The Democrats’ latest tax schemes, recently highlighted by Kamala Harris, include collecting tax on unrealized capital gains. To me, one of the strangest things about the US tax system is that losses are taxed as capital gains so long as there is even the slightest amount of inflation. For example, if you bought a stock in January 2021 for $100 and sold it today for $110 more you’d have about $10 in today’s dollars terms under official CPI and closer to $80 if adjusted for house purchasing power (Zillow). Despite the loss on what turned out to be an unsuccessful investment, you’d owe federal and, perhaps, state tax on the sale. The current not-adjusted-for-inflation capital gains tax regime is, thus, rather cruel when combined with Bidenflation but at least you can choose when to pay the tax on your fictitious profit/real loss.
It’s the 23rd anniversary of 9/11, described by Wikipedia as “Islamist terrorist suicide attacks”, and the first 9/11 anniversary since soldiers of the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”), UNRWA, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad invaded Israel (October 7, 2023).
At least on September 12, 2001, nearly everyone in the New York metro area apparently believed that jihad was bad. It is tough to find a statistic on how many Muslims lived in NYC in 2001, but at least their leadership came out against attacking civilians: “No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts.” (Wikipedia).
Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters gathered at Union Square Friday – before joining another massive rally near Bryant Park and marching to locations listed on a troubling map that called for “direct action” to “globalize intifada.”
By early Friday evening, the crowd made at least five stops in Manhattan that the Palestinian-led community organization Within Our Lifetime called for followers to target in a since-deleted social media post Thursday.
Outside The New York Times building, one enraged protester holding a Palestinian flag appeared to say “Bomb the New York Times. Bomb the New York Times!”
Oscar-winning actress Susan Sarandon was in attendance and donned a playful Simpsons-themed bomber jacket to the protest, which also called out politicians by name.
She joined the crowd in chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – which is largely regarded as an antisemitic slogan that implies the decimation of Israel – before addressing the group herself.
“There are a lot of people that are afraid, that are afraid of being Jewish at this time, and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country,” she said.
Some of the protesters held a banner that read “By any means necessary” – seemingly implying that Palestine should be freed at all costs, even violence.
The “by any means necessary” slogan presumably includes attacks on Israeli civilians, as featured on October 7, 2023 and, since at least 2001, via rocket attacks from Gaza and Lebanon (the rockets are generally targeted at cities, such as Tel Aviv). “By any means necessary” also includes, much to my surprise, taking and holding fellow Muslims hostage.
How widespread has the support for killing Israeli civilians been? As of November 17, 2023:
The Union Square event is one of hundreds of similar gatherings that took place in New York City and beyond this week, as tensions continue to simmer in the aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7 sneak attack on southern Israel and Israel’s subsequent retaliatory bombardment of the Gaza Strip.
At least New York City, therefore, has been transformed in just 23 years from a place where jihad is condemned to a place where jihad is celebrated. What would New Yorkers do today if a jihad were waged against civilian New Yorkers (targeted in some way so as not to affect Muslim New Yorkers) to “stop the genocide”, for example?
Associated Press video: “Palestinian men, women and children chanted in jubilation after terrorists crashed two planes into the World Trade Center causing them to collapse on Tuesday morning.”
In America, there is a persistent, pernicious belief that the only way to be invested in a child’s life is to be a parent — and, for women, to give birth to that child. (Ella and Cole Emhoff, among others, would like a word.) In a country that offers so little support to parents, this often feels like a not-so-covert argument for taking women back to a time when they lacked control over their bodies and their finances.
To understand the extraordinary commitment it takes to parent — because you see it firsthand — and decide to direct your own time elsewhere…
If he/she/ze/they has never been a parent, how can he/she/ze/they be sure that he/she/ze/they “understand” anything about being a parent?
Separately, I love that the editors allow “a country that offers so little support to parents” to be presented as a statement of fact. The U.S. provides 13 years of free education/daycare to parents who don’t want to deal with their kids. The U.S. also provides taxpayer-funded breakfast and lunch at school for parents who choose to not work or, as in Palm Beach County, to all parents. The U.S. forces the childless to work longer hours and pay higher taxes to subsidize parents with lower tax rates. The childless are even forced, under threat of imprisonment, to pay taxes to subsidize college and, new with the Biden-Harris administration, loan “forgiveness” (transfer to the general taxpayer). How is that “little support”? What more could the childless do for us parents? Buy us a new Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna every 3 years?
Circling back to the main theme, we’re informed that we should defer to experts selected by the legacy media and not commit the sin of “doing our own research”. And it turns out that the NYT-selected expert on parenting has some experience… as a babysitter.
Here’s the author in 2018 (a childless cat lady with no cats?):
Almost as exciting to progressives as a new COVID-19 vaccine… Apple has announced the iPhone 16 (two cameras/lenses) and iPhone 16 Pro (three cameras/lenses).
For us photo nerds, plainly, the 16 Pro is the only device of interest. I can’t figure out what’s different, though. Here’s what Apple says:
With iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max, the world’s favorite camera gets even more powerful. Powered by A18 Pro, the upgraded camera system introduces a new 48MP Fusion camera with a faster, more efficient quad-pixel sensor and Apple Camera Interface, unlocking 4K120 fps video recording in Dolby Vision — the highest resolution and frame-rate combination ever available on iPhone, and a smartphone first. The quad-pixel sensor can read data 2x faster, enabling zero shutter lag for 48MP ProRAW or HEIF photos. A new 48MP Ultra Wide camera also features a quad-pixel sensor with autofocus, so users can take higher-resolution 48MP ProRAW and HEIF images when capturing uniquely framed, wider-angle shots or getting close to their subjects with macro photography. The powerful 5x Telephoto camera now comes on both iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max, allowing users to catch the action from farther away, no matter which model they choose. iPhone 16 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro Max now take spatial photos in addition to videos to help users relive memories with remarkable depth on Apple Vision Pro.
For still photography, it sounds as though maybe the wide angle camera will yield higher resolution results (but is the lens good enough for that to matter?).
There is some new camera software, which makes the phone work more like a legacy DSLR:
Camera Control — a result of thoughtful hardware and software integration — makes the pro camera system more versatile with an innovative new way to quickly launch the camera, take a photo, and start video recording. It has a tactile switch that powers the click experience, a high-precision force sensor that enables the light press gesture, and a capacitive sensor that allows for touch interactions. A new camera preview helps users frame the shot and adjust other control options — such as zoom, exposure, or depth of field — to compose a stunning photo or video by sliding their finger on the Camera Control. Later this fall, Camera Control will be updated with a two-stage shutter to automatically lock focus and exposure on a subject with a light press, letting users reframe the shot without losing focus. Additionally, developers will be able to bring Camera Control to third-party apps such as Kino, which will offer users the ability to adjust white balance and set focus points, including at various levels of depth in their scene.
But maybe this will also work with older iPhones?
The company claims that they’re going to automatically generate blather suitable for emailing (“Built for Apple Intelligence”), but there is no evidence that they’ve tackled the “fill out a shopping/shipping form” challenge.
I guess I will buy one to replace my iPhone 14 Pro Max (recently failed and required a $219 new camera module at the Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Apple Store (a model of customer service, I have to admit!)), if only to enter the glorious USB-C era that Android users entered 10 years ago and to lord it over Android users (“I have AI and you have nothing”).
What’s a good example of a recent photo that I couldn’t have taken without the cameraphone? Here’s one from Costco that can be captioned “Starlink is everywhere”:
And here’s the Big Bang Bar pinball machine, one of about 200 made, at the Delray Beach Silverball Museum:
It’s unlikely I would have carried a serious camera into these situations, so here’s a shout-out to the engineers at Kyocera who pioneered the camera phone in May 1999 (eight years before Apple released the iPhone).
Related:
A University for the People becomes an Apple Store (“Carnegie donated the library building [in Washington, DC] to the public. Now it can be used by any member of the public who can afford $1,000 for a phone.”)
We walked to a friend from Maskachusetts shortly after the noble Gazans made the news for amputating a young American citizen’s arm, holding him hostage for 11 months, and then executing him shortly before he would have been rescued by the IDF. Hersh Goldberg-Polin was 23 years old, was not serving in the Israeli military, and “was reportedly working with an initiative that was using soccer to bring Israeli and Palestinian children together” (Wikipedia).
As with other Democrats, the murder of Hersh Goldberg-Polin did not dampen her enthusiasm for voting for Kamala Harris, who has pledged to continue funding Hamas (via UNRWA, a funding path that Donald Trump cut off and Joe Biden restored in 2021; unless the October 7 attacks cost more than $1 billion it is fair to say that the Biden-Harris administration funded 100 percent of it with our tax dollars). She did volunteer her belief that there was an urgent need to “solve the Israel-Palestine Problem”. I asked her why the Maskachusetts Righteous sympathies were there rather than with Black Lives Matter or American Women, two victimhood classes that had previously generated large rallies. She said that Democrats were still passionate about these causes, but couldn’t remember any BLM events post-October 7, 2023. I asked why the failure of the Palestinians to achieve their 1948 military goals made them more sympathy-worthy than any of the 1.5 billion residents of Africa, about whom she had never expressed any concern. She said, “I guess I hear more about the Palestinians in the news.”
What was her plan for resolving the conflict? She believed that Palestinian children were being indoctrinated by a message of Jew-/Israel-hatred in their schools (funded by US and EU taxpayers, of course) and that the solution was to bring them to the U.S. so that they could instead be indoctrinated by American schools (also funded by US taxpayers so perhaps this isn’t a huge change from a financial point of view). I didn’t point out that Queers for Palestine and similar rallies all around the U.S. show that there is plenty of “destroy Israel” energy among those who go through American K-12, but I did ask “Why would the typical Palestinian go to the trouble of having 5 kids and then just give them up voluntarily to American do-gooders running a reeducation scheme in which Christianity and Judaism have equal status to Islam?” Our Massachusetts Kamala voter said, “the parents can come too if they want.” I pointed out that, given Gaza’s world-leading population growth rate, almost every adult there has at least one minor child and, therefore, she was proposing that the entire population of Gaza be admitted to the United States to become American citizens. She said that it was indeed her expectation that the majority of Gazans would come to the U.S. I then pointed out that 50,000 babies had been born in Gaza during the recent battles (not to say “war” since that started in 1948 and the Palestinians have never accepted any kind of peace; there has been a continuous officially declared war going for 76 years now). Wouldn’t a new crop of Hamas warriors, therefore, be born soon enough and be able to carry on the fight even if most of their older brothers, sisters, and binary-resisters were peacefully voting for Democrats in Michigan? She didn’t seem to have considered the possibility that Gazans left behind, still getting unlimited food, education, health care, etc. free from UNRWA, would continue the Palestinian tradition of off-the-charts fertility. (See “Reproductive decisions in the lives of West Bank Palestinian women: Dimensions and contradictions” (2017, Global Public Health):
Palestinian women have one of the highest fertility rates in the world, averaging 4.38 births per woman. However, Palestinian fertility patterns are distinct from those of other developing nations, in that high fertility rates coexist alongside high levels of education and low levels of infant mortality – both of which have been established elsewhere as predictors of low total fertility rates.
).
I share this conversation because I thought it was an interesting window into the mind of a Kamala Harris voter. The best way to heal the world is a further expansion of low-skill immigration to the U.S.
Separately, given the success that Hamas has enjoyed after taking and killing American hostages what happens to U.S. citizens in other parts of the world going forward? Since taking American hostages Hamas has secured from the Biden-Harris administration (a) promises of continued funding, (b) a $230 million pier (admittedly washed away quickly), (c) support for the Hamas-sought “permanent ceasefire” that leaves Hamas leaders alive and well and permanently in charge of Gaza, (d) pressure on Israel for a long delay in the IDF operation in Rafah, which turns out to be where at least one American hostage was held and killed (see “Harris warns it would be a ‘mistake’ for Israel to invade Rafah” (CNN, March 25, 2024)) and “Kamala Harris says Israel assault on Rafah ‘would be a huge mistake’” (Guardian)), and (e) diplomatic recognition by a variety of purported U.S. allies and military client states as leaders of their own sovereign nation (“Spain, Norway and Ireland formally recognize a Palestinian state as EU rift with Israel widens” (AP)). What’s the downside to taking American hostages in the Biden-Harris era?
The Brazilian masses responded to elite advice and voted to preserve their democracy (50.9:49.1), but the threat wasn’t completely extinguished. “The Big Lie Is Going Global. We Saw It in Brazil.” (New York Times, November 14, 2022), for example:
Donald Trump’s playbook of poisoning the polity with misinformation … is being exported and deployed beyond the United States and becoming a transnational threat to democracy.
Mr. Trump’s methods were energetically adopted in Brazil by his authoritarian, right-wing friend Jair Bolsonaro, who pushed misinformation during his presidency, seeded distrust in the electoral system for years and, eventually, tried to discredit the electoral process in Brazil after losing the presidential election to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva last month.
It’s bad enough when a threat to democracy speaks and even worse when he/she/ze/they doesn’t speak:
For more than 44 hours after his electoral defeat, Mr. Bolsonaro maintained a dangerous silence
So long as the government does not control all media and social media, democracy is unsafe:
The attempts of Mr. Bolsonaro and his supporters to create uncertainty about Brazil’s future could be the new global norm as would-be autocrats are embracing the Big Lie as a legitimate political strategy.
To combat disinformation, Brazil gave one judge broad power to police the internet.
That justice, Alexandre de Moraes, has since carried out an aggressive campaign to clean up his country’s internet, forcing social networks to pull down thousands of posts, often giving them a deadline of just hours to comply.
It has been one of the most comprehensive — and, in some ways, most effective — efforts to combat the scourge of internet falsehoods.
When his online crackdown helped stifle far-right efforts to overturn Brazil’s election, academics and commentators wondered whether the nation had found a possible solution to one of the most vexing problems of modern democracy.
Then, on Friday, Justice Moraes blocked the social network X across Brazil because its owner, Elon Musk, had ignored his court orders to remove accounts. As part of the blackout order, the judge said internet users who tried to circumvent his measure in order to keep using X could be fined nearly $9,000 a day, or more than what the average Brazilian makes a year.
Justice Moraes has continued to use the threat to democracy as a justification for his actions. In his order on Friday, he said Mr. Musk’s refusal to comply with orders to suspend accounts “represents an extremely serious risk to the municipal elections in October” in Brazil.
The NASA pavilion at EAA AirVenture (“Oshkosh”) 2024:
(These are the plastic bags that are good for the environment?)
What else was going on? NASA arranged to have a Boeing Starliner parked in front:
The NISAR mission was featured. This was supposed to be launched in January 2022 and will supposedly be able to measure displacements of parts of Earth’s surface as small as 3.5 mm. I’m not sure if this includes vertical displacement, e.g., to see whether sea levels are indeed rising to the point that owners of multi-$billion lower Manhattan and Boston real estate portfolios need to be bailed out by taxpayers in the Midwest. The satellite will supposedly be able to watch glaciers and ice sheets moving. I don’t think that it can measure sea level directly because the Science Users’ Handbook says “Provide observations of relative sea level rise from melting land ice and land subsidence.” How many migrants could have been housed for the cost of this mission? “NISAR launch slips to 2025” (July 29, 2024) says “with NASA alone spending more than $1 billion in formulation and development of the mission”. Taxpayers spend about $200,000 per year per migrant family welcomed in New York ($140k/year for food and housing and then let’s assume another $60,000/year for health care and other benefits). So if we hadn’t spent money on NISAR we could have supported 1,000 additional migrant families for five years.
NASA was also featuring the X-66, a collaboration with Boeing on an airliner that could possibly cut fuel burn by 30 percent, mostly via high aspect ratio wings (as you might see on a glider). We’re in a “climate crisis” according to our ablest minds, e.g., Kamala Harris, and “communities of color are often the hardest hit”. When will communities of color see some relief from the X-66? NASA says that if everything goes perfect the X-66 might get into the air as soon as 2028 and then, in the year 2050, we’ll be in a net-zero phase for aviation. The United Nations forecasts that world population will grow to approximately 10 billion by 2050. So we’ll have more people taking more trips, mostly in planes that were built to current designs, and the result will be much less environmental impact.
IRC 877A imposes a mark-to-market regime, which generally means that all property of a covered expatriate is deemed sold for its fair market value on the day before the expatriation date. Any gain arising from the deemed sale is taken into account for the tax year of the deemed sale notwithstanding any other provisions of the Code. Any loss from the deemed sale is taken into account for the tax year of the deemed sale to the extent otherwise provided in the Code, except that the wash sale rules of IRC 1091 do not apply.
Section 877A(a) generally imposes a mark-to-market regime on expatriates who are covered by section 877A, providing that all property of a covered expatriate is treated as sold on the day before the expatriation date for its fair market value.
For purposes of the mark-to-market regime, the covered expatriate is deemed to have sold any interest in property that he or she is considered to own under the rules of this paragraph other than property described in section 877A(c). For purposes of computing the tax liability under the mark-to-market regime, a covered expatriate is considered to own any interest in property that would be taxable as part of his or her gross estate for Federal estate tax purposes under Chapter 11 of Subtitle B of the Code as if he or she had died on the day before the expatriation date as a citizen or resident of the United States.
In computing the tax liability under the mark-to-market regime, a covered expatriate must use the fair market value of each interest in property as of the day before the expatriation date in accordance with the valuation principles applicable for purposes of the Federal estate tax, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph.
The number of individuals who renounce their U.S. citizenship or terminate their green card status has increased significantly since the enactment of the current expatriation tax regime in 2008. Lists of these individuals published quarterly by the IRS in the Federal Register show that the number of individuals expatriating has increased from 312 in 2008 to 3,260 in 2023, with a peak of 6,705 in 2020.
My big question is how President Kamala Harris will collect long-term money from the targets of her extended (not exactly new, as noted above) unrealized capital gains tax. A person targeted by the tax has two choices:
pay President Harris for unrealized capital gains in 2026 (let’s assume it takes a while for this to be implemented), 2027, 2028, and every subsequent year until death
pay President Harris for unrealized capital gains at long-term rates in 2025 and then never pay income taxes to President Harris, the U.S. government, or any other government again (expatriation)
Why wouldn’t a rational target of the new tax choose Option 2? He/she/ze/they renounces U.S. citizenship, moves his/her/zir/their assets into an offshore Dutch trust (as U2 did) and moves to any country that doesn’t dig into offshore assets/income for computing income tax. Or establish a residence in Italy and pay a flat tax rate of €200,000 a year (recently bumped up from the €100,000/year rate established in 2017, which means it has kept roughly even after adjusting for inflation in the costs of things that rich people buy, but the bump doesn’t affect people who signed up for this prior to August 2024). Or simply move to a country that doesn’t impose any income tax (KMPG on relocation to Monaco). If the expat is nostalgic, he/she/ze/they can return to the US for 30-60 days per year, depending on the employment situation, without becoming subject to U.S. taxation.
There is a lot to like about living in the U.S. (especially here in Florida!), but is it worth paying 100X as much in taxes compared to living in some other part of the world? If there are friends you want to see buy them a first class ticket to Heathrow and push your way through the pro-Hamas rallies to a night of theater. Or, if you’re truly one of those who has taken more than he/she/ze/they needs, send the Gulfstream or Airbus Corporate Jet to pick up the friends.
Here’s a place in northern Italy that costs less than a tract house in Palm Beach County ($2.7 million for a modern house on 22 acres):
Given the tax savings, maybe there isn’t any need for maintenance. Just buy a new house every few years with a fraction of what would have been paid in unrealized capital gains tax and give the old house to a charity.
Separately, why didn’t the Democrats impose their new tax regime during the first two years of the Biden-Harris administration when they had control of both houses of Congress and the White House? How can Kamala Harris simultaneously say that she agrees with everything that Joe Biden did (or read from a teleprompter) and also that she will do completely different stuff starting January 2025?
Wikipedia page on Eduardo Saverin: “a Brazilian billionaire entrepreneur and angel investor based in Singapore. … With an estimated net worth of US$26.3 billion as of early August 2024, he is the 69th richest person in the world, and the richest Brazilian. Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship in September 2011, thereby avoiding an estimated US$700 million in capital gains taxes.”
A few months ago I wondered if the Second Amendment right to bear arms was compatible with mass immigration: How can a country have a right to bear arms and also an open border? (people with violent criminal histories can walk into the U.S. become citizens since we don’t have access to databases in all of the countries that are enriching us)
The U.K. doesn’t have a constitution, but the peasants there thought that they had a right to free speech until recently when they learned that opinions regarding mass immigration needed to be expressed within strict limits (example). This post is about whether the U.S. will need to formally repeal both the First and Second Amendments in order to create greater harmony in a country that is more densely packed with humans who have nothing in common other than not liking where they used to live.
We’ve already had to restrict the right to express disagreement with the state religion. See, for example, Adolfo Martinez’s 16-year prison sentence for taking a sacred Rainbow Flag off an Iowa church and burning it in the middle of the street (Reason describes it as a 15-year sentence, but maybe that is because of a confusion about credit for time served? Interestingly, the pastor of the purportedly “turn the other cheek” church was delighted with the heretic’s sentence, about what Attempted Murder might have gotten).
Elites and peasants have completely opposite financial interests when it comes to low-skill immigration (see the Harvard analysis in “Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers” finding a $500 billion/year transfer from the working class to the elite at pre-Biden/Harris levels of immigration and in pre-Biden/Harris dollars). This division has been explicit in the U.K. where the peasants voted, via Brexit, to reduce low-skill immigration and the elites simply ignored them. From The Telegraph, August 22, 2024:
For nearly 30 years the public have voted for lower immigration, only for politicians of all stripes to raise it. Even after Brexit, when we finally regained control of our borders, the public were betrayed. Decisions taken in 2019 relaxed controls and sent net migration spiralling to historically unprecedented levels. Freedom of movement with Europe was replaced with a system so liberal it effectively amounted to freedom of movement with the rest of the world.
In the first quarter of this year, the government issued more family visas to the dependants and relatives of Somali nationals (269) than it did work visas to physicists, chemists and biologists from all other countries put together (198).
Despite the increase in spousal visas, Labour have already scrapped the plan to raise the minimum income requirement for family visas from £29,000 to £38,700. It’s a return to the type of low-skilled immigration that has burdened, not boosted, our economy.
I was chatting recently with a friend who Zooms it into a $500,000/year job from a multi-acre property in the Boston suburbs. She said, “I’m going to vote for Harris because we need more immigration. It is too difficult to find people to work on the house and yard at a reasonable price.” (She’s registered to vote in Maskachusetts so, of course, her vote won’t matter, but I found her reasoning interesting.) This explicit wish for lower market-clearing wages seems like the kind of expression that will need to be suppressed because it would inevitably lead to disharmony. On the other side, we would need to suppress “dangerous and false narratives” (MSNBC) that open borders are conducive to crime and drugs. If a narrative is “dangerous” then shouldn’t we want to prevent people from providing that narrative? I hope that we can all agree that danger is bad and safety is good. See also “Politicians’ talk of a border ‘invasion’ is speech that experts say has gotten people killed” (Ohio Capital Journal, April 2024). We don’t want people being killed merely because we can’t get rid of an outdated part of the Constitution that might have made sense when the U.S. was young, small, and socially cohesive.
“We all have to remember that hate crimes are preceded by hate speech.” This is how Adama Dieng, UN’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, starts the Stopping Hate Speech video. “We have to bear in mind that words kill. Words kill as bullets”, he continued.
If we want to prevent violence among the disparate groups that now reside in the U.S., won’t we need to prevent unauthorized speech?
Here are some folks who could use a cooling off in prison, for example:
(“Deport All Illegals” doesn’t make sense given our asylum laws that nobody proposes changing. As soon as a person says “I felt unsafe back home” he/she/ze/they is a legal asylum-seeker. The “Assimilate” sign also makes no sense. If we are offering immigration on the basis of a lack of safety in some other country there is no reason to believe that someone here to take us up on our offer of asylum has any affinity for what used to be considered American culture.)
Loosely related… Kamala Harris says that a muscular president can ban guns (or at least some types of guns) without amending the Constitution:
ABC: Joe Biden says there’s no constitutional authority to ban assault weapons via executive order. Do you agree?
Kamala: “Instead of saying no we can't, let’s say yes we can!”
Biden: “Lets be constitutional. We’ve got a Constitution."
We are informed that Americans are racist and sexist and that’s why we need to discriminate against white and Asian males in university admissions, job applications, and government contracting. We are also informed that Kamala Harris, who identifies as a “Black woman” is likely to win the November Presidential election, e.g., “Democrats Kick Off Convention With Harris Ahead of Trump in Polls and Betting Odds” (TIME, August 19, 2024).
Can these facts be logically consistent?
(Of course, a person identifying as “Black” already won two U.S. presidential elections, but at the time this person identified as “male” rather than “female”, so the question of the effect of combined racism and sexism didn’t arise.)
From the U.S. government: “The federal government’s goal is to award at least 5% of all federal contracting dollars to women-owned small businesses each year.” and “Each year, the federal government contracts to Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs). This amount makes up about 10% of all annual federal contracting dollars.”
There is a rebuttable presumption that the following individuals are socially disadvantaged: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, or enrolled members of a Federally or State recognized Indian Tribe); Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal); and members of other groups designated from time to time by SBA
If Kamala Harris also identifies as “Indian” then she is doubly “disadvantaged”.
Separately, I’m struggling to understand how an immigrant from Singapore is “disadvantaged” by originating in a country with a substantially higher average GDP per capita, a substantially higher average IQ, and substantially lower tax rates, than the U.S. Social justice is when an immigrant from Singapore with a Ph.D. in chemistry gets a government contract ahead of someone who grew up in a West Virginia Medicaid-fueled opioid mill town?
