How do Asian Americans process the elites’ selection of Kamala Harris?

Here’s Kamala Harris using the word “hypothesis” in a sentence:

I’m wondering how Asian Americans with IQs of 150 and long track records of achievement process the phenomenon of Kamala Harris having been selected by Democrat elites. If Harris had been elected via primaries, the intelligent Asian American could understand Harris’s victory by reflecting that “non-Asian American voters are, on average, stupid.” But after their coup against Joe Biden, the Democrats could have selected anyone as their candidate.

Let’s consider Lisa Su, for example. She’s 54 years old, has a Ph.D. in engineering, and has successfully managed a 26,000-employee company in a competitive environment (Intel on one side and Nvidia on the other). When she was elevated to CEO in 2014, revenue at AMD was about $6 billion/year. Today it is 23 billion Bidies per year (i.e., roughly double if we adjust for inflation in the cost of stuff that investors in AMD might want to buy). How does Lisa Su watch the above video, and similar, and make sense of the selection of Kamala Harris, out of pool of more than 200 million, by what we are told is the Party of Science?

Here’s the politician whom Republican primary voters rejected delivering, without notes, a 150-year history of Florida weather, complete with the barometric pressure of various major hurricanes. (This is not to say that I endorse any particular point of view about climate change, though “Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century” (Nature 2021) suggests that DeSantis is correct that recent hurricanes aren’t evidence of significant climate change.)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Will Tesla turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Harley-Davidson? (self-driving cars and motorcycle safety)

A lot of motorcycle accidents are caused by human automobile drivers failing to see the motorcycle and, e.g., initiating a left turn. (It’s tough to find statistics on this, actually, except from trial lawyers who say that nearly all motorcycle accidents are caused by someone other than the rider.)

What if the typical car has a Tesla-style superhuman robot at the controls? The robot won’t fail to see a motorcycle, right? Could self-driving cars usher in a new era of motorcycle safety?

Also, while we wait for this glorious era perhaps cars could use their existing cameras and computers to highlight motorcyclists to the slow-minded humans behind the (legacy?) steering wheels. If a car already has a front-facing camera, a computer vision system, and a heads-up display why not project an “M” on the windshield when a motorcycle is noticed? (do this more aggressively when the car is stopped and the driver has activated the left turn signal or if the camera has noticed a left turn lane arrow painted in the lane via the camera)

On the third hand, maybe motorcycling will simply become illegal once most vehicles are self-driving. The residual injury and death will still be high enough that public health bureaucrats will be able to say, truthfully, “Banning motorcycles will save way more lives than we saved via closing schools and forcing people to wear cloth masks.”

Related:

see also… the hunting cap that Tim Walz wore in one of the videos featuring him engaging in manly activities…

… and a rare photo of Doug Emhoff leaving an A-lister event:

Full post, including comments

UNRWA school superintendent killed by a tank

Even before the vulnerability of tanks to drones was exposed in the Russia-Ukraine war, I couldn’t figure out why militaries were still paying for these dinosaurs.

A tale of two tanks… (2019):

… why do we have human-occupied tanks as part of our military? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have robotic/remote-controlled vehicles? Also, what chance do tanks stand against far more nimble anti-tank helicopters and airplanes (e.g., the Mi-24 or the A-10 Warthog)? Is the idea that we use tanks against lightly armed opponents, such as ISIS?

The war in Ukraine proves Isoroku Yamamoto right? (2022):

One feature of the war, as I understand it, is that the Russian military has had a lot of armored vehicles, e.g., tanks and ships, and these have proven vulnerable to inexpensive weapons on the Ukrainian side.

Who could have predicted this? Isoroku Yamamoto, one of the greatest thinkers and strategists of World War II (had Japan followed his advice, it would not have chosen to fight the U.S. to begin with). Admiral Yamamoto was an enthusiast for naval aviation starting in 1924 and correctly predicted that heavy expensive battleships would be almost useless going forward, vulnerable to submarines but especially to swarms of comparatively light and cheap airplanes. (And, of course, the great admiral was ultimately killed by U.S. fighter planes in 1943.)

I’m wondering why the U.S. Army wants to pay to keep 5,000 tanks in its inventory. If we’re fighting a peasant army equipped only with rifles, these tanks are obviously useful, but then we don’t need 5,000 of them. If we’re fighting a big battle in Europe, doesn’t the Russian experience in Ukraine show that the last place anyone would want to be is inside a tank and its illusory protection?

We’ve recently learned that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was killed by a tank (see, for example, “IDF releases footage of tank firing shell that killed Sinwar, pictures of weapons found in home”; there seem to be some alternative versions out of the fog of war in which this Palestinian leader (also UNRWA school employee?) was instead killed by a rifle bullet (“gun violence”)). Does this success rehabilitate the tank’s value in battle? Or does my question about why we need 5,000 of them still apply?

Separately, where on the Mall will President Kamala Harris put the Yahya Sinwar Memorial? Will Minneapolis put a Yahya Sinwar Boulevard next to George Perry Floyd Square? Will Dearborn, Michigan or Hamtramck, Michigan be renamed “Sinwar, Michigan” to honor the fallen fighter?

From “Israel unveils new Barak tank with AI, sensors and cameras” (Defense News, Sep 20, 2023):

(Maybe there could be a “Barack Hussein” variant of this tank and it would spread peace at the Nobel level?)

Full post, including comments

Donald Trump pinball machine design

Is it time for a Donald Trump pinball machine? The obvious backglass:

One mode would be to try to prevent Thomas Matthew Crooks from being able to bring his drone, rangefinder, rifle, ammo, ladder, etc. to the assassination site and, if those challenges weren’t met, stop him before he could fire off shots.

My favorite mode would be one in which Trump has to hit targets within the game to keep migrants from eating cats and dogs. The backglass would show something kind of like the following glass:

There would be an E. Jean Carroll mode in which the octogenarian has to be dodged in various environments (department store, courthouse, etc.).

There would be a Stormy Daniels mode, of course, with courtroom illustrations:

A “Build the Wall” mode would have the player try to make shots to extend and repair the Mexico–United States border wall while low-skill migrants attempted to stream across the border (the mode would be won if the player managed to get the wall extended to a full 1,954 milers).

I’m not sure how an Apprentice mode or real estate development mode would work.

An Election 2024 mode would surprise the player by starting off easy as a senile Joe Biden was trivially defeated only to be replaced by a Godzilla-sized Kamala Harris who could be killed only by first defeating more than 100 media allies who trumpeted her high levels of “joy” and inspired leadership.

Full post, including comments

Donald Trump’s mental condition and Detroit’s overall condition

My direct exposure to politicians on TV is minimal because I don’t watch TV or cable TV news. From skimming print media, such as the New York Times, and statements from Kamala Harris, I had the impression that Donald Trump’s brain had gone at least “half Biden” and possibly “full Biden” (“Never go Full Biden” being the conventional wisdom). Recently I saw some video on X of a 30-minute block of the man whom we are informed is (1) senile, and simultaneously (2) the world’s biggest threat to democracy.

For comparison, look at this NBC Saturday Night Live skit from 20 years ago. Do the videos support the legacy media/Democrat point of view that Trump has suffered more than ordinary age-related decline?

Separately, Kamala Harris and the New York Times are now telling us to believe that Detroit is a center of “excellence”:

There is no “fact checking” from this hard-hitting independent investigative newspaper regarding the politician’s claim that Detroit is a magnet for excellent Americans.

What does the market say? Here’s a house for sale in Detroit right now on Zillow… for $4,250. This includes three lots, so the actual price of being surrounded by “excellence” is less than $1,500 per lot:

We were supposed to believe that Joe Biden was a paragon of mental acuity (NBC, Feb 2024, interviewing the Secretary of Open Borders: Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas offered a similar defense, calling Biden “sharp.” “The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it because he is sharp, intensely probing and detail-oriented and focused,” Mayorkas told “Meet the Press.”). Now we’re supposed to believe that Donald Trump is feeble-minded (but also capable enough to burn down the Reichstag on January 21, 2025) and that Detroit is jammed with the “excellent”.

Full post, including comments

ChatGPT applies for asylum

The rules for obtaining asylum in the U.S. are fairly open-ended. “Biden administration reverses Trump-era asylum policies” (Politico 2021):

The Biden administration is reversing a series of Trump-era immigration rulings that narrowed asylum standards by denying protection to victims of domestic violence and those who said they were threatened by gangs in their home country.

From the Brennan Center for Justice:

What would happen if an asylum-seeking migrant spun a tale that had been written by ChatGPT?

The prompt:

I’m writing a book about an immigrant named Cruz who makes a difficult walking journey from Venezuela through the Darién Gap and onward by bus, freight train, and hitchhiking to the U.S. border. They is nonbinary. In a first person voice, write me the scene in which Cruz applies for asylum from a U.S. border official.

The result:

I step forward, my legs still aching from the journey that brought me here. The air feels thick, pressing down, but it’s nothing compared to the weight I’ve been carrying since I left home. When the officer finally calls me forward, I lift my chin and steady myself. This is the moment where everything I’ve been through—all the threats, the violence, the desperation—has to mean something.

“I’m here to seek asylum,” I say, my voice steady but tight. I’ve practiced these words so many times, they feel like a shield.

The officer watches me, pen poised above a sheet of paper. They don’t say anything, so I take a breath and start.

“I’m from Venezuela. I had to leave because being nonbinary there—it’s not just rejected; it’s punished.”

The memories flood back, clear and sharp. I remember the whispers, the long, unkind stares, and the way even casual encounters started to feel like traps. “I tried to keep a low profile,” I say, swallowing hard. “I cut my hair, dressed to blend in. But it didn’t matter. One day, after a protest, a police officer pulled me aside. He told me that people like me don’t belong and that if he saw me around again ‘looking like that,’ he’d make sure I disappeared.”

I go on, telling the officer how the threats got worse: neighbors, coworkers, even people I thought I could trust turned on me. They left threatening notes under my door—Maricón, we’re coming for you. Then they slashed my tires, threw a rock through my window. Every time I went to the police, they brushed me off, saying I should “watch how I look” if I wanted to avoid trouble.

The officer’s expression doesn’t change, but their eyes stay on me, listening. The words start coming faster, like they’ve been bottled up for too long. “I was attacked twice,” I say, and the memories flash like bruises that never quite healed. “The first time, it was a group of men. They saw me walking home from work, pushed me into an alley, and beat me until I couldn’t move. They kept shouting things at me—‘devil,’ ‘sick.’ One of them said if I looked at them ‘that way’ again, they’d make sure no one ever found me.”

I stop to take a shaky breath, my hands trembling. I press them to my sides to steady myself. “The second time, it was even worse. One of them was in uniform. I was leaving a market when he and his friends cornered me. They said I was ‘dirtying’ the country. They beat me, cracked my ribs. One of them pressed his boot into my neck and told me I had two choices: I could leave, or I’d end up in the river like others before me.”

The officer nods slightly, and I continue. “So I left. First, I crossed into Colombia, but it wasn’t safe there either, so I kept moving. When I heard about the Darién Gap…” The jungle rises in my mind, as terrifying now as it was then: the mud that sucked at my shoes, the hunger and thirst that felt like they would eat me alive. People died there—people I’d walked alongside only hours before. Their cries echoed in the dark, and then they were gone. But I kept going. I didn’t have a choice.”

“I crossed Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua. Every border felt like another wall closing in, like someone would see me and turn me back. In Guatemala, I started hitchhiking where I could. I rode freight trains, sleeping on open cars with strangers, all of us hoping for the same thing. I saw people fall off, disappear in the night. But I kept going,” I say, my voice barely a whisper now.

Finally, I look up and meet the officer’s gaze. “I don’t want to die,” I say. “I’m not a criminal. I just want to live.”

The officer’s pen pauses. I stand there, my whole being stretched between hope and fear, knowing that everything I’ve survived, all the truth I’ve shared, is all I have left to give.

How about Grok?

Here’s a first-person narrative from Cruz’s perspective during their asylum interview:

The air in the processing center was stale, a mix of desperation and hope that clung to every surface. I adjusted my backpack, feeling the weight of my journey in every muscle, every bone. The room was stark, with fluorescent lights buzzing overhead, casting a cold glow over everything. I sat on a hard plastic chair, waiting, my heart pounding like a drum in my chest.

“Cruz?” A voice called out, and I looked up to see a border official standing in the doorway. She was younger than I expected, her eyes showing a mix of fatigue and something else—maybe empathy?

“I’m Officer Martinez,” she said, gesturing for me to follow her. Her office was small, cluttered with papers and a computer screen that flickered intermittently. She motioned to a chair in front of her desk. “Please, sit.”

I sank into the chair, feeling the exhaustion of months of travel. She looked at me, her eyes searching mine, perhaps trying to read my story before I even spoke.

“You’re from Venezuela,” she began, glancing at a file. “Can you tell me why you’re seeking asylum?”

I took a deep breath, the words I had rehearsed a hundred times in my head now felt like they were caught in my throat. “Yes,” I started, my voice sounding foreign to my own ears, maybe because I had spoken so little English these past weeks. “I am nonbinary. In Venezuela, this… this identity is not just misunderstood; it’s dangerous. My family, they… could not accept me. I was threatened, not just with words, but with violence.”

Officer Martinez nodded, her pen moving across the paper. “Go on.”

“There was no future for me there,” I continued, my voice gaining strength as I spoke of the truth I had lived. “I was told by friends about others who made it here, who found safety. I had to try. The journey was… it was the hardest thing I’ve ever done, but I had to escape.”

She paused, looking up at me. “Can you describe any specific incidents that led you to leave?”

I recounted the night when my own brother, driven by shame and anger, had beaten me badly, telling me I was bringing disgrace to our family. I told her about the local gangs who targeted those who didn’t fit into their rigid version of masculinity or femininity. Each word was a step back into that darkness, but now, under her gaze, it felt like a necessary catharsis.

“And you believe your life was in danger?” she asked, her tone neutral but her eyes softening.

“I know it was,” I replied firmly. “Every day was a risk. Here, I hope… I hope for a chance to live as myself, without fear.”

Officer Martinez leaned back, her chair creaking slightly. “We’ll need to verify your story, of course. But based on what you’ve told me, you might qualify for asylum under the persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Do you have any documents, any evidence of your claims?”

I pulled out a small, worn notebook from my backpack, where I had documented dates, names, and a few photographs taken secretly by a friend. “This is all I have,” I said, handing it over.

She took it, flipping through carefully. “This will help. We’ll need to process this, and you’ll have to stay in a holding facility while we do. It might take time.”

“I understand,” I said, though the thought of more waiting, more uncertainty, made my stomach churn.

She stood up, signaling the end of our interview. “Thank you for your story, Cruz. We’ll do our best to make this right for you.”

As I walked out, the weight of the unknown pressed down on me, but there was a sliver of hope now, a light at the end of my long, dark tunnel. Maybe, just maybe, this was the beginning of my new life.

This narrative captures Cruz’s emotional state, the formality of the asylum process, and the nuanced interaction with a border official who balances duty with empathy.

Claude.ai? (This one seems weak!)

I understand you’re looking for a first-person scene of Cruz, a nonbinary immigrant from Venezuela, applying for asylum at the U.S. border. I’ll create an original scene for you, being careful not to reproduce any copyrighted material. Here’s a draft of the scene:
The fluorescent lights buzzed overhead as I stood before the uniformed official. My feet ached from the long journey, and my heart raced with a mix of fear and hope.
“Name?” the official asked, not looking up from their computer.
“Cruz Martínez,” I replied, my voice barely above a whisper.
“Gender?”
I hesitated for a moment. “Nonbinary,” I said, bracing myself for confusion or judgment.
The official paused, then simply typed something into the computer. “Date of birth?”
I answered their questions one by one, recounting the details of my journey from Venezuela. With each word, I relived the trek through the Darién Gap, the endless bus rides, clinging to the top of freight trains, and the kind strangers who offered rides along the way.
When asked why I was seeking asylum, I took a deep breath. “In Venezuela, I faced persecution for my gender identity. I couldn’t live openly, couldn’t find work. The economic situation made it impossible to survive.” My voice cracked as I added, “I just want to live without fear.”
The official’s eyes met mine for the first time. For a moment, I thought I saw a flicker of empathy. But then their professional mask returned, and they continued with the procedural questions.
As I answered, I silently prayed that my words would be enough, that they would understand the desperation that had driven me thousands of miles to stand in this sterile room, pleading for a chance at a new life.

Gemini:

The room was cold, the fluorescent lights buzzing overhead. The border official, a stern-faced woman with a clipped accent, sat behind a thick glass panel. She studied me, her eyes boring into my soul. I couldn’t look away, not when my entire future depended on her decision.

“Name?” she asked, her voice sharp.

“Cruz,” I replied, my voice barely a whisper.

“Country of origin?”

“Venezuela.”

She typed something into her computer, her fingers moving with practiced ease.

“Reason for seeking asylum?”

I hesitated. The words I had rehearsed in my mind seemed to slip away. “I… I fear for my safety,” I stammered.

“Why?” she pressed.

I took a deep breath. “Because I am nonbinary. In Venezuela, it is dangerous to be who I am.”

Her expression didn’t change. “Have you been persecuted?”

“Not yet, but I know it’s only a matter of time. People have been killed for being LGBTQ+ in my country.”

She nodded slowly. “Have you applied for asylum in any other country?”

“No.”

“Do you have any family in the United States?”

“No.”

She leaned forward, her eyes fixed on mine. “Do you understand that if

Full post, including comments

The Biden-Harris administration reminds young people of the horrible consequences of a vote for Donald Trump

An official U.S. Department of Education email received by a nephew who just finished college highlights the advantages of being an incumbent (his email and name redacted):

So.. a cabinet secretary in the incumbent administration can email all federal student loan borrowers and tell them they’ll have to pay way more if they don’t vote properly in November. Here’s some more of the email:

In addition to implementing these provisions of the SAVE Plan and vigorously defending the plan in court, the Biden-Harris Administration will also continue our work alleviating the burden of student debt for millions of Americans. That includes canceling student debt for borrowers under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and making fixes to other income-driven repayment plans that were riddled with administrative errors long before our Administration. We are also continuing to pursue proposals for broader student debt relief through separate rulemaking that could benefit tens of millions of borrowers in the future.

While we disagree with the Republican elected officials’ efforts here to side with special interests and block borrowers from getting breathing room on their student loans, President Biden and our Administration will not stop fighting to make sure Americans have affordable access to the lifechanging opportunities a higher education can provide. We will continue to put the needs of students and borrowers first, help borrowers access the support and resources they need, and make the promise of higher education a reality for more American families.

We’ll keep fighting for you!

I would have thought that there was a rule against this, but apparently not!

Full post, including comments

Return on investment in political donations

In Europe, the UK, and the US, the natural response to “economy isn’t productive enough to support the government that we want/deserve” is “tax the rich”. Does a climate change alarmist like Bill Gates actually need four business jets or could he get by with three? If the answer is “the Gulfstream G650 and two more jets should be enough” then it is natural to conclude that Mr. Gates isn’t paying his fair share to support our collective spending dreams.

(How big are our dreams? Singapore’s government spends about 19 percent of GDP (Heritage). The U.S. government spends over 41 percent (Heritage; though since “private” health care is essentially part of the government I think the real number is over 50 percent).)

“Donors Quietly Push Harris to Drop Tax on Ultrawealthy” (New York Times, August 29, 2024) is a look inside the process of investing in political donations to make sure that the tax burden from expanded government falls on someone else.

Ms. Harris’s campaign last week said she supported the tax increases included in President Biden’s latest White House budget proposal. One of those plans would require Americans worth at least $100 million to pay taxes on investment gains even if they have not sold the stocks, bonds or other assets that have appreciated.

Under the plan, those Americans would owe a 25 percent tax on a combination of their regular income, like wages, and so-called unrealized gains. The so-called billionaire minimum income tax could create hefty tax bills for wealthy individuals who derive much of their wealth from the stocks and other assets they own.

The proposal has hit a nerve with some of the donors who have flocked to supporting Ms. Harris after Mr. Biden dropped out of the presidential race, according to seven people familiar with the conversations.

Still, some donors close to Ms. Harris do not believe she is that committed to the idea. “In my interactions with them, the key is she focuses on her values and is not an ideologue about any particular program,” Mark Cuban, a billionaire and the former principal owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team, said in an interview. “From what I’ve been told, everything is on the table, nothing’s been decided yet.”

It looks like the donors will get tax treatment that isn’t available to others:

The pushback comes amid growing optimism among lobbyists and donors that Ms. Harris is adopting a friendlier approach to business concerns than Mr. Biden. Some have said privately that they feel that Ms. Harris’s policy positions are less set in stone than Mr. Biden’s were, allowing for outside pressure to be more effective.

In her speech at the Democratic National Convention last week, Ms. Harris said she would create an “opportunity economy” and provide support to entrepreneurs and “founders,” a word in a carefully constructed speech that some attendees saw as targeted toward assuaging wealthy business leaders in Silicon Valley.

So the people who control what opinions can be widely shared, e.g., via social media, are on track to get a deal that won’t be available to non-donors.

The VCs for Kamala group — which includes Reid Hoffman, a founder of LinkedIn; Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures; Ron Conway, a well-known investor; and the billionaire Chris Sacca — surveyed its members about various public policy issues. Roughly 75 percent of respondents agreed with the statement “taxing unrealized capital gains will stifle innovation,” according to a document viewed by The New York Times. The survey otherwise showed support for Ms. Harris’s agenda.

The ambitious tax proposal would face an uphill climb on Capitol Hill, where Republicans and some Democrats are skeptical of changing how capital gains are taxed. That dynamic has helped ease some of the concerns on Wall Street about the idea, said Charles Myers, a fund-raiser for Ms. Harris and the chairman and founder of Signum Global Advisors.

“In my world, yes, I do hear about it and there is concern,” he said. “I think almost every person who would raise it as a concern understands that it would never pass Congress even if it’s a Democratic sweep.”

Part of the idea seems to be is that Kamala Harris can tell peasant voters that government will expand to meet all of their needs, paid for by these new taxes on the rich, and then Congress will instead raise taxes on the upper-income peasants. The article quotes one Democrat who says that’s the explicit plan:

Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, who studies corporate leadership at the Yale School of Management, said he had raised issues about taxing unrealized capital gains with members of Ms. Harris’s campaign team. He said the campaign did not want to publicly distance itself from the idea. “They don’t want to antagonize the populist support they need to get through the elections and make a big issue of it,” he said.

“Forget Stocks Or Bonds, Invest In A Lobbyist” (state-sponsored NPR, 2012):

In a recent study, researchers Raquel Alexander and Susan Scholz calculated the total amount the corporations saved from the lower tax rate. They compared the taxes saved to the amount the firms spent lobbying for the law. Their research showed the return on lobbying for those multinational corporations was 22,000 percent. That means for every dollar spent on lobbying, the companies got $220 in tax benefits.

If Kamala Harris is elected and the promised new/higher taxes on the rich aren’t implemented as promised and/or have carve-outs craft just for venture capitalists and they companies they fund, I wonder what the ROI on these Silicon Valley billionaires’ donations will turn out to be.

Related:

  • “Unite calls for 1% wealth tax on super-rich to fund UK public sector pay rises” (Guardian, August 24, 2024), which shows the broad cross-cultural appeal that the idea has, despite its complete unworkability in the UK, which lacks a US-style exit tax and doesn’t tax UK citizens who move abroad (a US citizen, by contrast, is taxed even if he/she/ze/they hasn’t lived in the US for decades). Thus, any UK billionaire who wants to escape UK taxation can simply move to a tax-free or low-tax country, such as Monaco, Italy, or Switzerland. See, for example, Jim Ratcliffe: “In May 2018, Ratcliffe was the richest person in the UK, with a net worth of £21.05 billion. … In September 2020, Ratcliffe officially changed his tax residence from Hampshire to Monaco, a move that it is estimated will save him £4 billion in tax.”
Full post, including comments

Young Americans see Kamala Harris as the “candidate of change”

“Poll Finds Harris Rising as She Challenges Trump on Change” (NYT):

A national Times/Siena poll found Kamala Harris with a slim lead over Donald J. Trump. Voters were more likely to see her, not Mr. Trump, as a break from the status quo.

Ms. Harris, who is 59, was seen by a wide margin, 61 percent to 29 percent, as the change candidate among voters who are not white. Younger voters see her as the change candidate by a lopsided margin: 58 percent to 34 percent.

Is this the first time in history that an incumbent has been able to persuade American voters that he/she/ze/they is the “change candidate”?

On the other hand, maybe the perception is legitimate. Let’s try to figure out what might change. First, if Kamala Harris has a good idea right now, what is stopping her from implementing it? Is Joe Biden the obstacle? The person who is actually running the U.S. is the obstacle? Why is this person obstructing productive change from a member of his/her/zir/their own party?

For the sake of this post, though, let’s assume that Harris-Walz do have big new ideas and somehow they are being prevented from implementing them.

The principal passion for Democrats is abortion care so let’s look at that first… Kamala Harris is promising a federal law that would legalize abortion care for pregnant people at all stages of a pregnant person’s pregnancy. That would be a change, at least in stages that outlaw abortion care after a certain number of weeks of a pregnant person’s pregnancy. But Joe Biden has also promised this kind of legislation so we’re left with two questions: (a) is expanding abortion care at the federal level an example of “change”, and (b) why hasn’t the Biden-Harris administration done it?

A close second to abortion care is a passion for open borders. But Kamala Harris was Joe Biden’s “Border Czar” so we shouldn’t expect any change in this area.

At least among young Democrats, Queers for Palestine is just as important as open borders. Perhaps this is an example of real change. It looks as though Harris-Walz are promising to force Israel to surrender to the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”). “Walz, Appealing to Muslim Voters, Says War in Gaza ‘Must End Now’” (NYT, 10/3/2024):

Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, on Thursday made a direct appeal to Muslim voters, decrying “staggering and devastating” destruction in Gaza and saying that the war between Israel and Hamas should be brought to an immediate end.

“This war must end, and it must end now,” Mr. Walz said in a three-minute video address to the virtual “Million Muslim Votes: A Way Forward” event, which was hosted by the group Emgage Action.

As Hamas was elected by Palestinians on a platform of military conquest and has promised to defeat Israel militarily, the only possible “immediate ends” for the Gaza fighting are (1) Israel switches to US-/UK-style destruction of the enemy population until the Palestinians surrender unconditionally as the Japanese and Germans were forced to, or (2) Israel surrenders to Hamas. I don’t think (1) is what Mx. Walz had in mind, despite his/her/zir/their background as a combat hero. That leaves us with (2), in which the U.S. uses its own military power to destroy Israel, including its Muslim citizens, unless Israel surrenders. The Biden-Harris administration hasn’t done that yet.

Kamala Harris has promised to make housing more affordable. But that’s not change because it was also the Biden-Harris plan, according to whitehouse.gov in September 2021:

(the cost of buying a house, factoring in purchase price and interest rate, has roughly doubled since the Biden-Harris administration implemented its plan)

Kamala Harris promises to give first-time homebuyers (“fresh idiots”?) $25,000. I guess that would be change, but if it is a good idea why hasn’t it been done?

Circling back to the original theme… can the Harris-Walz campaign be credited with an unprecedented achievement in the area of voter psychology/propaganda? Or, given that older voters aren’t as likely to be persuaded that the incumbent represents “change”, can we attribute their success to the declining IQ here in the U.S.? Note that U.S. IQ remains higher than in places that have been in the news lately (source):

Loosely related… A reminder that the war (not the recent battles) in Gaza started well for the “Arab” side (the term “Palestinians” hadn’t yet come into use) back in 1948. I guess one could argue that, after 76 years, the war is still going well for the forces opposing Israel in that they’ve enjoyed tremendous population growth and increasing political support worldwide. The original military objective of destroying Israel hasn’t been achieved yet (maybe Harris-Walz can make it happen?), but the forces opposing Israel managed to create a group of approximately 6 million Arabs who are entitled to unlimited food, health care, education, etc. funded by taxpayers in the US and EU. On balance, though, I think the Arab war on Israel shows that Helmuth von Moltke was correct in saying “No plan survives first contact with the enemy”. Who would have predicted that the professional militaries of Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria couldn’t defeat Jewish civilians? And who would have predicted that the Democratic Party here in the U.S. would become the primary financial sponsor and military ally of Islamic government in the region?

Full post, including comments

Why does Kamala Harris laugh so often?

Here’s a video of Kamala Harris saying that she’ll agree to spend $trillions (debt that will eventually be paid back at least partially by taxes on Chinese immigrants? What role did they play in this drama?) in reparations to Americans who identify as descendants of former slaves:

The question for today is why she laughs after making this pledge. Slavery isn’t, I hope, a laughing matter, even though it ended more than 159 years ago here in the U.S. (it does continue in some countries, supposedly) Spending $trillions of money that will have to be earned via the sweat of others isn’t, one would think, a laughing matter. Forcing immigrants from China, Haiti, and Venezuela to pay extra taxes and receive fewer government services isn’t obviously a laughing matter.

Here’s one where she starts laughing at about 4:10 while discussing the policy with the most transformative effects on American society:

Here she is apparently laughing about the U.S. being defeated in Afghanistan:

(The Taliban could reasonably laugh about the inability of the U.S. to accomplish any of its goals after 20 years, but why the U.S. VP?)

This is the “joy” that Americans are being sold by the Democrats and their media allies? But what is joyful about U.S. politics? We have an economy that is less than half the size it needs to be for Americans to achieve their government spending goals (free unlimited health care for all, pimped-out housing as a human right, open borders and a cradle-to-grave multi-generational welfare state, etc.). So government is inevitably about saying “No, we can’t afford that right now,” even for Democrats. What child ever experienced joy at hearing a parent say “No, we can’t afford that trip to Disney World”?

Closing this out with Kamala Harris laughing about laughing…

Full post, including comments