Monthly Archives: July 2023

Dead Ends.

Posted on by
Reply

            Two recent government investigations have hit dead-ends.  First, who leaked the draft opinion of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade?  Apparently, it wasn’t any of the law clerks or administrative support staff.  The investigation stopped there.  Second, somebody left a bag of cocaine near an entrance to the West Wing of the White House.  Apparently there isn’t sufficient video surveillance of the West Wing to determine whom that might have been.  The investigation stopped there.  Journalists seem not to be pursuing the questions on their own. 

            Upton Sinclair once said that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”  Well, it’s also difficult to investigate something when you don’t want to know the answer. 

            Then there’s the Hunter Biden case.  It seems clear that Republicans are pursuing this case in hopes of besmirching President Biden before the 2024 election.  So what?  That’s how James Madison imagined the Constitution would work: the bad behavior of one side would hold in check the bad behavior of the other side.[1]  That seems to have more-or-less worked for better than 200 years. 

Did Hunter Biden got a “sweetheart deal” because his father is the President of the United States?  According to Attorney General Merrick Garland and U.S. Attorney David Weiss, Hunter Biden got no favors.  Everything was done by the book.  Weiss had a completely free hand.  He could have charged Biden with anything the evidence would support and in any jurisdiction; the plea deal fell within completely normal guidelines for similar cases. 

Not so, say a couple of IRS agents involved in the five-year investigation.  Their statements have been well-aired in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, although the detailed remarks of subject-area experts don’t make for television news sound-bites. 

What does matter is that the statements of the “whistleblowers” were made in public, for the record, and under oath.  The Attorney General has replied with rostrum statements and press releases.  I am reminded of a brief scene in the television series “Dopesick” Dopesick – They cannot be bought – YouTube 

Then there’s the New York Times.  “[I]n mid-2022, Mr. Weiss reached out to the top federal prosecutor in Washington, Matthew Graves, to ask his office to pursue charges and was rebuffed, according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony.  A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified. A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified,[2] told House Republicans the same story. That episode was confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation.”[3]  So which is it?  How do we find out? 

[1] There doesn’t seem to be any question that Republican politicians are engaged in bad behavior.  Hunter Biden appears to be a psychologically badly wounded human being.  Even if guilty, prison is going to destroy what little is left, not rehabilitate it.  His alleged crimes are as nothing in comparison to those alleged against Donald Trump.  At the same time, I know that I am engaged in bad behavior as well.  I’m not spending this kind of time or thought (such as it is) on the possible destructive impact of prison on some 20-something Black drop-out gang-banger who dealt drugs or shot up a birthday party.  Yet “hath not a Jew eyes?” 

[2] Now known to be Joseph Ziegler. 

[3] Glenn Thrush and Michael Schmidt, “Competing Accounts of Justice Dept.’s Handling of Hunter Biden Case,” NYT, 27 June 2023. 

Grim Anniversary: The Atomic Bombings.

Posted on by
Reply

            We fast approach the seventy-eighth anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[1]  Could Imperial Japan have been forced to surrender unconditionally without either an American invasion or the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 

Certainly. 

In early Spring 1945, the Army Air Force shifted from high-altitude, daytime, precision bombing to low-level, nighttime “carpet-bombing” with incendiaries.  The first such attack, “Operation Meetinghouse,” in March 1945, killed more than 80,000 people in Tokyo.  Thereafter, American bombers worked steadily down the list of Japanese cities, destroying homes, industry, and infrastructure.  In the aptly-named “Operation Starvation” Army Air Force bombers sowed 12,000 mines that sank 670 ships and annihilated Japanese imports and inter-island trade.[2]  All you had to do was to wait while the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” trampled over Japan.  In the end, the conventional bombing killed 210,000 people, the atomic bombings 120,000. 

Could the United States have escaped the moral culpability of being the only country to use nuclear weapons? 

What culpability is that? 

Atomic weapons were developed as part of what Anglo-American leaders understood as a nuclear arms race with Nazi Germany.  If the weapons had been ready in 1942, would it have been immoral to atom bomb Nazi Germany?  Or was it only immoral to bomb Japan? 

The two atom bombs were not “worse” weapons than the alternatives of fire-bombing cities or starving huge numbers of people to death through a blockade.  Dead is dead. 

Was saving even one American soldier’s life worth killing 80,000 Japanese?  How would you answer if you were the mother or father of that American soldier?    

If there is moral culpability here it lies with the Japanese government of the time.  First, that government began the Second World War in the Pacific as an escalation of its effort to conquer China.  Second, it waged that war in an atrocious fashion which elicited atrocity in response.[3]  Third, it continued to wage war long after it became impossible to avoid eventual defeat.[4]  The Japanese government’s essential strategy lay in accepting the mass death of Japanese in hopes of inflicting mass death on American soldiers.  Their “hope” or “plan” lay in the belief that the Americans would not accept high casualty totals.  Indeed, the Americans understood Japanese intentions and they would rather not suffer such casualties.  That’s why they had so many bombers—and terrible kinds of bombs. 

People seem to view the bombing of Japan through the filter of the subsequent nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, and through the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the hands of many other countries.  Would it be immoral to begin a full-scale nuclear war today?  Yes, that would probably be immoral.  That isn’t what happened in 1945. 

[1] And it coincides with “Oppenheimer” (dir. Christopher Nolan, 2023) and Evan Thomas, Road to Surrender: Three Men and the Countdown to the End of World War II (2023). 

[2] See: Wesley F. Craven and James L. Cate, (eds.), The Army Air Forces in World War II, Vol. V: The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki, June 1944 to August 1945, pp.  662-673. 

[3] Race hatred played a powerful role on both sides, and not merely that of the Americans.  See: John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (1986). 

[4] When did Japan “lose” the war?  Possibly at Pearl Harbor (December 1941).  Probably at Midway (June 1942).  Certainly with the Battle of the Philippine Sea (June 1944) and the American capture of Saipan (June-July 1944).  The Battle of the Philippine Sea destroyed what remained of Japan’s naval offensive power.  Saipan put American bombers within range of the Home Islands.  That’s more than a year before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

China Gazing.

Posted on by
Reply

            Very rapid economic growth is not uncommon in modern history.  It runs with Industrialization.  The key lies in shifting huge numbers of people out of a low-productivity agricultural sector into a high-productivity industrial sector.  Generally low industrial wages are often better than in agriculture, so workers are relatively tranquil for a long time.  Low wages plus technology produce lots of goods for sale at a low price.  Manufactured goods are then sold in large numbers both on domestic and international markets. 

Generally, this rapid growth doesn’t last forever: the population shift runs out of peasants; labor starts to demand better conditions, leading to pressure for unionization; foreign later entrants to industrialization follow the same path and under-cut the leaders’ initial cost advantage; the economy moves into “higher” stages that require more educated people; and a complex economy is more difficult to manage.[1] 

            China offers a text-book case of this process.  In less than half a century, China moved from relying on a very inefficient peasant agriculture to become the second largest economy in the world, with a gigantic industrial sector that produces a lot more than just cheap textiles.  Growth made other things possible: the pacification of domestic conflicts; the build-up of great financial and military power; and the preservation of one-party rule.  Now, some observers are beginning to ask if the era of rapid growth has come to an end and, if so, what may follow.[2] 

            Four big issues confront contemporary China.  First, China has an aging population and no hope of immigration.  Where is it going to find workers and how will it support a non-working population?  Second, there is a widening gap between the old-industrial areas of the northeast and the much more dynamic areas of Shenzhen and Shanghai.  Is China’s “Rust Belt” going to be subsidized by other areas or is it going to be treated as a new labor and resource swamp that has to be drained?  Third, other countries have become alarmed at Chinese power and assertiveness.  The United States has imposed tariffs and is imposing restrictions on exports of sensitive technologies.  Fourth, it is much easier to centrally control a simple economy than a complex economy.[3]  Zi Jinping has committed the country to tightening central control. 

            These problems may create opportunities and problems for the United States.  Zi may tighten his grip on power and hold to his present course, or a powerful faction may arise in the Party to force a return to the policies of Deng Xiaoping.  China may reallocate resources from its military to dealing with its internal problems, or it may believe that enough guns can deal with the problem of not enough butter.  A slowing Chinese economy may reduce both China’s power over neighboring economies and the fears that run with it.  Or a return to sustained international economic growth may allow China to continue its current policies. 

            All this is uncertain.  Two things are certain.  First, bad and dangerous as he is in American eyes, Zi Jinping possesses great determination and political skill.  It isn’t impossible for him to master a tough situation. 

            Second, the current United States is no model of political health or good governance.  Whatever China’s future, Americans need to start setting their own house in order.  Soon. 

[1] David S. Landes, The Unbound Prometheus (1969). 

[2] Walter Russell Mead, “China’s Economy Hits the Skids,” WSJ, 18 July 2023. 

[3] See: The Soviet Union. 

Wild Fires.

Posted on by
Reply

            In mid-May 1780, the skies over New England, New York, northern New Jersey, and eastern Canada appeared yellow in color and the sun red.   On the morning of 19 May 1780, the skies began to darken as if night was coming on.  By noon people had to light candles to see what they were doing.  One witness recorded that “the fowls went to their roosts, the cocks crew and the whip-poor-wills sung their usual serenade” at mid-day.  Then, after a few hours, the darkness began to recede as quickly as it had arrived, but it lasted long enough to compound night’s natural darkness.  Scholars now believe that this “Dark Day” resulted from wildfires in Ontario, Canada.[1]  Westerly winds drove the smoke from enormous fires eastward over the northern Colonies. 

            This story will seem excessively familiar in Summer 2023.[2]  Big wildfires spring from the combination of fuel (dry vegetation), ignition (commonly lightning strikes and human error), and “red flag” conditions (high temperature, low humidity, and wind).  All of those came together across Canada in Spring 2023.  The Canadian fires now burning are much greater in scope than those of 1780.  They are much bigger than the now-forgotten fires of 1989, which burned 18 million acres.  They have burned 25 million acres so far.  It’s still early in the fire season, so the final total is sure to be even more staggering. 

One factor may be the simultaneity of the Canadian fires.  With normally sequential fires, crews can work to contain a fire before moving on to another new blaze.  Simultaneous fires over-stretch limited resources (i.e. mostly young men in big boots with Stihls).  Really remote locations may compound the difficulties.[3] 

            Reasonably and persuasively, however, experts chiefly attribute these wildfires-run-wild to climate change.  A warming planet dries out the vegetation (fuel), triggers more lightning storms (ignition), and destabilizes the pattern of winds (“red-flag” conditions). 

            Climate-change skeptics could point out that the United States has not suffered a comparable disaster.  According to the National Interagency Fire Center, just under 750,000 acres have burned so far in 2023.  In comparison, the 2014-2023 average for fires as of July 10, is almost 2.6 million acres.  In 2022, a skosh over 4.8 million acres had burned by 10 July.[4] This slow start to the season has allowed 1,800 U.S. firefighters to be sent to Canada.  Furthermore, as is the case in Canada, Mediterranean wildfires are common, rather than something new.  Finally, you don’t need to have climate change to have big wildfires. 

As was the case with the Lisbon earthquake of 1755,[5] many people saw the hand of God in New England’s “Dark Day,” fearing that it heralded the “Day of Judgement.”[6]  Also as with the Lisbon earthquake, others thought not.  They sought some rationally comprehensible explanation in the powerful functioning of the Natural world.  These skeptics didn’t yet have such an explanation.  They just thought it the most likely place to look.  They were proved right. 

[1] See: The New England Dark Day, May 19, 1780 – New England Historical Society 

[2] Nadja Popovich, “What Is Fueling Canada’s Epic Wildfire Season,” NYT, 19 July 2023. 

[3] It’s a seven hour drive from Calgary to the Peace River area, about half way up the province. 

[4] See: 2023 wildfire season in US off to the quietest start in at least a decade | Watch (msn.com) 

[5] See: 1755 Lisbon earthquake – Wikipedia 

[6] KJV, Matthew, 24, 29-31.  “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” 

One Reader Asks.

Posted on by
Reply

Re: What If Joe Biden Is Right?

“What if and why? In such a wealthy and relatively well educated population, why aren’t there individuals willing to step up to run?”

Run against a sitting president of your own party? Teddy Roosevelt ran against William Howard Taft, Bobby Kennedy ran against Lyndon Johnson, and Teddy Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter. Ugly divisive experiences in ugly, divisive times.

Both parties are gerontocracies. In the case of the Democrats, Biden, Schumer, Pelosi (still in Congress despite giving up the Speakership. People hang on because they don’t have any “real” life. Mostly, they’ve never done anything except be politicians. “Spending more time with the family” is something you do only after a scandal breaks. The bipartisan phenomenon of “safe” constituencies lets them pile up seniority and fend off the young people.

Both parties are coalitions filled with tensions. In the case of the Democrats, there are the Progressive and Moderate wings, along with Joe Manchin. Biden has this very unhappy marriage papered-over for now. The representative of one faction primarying the president seems to me like it would draw in a representative of the other faction. So, a two or three-way fight for the nomination with each candidate offering distinctly different agendas. (JMO and I come in peace, but all you have to do is put Jayapal’s sneering face on television to send most voters streaming for the Republicans.)

Could the party have time to patch up the wounds from such a fight in time for a general election? Maybe, IF the whole process had started a year ago with Biden announcing that he would not seek a second term. Or with him telling Kamala Harris privately that he would appoint her to the next vacancy of the Supreme Court, but he would not accept her as a Vice Presidential candidate. Then he could have replaced her with a person whom he regarded as having presidential qualities.

Personally, I wonder if he is going to make it through the end of his first term without being 25th Amendmented. I doubt very much that he can make it through an entire second term. Well, maybe he can: Reagan completed his second term while being first one, then two, and then three bricks short of a load. Took a bunch of Wizard of Oz little-man-behind-the-curtain stuff. That what we want in this case? Failing that, we could end up with President Harris.

Early on, I had thought that Biden might use his cabinet as a proving ground for younger successors. If that’s what he did the Harris and Pete Buttigieg have flopped badly.

As a “Never-Trump-Deplorable,” this puts me in an awkward position. My own preference for a Democratic candidate would be either Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Raimondo ) or Colorado Governor Jared Polis (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis ). That probably dooms the both of them. Such are my magical powers, alas.

What If Joe Biden is Right?

Posted on by
1

What if Joe Biden is right? What if his decision to run for re-election as President is NOT the ego-gratification of a long-suffering second-tier politician who accidentally made it to the White House? What if he is NOT saying “I told ya so” to “all the people who’ve looked down on me all my life” (including Barack Obama)? What if he is NOT just trying to find some way to protect his son Hunter from the demons–both Hunter’s own and the Republican ones–by controlling the Executive Branch for another four years? What if it is NOT a decision foist on him in a semi-senescent state by “Dr. Jill and the Inner Circle”? What if it his own well-reasoned decision?

What if there are no other Democratic Party politicians capable of winning the next presidential election against whomever the Republican Party nominates. Doesn’t matter who: Trump or DeSantis or Haley or Christie. What if there are no Democratic Party politicians capable of handling the duties and responsibilities of President of the United States of America? What if there are no Democratic Party politicians who can defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic? What if there are no Democratic Senators, Congressmen or Congresswomen, Governors, Cabinet Secretaries, or wives–scorned or adored–of former presidents who could get elected or, if elected, make a decent president?

That is what Joe Biden is saying by his decision to run for re-election at an advanced age.

What if he is right?