Will there be a national rail strike?

The New Neo Posted on by

Just what we need economically – not:

One of the unions representing rail workers said Wednesday that its members rejected a proposed deal with rail carriers and voted to move forward with a strike that could have severe consequences for the U.S. economy.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers issued a statement saying that roughly 4,900 of its members turned down the tentative agreement with the National Carriers’ Conference Committee (NCCC) representing railroads, but noted that they would hold off on striking for at least a few weeks while other unions continue their talks…

IAM is one of four unions that remain holdouts on the deal put forth by the presidential emergency board (PEB) appointed by President Biden. Another eight rail unions have agreed to the plan.

Two other major rail unions signaled over the weekend that they would not sign on without further concessions from railroads. The leaders of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) Transportation Division and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) Teamsters Rail Conference issued a joint statement Sunday saying that the PEB proposal does not go far enough to improve working conditions for members.

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) says the strike would cost the nation more than two billion a day.

A lot of articles say the strike may happen this Friday, but I tend to doubt it. There’s a lot of negotiating occurring, and the Democrats have a very very strong interest in delaying this because it’s almost a certainty it would hurt them politically.

More here:

The labor dispute that could lead to the first national railroad strike in 30 years could begin as soon as this Friday. About 60,000 union members who work for the railroad are set to go on strike, including the engineers and conductors who make up the two-person crews on each train. Even though 45,000 other union members belong to unions that have reached tentative deals with the railroads, a strike by engineers and conductors would bring the freight rail system, which carries nearly 30% of the nation’s freight, to a grinding halt.

Also:

Democrats in Congress have promised to pass legislation to extend a deadline, an act within Congress’ power, if a deal can’t be reached. This is a test to see if the Democratic Party is controlled by moderates or the leftists like progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) with the backing of Squad leader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). It seems unlikely that the Democrats in the Senate, with Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who just last week rallied with striking British rail workers, will agree to a deal opposed by some union leaders.

Interesting times.

Durham limps on

The New Neo Posted on by

The latest news from Durham is that Danchenko, the guy behind the Steele dossier, was a paid informant of the FBI for many years (isn’t everyone?):

In a bombshell revelation, Special Prosecutor John Durham revealed Tuesday in court filings that the FBI paid a Russian businessman as a confidential human source in the investigation of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign even though it had prior concerns that businessman was tied to Moscow’s intelligence services.

Durham persuaded the federal judge in the upcoming trial of Igor Danchenko to unseal a motion revealing that Danchenko, the primary source of the now-discredited Steele dossier, was paid by the FBI as a confidential human source for more than three years until the fall of 2020 when he was terminated for lying to agents.

Danchenko is charged with five counts of lying to the bureau during that relationship and faces trial next month in federal court in the Virginia suburbs of Washington D.C.

I wouldn’t call this a “bombshell.” Russiagate – and even the Durham investigation – is now officially old stale news, and opinions about it are probably pretty much set in stone. And for those of us on the right still following it all, this particular revelation should come as no surprise whatsoever. Russiagate has exposed the rottenness of various federal agencies, in particular the FBI and the DOJ.

NOTE: Much more here.

Telling Big Lies: more Senate probes of Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s often educational to visit the looking-glass world of the leftist press. For example, from Salon, we have this article entitled, “‘Trump turned DOJ into his personal law firm’: Senate probes prosecutor’s claim of Trump corruption”:

The Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Monday that it will probe former federal prosecutor Geoffrey Berman’s claim that former President Donald Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr sought to pressure federal prosecutors to go after Trump’s perceived enemies.

Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland that the panel will investigate claims of “astonishing and unacceptable deviations” by DOJ officials to pursue partisan prosecutions and Barr’s efforts to replace Berman with a “Trump loyalist.” Berman’s claims “indicate multiple instances of political interference,” Durbin wrote, calling on the DOJ to produce all documents and communications related to Berman’s claims.

All this is concurrent with the multiple actual ongoing partisan political prosecutions by the Biden administration. But the Big Lie technique is apparently a useful one to the current administration. You almost have to admire the symmetry of it.

Has it ever seemed odd to you that the Nazis discussed their Big Lie approach openly? If so, you probably haven’t seen the original in context, because the famous Big Lie explanation was itself embedded in a Big Lie. Here’s the relevant quote from Mein Kampf, which refers to the blame for Germany’s defeat in World War I:

But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.

All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true within itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

So in the course of discussing the Big Lie, according to Hitler it’s the Jews who are perpetrating it, not the Nazis. Those two paragraphs are followed by this one, which is an excellent description of why Big Lies so often work, and why they continue to work today:

It would never come into [the masses’] heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

And so today the Biden administration simply must use the DOJ to pursue and prosecute its political opponents in the Trump administration who supposedly tried to usurp the DOJ for their own political ends. The following sort of legal activity is the way they’re going about it: this, as well as this, this, this, and this.

NOTE: By the way, the Salon characterization of Berman as “a Republican former Trump transition official” is itself purposely misleading. For starters, I can’t find any indication that Berman is any sort of Republican, although it’s certainly possible. But he was no Trump ally and had personal reasons to hate him, Barr, and Giuliani. You can read about Berman’s history here. Also note that Berman was the guy who previously prosecuted Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney.

Bolduc, Morse, Hassan, and the New Hampshire GOP primary

The New Neo Posted on by

Scott Johnson writes:

New Hampshire held its late party primaries yesterday. The only interesting races were on the Republican side and Democrats had a hand in two of them. In the Senate contest to pick a challenger to vulnerable incumbent Maggie Hassan, Don Bolduc faced off against Chuck Morse. Democrats supported Bolduc because he is the less viable candidate.

Bolduc has been declared the winner in a relatively close race. If you do a search for articles about him, you’ll find the MSM regulars crowing that he’s a far-right “election denier” whose nomination “has realized GOP fears.”

Perhaps. But I’ve followed the race for a while, and here’s my take on it.

Both GOP candidates, Bolduc and Morse, were weak, although in very different ways. The Democrats absolutely tried to push Bolduc for their own ends, but it was Morse who closed the gap considerably in the final run, not the other way around. Bolduc is the more colorful and extreme political figure – with obvious vulnerabilities along those lines – whereas Morse is remarkably lackluster. From what I could find in polls (there weren’t many really recent ones), both were polling similarly against Democrat incumbent Maggie Hassan, who is also relatively unpopular. So they both were within a couple of points of her.

Initially it had been thought that popular New Hampshire Republican Governor Sununu would be Hassan’s GOP opponent in 2022 and that he would win handily. But once he announced he was not running for the Senate, no particularly “viable” GOP Senate candidate presented himself or herself. So Bolduc and Morse it was.

New Hampshire is an odd and quirky purplish state. It is very small, for starters. Therefore a campaign such as the one the Democrats waged during this primary, to get Democrats to vote for the GOP candidate considered less “viable,” in a year in which the Democrat race wasn’t in real contention, could very well succeed in selecting that GOP candidate the Democrats prefer. I don’t know for sure that that’s was what happened yesterday in New Hampshire to give Bolduc the edge, but it certainly might have been.

However, I’m not the least bit sure that the “MAGA Republican” Bolduc will be a worse candidate than snoozer Morse would have been, although that is the common MSM “wisdom.” In my opinion, neither would have been a good challenger for the similarly lackluster but loyal-Democrat Hassan, who presents herself as a moderate but who votes for virtually every leftist Democrat bill like the good apparatchik she is. She is vulnerable, but only to a good candidate.

Another oddity of New Hampshire is that for the most part it likes its federal politicians blue and its state politicians red. That, more than anything, doesn’t bode well for the Republican Bolduc in the Senate race. But I’m not counting him out. And I don’t think Morse would have had a better chance of beating Hassan either.

Trump’s lawyers file a response about the Special Master

The New Neo Posted on by

The logic in the response seems unassailable to me:

This investigation of the 45th President of the United States is both unprecedented and misguided. In what at its core is a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control, the Government wrongfully seeks to criminalize the possession by the 45th President of his own Presidential and personal records. By way of its Motion [ECF No. 69], the Government now seeks to limit the scope of any review of its investigative conduct and presuppose the outcome, at least as regards to what it deems are “classified records.” However, the Court’s Order [ECF No. 64] is a sensible preliminary step towards restoring order from chaos. The Government should therefore not be permitted to skip the process and proceed straight to a preordained conclusion…

… What is clear regarding all of the seized materials is that they belong with either President Trump (as his personal property to be returned pursuant to Rule 41(g)) or with NARA, but not with the Department of Justice.

However, it is not even possible for this Court, or anyone else for that matter, to make any determination as to which documents and other items belong where and with whom without first conducting a thoughtful, organized review. Recognizing this, the Court exercised its equitable jurisdiction and inherent supervisory authority to “ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances presented.” Order [ECF No. 64 at 1]….

First, the Government’s position incorrectly presumes the outcome—that its separation of these documents is inviolable and not subject to question by this Court or anyone else. Second, the Government’s stance assumes that if a document has a classification marking, it remains classified irrespective of any actions taken during President Trump’s term in office. Third, as noted above, the Government continues to ignore the significance of the PRA. Indeed, if any seized documents (including any purported “classified records”) are Presidential records, President Trump (or his designee, including a neutral designee such as a special master) has an absolute right of access to same under the PRA. 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3). Accordingly, President Trump (and, by extension, a requested special master) cannot be denied access to those documents….

The DOJ wants to say that its decision overrides everything else and cannot be challenged or even scrutinized, by the courts or anyone else.

The DOJ is going full Orwell.

NOTE: Somewhat related, from lawyer Leslie McAdoo Gordon (her resume is here):

I’ll have more to say later, but the bottom line is, after 26 years, & especially the last few, I have come to an inescapable conclusion: there is no justice to be had in our “justice” system. I am no longer willing to participate in a system that I consider to be a total farce.

My status as a practicing litigator has constrained me from speaking truth to and about the system. With that constraint removed, I will not be silent any longer.

The state of our institutions – particularly the criminal “justice” ones, but also the federal civil courts – is dire, & is unacceptable for a functioning republic. They must be radically overhauled & reformed, & a renewed emphasis on first principles restored.

Lawyers working from inside the system can make some changes, but not the radical reforms that we now need. Some of us will need to be outside the system to do what is necessary & what can only be done by speaking freely.

That can’t be done by me personally unless I no longer have clients whose interests I am honor-bound to place above those of the system and the nation. So, I am changing that to chart a new course.

Not sure what that course would be, though. The problem is, as they say, systemic. And the legal education system has been perpetuating it for decades.

Poor poor Hunter and the invasion of his privacy by the big bad Republicans

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “Barry Meislin”]

In NY Magazine:

“The Sordid Saga of Hunter Biden’s Laptop;
“The most invasive data breach imaginable is a political scandal Democrats can’t just wish away.”

In other news, nudists protest invasive gaze of onlookers.

And actually, Democrats don’t have to “just wish it away.” They covered it up (metaphorically speaking) when it was most important to do so, and helped Biden get elected.

And let us not forget that Hunter is still in good favor with father Joe Biden, who has called him “the smartest guy I know.”

The NY Magazine article begins like this:

Imagine the entirety of your digital existence plotted out before you: your accounts and passwords; your avatars; your contacts; every exchange of written dialogue; the full history of your logged interests, banal and forgettable and closely held; the note where you scrawled once-urgent word fragments that now make zero sense to you; the rabbit holes you fell down or the minor obsession or the thing that connected to the thing that led you to decide to do another thing that became a part of a part of a part of who you are, or a part of who you are to some people, or a part of who you are only to yourself, barely recognizable in the light of day. Your selfies. Your sexts. Your emails. Your calendar. Your to-do list. Your playlists. Your tabs.

That certainly wouldn’t also involve my own obsessive documentation of drug use and pornographic photos of cavorting with prostitutes, as well as documentation of corruption involving foreign countries my father dealt with as vice president.

They try to cover that in the next paragraph:

Now imagine that you are both the son of a man running for president and a lawyer and lobbyist accustomed to mixing with powerful people and doing business overseas premised on your proximity to those powerful people, and that you are in the throes of a divorce and a midlife catastrophe brought on by the early death of your older brother and that, in your distortion field of grief, on a hell-bent drug-and-alcohol binge, you have been making even more horrible choices, taking up with your brother’s widow and, while in considerable financial debt, hiring prostitutes and zoning out with camgirls and staying awake for days at a time on crack cocaine and generally hurting everyone in your life who is trying to help you with your cruel and idiotic behavior.

That’s a bit more like it, but it still leaves out an awful lot, including his corruption involving foreign countries. It also distorts the extent of his drug problems, which did not start after his brother’s death but have been pretty much lifelong and very very serious. And his divorce occurred after he took up with his brother’s widow. Plus, of course, he didn’t have to document all of this on his computer, which I assume he did for a combination of reasons that involve narcissism, self-titillation, playing with fire, and perhaps a desire to get caught.

That desire to get caught also may have featured into his leaving the laptop at the computer repair shop.

The article goes on to attempt to still cast at least some doubt on the laptop’s contents’ authenticity, and to act as though somehow this “breach” wasn’t 100% Hunter Biden’s fault. Here’s a typical sentence along those lines:

Hidden inside the laptop, according to those (almost exclusively on the right) who have reviewed the data or who trust the word of those who claim they have, is a corruption scandal that implicates not just Hunter but other members of the Biden family, including the president.

Then there’s this, for which the author ought to get some sort of Pulitzer for weasling:

Without a counterargument from the White House or the Biden family, and with mainstream political reporters only now trying to catch up to the tabloid coverage and the ideologically motivated actors who have been advancing the story, Democrats in Washington simply don’t know what to say. There has been no penalty for silence while they’ve been in power, just the vague assumption that it does seem like there’s something to the story, if only anyone credible would bother to check it out.

Oh, I see: “mainstream political reporters” (that is, papers on the left) are “only now trying to catch up to the tabloid coverage and the ideologically motivated actors” (that is, the actual reporters who were not part of the actual vast conspiracy of the Democrats, the intelligence community, and the MSM to lie about the laptop’s contents, mischaractize it as “disinformation”, and block any bona fide reporting about it, in order for the implicated Joe Biden to get elected). I also like this – “the vague assumption that it does seem like there’s something to the story, if only anyone credible would bother to check it out.” How do we define “credible”? Seems that NY Mag defines it as “anyone on the left, who all have political reasons to suppress and lie about the story, and who did so previously with vigor.” I guess that makes them “credible” and makes the actual truth-tellers “liars not to be trusted.”

[NOTE: I didn’t read the rest of the very very long article. I am quite familiar with the facts of the laptop revelations already, and how they came about.]

Another “unexpected” bit of financial news

The New Neo Posted on by

Funny how the experts keep getting the prognostications wrong. Such as:

Stocks fell sharply on Tuesday after a key August inflation report came in hotter than expected, hurting investor optimism for cooling prices and a less aggressive Federal Reserve.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average slid 1,276.37 points, or 3.94%, to close at 31,104.97. The S&P 500 dropped 4.32% to 3,932.69, and the Nasdaq Composite sank 5.16% to end the day at 11,633.57…

The August consumer price index report showed a higher-than-expected reading for inflation. Headline inflation rose 0.1% month over month, even with falling gas prices. Core inflation rose 0.6% month over month. On a year-over-year basis, inflation was 8.3%.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting a decline of 0.1% for overall inflation, with a rise of 0.3% for core inflation.

The report is one of the last the Fed will see ahead of their Sept. 20-21 meeting, where the central bank is expected to deliver its third consecutive 0.75 percentage point interest rate hike to tamp down inflation. The unexpectedly high August report could lead the Fed to continue its aggressive hikes longer than some investors anticipated.

All quiet on the hurricane front

The New Neo Posted on by

Not too many hurricanes so far this year:

Perhaps what is most striking about this season is that we are now at the absolute peak of hurricane season, and there is simply nothing happening. Although the Atlantic season begins on June 1, it starts slowly, with maybe a storm here or there in June, and often a quiet July before the deep tropics get rolling in August. Typically about half of all activity occurs in the 14 weeks prior to September 10, and then in a mad, headlong rush the vast majority of the remaining storms spin up before the end of October.

While it is still entirely possible that the Atlantic basin—which includes the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea—produces a madcap finish, we’re just not seeing any signs of it right now.

Many non-scientist AGW proponents in the popular press are eager to attribute all unusual weather events to AGW, and to consider them bad. They also often fail to differentiate between weather (which this is) and long-term trends. I expect they’ll say that this year’s dearth of hurricanes is due to AGW.

And here’s an article about global warming and hurricanes, from June of 2022, that says that scientists have predicted there will be a decrease in hurricane frequency and in increase in hurricane intensity over time, due to AGW. This season we’ve seen the first but have not seen the second; au contraire. But a season does not a trend make.

What’s going on in Ukraine these days?

The New Neo Posted on by

Plenty.

I don’t usually report on the ups and downs of the military events in Ukraine, nor do I make prognostications except for making one – which still stands – that this will go on for quite a while longer and the outcome is uncertain.

That’s more of a prediction-avoidance maneuver than a prediction.

But the recent news from Ukraine is that the Ukrainians have mounted a successful campaign to take back territory from the Russian invaders. That seems to be real and not propaganda. Here’s some evidence that at least some Russians are getting the picture – and by the way, the video shows a more fascinating give-and-take from people on both sides than you usually (or ever?) see on US television. Well worth watching:

You can read a very glowing pro-Ukraine account of the situation here. For example:

Not only was the Kharkiv offensive well-coordinated and efficiently executed, it completely surprised Russian forces in the area. That’s extraordinary in today’s information age. Yet the Ukrainians managed it, completely blocking any leaks about a forthcoming attack. Ukraine’s operational security bespeaks both a skilled military and a nation united by Russia’s unprovoked aggression.

The Kharkiv counter-offensive was opportunistic in the best sense. Unlike the battle now unfolding in the southern region of Kherson, just north of Crimea, the battle for Kharkiv was not prepared for months. In the south, Ukrainian officials repeatedly said they were planning to retake the region. Then, having lured more troops into an indefensible position, they prepared the battlefield by severing bridges and exploding ammunition dumps, cutting off the Russians’ resupply. Doing that in Kharkiv would have eliminated any chance for surprise.

Surprise — followed by swift movement across Kharkiv — was possible because Moscow had too few troops to hold that hostile territory. Its forces were thin from the start of the invasion last February, when Russia expected to seize the capital city with blitzkrieg speed. When that failed and the war dragged on, Moscow found it impossible to adequately reinforce its positions with well-trained soldiers. It simply didn’t have them. It had to rely on mercenaries, conscripts, and poorly trained cannon fodder. Russia’s already-thin forces in Kharkiv were depleted even further as military planners began withdrawing troops and equipment and moving them south to fight in Kherson.

I think a fairly important aspect of the differential is morale, and it may be quite telling over the long run.

You can read more here as well as here.

A sobering thought:

While it is right to celebrate the Russian rout, the war may be entering a far more dangerous phase.

Consider: If Russian President Vladimir Putin tired of attrition and decided to use tactical nuclear weapons, how would Russian behavior—a rapid withdrawal and even leaving key equipment behind—be different? The answer: It would not be…

Celebrations may be premature if Putin seeks to achieve through nuclear weapons what he could not with manpower. To remain silent now, downplay the threat that Russia might use its tactical nuclear weapons, or let fear govern policy will mean the end of the post-World War II liberal order.

As the Ukraine war enters a crucial new phase, it is time both to step up deterrence and plan for what comes after Russian first use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Something of which the Biden administration appears quite incapable.

What does it take to wake people up to tyranny?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “stan” says, regarding how the left has been undermining our liberties and using lawfare to silence the opposition they label as the enemy, “What’s it going to take for good people to see what is happening in plain sight?”

I’ve pondered that question myself, and my answer is: a great deal more than has already occurred, unfortunately. One of the aspects of tyranny, especially one accompanied by widespread propaganda, is that it can be successfully reframed so that many “good people” don’t notice. One reason this happens is that it’s hard to believe that people you’ve supported for so long are doing tyrannical things, because in general you agree with their point of view and are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt – at least, until the crocodile eats you, and then it’s too late.

Another reason is ignorance of history.

Another reason is not paying attention. Just to take one example, see this poll about Biden’s Red Sermon speech:

About half of Americans watched, heard, or overheard something about Biden’s speech (51%) which took place in Philadelphia last week. Independents (64%) and Republicans (48%) were least likely to have followed the speech, but 35% of Democrats also didn’t.

We’re not just talking about half of Americans not watching the speech. We’re talking about half of Americans not knowing anything about the speech. Independents, who are so important in elections, are the most likely to have been clueless about the speech. That says a lot, I think.

The poll has further statistics on responses to the speech, but I don’t have access to the full report, and the summary doesn’t say whether the rest of the results only involve the responses of those who’ve heard something about the speech, or if they reflect even the half who know nothing about it.

I can well understand the desire to turn away from politics. I spent a great deal of my earlier life following politics only in a fairly general and sporadic way, and back then I probably represented the average person’s involvement; maybe even slightly more than average. Politics is nasty, messy, and often depressing. It’s easier and more pleasant to ignore it until you’re forced to pay attention and then there are three big problems. The first is that most of what’s written and said is propaganda. The second is that it’s hard to pay catch-up because you lack the historical perspective. And the third is that by the time the picture becomes clear enough to really see what’s happening, it’s often too late.

Will enough people wake up in time in this country to reverse the leftist tide? That remains to be seen.

ADDENDUM: VDH writes on the fact that the US has become unhinged, and people around the world are noticing and many are alarmed. [Hat tip: commenter “j e”.]