Wednesday, June 29, 2016

We The People

To all my colleagues at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and those employed in other think tanks and universities that opposed Donald Trump and BREXIT, please read and reread the first three words of the U.S. constitution:


Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Schadenfreude Is Wonderful

Schadenfreude—your misfortune is my joy—is wunderbar!

Your friendly proprietor has several dozen extremely smart, brilliant colleagues at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.  They encompass historians, economists, political scientists, lawyers, and other fields.  The overwhelming majority of them opposed the nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee.  They did everything in their power to help stop him.  They lost.

Of those who weighed in on BREXIT, all but two (me and one other who supported LEAVE) were in the REMAIN camp.  They warned of the economic, political, and social catastrophes awaiting Britain and Europe if LEAVE prevailed.  They lost.

These same intellectuals are intensifying their attack on Trump, some declaring as Republicans that they will vote for Hillary Clinton.  Those interested in BREXIT will turn their guns against Boris Johnson (BTW, an American citizen—an ironic twist on American colonial history) to stop him from becoming leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Look forward to months of these losers whining, moaning, threatening, caterwauling, and denouncing the ignorant moronic voters for Trump and BREXIT.  These intellectuals love democracy except when they lose.

“The fault, dear Colleagues, is not in the stars, but in yourselves, that you are no longer overlings.”

All that “remains” to complete Schadenfreude is for Donald Trump to become President and Boris Johnson to become Prime Minister.  Your friendly proprietor is looking forward to referenda on Netherlexit, Frexit, Finnexit, Hungarexit, Catalanexit, Italinexit, Grexit, and perhaps other exits from the European unit.  It’s important that the APMICs (Academic Political Media Industrial Establishments) in each country learn once and for all that the people are sovereign, not the elites who loathe them except when seeking their votes.

Monday, June 27, 2016

BREXIT: Borders, Language, Culture, and Liberty for Britain

250 British economists and another 300 British intellectuals signed letters urging Britons to vote REMAIN to stay in the European Union, warning that LEAVE would result in economic catastrophe for Britain and political catastrophe for Europe.  British voters rejected their admonitions.  Score zero for arrogant and condescending British intellectuals and one for the common man.

The polls indicated that REMAIN would prevail by 52-54%.  To the dismay of the pollsters and the REMAIN camp, LEAVE won by 52-48%, a dramatic swing from the projection.

Why were the polls wrong?  The answer is simple.  Pollsters cannot detect lies in phone or online polling.  Those who openly state anti-politically correct views are shamed and castigated as racists, xenophobes, and bigots.  It’s easier to lie to pollsters, give them the politically correct answer, and then vote the opposite in the polling booth.

The pollsters got it wrong for the May 7, 2015, British parliamentary elections, Trump’s nomination in 2016 as the Republican candidate for president, and now BREXIT.

Despite its intense campaign, the British Academic Political Media Industrial Complex (APMIC) lost, in the same way the American APMIC lost in its attempt to deny Donald Trump the Republican nomination for president.

The lesson of BREXIT for America is beware of polls predicting a win for Hillary Clinton this November.  The anti-politically correct vote may be worth as much as 3-4 percentage points for Trump, which would give him the presidency.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Live Blogging The American Revolution

July 4, 1776, 9:00 AM, Assembly Room in Independence Hall, Philadelphia

The door springs open.  A messenger rushes in.  He shouts "wait. Moody's and S & P have said they will downgrade our debt to junk status if we sign the Declaration of Independence."

The delegates were stunned.  What to do?  Sign and declare Colonialexit, or tear up the document and Colonialremain.

After a few minutes of heated exchanges between the financiers, who feared for their fortune, and the farmers, who valued their liberty, a majority voted to sign.

And so was born the United States of America!

Monday, June 20, 2016

Stanford University Is A Pioneer In Providing Safe Spaces

Safe spaces are all the rage on America’s college and university campuses.  Students who feel that they are suffering discrimination on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, culture, gender, language, sexual preference, or other distinguishing feature can find solace and safety in a designated safe space.

Providing a safe space is nothing new to Stanford.  The university was founded in 1891.  The Hoover Institution was later founded in 1919.  Throughout its 97 years, Hoover has provided a safe space for professors who support Republican candidates for public office.

Your friendly proprietor was first affiliated with Hoover in the inaugural class of National Fellows in 1971-72.  In that year, Hoover employed 11 full-time Senior Fellows, all Republicans.

In 2016 (as has largely been the case since 1971), Stanford professors overwhelmingly support Democrats.  Currently, about 20% is registered as NPP (no party preference).  Of the remaining 80%, registered Democrat professors outnumber Republicans nine-to-one.  (Scroll down to the previous post for the numbers.)

In June 2016, Hoover employed 10 full-time (on payroll) Senior Fellows and 23 Senior Fellows who hold joint appointments with several of Stanford’s schools and departments.  Political party registration of the 33 Senior Fellows on June 7, 2016, was as follows:

2-Not Registered
2-No Response

This is probably the highest share of Republicans in any Stanford academic unit.

Hoover has 11 Senior Fellows Emeriti, all full-time before retirement.

1-No Response

Kenahora!  (Repeat daily)

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Blue, Blue, My World is Blue

California is a Blue State.  The San Francisco Bay Area is Dark Blue.  Stanford University, where your friendly proprietor has worked and lived for more than 40 years, is Deep Dark Blue.

By acreage, Stanford is the second largest university in the world.  From its founding in 1891, portions of its land have been used to construct housing for faculty and staff.  Over 125 years, Stanford faculty and the University have built about 650 single-family homes, 250 condominiums, and 40 duplexes.  (More construction is currently underway.)

Stanford currently has 2,153 faculty members and several dozen top administrators who are eligible to purchase a campus residence.  Only about a thousand, 40%, live in the “faculty ghetto.”  The other 60% are scattered about neighboring towns and suburbs (Palo Alto, Menlo Park, San Jose, San Francisco, and others).

It’s possible to tabulate political party registration for on-campus faculty.  For those living elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area, teams of researchers would have to scour voter registration lists numbering hundreds of thousands of people to match names with Stanford faculty.

California allows voters to register as “no preferred party.”  NPPs are able to vote in the party primaries, unless one or more parties specifically exclude them from a given primary election.  About 20% of the on-campus faculty and staff are NPPs.  In the June 7, 2016, primary, NPPs were eligible to vote in the Democrat, Libertarian, American Independence, and Green party primaries, but were excluded from the Republican primary.

California’s 2016 primary took place on June 7.  Four precincts (Santa Clara County Precincts 2542, 2544, 2545, and 2546) circumscribe Stanford University.  Precincts 2542 and 2544 consist almost exclusively of graduate and undergraduate student housing, many of whose residents have already left the campus for summer.  Precinct 2545 consists solely of faculty/staff housing(F/S housing).  Precinct 2546 includes both student and F/S housing.  F/S housing is affectionately termed the “faculty ghetto.

On the morning of June 7 I visited the two precincts (2545 and 2546) that include faculty and staff to tabulate party registration.  Although these precincts only encompass two-fifths of faculty members, it’s likely that their party registration mirrors that of the overall faculty (based on 40 years of personal observation.)

Here are the raw numbers as accurately as I could count them.  F/S registered Republicans numbered 146 and registered Democrats 1,327.  This works out to 10% Republican and 90% Democrat.  Democrats outnumber Republicans nine to one.  My forty years at Stanford indicates that about 80% of the NPPs vote Democrat in the general election. 

Santa Clara County publishes election results by precinct.  Here are the results:

Precinct 2545 (all F/S):  Democrats 227 (94.0%), Republicans 14 (6.0%).
Turnout, 27.3%

Precinct 2546 (F/S and students):  Democrats 481 (93.8%), Republicans 32 (6.2%).  Turnout 40.5%.

Precinct 2544 (all students):  Democrats 444 (95.3%), Republicans 22 (4.7%).  Turnout, 41.8%.

Precinct 2542 (all students):  Democrats 325 (92.1%), Republicans 28 (7.9%).  Turnout, 52.4%.

A higher proportion of Democrats turned out to vote than Republicans in the two F/S precincts based on party registration.  A likely reason is that some campus Republicans are not enamored of Donald Trump, and other Republican candidates had ended their campaigns before California’s primary.  Across the entire campus including all student housing, turnout was about 41%, 5 percentage points higher than the 35.83% turnout for all of Santa Clara County.  Hillary Clinton won among Democrat voters in all four precincts.  Trump likewise among Republican voters.

Stanford’s faculty routinely votes 30% to the left of the nation as a whole.  For example, if a Democrat presidential candidate wins 55% of the popular vote, he (or she in November 2016) will receive about 85% of the faculty vote.

Faculty members, supported by statements from deans, the provost, and the president, insist that they do not bring their political views into the classroom.  I can tell you from seminars and workshops in the social sciences and humanities I’ve attended that this claim is routinely violated.

The faculty need not worry about Republican faculty bringing their politics into the classroom.  They are too few in number to mold student opinion.  Moreover, many of them teach in the business school, not the social sciences, humanities, law, or education.

As I’ve written in previous posts, academics are a key element in the Academic Political Media Industrial Complex (APMIC).  Stanford, the Ivies, elite liberal arts colleges, and leading state universities set the tone for political discourse throughout higher education in the United states.  They instruct the K-12 teachers, the media, and the politicians.  They impose and enforce “political correctness.”  The antidote is not to be found among the minuscule share of Republican (conservative) professors.  Perhaps this situation partly explains Trump’s popularity among Republican voters and the academy’s vigorous opposition to him.

Monday, May 23, 2016

If Elected, Hillary Clinton Will Reshape The Supreme Court And Remake The United States

If Hillary Clinton is elected, she may have the opportunity to appoint 3 or possibly 4 justices to the Supreme Court.  First up is filling the late Antonin Scalia’s seat, which will give the Court a 5-vote liberal majority consisting, on her inauguration, of Sonia Sotomayor (age 63), Elena Kagan (56), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (83), and Stephen Breyer (78).   She may be able to appoint young liberals to replace Ginsburg and Breyer, giving the Court a 5-vote liberal majority for decades.  If she gets the opportunity to replace Anthony Kennedy (80), the Court will have a 6-vote liberal majority.   Subject to remaining in good health, Clarence Thomas (68), Samuel Alito (67) and John Roberts (62), who is not reliably conservative, are likely to outlast two terms of Clinton.

A 5-vote liberal majority in the Court will enable Hillary Clinton to remake the United States.  It’s important to remember that the law and the Constitution are what the Supreme Court says they are.

Weaken the First Amendment.  Reduce free speech by restricting conservative talk radio and other conservative expression.  Increase the scope of content designated “hate” speech, subject to federal prosecution.  Limit religious freedom by requiring all religious organizations to abide by the rules of federal programs.

Weaken, preferably eliminate, the Second Amendment.  Reduce gun ownership by banning specific guns.  Instruct the attorney general to litigate existing gun laws and reverse previous court decisions to reduce and eliminate private ownership of guns.

Issue Executive Orders to bypass Congress and impose federal regulations by decree.  The potential range of measures is described in the 31 issues listed on her campaign website.  Her potential use of Executive Orders, perhaps even more than President Obama, would further lift the United States off its constitutional moorings.

Appoint an IRS Commissioner who will increase audits of conservative individuals (and others on her enemies list) and all other conservative-oriented organizations.

Appoint an SEC Commissioner to harass wealthy Republican donors.

Vitiate what remains of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by shifting existing state powers to the federal government, further concentrating federal authority over the states.

Erode private property rights by imposing more restrictions on its development and usage.

Her ability to remake America is limited only by her imagination and those of her supporters.

Under President Clinton, Congress will become a vestigial organ of government for four to eight years.  Article II of the Constitution, the Executive Branch, will supplant Article I, the Legislative Branch.

#NEVERTRUMP conservative intellectuals prefer the possibility of Clinton’s liberal remaking of America to a President Trump.  The United States is a free country, and that is their choice.  How free it will be in 2020 or 2024 if Clinton becomes president is the 64 trillion dollar question.