchin-Toomey legislation the Obama/Biden administration pursued in 2013. Ironically, mere days before the hearing, a federal district judge in Texas temporarily enjoined enforcement of the ATF’s rule against a broad class of plaintiffs after finding the terms of the rule likely violated ATF’s authority.

An affidavit in support of the search warrant application for Malinowski’s home detailed many of the government’s accusations against him. These included that he bought some 147 guns over a three-year period, that he resold an unknown number of them, and that nine subsequently wound up at the scenes of crimes or in the possession of prohibited people (including at least three undercover informants). None of the guns, however, was said to have been used against a person in a crime of violence. It is striking how many of the circumstances mentioned in the affidavit that caused the government to scrutinize Malinowski would later end up as presumptions in the regulation a federal judge has already ruled is likely illegal.

The testimony of Bud Cummins emphasized that Malinowski had no criminal history and a lucrative, high-paying job as the director of the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock that he would not have knowingly jeopardized with illegal activity. Cummins described Malinowski as an avid collector and hobbyist, of coins as well as firearms. He said Malinowski sold both of these things at gun shows, as the text of federal statute says he had a right to do to enhance his personal collection. Cummins said the government could have resolved the matter without the escalations that led to the eventual exchange of gunfire, including by simply serving Malinowski with a cease and desist letter. Even in the context of a criminal investigation, Cummins testified, the ATF’s tactics were unnecessarily aggressive, ignored less risky alternatives, and lacked indicia of transparency.

The day after the subcommittee’s hearing, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach appeared before the full House Judiciary Committee for an oversight hearing. Malinwoski’s widow attended both hearings. Pro-gun members grilled the director on the Malinowski case, which he claimed was only one of thousands of ATF operations he was only vaguely aware of before the fact. Dettelbach deflected any attempt to elicit explanations for the ATF’s conduct by insisting the matter was under “independent” investigation by the Arkansas State Police and therefore Justice Department policy prohibited him from discussing it. In general terms, he emphasized the dangerousness of ATF’s work and the necessity of deferring to the operational decisions of “professionals” in the field. He also blamed ATF’s lack of compliance with policies requiring body cameras, as a general matter, on budgetary constraints.

Dettelbach additionally refused to comment upon or explain the details of various controversial ATF rules, on the bases that the rules spoke for themselves, and ATF’s defense of them was well-documented in the many legal cases challenging them in various courts. He claimed his attempts to summarize, elaborate, or defend any of the rules could adversely affect those proceedings.

Pro-gun members of the committee treated these excuses as a cop-out and vainly tried to elicit more specifics from Dettelbach. Anti-gun committee members tried to portray the pro-gun members as hypocrites for wanting to cut ATF funding, while claiming support for law enforcement, and emphasized the supposed importance of ATF’s collaboration with state and local police in the enforcement of gun control laws. Some tried to paint the Malinowski case as a typical and justified law enforcement investigation, while others admitted concern about its tactics but criticized pro-gun committee members for ignoring similar cases involving minority defendants.

When the smoke cleared, Americans had few answers about the concerns expressed in the hearings, and no clear sense of how much knowledge or involvement Dettelbach himself has in the workings of the agency he directs. Overall, however, he appeared more as the agency’s cheerleader than its operational leader.

Yet enough was said to put Americans who believe in the right to keep and bear arms on notice that the Biden administration is using ATF to pursue its anti-gun political agenda, and not just to impartially enforce the law against violent criminals or those who intentionally flout the law. Hearings are useful to illustrate the problems, but the only solutions are to be found at the ballot box.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240528/hard-questions-but-few-clear-answers-as-congress-probes-atf-tactics-and-overreach

This piece minds me of an old joke:

Q: Why do dogs lick their balls?

A: Because they can.

The same applies to “Progressive” lies.

BTW, the reason I use scare quotes whenever typing  the term “Progressive” is because they are not; they are instead regressive. Much like the term the Bolsheviks usurped the Russian term for “majority” when in fact they were in the minority as the Mensheviks, based on the term “minority” were in fact the majority revolutionary faction. The choice was quite intentional where Lenin et al were concerned and I think it’s the same for those that embrace the term “Progressive” as they seek to connote that they are some sort of progress based vanguard when in fact they embrace Puritan, authoritarian, and utterly failed Marxist elements in their anything but forward thinking view.


They lie because they get away with it
MAY 28, 2024

On Monday, we honored the million men who died defending our great nation and protecting our God-given rights. Sadly, the current resident in the White House decided to honor instead a drug addict and armed robber who died in police custody. His staff perpetuated the lie that George Floyd was murdered by a policeman — a lie upheld by a kangaroo court in Minnesota.

That’s the power of the Big Lie.

The death of Morgan Spurlock showed why people in the media lie. They get away with it and it pays well. He made a movie for $65,000 called Super Size Me and collected a hefty share of its $22 million gross at the box office.

The premise was he ate nothing but McDonald’s food for 30 days and it ruined his health. The food did not. He died of cancer not obesity. His liver likely was in bad shape but it wasn’t from milkshakes and Big Macs. It was from 40 years of drinking, going back to when he was 13.

Nevertheless, the media sold the lie for 20 years, and continued the lie in his obituaries, although a few outlets included a paragraph or two buried in the story that put his lie in perspective.

The Daily Mail shouted in a headline, “Horrifying effects of eating McDonald's for a month on Morgan Spurlock's body revealed — including 'turning his liver to paté.'“

That was a lie.

NBC summed up the legend of Mister Spurlock pretty well:

Super Size Me was by far his best-known creative venture and claim to fame. In the movie, he recorded the month of his life when he ate nothing but burgers, fries and other quick-fix staples from McDonald's — an experiment that he claimed took a toll on his mental and physical health.

The documentary helped boost public consciousness about the nutritional content of fast food and America's obesity epidemic, inspiring a backlash against McDonald's and other big-name restaurant chains. Super Size Me was nominated for best documentary feature at the 77th Academy Awards in 2005.

Super Size Me provoked a national debate and grossed more than $22 million on a modest $65,000 budget. But it came under the microscope over the accuracy of some of its claims about health and science. Spurlock's disclosure in 2017 that he was drinking heavily through much of his life put his purported symptoms in a new light.

The media heavily promoted him and his movie when it debuted 20 years ago. Overnight, journalists became instant dietitians — just like they became instant virologists 4 years ago when covid 19 arrived from Wuhan.

NBC was among the cheerleaders: “Award-winning filmmaker Morgan Spurlock eats McDonald's for a month— and gets sick. What does McDonald's have to say about the experiment-turned-film? Deborah Norville Tonight interviews Spurlock, and McDonald's global nutritionist Cathy Kapica.”

They should have known better.

Via Instapundit, James K. Glassman called the fellow out before the movie’s premiere in 2004, in a piece called, “A Big Con Man.” Glassman wrote:

Super Size Me is not a serious look at a real health problem. It is, instead, an outrageously dishonest and dangerous piece of self-promotion. Through his antics, Spurlock sends precisely the wrong message. He absolves us of responsibility for our own fitness. We aren't to blame for being fat; big corporations are! And the remedy, he suggests, is to file lawsuits and plead with the Nanny State and the Food Police for protection.

While the film demonizes McDonald's and other restaurants, Spurlock's weight gain and health decline have nothing to do with where he ate (after all, Robert DeNiro gained 60 pounds for his role in Raging Bull by dining at great restaurants in Italy), but rather with how much he consumed and how little he exercised (Spurlock even cut down on normal walking).

The media ignored Glassman when the movie came out for the exact reason Glassman stated. The lie shifted the blame for being fat to Big Corporations.

The Big Lie works because it sells the myth people want to believe. Conservatives talk a great deal about personal responsibility but really few people want to take responsibility for their situation.

Hillary is a good example of this. She ran against a rookie candidate in 2016, whom the media demonized. She had a then-record billion dollars to blow on the campaign. At one point she asked, why aren’t I 50 points ahead?

The answer is that she rhymes with witch.

After Trump humiliated her, as she drowned her sorrow in Chardonnay, she concocted a conspiracy theory that Putin stole the election for Trump. She’s nuts. But her Putin-ate-my-election lie worked. Even after an intensive investigation by Bobby Mueller that resulted in no indictments related to Russian interference, the press continued to push this wild-eyed lie.

Time magazine said on April 18, 2019:

When Russia set out to interfere with the 2016 election, it went all out.

Over the course of the election, a wide-ranging group of Russians probed state voter databases for insecurities; hacked the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee; tried to hack the campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio and the Republican National Committee; released politically damaging information on the internet; spread propaganda on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram; staged rallies in Florida and Pennsylvania; set up meetings with members of the Trump campaign and its associates; and floated a business proposition for a skyscraper in Moscow to the Trump Organization.

The goal, as determined by the U.S. intelligence community and backed up by evidence gathered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller: To damage the Clinton campaign, boost Trump’s chances and sow distrust in American democracy overall.

Again, Mueller found nothing.

In a sane world, a president could sue for such libel. But under the ridiculous NYT v. Sullivan ruling, a president cannot sue. The press knows it has a license to lie and uses it like a teenage girl with her daddy’s credit card. The more outrageous the lie, the more the press promotes it.

The press promoted cloth masks but cloth masks do not stop a virus.

The press promoted social distancing but it does not stop a virus.

The press dismissed ivermectin as horse paste but it worked against covid 19.

The press demanded mandatory shots but Pfizer’s shot is not a vaccine.

In each case the press accepted the government’s lies instead of the truth. The idea that the press can hold anyone accountable is as nonsensical as saying a 5-year-old can pick his sex. Come to think of it, the press believes that too.

I do not mean to pick on Morgan Spurlock. Our thoughts and prayers should be with his friends and family, but he illustrates and super-sizes the problem with lies: they work.

https://donsurber.substack.com/p/they-lie-because-they-get-away-with?r=1qo1e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true