Comments On Kamala

We still think Kamala will be the next president but we are more concerned about our prediction than we were a few months ago.  It seems more likely that the year will be 2024 rather than 2020 but time will tell.   Instapundit cited a Jim Geraghty post in NRO’s Corner that caught our attention.  Jim says and quotes:

The other day Wonkette offered an article with a headline that declares — cleaning it up for your sensitive eyes — “Kamala Harris Doesn’t Have To Explain Herself To Your Dumb [Tushes].”

Infuriated by headlines about a Harris speech declaring that she is defending her record as a prosecutor, Stephen Robinson writes:

Is Harris on trial here? Why is she “defending her record”? Did she lose all her cases like the prosecutor who faced off against Perry Mason each week? That guy needed to explain himself. Harris put [bad words] in prison. She imprisoned [bad words] so well she was the first woman elected district attorney of San Francisco and the first black woman to become attorney general of California. She’s the Serena Williams of law and order.

While she’s undoubtedly better than Hamilton Berger, Harris’s record is a little more complicated than that. [Emphasis added]

Jim concludes that candidates always need to defend their records.  We agree but we have concerns.  First, Stephen can’t be bothered to look up Hamilton Berger like Jim did.  Really, this is not a tweet but Stephen’s article and he can’t be bothered to type in Perry Mason prosecutor.  Go and try it.  We will wait as it won’t take long.  You won’t even need to finish typing prosecutor and you will find that Hamilton Burger has his own Wikipedia site!

Second, what is a good record for a prosecutor?  We are not convinced that Jim is right that Kamala is better than Hamilton.  Hamilton, on our small sample, never convicts the innocent or frees the guilty.  Obviously, life is more complicated than a TV drama but convictions, as Scooter Libby could tell you, might not be the best measure of a prosecutor. Evaluating teachers and prosecutors involves problems because the goals, learning and justice, are hard to measure.

Third, Jim is worried about the need to serve a strong leader demonstrated in the tone of Stephen’s article.  Instead, given the circumstances at Oberlin College, we find Jim’s parenthetical comment is more important:

(Whatever else you think of [Stephen]’s argument, he’s absolutely right when he declares, “it’s insulting to claim that black people can only have an adversarial relationship with the criminal justice system or that a black woman can’t prosecute crimes without betraying her community.”)

Kamala has a mixed heritage but we are not getting into the swamps of what is black in the quote.  The important point is that protecting communities from bad actors is a good idea even if Oberlin disagrees.

Sidebar: We have already said that convictions are not necessarily justice and we would add that police do not always act properly.  Protecting communities without harming them is a challenge and we agree with Jim that Kamala should explain how she did that.  Perhaps she has examples of convicting cops.  We just think that Stephen’s law and order message is the important one rather than the she doesn’t need to explain one.  End Sidebar.

This is the first good news we have seen about a Democrat presidential candidate.  Perhaps more is forthcoming but we are not holding our breath.

Advertisements

Conan Versus Mick And Keith

In the movie Conan The Barbarian, the title character is asked: What is best in life?  Arnold replies:

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!

It is true it is great to win big but it almost never happens in sports, politics, or bridge. And it is also true that there will be another Super Bowl or election in short order.  Thus, we hope for Conan but realize that Mick and Keith are more likely:

You can’t always get what you want,
But if you try sometime,
You’ll find you get what you need!

And both quotes end with an exclamation point.  We all want what Conan wants but don’t realize the wisdom of Mick and Keith.  As examples we have The Donald, Josh, Sohrab Ahmari, the greens, and both sides on abortion .  The Donald on tariffs and the abortion parts are so obvious that we are only going to look at the other three.

Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO tries to defend Josh on attacking the prospective judge, Michael Bogren. We are not convinced but read it all. He identifies three arguments against Josh.   We are on the first one:

[Michael] was merely representing a client and, if we reject his nomination because he faithfully advocated their position, we are traducing the core American right to fair legal representation. That’s the view of the editors of the Wall Street Journal, [and MWG] for example.

Part of Ramesh’s counter-argument to the first argument is:

Perhaps more important, Sullivan was punished for the mere fact of representation, whereas Hawley has criticized Bogren for the way he represented East Lansing. For these controversies to be analogous, Sullivan would have to have been criticized for smearing and bullying [Harvey] Weinstein’s accusers.

It is a forgone conclusion that Sullivan will be criticized.  Of course Harvey’s defender(s) are going to be criticized for smearing and bullying his accusers.  They are going to advocate for Harvey in the same way that Michael made the best case for his client.  In Harvey’s case it would mean casting doubt on the accusers in some manner.

Sohrab does his best Conan in attacking, of all people, that noted never-Trump stalwart David French from NRO.  Sohrab, at First Things says:

I added, “The only way is through”—that is to say, to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.

Conan would be impressed although it might help to mention salting the earth too.  Sohrab makes this guy look reasonable and nuanced.  We understand that in politics we need coalition with folks with different priorities.  Conservatives will never be a majority.  Any group of conservatives with an adjective will be a tiny minority.  To have a majority coalition we need David and Sohrab.

Sidebar: We have never found a modifier for our conservatism.  The closest we came is when Rod Dreher coined Crunchy Cons.  We are really close to the opposite of that but there don’t seem to be enough of us to warrant an adjective.  End Sidebar.

Jeremy Carl at NRO tells us:

Last week BP and Shell both pledged support for the Climate Leadership Council’s (CLC) proposal for a revenue-neutral “carbon fee and dividend” plan, under which extractors of carbon-based fuels would be charged a fee, and all of the money collected would be distributed to the public as a dividend. While conservatives have a wide variety of views on how, or even whether, to address climate policy, this initiative is perhaps the most genuinely bipartisan attempt so far to move forward on a famously contentious issue.

We are not at all sure we want to support this deal but much depends on the details.  Our first choice would be a lower tax without a dividend.  Holman W. Jenkins, jr at the WSJ has great article on how environmental regulations lead to conflicts. If we undo these as part of the deal we might be in.  Do read it all.  But the greens are not in.  They are not in because they love Conan:

But  instead of expressing happiness that some of the biggest oil producers were willing to accept a major concession to help lower emissions under a plan with almost unprecedented bipartisan support, many on the left have complained because the plan also limits climate-change-related litigation.

Jeremy notes that none of this litigation has ever succeeded so far.  But the greens still want to hear the lamentaions of the oil companies’ stockholders.

It is hard to compromise, especially when principles are involved.  It is a tough decision but sometimes you just got to play Mick and Keith.  As an example, we hope that David and Soharb will join us in voting for The Donald in 2020.  Strange things can happen over the next year when we find out the Democrat nominee but right now it looks close to certain that The Donald is our best option in 2020.

Generational Awareness

Recently The Donald called Pete Alfred E. Neuman.  We thought Pete feigned knowledge of the What – Me Worry kid when he said he had to look it up.  As the cite says, Alfred has shown up in various places in public view.  We have, however, changed our mind about generational awareness.

One of our alumni magazines recently had a cover story on a young woman with the title Fearless Leader.  To us that term only mean one thing, this guy, the dictator of Pottsylvania and employer of Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale.  The cartoon series about Rocky and Bullwinkle (it had several names) led to several movies.  Fearless Leader was once played by Robert De Niro.  It (now The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle) is even an Amazon Video series.

Sidebar One: We know we are going to go to Amazon tonight to see the new version.  It will be easy to be disappointed because the old version was so great.  Our expectations relate to our cultural awareness.  The original reflected our culture.  It is unlikely that the new one will.  End Sidebar One.

The publication lists lots of alums on the editorial masthead with graduation dates.

Sidebar Two: We were going to say we needed an editor but were  pretty sure that the phase had mast in it.  When we tried editorial mast we got a result.  So we will do without an editor for a little longer.  End Sidebar Two.

Only one person on the masthead (1997) is from the last century.  We have come to the conclusion that cultural memory doesn’t last because culture is so fractured and changes so fast that old stuff goes down the memory hole increasingly quickly.  It is no surprise that recent graduates would make such a faux pas.  We can’t keep up with the current culture.  It is not surprising that Pete and the rest have such little recollection of ours.  We should be understanding of each other’s lack of knowledge.

Socialism Is Economic Foolishness

David French is off The Donald beat and writing about Bernie Sanders and school choice at NRO.  It makes David sound much better.  He seems almost surprised that Act Naturally would favor public schools.  It is not a misguided attack by the candidate.  Act Naturally is a socialist and he supports lack of choice for deodorants, schools, and everything else.  He, Bernie, always thinks he knows better than the consumer.  David has an almost beautiful conclusion:

Sanders makes his intentions crystal clear. In his plan, he writes, “We do not need two schools systems; we need to invest in our public schools system.” This is exactly wrong. One size does not fit all. Sanders looks at parents and declares that he knows best. Parents should look back at him and respond, quite simply: I know my child, and I want to shape his destiny. Your collective solutions cannot meet my family’s [educational] needs.

It is almost beautiful because it needs one more sentence after we have inserted education above.  The sentence might go like this: Your collective solutions cannot meet my or my family’s needs in any area.

Economic Foolishness Sweepstakes

The economic foolishness sweepstakes is on.  The Donald has planted his flag by raising taxes (tariffs) on Americans to punish China and other countries.  He also failed to allow exceptions to the Jones Act for LNG.

Speaking of natural gas, Andrew Cuomo has stopped a natural gas pipeline so New Yorkers can’t get natural gas by sea (because of the Jones Act) or land.  The WSJ reminds us that it is part of a pattern for Andrew:

He has also banned drilling for natural gas in the rich Utica and Marcellus Shale that lie under the state, and he has blocked another natural gas pipeline upstate. Due to pipeline constraints, the utility Con Edison in March suspended natural-gas hookups in Westchester County north of New York City.

Kamala Harris want to fine companies that don’t achieve [“]pay equality[“].  We can’t have that term without quotes.  Really, we are not making this up.  CNN says:

In an interview with CNN on Sunday, shortly before Harris headlined a town hall in Los Angeles, the California Democrat called pay equity a “really big issue” where “if you lift up the economic status of women, you lift up the economic status of families and communities and all of society benefits.”

We need to give you a long quote to show you what she is saying:

“This will radically change the way we enforce equal pay in America,” reads the plan. “Our current equal pay laws rely exclusively on proving instances of individual discrimination and place the burden entirely on employees to hold big corporations accountable. … Under our plan, for the first time in American history, companies will be held responsible for demonstrating they are not engaging in pay discrimination.”
Under the plan, companies with 100 or more employees will be required to obtain a certification from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within three years of the plan’s passage by handing over employment data to the government. Companies with more than 500 employees will have two years to receive the certification. And each company will be required to display whether they met the certification on their company’s website.
Those companies that do not receive the certification will be met with a stiff penalty: For every 1% gap in pay between men and women that persists after the EEOC accounts for experience and job titles, a Harris administration would fine companies 1% of their daily profits during that fiscal year. [Emphasis added]

With Kamala companies will be guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.

Meanwhile the Morning Jolt tells us that  Pete has called for four tax increases:

A “fairer, which means higher” marginal income tax, a “reasonable” wealth tax “or something like that,” a financial transactions tax, and closing “corporate tax loopholes.”

We have no idea why higher taxes are fairer.  It would have been a good question as would have been why would any wealth tax be reasonable.  We would also like to know what he thinks a loophole is.  If fairer is higher then we would expect him to find many loopholes.

Sidebar: We have not used the word crazy to describe any of these proposals.  We thinks this speaks well for our restraint.  End Sidebar.

We are not sure who will win the economic foolishness sweepstakes.  We are only sure that America will lose.

Bigger Fool Theory

Paul Mirengoff over at Powerline is discussing the dance of The Donald and the Chinese over tariffs.  It appears that The Donald is going to slap a substantial tariff on Chinese goods coming into the US.  We are not convinced by Paul’s arguments but read it all and see what you think.  We are most concerned when Paul says:

China is notorious for its bad faith in international relations, so we shouldn’t be surprised that it apparently has reneged on commitments made during negotiations. The proper response is to do exactly what Trump plans to do — inflict more pain on China. [Emphasis added.]

We are OK with the first two sentences but not the third.  As we have said, we don’t like being The Donald’s human shields.  Paul is wrong because The Donald is not inflicting pain on China.  He is inflicting pain on us by raising the prices we pay.

Now it is possible that there are rational rationales for The Donald’s behavior.  First, it might play well in his upcoming election.  Second, it might be a good negotiating strategy for both this round of talks and upcoming issues with the Chinese.  There are sure to be some of those.  Third, it will provide a little revenue to finance the government.  The first is surely a version of the bigger fool theory.  The third is a variant of it.  The Donald implements a regressive tax (tariffs) and the folks taxed love it.  We hope the second is the reason but we are not convinced.

So Sensible It Is Likely To Be Unpopular

We see from the WSJ that the Democrats and The Donald are conspiring to spend lots of money, two trillion, on infrastructure.  The WSJ says:

Democrats disagree internally on how to generate revenue for an infrastructure plan. Mr. Schumer won’t consider a proposal to raise the gas tax, unless Mr. Trump agrees to undo some of the 2017 tax cuts, a person close to the minority leader said. Mr. Schumer, along with several other Democrats, say a gas tax disproportionately hurts poor and working-class people.

We are not necessarily opposed to infrastructure spending.  It depends upon what it is spent for, how it is financed, and what the deal is.  We have advice for The Donald, Chuck, and Nancy.  Unfortunately, it makes so much sense that it will be unpopular.

Here is our proposal. You can guess the financing part: Eliminate the gas tax and implement a carbon tax that keeps the price of gas constant.  Spend the surplus.  Permanently eliminate the Jones Act and all other restrictions (like requiring union workers or American made stuff) that increase the cost of infrastructure to taxpayers.  There are lots of other details like how to allocate the spending among states and types of projects.  Those need to be attended to as well.  The deal should be almost entirely about auto/truck travel.