Displaying posts published in

July 2023

China Tariffs: A Solution That’s Simple,Direct,Plausible…..and Wrong David Goldman

https://www.newsweek.com/china-tariffs-solution-thats-simple-direct-plausible-wrong-opinion-1810578

Donald Trump’s chief trade official, Robert Lighthizer, devised the 2018 tariffs on many Chinese imports, and now wants to double down on a failed policy. His new book No Trade is Free proposes “strategic de-coupling” from China through even higher tariffs and related measures. This brings to mind H. L. Mencken’s crack that “for every complex problem, there is a solution, that is simple, direct, plausible—and wrong.”

U.S. imports from China have risen despite Trump’s tariffs on a range of Chinese products, as the $6 trillion in COVID stimulus spending created demand that American manufacturers couldn’t fill—but China could. U.S. and Chinese data diverge, because (as the Federal Reserve showed in a 2021 study) China counts exports that reach the U.S. via a third country while the U.S. doesn’t.

If a policy failed the first time around, why double down on it? It would be better for the U.S. to revise the tax code to favor capital-intensive manufacturing, restore Reagan-level funding for high-tech R&D, build infrastructure, ease up on environmental restrictions, provide apprenticeships for skilled workers, and subsidize industries critical to national security.

Tal Fortgang Hollow Words After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, law schools belatedly (and unconvincingly) assert the importance of viewpoint diversity.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/law-schools-hollow-commitment-to-viewpoint-diversity

Just hours after the Supreme Court announced its decision in the Students for Fair Admissions cases, the president of NYU, from whose law school I recently graduated, sent out an email to alumni, announcing on behalf of the institution that June 29—the date that race-based admissions schemes were found to violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all—was “a difficult day,” because “diversity is a core part of our identity.” Nonetheless, NYU would find a way to stand defiant: “we will not forsake our commitment to building and sustaining a scholarly community that is diverse and inclusive, a community to which you all rightly belong.”

Peer institutions sent similar messages to their alumni and posted on social media. Georgetown, though “deeply disappointed,” vowed that it would continue “ensuring that the full range of voices, histories and experiences are included in our academic community.” Yale “emphatically” affirmed that it remained “fully committed to creating an inclusive, diverse, and excellent educational environment” and “to ensuring that our university is home to a diverse range of ideas, expertise, and experiences.” The University of Southern California’s statement stood out for its flair. The Court’s decision was “very disappointing,” but USC would carry on providing an atmosphere “where differing backgrounds and points of view are embraced, where ideas collide, beliefs are challenged, and innovation thrives.”

Paragraph break, for flourish: “We will not go backward.”

Apparently our best and brightest missed the glaring contradiction at the heart of their messages. While lamenting a decision that they say strikes at their ability to foster, for instance, “a diverse range of ideas, expertise, and experiences,” they all take the same institutional position on a highly contested issue. Do USC students who agree with the Court’s decision—who would, if the student body reflected national opinion on the issue, constitute at least half the student population—feel that their university welcomes a point of view that their administration equates with backwardness? Does Yale advance its mission of hosting a “diverse range of ideas” by announcing that it considers a 6-3 majority’s decision beyond the pale?

Ian Kingsbury Selective Research from the AAMC The Association of American Medical Colleges goes cherry-picking for data supporting “racial concordance” in patient treatment.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-association-of-american-medical-colleges-selective-research

Early last month, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)—the organization that oversees the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and cosponsors the accrediting body for all medical schools— published a story claiming that black patients fare better with black doctors, an idea that has become popular across the health-care establishment. That it was being amplified just as the Supreme Court prepared to hand down its landmark ruling on affirmative action was neither subtle nor coincidental. Woke activists are determined to sell the idea that race-based medical school admissions are noble and sensible to justify skirting bans on affirmative action. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson even paid lip service to the purported benefits of doctor-patient race concordance in her dissent.

The notion that patients benefit from seeing doctors who share their race is dubious to the majority of us who know better than to essentialize race in our encounters with others. So is the implicit claim that lowering standards and elevating race in medical school admissions maximizes patient welfare. Indeed, the quality of the studies that AAMC cited to support these claims are as poor as one might expect.

Take, for example, a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. It observes that black life expectancy is longer in counties with higher proportions of black primary care providers (PCPs). But the researchers make no allowance for how their results are shaped by their modeling of the relationship between black representation among PCPs and life expectancy—including a curious decision to omit the roughly 50 percent of counties that don’t have any black PCPs. Data can be manipulated to reach just about any conclusion. The researchers’ failure to demonstrate that their results are robust, and not dependent on their very specific parameters, should leave readers deeply skeptical.

One Man Versus China By John Stossel

https://pjmedia.com/columns/john-stossel/2023/07/05/one-man-versus-china-n1708480

This week, while we celebrate the work of America’s founders, I honor a living freedom fighter: billionaire businessman Jimmy Lai.

When Communist China crushed freedom in Hong Kong, Lai could have gone anywhere in the world and lived a life of luxury. But he chose to stay in Hong Kong and go to jail.

A new documentary, “The Hong Konger,” tells his story.

Lai grew up in poverty in China.

“My mother was (imprisoned) in a labor camp,” he recalls. “We were just 5 or 6 and managing ourselves without an adult in the household. When I was 8 and 9, I worked in the railway station carrying people’s baggage.”

There he learned about a little British-controlled island near China called Hong Kong, where people were less poor. So he went there “in the bottom of a fishing junk, together with maybe 100, maybe 80, people, and everybody vomiting.”

Once in Hong Kong, he was amazed at how plentiful food was. “I never saw so many things for breakfast. I was so moved. I was crying.”

‘Ending that occupation’ without a solid peace agreement is impossible. Here’s why Moshe Dann

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-748976

Using legal and humanitarian arguments to justify Palestinian demands ignores Israel’s legitimate claims to Judea and Samaria and its security needs.

According to the European Union, which influences policymaking in the international community, Israel’s occupation of the “West Bank” (areas that the IDF conquered in 1967) is a “violation of international law” – the Hague and Fourth Geneva Conventions – and is illegal; therefore, Israel must withdraw to the 1949 Armistice lines.

While this is a powerful and effective emotional and psychological weapon against Israel, few understand that, for Palestinians, “the occupation” includes all of Israel, everything “from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.”

The EU’s position, however, is baseless

The League of Nations recognized the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in the area; this was incorporated into the UN’s Charter (Article 80). The FGC defines “occupation” as occurring between states (“high contracting parties”); only Israel qualifies.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, however, declared that Israel was guilty of illegally “occupying Palestinian territory.” And, since the ICRC has special observer status at the UN and a special position in the FGC, its decisions are considered authoritative. The EU and UN adopted this as “humanitarian law.”

Although Israel withdrew from Areas A and B in Judea and Samaria as stipulated in the Oslo Accords, and assisted the Palestinian Authority to develop its institutional structure, the focus turned to denying Israel’s legal and historical claims to Area C, where all of the “settlements” are located. The debate over further territorial concessions, however, ended because terrorism and incitement continued unabated. Moreover, Iranian proxies – Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip – were empowered. The mantras of “land for peace” and “the two-state solution” became irrelevant, even for many in the international community.

Harvard’s Stages of Grief Over Affirmative Action ‘Today is a hard day,’ the university’s president said after the Supreme Court ruling. Tomorrow the topic will finally be open to debate. By Ruth R. Wisse

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvards-stages-of-grief-over-affirmative-action-sffa-court-higher-ed-87dd642a?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Almost immediately after the Supreme Court announced its ruling for the plaintiffs in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, I received several emails about the decision. From Harvard’s president-elect, Claudine Gay, a message of shared grief: “Today is a hard day, and if you are feeling the gravity of that, I want you to know you’re not alone.” A personal message from a former student: “Today is a great day in the life of the country.”

The difference was that the student was writing to someone he knew shared his opinion, while the president assumed that everyone shared hers. In that difference lies the corruption at the heart of higher education. Like many universities, Harvard has been striving for a uniformity of prestamped opinions that its incoming president assumes. But Students for Fair Admissions invites us to hope for a pause if not a turning point in that demand for uniformity.

As a professor at Harvard starting in 1993, I saw how a great university fell into this robotic state. From the mid-1990s to my retirement in 2014, I spoke out against what I insisted on calling “group preferences” whenever the subject was raised at faculty meetings. First among my many concerns was how the pursuit of diversity, engineered on the basis of race, subverted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That legislation, itself regrettably belated, had guaranteed freedom from “discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin,” even if such treatment was locally required by law. Brave Americans had fought hard to secure those individual rights, and social experiments in other countries had proved that an imposed equality of results impeded the advancement of their supposed beneficiaries.

I also objected on academic grounds that the goal of correcting for socioeconomic inequality was replacing the goal of intellectual inquiry, the search for truth and the pursuit of excellence. Had the school truly wanted to correct racial inequities it would have used its resources to improve the education of millions of underserved children. Instead, I argued, the university’s embrace of racial categories could only deepen and promote politics on behalf of existing grievances.

But the most immediate and consequential effect of engineered group diversity was to quash debate. When I questioned then-president Neil Rudenstine’s self-satisfied report on “diversity at Harvard” to the faculty of arts and sciences in 1996, he was roused to respond with “an uncharacteristic display of emotion,” as the next day’s issue of the student newspaper, the Crimson, described it. In her turn, his successor Drew Faust laughed off my proposal at another such faculty meeting that Harvard investigate the correlation between the introduction of imposed group diversity and the decline of diversity of opinion.

These incidents did me no personal harm, and they would have been amusing had I not worried about the pusillanimity they encouraged. In what was meant as a warning to others, one of my professorial colleagues informed the Crimson that no one listens to Prof. Wisse.

The Biden Family Scandals, a Basic Primer Tony Thomas

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/america/2023/07/the-biden-family-scandals-a-basic-primer/

“When you talk to people who have spent time around Joe Biden, including Republicans, there is one word that keeps coming up…”extraordinarily decent person”… “the most decent, honourable politician I’ve ever known”…”a person with decency”   — ABC icon Leigh Sales shilling for Joe Biden days before the 2020 election

President Joe’s son, Hunter, made it into the ABC’s news selection the other day, when he was let off from paying his debt to society for a trio of crimes normally viewed as prison-worthy felonies. According to the ABC team, nothing much to see here. Hunter pleaded guilty to a couple of tax  misdemeanours – he’d under-paid $US580,000 tax for 2017 and $US620,000 tax for 2018, according to IRS whistle-blower Gary Shapley. The official court documents spoke merely of him evading about $US100,000 tax per year. Hunter’s total earnings for 2014-19 were $US8.3 million, derived mainly from shaking down corrupt Ukrainians, Romanians, Kazakhs and Chinese-based tycoons affiliated with the Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army.

He got probation on tax, not even a fine, thanks to his dad’s Justice pals. He also admitted to lying when buying a handgun, signing that he wasn’t a drug addict. For that, he is to do a year’s upmarket rehab, called “a pre-trial diversion program”. When he completes rehab, the gun charge lapses.

I’d thought Joe Biden and his Democrats were fiercely for gun control but apparently not when it’s Joe’s son buying a Colt Cobra .38 Special. President Joe just one year ago signed into law the Safer Communities Act, with gun violation penalties upped from a maximum 10 years to 15 years goal. “It keeps guns out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves and to others,” he explained. Around when Hunter bought the gun he was living in a stupor of crack cocaine and making home-made porn films of himself with prostitutes, all of it filed on his laptop. He also wrote off $US106,000 of payments to hookers and sex clubs as business expenses, a further tax crime Biden’s Justice Department has been happy to overlook.

In Joe’s relatively coherent presidential gun-law speech (compared those of the past month, when he has twice said Putin was getting beaten “in Iraq”), Joe called gun safety “a critical issue”.[1]

Lives will be saved … I’ve been at this work for a long, long time, and I know how hard it is, and I know what it takes to get it done. It was there — I was there 30 years ago, the last time this nation passed meaningful gun safety laws. And I’m here today for the most significant law to be passed since then, since — for the last 30 years … How many times we heard that? ‘Just do something. For God’s sake, just do something’.

Well, today, we did. Today, we say more than ‘enough’. I know there’s much more work to do, and I’m never going to give up. But this is a monumental day. God bless us with the strength to continue to work to get the work that’s left undone done … I’m now going to sign this bill into law. [The bill is signed.] God willing, it’s going to save a lot of lives.

The Realities of ‘Hate Speech’ By J.B. Shurk

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/07/the_realities_of_hate_speech.html

Language is the battleground for ideas.  Which words become common and which go out of style record the advances and retreats of competing beliefs.  People who use words as weapons understand that hijacking a country’s vocabulary is the shortest path toward claiming total control over a country’s thoughts.  In a war of words, what is forbidden from being said out loud is more important than what is allowed. 

Sometimes language bans are explicit, such as Ireland’s continuing crusade against so-called “hate” speech or Facebook’s policy directives to censor as “misinformation” any commentary questioning the effectiveness of COVID “vaccines.”  In other instances, certain words are stigmatized until populations learn to see them as “politically incorrect,” if not downright vulgar or taboo.  Whether enforced through official corporate policy, criminal statute, or polite society’s behavioral codes, the effect of limiting speech is identical: free expression is reduced to a verbal minefield.

Can I say that?  Should I say that?  Will I be punished for saying that?  Just asking those questions encourages a degree of self-censorship unpalatable in any truly “free” society.  If human innovation is a product of argument and debate, then any kind of debate that limits which words may be spoken also limits mankind’s capacity for discovery.  Stifled thoughts lead to closed minds.

A June poll from the Commonwealth Foundation in Pennsylvania found that nearly 60% of Americans feel their right to free speech has significantly eroded in the last decade.  Over 40% said that they or someone they know has self-censored during the last year to avoid punishment or harassment.  “We have heard from numerous individuals who are bullied into silence and fear retaliation if they speak,” Jeremy Samek, senior counsel at Pennsylvania Family Institute, told the Epoch Times.  “They fear retribution from their private employers, government employers, and even by those in the media.”  In the United States — where free speech was once considered as quintessentially American as baseball and apple pie — ordinary people are afraid to speak.  That fact should shock the sensibilities of any American who once believed totalitarianism died in the twentieth century.

‘America’s Darkest Secret’: Sex Trafficking, Child Abuse and the Biden Administration by Uzay Bulut

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19780/sex-trafficking-child-abuse-biden-administration

Currently, at least 85,000 children are believed to be missing.

“Whether intentional or not, it can be argued that the US Government has become the middleman in a large scale, multi-billion-dollar, child trafficking operation run by bad actors seeking to profit off the lives of children…. Realizing that we were not offering children the American dream, but instead putting them into modern-day slavery with wicked overlords was a terrible revelation…. They threatened me with an investigation. They… took my badge. It is a terrible thing when you blow the whistle to try to save children and you’re retaliated against for trying to help. The HHS [The United States Department of Health and Human Services] did everything they could to keep all of this silent.” — Tara Lee Rodas, testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, April 26, 2023.

“Over the last two years, this country has become an international hub for child trafficking. And the US government is behind it. Under Biden, hundreds of thousands of children have come into this country illegally. Once they get here, most are sold for sex, used for cheap labor, or forced to join gangs.” — Rachel Campos-Duffy, Fox News, April 26, 2023.

“In April 2021, when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott learned of allegations of abuse of unaccompanied minors in a federal facility in San Antonio, he said, ‘The Biden administration is presiding over the abuse of children.’ He also called on the administration to shut these facilities down. Instead, the administration has only expanded them without communicating with state or local authorities. Local communities are not told how long the minors will be there, or where they will go when released and with no concern of the impact to local citizens. I am requesting that Congress launch a full investigation into the federal agencies responsible for approving the contracts for these facilities.” — Sheena Rodriguez, president of the Alliance for a Safe Texas, testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, April 26, 2023.

“The mass migration crisis instigated by the Biden administration’s misguided immigration policies has caused incalculable harm…. These migrants were enticed by these policies to… cross the border illegally, led by criminal smuggling and trafficking organizations, and enabled by government agencies and contractors…. The Biden administration has implemented policies that incentivize the illegal entry of unaccompanied alien children on a massive scale, to the profit of criminal smugglers and traffickers, even with full knowledge of the risks that such policies will endanger the safety and well-being of the migrant children. Some supporters of these policies have defended them on the belief that they are aiding the reunification of families, providing a safe haven from difficult living environments in their home countries, and even benefiting US employers. On the contrary, I submit that there is no possible rationalization for policies that have facilitated the abuse and exploitation of child migrants on such a large scale for so many years. There is no possible humanitarian or economic motive that could justify or make up for the damage that has been done to the victims by the smugglers, traffickers, abusive sponsors, and even family members who participated in these dreadful arrangements.” — Jessica M. Vaughan, director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, April 26, 2023.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis described what is happening as “effectively the largest human smuggling operation in American history.”

“This is criminal… The FBI needs to be involved. They need to go find every single one of these kids — 85,000 or more — who are lost. The FBI needs to find them. We need to have an investigation by the FBI into the Homeland Security Department, into HHS to figure out who is facilitating these smuggling rings, are they deliberately not doing their job, are they deliberately or negligently turning these kids over to smugglers? We need to find out. The FBI needs to get on it and launch a full-scale investigation right now.” — Senator Josh Hawley (R- MO), Fox News, April 26, 2023.

“To solve the problem, Congress must change the immigration laws and rein in the executive policies that are incentivizing the mass illegal migration of both adults and minors.” What is needed is “more opportunity for state and local governments to investigate and penalize human trafficking and the illegal migration, human smuggling, identity fraud, and illegal employment.” — Jessica M. Vaughan, testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, April 26, 2023.

Joe Biden keeps snubbing Netanyahu – here’s why: Lawrence Haas

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4074635-joe-biden-keeps-snubbing-netanyahu-heres-why/

President Joe Biden’s state dinner for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist who is cracking down on opposition leaders, journalists and minorities, points up the compromises presidents make as they balance America’s security needs with its desire to promote freedom and democracy around the world.

Biden seeks closer U.S. ties with India, which recently became the world’s most populous country, as a counterweight to an expansionist China, which is challenging U.S. power and influence in the Pacific and beyond.

It’s an old story. Since World War II, presidents have met with many of the world’s leading autocrats when they thought U.S. security exigencies outweighed human rights concerns. FDR and Truman met with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin to help win the war and design the post-war world; Nixon met with Chinese leader Mao Zedong to nourish a Sino-American partnership to offset Soviet power; Carter met with Iran’s Shah and Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd to maintain key regional ties; and Reagan met with Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang, Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos and Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe as part of his overarching Cold War strategy.

Along with Modi, Biden has met with (among others) China’s increasingly authoritarian leader Xi Jinping, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s human rights-abusing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS).

All of which raises a question: Why won’t Biden meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?