• French Unions Fostering Cultural Suicide?  By Debbie Young
• Hillary Clinton Down the Drain?  By Richard C. Young
• What I Learned in Paris Part I, May 2016  By Richard C. Young
• This Guy “Earned” $3.9 Billion and Asks CT Taxpayers for Money?  By E.J. Smith
• The Ritz Paris Is Back  By Richard C. Young
• Donald and Hillary—Division, Rage, Bitterness, Contempt  By Debbie Young
• Introducing the Risk Analysis & Grouping Estimator or RAGE Gauge  By E.J. Smith
• Trump Won’t Lose Romney States  By Richard C. Young
• American Politics’ Ambivalent Relationship to the Truth  By Justin Logan

Why are French unions striking? They are protesting the changes President Francois Hollande and Prime Minister Manual Valls would make to France’s 1999 labor laws. The Socialist Hollande government is looking to add more flexibility to France’s rigid 35-hour workweek. The 1999 laws were enacted in an attempt to boost employment. By imposing prohibitive minimum payments for overtime, the rationale was that companies would hire more workers rather than request current employees to work overtime. The jobless rate in France is currently 10.5% (youth unemployment is at 24%).

According to the BBC, here are the main points to the French labor reform bill:

• The 35-hour week remains in place, but as an average. Firms can negotiate with local trade unions on more or fewer hours from week to week, up to a maximum of 46 hours.
• Firms are given greater freedom to reduce pay.
• The law eases conditions for laying off workers, which is strongly regulated in France. It is hoped companies will take on more people if they know they can shed jobs in case of a downturn.

Mr. Valls has used “special constitutional powers to bypass the lower house and push the measure directly to the Senate—the second time the government has taken extraordinary steps to enact reforms,” according to the WSJ.

It’s a sign of the depth of France’s economic distress that even a government of the left recognizes the need for reform, and that it is pressing ahead despite the vehement opposition of its traditional political base. If a Socialist president can succeed in doing this in France, there might be hope for the rest of sclerotic Europe.

If Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics has not been translated into French, perhaps it’s time. Freedom, he explains, is keyed to free markets, capital, supply and demand, and pricing. Dr. Sowell lays out the seemingly complex (and often boring) subject of economics in a highly readable, concise and entertaining form.

Former Bill Clinton political adviser Doug Schoen lays out a clear path to the Democratic nomination for Bernie Sanders. The battle for the Democratic nomination is far from over, media bias to the contrary. Hillary Clinton is simply not liked or trusted. It is as easy as that. Mr. Schoen lays out an excellent case for Bernie.

A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy.

There is every reason to believe that at the convention Mr. Sanders will offer a rules change requiring superdelegates to vote for the candidate who won their state’s primary or caucus. A vote on that proposed change would almost certainly occur

It is easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton—whether by dint of legal or political circumstances—is not the Democratic presidential nominee.

More from Schoen on Clinton here:

A Danube river cruise with the National Review gang 

preceded the spring trip Debbie and I took to France this year. We traveled from Bucharest, Hungary, to Slovakia and Vienna, Austria, before ending our trip in Germany and taking a flight to Charles de Gaulle (Paris) out of the excellent, courteous Munich airport.

Earlier this year National Review expended much time, energy and political capital on a strong anti-Donald Trump campaign. Cruise attendees were in large measure not buying into the anti-Trump message, and were surprisingly vocal about their feelings. I could not tell whether the pro-Trump contingent actually outnumbered the anti-Trumpers, but the pro-Trump crowd was certainly bold with their opinions and unafraid to buck National Review’s stated anti-Trump mission. (Quite honestly, a bit of a surprise to me and I think also to National Review leadership.) I spoke in some length with publisher Jack Fowler, a real nice guy who handled his tough position in resolute fashion. It was no easy task, and I was glad not to be in Jack’s shoes.

Vienna, along with the Austrian lakes region, was the highlight of the trip. If you get an opportunity to visit Vienna, do not miss the chance. What beauty and history.

The river cruise was run by AmaWaterways, of which Debbie and I cannot say enough good things. A beautiful, comfortable boat with excellent food and a top-flight energetic staff from countries all over Europe. We were especially fond of the cheery Romanians.

We did not see or hear a lot about the Muslim immigrant issue with two exceptions. A high-ranking Hungarian official made it clear that Hungary would maintain its hard-line stance against taking in Muslim immigrants, who they believe do not assimilate well. Austria has a far more liberal stance, but the political winds are shifting fast. The coalition government that had governed Austria since the end of WWII did not even make it out of the first round of presidential voting. In the end, the hard-line, Glock-toting, anti-immigrant right wing candidate for president lost by a hair to the Green Party candidate. Mailed in ballots held sway and ruled the day. To say I am suspicious is being kind.

In Part II—on to Paris, where there will be a presidential election in 2017.  We again were hearing the name Sarkozy.

The incompetent Gov. Dannel Malloy of Connecticut is providing taxpayer money, to the tune of $22 million, to keep Ray Dalio’s Bridgewater hedge fund headquartered in the state. This is the same Ray Dalio who was paid $3.9 billion in 2011 alone. Are you kidding me? This is what happens when the 2 and 20 gang teams up with politicians.

This is not just a Democrat problem. It was started by a Republican as the WSJ points out: “Mr. Malloy’s Republican predecessor Jodi Rell raised the top marginal tax rate to 6.5% from 5% on individuals earning more than $500,000, and Mr. Malloy raised it again to 6.99%. Hilariously, Ms. Rell said last month that she’s also moving her residence to Florida because of the ‘downward spiral’ in Connecticut that she helped to propel.”

You can’t make this stuff up. Get out of Connecticut while you can. The writing is on the wall. Its public pension is the third worst in the country and based on this latest move by Malloy, will result no doubt in higher taxes and fewer services.  “Connecticut has lost 105,000 residents to other states over the last five years while experiencing zero real economic growth. Last year it was one of seven states including Maine, Mississippi, Illinois, Vermont, New Mexico and West Virginia with population declines,” writes the WSJ.

Democrats in Hartford this spring attempted to close a $960 million deficit—equal to about 10% of the state general fund—by cutting 2,500 state government positions and creating supposed efficiencies. One result: Six legislative commissions studying the struggles of blacks, Latinos, Puerto Ricans, Asian-Pacific Americans, women, children and seniors were consolidated into two 63-member study groups.

Yet a $1.3 billion gap will blow open in 2018 because the legislature’s budget patches don’t resolve imbalances driven mainly by worker pay and pensions, which this year cost about $1.5 billion. Pensions are less than 50% funded, third worst after Illinois and Kentucky.

So here is the new-old progressive governing model: Raise taxes relentlessly in the name of soaking the 1% to pay off government unions. When that drives people out of the state, subsidize the 0.1% to salvage at least some jobs and revenue. Ray Dalio gets at least some of his money back. The middle class gets you know what.

Debbie and I loved the old Ritz Paris and, unfortunately, missed the re-opening of the new Ritz Paris by one day.

The Telegraph has a neat new video (below) that will leave Ritz Paris fans drooling. Here’s the Telegraph’s description:

The grand dame closed for refurbishment in July 2012 after it failed to win France’s coveted “Palace” status – an award for the finest of five-star hotels – which is currently held by eight Parisian hotels, including Hôtel Le Bristol, Mandarin Oriental and Le Royal Monceau.

The new reincarnation will remain true to the Ritz’s original soul, though some big updates have been employed: a full renovation of all rooms, suites and bathrooms (which will now hold separate baths and tubs plus heated floors), a new courtyard with a retractable roof, new spa Ritz Club complete with a neoclassical swimming pool and the world’s first Chanel spa, and a new chef, Nicholas Sale, at the helm of L’Espadon restaurant.

The revered Bar Hemingway will remain largely untouched.

See also Paris’s ‘palace’ hotels – the winners and losers and Paris Palace Hotels.

Welcome to the 2016 presidential election. Ramesh Ponnuru, whom Dick and I enjoyed meeting on a National Review Danube River cruise (just prior to the flooding now taking place), writes that the debate among conservatives pits “people who have heretofore been friends with similar views on almost all issues, and who on each side have reasonable arguments to hand.”

Beltway intellectuals continue to twist themselves into knots about Donald Trump’s likely nomination. They claim, writes Peggy Noonan in the WSJ, that they will support Trump if they can be assured that they will sleep well at night. But as Ms. Noonan notes, “They slept well enough through two unwon wars, the great recession, and the refusal of Republican and Democratic administrations to stop illegal immigration.”

At some point conservative intellectuals are going to take their energy and start thinking about how we got here. How did a party that stood for regular people become a party that stood for platitudes regular people no longer found even vaguely pertinent? During the Bush administration, did the party intelligentsia muscle critics and silence needed dissent, making the party narrower, more rigid and embittered?

Writing about the pheromone of Donald Trump, America and its rigid, inflexible two-party choice, Mark Steyn elaborates,

One party is supposed to be the party of big government, the other the party of small government. When the Big Government Party is in power, the government gets bigger, and, when the Small Government Party is in power, the government gets bigger.

One party is supposed to be the party of social liberalism, the other the party of social conservatism. When the Socially Liberal Party is in power, the country gets more liberal, and, when the Socially Conservative Party is in power, the country gets more liberal.

One party is supposed to be the party of foreign-policy doves, the other the party of foreign-policy hawks. When the doves are in power, America loses wars, and, when the hawks are in power, America loses wars.

Twenty years ago, Mr. Steyn continues, a “guy named” Sam Francis wrote, “Imagine giving this advice to a Republican presidential candidate: What if you stopped calling yourself a conservative and instead just promised to make America great again?”

Wouldn’t it be incredibly helpful to you and your family if you could swipe your iPhone and instantly gauge the pulse of the nation? Risks to the economy? And do it on multiple levels? At your fingertips would be an intelligent way to take the temperature, if you will, of the country.

I wanted such a tool and I thought you would too.

And I wanted it to be about stuff I’m interested in and not some irrelevant government statistic. Allow me to introduce to you the Risk Analysis & Grouping Estimator or RAGE Gauge.

Stay tuned over the coming weeks to learn how it’s constructed.

The American Conservative’s Daniel McCarthy explains how Trump Beats Clinton the Way He Beat Bush:

The 2016 race pits a decades-old center-left establishment against a newly invigorated populist right. That populist right has already defeated the decades-old center-right establishment of the GOP. It has a fighting chance against Clinton, if Trump sticks to his issues and doesn’t attempt to become a more generic, Romney-like Republican on questions of war and industrial policy.

Hillary Clinton represents everything that Trump voters, Republicans, Sanders voters, and Middle America have come to hate: the Iraq War, secretive trade deals and job losses, suffocating political correctness, and the risk of “unrest.” The liberal establishment in both parties—free-market liberal in the GOP’s case, left-liberal in the Democrats’—has known all along how much suffering and resentment its policies have generated. But party elites imagined that none of it mattered: what could voters do, pull the lever for Bush instead of Clinton? Clinton instead of Bush? The fix was in, and had been since the first George Bush took office.

Trump won’t lose any of Romney’s states. Can Clinton really hold all of Obama’s? Probably not: Ohio still has some white working-class Democrats, and Trump’s prospects of winning them seem a lot better than Mitt Romney’s ever were. Trump surprised everyone with his successes in Pennsylvania’s GOP primary; if he can do five points better than Romney in the general election there, the results will be catastrophic for Clinton. Florida remains as much of a battleground as ever: there’s no indication that any trouble with Latino voters will cost him the Sunshine State.

Bill Kristol had the greatest job in Washington. He could say literally anything, and no matter how ridiculous it might be, he maintained his status as a wise political leader. (This in the party that hectors poor single mothers about personal responsibility and taking responsibility for their actions).

Kristol even earned an entire Washington Post profile focused solely on how often and how badly he is wrong, and it did nothing to dent his stature. (His final prediction in that February 2016 article? “If I had to bet, I’d still bet against [Trump] getting the nomination.”)

Now, though, Donald Trump has the greatest job in Washington. He has all but won the nomination of one of the major political parties without ever resembling someone who has thought carefully about policy. He makes Dan Quayle look like Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Not only did he steal Kristol’s great job–popping off without knowing what he’s talking about–but he’s achieved the status Kristol could only dream of. His merely asserting something makes it true–or true enough–for large numbers of Americans.

After cataloging a number of things Trump has blithely lied about, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait concluded that

Trump’s version of truth is multiple truths, the only consistent element of which is Trump himself is always, by definition, correct.

That is, Trump can simply insist that the facts are wrong and he is right. Kristol’s m.o. has been to blow past the wrongness, wave his hand, and get away with it. Trump doesn’t even have to do that. By his mere assertion that sugar was in fact salt, people would stop sprinkling it on their grapefruit and start shaking it onto their french fries.

So it was inevitable that these two would tussle, and as the Colosseum was to the Romans, so Twitter is to 21st century America. Kristol idly threatened Trump with a third party challenge, Trump called him a “dummy,” Kristol floated the name of a fourth-string conservative pundit as the challenge to Trump, the pundit said he wasn’t running, and that was that.

But the broader context in which these two are slap-fighting is worth taking in a bit. We have reached a point in our politics where substantive argument over facts and theories is almost entirely absent. There was never a glory day in which presidential debates were Socratic dialogues, but now we have a cable news panel covering whom Trump called a loser, how it does or doesn’t jibe with his previous statements about the person, but with most of the discussion turning on the political consequences.

This is not an entirely new phenomenon. Much of the discussion about Iraq, especially from 2004-2006 had a who’re-you-going-to-believe-me-or-your-lying-eyes air about it. Hillary Clinton publicly imagined herself dodging 8mm rounds in Bosnia.

There isn’t much we can do about it, either. The TV news channels are going to do what they always do: chase ratings, and people enjoy hearing presidential candidates call people dummies and liars, apparently. No cable news channel is going to make gobs of money with an eat-your-spinach pitch to focus on the ambiguities of policy. So perhaps the best thing we can do is push back from the table and remind ourselves what sort of person would want the presidency in the first place, and worry that one of them is likely to wind up with it.