Tag Archives: politics

Circular Pseudo-Logic

Posted on by
Reply

William Galston had this bit of circularity in his Tuesday op-ed in The Wall Street Journal:

Economists studying past tariffs have found that their effects endured even after the tariffs were removed. … Further, the Federal Reserve Board is concerned about Americans’ increased inflation expectations, which could trigger a damaging price spiral.
The American people smell a rat. In a recent poll by the Economist/YouGov, 68% said that higher tariffs mean higher prices and that consumers will bear a large share of the burden.
They’re right. Tariffs are import taxes paid in the importing nation.

It couldn’t possibly be that we Americans poll that way because that’s what we’re told by a steady stream of news writers, including a plethora of them who cite “economists” or who cite named economists without also citing those economists’ data.

Instead, these news writers just make their bald, unsubstantiated claims, providing no data at all.

It may well be true that tariffs, by their nature, are inflationary. That certainly seems plausible. However, plausibility isn’t fact, and it would be good to see the evidence—including evidence indicating how inflationary tariffs are, if they are, and under what circumstances.

Who Really Needs Security Clearances?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors have got their panties in a twist because President Donald Trump (R) has withdrawn Perkins-Coie’s Federal security clearances among other actions regarding the law firm. The editors claim it’s all about Trumpian retribution:

That’s the only way to read his extraordinary executive orders targeting big Washington law firms for federal punishment and investigation. Mr. Trump’s decision to use government power to punish firms for representing clients breaks a cornerstone principle of American justice going back to John Adams and the Founders.

Perhaps. But that’s the editors’ spin, and they present it, in typical news opinionator fashion, as if it were fact and the only possible fact of the matter.

On the other hand, it’s also true that Perkins-Coie, other big Washington law firms, and the individual lawyers in those organizations have no need whatsoever for blanket, routinely extant, Federal security clearances just because. Those should be granted on a case-by-case basis, centered on the lawyers directly involved needing access to classified material in order to defend a client. Furthermore, as soon as that defense is concluded, or as soon as the lawyers in question are no longer involved, those clearances should be canceled; they’d no longer be needed.

Neither should a law firm itself have any security clearance at all. Only those lawyers directly involved in a case needing classified access should have the associated clearance.

These editors would do well to get their angst back under control.

Signaling

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors want President Donald Trump (R) to stand strong against Iran vis-à-vis Iran’s push to develop nuclear weapons and the requisite delivery systems (which aren’t limited to ballistic missiles, even though news writers, herd-like, focus only on those). That add this, though, in their missive:

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed confidence Thursday that sanctions on Iran can “collapse its already buckling economy.” Now he needs the green light to cut off Iran’s oil exports to China. Mr Trump could also let a few Israeli pilots train on US strategic bombers. That would send a message.

No. Iran (and northern Korea and Russia, come to that) has been economically “buckling” for years and years. They’re nowhere near collapse. Sanctions are Critical Items, but they’re far from sufficient. Sending messages by letting foreign pilots train on US aircraft is similarly useless when we’re…messaging…enemy nations that don’t care a fig about the cost to themselves in achieving their destruction of us or our friends.

No.

Iran has shown again and again since 1979 that it wants to spread revolution rather than join and build a prosperous Middle East.

The time for signaling is long past; it never worked anyway: signaling only signals the signaler’s weakness and/or timidity. Trump has sent all the signal that’s necessary in the form of his letter to Khamenei.

The deadline for a serious Iranian response should be a very few days, not weeks or months. The next signal needs to be kinetic, with the complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear and nuclear-related sites, including its uranium storage sites; its air defense facilities; its naval and “commercial” shipping at sea; and its ports on the Persian Gulf and the Persian Sea.

Israel certainly should play the major role in that—they’re Iran’s first target for extermination—but the US should play a major role, as well, from refueling support to participating the bombing and missile attacks.

A Good Start

Posted on by
Reply

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has pulled the security clearances and accesses to a number of Biden and other former government officials.

I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for…Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, James, Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden “disinformation” letter. The President’s Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden.

But it’s only a start. I have said before, and I’ll say again: when anyone leaves Federal government employ, for any reason, for any duration other than an authorized leave of absence, that now ex-employee should have his security clearance pulled the day he walks out the door. Even those on a leave of absence should have their access to classified material suspended until he returns to duty at the end of his leave.

Impeaching Judges

Posted on by
Reply

Especially those who rule against Trump—that’s a bad idea, as The Wall Street Journal‘s editors correctly note. Doing this—even were it possible just once—would destroy the necessarily independent and coequal status of our judiciary.

Impeach judges who violate their oaths of office—certainly. This would apply not only to those who engage in “severe misconduct,” but also those who rule other than on the text of our Constitution or the statute before them in a specific case. Activist judges, and Justices, who rule on the basis of their view of a living constitution or on their personal view of the needs of society or how social requirements have evolved, are among those who are violating their oaths of office, which explicitly require them to uphold and defend our Constitution. Violating an oath, of office or of any other reason or purpose, would be an especially egregious and severe misconduct.

But therein lies the rub.

There is room for honest, textual disagreement on the meaning the text—the words and especially the phrases—present in our foundational documents and the statutes subsequently enacted to give flesh to them. Proving a ruling to be based on activism rather than on honest effort at textualism is deucedly hard. Moreover, even were a proof possible in a given case, the political implications would damage the perception of judicial independence, and that would be as damaging as any actual assault on judicial independence.

Better to take the longer view and elect Presidents and Senates who will nominate and confirm judges and Justices that will rule on the basis of Constitutional and statutory texts. Those confirmed would be good for several generations of election cycles and for a couple of generations of citizens. That would provide sufficient stability in law and court rulings.