Amber, being an entertainer on Network TV, is much more circumspect with her langauge than Beto O’Rourke, a mere politician.

Amber Says “Wha… ?”

Motion Sickness – Phoebe Bridgers

Mitski – Nobody

Can I Go On – Sleater-Kinney

World’s On Fire – Mike Shinoda

Superpower – Adam Lambert

Butter – Snow Tha Product

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

Nazi Blitz on Britain begins in World War II; Mobutu Sese Seko dies; Panama Canal Treaties signed; Rapper Tupac Shakur shot; ESPN debuts; Pro Football Hall of Fame dedicated; Rock star Buddy Holly born.

Diversity has been written into the DNA of American life; any institution that lacks a rainbow array has come to seem diminished, if not diseased.

Joe Klein

Continue reading

Do you know why Mega Business loves regulation? Because compliance is a barrier to entry that promotes monopolistic power.

If that sounds bad it’s because it is bad.

It is also part of the standard argument for Federalizing Regulation, because the rules are the same for everyone it’s fair. Federalizing pulls the shithole States up! In fact what it usually does is erode “extra” consumer and evnironmental protections in States that are being good and pulls them down (I allude to this phenomena in my previous piece).

Case in point, California Emissions Standards. Because it’s such a big market it uses it’s power to control access to that market to drive up standards Nationwide. Rigid Free Marketeers hate that because it’s one instance of a Market actually functioning the way it’s supposed to in textbooks and the result is what their dogma predicts, but does not expect.

The Mega Car manufacturers are happy to comply, barrier to entry. Rattle shaking Shamen unhappy because their religious practice contradicts their dogma. Must. Have. Faith. In. Deregulation. I can’t hold her Captain, she’s breaking up.

The way to police Mega Corporations’ Monopolistic tendencies is to threaten to revoke the charter that allows them to do business with the permission of the State (every company ever works this way). In short more Anti-Trust Regulation, not more Deregulation.

We’ve proven that doesn’t work.

In the following illustration don’t let them lie to you by cloaking their attempts to sabotage Regulation under the False Flag of Anti-Trust action.

Justice Dept. Opens Antitrust Inquiry Into Automakers’ Emissions Pact With California
By Hiroko Tabuchi and Coral Davenport, The New York Times
Sept. 6, 2019

The Justice Department has opened an antitrust inquiry into the four major automakers that struck a deal with California this year to reduce automobile emissions, according to people familiar with the matter, escalating a standoff between President Trump, California and the auto industry over one of his most significant rollbacks of climate regulations.

The Trump administration is moving to dramatically roll back Obama-era rules designed to reduce car emissions that contribute to global warming, an effort major automakers have publicly opposed. The administration is also considering a plan to revoke California’s legal authority to enforce stricter greenhouse gas emissions rules within its state borders, putting the two sides on a collision course.

In July, four automakers — Ford Motor Company, Volkswagen of America, Honda and BMW — announced that they had reached an agreement with California to stick with standards slightly less stringent than the Obama-era rules but would nevertheless require automakers to significantly improve the fuel economy of their vehicles. The announcement came as an embarrassment for the Trump administration, which assailed the move as a “P.R. stunt.”

Now, the Justice Department is investigating whether the four automakers violated federal antitrust laws by reaching a side deal to follow California’s stricter rules, those people said.

Top lawyers from the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department on Friday sent a letter to Mary Nichols, California’s top clean air official, saying, “The purpose of this letter is to put California on notice” that its deal with automakers “appears to be inconsistent with federal law.”

Legal experts and people close to the Trump administration said the investigation was meant as a show of force for companies that have displeased the president.

“The antitrust statutes give the government quite a lot of power to threaten companies with anticollusion charges, and they’re going to go ahead and use it,” said Myron Ebell, who heads the energy program at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded research organization, and who led the administration’s transition at the E.P.A. “It’s really the threat that matters. In many cases, it’s a shot across the bow to get the attention of corporations.”

Richard Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University, said he saw the case as an unprecedented effort to use the Justice Department to intimidate or punish companies that had angered the president.

Mr. Revesz noted that a Justice Department investigation into the deal was atypical because the agreement between California and the auto companies is, so far, largely an agreement in principle that has not yet been signed or legally formalized.

“It is extremely unusual for a prosecutor to investigate a deal that hasn’t even been signed,” Mr. Revesz said.

“These are four car companies standing in the way of something the president wants to do,” Mr. Revesz said. “Now the enormous prosecutorial power of the federal government is brought to bear against them. This should make any large companies very nervous.”

The investigation already appears to be having that effect. Another company, Mercedes-Benz, had been poised to join the California agreement. But after the German government learned of the federal investigation into the other companies that had signed on, it warned Mercedes not to join, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke anonymously about it because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

Under the agreement, the four automakers, which account for about 30 percent of the United States’ auto market, would be required to reach an average fleetwide fuel economy of 51 miles per gallon by 2026, a slightly looser standard than the 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 set forth by the Obama administration.

In comparison, the Trump administration’s plan would roll back those standards to about 37 miles per gallon.

Honda, Ford and BMW confirmed they had been contacted on the matter by the Justice Department, and said they were cooperating. Volkswagen declined to comment.

Personally I think “The announcement came as an embarrassment for the administration” has a lot to do with it too.

If you’re looking for a General Election don’t hold your breath. Current Opposition strategy is to vote against on Monday, the last working day before suspension.

The deadline that bites in what is being called the Benn Bill is October 19th by which time Johnson must have communicated a request to the EU for an extension, using language practically dictated by Parliament. Boris could do it tomorrow if he liked. He could also call off the suspension.

Failure to meet this deadline really is a (unwritten)Constitutional crisis. In any event Pailiament is likely to call for Elections in November and after a 25 day campaign there will be a vote. You already know my predictions (Tories Tank, Nothing changes for Labour, Liberal Democrats Zoom but not enough to overtake Labour). An anti-Brexit coalition on the Left? Corbyn will try a totally different approach that emphasizes continuity, the Germans will love it. Britain will give up what little leverage they have in the EU for basically nothing but a nebulous U.S. Trade Deal that will absolutely include chlorinated chicken.

I don’t think at this point you dare pass it without a separate referendum, though the Election will be a good proxy. Some advocate going ahead right now with No Deal, May’s Deal, and Remain as the choices. I think May’s deal is a bad deal, wrongheaded, and Labour and Corbyn should get a chance. There are Left criticisms to make, one being that the EU stifles regulatory innovation (in that California Clean Air Standard kind of way). Also their Austerity Policy (since Britain is not part of the Eurozone this effects them less).

This is not exactly on topic, but it’s an interesting piece by Fareed Zakaria on the history of the Post Modern Tory Party.

The end of one of the world’s most successful political parties
By Fareed Zakaria, Washington Post
September 5, 2019

Britain’s Tories are arguably the most successful political party of the modern age. The Conservatives have ruled Britain more than 50 of the 90 years since 1929 (the country’s first election with equal suffrage for men and women). But this week, we watched the beginning of the end of the Conservative Party as we have known it.

Like most enduring parties, the Tories have embraced many different factions and ideologies over the years. But in the post-World War II era, they were defined by an advocacy of free markets and traditional values — a combination that was brought to its climax in the person of Margaret Thatcher, the Tories’ most effective prime minister since Winston Churchill.

The free-market orientation made sense. The second half of the 20th century was dominated by one big issue — the clash between communism and capitalism. Throughout the world, parties aligned themselves on a left-right spectrum that related to that central issue: the role of the state in economics. In the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, the Democrats included Northern progressives and Southern segregationists, but they generally agreed on the need for an interventionist state.
…
You can see the breakdown of the old order by looking back at Britain’s previous five prime ministers, two from the Labour Party and three from the Tories. All were in favor of Britain staying in the European Union. (Theresa May had voted to remain in the E.U. , but once the “leave” side won the referendum, she promised to carry out the will of the people and take her country out of the union.) By contrast, Prime Minister Boris Johnson is remaking the Tories into the party of Brexit and this week expelled 21 members of Parliament from the Conservative Party, including very senior figures, who disagreed with the new party line.

Many commentators in Britain have pointed to the analogies between now and 1846, when Prime Minister Robert Peel pushed through a free-trade agenda that split the Conservative Party and kept it mostly out of power for a generation. No analogy is perfect, but when a party divides over a big issue — as did, for example, the U.S. Whigs over slavery — it usually narrows its political base and electability. There hasn’t been a Whig president in the United States since Millard Fillmore left office in 1853.
…
More significant is the fact that whatever the views of the new Tory leaders, the people who voted for Brexit — and who would presumably support what would essentially be a new Tory-Brexit Party — largely embrace a closed ideology. They are suspicious of foreigners and resentful of the new, cosmopolitan Britain that they see in London and the country’s other big cities. They want less immigration and multiculturalism. They are more rural, more traditional, older and whiter and want some kind of a return to the Britain in which they grew up.

The United States, of course, has a similar constituency. While many of the Republicans who support President Trump might well be free marketeers, his base is largely animated by the same suspicions and passions that motivated the Brexit voters. Trump himself is an ideological omnivore — supporting free markets while simultaneously imposing the biggest tariff hikes since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. The most likely future for the Republican Party is one that conforms with its voters’ preferences — for limits on trade and immigration and greater hostility toward big technology companies.

In Britain, there is confusion on the other side of the aisle as well. The Labour Party has moved leftward and still contains elements that are skeptical about the European Union. Over time, Labour will probably move more robustly in a pro-Europe direction and, with the Liberal Democrats, try to create a new “open” governing majority. In the United States, the Democrats have to resolve similar differences mostly around trade, an issue on which many Democrats are as protectionist as Trump.

But what is happening now in Britain is a telltale sign. One of the world’s most enduring political parties is cracking — yet another reminder that we are living in an age of political revolutions.

Fareed’s notion that Labour is getting any more Neo Liberal is a pipe dream, Alf Garnett votes Labour and is a member of Unite.

If the Law won’t help you, pound the Facts. If the Facts don’t help you, pound the Law. If neither the Law nor the Facts help you, pound the Table.

What’s the difference between a dead skunk in the middle of the road and a dead Lawyer? Skid marks. Why won’t Sharks eat Lawyers? Professional courtesy.

Myra Bradwell

Welcome to The Breakfast Club! We’re a disorganized group of rebel lefties who hang out and chat if and when we’re not too hungover we’ve been bailed out we’re not too exhausted from last night’s (CENSORED) the caffeine kicks in. Join us every weekday morning at 9am (ET) and weekend morning at 10:00am (ET) (or whenever we get around to it) to talk about current news and our boring lives and to make fun of LaEscapee! If we are ever running late, it’s PhilJD’s fault.

President William McKinley shot in Buffalo, N.Y.; Funeral held for Britain’s Princess Diana; Mother Teresa mourned in India; Movie director Akira Kurosawa dies; Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame born.

Let not ambition take possession of you; love the friends of the people, but reserve blind submission for the law and enthusiasm for liberty.

Marquis de Lafayette

Continue reading