The question of Israel's right to exist.

 Our poor quality reporters keep asking "Does Israel have the right to exist?" as a kind of gotcha question.

It's like asking "Does the USA have a right to exist?", given that the USA established itself by subjugating the indigenous peoples.

The answer in both cases is that the question is irrelevant.  Both Israel and the USA have established themselves as internationally recognized countries, so any question of right to exist is moot.

But what is not in question is the fact that Israel has no right to expand beyond its internationally  recognized borders (generally accepted as the 1967 boundary lines), just as the US has no right to expand into (say) Canadian territory.

That the US and other countries stand by while Israel expands its holdings on the West Bank by violently dispossessing the Palestinian residents is truly shameful.

The short answer to the question "Does Israel have a right to exist?" should be:

"Listen, Israel has established itself as a recognized country, so the question is moot. However, given that the country of Israel is recognized now, it has no right to expand beyond the 1967 borders that are universally accepted."

How Ukraine Might Affect the Russian People's Opinion

 Now that Ukraine is sending drones deep into Russian territory, instead of  armaments some drones could drop millions of small cards over populated areas with the simple message:

THE WAR WILL END AS SOON AS YOUR TROOPS LEAVE OUR COUNTRY

The USPS

 The USPS continues to run at a loss.

I have to ask:  why do we need 6 days a week mail delivery? (Particularly for residential mail.)  I check my mail service box twice a week or so - that keeps me sufficiently up to date with the few things that still come in the mail, while matters that need immediate attention come through email, text, or phone.

I would suggest changing to twice a week mail delivery for home delivery: say Monday and Wednesday to half the addresses covered by a sorting station, and Tuesday and Thursday delivery for the other half.  Perhaps businesses could have mail three times a week - MWF and TuThS.

By alternating delivery routes, it should be possible to cut the number of mail carriers down by half, if not more, saving the USPS a bundle on labor costs.

Another Democratic Party messaging failure

 Glenn Youngkin's victory in VA was largely due to his bogus claim that Critical Race Theory was being taught in VA schools.

Dems were so dumb playing defense on CRT.

Why not go on offense. and put Youngkin on the defensive?

"Glenn Youngkin doesn't want students to learn about slavery and Jim Crow." "What Glenn Youngkin calls Critical Race Theory, the rest of us call History."

Another Press Fail

This is typical of the press's reaction to McEnany's comments on schools reopening:

This taking a quote out of context is the kind of thing that bolsters DJT's bogus claim that the press is "fake news".

After saying "the science should not stand in the way", McEnany went on to refer to a pediatric study to support her claim that "the science is on our side here.”  

Even though the study she quoted is of dubious validity in the context of the spread of COVID-19 - nevertheless, she was not saying science should be disregarded - she was just cherry picking what science she wanted regarded.  

Or, to summarize, she was saying:  "the science should not stand in the way of school re-opening, because the science supports reopening."

But the press is just jumping on just one part of her full statement.

The study McEneny referenced purported to show that infected kids had a mild response to COVID-19, comparable to everyday flu.

A smart follow up question would have been:  "Maybe, but how does that affect the concern that kids could take the infection home to more vulnerable adults?"

Let's hope follow up articles are on the lines of "Here's the study the Trump administration is relying on to support its policy", along with an analysis of the quality of the study, whether later events called it into question, and so whether the administration is justified in basing policy on it. i.e. responsible journalism.  

Update 7/17/2020

The New Yorker piles on.

Facebook hosts a tennis match with no referees

Facebook’s Nick Clegg defends FB’s allowing outright lies in political ads by comparing FB to a tennis court.

“Our job is to make sure the court is ready — the surface is flat, the lines painted, the net at the correct height,” Clegg said. “But we don’t pick up a racket and start playing. How the players play the game is up to them, not us.”

Er — no.  How the players play the game is up to the referees, who ensure that the rules are followed and that the game is played fairly.

It’s okay for FB to make the tennis court analogy.  They only need to complete it by supplying the needed impartial referees.

The Press Fails Again

From the NYT:

Not only did the president ask a foreign government to intervene in a presidential election by digging up dirt on a political opponent, .............Mr. Trump appears to have used hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to pressure a foreign leader to act as the head of his opposition-research unit.

Note the expression "digging up dirt".  This same expression has been used multiple times by multiple news outlets.  The implication is that there is "dirt" to be found, and the constant repetition can only condition readers and viewers - i.e. voters - to believe that somehow Joe Biden is guilty of some unnamed corruption.  This mindless spreading of a false trope is, I'm afraid, rather typical of our uncritical press.

How should the NYT and others described the request from DJT to Zelensky?  How about something along these lines:

Not only did the president ask a foreign government to intervene in a presidential election by looking into alleged corruption by Mr. Joe Biden and his son Mr. Hunter Biden (allegations that have long been debunked) ...................Mr. Trump appears to have used hundreds of millions of dollars in military assistance to pressure a foreign leader to act as the head of his opposition-research unit.

 See how easy it is to provide good information to readers, rather than mindlessly spreading Trump's propaganda?

Where's the Sense of Urgency?

Our press is (once again) falling down on the job - in this case failing to warn the public of how imminent the tipping point for runaway global warning is.

One idea for keeping the subject in the public eye:
A prominently displayed daily update on the current CO2 ppm count, the ppm count expected to cause 1.5⁰ warming, and estimated time to reach that level given present rate of increase.  Along with a reminder of predicted effects of 1.5⁰ warming.

A black box with this info on page 1 of daily newspapers, and a few seconds in every TV news broadcast, would be the minimum the press should be doing.

Update December 20, 2019:

The Guardian is doing its bit.

Estimating Russia's Influence on Trump Win

While it's clear that Russia supported Trump in the 2016 campaign, it's less clear just how effective Russia's aid was.

Soon after the election, news orgs should have run a poll of Trump voters along the following lines:

Which of these reports about Hillary Clinton did you read/hear?
Followed by a list of false statements about HRC put out by Russian disnfo

Were those reports you read/heard about Hillary Clinton an important factor in your decision to vote for Donald Trump?

A poll like this would at least be a start in gauging the effect of Russian interference in the 2016 election.  This long after the election, results would be fuzzier than if news orgs had been on the ball at the right time.

Perversely Brilliant

So Donna Brazile is joining Fox News as a regular contributor.

A smart move by Fox. Let's recall: while Brazile was DNC chairwoman, she was also a regular on CNN. While at CNN, she learnt of at least one question that would be posed to HRC at an upcoming presidential campaign debate, and sent the question on to HRC. A clear breach of trust on Brazile's part.

Fox News knows its audience is well aware of this bad move by Brazile, is hostile to her, and so is primed to dismiss anything she has to say. Yet Fox can cynically claim to be "fair and balanced" because it is hiring such a high profile Democrat.

A perversely brilliant move on Fox's part.

Lottery winnings - a repost

(The recent large lottery prizes prompt me to post this entry from June of 2015 again.)

Yes, the state run numbers game, aka the lottery, is with us for good or bad, but I do question the way prizes are distributed.

From time to time I see posted in store windows the top prize that will be awarded to a winning ticket; this sum sometimes exceeds $200 million.  Now consider who are the purchasers of lottery tickets: the poor, the indebted, the desperate.  How much would it take for them to get their lives back on track?  I would suggest a lot less than $200 million, and I also ask myself: just what is the average lottery ticket purchaser going to do with that much money?

It would make more sense to split the large prizes into a number of smaller amounts that would be enough to turn people's lives around (pay off debts, buy a house, get some job training, put kids through college), but not so huge a sum as to be overwhelming.  Say twenty $10 million prizes instead of one large prize.  So instead of the size of the prize going up week by week as there are no winning tickets, the number of prizes (with new sets of winning numbers) would go up.  Having a larger number of prizes increases the chance of picking a winning number combination, so we could have more winners, and so more people whose lives could be improved.

The Democrats Fail Once More

The Democrats have once more showed their massive incompetence at messaging in the face of the Republicans' passing of the irresponsible tax cut bill.

How hard would it have been to have a unified message something along the following lines?

The Republicans are offering you a little extra spending money by adding $1.5 trillion to our national debt. Think of it like credit card debt.  In your private finances, would you run up your credit card just to give yourself a little extra spending money?  Surely not. So why would you want us to run up the national credit card that way? Especially as most of the extra debt is money going to wealthy people who surely don't need millions more in their pockets.

Responsible people who've had to temporarily live on credit start to pay down their balance once they have regular employment and a steady income. They don't keep running up their debt for extra spending money. 

That's what we should be doing as a country now the economy has recovered. We should be acting responsibly. Those with more than enough money should be contributing part of their large incomes to start paying down our national credit card, not be adding huge sums to it, leaving someone else is to pay the bloated balance sometime in the future.

(Not to mention the fact that the cuts for middle income people will turn into tax increases in just a few years.)

It's really not that hard to put out a message to counteract the Republicans' dishonest rhetoric.  It's shameful that the Democrats won't even try.

Stay Focussed!

NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem are doing so to protest aggressive police practices against people of color, and in particular the killing of unarmed people.

Right wingers are distorting  the protests by making them all about the anthem, the flag, and our servicemen;  the reason for the protests are drowned out by the right’s loud rhetoric.

I suggest the discussion could be turned back to the reason for the protests if each player who knelt displayed a photo of a person unjustifiably killed by police. 

Here's a mockup of how it might look if they did:

Holding the photos would keep the discussion where it belongs:  the issue is not the anthem, but bad police practices.

(It would be appropriate for players to contact family members of the slain people to get their approval for the display of the photos.)

Mnuchin and Math

So Steve Mnuchin finds that lowering middle class taxes without also lowering taxes on the wealthy is beyond his mathematical ability.

Let me lend him a hand here.

(From my blog post of February 2013)

(Suggested marginal rates for married filing jointly - halve the income ranges for singles. The top marginal rate - constant dollars - is the same as in 1965-66.)

10%            $0 - 25,000
15%            $25,000 - 75,000
25%            $75,000 - 150,000
35%            $150,000 - 325,000
50%            $325,000 - 650,000
60%            $650,000 - 1,500,000
70%            Over $1,500,000

Actions and Consequences

The shutting down of Charles Murray's talk at Middlebury College by self righteous narcissists reminded me of a similar attack on speech many years ago at the University of California, Berkeley, when the same kind of intolerant people shouted down Jeane Kirkpatrick, President Reagan's foreign policy advisor.

And their actions had consequences down the road: the present day terrors inflicted by ISIS.
Absurd, you say? Well, follow this chain, each of link of which I believe is valid.

A young David Brock was in the audience there at Berkeley in his capacity as a reporter for the student newspaper. He was so appalled by the intolerance of the left that he gravitated to right wing politics, and signed up as a propagandist for the right.

In that capacity, he uncovered the Paula Jones story, which led to a lawsuit, which led to President Clinton perjuring himself, which led to his impeachment.

The damage to the Clinton presidency rubbed off on Al Gore, who (while winning the popular vote), narrowly lost the presidency to G.W. Bush. It's not unreasonable to think that, without that taint, he could well have gained those few thousand extra votes needed to assure him the presidency.

President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, which Gore would not have done were he president.

The destruction of Iraqi society allowed ISIS to establish itself, and to commence their reign of terror.

So: I am arguing that foolish students shouting down an ideological opponent years ago led to the horrors we see today.

Yes, actions have consequences.  Who knows what may happen years down the road as a result of the shameful behavior at Middlebury?

Addendum:
How do I think the Berkeley students opposed to Reagan's South America policy should have reacted to Ms. Kirkpatrick's appearance?  By going out in advance to locate some of the many refugees from El Salvador who were  in the Bay area, and arranging for them, and them only, to have the microphones during the Q&A after Ms. Kirkpatrick's talk.  Let each of them describe the atrocities - tortures and murders of their families - that prompted them to flee, and ask Ms. Kirkpatrick how she and President Reagan could possibly support such evil. If just one or two spoke this way, Ms. Kirkpatrick might dismiss their stories as invented, but a sufficient number of recitations would show the emptiness of such a response on her part. And contrast the news reporting of what such an approach would have been to that describing the self indulgent acting out of foolish young people, actions that only reinforced many people's support for Reagan's toxic Latin American policies.

Romney and Exploitiation

Reading the transcript of Romney's infamous "47%" speech, I find this:

Oh, I just, we didn't talk about immigration today. Gosh, I'd love to bring in more legal immigrants that have skill and [unintelligible]. I'd like to staple a green card to every Ph.D. in the world and say, "Come to America, we want you here." 

Think about that. Romney would like countries poorer than ourselves to educate some of their citizens to Ph.D. level, and then have those people abandon their home countries to bring their expensively provided skills to the US, so those poorer countries gain nothing from their investment in educating those people, and the wealthy US would become the beneficiary of that investment.

We know the Romney business model: enrich his investors by leaving empty shells of companies behind, with workers losing their jobs, and often their pension funds.  This desire to exploit the investment in education made by other countries shares the same moral emptiness.

Well, duh!

Brad DeLong quotes from an article by Jason Furman in the Financial Times:

But the post-crisis experience, as well as research on the effects of fiscal policy, is establishing a “new view” grounded in five principles:

1. At a time when conventional monetary policy faces limitations in a world of lower interest rates, fiscal policy can be a particularly effective complement....
2. In today’s conditions fiscal policy may... “crowd in” private investment through stronger growth....
3. [In] advanced economies... under today’s economic conditions effectively crafted investments could raise output by more than they raise debt--reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio....
4. Prolonged lower interest rates and economies operating below potential suggest that fiscal expansion should be more sustained....
5. Fiscal policy is even more beneficial if co-ordinated more across countries...

To which my reaction (as a lay reader, not an economist) is: Well, duh!  Wasn't all that obvious (except maybe for  #5) seven years ago?

Potty Humor

Ah, the Engish, they love it so!

Donald Trump has taken a knuckle-duster to American political culture https://t.co/fDJdgUuQtF pic.twitter.com/cBKOS2abYv

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) October 13, 2016

The Moscovian Candidate?

From Kurt Eichenwald:

"The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?

The Russians have been obtaining American emails and now are presenting complete misrepresentations of them—falsifying them—in hopes of setting off a cascade of events that might change the outcome of the presidential election. The big question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aid Donald Trump?"

Why, indeed!!

More on GOP Sabotage

Jonatan Chait's interview with President Obama sheds more light on the Republicans' deliberate strategy of sabotage.

"When I came into office, my working assumption was that because we were in crisis, and the crisis had begun on the Republicans’ watch, that there would be a window in which they would feel obliged to cooperate on a common effort to dig us out of this massive hole.

Probably the moment in which I realized that the Republican leadership intended to take a different tack was actually as we were shaping the stimulus bill, and I vividly remember having prepared a basic proposal that had a variety of components. We had tax cuts; we had funding for the states so that teachers wouldn’t be laid off and firefighters and so forth; we had an infrastructure component. We felt, I think, that as an opening proposal, it was ambitious but needed and that we would begin negotiations with the Republicans and they would show us things that they thought also needed to happen.

On the drive up to Capitol Hill to meet with the House Republican Caucus, John Boehner released a press statement saying that they were opposed to the stimulus. At that point we didn’t even actually have a stimulus bill drawn up, and we hadn’t meant to talk about it. And I think we realized at that point what proved to be the case in that first year and that second year was a calculation based on what turned out to be pretty smart politics but really bad for the country: If they cooperated with me, then that would validate our efforts. If they were able to maintain uniform opposition to whatever I proposed, that would send a signal to the public of gridlock, dysfunction, and that would help them win seats in the midterms."

Smart politics, bad for the country.  Pretty much sums up today's GOP, until nominating Trump caught up with them.