A Disappointing Interview

 I watched the interview of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz on CNN last night at 9 pm. The experience was unsatisfying.

I mistakenly assumed that the interview would be broadcast live. Instead, it was recorded and edited somewhat. In particular, clips were aired earlier promoting the interview and giving grist to the Trump liar mill. Interviewer Dana Bash introduced segments of the interview over the notation LIVE. Those introductions were live, but the interview was not. Frustratingly, she was shown asking certain questions before commercial breaks, but the recording of the question and answer was broadcast much later in the hour. The interview ran for nearly 50 minutes, but it was interrupted by so many commercials that the actual interview was considerably shorter. I had not anticipated such a commercial production.

Bash asked some good questions, but the fact that there was little follow-up made the interview less useful than it might have been. Not surprisingly, nearly all the questions were directed to Harris, rather than her running mate.

Bash’s first question concerned what Harris planned to do on her first day in office. This was something of a stupid question prompted by Trump’s statements about what he would do on his first day. Whereas Trump wants immediately to reverse every Biden policy he can by executive action, Harris has no such need. She answered in general terms about instituting what she called the “opportunity economy.” Her first day in office will likely not be dramatic.

The next question referred to citizens who want to go back to prices of an earlier day. Harris pointed out that the Biden/Harris team inherited an economy in poor shape, and she cited some of the policies she has articulated intended to lower certain prices and provide subsidies for others. I was disappointed that she did not place more blame for inflation on the pandemic. Further, she should have declared that the general price level will not come down, and that such deflation would be a bad occurrence if it did. (People tend to associate inflation with higher prices rather than a higher rate of price increases. A brief economics lesson would have been helpful here, as inflation, even  coming down as it is, is viewed as a plus for the Trump campaign.)

The most notable Harris response came as Bash suggested that Harris’s policies have changed over the years. The candidate didn’t dispute the charge but insisted that her values haven’t changed. (She could have said more here, such as that policy positions held forever suggest that one can never change even in response to changed circumstances. Of course, when she ran for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she tried to position herself to the left of some of the other candidates. Maybe that was best left unsaid. Her suggestion that halting fracking is unnecessary at this time was less than convincing.)

Harris’s response to the inevitable Gaza question was about as good as could be expected. Were she to suggest a departure from Biden’s policy, she would be charged with failing to attempt to change it as a top member of the administration. Were she to defend Biden’s policy, she would anger those who object to that policy. In fact, she talked about “unwavering” support for Israel and the need for a deal to get hostages out. Too many innocents have been killed, she noted. (One wonders how Harris feels in her heart of hearts. Would a President Harris halt bomb shipments to Israel? Personally, I continue to be uncomfortable with statements about hostages. Can returning fewer that 200 hostages, many of whom may already be dead, justify the deaths of 30,000+ Palestinians?)

Trump suggested that Walz was present at the interview to lend support to Harris, but such joint interviews are common in presidential campaigns. In fact, Walz said little and didn’t hold Harris’s hand or pat her on the head. He was asked about Vance’s stolen valor-charge and the reaction of his son at the Democratic convention. He minimized the significance of the former and expressed pride in the latter. (Personally, I would have said that carrying a weapon “in war” actually meant “in wartime,” something Walz unquestionably did. As an Army bandsman in Atlanta and Honolulu during the Vietnam War, I believe I could truthfully say that I carried a weapon in war. I did not go to a war zone, but I could have been called to do so and was trained to respond to that eventuality.)

Harris was asked about a convention photo of her grand-niece looking up at her behind her podium. (I had not seen this beautiful picture before.) She was encouraged to comment on race and gender. She wisely avoided doing so and called the photo “humbling.”

Bash asked if Harris had any regrets about her full-throated defense of Biden prior to the president’s bowing out of the race. She answered no, enumerated desirable qualities possessed of Biden, and noted that Trump has none of them. She acknowledged no weaknesses of the president.

Harris was also asked about Biden’s telephone call to her telling of his decision to withdraw from the race. She described where she was at the time and indicated that it was clear from the beginning that he would support her candidacy.

On the whole, the interview was interesting, but just barely. It could have been longer and more probing. It could also have been less commercial. Neither Harris nor Walz made any serious mistakes.

Pronunciation Peeves

Every now and then, the pronunciation of a word drives me crazy. This post describes some of my current peeves.

Let me begin with a very simple word: school. How can anyone mispronounce such a common word? In fact, I suspect that most people, in ordinary discourse, pronounce the word just fine. Merriam-Webster represents the proper pronunciation asˈskül. One syllable, right? But I hear people on the radio saying something like ˈskü(-ə)l. It is if the word is spelled schoöl, with the two Os pronounced separately, rather than as a single sound. I think people are trying too hard to enunciate and, in the process, overdo it

Then there are the two words Arctic and Antarctic. (I’ll forego fancy notation here.) It is lamentably common to omit pronouncing the first C in each case. Admittedly, it is easier to pronounce each word as if that C isn’t there. But, of course, it is. The word Antarctic has a tendency to be even more mutilated. I am regularly hearing a commercial—excuse me, underwriting announcement—on NPR in which both the first T and the first C are silent. It’s as if the word is spelled Anartic. Ugh!

I’m a bit uncertain about this next word: vulnerable. I am especially interested in this word because I think some pronounce it as though the L is silent. I find it difficult to hear exactly how people are pronouncing it. The first syllable goes by quickly, and it’s hard to assess exactly what it is. (Perhaps readers can offer insight here.) Anyway, I have compiled a list of words with silent Ls, and I have wondered if vulnerable should be on the list, at least as a common mispronunciation. 

What I Want to See from the Democratic Convention

The Democratic convention begins today. Now is a good time to suggest the policies I would like to see announced this week. Since I’m not an advisor of anyone, I can emphasize what I think would be good for the country rather than what might help win votes. On the other hand, I will try to avoid policies I think might lose a significant number of votes.

The Economy

Polls indicate that voters have greater faith in Trump, rather than Democrats, to handle the economy. Democrats have three areas to emphasize here: (1) Trump is a poor choice to manage the economy; (2) A poor economy inherited from Trump has done well under Biden/Harris; (3) Harris/Walz policies will continue to grow the economy for the nation as a whole.

Trump is a poor businessman, though he played a successful one on TV. He had a habit of cheating customers and suppliers and declaring bankruptcy, leaving others holding the bag. Trump thinks he knows more about everything (including economics) than everyone else, but he doesn’t. He wants to control (or at least influence) the Federal Reserve, which is a terrible idea. The independence of the Federal Reserve is intended to isolate it from political influence and make economic decisions by economic experts informed by actual data. Trump’s plan for expanded tariffs will place a large tax on low- and middle-class consumers. (Trump apparently believes that tariffs are paid by foreign firms and not by ultimate consumers.) Trump’s plan to make Social Security payments tax-free will be costly and will benefit higher-income recipients. Making tips untaxable is a stupid idea that will make a bad compensation system even worse. (Harris was a fool to copy this demented idea.)

Largely because of COVID, Democrats inherited from the Trump administration an economy in free-fall. Trump did nothing to fix the supply-chain problems that drove up inflation. Under Biden/Harris, that inflation has been tamed, and the economy is experiencing an unheard-of “soft landing.” The U.S. economy has done much better than other Western economies. Wages are more than compensating for inflation, although this is not true for all families. The only way to bring the general price level down, however, is through recession, which no one thinks is a good idea.

Harris should express faith in the Federal Reserve (although the Fed should have lowered the federal funds rate this month). Democrats should have a clear policy about tariffs: they are to protect national defense industries; they are not to protect industry in general. Trump tariffs should be carefully reviewed with this policy in mind. The new administration should pursue antitrust activity aggressively. Much of inflation is the result of monopoly power. The government should carefully review subsidies of whatever sort for all industries, including agriculture. A means-tested modest subsidy for children is a good idea, as the recently expired subsidy took many children out of poverty.  Harris may have promised too much here. Her proposed housing subsidy for new homebuyers is pandering to voters. We have a housing crisis in America, but this is an expensive idea that will not solve it. Something is needed here, but I don’t know what it is. Most importantly, Harris should promise to let the Trump tax cuts expire. Wealthy people and corporations must pay more taxes, and she needs a policy to make that happen. This may require serious changes to federal tax policy.

Immigration

Polls show that this is a weakness for Democrats. It should be pointed out that unauthorized border crossings have decreased under the Biden/Harris administration. There is no “invasion” of foreigners seeking to enter the U.S. Harris needs to emphasize that we have a legal obligation to provide sanctuary to certain classes of people and that immigration provides workers to compensate for an aging (and therefor retiring) labor force. Americans are having fewer children, which is a natural consequence of economic success, and immigrants are not a drag on the economy, but a boost to it. Harris should demand that Congress increase the funding needed to deal with a reasonable level of immigration. We need, for example, many more immigration judges, so that asylum claims can be adjudicated promptly, not over years. This country has always grown by immigration, and each wave of immigration has been met with resistance. But we no longer disparage people of Irish or Italian ancestry, for example. Those people are just Americans. That process continues to work.

Medicine

Harris should promise to continue Biden’s “moon shot” to fight cancer. She should also promise more funds to research long COVID, and black maternal mortality. She should also pledge to make abortion legal throughout the nation, even if a constitutional amendment is necessary to do so. She should also urge voters in states with abortion issues on the ballot in November to opt for access to abortion in their states. Harris should not talk in terms of reviving Roe. The proper policy is to leave abortions to be a matter between patient and doctor, while asserting the illegality of infanticide. It may not be politic to advocate for this position too aggressively. The Patent Office should reject trivial variants of medicines designed to extend the terms of protection, and the government should do everything in its power to promote generic versions of popular products. Subsidies may be necessary for medicines that seem not to be moneymakers. 

Law

Harris should reassert the independence of the Justice Department and pledge not to interfere in ongoing or future cases. She should pledge to nominate competent, non-ideological jurists to the Supreme Court and other courts, judges who reject originalism explicitly. She should pledge a quick review of the Supreme Court followed by a plan to make its membership more reflective of mainstream opinion. The new administration should promote the final adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. Harris should propose that Congress impose a mandatory code of conduct on Supreme Court justices. Given the nature of the court, it should be more strict than the regulations applied to other federal judges. Besides the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision in Dobbs, three other court decisions need to be overturned, by constitutional amendment if necessary: Citizens United, Trump, and the overturn of Chevron deference.

Defense

Harris needs to deal with Ukraine and Israel/Middle East. She should announce that we will seek a Ukrainian victory over Russia, not a standstill or a partial defeat. Restrictions on the use of U.S. weapons should be lifted, and we should accelerate the delivery of matériel, including aircraft.

The situation in the Middle East is more difficult, as it really requires a policy different from Biden’s, to which Harris is necessarily attached. We should, however, stop sending weapons that support the air war in Gaza and continue to work for a cease-fire. We should condemn a war policy design to protect IDF troops by simply bombing everything to smithereens. (The government need not label this genocide, though it arguably is.) We should demand an end to settler violence in the West Bank and continue to assert that settlements there are illegal. Although we should continue to advocate for a two-state solution in Palestine, it is unclear how to get there. Israel is not wrong in wanting to eliminate Hamas, as Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map, but Netanyahu is opposed to a Palestinian state under any circumstances. Although supporting Israel is painful, the alternative of Iranian success is more painful still. The Middle East will likely remain America’s most difficult problem irrespective of who is in the White House.

Additional Thoughts (8/20/2024)

Two additional issues came to mind after I wrote the remarks above, and it is worthwhile mentioning them here.

Much of what presidential candidates propose cannot be directly effected by the chief executive. Congressional coöperation is needed more often than not. One issue that can only be advocated by the president is the elimination of the Senate filibuster. The filibuster is the bane of every president trying to pass legislation. For all the GOP’s fondness for originalism, it is worth noting that the filibuster was not countenanced by the founding fathers. In fact, it would likely have been viewed as anti-democratic. The mechanism intended to assure that a minority can receive a fair hearing in debate has become a mechanism for a minority to block legislation favored by the majority. It must go, at least in its current form. If not completely eliminated, it should be necessary for the minority to actually hold the floor by continuously speaking if it wants to delay legislation.

Then there is the matter of childcare. The childcare needed by working families is expensive and often inconvenient or unavailable; the so-called free market has failed to offer affordable and available child care throughout the nation. It is not uncommon for women to stay out of the workforce because having to pay for childcare would do little to increase household income while adding a good deal of daily aggravation.

This is not the place to analyze why the childcare market is broken, but it is a place to suggest that the government should do something about it. Those who directly deliver childcare need to be better paid, and the service itself needs to be less expensive and widely available. The benefits to givers and receivers are obvious here. And if Republicans are concerned that Americans are having too few children, they should consider that the cost of childcare is a major disincentive to have a child or more children. More available childcare would allow more women to participate in the workplace and to work toward improving their employment opportunities. Providing public or public-private childcare is not unlike providing public education—it has public as well as private benefits.

Democrats should add improving the quality and availability of childcare to their campaign promises.

More Thoughts (8/21/2024)

Watching the Democratic convention on MSNBC. I was reminded of two additional issues Democrats should embrace. The first is gun control. Specifically, we should re-enact the ban on assault weapons, though we should perhaps be more intelligent about it.

The other legislative matter that is long overdue is increasing the minimum wage. The minimum wage should not only be increased, but it should be indexed for inflation. Further, the special provisions for tip workers should be eliminated. Everyone should be guaranteed the same minimum wage. The minimum should be increased gradually, but as quickly as seems prudent.

Poem about the Constitution

The U.S. Constitution is a remarkable document and one that is often praised. It is far from perfect, however, and its imperfections have become increasingly apparent. I had long intended to write an essay on constitutional deficiencies, but I never got around to it. An upcoming open-mic night at Sulfur Books prompted me to write a new poem, and I decided to take the Constitution as my subject.

Read The Constitution on my Web site. Criticism is always welcome.

New Curve-stitch Designs

I have added a new page of designs to the section of my Web site on curve-stitch designs. These new designs are based on drawing parabolas on the backs of other parabolas. Doing so provides what I have called a nest of curve-stitch parabolas. You can view the new designs here.

Here is a sample of the new figures: