haroldblackphd

This exciting Supreme Court term

I don’t think that I have ever called a Supreme Court term exciting But this one is. This Supreme Court docket is Trump dominated. The court is now hearing the Louisiana case on racial gerrymandering. The implications being if the court rules against racial gerrymandering then the some states many then gerrymander blacks out of seats like Texas is trying to do to oust Al Green and Jasmine Crockett from their seats. Some say as many as 19 minority seats, mainly in southern states might be affected. The court is also hearing the Colorado case on “conversion therapy” where Colorado stopped a Christian therapist from counseling minors on changing their gender identity.

As to the cases directly tied to the president, the court is finally going to hear if the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Mind you, if the courts rule against the president there are other legal avenues under which the president can impose tariffs temporarily. Another case deals with the “independent agencies” that are ostensively under the executive branch and whether the president can fire members of those agencies. The case before the court involves a member of the Federal Trade Commission. This is different from the cases involving the Fed and the National Credit Union Administration. The president has tried to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook on the grounds that she committed mortgage fraud and therefore can be terminated for cause. With NCUA the two democrat members of the agency were fired without any explanation. Since the legal structure of the Fed and the NCUA are similar, the court may rule of whether the president has the authority to dismiss members without cause as well as for cause.

Then there is birthright citizenship which the administration has lost in the lower courts and likely will lose at the Supreme Court. There are cases involving immigration. The president used an 18^thcentury law to deport the Venezuelan gang members to that El Salvador jail. The court will also hear cases involving states that ban transgender athletes for girl’s teams. BTW, why haven’t I heard anything about transgender athletes who want to compete for boy’s teams?Another case involves voting by mail and whether ballots can be counted received after Election Day.

There have been over 30 rulings regarding the president’s actions but the Supreme Court has yet to issue a full ruling on the legality of any of them. I guess the time is now. The president has been pushing the limits of executive power and the court will decide which if any of these actions are constitutional. Regardless, as I have often said, the democrats should be in favor of all that the president has done so that the next democrat president can avail himself (or herself) to them. Instead of course the democrats will be applying pressure on the court in the media accusing the conservatives as Trump’s lackeys if they rule for the president.

Trump’s people have on the other hand been quick to criticize any of the conservatives who rule against the president as “wobbly” or something worse. Of course, the president himself has not minced words on decisions that he disagrees with. The president’s supporters have also been very vocal. Here’s our Andy Ogles (R-TN) “Judges targeting President Trump are political hacks and their decisions belong in my SHREDDER.” “This is a judicial power grab. Plain and simple,” Chad Mizelle, Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff. Mike Lee (R., Utah) has called for impeaching “corrupt judges.” When Amy Comey Barrett ruled against the president, one hack said “Amy Coney Barrett shows the danger of Republican DEI.” Mind you, John Roberts joined her in that particular opinion but somehow escaped being called a DEI hire. I wonder why?

With all this inflamed rhetoric. Some judges and their families have been physically threatened and even attacked. This is not confined to the loonies on the right. The loonies on the left are also motivated to threaten judges that rule for Trump. Recall the assassination threat to Justice Kavanaugh. Judges say that intimidation does not affect their rulings. That may be so, but in today’s charged political atmosphere, they would best watch their backs.

I, for one, will be glad when all of this is resolved by the court. I think the president has a legitimate right to know the limits of executive power. I am interested in seeing how the president responds to any ruling against him. Thus far he has not disregarded lower court rulings against him. Will that continue?

Where’s the beef?

The person who oversees our family farm was complaining about the price of beef. He said “Would you believe what ground beef costs?” I told him that I actually had not looked in the past 50 years since I only eat the venison from deer that I had harvested myself. But I am sympathetic. He was hardworking all of his life and is now retired with his wife 100 percent disabled due to a heart condition. He said that they couldn’t afford today’s prices and was wondering what had happened. I told him that the local grocery store usually ran a special BOGO on ground turkey at least once a month so he should check their weekly ads. Ground turkey? He looked at me like I was speaking in tongues.

The high beef prices are due to a number of factors. One is the herd is smaller than it has been in decades. That along with Trump’s 50 percent tariffs on Brazil which further reduced the supply of beef has led to these high prices. Now isn’t this what the president wanted? By restricting imports of beef due to the tariffs, beef prices have soared and US cattle ranchers are making record profits of over $700 per animal. So the cattle growers should be ecstatic. They may be, but per my conversation with the overseer, the American public is ticked off. Not to worry. Our intrepid president says that the cattle growers should voluntarily lower their prices and he will import beef from Argentina.

He said “The Cattle Ranchers, who I love, don’t understand that the only reason they are doing so well, for the first time in decades, is because I put Tariffs on cattle coming into the United States, including a 50% Tariff on Brazil. posted on if it weren’t for me, they would be doing just as they’ve done for the past 20 years —Terrible!” “It would be nice if they would understand that, but they also have to get their prices down, because the consumer is a very big factor in my thinking, also!”

OK so let’s get this straight. The president is taking credit for raising the price of beef to the consumers resulting in record cattle prices while asking the cattle ranchers to voluntarily lower prices. He then said that maybe he will import more beef from his buddies in Argentina. “One of the things we’re thinking about doing is beef from Argentina.” Trump told reporters “We would buy some beef from Argentina. If we do that, that will bring our beef prices down.”

Needless to say that elicited a howl from the cattle folk and their representatives in Washington who sent the president a letter protesting such a move. Trump’s Department of Agriculture said that it would move to increase the size of the herd through expansion of grazing on federal lands. Maybe that will help eventually increase supply but cows do not pop out of the heifer fully grown like Athena from the head of Zeus.

One agriculture economist said that the president needs to take a course in supply and demand (where have you heard that before?) saying “If you want to increase the supply of beef long-term, you don’t do it by lowering prices.” Elementary. I will repeat: you don’t induce producers to increase supply by lowering prices.

So now we have a conundrum. Beef prices are at a record high, cattle growers are making record profits but the consumers are angry. The president wants it both ways, he is patting himself on the back for raising tariffs to restrict the supply of beef but he wants the cattle ranchers to lower their prices or else he will import beef from Argentina. If he heaven’s forbid, rescinds the tariffs, the ranchers will be ticked off as beef prices and profits fall. The president got himself into this mess. It will be interesting to see how he gets out of it.

Axioms of the Hunt – 2025

I only know one other deer hunter in Knoxville but at the family farm it is a completely different story. Professors tend to be snobs and are aghast that I hunt. But as I remarked once to a snobbish colleague, if you don’t hunt, fish, hike, camp, or ride motorcycles, why do you live in Knoxville?

It is now deer season in Georgia and it is time again to revisit my axioms of the hunt. We have just changed over from bow to gun. I spend an inordinate amount of time at the family farm and in the woods. Venison is the only red meat I have eaten since 1971. I spend a good deal of time looking at deer, but only if the deer oblige. During bow season I was overrun with deer. I passed on shot after shot. The bucks were small and had no more than 4 points. I do not shoot immature deer. The does were either small or with fawns. I do not break up family units.

Although the fawns are weaned I will not shoot the mamma doe. I wait until the rut comes in November when the does chase away the fawns. I do not shoot immature bucks under 6 points. I passed on the biggest doe I have seen because she had such good genetics, I want her to have big babies. But I did finally see a mature doe by herself and took her with a crossbow at 40 yards. I had to give up by beloved Mathews Solocam compound bow that I have used all over the world when some good old boy sabotaged a hang on stand, cutting through the straps. I stepped on the platform in the dark at 6:30 in the morning Georgia and fell 20 feet. When I came to and saw I had motion in my arms and legs I went to the emergency room. I had bruised ribs and a shoulder that the doctor described as being a mess. So hello total shoulder replacement and goodbye compound bow and hello crossbow. The likely saboteur is gone and the father and son from Florida who lease the land next door are nice guys.

Last year was the first one that I did not take a deer. I ran out of venison and since that is the only red meat I eat, I did without. Now that it is gun season, all the deer that were around during bow have vanished, replaced by hen turkeys. I have just spent a week in the woods and only saw 5 deer total. Only one was a marginal buck of 6 points. My cousin told me he would have taken it but I passed. It is a long season.

So here are my axioms of the hunt.

As always, thank you for reading my musings. I sincerely appreciate you.

HB’s Axioms of the Hunt

1. The wind will always be at your back (this is different from running where the wind is always in your face).

2. If by some miracle the wind is in your face and you suddenly hear a deer, the wind will shift to your back.

3. Murphy says that “if it can go wrong, it will”. Hunters know that Murphy was an optimist.

4. Deer will always pick the least assessable place to die.

5. If your gun (or bow) breaks, your 42 blade leatherman’s tool will not have a tool that fixes it.

6. When you take it go get it fixed, the repairman will say “In my 30 years I have never seen this happen.”

7. In bow season the deer will be in muzzleloader range. In muzzleloader season the deer will be in gun range. In gun season, the deer will be no where to be found.

8. If you can shoot a doe you will only see does with fawns.

9. If you can only shoot a buck, you will be overrun with does.

10. Deer calls never work. However, the best way to call a deer call is to take a leak.

11. Anyone who claims to have success grunting and rattling is lying.

12. If you see the buck of a lifetime walking down a path, you will only have a lefthanded shot (if you are righthanded and vice versa).

13. If you see the buck of a lifetime and you are bow hunting, the arrow will fall off the rest when you draw.

14. If you hunt a road where deer always cross, they will only cross when you are looking in the other direction.

15. If the outfitter has a success rate of 100%, it will be lower when you leave.

16. Animals shrink if you shoot them.

17. If you only shoot deer 6 points or better, you will only see 4 pointers and spikes.

18. Deer only look up if you are in a tree stand.

19. A turkey always struts one foot past the exact distance that number 6 shot can travel.

20. Camo is about as effective as a deer with a sofa painted on its side can hide in your living room.

21. Hunting clothing billed as no-scents makes no sense.

22. Buck lures only attract hunters to buy them.

23. The only people who swear by grunting and rattling for bucks are the ones who sell them.

24. Primos calls if they work at all must only work on Mississippi deer and turkeys. They sure don’t work in Georgia or Tennessee.

25. If you leave your stand at noon, the deer will walk by at 12:01.

26. The only purpose of scouting before the season is to find out where the deer were.

27. A person who looks down their nose and sneers “You kill bambi!” isn’t worth knowing.

28. If you go on a hunting trip with a group, expect to be the only one who doesn’t kill anything.

29. If you are hunting your own land without seeing anything all day and suddenly you hear something coming down a path, it will be your dog.

30. No woman is worth your time unless she thinks you look cute in camo.

31. Do you have more success stalking or still hunting? Neither.

32. Is the best time to hunt early, midday or late? None of the above.

33. Deer will always walk down the path you are not hunting.

34. Walking into a McDonald’s full of hunters for an early morning biscuit always causes the place to go quiet. Maybe my camo patterns are clashing?

35. Anyone who tells you that a deer smells better than a person is obviously a European.

36. Anyone who asks you why do you own so many different caliber rifles is obviously stupid because it doesn’t make sense to own ten rifles of the same caliber.

37. Since camo wearers look like trees and grass, I guess this makes them environmentalists.

38. Most muzzleloaders were designed to hangfire only when a big deer shows up.

39. That Al Gore rather than the inventor of the Loggy Bayou climbing stand was awarded a Nobel prize is a travesty.

40. My favorite t-shirt says “Conservation through incompetence.”

41. If God didn’t want you to kill deer he wouldn’t have invented the pickup truck.

42. If God didn’t want you to hunt in the cold rain, he wouldn’t have invented GoreTex.

43. If Al Gore got the Nobel prize for inventing GoreTex, then I guess I am ok with it.

44. Since I have never seen a woman who looks like a Victoria Secret’s model, I presume that all about those women are fakes, the product of computer imaging. Similarly, videos that show bucks grunted and rattled-in are fakes.

45. Those who can smoke in a tree stand and deer will walk by even though the wind is wrong and seem to kill big deer every time are the chosen few – of which I am not one. Maybe I should start smoking.

46. A person who claims not to like venison has never eaten my cooking.

47. Jerky is not a food since it cannot be broken down by saliva and chewing. It must be swallowed whole.

48. That jerky is not a food was proven when after I tried to eat it, I gave it to my dogs – who also refused to eat it.

49. I am a small deer specialist. Typically, I only see immature deer (which I let walk).

50. Anyone who says that if you kill a trophy animal every time you hunt then it would not be fun is a fool.

51. The hunter the outfitter describes as being “the luckiest hunter I have ever seen” will always be a person in camp. That person will not be you.

52. Recurve bowhunters are snobs and are hunting’s equivalents of fly fishermen.

53. The longest week I ever spent in my life was in a camp in Alberta hunting for bear and all the other hunters shot recurves.

54. There are 6 things that every bow hunter must do in order to shoot accurately. When a trophy deer approaches you will do five of them.

55. If you believe that nonsense about buying all that expensive no scents gear so you can “Forget the Wind – Just Hunt”, let someone release your dogs one hour after you go in the woods.

56. Game cameras tell you where to hunt at 2:03 in the morning.

57. The one hour before sunup is the longest time of the hunt – much longer than the 5 hours or so that follow.

58. Nothing is more satisfying than being able to furnish your own food.

59. Sure you can kill just as many deer sitting at your kitchen table as you usually do in the woods, but coming home even empty handed to your dogs makes it all worthwhile.

60. My dogs have always been fed a mixture of kibble and venison. Last year I had to feed them lean ground chuck. They wouldn’t eat it so I gave it to a local food bank.

61. I’ve hunted plains game in South Africa, bear in Canada, elk in New Mexico, red stag in Argentina and seriously big deer near Eagle Pass, Texas. But nothing beats being at the family farm hunting on the lands of my ancestors.

Trump’s Office of White House personnel is a joke

The president has pulled the nomination of Paul Ingrassia to be head of his Office of Special Counsel. Ingrassia had previous tweeted a number of racist text messages that became public. Ingrassia had texted to a group of fellow Republicans that “MLK Jr. was the 1960s George Floyd and his ‘holiday’ should be ended and tossed into the seventh circle of hell where it belongs.” Ingrassia also texted using an Italian slur for blacks, “No moulignon holidays … From kwanza [sic] to mlk jr day to black history month to Juneteenth. Every single one needs to be eviscerated.” He also said that he had a “Nazi streak.” No wonder that his nomination was pulled. The question is why was he nominated in the first place?

As one conservative commentator put it “Ingrassia had no business being anywhere near a federal job, let alone a Senate-confirmed position running an office charged with enforcing federal ethics rules.” Indeed, the the republican party should not be a welcoming place for people like Ingrassia or the young fools that were texting vulgar messages back and forth engaging in racism, misogyny and antisemitism. JD Vance (not one of my favorite people) even made excuses for them saying “The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys. Telling “edgy,” “oﬀensive” and “stupid” jokes is “what kids do.” Pardon me, Mr Vice President. That is BS. Being vile and crude is not what smart kids do, only stupid ones. It is no excuse to say “Well the left does it” as so sharply demonstrated with all the vile, vulgar and demonic comments following the Kirk assassination. I find Vance’s remark just one of many examples why I think he is not qualified to be president. I want these fools not to be in the same party that I am in, much like my parents were republicans by default given all the rabid racists in the democrat party of the old south.

The president who has a penchant for firing people needs to fire someone at White House personnel. In my experience, presidential nominees are vetted prior to be nominated. When I was being considered to be on the first National Credit Union Administration Board, I was interviewed by White House personnel. That individual turned out to have been babysat while growing up in Baton Rouge by the wife of my dear friend the late Dr. Bob Kirk who was the University of Tennessee’s first black tenure track professor. After I passed muster, he told me that he was recommending me for the position but before the nomination could be announced, that I would be vetted by the FBI who then interviewed my colleagues, friends and references. Even my neighbors were interviewed. One called me wondering why the FBI was asking questions about me. I assured them it was for a possible nomination by the White House, nothing more.

Didn’t they do this with Ingrassia? Apparently not. This has got to be embarrassing to the president and I wonder if heads rolled at the office of White House personnel. This president needs to clean up his own house and tell these staffers that they are fired. The president should be embarrassed.

Yet this, of course, is not the first time one of the president’s nominees has been withdrawn. The media wants you to think that the republicans in the senate are rubber stamps for whatever the president wants. In many cases this is true but when it is apparent that a nominee cannot be confirmed by the republican majority, the name is withdrawn. In this case, the president is setting records for Ingrassia makes an astounding number 49 withdrawals. No other president has even come close.

Newsweek has even listed them:

Adam Boehler (special presidential envoy for hostage affairs)
Alan Boehme (assistant secretary of Veterans Affairs)
Alina Habba (U.S. attorney for New Jersey)
Brent Sadler (administrator of Maritime Administration)
Brian Quintenz (chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission)
Charlton Allen (special counsel)
Cheryl Mason (assistant secretary of Veterans Affairs)
Chris Pratt (assistant secretary of State)
Christopher Gilbert (U.S. attorney for the Western District of Virginia)
David Eisner (assistant secretary of Energy)
David Rader (assistant secretary of Commerce)
David Weldon (director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
Edward Martin (U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C.)
Elise Stefanik (United Nations ambassador)
Erwin Antoni (Labor Statistics commissioner)
Frank Bisignano (Social Security commissioner)
Gregory Autrey (NASA CFO)
Janette Nesheiwat (medical director in the regular corps of the Public Health Service)
Jared Isaacman (NASA administrator)
Jared Novelly (New Zealand ambassador)
Jason De Sena Trennert (assistant secretary of the Treasury)
Jeffrey Bornstein (under secretary of Defense)
Jeffrey Kaufman (member of the Farm Credit Administration Board)
Jennifer Locetta (alternative representative of the U.S. for special political affairs in the U.N.)
Jennifer Mascott (general counsel for Education Department)
Jennifer Wicks McNamara (Vietnam ambassador)
Jeremy Ellis (inspector general, Department of Housing and Urban Development)
John Bartrum (assistant secretary of Veterans Affairs)
John Lavalle (governor of the U.S. Postal Service)
John Simermeyer (chairman of National Indian Gaming Commission)
Jonathan McKernan (director of Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection)
Karen Brazell (under secretary for benefits at Department of Veterans Affairs)
Karen Evans (under secretary for management at the Department of Homeland Security)
Kathleen Sgamma (Bureau of Land Management director)
Kevin O’Farrell (assistant secretary at Department of Education)
Landon Heid (assistant secretary of Commerce)
Leo Brent Bozell III (CEO of U.S. Agency for Global Media)
Luke Petit (assistant secretary of the Treasury)
Mark Brnovich (Serbian ambassador)
Michael Duffy (under secretary of Defense for acquisition and sustainment)
Michael Jensen (assistant secretary of Defense)
Penny Schwinn (Deputy Secretary of Education)
Ryan Cote (assistant secretary of Veterans Affairs)
Sara Carter (National Drug Control Policy director)
Stella Herrell (assistant secretary of Agriculture)
Terrence Gorman (chairman of board of veterans’ appeals)
Theodore Cooke (commissioner of reclamation)
Yehuda Kaploun (special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism)
Ingrassia

Why isn’t Matt Gaetz on this list?

The president’s war on drugs bearing results?

I had wondered if the president’s extending his southern naval interdiction of drug runners in the eastern Caribbean would now be extended into the Pacific now that he has expressed displeasure with Columbia’s president. The answer is yes. The navy just blew up two boats in the Pacific. This makes nine such attacks and at least 37 deaths. Defense Secretary Hegseth tweeted that the boats were operated by a “Designated Terrorist Organization” and were “transiting along a known narco-traﬃcking route” in international waters. He said they were “known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling.” Hegseth did not specify the organization.

I wonder what percentage of South American drugs are transported to the US via drug running boats? Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) said that the routes through the Caribbean on boats are predominantly used to bring cocaine to Europe not to the U.S. So I guess the Europeans should be sending the president thank you notes. It also noteworthy that the Dominican Republic has agreed to let the US military use its airports for staging operations in support of counternarcotics flights. This shows that the president is planning more extensive operations both in the eastern Caribbean and off the Columbian coast in the Pacific. I am now awaiting drone strikes on the cartels in Venezuela and Columbia. Again, is this how the CIA will be used?

How do these drugs get to the US? Here what Rear Admiral Christopher Tomney director of Joint Interagency Task Force South for the US Coast Guard said in an interview with the BBC.

“We cover over 40 million square nautical miles, and reach well out into the Atlantic, throughout north, central and south America as well as all the way out into the eastern Pacific.

“The number one drug we see moving is cocaine. Last year we were able to successfully take out of the pipeline 191 metric tonnes of cocaine. Around 20 to 25% of cocaine around the globe is interdicted.

“The cartels are very innovative. Due to their large profits, they have a lot of money they can throw at technology.

“In the early days of this task force – and we’ve been around for 26 years – we saw much higher movement using non-commercial aircraft to fly the drugs northwards.

“[Now] well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets.”

The fact that 95% of the drugs are moving over water provides statistical and empirical justification for the interdiction efforts of the administration. Yet the cartels are smart and will likely ship less with their fast boats and more by stashing the drugs on other vessels. Perhaps this is where the president’s amazing admission of using the CIA comes in – to help identify the commercial vessels and pleasure boats that will be increasingly used by the cartels to transport drugs. Again, drone attacks anyone?

What about the southern border? One of the many impacts that the effective closure of the southern border has had is on drugs. Reports state that there have been a drop in fentanyl seizures of 70 percent from last year. Although some detractors might contend that the cartels have found other ways to sneak the drug into the country, this has not proven to be the case. Rather, shutting down the border has discouraged the cartels from using the huge flow of illegals to cover their transporting the drugs with the illegal migrant crossing.

Here is what the Department of Homeland Security has said. There has been a 97% reduction in the number of “illegal crossings of the border” compared to “the same [unspecified] period of last year.” A 59% increase in seizures of ammunition and parts of weapons compared to “the same period of last year.” A 70% reduction in fentanyl seizures, “with 20,000 pounds of fentanyl, heroin and methamphetamine confiscated in total in the past 90 days.

Wow. These are impressive numbers and reflect the use of troops from both Mexico and the US on the southern border. However despite these reductions, the president is pressuring the Mexican government to do even more. While he has lifted his “fentanyl” tariffs on Mexico, the tariffs on non-USMCA free trade items remain.

Since the flow of these drugs has been sharply reduced, the question remains as to the impact on their street prices in the US and the impact on the quantity (and quality) of drugs demanded. That will be the subject of a future posting.

Do you trust the CDC?

Now that President Trump is back in office and RFK, jr is head of HHS, people are being asked if they trust the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). I think the relevant question is to ask if people have ever trusted the CDC. I know that the CDC lost credibility during Covid. Did that distrust lessen with the arrival of Kennedy? Apparently not. There are ones that are dismayed over some of the new directives from the administration to the CDC regarding immunizations and research. One in particular that I find disfavor in is the directive that explicitly forbids CDC scientists from working on “identifying and documenting worse health outcomes for minority populations.” I have stated before that this is a wrong direction to take.

One of the contradictions of this administration is the acknowledgement that on the one hand there are differences between males and females and on the other hand differences do not exist – either by sex or by race. So males should not be allowed to share intimate spaces with females. There are only two genders – regardless of what gender they say they possess. So defund research focused on gender. Also defund research into racial differences. So we are different but we are not different? Is the administration in denial that minorities have worse health outcomes in cardiac disease, diabetes, kidney disease and others and we are not to find out why and remedy those differences? This is a disservice to millions of Americans who happen not to be white males.

Sure Kennedy has gotten awful press, some of which is deserved. The CDC is a mess as he is cleaning house and redirecting its priorities. Not a bad thing either. What does the public think? There is a partisan divide. For instance with regard to the warning about Tylenol, 60 percent of democrats polled thought the statements were false while 56 percent of the republicans thought they were true. This is more likely a “hate Trump – like Trump” divide. Physicians continue to reiterate that it is the safest medicine to take in pregnancy, when untreated fever or pain can cause other problems. Does this means that a large segment of the population does not trust physicians either?

I know of plenty of people who have always distrusted the CDC, physicians and the AMA well before the advent of Trump and Kennedy. The agency has in the past made recommendations and then withdrew them. The CDC has had a precipitous decline in public trust under Kennedy who has been called by former surgeon generals as a threat to the nation’s health. One said “They’ve dismantled the agencies that had real scientists who provided information and instead replaced it with ideology. We’re already seeing diseases that we usually don’t see coming back, like measles. People will die and the ramifications are significant.”

Moreover, given Kennedy’s track record on vaccines, the legions of antivaxxers are growing. The president has even chimed in on vaccinations. People may be motivated to make decisions based on whether they like or dislike the president, rather than any rational thought.

Former CDC leaders Rochelle Walensky and Dan Jernigan have stopped short of saying that do not trust their old agency. But they did say it has been harder to trust CDC guidance under the Trump administration and that physician groups should step up to fill the void. Really? Who do you trust for health advice? I discount virtually every pronouncement from the AMA. I firmly believe that its obsession with wokeness in medical schools endangers the nation’s health. Where do you go get information about medications and medical advice? I know that I have challenged some of the advice given to me by my own physician. She expects that given my penchant for researching almost everything dealing with my own health issues. But what do “normal” people do? How do you make decisions regarding your own healthcare?

Right now the CDC is in turmoil. More than 1,300 employees have been terminated, some permanently. The fact is that the firing of vaccine experts and cutting off research funding does not engender trust and it has served to erode my trust ever farther. Of course, Kennedy does not see it that way. In an editorial in the Wall Steet Journal, he said that his actions were restoring trust in the CDC. He contends that the CDC lost the public’s trust with its unscientific mandates during Covid. He wrote “Bureaucratic inertia, politicized science and mission creep have corroded that purpose and squandered public trust. That dysfunction produced irrational policy during Covid: cloth masks on toddlers, arbitrary 6-foot distancing, boosters for healthy children, prolonged school closings, economy-crushing lockdowns, and the suppression of low-cost therapeutics in favor of experimental and ineffective drugs. The toll was devastating. America is home to 4.2% of the world’s population but suffered 19% of Covid deaths.” Whoa! Excuse me, but wasn’t all this on the president’s first watch with Fauci who first said no masks and then one mask and then two masks? Fauci later admitted that there was no scientific basis for many of the restrictions taken during Covid certainly played a role in a lack of trust in the CDC. Now critics of Kennedy are saying that the recommendations from the CDC are not evidence based. Are we now to believe the critics? What a mess.

Kennedy writes that the CDC has wandered away from its mission and only “half of the CDC’s budget supports its infectious-disease mission. Fewer than 1 in 10 employees are epidemiologists. That drift explains much of the agency’s disastrous pandemic response.” So Kennedy says that the president wants him to restore the CDC to its original mission and restore its focus on infectious disease. Will this restoration bring with it a credible CDC? Whether his actions are doing this will be the subject for continuing debate. The president is fond of saying “wait until next year” to see the benefits from his policies. Well lets wait until next year to see if Kennedy has indeed restored the public trust in the CDC.

Tariffs: Manna from Heaven? And a modest suggestion to reopen the government

Some time ago I raised the question as to whether the president knew that he could not unilaterally use the revenue from the tariffs on any project that he desired. He promised that tariffs would make us rich as hell. It was as if tariffs would be manna from Heaven. A wonderous outflowing of billions into our coffers to solve all our fiscal problems. But since tariffs are paid by the domestic importer and not the foreign exporter, they were akin to raising taxes – and increased taxes have never made any nation rich as hell. Estimates are that the tariffs will effectively decrease real household income by $2,000. Again, the fiscal effect of tariffs is akin to transferring money from one pocket to the next. But the impact is an overall negative one on GDP. Most estimates of GDP (outside of the administration’s estimates) are for a slowing of GDP growth due to the tariffs.

Regardless, the president said that he would use the tariff revenue to maybe give us a $5,000 rebate. Maybe he would give the farmers $28 billion. Maybe he would reduce income taxes. Maybe he would pay down the national debt. Maybe he would use it to pay the troops. He even said that maybe it could be used for nutrition assistance. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe.

Remember when China stopped buying US soybeans? The president said “We’re going to take some of that tariff money that we made, we’re going to give it to our farmers, who are, for a little while, going to be hurt until the tariffs kick in to their benefit. So we’re going to make sure that our farmers are in great shape, because we’re taking in a lot of money.”

Well if the president is going to use any of the $200 billion or so currently from tariffs, he is going to have to get an act of congress to allocate the money. That is because tariffs flow into the general fund at the Treasury and only the congress can approve its allocation or reallocation. Granted the president has exercised his power by freezing funds already appropriated by the congress (subject to judicial approval) but he lacks the authority to raid the nation’s piggy bank. One republican member of congress politely reminded the president of this when he said “So while I’m certainly interested in the White House and President Trump’s suggestions, there’s the necessity of Congress acting to implement that suggestion, if that’s the conclusion of Congress.” One of the president’s officials admitted that it would be nice if it weren’t so but “I mean, listen, when the tariff money comes in, it goes to the Treasury of the United States. And Congress has to tell it — has to authorize it and appropriate it — right?” Right.

The vice president who is prone to speak while not being briefed on matters had said that during the shutdown the tariffs would be used to fund military pay. Wrong. That pay is coming from other funds says the Office of Management and Budget. Instead of waiting on congress to authorize payment to farmers out of the tariffs, the administration instead is going to use money from a Department of Agriculture emergency fund. It has even found money laying around to fund nutritional assistance.

If the administration did get the congress to write a bill authorizing the use of the tariffs from the general fund, what would it look like? Would it be a Christmas tree bill using the money in hundreds of different ways? Would there be a different bill for each proposed use? Regardless, the republican leadership is probably hesitant to bring any bill up for authorization because of what the democrats might do. You can be certain that they will want to use the tariffs to fund their own priorities.

Now a modest proposal: I am actually surprised that those in congress or the president haven’t thought of using the tariffs to address the current standoff over Obamacare subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office (one of my old employers) estimates that the cost of continuing the Obamacare subsidies will be $350 billion over ten years. Well that is “only” $35 billion a year and the tariffs have already brought in $200 billion and are estimated (ceteris paribus) to bring in $4 trillion over that same 10 year period. Currently some republicans are starting to feel the heat because they have constituents who have become hooked on the Obamacare subsidies. So why not just use the tariff money to solve the shutdown farce and reopen the government?

BTW, I am categorically opposed to the costly, inefficient Rube Goldberg machine that is Obamacare and wish for its repeal. I am just offering up a possible solution to the shutdown using the tariff (which I also oppose) monies.

Temper tantrums galore

Perhaps it’s the stress in Washington that has led to a total breakdown in decorum. First, Pam (Blondie) Bondi went on the offensive and traded insult for accusation at a Senate hearing. Then Karoline Leavitt and Hakeem Jeffries needed a referee to step in and call time out. Maybe it is the pressure stemming from the government shutdown but Jeffries had not so nice things to say about Trump’s press secretary. He said “You’ve got Karoline Leavitt, who’s sick. She’s out of control. And I’m not sure whether she’s just demented, ignorant, a stone-cold liar, or all of the above.” And what had prompted this remark? It was Leavitt who had said likely about the demonstrators in the latest “No Kings” demonstrations “The Democrat Party’s main constituencies are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals. That is who the Democratic Party is catering to — not the White House, and not the Republican Party, who standing up for law-abiding Americans. Not just across the country but [also] around the world.” Ho boy. And here is what Jeffries retorted “But the notion that an official White House spokesperson would say that the Democratic Party consists of terrorists, violent criminals, and undocumented immigrants makes no sense, that this is what the American people are getting from the Trump administration in the middle of a shutdown.”

I wish – to no avail – that everyone on both sides would cool it. We have had the left call the president, his supporters and republicans in general every vile name in the book. The tradition has been for the republicans to take it. No more. Its now insult for insult. Members of congress are coming close to blows as tempers boil over. We had not yet resorted to fisticuffs and duels but it seems that we are getting close.

Speaking of no kings, did you see where there was a no kings rally in London – where they actually have a king? I wonder what King Charles thought about it?

The rallies in the US appeared to be mostly peaceful. I guess we had one in Knoxville but I am not certain.

Did you see where Portland’s city council voted unanimously to codify its sanctuary city status and instructed its police department not to assist ICE? Trump has called Portland “war-ravaged” and claimed federal facilities, including ICE sites, are “under siege” by Antifa and “other domestic terrorists.” It is evident that Portland’s elected officials and by inference its residents want to harbor the illegals and resist any effort by federal officials to deport them. Doesn’t the Supremacy Clause take precedent here where the federal laws supersede any local or state law? I wonder why Trump hasn’t just threatened to throw the entire Portland city government in jail?

The president seems to think that George Soros is the funding source for all that’s on the left and has threatened to sic the IRS on Soros’ organization accusing them of RICO violations. I thought RICO was an anti-racketeering law.

The president’s war on Venezuela is couched on drugs but that’s just a ruse. The Navy’s presence in the eastern Caribbean is there to harass Maduro and not particular to stop the flow or drugs, since most of that goes through Columbia into the Pacific. It obvious that the president wants a regime change in Venezuela but Maduro has so ingratiated himself with his military that a coup seems unlikely. Meanwhile, the flow of drugs is progressing finding new avenues to transport it to the buyers in the United States. Well at least, the Navy got in some live fire exercises to keep sharp.

Speaking of drugs, the president has now turned his sights on Columbia calling its president a drug dealer – something he also called Maduro. Since Columbia is the primary source of drug production its about time that decisive action is taken. Is the president threatening to deal with Columbia like he is dealing with Venezuela? Is he going to send the navy into the Pacific to interdict drug smuggling from Columbia? Well not quite. First he is just ending any payments to Columbia to aid in their fight against the drugs calling them a long-term rip off. Second, he is threatening to shut down the drug production if the Columbians won’t do it saying that they had “better close up these killing fields immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.” So now the president has threatened to invade both Venezuela and Columbia.

I can’t help but think that the president just likes being a bully picking on those who really cannot fight back. Hence threatening Venezuela and Columbia. Yes Maduro is a bad actor but cocaine and heroin account for only about 25 percent of drug deaths annually. Last year it was around 30,000 deaths. But opioids account for almost three times as many deaths. So why hasn’t the president threatened to invade China to shut down the manufacture of fentanyl? Absent that rather than threaten them with tariffs, how about a complete embargo of Chinese goods and ban Americans from doing business with China until the flow of fentanyl stops? Why doesn’t he rattle his sword at China or is all this just for show?

A Shakeup in the Senior Command

The admiral heading the US southern command abruptly resigned. Admiral Alvin Holsey who was on the job less than a year announced his retirement. The impression is that the admiral was not totally on board with the administration’s war on Venezuela and the bombing of the drug runners. This is ironic to me because when I first saw his name, that of Admiral Bull Halsey came to mind. Bull Halsey was the rare 5 star admiral during World War II and commanded the aircraft carrier Enterprise and was the fleet commander in the South Pacific. Somehow I don’t think Bull Halsey would have resigned like Alvin Holsey.

Holsey’s tweet to the troops and sailors regarding the resignation said “The SOUTHCOM team has made lasting contributions to the defense of our nation and will continue to do so. I am confident that you will forge ahead, focused on your mission that strengthens our nation and ensures its longevity as a beacon of freedom around the globe.” Defense secretary Hegseth will undoubtedly find an admiral eager to take command and execute the president’s wishes regarding the actions in the eastern Caribbean.

On a personal level I have deep feelings regarding Admiral Holsey and had pride in his elevation to the Southern Command. The admiral was from Fort Valley, Georgia home of my mother’s alma mater, Fort Valley State University. He graduated from Morehouse College which is located in my home zip code in Atlanta. Morehouse offered me (and my brother) early admission scholarships during our high school years. Our pastor was on the Morehouse faculty and I would have gone and been a “Morehouse man” if not for the University of Georgia.

Hegseth’s tweet was “On behalf of the Department of War, we extend our deepest gratitude to Admiral Alvin Holsey for his more than 37 years of distinguished service to our nation as he plans to retire at year’s end. A native of Fort Valley, Georgia, Admiral Holsey has exemplified the highest standards of naval leadership since his commissioning through the NROTC program at Morehouse College in 1988.”

Nonetheless, it is not surprising that the entire warrior class is not on board with the operation against Venezuela. The Wall Street Journal reports that inside the Pentagon some have raised concerns on the basis for the strikes and their legality. Some have written their concerns well as the legal implications for military personnel. I personally hope that these officers and civilian personnel are not fired because differences of opinions should always be tolerated. But it is equally important that the senior officers faithfully execute the commands of their bosses – or else resign. Thie is the old conundrum of “my country right or wrong.” Do you in good conscience obey orders that are contrary to your core beliefs. Of course the extreme would be troops ordered to execute crimes against humanity. But that is not the case here.

Running parallel to Holsey’s retirement was Chairman Xi’s firing of China’s number two general, He Weidong, along with eight other high ranking officers. General He was a vice chairman of China’s top military command and a member of the Politburo and was dismissed from the party and the military for “severe disciplinary violations and abuses of power.” He and the others will be court martialed. What is interesting and somewhat parallel to the dismissal of high ranking officers by Hegseth is that Xi feels that China’s senior command has gotten complacent and its military is not combat ready. Xi has replaced dozens of generals with oﬃcers that he considers to be more professional and politically reliable. He also overhauled the military’s command structure to put himself more firmly in control. His avowed goal is to modernize his military and to create a more nimble, 21st-century force that can integrate air, sea and land operations, project power and wage war in the digital age.

Doesn’t that sound familiar? Didn’t Hegseth and the president say as much when they called in all those senior officers to a come to Jesus meeting at Quantico?

Random thoughts #76

Random thoughts #76

Venezuela

Are we at war with Venezuela? We just blew up another boat killing 6 people. That brings the total to 27 fatalities thus far. The president has claimed that the boats were running drugs and the people were members of Tren de Aragua. I am not aware of any evidence that substantiates this claim but hey, who needs evidence. Right? Regardless the Venezuelans can do little about it. The Navy has beefed up its presence in the area and only a fool would venture out in a speedboat to test the accuracy of naval weapons. At a press conference the president said that the strikes saved more than 100,000 lives. “Every boat that we knock out we save 25,000 American lives so every time you see a boat and you feel badly you say, ‘Wow, that’s rough;’ It is rough, but if you lose three people and save 25,000 people.” Well there he goes again. About 75,000 people died from drug overdoses in the US. So Trump’s airstrikes have saved twice the number of people that would have died had he done nothing. Well we know that the president has trouble with math.

I am not going to venture into the legality of it all but the strikes are illegal under maritime law. Picky. Picky. Trump doesn’t like Maduro so the law is irrelevant (to him). Moreover he has just authorized CIA interventions in Venezuela itself. He has also hinted in conducting land operations as well. What type of covert operations are we talking about here?

Also returning the 600,000 or so Venezuelans in this country back to their homeland is intentionally destabilizing. But what can Maduro do? He is moving some troops to the coast and says that the “U.S. is a rapacious Nazi-like state that wants to dig its claws into the country’s oil wealth but that the Venezuelan military, the National Bolivarian Armed Forces, are positioning to repel any invasion.” Sure. More fundamentally, I would hate to be a Venezuelan fisherman. Thus far we have at least eight warships and one submarine in the eastern Caribbean. We also have an assault read group with 2,500 marines as a rapid response force. So what happens next? Again is there legal authority to do any of this. Regardless, the congress won’t try to stop him – at least the republicans won’t even try.

Racial gerrymandering

I have written before about the Louisiana racial gerrymandering case currently being heard before the Supreme Court. Seems that the constitution allows gerrymandering so long as it isn’t racial – as defined in the Voters Rights Act. So we have weird looking congressional districts to reduce the number of representatives in a particular party and weird ones to assure a district that is majority minority. As I have said before, I wonder why white voters have not filed suit in California where they are grossly underrepresented. The Supreme Court is likely to rule racial gerrymandering unconstitutional. Some have bemoaned that this will strip blacks of representation and give the republicans at least 19 more seats in the House. Yet a majority of black congressmen represent districts that are not majority minority. So the concern is a bit overblown.

One way to get rid of gerrymandering is to go to a system of proportional representation. Other countries do this in various ways. But let’s keep the total number in the congress fixed a 435. Leave the same number in the states but instead of dividing each state into districts with winner take all, make the districts larger, say only three in Tennessee and allocate the seats by votes. So if the republicans get 60 percent of the votes in east Tennessee, the democrats would still get 40 percent of the seats. And this would be done by party and not by race because that assumes that the vast majority of any race only votes for one party. The same could be said of religion or any other distinguishing demographic factor.

DEI research

The administration is shutting down funding for research projects that study gender, race and other demographic factors. Diversity grants have been terminated where scientists engaged in biomedical research found their grants canceled. So a grant to study psychiatric disorders that are more prevalent among minorities loses funding. Grants for underprivileged first generation students from rural areas have been terminated, even if the recipients are white. An HHS spokesman said that the grants “no longer align” with agency priorities or the president’s executive orders “eliminating wasteful, ideologically driven DEI initiatives.” Recall that the president instructed the entire federal government to end programs that promoted diversity, referring to them as “shameful,” “immoral,” and an “immense public waste.” One researcher noted that she was researching specific genes that make some people more susceptible to diabetes, and who don’t respond well to existing treatments. She said “In my research, I use genetics to help find better drug targets so we can find medicines for people who don’t already have therapies that work.”

I am well aware that many of us think that a good deal of research funding is wasted. For example HHS canceled $350 million in projects for such things as studying “multilevel and multidimensional structural racism, “gender-affirming hormone therapy in mice” and “microaggressions.” One project was “Assessing intersectional multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations in the US.” The project included work to create an “intersectional, multilevel, and multidimensional Structural Racism Measure” in order to “eliminate health disparities and discrimination” for racial minorities. Some might think this is useless but recall my posting on kidney failure. It was found that the metric used to determine transplants consistently put blacks into a lower less critical category than warranted resulting in more adverse outcomes. The resulting research changed that metric to account for racial differences which has saved lives. That research would have not been funded by this administration.

But I am not smart enough to know whether much of diversity research is beneficial or a waste of time and money. Many life-saving therapies have come from projects that sounded totally inane. I am also left to wonder if my pioneering research in lending discrimination would have been funded. Studying the accept/reject decision on mortgages and their pricing might have been considered frivolous as many could find superficial justifications for denying mortgages to minorities. My work resulted in many changes in how we test for discrimination and resulting laws and regulations. Only goes to show you that you don’t have to be on the left to investigate whether there are differences in behavior by certain groups or by sex. Yet the NIH has even canceled projects studying autism because they involved diverse populations, with differences in race and gender. Pardon me, but this is naïve overkill and may be life altering. Just like there are gender differences, there are racial ones too. The administration needs to be smarter and not reject and defund projects simply because of the name. The bottom line is “Is it racist to address racism”?