Author Archives: eehines

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

This quote isn’t the main point of the Power Line post, but it’s spot on in its own right.

Trump had said over and over again that he would not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. He said he’d prefer to do it the easy way, through diplomacy, and he let Steve Witkoff offer the Iranians the most generous terms they were going to get. He held the Israelis back until he had given the talks a chance to run their course. But he gave the Iranians a clear deadline, and he also said again and again that if they didn’t agree to his deal, he’d have no choice but to do things the hard way.

The Tablet article from which the above is cited in Power Line is behind a paywall, so h/t Power Line for bringing this much out.

In any event, Park MacDougould, the author of the Tablet piece, is spot on.

Bad Idea

Posted on by
Reply

Socialist Senators Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Angus King (I, ME) are proposing a new law that would

ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.

This is a bad idea. Not just singly bad; it’s bad on three grounds.

One is the ground of free speech. We don’t get to ban speech based on who’s doing the speaking any more than we get to censor speech based on what’s being said. That includes pharmaceutical companies that want to advertise their wares, so long as they don’t misrepresent them. Truth in Advertising laws, though, are agnostic regarding both advertisers and products.

Our nation went over who is allowed to advertise when lawyers wanted to engage in direct advertising, including via television ads, lots of years ago. Our courts, and we as a nation, came down on the side of free speech when we all decided lawyers advertising was entirely jake. The worst that got us is ads like The Texas Hammer‘s.

It’s a bad idea because it’s insulting to us average Americans. We are not as droolingly imbecilic as these two Wonders of the Left insist that we are. We are fully capable of deciding for ourselves whether we want to take pharmaceutical company’s word at face value or our doctor’s advice. Certainly the advertisements can lead us to peppering our doctors with questions, but we should be doing that, anyway, regarding his diagnoses and proposed treatments. That some of us are foolish enough to remain willfully ignorant about our own health and blithely (and blindly) accept our doctor’s word unquestioningly is between us and our doctors. It’s no excuse for government censoring other parties.

That brings me to the third reason this is a bad idea. It’s not government’s role to protect us from ourselves, or even from each other except on criminal matters. Government’s role is to protect us from external criminal elements and threats to our nation as a whole. It’s not even the Federal government’s sole role to protect us from domestic criminal elements—that is primarily the role of each of our several State governments, with help from the Feds only when invited in by the States.

This is a move that only Socialists and their monarchist Progressive-Democratic Party ally could love.

Newspeak and Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section used his copy of the Newspeak Dictionary to mischaracterize what’s going on with the Trump administration’s deportation drive. He started out supposedly on the right path:

Like many others, I support deporting people who are here illegally and have committed serious crimes.

But that turned out to be merely his distracting lead-in to his mischaracterization:

Deporting people who have committed no crime—especially those who have been here for a long time—is morally corrupt.

The ones being deported have, though, committed a crime: they broke, or snuck, into our nation illegally. That crime stands whether the illegal aliens have been here a short time or a long time, and there is no statute of limitations on the crime of crossing our borders illegally.

Another reliance by this letter writer on his Newspeak Dictionary:

Millions of migrants work for low wages in service and agricultural industries.

They are not migrants. They ceased to be migrants when they entered Mexico or Canada illegally under those nations’ laws. Even if having legally entered those nations and thereby maintained a legitimate claim to be migrants, when they entered our nation illegally under our laws, they ceased to be migrants. Entering Mexico, Canada, or our nation illegally makes them illegal aliens. Full stop.

White washing the question, distorting reality via Newspeak-ism, counting illegal aliens as not illegal or as having committed no crime, is not the answer to our immigration problem; it merely encourages the flow of illegal aliens. The correct answer is two-fold: remove the illegal aliens, and streamline our legal immigration laws to enable faster vetting and to ease visa quota limits.

A first step already has been taken by Executive Order, but it badly wants codification into law (with a sunset limit in this case) by Congress. That step, emphasized again by HHS Secretary Kristi Noem at her Thursday press conference, is the offer to all of the illegal aliens currently present the opportunity to take themselves back to their home country, on arrival at which we will give them $1,000 of American taxpayer money, and then they will have the opportunity to return to the US legally, with all associated opportunities, including critically, no longer having to look over their shoulders for ICE, and being able to get onto a path to citizenship if they wish. The backstep here, though, is if they don’t take this opportunity and are caught and deported, their departure will be permanent; they will be barred from ever coming here again.

Maybe Don’t Count the Chickens Just Yet

Posted on by
Reply

Celebratory paeans abound. The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are typical.

a decapitation. Nearly the entire top echelon of Iran’s army and Revolutionary Guard has been killed, and the longer Iran takes to regroup the more of its ballistic-missile and nuclear programs it loses.

And

The Middle East war Iran started is becoming an historic defeat.

There are these two especially:

The subheadline:

We don’t know exactly how successful the raid was, but the era of diplomatic nonproliferation is over.

Or not. Because, in part, this:

We don’t know yet how successful the Israeli raids were. Getting past the blast doors and shock-wave buffers at the underground Fordow enrichment site would have been no easy feat. Ensuring that the 100-yard-deep Pickaxe Mountain plant doesn’t come online will require continuous surveillance and perhaps further raids on quick notice.

Getting into those facilities would seem to require bigger bombs than Israel’s fighters can carry over those distances, even with aerial refueling. Smuggled in drones would be too small for the task, unless and until holes were blown in those blast doors and shock-wave buffers big enough for a nearby controller to fly them in through.

The next opinion writer giddily claimed that it’s Morning in Jerusalem. The Israeli raids do take the nation far along towards the dawn of a new day (to extend that overused metaphor), but it’s far too soon to claim that the sun is up. Contradictorily, this opinion writer even acknowledged as much in the body of his piece.

How things will end is unclear….

The current battle likely is an historic defeat for Iran, but the war is not at all lost as far as the Iranian government is concerned. The lesson the Carthaginians learned too late and to their everlasting chagrin, Israel must learn much more quickly to preempt a similar chagrin. Iran isn’t dead yet, so they haven’t lost yet. As Adrian Goldsworthy wrote in his The Fall of Carthage,

The Romans expected a war to end in total victory or their own annihilation…. This attitude prevented the Romans from losing the war and ultimately allowed them to win it.

The ayatollahs running Iran also will refuse to accept defeat or even to acknowledge it. Israel, and the West, need to be fully aware of that. As Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former President of Iran, said,

If one day, he [Rafsanjani] said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons]—on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

This is the price the ayatollahs are willing to pay: Iran’s annihilation for Israel’s total annihilation.

There is much too much optimism for this early in the game. As a great American philosopher once said, “it’s not over until the fat lady sings.” The fat ladies of the Iranian mullahs haven’t sung, are not singing, and will not ever sing.

Tariffs and the Fed

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal Reserve Bank is facing a conundrum:

First, they [tariffs] raise prices, which weakens the case for cutting interest rates. Second, they sap confidence and demand, which strengthens the case.

There’s this, too:

In May, the Treasury Department collected roughly $15 billion more in customs duties than in February. That is equal to about 3% of total consumer spending on goods. Some goods prices have risen, but not by that much. And in May, prices fell on some obvious tariff targets such as apparel and new cars.
This is a head scratcher. If consumers aren’t paying the tariffs, who is? Not foreign producers, at least through April, when import prices excluding fuel rose. Not, apparently, retailers and wholesalers, whose margins took a hit in April but bounced back in May, according to the producer price report released Thursday [12 June].

For me, though, the head scratcher is straightforward: it’s been so long since we had significant tariffs, and economies have evolved so much in that interim, that we don’t yet understand the lags that are involved between the onset of tariffs and allegedly associated price increases. This is further contaminated by the confusion by folks who should know better of highly variable tariff rhetoric with actual tariffs in place.

And a second contaminant: how much do tariffs raise prices, really, in a global economy that has supply chains that are much more mobile (or at least much less fixed in place) than in those prior economic environments?

And a third: a measure of flexibility in cost transfer techniques: keeping prices stable while doing away with free shipping or raising existing shipping charges, for instance.

Oh, and energy costs are down; lowering prices here counterbalances, in the larger scheme, price increases there.