Nikki Haley caved, endorsed adjudicated rapist Donald Trump, and hit her former followers with a cease-and-desist order for supporting President Harris, but it hasn't shut them up.
A couple of weeks ago, we shared the story of Haley Voters for Harris getting CND'd by their former candidate. — Read the rest
The post 'Haley Voters for Harris' speaking out appeared first on Boing Boing.
Here's a great resource to learn how Project 2025 will affect you or those you love and care about on specific issues such as health care, food assistance, education, etc. The site is called "25 and Me" and is a collaboration between Rajat Paharia and Google Gemini. — Read the rest
The post "25 and Me" is your guide to the horrors of Project 2025 appeared first on Boing Boing.
Here's the fact check of the century, courtesy of The Washington Post's Amy Gardner: '"Donald Trump says he will refuse to accept the election result if he loses again," Biden said. But that's not true. Trump just hasn't said that he would accept. — Read the rest
The post Trump not technically saying he'll refuse to accept election results—he just won't accept them and has explained why appeared first on Boing Boing.
Fox News today reported "Harris Topping Trump" in a renewed sign that one person at the cable broadcaster is fully cognizant of the term's many shades of meaning and is involved in graphic design there.
The numbers beneath the headline—49% to 45%, quoting an Ipsos poll—do suggest intrusive thoughts ahoy for the former president of the United States of America. — Read the rest
The post Fox News reports "Harris Topping Trump" appeared first on Boing Boing.
Rather than apologize or praise recipients of the nation's highest Military honor, Donald Trump explained how being good at sports is cooler than winning an MOH.
One of the most shocking things about Donald Trump has been the support he received from our armed services and veterans. — Read the rest
The post Trump makes worse comments about Medal of Honor recipients appeared first on Boing Boing.
In her first economic policy speech as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris rightly criticized Donald Trump for favoring steep tariffs, saying her Republican opponent "wants to impose what is, in effect, a national sales tax on everyday products and basic necessities that we import from other countries." But in the same speech, Harris pitched a half-baked idea that is just as economically dubious, promising to crack down on "price gouging" by the grocery industry.
That proposal is so misguided that it provoked undisguised skepticism from mainstream news outlets such as CNN, the Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, along with criticism by Democratic economists. It showed that Harris joins Trump in pushing populist prescriptions that would hurt consumers in the name of sticking it to supposed economic villains.
"If your opponent claims you're a 'communist,'" Post columnist Catherine Rampell suggested, "maybe don't start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls." Harvard economist Jason Furman, who chaired President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, was equally scathing.
"This is not sensible policy, and I think the biggest hope is that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality," Furman told the Times. "There's no upside here, and there is some downside."
That downside stems from any attempt to override market signals by dictating prices. High prices allocate goods to consumers who derive the greatest value from them, encourage producers to expand supply, and spur competition that helps bring prices down.
Without those signals, you get hoarding and shortages. This is not some airy-fairy theory; it reflects bitter experience since ancient times with interventions like the one Harris proposes.
Consider what happened when President Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls in the 1970s. "Ranchers stopped shipping their cattle to the market, farmers drowned their chickens, and consumers emptied the shelves of supermarkets," Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw note in their 1998 book on the rise of free markets.
Or consider what happened more recently with eggs. Thanks to avian flu, Furman noted, "egg prices went up last year" because "there weren't as many eggs," but the high prices encouraged "more egg production." If federal regulators had tried to suppress egg prices, they would have short-circuited that market response.
Harris, of course, says she would target only unjustified price increases, the kind that amount to "illegal price gouging" by "opportunistic companies." But as she emphasizes, there currently is no such thing under federal law, and any attempt to define it would be plagued by subjectivity and a lack of relevant knowledge.
The fact that Harris pins the sharp grocery price inflation of recent years on corporate greed suggests that her judgment about such matters cannot be trusted. Economists generally rate other factors—including the war in Ukraine as well as pandemic-related supply disruptions, shifts in consumer demand, and stimulus spending—as much more important.
High profits, in any event, are another important signal that encourages investment and competition. By forbidding "excessive profits," Harris' proposed price policing would undermine the motivation they provide.
According to the most recent numbers, the annual inflation rate dropped below 3 percent as of July. With inflation cooling, this might seem like a strange time for Harris to resuscitate an idea that was already proving disastrous thousands of years ago. But as the Times notes, her message "polls well with swing voters."
The broad tariffs that Trump favors, which Harris condemns as "a national sales tax" that would "devastate Americans," also poll well in the abstract. But they are popular only until voters consider the consequences.
In a recent Cato Institute survey, for example, 62 percent of respondents favored a tariff on "imported blue jeans," but that number plummeted when they were asked to imagine the resulting price increases. Harris likewise is counting on voters who like what she says but do not contemplate what it would mean in practice.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
The post Kamala Harris' 'Price Gouging' Ban: A New Idea That Has Failed for Thousands of Years appeared first on Reason.com.
Last week, the Trump campaign falsely asserted that "homicides are skyrocketing in American cities under Kamala Harris." On Tuesday, the campaign offered a more nuanced and sophisticated critique of crime data cited by the Democratic presidential nominee. But it still does not support the earlier claim, which is inconsistent with numbers from several sources.
A "memorandum" headlined "Joe Biden's Lies on Crime" (a title that makes you wonder whether Trump forgot who his opponent is) notes that the FBI changed its crime data collection methods in 2021, switching from the old Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program to the new National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The transition, which was aimed at generating "new and better data," resulted in a big decline in the number of participating law enforcement agencies. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the share of the population covered by participating agencies fell from the previous norm of about 95 percent to just 65 percent in 2021.
"The FBI's website reveals that the Q1 2024 data Joe Biden is citing comes from just 71% of the nation's law enforcement agencies," the Trump campaign says. "That means crime data from nearly one third of jurisdictions is missing." The overall NIBRS participation rate, which is relevant in assessing the FBI's final estimates for any given year, is higher: The FBI says 15,724 of 18,884 eligible agencies, or 83 percent, submitted data for 2022. The overall population coverage rate had risen to 85 percent by 2023. Still, the decline in participation since 2020 is a widely recognized problem.
The Trump campaign notes that "the FBI attempts to 'estimate' crime data for non-reporting agencies using a 'statistical weight' from reporting agencies similar in size and type"—a "practice of estimating crime numbers for agencies with missing data" that "has been going on since the 1960s." But historically, the missing data represented around 5 percent of the population, compared to 15 percent in 2023. A bigger gap magnifies the potential for error.
That is a perfectly reasonable point. But does it mean that homicides are, in fact, "skyrocketing"? No.
Nationwide, the FBI's preliminary numbers indicate, murders fell by 26 percent in the first quarter of this year compared to the same period last year. But other sources also report that homicides are falling this year, albeit by smaller percentages.
Based on a sample of 277 cities, AH Datalytics reports a 17.3 percent drop in murders so far this year, which is very large compared to historical trends. Most of these numbers come from "official" sources, meaning they were reported by local police departments or municipal governments. Some were compiled by state governments, and some came from local news outlets that track crime.
The Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ), based on data from 39 cities for the first half of 2024, reports that "most violent crimes," including homicide, "are at or below levels seen in 2019," the year before a huge spike in murders (which, as Trump wants us to forget, happened during his administration). The CCJ says the drop in homicides through June in "the 29 study cities providing data for that crime" was 13 percent.
According to a report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) that covers 69 cities during the same period, the total number of homicides fell by 17.4 percent. That is strikingly similar to the AH Datalytics estimate, although the latter analysis covers a lot more cities—including New York, which was not part of the MCCA sample but saw a 10 percent drop in homicides, according to AH Datalytics.
Instead of trying to defend its recent claim that "homicides are skyrocketing," the Trump campaign widens the focus, arguing that the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which includes crimes that are not reported to police, provides a more accurate picture of what is happening. The NCVS is not relevant in assessing homicide trends, since it does not cover homicides—the most serious violent crime and the one that is hardest to miss. And although the Trump campaign's criticism of the FBI numbers focuses on what happened in the first quarter of 2024, we do not yet have NCVS data for 2023, let alone this year.
The NCVS, like the FBI's system, has both strengths and weaknesses. But the Trump campaign deems it "by far the most credible and reliable barometer of crime nationwide." The NCVS, it says, "reveals that between 2020 and 2022 (the most recent year for which data is available), there was a 43% increase in violent crime, 58% increase in rape, 89% increase in aggravated assault, and a 56% increase in robbery."
Although these numbers omit 2023 and 2024, the Trump campaign wants us to believe they tell the true story of crime during the Biden administration. But the divergence between the NCVS and FBI numbers, especially in 2022, presents a puzzle that cannot be resolved simply by observing that the NCVS includes unreported crimes.
In 2002, when the FBI reported an overall 2 percent decline in violent crime, the NCVS results indicated a whopping 75 percent increase. Again, the latter number does not include homicide, which according to the FBI fell by 7 percent in 2022. But it does include respondents' reports of rape, which were up 58 percent, compared to the 6 percent drop estimated by the FBI; robbery, which rose by 47 percent according to the NCVS but only 1 percent according to the FBI; and aggravated assault, which more than doubled according to the survey but fell by 2 percent in the FBI's tally.
"Both too much and too little can be made of the divergence between the UCR and NCVS violent crime rates in 2022," the CCJ notes. "Divergent change in a single year should be viewed in the context of the similar long-term trends in the two indicators—and both sources show an appreciable decline in violent crime since the early 1990s." Still, "changes in the UCR and NCVS violent crime rates have rarely differed as much as they did" in 2022.
The 2021 changes in the FBI's reporting system and the concomitant decline in participation do not seem relevant here, since the participation rate was substantially higher in 2022 than it was in 2021. But if crime victims are increasingly disinclined to contact the police, that could help explain the striking 2022 divergence between the NCVS results and the FBI numbers.
According to the NCVS, the CCJ notes, "approximately 52% of serious violent crimes were reported to the police in 2021 and 48% in 2022, a relative decrease of nearly 8%. The decline in reporting crimes to the police was particularly large for aggravated assault, falling from 61% in 2021 to 50% in 2022, a decrease of 18%." But these changes in reporting behavior do not come close to fully accounting for the enormous differences between the NCVS and UCR numbers for 2022.
Beyond the difference between reported and unreported crimes, the NCVS and the FBI's system use different methods and measure somewhat different things. "As a household-based survey," the CCJ notes, "the NCVS does not include people who are homeless or those who live in institutions such as prisons, jails, and nursing homes. It also excludes crimes of violence against persons under 12 years of age. If persons included in the survey have experienced changes in violence that differ from the changes experienced by those excluded from the survey, that could help account for some of the divergence in violence rates."
The Bureau of Justice Statistics notes other possibly relevant differences between the two sources. For example, "the NCVS includes, but the [FBI system] excludes, attempted robberies, simple assault, [and] verbal threats of crime." The FBI system "includes, but the NCVS excludes, homicide, arson, commercial crimes, and human trafficking." The two sources also use different definitions of some crimes.
Another possible factor: While the FBI's 2022 numbers covered the calendar year, the 2022 NCVS asked about crimes experienced from July 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022. "Since the NCVS shows an increase in violent crime," The Marshall Project's Weihua Li and Jamiles Lartey suggest, "it's potentially because violent crime rates were higher in the latter part of 2021." They also note that "the victimization survey is historically much more volatile from one year to the next," suggesting "it may be influenced by statistical noise."
The Trump campaign describes the FBI's quarterly numbers as "garbage" and "fake statistics." But notwithstanding the preliminary nature of those numbers and the challenges associated with the transition to the new reporting system, they are broadly consistent, in direction if not magnitude, with what other sources indicate.
"Right now," Li and Lartey reported in June, "every source points to a decrease in violent crime." They quoted University of Miami criminologist Alex Piquero, an adviser to the CCJ Crime Trends Working Group, who said "the FBI's Q1 2024 data is incomplete, not inaccurate," adding: "There's no fudging of the numbers, and the drop is real. The question, of course, is how big that drop will be, and then how big that drop will be across crime types. That's the thing that we just don't fully grasp yet."
The post Trump's New, More Sophisticated Take on Crime Still Does Not Show 'Homicides Are Skyrocketing' appeared first on Reason.com.
Say what you will about the otherwise calorie-lite first fortnight of the Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign, at least it eased for a moment the shrill catastrophizing that has marked Democratic messaging against former President Donald Trump over these past nine years.
"Gone are [President Joe] Biden's sober exhortations about the battle for the soul of the nation and a democracy under attack," The Washington Post observed earlier this month. "In its place are promises of 'freedom' and 'a brighter future' and, at times, audible giggles and laughter."
Well, the darkness came back with a vengeance in Chicago during Monday's opening night of the Democratic National Convention. Staged as a somewhat awkward and late-running "Thank you Joe" celebration, Day One demonstrated that the party remains in thrall both to the millenarian temptation and its flip side of messianic zeal.
"We're facing inflection point, one of those rare moments in history when the decisions we make now will determine the fate of our nation and the world for decades to come," Biden barked, familiarly. "That's not hyperbole. I mean it literally. We're in a battle for the very soul of America."
As puzzling as it may seem to those scores of millions of us who never once voted for the man during his half-century in elected office, we heard serial testimonials during Biden's valedictory night about the president's soulcraft. "He has brought us together, and revived our country, and our country's soul," Convention Chair Minyon Moore claimed, improbably. Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) extolled the president's "determination to heal the soul of our nation." Daughter Ashley reassured us that "He never stops thinking about you."
If only these sentiments were merely the good-natured embellishments of retirement banquets. Democrats, as they did massively for former President Barack Obama and are already cranking up for Harris and Walz, positioned Biden as a benevolent, borderline omniscient parental figure, ennobling citizens with meaning through the munificence of their gaze.
"They saw us, they fought for us, they heard us," Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison said of Biden and Harris. The 2024 ticket, Harrison continued, "will invest in our hopes, and our dreams, and our futures." Hillary Clinton posited that "We're not just electing a president. We are uplifting our nation." California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis testified of the Democratic nominee that "She cares. She cares so much that if you are lucky enough to be her friend, she called you on her birthday, and sometimes she sings to you."
It was only the Democrats' miserable show-running organization that prevented Biden from being serenaded by James Taylor with a rendition of "You've Got a Friend," a song he also performed for Obama at the 2012 Democratic convention, and that Carole King dedicated to both Clinton and Bernie Sanders in 2016. These politicians seeking access to the nuclear codes are not some distant, calculating power-seekers, but rather neighborly types who just want to lend a hand!
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D–Ga.), a Baptist pastor, was the most effective at tying together the Democratic strands of millenarianism and messianism. After busting Trump's chops for hawking Bibles ("he should try reading it"), and alleging that the GOP nominee "is a clear and present threat to the precious covenant we share with one another," Warnock reached for the stars.
"I'm convinced tonight that we can lift the broken even as we climb," he said. "I'm convinced tonight that we can heal sick bodies. We can heal the wounds that divide us. We can heal a planet in peril, we can heal the land."
George Will produced a memorably relevant metaphor in the 2014 Ken Burns documentary The Roosevelts: An Intimate History. "The presidency," Will mused, "is like a soft leather glove, and it takes the shape of the hand that's put into it. And when a very big hand is put into it and stretches the glove—stretches the office—the glove never quite shrinks back to what it was. So we are all living today with an office enlarged permanently by Franklin Roosevelt."
So too goes the stretching of presidential speechcraft. Obama, with significantly more charisma than Biden or Harris could ever muster, expanded the modern rhetorical template with his 2008 convention speech, delivered against a backdrop of Greek columns in a 76,000-seat stadium, that climaxed with this rapturously hubristic close:
I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. This was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.
Just prior to Obama's rise, Gene Healy warned us about executive branch omnipotence in his terrific book (and Reason cover story) The Cult of the Presidency. "The chief executive of the United States," Healy wrote, "is no longer a mere constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise. He 'or she' is the one who answers the phone at 3 a.m. to keep our children safe from harm. The modern president is America's shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He's also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth."
Obama's successor Trump, after having campaigned on a Great Man Theory of politics, continued the modern tradition of playing overpromiser in chief. "Dying industries will come roaring back to life," he predicted in his 2017 speech in front of a Joint Session of Congress. "Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land. Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately stop. And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety and opportunity." Or not.
As Reason Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward remarked at the time, "This weirdly grandiose rhetoric is a reflection of a weirdly grandiose bipartisan conception of the powers of the president….Presidents do not make the earth move. They do not turn back tides. They do not heal the sick, or eliminate vice, or remake the nation. They are humans with human failings, and one of those failings is the inability to resist taking a big slurp of their own Kool-Aid in moments of triumph."
Investing our very souls into the fortunes of politicians is not the habit of a healthy civic culture. The people who compete for the right to control $7 trillion of money extracted from taxpayers upon threat of imprisonment are not your friends. The executives who sit atop the Justice Department, who have control over history's most powerful military, are not responsible for your hopes, your dreams, your healing. Imbuing elected officials with such spiritual potency is a recipe for self-infantilization, disappointment, and terrible executive-branch governance.
Presidential candidates will only stop promising to heal our souls when we stop asking them to. The long, slow climb out of our national sump hole requires not only that we treat pompous pols with the derision they deserve, but that we stop pouring our own aspirations into the career prospects of the politically ambitious.
Democrats will spend these next three days scaring voters both about Trump's legitimately scary behavior, and such Potemkin threats as Project 2025 (or as Sen. Jim Clyburn (D–S.C.) called it last night, "Jim Crow 2.0"). Such darkness is the regrettably typical stuff of politics, on both sides. It's when they imagineer a government headed by Kamala Harris to be an agent of spiritual healing that you should really reach for the gong.
The post Democrats Just Can't Quit Saving Our Souls appeared first on Reason.com.
On the first night of the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), speakers assembled to make the case for Vice President Kamala Harris to be America's next president and to provide a glimpse of what policies she might pursue. Unfortunately, it's clear that industrial policy is likely to survive and thrive in a Harris administration, despite clear examples that giving public money to private companies carries significant risk.
Some speakers took shots at former President Donald Trump, with Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers (UAW), invoking the closure of a General Motors (G.M.) plant in Lordstown, Ohio. G.M. shuttered the factory in March 2019 amid slowing sales; in July 2017, Trump had told supporters in Youngstown, "Don't move. Don't sell your house," because lost factory jobs would come back.
"Trump lied, and abandoned Lordstown," intoned the announcer of a video that played before Fain took the stage. "The G.M. factory in Lordstown did close, putting thousands of people out of work, because Donald Trump doesn't care about our communities."
"In 2023, who helped bring jobs back to Lordstown, Ohio?" Fain asked during his speech. "Kamala Harris!"
But it's worth noting that G.M. closed the factory just a decade after it received $60 million from the state of Ohio to operate the facility until at least 2039. When G.M. reneged on the deal barely 10 years later, Ohio chose to let the company keep $20 million.
Then between 2019 and 2023, the factory had another occupant: Lordstown Motors, an automaker that planned to build electric pickup trucks. The brand new company purchased the factory for $20 million after borrowing $40 million from G.M. Ohio officials, having not learned a lesson from the experience with G.M., gave Lordstown Motors $24.5 million in grants and tax credits.
And yet despite all the financial assistance, Lordstown Motors entered bankruptcy in June 2023.
"Today, tens of thousands of auto jobs are returning to the United States, thanks to the policies of the Biden-Harris administration," Fain said in a UAW video released last week. "That includes jobs in Lordstown, Ohio, where auto workers at Ultium Cells are now building batteries for General Motors."
Ultium is G.M.'s electric vehicle battery cell technology. "Ultium's Lordstown plant could qualify for tax credits worth more than $1 billion a year," according to a 2023 UAW report. And in 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy announced that it would loan the company $2.5 billion to build three factories, including the one in Ohio.
Ultium is also building a $2.6-billion factory in nearby Michigan, for which that state's government agreed to give the company $666 million. And Ultium was not the only company singled out at the convention.
"Trump talked big about bringing back manufacturing jobs, but you know who actually did it? President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris," New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said, moments after Fain spoke. "Look no further than the city of Syracuse, where a company called Micron is building a $100-billion microchip factory with union labor."
In October 2022, Micron pledged to spend $20 billion by the end of the decade to build what it deemed "the largest semiconductor fabrication facility in the history of the United States," signifying "the largest private investment in New York state history." The company further noted that it "intends to invest up to $100 billion over the next 20-plus years."
But the Biden administration agreed to award that company $6.1 billion in federal handouts for its Syracuse factory and one near Boise, Idaho. New York promised another $5.5 billion in state incentives.
Of course, it's entirely likely that these deals will be every bit as lucrative as promised: Micron alone promises that its Syracuse factory will "create nearly 50,000 New York jobs, including approximately 9,000 high paying Micron jobs." But at the time of this writing, Micron has a market cap of $118 billion, suggesting that it could've made the initial $20-billion investment without state and federal taxpayers picking up so much of the tab. Similarly, even though G.M. currently has a market cap of $52 billion and it has reneged on an economic development deal in the very recent past, it still continues to benefit from public cash.
With three more nights to go, the DNC will likely feature more policy proposals for a potential Harris administration. Unfortunately, the first night indicated that industrial policy is alive and well in the Democratic Party.
The post Industrial Policy Is Alive and Well at the Democratic National Convention appeared first on Reason.com.
After all the talk of abortion rights, protecting democracy, and how "fun" Vice President Kamala Harris apparently is, the first night of the Democratic National Convention culminated with a celebration of President Joe Biden's four years in office.
Biden "recovered all those millions of jobs that [Donald] Trump watched slip away," Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) declared. Biden "rebuilt the economy" after the pandemic put it "flat on its back," intoned Sen. Chris Coons (D–Conn.), a longtime Biden stan.
Biden himself put the cherry on top. "We've had one of the most extraordinary four years of progress ever," the president said. "We gone from economic crisis to the strongest economy in the entire world," he claimed, pointing to job creation figures, economic growth, higher wages, and "inflation down, way down, and continuing to go down."
If so, someone should probably tell Vice President Kamala Harris about all that.
Just four days ago, Harris outlined plans for gigantic government interventions in the economy, including price controls. In what was billed as the first major policy speech of her hastily assembled campaign, Harris promised to implement the "first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries" and to take other actions to empower the federal government to "bring down costs." (There's been some debate in the days since her speech about whether it is fair to say Harris has called for price controls, but economist Brian Albretch has laid out clearly why she in fact did, writing that "any policy that gives the government the power to decide what price increases are 'fair' or 'unfair' is effectively a price control system. It doesn't matter if you call it 'anti-gouging,' 'fair pricing,' or 'consumer protection'—the effect is the same. When bureaucrats, not markets, determine acceptable prices, we're dealing with price controls.")
There has been a lot written already about why price controls are a terrible idea, and more will be written in the days ahead. For now, let's take a moment to appreciate the head-spinning logic that Biden and Harris are asking voters to accept: that America's economy is stronger than ever—but is also in need of radical government action to substitute the wisdom of bureaucrats for the market's power to determine prices.
Price controls are not a policy people reach for when things are going great. Governors don't go around threatening businesses with prosecution for price gouging when there's not a hurricane or other natural disaster happening. The Soviet Union didn't implement price controls because everyone was wealthy and well-fed. Neither did Venezuela.
But that's what Harris doing. On Friday, she promised "harsh penalties" on businesses that engage in whatever she (or her administration) determines to be "price gouging" or the collection of "excessive" profits—even though her campaign has yet to explain how she would determine those things.
Harris' promise to combat high grocery prices was made just hours after the White House Chief Economic Advisor Jared Bernstein was standing in front of reporters and touting how low grocery price inflation has been: "This morning, it was about 1 percent year over year," he said at a press briefing on Wednesday. "And there are a number of items within there where we actually have deflation, falling prices of some groceries."
Did someone tell Harris?
In part, this confusion probably stems from the unusual situation that Harris' campaign finds itself. She is, for all intents and purposes, the incumbent candidate in the race, despite not being the sitting president. And she's running against another quasi-incumbent in former President Donald Trump. Typically, incumbents try to push the message that everything is going well, or at least getting better, while challengers say everything sucks and promise to make it better.
With voters discontented with the state of the economy, both Trump and Harris are trying to distance themselves from the mess they each had a hand in creating. But Democrats can't go all-in on "everything sucks" for the obvious reason that Biden, the actual incumbent, is a Democrat.
The actual economic signals are a mixed bag right now. Unemployment has ticked up, raising fears of a possible recession on the horizon. High interest rates have replaced high inflation, which means many Americans are still feeling a squeeze on their personal finances. Biden doesn't deserve the applause he's getting, but there's also not a crisis that would demand the sort of radical actions Harris is proposing, even if the actions she's proposing really worked.
And of course, those high prices are largely the fault of government overspending (backed by heavy borrowing) during and after the pandemic. If Harris wants to put controls on something that would actually provide relief to Americans, she should aim to restrict government borrowing rather than grocery store prices.
Instead, it looks like Democrats have settled on the idea that Biden saved the economy and now Harris is here to clean up the mess—and they're just hoping no one thinks too hard about it.
By the way, you don't have to break your brain trying to make sense of this. It's far easier simply to remember that presidents don't run the economy and shouldn't get credit and/or blame for every single economic indicator. (Though they can certainly influence events, as we'll see if Harris gets her way and implements some form of federal price controls.)
But if nothing else, this Democratic cognitive dissonance creates a fun game for the next three nights of the convention: Will the speakers keep telling us that America's economy is stronger than ever, or that the country is in a crisis and Harris needs to be our price-setter-in-chief?
The post If Joe Biden Saved the Economy, Why Do We Need Kamala Harris' Price Controls? appeared first on Reason.com.
I cannot get enough of the Democratic National Convention vasectomy van: Imagine, in an election where, thus far, one party has positioned itself as pro-family—to the point where "childless cat ladies" have become a focal point, brought to the fore by vice-presidential contender J.D. Vance's catty, mean-spirited cable news comments—the other party is parking vasectomy and abortion vans outside of the convention.
Technically, it's Planned Parenthood Great Rivers doing it, making reproductive rights—and the Republican Party's attack on them—a focal point of this convention. But Democrats are, more broadly, all over the place this first night of the DNC, as if they can't quite figure out what they're all about or where they want to go, whether they're the party of joy or a party that just dealt with a succession crisis, or a party that's riven by the Israel-Hamas conflict or a party that stands in defiance of purported Republican attacks on essential freedoms.
Consider the new ad, unveiled by Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign:
DNC airs new "Freedom" ad to kick off the Democratic Convention pic.twitter.com/lXLqKi2rAN
— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 20, 2024
But such an ad assumes Americans have short memories. Ones that forget all the regulations Democrats have imposed that have driven up housing costs. Ones that forget how people were not enjoying freedom when they were shut inside their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic, or forced to stay home from school and church, by blue-staters. Ones that forget the last decade of (Democrat-enforced) culture war language policing and hypersensitivity to all manner of grievance. Democrats aren't really the party of freedom, they're the party of dictating, in ways big and small, how you live, either for your own good or the greater good, as they define it.
What exactly are they for? The first night of the DNC was a good reminder of the party's schizophrenia. New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D–N.Y.) speech was excellent, proving that they have at least one promising young talent waiting in the wings. Formerly an outsider given a paltry 90-second speaking slot, Ocasio-Cortez has earned her spot as a Democratic Party mainstay, a primetime speaker whose name is chanted by an adoring arena. (This undeniable charisma is bad for the rest of us, mind you, as Ocasio-Cortez is economically illiterate and embraces Bernie Sanders-style socialism.)
At times, they veered away from light-touch diversity—a raft of speakers from all different backgrounds—and toward more explicit identity politics. Hillary Clinton's speech was all about shattering the glass ceiling. Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison emphasized that a "black convention chair and a black D.N.C. chair lead us in nominating a black and [Asian American and Pacific Islander] woman to be the next president," saying that "this election is about every little boy inspired by a party chair who looks like them, and every little girl who will finally see a president who looks like her." (I highly doubt young children are paying attention to the party chair.)
This emphasis—on being a candidate of firsts, on the "I'm with her" mentality—is especially interesting because it's one Harris has steered away from, ostensibly learning from the mistakes of Clinton's failed 2016 run. Ocasio-Cortez directly inverted this emphasis in her speech, shifting from voters being with the candidate to the candidate being with the voters. "If you are a working parent trying to afford rent and childcare, Kamala is for you," said Ocasio-Cortez. "If you are a senior who has to go back to work because your retirement didn't stretch far enough, Kamala is for you. If you're an immigrant family just starting your American story, Kamala is for you."
Everyone who covered 2016 will overthink that race forever, but AOC's "Kamala is for you" sounds like the inversion of "I'm with her."
— David Weigel (@daveweigel) August 20, 2024
Oh, and President Joe Biden also spoke. He didn't really say much of note. It was fine. But the fanfare was…aggressive, thanking Biden constantly for his service, for his leadership, for everything. Also, implicitly, for stepping aside and putting the presidency back in play.
The shenanigans also turned destructive: Outside of the security perimeter, protesters—a smaller turnout than was expected—succeeded at tearing down gates and fencing.
Tearing down the fence. Others trying to keep the peace pic.twitter.com/jgVU4WklS2
— Nancy Rommelmann (@NancyRomm) August 19, 2024
Things turned chaotic:
Last vid of the day. Two funny things: the protesters saying to the cops, "Don't hurt her!" and, once I wriggled out of the fencing (with the help of two dudes pulling me), who is standing there cool as a cucumber saying, "Hello Nancy" but @mcmoynihan. Hello from Chicago! pic.twitter.com/vjhFdnREj9
— Nancy Rommelmann (@NancyRomm) August 20, 2024
There were also some protesters inside:
Group of protesters with their backs turned to Biden and hands over their mouths. They're quiet. So far unmolested by officials or security. pic.twitter.com/VuKcwc1Kzc
— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) August 20, 2024
It remains to be seen how much trouble the protesters will cause, and how the situation in Gaza will be discussed on the main stage, but the protests outside were a decidedly inauspicious start.
Scenes from New York: Why does 3.5 grams of weed, purchased legally, cost $60 in New York, while unlicensed bodegas are selling for $40? Some of it also has to do with the federal, state, and local taxes (including 13 percent sales tax upon purchase) that must be forked over by dispensaries, as well as the security systems they must put in place to keep their wares safe. They're also trying to recoup the costs of legal fees and securing expensive licenses to operate legally.
Basically, everywhere a legit entrepreneur turns, the state has made it quite expensive for them to simply open up a cannabis business. And a big chunk of that cost gets passed down to the consumer.
Anarcho-brat flag flown at March on the DNC. pic.twitter.com/BFptgEUGa0
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) August 19, 2024
Wow, @micsolana nails it exactly. Amazing. @PirateWires for the win. pic.twitter.com/ikUrZrTJeZ
— benahorowitz.eth (@bhorowitz) August 19, 2024
The post All Aboard the Vasectomy Van appeared first on Reason.com.
[This is the seventh post in my series on my mission to Israel. You can read Parts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI.]
On the final day of our mission to Israel, we visited the headquarters of the IDF Spokesperson in Tel Aviv. This is the public affairs department of the Israeli military. We would attend a screening of surveillance footage of the October 7 attacks. This was a moment I had been thinking about since I agreed to go on the trip. Would I watch it? This descriptions in this post will be quite graphic, though I encourage you–for reasons that will be made clear at the end–to read on through.
To this day, people deny the Holocaust happened. Some claim the entire Shoach is a fiction. Others claims that there was some murders, but the number of deaths was been greatly exaggerated. Others assert that the German government was not behind the mass exterminations. And so on. What is remarkable is that people hold these views in the face of mountains of evidence. The Nazis were quite proud of their efforts, and documented their systematic efforts to wipe the Jewish people off the map. If you haven't visited the Holocaust museums in Washington, D.C. or New York, you should. And if you went a long time ago, you should go again.
Still, when you visit these institutions, all of the photographs are black-and-white, and the videos are grainy. Though we know these accounts are real, watching them feels like watching a history movie. Nearly nine decades removed, they seem like a thing of the past. And Holocaust deniers insist that these sources are doctored or manufactured.
October 7, 2023, however, is still raw and fresh. And much like the Nazis before them, Hamas was proud of their barbarism. They recorded their acts of terror with body-cameras. They livestreamed murders–often on their victims' phones. They shared on social media photos and videos of horrific acts. All in high definition! There are already specters of October 7th denialism–perhaps the most egregious is that the Hamas terrorists did not commit rapes because their religion forbids it. I saw this claim repeated in the press, without any skepticism. But Hamas documented their own atrocities.
In the wake of October 7, Israeli forces collected these photos and videos to document the horrors. Moreover, there were recordings by Israelis on dashboard cameras, doorbell cameras, and other surveillance systems. The Israeli government compiled these scenes into a single movie that stretches about fifty minutes. While many, if not most, of the individual clips can be found online, the compiled footage is kept under strict control. It is only exhibited at secure facilities to certain guests who are cleared.
Members of the Israeli military are not allowed to watch it. It is considered far too traumatic, and traumatizing for people who have lived through October 7. None of my family members in Israel had watched. They had no doubts about what happened on October 7, so why go through the pain of enduring the day again? My Rabbi told me not to watch it. There is a teaching to not cause any shame for dead people. He asked if the people who had been murdered in those videos would want me to watch them in such a terrible state. These were all fair points.
I thought long and hard about whether I would watch it. Initially, on a personal level, I was inclined not to. I do not like horror movies. Generally, if there is any movie with blood or gore, I turn it off. I can't even watch medical programs that depict surgery and other procedures. I close my eyes when I get a shot or have dental work. Yes, I am quite squeamish. There is an expression that is far too overused–"You can't unsee this!" But it is very apt for the surveillance video. I knew that these fifty minutes of pure, uncensored barbarism would haunt me for the rest of my life.
What turned me was a presentation I saw by Judge Roy Altman, who led a mission to Israel for federal judges. Altman described, in graphic detail, what he saw. He has given this lecture in many places, and it is moving. After the lecture, I asked Altman point blank if he regretted watching the videos. On one level, he did, as these images would never leave him. But on a deeper level, watching these videos made his message that much more powerful. Having witnessed the savagery, he could now spread the message around the globe. And this is not a second-hand account. He watched the video with his own eyes. And he didn't simply scan through a few clips on social media. He endured the entire curated film, with no break, in an Israeli military facility.
Altman's explanation persuaded me to watch it. I routinely lecture at law schools and other venues throughout the country. This year, I plan to talk about Israel–if any law school is brave enough to host me. (So far only a few takers.) I intend to relay the medieval acts of terror I witnessed. Having personally seen these clips will allow me to speak to the issue in a way I simply could not have by reading about it. I regret that I personally had to endure the screening. (Although whatever minor inconvenience I had pales in comparison to the suffering that happened on October 7, and to this day.) And to this day, I cannot forget what I saw. I recently watched the Deadpool-Wolverine movie. In one scene, a character decapitates another character, and holds the head up like a trophy. The audience roared in gruesome laughter. I didn't. I saw an actual video of a Hamas terrorist hacking off an innocent person's head, stretching out the skin, and dangling the head by the scalp as the lifeless body lay on the ground. But this was the choice I made, and I think it was the right one.
Not everyone on our mission watched the video. Several members of our mission excused themselves from the room before the screening began. I fully understand their decision. Everyone can bear witness to atrocities in the way that works for them. Indeed, even going to Israel was a risk, as our safety could not be fully assured at all junctures.
We would watch the movie in a military briefing room. This was not a cushy movie theater. We were seated in what looked like any law school classroom, with some large displays at the front of the room. There was a clock, which allowed us to keep track of time. I had to leave my phone in a locker outside, as recording was prohibited.
A female officer in the Spokesperson Unit gave a brief introduction. I understand that she is one of the few people in the military who has clearance to watch the video. I can't even fathom what trauma she endures by watching this video each and every day, as different delegations come through. She explained this was the twenty-third version of the video. Apparently, the earlier iterations were even more violent. They showed torture, including the cutting of breasts, a newborn who was shot in the head, and other acts of barbarism. Moreover, there was footage of genital mutilation. Some of the families objected. The faces on those clips were either blurred out, or the clips were removed altogether out of respect for the family. Just think that some video editor within the Israeli government had the harrowing task of winnowing down these clips.
The officer only gave a few preparatory remarks. One, that stuck with me, was how she described the terrorists. She used the word "glee." These were not soldiers who were performing a mission. They were not in any way struggling with their actions. They were joyful for having the chance to kill so many innocent Israelis. It was like they were playing a first-person shooter, but in real life. And they kept repeating one refrain over and over and over again. Allahu Akhbar. Allahu Akhbar. Allahu Akhbar. In almost every scene, the men repeated that phrase at the top of their lungs.
With those brief remarks, the officer started to play the video.
It is difficult to describe in words what I saw. During the fifty-minute video, I sat in stunned silence, with each scene worse than the one before. At a few junctures, I had to close my eyes. When I opened them, I hoped the particular scene would be over, but it wasn't. Occasionally, I would look around the room at the fellow law professors. They all had the same looked of being stunned and mortified. Some closed their eyes. Others put their heads in their hands.
Immediately after the video finished, I started to write down in a notebook everything I could recall. I knew that the particulars would evanesce from my mind, even if the general gore would remain. What follows is a scattered list of my recollections. It does not have any sort of pattern or coherent flow, as the actual surveillance video had none. And it is entirely possible that some of these recollections are composites–a few different scenes were seared together in my memory. But I remember each of these tragic events occurred.
The video concluded abruptly, without any notice. It was over. We were then given a short break. I was stunned. I walked out into the courtyard for some fresh air. A fellow law professor was crying on the ground. I gave him a hug, even though I felt about the same.
We were brought back into the classroom to discuss what we had witnessed. I didn't have many words. All I could think of was asking how the officer was able to watch this video day-in and day-out.
After the presentation, we had a briefing from some IDF military lawyers (MAG). I wrote about some of what I learned from the military lawyers here. In truth, I was pretty distracted, but I tried to pay attention as closely as I could. It amazed me that knowing how horrific these atrocities were, the military lawyers could still be so committed to these international institutions that treat Israel so unfairly.
Afterwards, we went to lunch with several of the soldiers from the Public Spokesperson division. One of them, Oriyah Solomon, was an Orthodox female who recently was married. Until recently, there was no obligation for observant Jews to serve, and certainly no expectation that "frum" women would serve. But she volunteered, in part to demonstrate that other religious women can serve their countries. I found her message inspiring.
Israel has not released this video to the general public. The fear is that if it is released, it would make a splash for a short period, and then quickly be forgotten. And, in turn, it would cheapen the atrocities. Some may actually valorize the killers, and it could be used as propaganda. Frankly, I do not think most people would have the stomach, or motivation to sit through the full hour of footage. They may watch a brief clip, and then shut it down. There was something meaningful in watching the clips at a secure facility, in a room full of interested people, with a military chaperone. I would never forget it.
The post Mission to Israel Part VII: The Surveillance Video appeared first on Reason.com.
8/20/1866: President Andrew Johnson proclaims an "end to insurrection in the United States."
The post Today in Supreme Court History: August 20, 1866 appeared first on Reason.com.
A few hours before touching down in Chicago Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris, in one of her few interactions with reporters since snatching the Democratic Party's presidential nomination from her boss, gave a meandering yet revealing answer to the simple question of how she would pay for her recently introduced economic proposals.
"What we're doing in terms of the [first-time homebuyer] tax credits, we know that there's a great return on investment," Harris asserted in Moon Township, Pennsylvania. "When we increase home ownership in America, what that means in terms of increasing the tax base, not to mention property tax base, what that does to fund schools—again, return on investment. I think it's a mistake for any person who talks about public policy to not critically evaluate how you measure the return on investment. When you are strengthening neighborhoods, strengthening communities, and in particular the economies of those communities, and investing in a broad-based economy, everybody benefits, and it pays for itself in that way."
Italics added, to emphasize America's ongoing mistakes.
Democrats begin their four-day national convention Monday in the city that perhaps best exemplifies the chasm between their party's dreamy policy rhetoric and grim real-world results. As a direct result of one-party misrule (there are zero Republicans on the 50-seat City Council), Chicago's tax base is decreasing, not increasing. The population has declined for nine consecutive years, is shrinking by an annual rate of 1 percent, and is at its lowest point in more than a century.
Illinois, where Democrats control the governorship and a two-thirds majority of the legislature, lost "an estimated $3.6 billion in income tax revenue in 2022 alone, a year the net loss of 87,000 residents subtracted $9.8 billion in adjusted gross income," syndicated columnist and Illinois native George Will observed last week. "In the past six years, $47.5 billion [adjusted gross income] has left….Illinois leads the nation in net losses of households making 200,000 or more."
None of these or other grisly Windy City stats—including the murders and the pension liabilities—are obscure. As Illinois Policy Institute Vice President Austin Berg put it Saturday night at a live taping of the Fifth Column podcast, "I believe Chicago is the greatest American city, and the worst-governed American city."
The bigger mystery has been why the Democratic Party would choose such a metaphorically dicey backdrop. But an answer begins to suggest itself amid the banal dystopia of the DNC's endless security checkpoints, concrete barriers, and battalions of police officers separating America's political class from its serfs. Democrats chose Chicago for a similar reason that Harris chose a running mate with a particularly awful record during the pandemic- and riot-scarred year of 2020: Because they, like their candidate, know that, contra Harris' assertion Sunday in Pennsylvania, the people who talk about policy—whether politician, journalist, or political consumer—almost never "critically evaluate how you measure the return on investment."
If professional political conversation was tethered even loosely to policy results, you might expect one or maybe even two of the journalists dutifully collecting their DNC press credentials at the colossal (and colossally empty) McCormick Place convention center to ask a follow-up question about what their eyeballs cannot miss. How in the world can a city in terminal financial crisis not just support the country's largest convention-center complex during a time of market oversupply and conventioneering decline, but actually keep expanding the damn thing?
The DNC's second major site (behind the United Center, which is hosting what you watch on television), "has been a political money pit for nearly 60 years," Berg wrote in 2019. Built in 1960, rebuilt after a 1967 fire, then expanded in 1986, 1997, 2007, and 2017, McCormick Place looks this week like the cover of a Mike Davis book—extensive security barricades and fencing separating the nearby poors from a depopulated, dully corporate expanse.
"Over and over, Chicago and Illinois public officials and a roster of consultants promised that a bigger McCormick Place would yield hundreds of thousands of new convention attendees and billions in new spending and public revenues," Heywood Sanders wrote in his 2014 book Convention Center Follies. "Those repeated promises have proved false, the consultant projections unmet."
Instead, like so many other Chicago governance failures, the unmet promises are covered over with taxes—on hotel room stays, restaurants, car rentals. In completely related news, a 2024 Wallet Hub study of effective state/local tax burden per median U.S. household income ranked Illinois dead last.
But the 2024 campaign is famously more about "vibes" than anything related to governance. The Harris/Walz campaign website still does not have a policy page (though the party did on Sunday release a draft platform). "I have not had a single constituent in El Paso or a single person on the road try to get very specific policy details from me," Harris campaign co-chair Rep. Veronica Escobar (D–Texas) told The New York Times. You're going to have to vote for a Harris administration to see what's in it.
Republican nominee Donald Trump famously did not even update the 2016 GOP platform when he ran unsuccessfully in 2020, suggesting that America has a supply problem when it comes to national politicians and policy accountability.
But don't sleep on demand. Trump fans love his boorish, bizarre, and often funny jokes, so he keeps making cracks about Kamala Harris' looks and Montana Sen. John Tester's fat stomach rather than stay as focused on issues as his advisors would prefer. Harris is getting cheered on by a subset of journalists for not subjecting herself to any kind of public cross-examination. And the residents of Chicago, looking upon both the civic dysfunction and the city's undeniable energy and charm, just keep on voting for more Democrats.
Americans may be getting precisely what they want out of politics in 2024. Good and hard.
The post Democrats Unburdened by What They Have Done to Chicago appeared first on Reason.com.
The post Monday Open Thread appeared first on Reason.com.
Gird your loins, it's DNC time: The Democratic National Convention starts today in Chicago, and the Israel/Palestine-related tensions that have been coursing through the left since October 7 may very well come to a head this week.
Tens of thousands of protesters are expected to set up right outside of security to protest the party's support of Israel; presumptive nominee Kamala Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff, who is Jewish, is expected to speak about Judaism on stage; and, just like during the Republican National Convention, some families of hostages taken by Hamas will plead onstage for the return of their loved ones.
Some delegates who eschewed voting for Kamala Harris, calling themselves the Uncommitteds, have broken from the party pick precisely because they do not support U.S. support for Israel in the Gaza war. The Uncommitted factor is especially relevant to Michigan, a swing state with a large Middle Eastern population, and Democratic officials have been attempting to make inroads with the vocal disgruntled in recent weeks; they want a DNC that signals unity, and the likelihood that massive protests will be taking place just outside the gates undermines this.
"The key question for Democrats this week is whether the demonstrators represent a meaningful group of voters who could swing the election in November, or if they are outliers on the left who should be resisted in an appeal to the center," sums up The New York Times.
Hamas rejects latest ceasefire proposal: On Sunday, following days of tense negotiating and Secretary of State Antony Blinken shlepping to Israel believing an agreement was imminent, Hamas rejected a proposed ceasefire deal with Israel.
"After being briefed by the mediators about what happened in the last round of talks in Doha, we once again came to the conclusion that Netanyahu is still putting obstacles in the way of reaching an agreement, and is setting new conditions and demands with the aim of undermining the mediators' efforts and prolonging the war," declared Hamas in a statement, adding that the U.S.-brokered ceasefire "aligns with" Israel's demands.
At issue is the fact that the ceasefire did not force full a Israeli withdrawal from the entirety of the Gaza Strip. Israel had proposed maintaining a large security presence on the border between Egypt and Gaza, as well as maintaining control over the Netzarim Corridor, which divides the Gaza Strip's north from its south.
Blinken has called this round of negotiations a "decisive moment" for Israel and Hamas. In the last few weeks, Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah, have vowed to strike Israel in retaliation for its July assassinations of Hezbollah official Fuad Shukr in Beirut and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. Thus far, wider war has been staved off, but it's unclear for how much longer that will last; the fact that negotiations were in progress may have played a contributing role. Now that may not be so.
Scenes from New York: One of the New York City hospital systems, Northwell Health, is starting a studio to make its own movie and TV shows following the success of the Netflix show Lenox Hill, which followed doctors and patients within the system. But just a few years ago, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center had to pay out a more than $2 million settlement to federal regulators for failing to protect patient privacy when a television crew was filming inside the hospital. Expect more issues, both ethical and legal, to arise.
The post DNC Readies for Protesters appeared first on Reason.com.
[After a brief hiatus, this is the sixth post in my series on my mission to Israel. You can read Parts I, II, III, IV, and V.]
It is difficult to describe the extent to which October 7 impacted the psyche of Israelis. In particular, there is a constant awareness of the hostages. Walls and billboards throughout the country are plastered with the familiar sign: the person's name and age in red letters against a white background; a photograph of the person in happier times; and bold letters: "Bring Him/Her Home Now!"
From the moment you get off the airplane, you see over one hundred posters lining the ramp to customs.
Various locations curate different ways of remembering the hostages. At the National Library of Israel, a poster of each hostage was placed on a chair, with a book that person enjoyed. For the Bibas brothers, who were nine months and four years old when kidnapped, they had kid chairs and kid books.
The signs appear everywhere. The only experience that I can slightly relate to was the prevalence of American flags after 9/11. At least in New York, I think almost every kid brought an American flag to school for at least some period after the terrorist attacks. But eventually that patriotism faded; or, as I learned a new word, the patriotism became jingoism.
Artists also created illustrated versions of the sketches.
Again, the drawing of the Bibas brothers was especially heart-breaking. The younger son has now spent more of his life as a hostage than outside.
During our mission, we visited the headquarters of the Hostage & Missing Family Forum. This organization sprung up in the wake of October 7 to advocate for the interest of families of those who were taken hostage, as well as those whose bodies were missing in Gaza. In a fairly short period of time, a sophisticated operation developed.
This board depicts all of the various media outlets the group has appeared on.
But there are divisions. Not everyone agrees what "Bring them home now!" means. Is this message an ultimatum to Hamas? Or an ultimatum to the Netanyahu government?
Even among Israelis, there is a stark disagreement about how to handle the hostage situation. In years past, Israel went to great lengths to bring back hostages, including by releasing many dangerous prisoners--including Yahya Sinwar, who has become the head of Hamas. What is the cost of bringing back the hostages? What is the cost of not bringing back the hostages? These questions are exceptionally difficult. I think media coverage only shows the side of the poor families who want their loved ones brought home at any cost. But, as with any public policy decision, costs are never so easily balanced.
We met with one woman whose nephew, a soldier, was kidnapped on October 7. She described the agony of not knowing whether he was dead or alive. They held a funeral for him, with an empty casket. She later found out that he had been killed, but at the time, did not know where his body was.
Shortly after our trip, the body of Staff Sgt. Tomer Yaakov Ahimas, 20 was recovered from Gaza and brought to Israel. They were able to hold a proper funeral with Tomer's remains.
I will continue this series tomorrow with a post about the restricted surveillance tapes.
The post Mission to Israel Part VI: The Hostages appeared first on Reason.com.
When you've caused a problem, deflect! At least, that seems to be the strategy of Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, who spent the last several years as part of an administration that presided over a growing mismatch between Americans' pay and the cost of living. Rather than take responsibility for the decline of the dollar's purchasing power, she blames businesses that were forced to raise prices as a result. And she wants to fix the problem she helped cause by restricting those prices, never mind the inevitable consequences for the availability of goods and services.
First though, let's journey back to 2023 when Harris claimed to be proud of the state of the economy.
"That is called Bidenomics, and we are very proud of Bidenomics," she insisted last August in a speech where she also trumpeted, "the unemployment rate is near its lowest level in over half a century. Wages are up. Inflation has fallen 12 months in a row."
Now though, the vice president and would-be chief executive huffs, "When I am President, it will be a day one priority to bring down prices. I'll take on big corporations that engage in illegal price gouging and corporate landlords that unfairly raise rents on working families."
And that's exactly what she proposed in her speech last week which recognized concerns over the cost of living and included a host of schemes for greater government involvement in the economy, including "the first ever federal ban on price gouging on food" amidst worries over grocery bills.
It's nice that Harris recognized Americans' concerns over making ends meet. Less nice, though, was pretending that cost concerns are a result of mean corporations rather than bad policy. Also not so nice is her insistence on doubling down on bad policy with even worse cost controls.
Let's emphasize that there's little doubt government policy is at the root of inflation.
"Inflation comes when aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply," wrote economist John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution and the Cato Institute in a March piece for the International Monetary Fund. "The source of demand is not hard to find: in response to the pandemic's dislocations, the US government sent about $5 trillion in checks to people and businesses, $3 trillion of it newly printed money, with no plans for repayment."
"Fiscal stimulus boosted the consumption of goods without any noticeable impact on production, increasing excess demand pressures in good markets," admitted the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as early as July 2022. "As a result, fiscal support contributed to price tensions."
Even Jim Tankersley and Jeanna Smialek of The New York Times, a paper which almost reflexively supports Democrats, concede "most economists" say that factors including "snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns, and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve…are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices."
And the rise in prices is substantial. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic's inflation calculator shows that in July 2024, it took $120.25 to buy what $100 purchased in January 2021 when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris took office. That's on average; some sectors have seen greater or lesser inflation.
Especially when it comes to groceries, it's difficult to make a case for "price gouging." A New York University Stern School of Business annual survey shows a net profit margin of 1.18 percent for retail grocery stores last year. That's down a bit from when the Biden administration took office (you can check annual data here). Kroger, the industry giant that is frequently portrayed as a greedy bogeyman, recently enjoyed a slightly higher net profit margin of 1.43 percent; over the last 15 years, its profits briefly reached as high as 3.02 percent in 2018. (The Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome does a good dive into food-industry economics on X.)
So much for Harris's deflection. But then there's her scheme for price controls to address the higher prices brought by government policy. Such controls have such a well-documented track record that they heap stupidity onto Harris's dishonesty.
In 2022, when inflation was surging and the dollar's declining purchasing power had many Americans looking for the sort of "solutions" that Harris now offers, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis economist Christopher J. Neely pointed out that schemes for government-imposed price controls date back to the Code of Hammurabi and "have costs whose severity depends on the broadness of the control and the degree to which it changes the price from the free-market price."
Free market prices, he emphasized, "allocate scarce goods and services to buyers who are most willing and able to pay for them" and "signal that a good is valued and that producers can profit by increasing the quantity supplied." In the absence of such allocation and signals, you get shortages of goods and services. With grocery stores, that means empty shelves—little to buy at the controlled prices.
There's more to it than that. Neely pointed out that you also get cheapened goods to reduce production costs, gamesmanship to get around rules, and black markets that entirely defy the law. He recommended that "price controls should stay in the history books."
The Washington Post editorial board, usually as protective of Democrats as the Times, agrees. It pointed out that Harris didn't define what constituted the "excessive" profits she wanted to target and that "thankfully, this gambit by Ms. Harris has been met with almost instant skepticism, with many critics citing President Richard M. Nixon's failed price controls from the 1970s."
From the Code of Hammurabi to former President Nixon, with a detour for the Roman Emperor Diocletian—who, economist John Cochrane notes, torpedoed production and trade with price restrictions—such controls have been irresistible for government officials. That's because bad economics all too often makes for good—or, at least, effective—public relations. People who tell pollsters they think corporations are raking in 36 percent profits (the real average across industries is closer to 8 percent) can be convinced by clever politicians that they're being ripped off and need government intervention.
What politicians won't admit is that it's their own policies that put the public in distress to begin with, and that their latest schemes, if implemented, will make matters worse.
The post Kamala Harris' Dishonest and Stupid Price Control Proposal appeared first on Reason.com.
8/19/1937: Justice Hugo Black takes the oath.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: August 19, 1937 appeared first on Reason.com.
8/18/1920: The Nineteenth Amendment is ratified.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: August 18, 1920 appeared first on Reason.com.
8/17/1988: Republican party nominates George H.W. Bush for President. He would appoint David Souter and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: August 17, 1988 appeared first on Reason.com.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
Peter and Annica Quakenbush want to use their 20-acre property in rural Brooks Township, Mich. as a green cemetery and nature preserve, but township officials banned all cemeteries to stop them. This week, however, a state trial court noted that it's "Zoning 101" in Michigan that officials can't ban legitimate land uses—and ruled from the bench that the county is violating the state constitution. A rational-basis win at the motion-to-dismiss stage? Eureka! Click here to learn more.
New case! Indiana's state motto is "The Crossroads of America," and for years Indiana police have exploited one of the nation's biggest shipping hubs to profit from that status―plucking parcels en route from the East Coast to the West, subjecting them to K-9 sniffs, opening them, and, if they contain money, suing to forfeit the money in Indiana state courts. What violation of Indiana law supports these forfeitures? Indiana doesn't say. Since 2022, the state has sued to forfeit more than $2.5 mil in this way. Now, IJ has teamed up with a small California jewelry company (whose money was recently snatched up in Indiana) to file a class-action lawsuit and put a stop to Indiana's money grab.
New case! Friends, do you love meat but have ethical or environmental qualms about the more than 34 million cows and 8 billion chickens killed annually to satisfy America's appetite for it? Then you're the sort of consumer UPSIDE Foods wants to appeal to with cultivated chicken, which is grown from real chicken cells without the need to kill animals and has been greenlit for interstate sale by the FDA and USDA. The state of Florida, however, is not a fan: At the behest of in-state agricultural interests, it recently banned cultivated meat from the state. But Florida can't wall itself off from the interstate market just to please favored in-state interests. So this week IJ and UPSIDE joined forces to challenge this protectionist ban. Learn more here.
The post Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions appeared first on Reason.com.
Move over Lincoln Project and Republicans Against Trump! Republicans are joining the Kamala Harris campaign in droves, forming a new anti-Trump group called "Republicans for Harris."
Some of the GOP's pro-Harris members include former U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, former Republican Congress members Adam Kinzinger, Joe Walsh, and Susan Molinari, former governors Governors Jim Edgar, Bill Weld, and Christine Todd Whitman, and former Trump staffers Stephanie Grisham and Olivia Troye. — Read the rest
The post B'Bye Trump! Many in GOP — including former Trump staffers — join "Republicans for Harris" appeared first on Boing Boing.
As Kamala Harris contemplates her choice of Vice President today, some Republicans are choosing her, including former White House aides to then-president Donald Trump and former GOP congresspersons.
In its Sunday announcement, the Harris campaign also included dozens of prominent current or former Republican figures, some of which now identify with a different party, who have already endorsed the vice president.
The post More Republicans endorse Kamala Harris appeared first on Boing Boing.
Flailing, the Trump Campaign attempted to spin the disastrous story of Vance yelling at his son to shut up so he could accept the job of VP to "America's Hitler."
By now, we all know that JD Vance chose to be Trump's Vice President over helping his son catch all the Pokemon. — Read the rest
The post Trump campaign fails to spin JD Vance yelling at his son into a heartwarming story appeared first on Boing Boing.
Candidate for President Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shared a video recounting the previously little-known tale of "When RFK Jr. dumped a dead bear in Central Park."
Still perhaps a better candidate than Donald Trump, but not by far, RFK Jr. posted a video of himself telling a weird story on social media. — Read the rest
The post RFKjr recalls that time he dumped a dead bear in Central Park appeared first on Boing Boing.
The first domino: A bad U.S. economic outlook, reflected in Friday's jobs report, helped prompt major stock sell-offs globally over the weekend.
"Japanese stocks collapsed on Monday in their biggest single day rout since the 1987 Black Monday sell-offs," reports Reuters, with the Nikkei 225 index falling 12.4 percent and the Topix index falling 12.2 percent. The Kospi index in South Korea fell more than 10 percent. Equity markets felt the pain in Taiwan, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and China, though to a lesser degree. "At one point, the plunge in Japanese and Korean stocks tripped a 'circuit breaker' mechanism that halts trading to allow markets to digest large fluctuations," reports The New York Times. "But even after those mandatory breathers, the sell-off in stocks seemed to accelerate. Jitters spread to the debt market, prompting a halt in trading in Japanese government bonds as well."
Wall Street's "fear gauge"—the VIX—jumped to its highest level since 2020, when the pandemic prompted a wild market fluctuation. "The market response is a reflection of the deteriorating U.S. economic outlook," Jesper Koll, a director at financial services firm Monex Group, told the Times. "It was a New York sneeze that forced Japanese pneumonia."
The U.S. jobs report, released Friday, found that hiring slowed significantly in July. Unemployment continued its slow creep upward—4.3 percent, the highest since October 2021—and wage growth eased a bit. The jobs report also revised the May and June numbers downward, by a combined 29,000 jobs, indicating that the July downshift did not come out of nowhere. It also "stoked fear of a coming recession" due to something known as the "Sahm Rule," named for economic Claudia Sahm, who identified in 2019 a useful recession indicator that our July jobs report has unfortunately met (more on that from Reason's Eric Boehm).
Inflation has showed plenty of signs of cooling a bit, responding to Federal Reserve rate hikes, but the jobs report means a rate cut "could be on the table" as soon as September, according to Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
In other words, the aspirational "soft landing"—a cooling down of inflation without triggering a recession—may not in fact be materializing. And these American warning signs are leading to global ripple effects.
Bloomberg's Joe Weisenthal has, I think, the smartest and most concise take on what's going on, for those who indulge:
10 THOUGHTS ON TODAY'S BIG MARKET SELOFF
In today's 5 Things newsletter, I jotted down a bunch of random stuff about this moment in stocks, crypto, FX, and macro.
Here they are
1) It was clear instantly on Wednesday that Powell was going to be offsides this market: pic.twitter.com/iJ6ipo7Grc
— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) August 5, 2024
Scenes from New York: Will Rudy Giuliani's real estate save him?
This is the most French possible thing that could have happened when Paris hosted the Olympics:
Running with a really stupid idea because it sounds cool, then somehow ending up fucking over the Belgians. https://t.co/K6Id4CUVV5
— Tom (@Lawmadillo) August 5, 2024
Nirvana's Nevermind was released 12,000 days ago. Its release date is closer chronologically to Fidel Castro taking control of Cuba than to today.
— Dan Szymborski (@DSzymborski) August 1, 2024
The post Markets in Panic appeared first on Reason.com.
8/5/1974: Shortly after the Supreme Court decided United States v. Nixon, President Nixon released the "smoking gun" tape recorded in the Oval office.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: August 5, 1974 appeared first on Reason.com.
The post Monday Open Thread appeared first on Reason.com.
8/4/1961: President Barack Obama's birthday. He would appoint two Justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: August 4, 1961 appeared first on Reason.com.
GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump backed out of the scheduled Sept. 10 debate on ABC News with Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. But that's OK: he unilaterally decided to have one with her on Fox News instead, in front of a crowd in an arena. — Read the rest
The post Trump, chickening out of ABC debate, wants one on Fox News instead appeared first on Boing Boing.
If you think Kamala Harris or Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was the first to notice the weird in Trump, you'd be wrong. The 78-year-old crackpot was slapped with the fitting label on national television back in 2006, when he admitted on The View that he lustfully fantasized about his own 16-year-old daughter, Ivanka Trump. — Read the rest
The post Trump was slapped with "weird" label back in 2006, while lusting over daughter Ivanka (video) appeared first on Boing Boing.
You know, I'm starting to think Trump's racist tantrum at the NABJ convention on Wednesday wasn't intended to take attention away from Kamala Harris and direct it towards him. It was intended to take attention away from JD Vance and direct it towards him. — Read the rest
The post JD Vance's attempt to insult Josh Shapiro backfires spectacularly (video) appeared first on Boing Boing.
During an interview on a podcast, MAGA Party Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance discussed his parenting style, which includes telling his 7-year-old to "shut the hell up" when the child is speaking about something that interests him.
Here's the clip:
I'm like, "oh no."
The post JD Vance brags that he told his 7-year-old to "shut the hell up"about Pokemon when Trump called him (video) appeared first on Boing Boing.
In his desperation for campaign cash, Trump is courting crypto bros by promising that he will be nice to them when he becomes President. Last week, he spoke at a conference for Bitcoin enthusiasts and pretended to know what Bitcoin is and how it works. — Read the rest
The post "Intellectually very high level": Watch Trump's hilarious attempt to understand Bitcoin appeared first on Boing Boing.
An energized Harris campaign more than doubled Trump's July fundraising.
The Harris campaign has raised a record-breaking $310 million in record time. New and smaller donors are helping fund the campaign, while Trump's enthusiasm seems to be waning. Getting outraised in the month, the Republicans held their convention by a fresh out-the-gates candidate has to hurt. — Read the rest
The post Kamala Harris far out raises Donald Trump in July appeared first on Boing Boing.
8/3/1994: Justice Stephen Breyer takes oath.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: August 3, 1994 appeared first on Reason.com.
Vice President Kamala Harris is expected to announce her running mate next week. She is reportedly considering several governors who theoretically appeal to moderate voters in the swing states: Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear. Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg are also in the mix.
Which of these individuals would be best from a libertarian perspective is not as clear cut as it was on the Republican side, where North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum was obviously better than the alternatives. (Unfortunately, former President Donald Trump selected Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, whose distinguishing feature is his contempt for libertarian economic policies.) Nevertheless, it's possible to parse them.
First, the national figures. Unlike the other names on the list, Buttigieg is actually a member of the current administration and has been responsible for implementing federal policies. Unfortunately, his tenure as Transportation secretary will not be remembered as particularly libertarian. While he has signaled openness to tearing down bureaucratic "barriers" in the wake of transportation-related disasters, he has not made any serious attempts to grapple with said bureaucracy. On the contrary, when things have gone wrong, he has reserved most of his ire for private companies like Southwest Airlines and Norfolk Southern, rather than the outdated and meddlesome regulators who make their jobs more difficult.
Buttigieg comes across as a technocrat rather than a progressive: He appears to believe that smart, capable people like himself should run the government and make things more efficient. When he pursued the presidency in 2020, liberal news site Vox described him as a "product of the meritocracy" and did not intend it as a compliment. He enrages the left, but this does not make him a friend to liberty, amusing though it is. His foreign policy views also seem somewhat more hawkish than other standard-issue Democrats, which is not an improvement.
Then there's Kelly. As an astronaut and the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D–Ariz.)—who was grievously wounded after being shot in the head by a deranged gunman—he is certainly an inspiring figure. However, his political positions are mostly in line with his party. He has voted in support of President Joe Biden's approved policies 95.5 percent of the time. On energy and environmental issues, he has deviated from the progressive wing of the party: He opposes the Green New Deal and has voted in favor of increased oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. On the other hand, he is one of the more outspoken Democrats on gun control.
Arizona's U.S. senators have tended to be more individual-minded, bipartisan, and independent: see Kyrsten Sinema. For those reasons, Kelly might be slightly preferable to some of the other options.
Now for the governors. Walz and Beshear were both elected in 2018 and thus have longer records than Shapiro, who became governor of his state just last year. Alas, their tenures are not particularly inspiring, as both of them overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic—providing an opportunity to implement policies that were anathema to liberty.
Walz implemented many of the same heavy-handed, liberty-infringing mitigation policies as other blue state governors; he also maintained a government hotline for people to call and report their neighbors for violating social distancing rules. When Republicans complained about it, he replied: "We're not going to take down a phone number that people can call to keep their families safe." This alone should be disqualifying.
For his part, Beshear attempted to keep lockdowns, mask mandates, and school closures in place—well into the pandemic. In fact, he reimposed masks on public school students in August 2021, saying, "We are to the point where we cannot allow our kids to go into these buildings unprotected, unvaccinated and face this delta variant." This is also disqualifying.
It's nice that Walz and Beshear are supportive of legalizing, or at least decriminalizing, marijuana. But it's hard to look past the whole wrestling-masks-onto-5-year-olds thing. The best thing to be said for them is that they are not Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
That leaves Shapiro, who has had mercifully less time in office to do things that would offend libertarians. To his credit, he has supported several encouraging initiatives. One of his first actions after taking office was to eliminate the college degree requirement for government jobs. He also made some small progress on reforming the state's occupational licensing system. He is a supporter, to a degree, of school choice; he ultimately vetoed a voucher bill after facing significant pressure from teachers unions, however.
Given how popular he is in Pennsylvania—a must-win state for Harris—Shapiro has emerged as the likeliest veep pick in recent days. Like Buttigieg, Shapiro seems to make the far-left very upset: The New Republic called him "The One Vice Presidential Pick Who Could Ruin Democratic Unity." While that sounds entertaining enough, the main knock on him from the left is that he harshly condemned the recent pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses and is vocally supportive of Israel. For libertarians who would like to see the U.S. become less involved in Middle Eastern affairs and stop spending American tax dollars on costly foreign wars, these are reasonable concerns.
At the same time, it's hard to imagine Vice President Shapiro steering a markedly different course on foreign policy than any of the other options; on most other issues, he is slightly better. All this contributes to a weak—very weak—libertarian preference for Shapiro.
The post Josh Shapiro Is Kamala Harris' Best Bet for Veep appeared first on Reason.com.
Update: About 14 hours after Rittenhouse shared his video explaining his support for Ron Paul, declaring that "you must stand by your principles," he announced that he spoke "with members of the Trump's [sic] team" and that he is now "100% behind Donald Trump."
"A lot of people are upset that I said I'm going to be writing in Ron Paul for president of the United States, and that is true. I will be writing in Ron Paul." So said Kyle Rittenhouse in a recent video posted to X. A lot of people, it appears, are indeed upset. Should they be?
Rittenhouse catapulted to national attention in 2020 when, at age 17, he armed himself, traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a night of riots and civil unrest, and shot three men, killing two. It was always Rittenhouse's contention that he'd acted in self-defense, and his arrest galvanized many in the conservative movement who said the prosecution was motivated not by justice but by the political moment. Supporters helped raise $2 million for Rittenhouse's bail, and he ultimately attracted the attention of former President Donald Trump, who defended him while in office and who hosted Rittenhouse at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House.
So one of the primary reactions to Rittenhouse's choice for president is that he's guilty of betrayal. Trump and the MAGA movement had his back when his life took its most dire turn, the thinking goes, so Rittenhouse owes them his loyalty at the ballot box. That general sentiment is summed up aptly by the one-and-only Catturd: "I can stomach a lot of things—but backstabbing millions who supported you at your lowest point. Then turning on Trump right after he got shot," he said in a viral post. "Can't stomach it—won't put up with it—forgotten forever."
In other words, Rittenhouse is allegedly in debt to Trump and his followers for supporting his claims of innocence. He was acquitted in 2021 of all charges, including first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, first-degree intentional homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide. That was the right decision. And it was the one the jury came to because that is what the evidence clearly supported. The right to self-defense is not selectively available to people with certain views. Rittenhouse owes no one a thing for not getting convicted of charges that prosecutors should not have brought to begin with.
So why did Trump fail to gain Rittenhouse's support? "Unfortunately, Donald Trump had bad advisers making him bad on the Second Amendment, and that is my issue," he said in his video. "If you cannot be completely uncompromisable on the Second Amendment, I will not vote for you." Trump's record includes a bump stock ban, which Reason's Jacob Sullum noted turned "peaceful gun owners into felons by fiat," and his support for red flag laws. Those moves may not be deal-breakers for many people, including other staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. They apparently are for Rittenhouse. It's his one vote, and he can do with it what he wants.
Yet his announcement also elicited what has become the predictable response, on both the left and the right, to similar defections from the mainstream: You're helping elect the other guy. For one, that vastly overstates the power of a vote—an unpopular thing to say, sure, but true nonetheless. And it's particularly true for Rittenhouse, who lives in the Dallas–Fort Worth area; if he's casting his vote there, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it will not derail Trump's electoral victory in Texas, which is almost assured.
But even if it were true that Rittenhouse's vote would have some sort of Earth-shattering effect on the outcome of the 2024 election, a vote is earned. It's an expression of support. If neither mainstream option can produce a platform that is sufficiently palatable to someone, they certainly have the prerogative to make that known—by supporting someone else or, gasp, not voting altogether.
After all, no one is entitled to your vote. They're not entitled to it simply because they're a member of a particular political party, and they're not entitled to it for supposedly being less bad than the other side. And they're certainly not entitled to it just because they said supportive things about you in a time of need.
The post Nobody Owes Trump Their Vote. Not Even Kyle Rittenhouse. appeared first on Reason.com.
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
New cert petition! In 2013, a Clovis, Calif. officer disclosed to a fellow officer that his girlfriend had filed a confidential domestic violence complaint against him—knowing full well that she was trapped in a room with him at that very moment. He then brutally attacked her. And though the Ninth Circuit ruled earlier this year that it was "obvious" that disclosing the report put her in grave danger, it granted the first officer qualified immunity anyway, finding that no factually identical prior case gave the officer fair notice the disclosure was unconstitutional. The decision reinforces a circuit split and also conflicts with Supreme Court precedent that says a factually identical case is not necessary in situations where an official has time and opportunity to deliberate (as opposed to a split-second decision on the use of force). Today, IJ asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.
Is school choice racist? Did it originate with post-Brown v. Board opposition to public school integration? Shameful mistruths! IJ Senior Attorney Michael Bindas takes to the Syracuse Law Review and sets the record straight.
Over at the Advisory Opinions podcast, IJ's Anthony Sanders indicts Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who turns out to have been a bit of a bad egg Constitution-wise.
New case! In 2009, officials tried to install a new sewer line on Melisa and Michael Robinson's property, a small mobile home community they own and operate in Okay, Oklahoma. But they made a hash of it! They didn't grade the pipes properly, and sewage backed up into the homes. They hit an underground power line, killing the power and blowing out tenants' refrigerators and air conditioners. Moreover, officials never bothered to obtain the necessary easement or even notify the Robinsons before they started digging. All of which, after 13 years of litigation, led to the Oklahoma Supreme Court (and a jury) declaring the whole thing to be an unconstitutional taking. The Robinsons are now owed over $200k, but—and here's where IJ comes in—the town says it does not have to pay and that court-ordered judgments are merely unenforceable IOUs. Fiddlesticks! The Fifth Amendment is made of sterner stuff, and the gov't must pay for what it takes. Click here to learn more.
The post Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions appeared first on Reason.com.
Israeli victories: Yesterday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said its airstrikes in mid-July killed Mohammed Deif, a key Hamas operative and one of the masterminds behind the October 7 attacks.
On Wednesday, Ismail Haniyeh, another senior Hamas official, was killed by a bomb smuggled into a guesthouse in Tehran, Iran. Israel has claimed responsibility for the attack. "The bomb had been hidden approximately two months ago in the guesthouse, according to five of the Middle Eastern officials," reports The New York Times, also noting that it was detonated remotely. "The guesthouse is run and protected by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and is part of a large compound, known as Neshat, in an upscale neighborhood of northern Tehran."
A third victory for Israel was notched this week, with the killing of Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah operative, who was killed in a strike on Beirut.
Back in April, an Israeli hit on Iranian officials in Syria led to direct strikes being exchanged, though they were showy in nature, designed more to make a statement than to actually do intense damage. Now, it remains to be seen how these groups—proxies of Iran—will respond to Israel's success in taking out these targets, as well as the fact that Haniyeh was taken out in Tehran.
"Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued an order for Iran to strike Israel directly, in retaliation for the killing of Mr. Haniyeh in Tehran, according to three Iranian officials briefed on the order," reports the Times. "It is unclear how forcefully Iran will respond, and whether it will calibrate its attack to steer clear of escalation, as it did in April with a barrage of missiles and drones that was telegraphed well in advance."
"We are on the verge of a large, large-scale escalation," Danny Citrinowicz, who used to helm the Iran branch for Israeli military intelligence, told The Wall Street Journal. "Iran is leading the axis, and they cannot protect one of the leaders of the axis coming for [incoming President Masoud] Pezeshkian's inauguration."
Now, President Joe Biden's administration claims it is hard at work deescalating tensions in the Middle East to stave off war. But, for those who've been following domestic politics, questions remain about the degree to which Biden—the 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. workday president—is even capable of handling a pressing foreign policy issue such as this one.
Scenes from New York: "Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Lyle Frank ruled on Thursday that the Council lacked the authority to expand access to the CityFHEPS voucher program for people facing eviction or homelessness to New Yorkers who earn above what current rules allow," reports Gothamist. "Tenants who receive CityFHEPS assistance typically pay 30% of their income toward rent, and city-funded vouchers cover the rest."
BREAKING: Abraham Hamadeh wins Republican nomination for U.S. House in Arizona's 8th Congressional District. #APRaceCall at 5:27 p.m. MST. https://t.co/FjgpZFcJ4E
— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) August 1, 2024
The @WSJ's piece about the secret negotiations to free Evan Gershkovich ends with an incredible anecdote: pic.twitter.com/wM7aWu44tu
— David Gura (@davidgura) August 1, 2024
The post The IDF's Big Week appeared first on Reason.com.
Vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance's book, Hillbilly Elegy, came out in 2016—a few months before Donald Trump won a surprising presidential victory thanks in part to widespread support from within the Appalachian hollers that Vance wrote about. Although he grew up in southwestern Ohio, Vance's family was from the mountains of hard-scrabble eastern Kentucky.
"Elegy" offers a thought-provoking account of the difficulty poor people face as they try to transcend their circumstances. "How much of our lives, good and bad, should we credit to our personal decisions, and how much is just the inheritance of our culture, our families, and our parents who have failed their children?" he asked. The movie was less compelling, but it reinforced that point.
Trump recently said the book was about society's unfair treatment of working class men and women, but that suggests he never read it. Actually, the book focused on the ways poor people often sabotage their fleeting opportunities and blame others for their predicament. Vance went on to become a Marine, attend Ohio State, and earn a law degree from Yale.
My wife devoured the book—and was particularly moved by Vance's depictions of his awkward attempts to fit in among his classmates. She also grew up in a small coal town in Appalachia. Her lumberman father died young, leaving a wife and six daughters to subsist on government aid. Like Vance, she received a scholarship. When I met her at George Washington University, she had never taken a taxi, been in an elevator, or dined at a fancy restaurant.
Unfortunately, author Vance seems far different from vice-presidential nominee Vance. Power is tempting, but Donna and I have nevertheless cringed as he has espoused positions that seem at odds with his book's central point. Instead of recognizing that the American Dream is alive and well—and all of her sisters have lived successful lives—he now blames outsiders for the plight of the working class.
Vance also pitches big-government economic "populist" ideas and engages in nativism. His critics have pointed to his apparent hypocrisy. After all, he's a middle-class Midwestern suburbanite who attended an Ivy League school, married the daughter of immigrants, and is backed by Bay Area techies. I suspect his embrace of an ideology explains this shift more than raw ambition.
Tell-tale signs come from his speech at the Republican National Convention: "America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future. … (W)hen we allow newcomers into our American family, we allow them on our terms." He said that generations of Kentuckians died in wars and are buried in his family's cemetery, noting that, "People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their homes."
I've read myriad critiques on some of Vance's statements, including noxious ones blasting childless cat ladies. That's basically right-wing edge-lording. But the fiercest critique comes in an Atlantic column addressing Vance's "insult to America." Writer Jessica Gavora recalls her dad's harrowing escape from Czechoslovakia after Soviet forces overran it: "My dad came here for a reason, and it wasn't the dirt of a graveyard."
I agree with Gavora, but then again my dad fled Nazi Germany and my maternal grandparents fled Russian pogroms. Almost all of the immigrants I meet—around here they're mostly from Latin America, Russia, and India—are among the most patriotic people I meet. My wife's Appalachian ancestors hailed from Poland before heading to work in the Pennsylvania coal fields. And what's this about requiring them to submit to "our terms"?
Vance's statement defines the central dividing line between paleo-conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan—and classical liberals such Ronald Reagan. The former believe America is a nation built by and for a specific people. They dislike free markets, which are corrosive of their cultural preferences. They want to vastly limit immigration. They have no problem with big government as long as they control it.
By contrast, classical liberals believe America is based on the universal idea of freedom and economic opportunity. They focus on reducing the size and power of government—and creating opportunities for everyone wherever they or their ancestors were born. Classical liberals may want an orderly immigration process, but they're more interested in turning immigrants into Americans than sending them home.
Classical liberals—and I count myself among them—view free trade as a wonder, not a threat. And while I'm a long-time critic of America's endless foreign interventions and wars, I care (unlike Vance) about what happens in Ukraine. We believe in liberty for everyone, not just members of our clan.
The Democratic Party is hostile to freedom and progress in its own unique and terrifying ways. But I wish the Vance who wrote "Hillbilly Elegy"—rather than paleo-conservative changeling we now see on display—were the one on the GOP ticket to make that case.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
The post J.D. Vance Has Changed a Lot Since the Days of <em>Hillbilly Elegy</em> appeared first on Reason.com.
The recent attempted assassination of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump, which resulted in the death of one rally attendee and injuries to the candidate and two others, was not an isolated event. The high profile incident occurred against a backdrop of lower-level attacks and violent protests across the country that indicate too many Americans are increasingly willing to exchange battles over ideas for fists, bullets, and firebombs. It's a sign of an existential political climate in which nobody thinks they can afford to lose—or that opponents can be allowed to win.
"A Michigan man used an all-terrain vehicle to run over and critically injure an 80-year-old man who was putting a Trump sign in his yard, in what police have described as a politically motivated attack," the BBC reported July 23. The apparent attacker killed himself after calling police to confess to the crime.
Just days later, anti-Israel protesters vandalized property and battled police in Washington, D.C. in what has become almost a matter of routine.
The partisan Michigan attacker, the mysteriously motivated would-be assassin, and the subset of protesters who cross the line don't really represent mass endorsements of violence. They're often lone actors or extremists within their own movements. But no majority vote is required before people and property are attacked. It just takes somebody willing to get physical, and too many meet that bar.
Last month, the University of Chicago's Robert A. Pape, a professor of political science who studies political violence, released the results of a study on Americans' attitudes towards using violent means to achieve political ends. What he found is that 10 percent of respondents agree "the use of force is justified to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president." Opposing them are 6.9 percent of respondents who agree "the use of force is justified to restore Donald Trump to the presidency."
When questions about justifying violence are given broader scope, researchers find larger numbers open to its use. Last year a study from the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis found "one-third of respondents…considered violence to be usually or always justified to advance at least 1 of 17 specific political objectives," including preventing discrimination based on race or ethnicity and preserving an American way of life based on Western European traditions.
The good news is that even the larger numbers still represent a minority of the population, outnumbered by those who prefer to keep bullets and bombs out of their political discourse. The bad news is it only takes one person to target a candidate or run over a homeowner putting a sign on his lawn. And it only takes one, or a handful, to stage any of the myriad lower-profile incidents that suggest we're in a cycle of political strife.
In March, a California man pled guilty to firebombing a Costa Mesa Planned Parenthood clinic—the third suspect to do so in that crime. They had planned other attacks that were thwarted by their arrests.
In January, the Center of the American Experiment, the Upper Midwest Law Center, and TakeCharge—three Minnesota conservative groups—were targeted by arsonists in what was believed to be an act of political terrorism. The organizations are offering a $100,000 reward "for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individual or individuals who started the arson fires."
A car belonging to a Portland, Oregon, city commissioner's family was torched outside his home just weeks before that. In response, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt warned "acts of political violence and acts of political vandalism are unacceptable and will not be tolerated."
Gonzalez is far from alone in being violently targeted by people who disagree with him.
"The number of threats to public officials is growing," according to a May data review from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. "While 2013-2016 had an average of 38 federal charges per year, that number sharply increased to an average of 62 charges per year between 2017-2022."
The review added that ideological motivations could be confirmed for roughly half the cases, and that "the number of federal prosecutions is on pace to hit new record highs" this year.
Much of this is the result of the rising tensions of recent years. Political factions have gone from opposing each other to despising each other and considering opponents too vile and dangerous to be allowed to win office and exercise power. That political leaders tear not just into each other, but into whole segments of the population they perceive as alien understandably reinforces fears of the criminal justice system and the regulatory state in the hands of enemies.
Added to that is the abandonment of liberal ideas about restrained government and tolerance by both the left and the right. In their place are thuggish ideologies that leave little room for dissent.
"On the left, a new crop of socialists hope to overthrow the liberal economic order, while the rise of intersectional identity politics has supplanted longstanding commitments to civil liberties," Reason's Stephanie Slade wrote in 2022. "On the right, support for free markets and free trade are more and more often derided as relics of a bygone century, while quasi-theocratic ideas are gathering support."
That creates an environment in which violence might become just another tactic for people who consider their causes of overriding importance. In January, The New York Times interviewed Andreas Malm, a celebrity activist who advocates for political violence on behalf of climate causes. He clarifies that he supports targeting property, not people, but "can't guarantee that it won't come with accidents."
He also thinks his opponents shouldn't be allowed to use the same tactics in return, saying "the idea that if you object to your enemy's use of a method, you therefore also have to reject your own use of this method would lead to absurd conclusions."
Malm, it should be noted, is Swedish. And that points to the fact that America isn't alone in seeing activists adopt violence as a preferred means of achieving results.
"American political violence has much in common with that taking place in Germany and India, as well as in France's most recent election," Rachel Kleinfeld recently noted in Foreign Affairs.
Shared misery is cold comfort, but it may be the only kind available right now.
The post The Wave of Political Violence Has No End in Sight appeared first on Reason.com.
8/2/1923: President Calvin Coolidge's Inauguration. He would appoint Justice Harlan Fiske Stone to the Supreme Court.
The post Today in Supreme Court History: August 2, 1923 appeared first on Reason.com.
Is the future of the GOP more libertarian, nationalist, or, somehow, both?
Joining us today is Vivek Ramaswamy, entrepreneur, author, and former presidential candidate. He's been making a hard pitch for what he's called a "libertarian-nationalist alliance" for the past several months. He was at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention where he tried to convince libertarians to vote Republican. Reason's Zach Weissmueller also saw Ramaswamy at the Republican National Convention, where he was trying to convince MAGA supporters to be more libertarian. Reason's Stephanie Slade saw him make his case for "national libertarianism" at the National Conservatism Conference. That event was also attended by vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, who has a different vision for the conservative movement. Those dueling visions are the subject of today's episode.
Note: This episode is plagued by technical issues due to a software malfunction. With the exception of an approximately nine-minute section (which is marked in the episode), the full conversation is intact.
Watch the full conversation on Reason's YouTube channel or the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.
Sources referenced in this conversation:
The post Vivek Ramaswamy: Is There a Libertarian-Nationalist Alliance? appeared first on Reason.com.
© Mark Reinstein/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom | Graphic by John Osterhoudt
A few minutes before 10 a.m. on Wednesday, former President Donald Trump dropped a plan to completely overhaul the relationship between millions of older Americans and the federal government.
"SENIORS SHOULD NOT PAY TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY," Trump shouted from his Truth Social account.
If implemented, that would be a hugely expensive policy change. According to one quick estimate by a former White House chief economist, it would reduce federal revenue by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and would add $1.8 trillion to the national debt. (The extra cost is the result of interest on the new debt that would be racked up in the absence of that revenue.) It would also accelerate Social Security's slide into insolvency. And, obviously, it would be a big tax break for Americans who collect Social Security checks—but not a tax break that would be particularly good at fostering economic growth.
Despite all that, the most notable thing about Trump's announcement was what it didn't include. There was no attempt to reckon with those figures, for example. No surrogates were dispatched to explain why this change is necessary or good for the economy or country. No press releases went out. There was, of course, no attempt to explain what government programs would be cut to offset the drop in revenue. For that matter, there had been no discussion of this idea at the Republican National Convention. It was not mentioned in Trump's (long) acceptance speech and was not included in the party's platform.
Like so much else in the Trump era, this looks like an idea that went from the former president's head to his social media account with very few stops in between.
There is something to be said for that degree of—let's say—transparency. If nothing else, it is quintessentially Trumpian: hastily conceived and not deeply considered, more of a marketing slogan than substance. Let's just call this what it is: a nakedly political play to win the votes of Social Security–collecting Americans.
Coming as it did on Wednesday morning, the "no taxes on Social Security" plan stood in stark contrast to the news the Trump campaign had made just one day earlier. On Tuesday, Trump's campaign had officially (and gleefully) sunk the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025"—a 900-page document in which the conservative think tank had outlined an extensive policy plan for Trump's prospective second term. The project had been headed by Paul Dans, who had served in the Trump administration, and was central to the institutional-wide pivot toward populism that Kevin Roberts, Heritage's president, had executed in recent years.
In a statement, two of Trump's top campaign officials didn't merely bury Project 2025 but also issued a threat.
"Reports of Project 2025's demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign—it will not end well for you," said Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita.
Translation: How dare anyone try to substitute actual policy substance for whatever random thought might fall out of the former president's head on a Wednesday morning?
Roberts' mistake "was thinking that Mr. Trump cares about anyone's ideas other than his own. He governs on feral instinct, tactical opportunism, and what seems popular at a given moment," wrote the Wall Street Journal's editorial board in a scathing response to the news of Project 2025 being scuttled and that Dans had resigned from Heritage. "The lesson for Heritage, and other think tanks, is that it's better to stick to your principles rather than court the political flavor of the day."
Amen to that.
Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris has launched her campaign by veering hard into an almost Trump-like policy nihilism of her own. Having already tried to memory-hole her track record as the Biden administration's so-called "border czar"—read Reason's Liz Wolfe if you need to catch up on that controversy—Harris is now seemingly rewriting her positions on a bunch of other things too.
For example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal when she was a member of the U.S. Senate in 2019. She voiced her support for the progressive environmental package while campaigning for president that same year.
Now, she's backing away from it. This week, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign told the Washington Examiner that Harris no longer supports the federal job guarantee—a promise that the federal government would provide jobs with "family-sustaining wages" to anyone who wanted one—that was a key feature of the Green New Deal.
As the Examiner notes, Harris has also "backed away from her endorsement of eliminating private healthcare plans as part of a Medicare for All proposal. Her campaign also told The Hill that she will not seek to ban fracking if she is elected. That was after previously telling CNN while running for president 'There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.'"
Maybe this is Harris embracing her philosophy of being "unburdened by what has been." Maybe she's simply taking a page from Trump's book—after all, the former president has never paid much of a price for making it up as he goes along.
For both Trump and Harris, simply telling voters what you think they want to hear is possibly the most direct route to winning an election. But such a cynical approach to campaigning sidelines any discussion of policy—and means the election is likely to be decided on far stupider grounds.
The post Trump and Harris Are Just Making It Up as They Go appeared first on Reason.com.
Hannah Neeleman is a mother of eight, a beauty queen, a former Juilliard ballerina, and one of the most popular "momfluencers" on social media. She lives on a Utah ranch with her husband, JetBlue airlines heir Daniel Neeleman, and puts out both copious content and pasture-raised meat under the moniker Ballerina Farm. For years, their photogenic Mormon family has been amassing Instagram and TikTok followers—along with ample scrutiny and scorn from certain sorts of progressive-leaning, extremely online women. And these sorts were served a feast last month in the form of a London Times profile, which posited not-at-all-subtly that Hannah was being controlled and coerced by Daniel.
The profile was a little weird and the responses to it weirder. But they are also emblematic of something that goes way beyond Ballerina Farm: an inability to imagine women having different values, different politics, and different ambitions. And a refusal to accept that women may be happy leading all different sorts of lives.
Times writer Megan Agnew clearly had an opinion about the Neeleman family's dynamics and framed her article to maximize the chances of readers coming away with the same opinion. That's not a journalistic crime by any means—the best profiles often inject some of the writer's own insight. But, to me, Agnew's insights felt shoehorned, and not entirely convincing. The quotes and anecdotes she wielded could betray a patriarchal arrangement in which Hannah is a not-so-enthusiastic participant. Yet there were lots of ways to read them that didn't support such a conclusion, and that's not to mention all the quotes and anecdotes that Agnew necessarily left out.
The internet, of course, ran with the tragic interpretation—Hannah as a put-upon waif of Dickensian (or at least Lifetime movie) proportions, all thwarted ambitions and rural isolation. A husband on a "sexist conquest" who stole her dreams, "trapped" her with eight kids, and now wouldn't even let her get a nanny or give her a trip to Greece for her birthday.
A consensus was emerging that Hannah needed to be freed.
But freed from what? Hannah has a life that many dream of, it seems. She may not be a professional ballerina, but she still has a highly successful career and a level of fame she likely never would have earned from ballet. She has a beautiful home, a wealthy husband, and eight healthy children whom she gets to raise in a spectacular setting an hour from where she grew up in a family that looks a lot like the one she has now (Hannah was one of nine children).
The interpretations of one journalist who spent a few hours with the family and a cornucopia of strangers' speculation aside, signs suggest Neeleman is happily living the life she wants to be living. It is highly weird to act like the fact that she once dreamed of being a pro ballerina means she's unhappy in any other lifestyle or that she didn't have other ambitions, too (especially since she has also talked about how she always wanted a big family).
Could Hannah be secretly miserable? Sure. But so could anyone.
Reactions to Hannah Neeleman conjure that classic second-wave feminist trope: false consciousness. Sure, she says she is happy, fulfilled, and in control of her own destiny—but internet feminists know better. Clearly her claims are either an act (perhaps produced under the duress of a manipulative husband) or the result of being raised in a Mormon household. The poor dear can't even see how oppressed she is!
The Ballerina Farm discourse echoes recent reactions regarding Usha Vance, wife of Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance.
Usha and J.D. met at Yale Law School. Usha also has an undergraduate degree from Yale and a master's degree from Cambridge. Until recently, she was a lawyer with one of the country's top law firms. At the Republican National Convention, she appeared confident and excited as she talked about her husband's candidacy and about their life together, which includes three children. Vance has, on numerous occasions, credited Usha for helping drive and shape him.
By all indications, Usha is an intelligent and accomplished woman who backs her husband's political career. Yet Vance, too, received the Hannah Neeleman treatment following her husband joining the Donald Trump ticket.
People began sharing images in which Usha was not smiling or looked sad as if this was proof that she disapproved of her husband's career, or worse.
Some surmised that J.D. must be an "abusive control-freak" whom Usha only stays with because this sort of thing was supposedly normalized by her Indian upbringing. Her "body language projects subservience." J.D. and/or the Trump campaign made her quit her job.
The comments about Usha Vance echoed a 2016 election-era refrain: "Free Melania." There were a lot of people then convinced, or at least opining, that Melania Trump wanted no part in her husband's political schemes and was a tragic figure trapped in a loveless and controlling marriage.
I won't pretend to know exactly what's going on between the former president and first lady. But the idea that Melania couldn't leave if she wanted to defies logic. The Melania who is literally trapped is a fiction, invented to further demonize Trump and/or deny that she is culpable in the creation of the life they both lead.
Shades of the same attitude driving this weird anti–fan fic about Usha Vance, Hannah Neeleman, and Melania Trump were detectable during a white women for Kamala Harris call last week.
During that call, author Glennon Doyle posited that the reason many white women are afraid to publicly support Harris and/or other Democratic candidates is fear of being disliked, chastised, or looked down upon. White women don't want to make neighbors "uncomfortable," and they "desperately need to be approved of and liked," Doyle said.
Meanwhile, Shannon Watts, who organized the call, suggested that the reason why many white women vote Republican is because they believe "that it is in our best interest to use our privilege and our support systems of white supremacy and the patriarchy to benefit us."
Voting for Harris is really what's "in everyone's best interest," said Watts.
This sort of rhetoric was common when Hillary Clinton was running for president and again after the election, when it came out that a majority of white women voters cast their ballots for Trump. Is there no room for imagining that some women might just be conservatives and/or dislike the Democratic candidate?
In the construction of victimhood narratives around Hannah Neeleman, Usha Vance, and Melania Trump, there is an element of projection that is pre-political. Maybe it's rooted in jealousy, anxiety, revulsion, or anger. But for whatever reason, some people seemingly want to believe these women are unhappy. Perhaps it helps them get over their jealousy, or feel better about their own life choices, or feel there's still justice in the world—who knows? But it's clearly not based solely on the evidence laid before us.
The other thread underpinning some attitudes toward Melania Trump, Usha Vance, Hannah Neeleman, and any women who won't vote Democrat is a denial of conservative women's agency.
And while this thread has implications for politics, it also seems born of a realm outside of them. It's the inability—displayed here by the left, but also visible across the political spectrum—to imagine people genuinely believing in things different than what you believe.
In the political realm, this manifests as a conviction that support for different candidates and different policies doesn't come down to a million different factors and values and vibes but stupidity, brainwashing, coercion, and cowardice. Men get this treatment sometimes, too, but it's much more commonly aimed at women.
On the left, this manifests as utter disbelief that women like Hannah Neeleman and Usha Vance could be happy co-pilots in the lives they and their husbands are leading. Or as an insistence that the only reason women would oppose Harris is because they're trying to suck up to or benefit from white supremacy and patriarchy. On the right, we sometimes see it manifested as an assertion that female politicians, high-powered working women, feminist activists, etc., only speak out against conservative policies because they're bitter about their own lives.
Both sides do this at a peril to their own persuasive efforts. You won't win people over by telling them, "You may think you're happy, or expressing true convictions, but you're actually just a cog in cultural Marxism or white supremacist patriarchy."
What makes this especially weird coming from the left is that left-leaning women tend to do this under the mantle of feminism.
But it's not actually feminist to paint all women with one brushstroke. Women are not and will never be a monolith—not in their politics, their professional leanings, their preferred relationship styles, or anything else. Women are happy in as many different types of arrangements as men are, and as capable of choosing for themselves. Conversely, not every woman bristles at the kind of things that make some feminists bristle, including having a horde of children or moderating one's career plans to make this possible.
The sooner self-proclaimed feminists can see women as individuals—including sometimes very flawed individuals—the sooner we'll all be seeing women leading more free and full lives, in all their weird and messy and dazzling forms.
The post From Usha Vance to Ballerina Farm: Denying Conservative Women's Individuality appeared first on Reason.com.
First, the Republican meltdown over…people being biracial? Politicians code-switching? "I don't know, is she Indian or is she black?" asked Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, referring to his presumptive opponent Kamala Harris, at the annual convention for the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ).
"I've known her a long time, indirectly," Trump had said right before. "And she was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I did not know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black, and now she wants to be known as black."
"I respect either one, but she obviously doesn't, because she was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden, she made a turn and she went—she became a black person," he added.
Harris is biracial, born to an Indian mother and a Jamaican father, which seems to really be blowing Trump's mind. He appeared to be trying to make the case that Harris code-switching, to appeal to black voters in speeches, is disingenuous. (Welcome to politics!) But it came off more as rude to biracial people, as if they need to pick an identity group.
"This room of mostly Black journalists is not the same friendly territory that the former president is used to on the campaign trail," reports The New York Times' Maya King. "As he cracks jokes and repeats falsehoods about his court cases and record, the audience is gasping and scoffing. Few are applauding or laughing."
At one point, Trump claimed immigrants are "taking black jobs." When pushed by a moderator to define what, exactly, a "black job" is, Trump claimed it was "any job." (If the claim is that Harris is disingenuous, pandering to black voters, it looks like Trump is cut from the same cloth.)
"Historically, the vice president, in terms of the election, does not have any impact," said Trump in response to a question about whether J.D. Vance would be ready for the job on day one. "I mean, virtually no impact…Virtually never has it mattered." It was a real shit show of an appearance, with Trump careening all over the place and very much failing to win over the room.
Trump later doubled down on his race comments, projecting headlines touting Harris' Indian ancestry on screen at his Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, rally:
The Trump campaign is projecting this on the screen above the stage at his rally in Harrisburg PA: pic.twitter.com/ZsGHAZaruk
— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) July 31, 2024
Second, the Democratic meltdown over…journalists interviewing Trump: As if Trump's sort of strange race commentary weren't off-putting enough, many members of the media seem thoroughly unable to do their jobs when Trump is involved, in a sad redux of the last eight years.
"Trump's acceptance of NABJ's invitation prompted at least one high-profile member of the organization to step down as the co-chair of the convention," reported Voice of America. "Others expressed concerns that Trump would be given a platform to make false claims or give the impression he had the group's endorsement."
Journalists took to X to express their dismay at Trump even being invited to speak onstage at the NABJ conference, never mind the fact that the conference customarily invites candidates running for president to speak, so it would be out of step with tradition if Trump were randomly excluded.
On a personal note, NABJ has meant a lot to so many of us, so this has been hard to see play out on multiple levels. But I will never forget that Donald Trump insulted and was hostile to a Black female journalist in our own communal space and was unchecked. And the feeling of…
— Natasha S. Alford (@NatashaSAlford) July 31, 2024
Several journalists were seemingly unable to grasp the fact that Trump making strange comments, revealing of his character and his campaign strategy, which may in fact affect how some black voters view him, and those comments becoming a top domestic politics story is in fact a job well done. Journalists should know better than to equate interviewing someone with endorsing their beliefs. Also, didn't we already do this whole idiotic rigamarole years ago, the first time Trump ran for office? And the second? Can't we just cover the man, quoting what he says, without losing our minds?
The galaxy-brain take: "The question Republicans ought to confront before leveling any attack is: 'Will this energize my supporters more or hers?'" asks Abigail Shrier at The Free Press. "For nearly every ad hominem salvo currently flung at Harris, the answer is: hers." This most recent kerfuffle is no different. From a pure political strategy standpoint, it's not clear why Trump made the comments he did at the NABJ conference or how those comments will help him.
Scenes from New York: How to grow weed in your house or apartment (from Curbed).
semiotics is the study of signification, unpopular due to being too abstract
heres why it matters: you make a tech device, called 'friend'. it provides companionship. but to wear this wouldnt signal "i have companionship". it signals the opposite: it communicates your alone-ness https://t.co/7iuRIXjgiL pic.twitter.com/KIuAvX1pW3
— owen cyclops (@owenbroadcast) July 31, 2024
The post Dueling Meltdowns appeared first on Reason.com.
Přihlásit se