Click on WORD or PDF for full content
The drone war is defended by Charles Krauthammer.
… In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander in chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.
This looks troubling. Obama sitting alone in the Oval Office deciding which individuals to kill. But how is that different from Lyndon Johnson sitting in his office choosing bombing targets in North Vietnam?
Moreover, we firebombed entire cities in World War II. Who chose? Commanders under the ultimate authority of the president. No judicial review, no outside legislative committee, no secret court, no authority above the president.
Okay, you say. But today’s war is entirely different: no front line, no end in sight.
So what? It’s the jihadists who decided to make the world a battlefield and to wage war in perpetuity. Until they abandon the field, what choice do we have but to carry the fight to them?
We have our principles and precedents for lawful warmaking, and a growing body of case law for the more vexing complexities of the present war — for example, the treatment of suspected terrorists apprehended on U.S. soil. The courts having granted them varying degrees of habeas corpus protection, it is clear that termination by drone (a measure far more severe than detention) would be forbidden — unless Congress and the courts decide otherwise, which, short of a Taliban invasion from New Brunswick, is inconceivable.
Now, for those who believe that the war on terror is not war but law enforcement, (a) I concede that they will find the foregoing analysis to be useless and (b) I assert that they are living on a different and distant planet.
For us earthlings, on the other hand, the case for Obama’s drone war is strong. Pity that his Justice Department couldn’t make it.
Megan McArdle suggests ways to think about the minimum wage.
It’s easy to see why Barack Obama wants to raise the minimum wage. It’s popular with his base. It’s popular with unions, who dislike competition with low-wage labor. And it doesn’t cost the government anything except the cost of printing some new posters telling people what the minimum wage is.
But is it a good policy idea?
The three main considerations are the same as for any economic policy: who does it help? Who does it hurt? And what is the effect on growth?
It’s obvious who benefits from a higher minimum wage: people who get minimum wage jobs. In theory, it may also boost the incomes of people who are making near the minimum wage, as employers raise those wages to ensure that these are “better than minimum wage jobs”—though in this labor market, I wouldn’t bet on it.
But who are the people in minimum wage jobs? This is primarily being sold as a poverty-fighting tool, so it would help to know how many of the people making it are poor.
The answer seems to be no; most of the people making the minimum wage are not living in households below the poverty line. Over half the people earning minimum wage are below the age of 25; for them, this is not likely to be a permanent condition, but a first rung on the income ladder. Many are students or entry level workers who are part of established households with higher earners.
Older minimum wage workers are probably more likely to be poor, but on average, they’re not. To be sure, they’re unlikely to be wealthy–this workforce will be predominantly drawn from near-poor and lower-middle-class households. Undoubtedly, they have uses for the extra money. But it will not specifically lift people out of poverty, because most of the people earning minimum wage aren’t in poverty now.
That’s who it helps. Who does it hurt?
Ironically, minimum wage workers. …
New York’s Grand Central Station turned 100 last week. John Steele Gordon celebrates.
|
One hundred years ago this week, the largest railroad station in the world officially opened for business after 10 years of construction. Today, Grand Central Terminal serves upward of 500,000 people a day and is, without doubt, the most famous railroad station on the planet.
It has been the setting for history. Winston Churchill spoke there shortly after Pearl Harbor. Six thousand people once turned out to see a former president of the New York Stock Exchange, convicted of embezzlement, board a train headed to Sing Sing Prison. Countless movies (“North by Northwest” and “Superman” are two of the most famous) have been shot there.
And it all began with a disaster. In January 1902, an engineer, blinded by the smoke from coal-burning locomotives in the tunnel under Park Avenue, slammed into a train ahead of him and 15 people died. The state decreed that steam-powered locomotives would be banned from Manhattan no later than July 1, 1908, and so the New York Central Railroad had to do something.
While many in the railroad’s management saw only a great expense, the chief engineer, William Wilgus, thought large and saw a great commercial opportunity.
While they party up above, a huge cavern that Grand Central Station would fit inside, has been dug 16 stories below Grand Central. Daily Mail, UK has the story of the huge underground multi-level station that will tie together Long Island Railroad trains, the new 2nd Avenue Subway on the East side of Manhattan, and the new line that will run west to the Hudson River from Grand Central.
Buried 16 stories beneath Grand Central Terminal a new commuter rail is being blasted and tunneled out of solid bedrock as part of an audacious $15 billion development that will span 14 miles throughout the city.
The grand concourse, seen at a massive eight stories high surrounded by dripping stone walls and lapping puddles, will provide more floor space than New Orleans’ Superdome stadium when finished.
It is just one of three monumental projects underway beneath New York City’s streets to expand what’s already the nation’s biggest mass transit system transporting 5 million riders a day.
But even with blasting and machinery grinding through the rock day and night, most New Yorkers are blithely unaware of the construction or the eerie underworld that includes a 160-foot cavern, miles of tunnels and watery, gravel-filled pits. …
… Together, the three projects will cost an estimated $15 billion.
And when they’re all completed, estimated for 2019, they will bring subway and commuter rail service to vast, underserved stretches of the city, particularly the far East and West sides of Manhattan.
‘They’ll be a game-changer for New Yorkers,’ says Horodniceanu. …