The View from Right Field

Break

I will be gone for a couple of weeks.  I'll be back the middle of May.  Go Cubs.

Who Says You Can't Steal First? Javy Baez Can.

Is Anybody Surprised We Can’t Get Other Countries to Back Our Plan for Syria?

The Wall Street Journal reports the United States is having trouble getting other countries to provide troops and logistical support for an effort to stop an ISIS resurgence in Syria.  Hmm.  I wonder why.  Could it be that the request was initially made in January, after President Trump had tweeted that we were going to withdraw all of our troops from Syria?  The Administration has seen backtracked on the President’s tweet and is now planning on keeping some troops in Syria.  But who knows when the President might tweet another withdrawal.  Why should anybody commit to help when President Trump could change his mind at any time?

It’s not unlike President Obama and his last minute, 180-degree turn on bombing Syria for violating President Obama’s redline on use of chemical weapons.  Why should anybody believe us or cooperate with us when they could be left hanging at any time?

Did the FBI “Spy” On the Trump Campaign – And Was It Justified?

Before Attorney General William Barr releases the redacted report from Special Counsel William Mueller on Thursday, let me comment on the furor he caused last week when he told a Senate committee that he was going to have the Justice Department investigate whether the “spying” by the Justice Department on the Trump campaign during the 2016 campaign was, in his words, “adequately predicated.”  Attorney General Barr said, “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” and he said he wants to make sure there was a legitimate reason for it.

A number of Democrats went ballistic.  Even though Attorney General Barr merely said he was going to have the Justice Department investigate whether there was an adequate basis for the surveillance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “the chief law enforcement officer of our country is going off the rails.”  The head of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, said that Attorney General Barr’s comments struck “another destructive blow to our democratic institutions.”

A Better Way to Game the College Admission Game? Or Not.

The last few weeks the news has been full of articles, and pictures (because some of those involved are celebrities and good looking), of people who cheated in various ways to help get their kids into Ivy League and other colleges.  Bribes were paid to get coaches to say they wanted a kid or to get proctors to correct answers on SAT or ACT tests.  Amounts into six figures were paid.

Obviously, there are other ways this could have been done legally.  Seven- or eight-figure donations would work to get your kid admitted at some schools, but that might be beyond the means of some of these people.  Alternatively, if you start early enough, instead of bribing a coach, you could pay for lessons for some obscure sport and have your kid get good enough to make it that way.  (This might be particularly useful for a girl, what with Title IX requirements and all.)

Ryan Crocker on the United States’s Middle East Policy – and More

On Thursday evening, Ryan Crocker and Danielle Pletka spoke to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on “How Effective Is America’s Middle East Strategy.”¹  Mr. Crocker has been ambassador to, in alphabetical order, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Syria.  He has also served in Iran, Qatar, and Egypt.  He has been named a Career Ambassador and has been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  Ms. Pletka is Senior Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, at the American Enterprise Institute.

Among the things former Ambassador Crocker said (I will also include some things Ms. Pletka said):²

In response to the question what the Trump administration’s Middle East strategy is, former Ambassador Crocker said, “You’re asking the wrong guy.”  He said there is no strategy.  He cannot connect the dots of the various individual things the Administration is doing into a policy and strategy.

Does this Really Disqualify Joe Biden?

Joe Biden is thinking about running for president.  In fact, he recently just about announced, apparently by mistake, that he is running for president.  But, as he has been getting ready to announce, he has been hit with a number of complaints from women about the somewhat weird things he has done in the past.  One woman, who I think was a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016, said the former Vice President came up and smelled her hair and kissed her on the back of the head.  Other women have said similar things.  Clearly, former Vice President Biden hasn’t had a good understanding of personal space and the things you should and should not do.  But, so far, the complaints have been about things he did in public, things that were a little creepy and not what people do today, but that’s about it.

Still, it appears a fair number of people, in theory on his side of the political spectrum, think these things should disqualify Joe Biden from running for president. 

Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Be Regulated

Of course, he does, the cynic would say.  It’s the best way to protect himself – and his money.  In an Op-Ed in The Washington Post last week,¹ Mr. Zuckerberg called for regulation of the Internet.  Among other things, he wants “a globally harmonized framework” for privacy and data protection.  He suggests that third party bodies set standards on distribution of harmful content.   And he wants laws on “verifying” those who buy/pay for political ads and political speech.

There will be plenty of legislators willing to take Mr. Zuckerberg up on his request.  There is nothing that many people in Washington like more than passing laws and looking like they are doing something.²  Plus regulating speech on the Internet is a great way for incumbents to protect their jobs. 

Is MMT the Answer to Our Problems?

The new big thing, well, one of the new big things, in the intersection of politics and economics is something called Modern Monetary Theory or MMT.  One of the big proponents of MMT is Stephanie Kelton, an economics professor at Stony Brook University.  This excerpt from Monday’s Wall Street Journal explains the idea:

“Ms. Kelton argues the government doesn’t need to worry so much about how much it borrows to pay for spending programs.  Unlike a household or business, it can never run out of money.  The government can always print money to pay for debts.  The constraint, according to MMT, isn’t the deficit, but whether the borrowing and spending spurs inflation and disrupts economic activity.

With inflation and interest rates now very low, the government has plenty of room to borrow and spend more, MMT advocates say.  The notion has gained traction among Democratic presidential hopefuls, helping to fuel ambitious policy proposals.

Happy Birthday, NATO

NATO has a birthday coming up.  On April 4, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will turn 70.  The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949.  Its first twelve members were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  Greece and Turkey joined in 1952, and West Germany in 1955.  Post-Franco Spain joined in 1982.  With the fall of the Berlin Wall, countries in eastern Europe rushed to join, thirteen more so far, with North Macedonia being the thirtieth soon.

There will be a number of articles on NATO’s anniversary in the next few days.  The Economist has already published a lengthy piece on “NATO at 70” in its March 16 issue.  Ivo Daalder, former ambassador to NATO and now president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. wrote an excellent article in last Friday’s Chicago Tribune.  While these articles cover the subject of NATO and its future better than I can, I would like to add a few thoughts to the birthday celebration for what has been best defensive military alliance in history, thoughts related to its future.

Concerns about NATO’s future have increased, especially among the foreign policy elite, since Donald Trump was elected president 2016.  President Trump, after all, said NATO was obsolete while on the campaign trail in 2016,¹ and he has been pretty obnoxious since then about the failure of many NATO countries to increase up their defense spending in line with commitments they have made in 2014 to get their defense spending up to 2% of GDP by 2024.

Banning Semi-Automatic Weapons Doesn’t Solve the Problem (Even If It’s a Good Idea)

After the murder of 50 people in Christchurch, New Zealand, by a white nationalist will not be named in this blog, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern immediately called for a new strict gun law, which will be passed next month because all of the major parties in New Zealand support it.  Also, by issuing a new interpretation of what kind of a license is required to possess a semi-automatic weapon, the New Zealand government effectively banned the possession of semi-automatic weapons right away.

Gun-control fans praised Prime Minister Ardern and asked why we can’t do that here.  I already talked about that a little bit back in July of 2014, after another summer weekend of violence in Chicago.¹

But the most important response to people who want to “solve” the problem of gun violence in the United States by outlawing semi-automatic weapons or instituting some other kind of strict gun control is: Okay, fine.  But what we do with all the semi-automatic weapons, and other guns, already out there once we outlaw semi-automatic weapons (or institute some other kind of strict gun control)?

The Cubs in 2019: Baseball Time Is Here Again

With all of the depressing blog posts lately (because they were dealing with current affairs), at least this this a good one – baseball season starts Thursday!¹  In the words of Steve Goodman, “baseball time is here again, you can catch it all on WGN.”  Well, sort of.  Baseball season is here again.  And you can catch some of it on WGN, for one more season, at least.  But it doesn’t matter.  Because once the game starts, it’s not over ‘til it’s over.  And the chance for joy and happiness isn’t over until it’s over.  And it might not be over even then.

There was a lot of grumbling over the winter that the Cubs didn’t spend sign one or more free agents.  But, of course, they did – sort of.  They “signed” Cole Hamel, who would have been a free agent if they hadn’t exercised his option.  Plus, they spent lots more money on the young guys they already have. Which I think is fine.  Because you know the guys you have and what they are capable of, as opposed to likely overpaying for somebody else’s players based on what you hope they can do.

Politics In the Era of Political Correctness – And the Rise of Donald Trump

As Beto O’Rourke begins his campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, he has also begun the apology tour that seems to be a necessary part of almost everybody’s campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.  As noted in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday:

“At several stops [Mr. O’Rourke] used a stock campaign line that his wife, Amy, raised their three children, ‘sometimes with my help.’  He meant it to be a self-deprecating joke and a note of gratitude to his wife, but in today’s identity-politics hothouse he was quickly denounced for his male privilege.

‘Not only will I not say that again,’ Mr. O’Rourke soon responded in Iowa, ‘but I’ll be more thoughtful going forward in the way that I talk about our marriage.’”

#MedicareForAll – How It Will Really Work

While New Zealand has been in the news for other reasons lately, a hearing before the health select committee of the New Zealand Parliament last week should be of interest to those who think “Medicare for All,” or some other form of government-run single-payer health plan, is the answer to our problems with health care.

At the hearing, women with advanced breast cancer asked for pressure to be brought on Pharmac, the government-run drug-buying agency, to fully fund two additional drugs for breast cancer, Kadcyla and Palbociclib (also known as Ibrance).

The pleas of the women were very moving.  One of the women said that Ibrance was a “game-changer” in other countries for conditions like hers.  She asked why women in New Zealand had to travel to Malaysia or move to England or Australia to get access to cheaper life-extending drugs.  Another woman said that she was alive only because she had paid for the drug herself.  “This would … be impossible if I had to rely on Pharmac.” 

Jacinda Ardern Gets It Right

In the New Zealand parliament today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern got it right with respect to how to respond to the murderer and terrorist who killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday.  This is from the New Zealand Herald:

“Ardern told Parliament the Australian man accused of carrying out the atrocity was seeking notoriety.

‘That is why you will never hear me mention his name.  He is a terrorist.  He is a criminal.  He is an extremist.  But he will, when I speak, be nameless. 

The Problem with Models

In her Notebook column in Saturday’s Financial Times,¹ Gillian Tett notes that auto loans, including “subprime” auto loans, have risen sharply over the past year.  In addition, the number of delinquent car loans, especially in the subprime category, are rising, too.  In fact, a million more Americans are delinquent on their car loans now than in 2010.

In trying to come up with a reason for the increase, which has apparently left some observers baffled, Ms. Tett says:

“But there is yet another possible explanation: consumer behavior might be shifting and, in the process, upending economists’ projections about default, as subprime mortgages did a decade ago.”

Ms. Tett notes that economists missed the subprime mortgage collapse because, inter alia, their models assumed consumers would default on the loans in a particular way: first, credit cards; second, auto loans; and last, mortgages.  But that wasn’t what happened.  People defaulted on the mortgages first.  Ms. Tett suggests this was because it was more acceptable to default on a mortgage but people needed their credit cards to live.  I would say it slightly differently: People started defaulting on their mortgages first because they realized that, in many states, it took a long time for people to get evicted from their house, while the effects of defaulting on their credit card or auto loan were more immediate.

Warren Buffet Says Don’t Invest in States Like Illinois

Warren Buffet is one of the Democrats’ favorite billionaires.  Mr. Buffet was a big fan of Barack Obama.  When President Obama was in office, Mr. Buffet argued that taxes on the wealthy were too low and complained that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.

I wonder, however, if Illinois’s new Democratic governor, a billionaire himself, feels quite so friendly to Mr. Buffet these days.  According to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal today:

“In a Feb. 25 interview on CNBC, Mr. Buffett warned investors to avoid states with large unfunded pension liabilities. He said he couldn’t be sure how such states would try to bring in more revenue – whether by raising corporate taxes, personal income taxes, or a combination. But he had no doubt the taxes are coming.

A Tragedy in Christchurch

You can find my most recent post on my other blog, “A Different New Zealand,” here.

If 2016 Was the “Presidential Election from He**,” What Will 2020 Be?

Actually, the question may be “Isn’t 2020 That Way Already?”  It seems pretty clear that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee – if he decides to run, but back to that in a moment.  First, the Democrats.

The Democratic contest seems to be a race to see who can get as close as possible to Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who would, based on publicity levels in the MSM, have the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination wrapped up by now if not for a group of old white men in Philadelphia in 1787 who set the minimum age for president at 35.¹  On the other hand, we wouldn’t have Ms. AOC to kick us around if those same old white men had set the same age, i.e., 30, for the House of Representatives as they did for the Senate.² 

A Few Comments on Where We Are Going With Our Defense Policy

An article in last week’s Economist, “Bringing out the big guns,” described the shift in direction that is taking place in the U.S. military as it “prepares for life after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  Some of the changes are good and necessary.  Others are more questionable.  Let me quote some sections from the article and then comment on them.

“In January 2018 the Trump administration published its National Defence Strategy (NDS).  Officials lamented that nearly two decades of whack-a-mole against insurgents and jihadists had eroded the country’s military edge, resulting in exhausted and under-trained units armed for the wrong enemy.  So the NDS decreed that America would henceforth focus on ‘long-term, strategic competition between nations’ – namely, China and Russia.”

If the military was “exhausted and under-trained,” it was because it wasn’t big enough and was not given enough money for the task(s) it was being asked to do under the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.  It is understandable that the military can be stretched for some period of time.  Emergencies happen and the military has to respond.  But to be stretched for almost two decades is a choice – a choice to not properly fund the military.  And to continually ask the people in the military to do more than they should have to do because you don’t want to spend more money on defense is wrong.