Tipping Point

The greatest fear of those concerned about the fate of the earth’s climate is that we could reach a tipping point, at which a warming climate ignites positive feedback (or feedbacks) that leads to irreversible climate warming. For example, melting ice sheets reduces the reflection of the sun’s rays, which then contribute their heat to exposed land and sea. In other words, heating creates more heating, a process that can get out of control. Similarly, the melting of Arctic permafrost releases long-trapped carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. That release increases global temperatures, resulting in more permafrost thawing and the release of even more carbon dioxide.

We believe we have not yet reached a climate-catastrophic tipping point, but it is easy to imagine our doing so within the lifetimes of people now living.

A less obvious but nonetheless catastrophic tipping point may be in our political future. Large corporations and wealthy individuals have slowly been increasing their influence over the American government. This trend accelerated but did not begin with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, under whose administration the government favored corporations over unions and tax cuts over government spending on the general welfare. Over time, more and more corporate lobbyists have peopled the halls of Congress, overwhelming the influence of individuals and other commercial and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the Citizens United decision opened floodgates that allowed corporate money to dominate spending on political campaigns.

The public perception is that conservatives have gradually developed effective communication channels, think tanks, and lobbying organizations that have halted or reversed the program of liberalism. The list of such institutions is long and includes Fox News, The Heritage Foundation, The Federalist Society, numerous “news and comment” Web sites, various groups created by the Koch Brothers, etc. These entities are largely seen as the conservative alternative to the more liberal Democratic Party and its allies.

Additionally, various independent groups have formed in response to what was seen as the upsetting of longstanding societal norms—the waning influence of religion, the acceptance of abortions, the normalization of homosexuality, and the visibility of transsexuality.

These developments are related but by no means identical. Opposition to social change is often genuinely conservative. That is, it seeks to halt societal change and return to a simpler, more stable time. The political institutions advancing the interests of large corporations and the wealthy are not really conservative at all. They are reactionary or, if you like, libertarian. They seek not the society of the Eisenhower years but the nineteenth-century golden age of the robber barons. Their interest is in low (or nonexistent) taxes and the absence of government regulations. To the degree that supporters of the program support conservative initiatives, it is not out of conviction but out of a desire to gain voters for their reactionary program.

Whereas the economic elites of America have long had significant influence over the federal government, we now face the danger of their completely taking over. The nominations Donald Trump is planning to make are industrialists and wealthy individuals who would love to return to the age of low taxes, no government regulation, and no antitrust activity. And advising Trump is Elon Musk—some are calling him the real president-elect—reputedly the world’s richest man. (One wonders whether Vladimir Putin actually deserves that title.) Musk is clearly smarter than Trump and has already been throwing his weight around. (Trump may actually have more political smarts, however.)

The question, then, is whether the influence of corporate elites is about to reach a tipping point at which the country is ruled by and for the wealthy with no concern for the bulk of its citizens. If we reach that point, will it be the tipping point at which rule by the wealthy becomes irreversible? That seems possible.

Thoughts on Political Discourse

Democrats will be arguing for a long time about what went wrong in the 2024 presidential election. Harris waged a mostly competent, rather normal, if abbreviated campaign; Trump, lied his way to victory. Both candidates offered policy proposals with little analysis, a time-honored tradition of political discourse. Trump frequently made ad hominem attacks on his opponent and on other Democrats. That was decidedly not normal, but his fans loved it. Harris too often ignored it.

Not every proposal needs an elaborate explanation to be seen as credible, of course. Harris’s plan to build more housing implicitly acknowledged a housing deficit, which would likely be ameliorated by increasing the housing stock. Yet even “obvious” solutions can have unanticipated, non-obvious consequences. And even obvious consequences of a policy are seldom mentioned. How much will it cost? Where will the money come from? Who might be harmed by the policy?

The idea of making tips tax-free is an interesting case. It is difficult to believe the Trump proposal was anything other than an attempt to buy votes among a particular (presumed) low-income group. As a policy position, it is arbitrary, will anger low-income citizens who do not earn tips, will encourage gaming the system, and will take revenue from a government already running a huge deficit. It is a classic solution in search of a problem, and one whose consequences were likely never considered beyond gaining the votes of tip-earning workers. I was distressed that Harris, rather than stigmatizing the Trump proposal as a cynical, ill-considered, counterproductive opportunistic political ploy, adopted the policy as her own. It was not her finest hour as a campaigner. 

Both candidates offered policy proposals without clearly articulating the problem being addressed, the underlying causes of the problem, or explaining how the proposed policy is expected to ameliorate the underlying problem without creating new ones. Trump lied about the facts. Crime, for example, has been on the decline, yet Trump would have you believe that the nation is experiencing a crime wave. No analysis of policy is useful if it relies on a distorted or intentionally false version of reality. Harris did a poor job of attacking Trump’s “alternative facts.”

One can only hope that, someday, opposing candidates will agree on a set of facts and campaign on rival proposals to address those facts. Alas, that may never happen.

Mike Johnson’s Agenda

 I heard Speaker of the House Mike Johnson today saying, “We want to take a blowtorch to the regulatory state.”

It is worth thinking about why we have federal regulations. In large measure, regulations are of two kinds. Some regulations benefit special interests. The IRS provisions for carried interest are of this sort. Other regulations are intended to benefit the public at large. Included here are regulations that protect our food supply, ensure that we have safe drugs, and protect people from financial predators.

I suspect that Make Johnson’s blowtorch isn’t going to be aimed at the special regulations that benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. He more likely will go after the public-safety regulations, those that give us clean air and water, protect wildlife, and ensure safe workplaces. Is this really what people voted for?

Thoughts on Presidential Immunity

I have never been comfortable with the Justice Department’s determination that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. Although Americans are fond of saying that no one is above the law, this policy has indeed placed the president above the law. The Constitution does not require such a policy. The founders, wary of a king or king-like executive, would likely have considered the policy dangerous and ill-advised. Sadly, our fascist-friendly Supreme Court has adopted this unconstitutional policy and extended it. A president engaging in a murderous rampage against his alleged rivals is now free to carry out his program with impunity.

The argument that a president should not be subjected to the normal operation of the American judicial system is apparently predicated on the notion that the president’s having to deal with charges brought by the Department of Justice would distract the chief executive from discharging the duties of office.

This argument loses some of its cogency when one recognizes that the Constitution already provides for the Congress to impeach and try the president on vague charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Surely, impeachment is a significant presidential distraction. The Constitution’s impeachment provisions have two deficiencies, however. 

First, the only punishments available for the commitment of high crimes and misdemeanors are removal from office and prohibition of holding any future office. Embarrassing as this may be, it is insufficiently punitive for, say, encouraging the overthrow of the American government. For such particularly “high” crimes, the ordinary criminal justice system offers more appropriate penalties.

Second, the bar to impeachment and conviction by the Congress is absurdly high. The founders apparently did not foresee that the houses of Congress might be controlled by partisans of the president and be largely impervious to calls to cashier the nation’s leader, whatever the provocation.

 In response to the argument that indictment and prosecution would cripple the office of the president, I offer another consideration. If, in fact, the president has committed intolerable acts, distracting the president through legal entanglements may distract the miscreant from continuing his (or, improbably, her) crime spree.

A New Poem

The news that Donald Trump was elected over Kamala Harris on Tuesday last was supremely depressing. I have since been avoiding the news and listening to Prokofiev. (I discovered, for example, that I am not particularly familiar with his fifth piano concerto.) Also, I began writing a poem to express my despair. At first, I called it “My Lost Faith in America, November 2024.” Eventually, I dropped “My” from the title, but it may still be a bit unwieldy. I actually completed the poem November 6, the day after the election, but I have been gradually editing it—improving it, I hope—and adding to it. Today, I declared the poem complete. Rather by accident, it now comprises 13 stanzas—it had fewer in the beginning—which seems  appropriate for a poem about the United States.

You can read the poem and additional information about it on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago here.

Harris’s Big Mistake?

I am not ready to offer a coherent response to yesterday’s election. I offer only one thought that has bothered me throughout the Harris campaign.

Harris never offered a justification for why inflation was not the fault of the Biden administration. Although the administration’s efforts to pump up the economy had some inflationary effect—it likely avoided economic disaster—the biggest problem was supply chain disruptions caused by COVID, arguably inherited from the Trump administration. Also, she never explained what inflation really is and that it was reduced to a reasonable level under Biden. Ignorant people believe inflation is high prices, rather than increasingly higher prices. Prices will not come down unless we have a recession, which now is increasingly likely.

Are Early Voters Having Regrets?

In a recent essay on my Web site, I expressed discomfort with early voting because significant events can occur between when a person votes and the official election day.

In recent days, Donald Trump has looked old and tired and he (and his supporters) have been saying increasingly crazy and disturbing things. I wonder how many Trump early voters regret their vote in light of their candidate’s recent behavior.

My Great Big Baking Mistake

Last night, as I often do, I decided to bake some cookies to share at Clifton Springs Library’s Friday coffee hour. Rather than using one of my favorite recipes, I decided to bake Big and Chewy Oatmeal-Raisin Cookies from an America’s Test Kitchen cookbook. I had made this recipe once before and considered it a reliable choice.

My first pan of cookies was a mess. When I took it out of the oven, it contained an undifferentiated mass of congealed goop; it was impossible to separate individual cookies. I broke up the mass as best I could and dumped the resulting pieces into a plastic bag. The stuff was edible, but barely. It was time to try again.

This time, I spaced the balls of dough farther apart. The result was not unlike that of the first batch, but the cookies were at least discrete. They did, however, resemble pralines more than cookies—more stuff for the plastic bag! (See photo below.)

As I was preparing a third pan, I realized that the dough lacked its usual stiffness. And I suddenly realized that I had used no flour! I glanced at the recipe, however, and noted that the first entry in the ingredient list was

1½ cups (7½ ounces) unbleached all-purpose flour

Oops! How could I have failed to put flour into the dough? I slowly and carefully reread the instructions. Step 3 read as follows:

Decrease the speed [of the stand mixer] to low and slowly add the dry ingredients until combined, about 30 seconds. Mix in the oats and raisins (if using) until just incorporated.

I had interpreted “the dry ingredients” to mean the salt, baking powder, and nutmeg. It hadn’t occurred to me that flour was construed as a dry ingredient. It hadn’t helped that ingredients were not listed in the order used. The order of the ingredient list was, in retrospect, rather arbitrary. (Other recipes in the same cookbook used lists following the same convention.)

There was still dough in the mixing bowl, so I incorporated what seemed like a proper fraction of the 7½ ounces of flour to go with the leftover dough. The modified dough then behaved as expected. In the end, I managed to produce 10 reasonably-looking and -tasting cookies. (See the picture of the penultimate batch below.)

The obvious lesson from this unfortunate experience is to read the instructions carefully in the context of the ingredient list. Arguably, I had actually done that. Had I read the instructions and also checked off the ingredients as I did so, I would have failed to check off flour, and I might have realized that it was a “dry ingredient.” Perhaps a better strategy would have been to employ mise en place, that is gathered and measured all the ingredients before assembly. In that case, once the dough was “finished,” my bowl of flour would have been conspicuously left over.

Well, I have become a wiser baker!

Wisdom from Octavia E. Butler

I noted in my last post that I was reading Parable of the Sower by Octavia E. Butler. Having finished that rather dark volume, I have gone on the read the sequel, Parable of the Talents. This is the story of a small community trying to survive in a country that has gone mad. The story is set in the very near future.

The protagonist of both books is Lauren Olamina, a young visionary who has created a non-theological religion she calls Earthseed. The U.S. has just elected a president who is a Christian Nationalist. (Butler doesn’t use that term, but the designation seems appropriate.) Members of the community, called “Acorn,” are anxious.

Each chapter of Parable of the Talents begins with an excerpt “From EARTHSEED: THE BOOK OF THE LIVING.” The situation cannot help remind one of our own situation on the precipice of an election. Chapter Eleven begins with this excerpt:

Choose your leaders
    with wisdom and forethought.
To be led by a coward
    is to be controlled
    by all that the coward fears.
To be led by a fool
    is to be led
    by the opportunists
    who control the fool.
To be led by a thief
    is to offer up
    your most precious treasures
    to be stolen.
To be led by a liar
    is to ask
    to be told lies.
To be led by a tyrant
    is to sell yourself
    and those you love
    into slavery.

Here endeth the lesson.

Gaza, Israel, Biden, and Harris

This afternoon, I listened to an interview with Palestinian poet and essayist Mosab Abu Toha on Fresh Air. Apparently, his literary credentials were in part responsible for his getting out of Gaza with his immediate family. He nevertheless was apprehended by Israel’s IDF and tortured, and, although he escaped with his wife and children, he lost friends and extended family in Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza. He is now living in Syracuse, New York.

I have been reading Octavia E. Butler’s 1993 novel Parable of the Sower. That novel is set in an American future characterized by ecological disaster, societal disintegration, and police and fire protection that offer more aggression than protection. Parable would have been distressing in 1993. It is more upsetting today, when the diary entries of protagonist Lauren Olamina carry dates of 2024 and beyond.

Listening to Abu Toha describe life in Gaza under Israeli attack reminded me of the trials of Lauren Olamina as she journeys north with her pick-up group of fellow travelers in search of a place of safety. But the horrors of that journey were at least mitigated by some minimum sense of agency for Olamina and her company. They were armed and smart. Ordinary Palestinians have no such agency. They are at the mercy of Israeli troops, Israeli air power, and the hellish environment created by Netanyahu’s war machine. They move from place to place in response to warnings from Israel, but Palestinians are neither safe indoors nor out of doors.

Terry Gross raised the question of whether what was happening in Gaza is genocide. Abu Toha did not call Israeli actions genocide but suggested that it would be so recognized decades from now. Does Netanyahu mean to kill all Palestinians in Gaza? We don’t know that he does. It is clear, however, that many Israelis would raise a collective sigh of relief if there were no more Palestinians in Gaza, a piece of real estate rapidly becoming uninhabitable.

The Israeli attack on Gaza after the Hamas October 7 incursion a year ago is both understandable and justifiable. Yet, this war looks different from other modern conflicts. American journalists have been kept out of Gaza, and many Palestinian journalists have been killed. Not even Israelis—maybe especially Israelis—have a clear view of what is happening in Gaza. We have not seen the kind of firefights one expects to see in urban warfare. Israel’s strategy is to protect IDF troops and to show little concern for civilian casualties. The response to the alleged presence of Hamas fighters is not to attack them from the ground but simply to obliterate them from the air. And the Israeli efforts to disrupt humanitarian aid for Gaza suggest that Netanyahu believes that every Palestinian is Hamas until proven otherwise.

Muslim and Palestinian Americans are understandably concerned about what is happening in Gaza, not to mention events in the West Bank and Lebanon. Unfortunately, President Joe Biden has a longstanding and unshakable allegiance to Israel. Despite multiple instances of disapproval by the American government of Israeli actions such as the building of illegal settlements in the West Bank, Biden’s support for Israel has shown no sign of weakening.

The present question is whether Biden’s support for Israel will be the downfall of the American Republic. Will the disgust with America’s support for Israel among certain groups of voters cause Kamala Harris to lose the presidential election to Donald Trump? Harris, as a member of the Biden Administration, is in a difficult position. Her credibility as a candidate is based partly on her contribution to that administration. Despite Harris’s decrying the suffering of Palestinians brought on by the war, serious criticism of the Biden policy would be seen as a repudiation of her own administration and a self-serving political move. It might gain pro-Palestinian votes but lose the larger, usually reliable, Jewish vote. Lacking evidence, we cannot know Harris’s true feelings about the Mideast war, though we are likely to learn should she become president.

It was reported today that the administration has given Israel a 30-day deadline to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The implication is that military aid may be imperiled if the situation in Gaza does not improve. Was this warning an attempt to help Harris out of her dilemma? Perhaps, but the fact that the deadline comes after the election diminishes its salience for the Harris campaign.

Some Random Comments on the Presidential Campaign

I watched the vice-presidential debate Tuesday night to the bitter end. The debate was disappointing in that JD Vance managed to impersonate a normal human being, and the event did not expose his most extreme, odious views. That said, the debate was civil—that counts for something—and Tim Walz , who lacks Vance's Ivy League background, mostly held his own. Vance, of course, is slick—I don’t mean that in a good way—and anyone who pays close attention to politics could see through his myriad lies. I rate the debate as a tie. These vice-presidential debates seldom make a real difference, and this one likely is no exception.

Although I won’t try to analyze the entire two-hour event, I will offer two rejoinders to Vance’s arguments that I had hoped Walz would deliver. They are important for the presidential campaign generally.

First, Vance continually blames Kamala Harris for not having pursued programs she is now advocating while she was vice president, during the “Harris administration,” as Vance would have it. This is ridiculous. One would think that the Republican candidate for vice president would have some clue as to what his role will be should he be elected. (Perhaps his arrogance leads him to believe that he will rule the White House.) The vice president’s role is to support the president, offering advice, to be sure, but standing with the president, who ultimately determines policy. Never, referring to the time when Donald Trump was president, have I ever heard anyone refer to the “Pence administration.” Harris cannot be blamed for the policies she didn’t initiate because she wasn’t president.

Then there is the concept, so enamored of Donald Trump, that (1) abortion law is properly handled by individual states and (2) that this is what “everybody” wanted all along. The second proposition is, of course, so ridiculous as to simply be an outright lie. When Vance asserted that abortion should be a state responsibility, Walz countered by saying that control over one’s body should not depend on one’s place of residence. Were I debating Vance, I would say that also. But I would go further. I would ask whether freedom of speech should be left to the states. Surely, Mississippi is less fond of this freedom than, say, California. What about freedom of religion? Or freedom of the press? Should states decide whether women can vote? How about black men? To say that abortion should be left to the states is to admit that states may make different choices. That abortion rights have been affirmed whenever put a vote of the people, and the fact that restricting abortion is damaging the practice of medicine and actually killing women, abortion should be left to the people, an option offered by the Tenth Amendment.
___________________________

I am repeatedly irritated by interviews of voters who say they will vote for Donald Trump because of high grocery prices, presumably because they think we will return to 2017 prices if the Republican candidate is returned to the White House. These people are mistaken, or, should I say, deluded. The recent inflation is mostly the result of COVID disruptions. It has come down dramatically under President Biden. Reduced prices will only happen if we have a severe recession, something unlikely to be appreciated by Republican voters. Moreover, if Trump is elected and imposed his promised tariffs, prices across the economy will go up. In other words, Trump will create more inflation. In fact, the economy (Biden economy?) is in fine shape. That, of course, does not mean that everyone’s economic situation is equally satisfactory/
___________________________

Donald Trump is a master of projection (the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or objects—https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/projection). He is fond of accusing others of what he is doing. He accused Democrats of stealing the 2020 election, for example, but it was Trump who directed an election-stealing scheme.

Another Comma Fault

Longtime readers know that the niggardly use of commas is a pet peeve of mine. Today, I received my November issue of Trains. As usual, I turned immediately to the Commentary page written by Bill Stephens. In his essay, “Railroads’ undoing and evidence of better times,” I encountered this sentence:

Rail service still can’t match trucks and cars still spend too much time sitting.

The sentence stopped me cold. After reading “Rail service still can’t match trucks and cars,” I ran into a brick wall when I saw “still,” at which point the sentence was making no sense. I had to backtrack to figure out that a comma was missing after “trucks.” The compound sentence was not punctuated like one and was therefore a run-on sentence. What is so annoying in this case is that the phrase “trucks and cars” is a quite natural one, and, lacking a comma, there was no reason to stop after “trucks.” This is a particularly fine example of bad punctuation.

   

2024 Needs for a More Perfect Union

A lot is wrong in this country, and the outcome of the November election has the potential to make matters considerably worse. Many factors undermining democracy, such as our Electoral College system, are difficult to fix. 

I have just written an essay on changes needed to form a more perfect Union. I urge you to read “Agenda of Urgent American Problems in 2024” on my Web site. Comments are sincerely welcomed.

Voters Should Cut Harris Some Slack

It has been irritating to listen to voters interviewed about their reactions to Tuesday’s debate who complain about what Kamala Harris didn’t say or do. She didn’t address their favorite issue or didn’t say enough about it. Or she didn’t completely explain a policy in which they are interested. Or she failed to implement her ideas in three-and-a-half years in office. Or a Harris administration would just be a continuation of the Biden administration.

Well, she only got two minutes at a time to talk and was (unlike Donald Trump) somewhat constrained by what she was asked by the moderators. (She was also constrained by reality. But I digress.) As for her failure to implement her policies before now, one has to acknowledge that she has only been vice president. Her job has been to support the man on top. Although I suspect that she approved of President Biden’s actions more often than not, when she disagreed, her job was to keep her mouth shut. Continuing the policies of the Biden administration would not be a totally bad thing, though any administration can be improved. A vice president running for president has to walk a narrow path, however, and there is little to be gained by criticizing the job of her boss.

Harris needs to be cut some slack; she hasn’t been running for president very long. Trump, on the other hand, was been at it for quite some time and still seems like a total incompetent. He thinks he was the greatest president ever, but presidential historians rate him as one of the worst. Harris skeptics should listen to a recent New York Times opinion piece. Binyamin Appelbaum says that Harris “may make things better,” but Trump “is pretty certain to make things worse.”

Harris may not be perfect, but she is infinitely better than the alternative.

A Few Observations Concerning the Presidential Debate

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris participated in a presidential debate hosted by ABC News last night. The overwhelming consensus is that Harris won in grand style. Harris cleaned Trump’s clock, something I had expected Biden to do in his ill-fated debate with the GOP candidate.

I won’t essay a full analysis of the debate; others are doing that very well. Instead, I want to comment on a few moments in the debate I found notable.

The first topic of the debate was the economy and the cost of living. Trump took no time to illustrate that he understands neither tariffs nor the concept of inflation. He mistakenly believes that tariffs are a cost to nations selling to the U.S. rather than a cost invariably borne by consumers. And he believes (or wants us to believe) that the inflation rate is about higher prices, not the speed at which prices are changing.

Politicians are certainly in the habit of embellishing the truth, but Trump repeatedly offers outrageous observations that are blatantly false. He insisted that infanticide is perfectly legal in parts of the country run by Democrats. This is an outright lie, and one wonders if Trump supporters really believe such nonsense. (Moderator Linsey Davis noted that Trump’s statement is untrue.) Just as outrageous was Trump’s assertion that Haitian immigrants are killing and eating Americans’ pets. His information source for this charge was something he saw on TV. On Fox News likely. (Moderator David Muir observed that no evidence exists that people’s pets are being eaten.) These two incidents by themselves should be disqualifying for any candidate for the highest office in the land.

Harris repeatedly showed concern for everyday Americans. Her explaining how Trump got  GOP legislators to kill the bipartisan border bill was a stark illustration of how Trump has little concern for America and Americans but only for his own ideocratic interests.

Harris mentioned some of the crazy things Trump talks about in his rallies. Trump countered by talking about crazy things. (This is when he brought up pet eating.)

Trump repeated one of his favorite lies that the country is being flooded by drug dealers and terrorists who are responsible for a crime wave. He never offers data to support this assertion, of course, and David Muir pointed out that the FBI says that crime is down under the Biden administration.

When asked about his inaction during the January 6 insurrection, Trump accepted no responsibility and remarked that the insurrectionists have been treated badly. Another disqualifying response.

Trump was also asked about his recent admission that he lost the 2020 election. His response was that that “admission” was simply sarcasm. David Muir noted that he saw no sarcasm in Trump’s statement.

Trump called Harris weak and made the extraordinary declaration: “Putin endorsed her last week.” He claimed she will cause World War III.

Trump tried to blame Harris for the chaotic U.S. exit from Afghanistan. Harris pointed out that Trump ignored the Afghanistan government, negotiated an exit with terrorists, and invited terrorists to Camp David.

Trump was asked about Obamacare, which he has wanted to replace. He described Obamacare as lousy, but admitted that he had no replacement plan, though he has “concepts” for a plan. (How much time does he need to come up with a plan?) Harris pointed out that the administration has improved Obamacare, though Republicans in Congress tried 60 times to kill the program.

In general, Harris behaved like a normal candidate; Trump acted like a crazy man. How much this matters to people, I cannot say.

ABC News and its moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis did a fine job. Their questions were well-chosen, and they were willing to call out the most outrageous falsehoods. Had I been a moderator, Trump’s microphone would have been turned off at times it was left on, but the moderators headed off the shouting matches that often result in debates in which Trump participates. I continue to believe that the lack of an audience makes a positive contribution to presidential debates.

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: