If you think the supply chain problems, empty shelves in stores and
higher inflation are problems now, wait a few weeks; they are likely to
get worse. And this isn’t a result of hurricanes, the pandemic or other
acts of nature. It’s all due to political incompetence that starts in
the Oval Office.
Here’s one prominent reason the supply shortage of goods from fruits
and vegetables to gasoline to toys for Christmas will go from a headache
to a crisis.
We are now witnessing the end of four decades of labor peace in
America. Two prominent companies, Kellogg’s and John Deere, face strikes
with thousands of workers walking off the job. The United Auto Workers
strike against John Deere is the first labor unrest at the large
Illinois plant since the mid-1980s. Kellogg’s last had a work stoppage
in 1972.
We already have nearly 11 million unfilled jobs thanks to
super-generous welfare benefits. The shortage of dockworkers, truckers
and factory workers is inciting higher inflation due to shortages. Now,
if thousands of more workers in critical industries go on strike, havoc
could prevail.
The worker shortages only give more leverage to the unions to walk
off the job for higher pay and benefits. The John Deere workers balked
at a proposed 5% raise — and not without cause. With inflation running
closer to 6%, a 5% raise could mean a loss in real income to the
rank-and-file workers.
Here’s the vicious cycle we could be looking at in due time.
Inflation means higher prices at the stores, which means workers want
higher pay, which means companies have higher costs, which means the
firms have to raise their prices further. And the process repeats. Six
percent inflation could snowball into 8% to 10% inflation by the end of
the year. Yikes.
History proves that mismanagement of the money supply and a dollar
that loses value causes convulsions in the labor market. E.J. Antoni, an
economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, recently ran the
numbers. Annual inflation spiked to 7.9% for 1951, and a record 470
strikes occurred the following year. In the late 1960s, inflation rose
to 5.4%, and the number of strikes rose above 400 in a single year.
But as price volatility moderated starting in the Ronald Reagan
years, so did strikes. A stable dollar that was “as good as gold”
retained its value and allowed labor and management to reach mutually
agreeable contracts on wage increases.
From 1947 to 1982, a period of many strikes, inflation rose and fell
wildly, with the annual rate changing as much as 8.7 percentage points
in a single year and having a 14.5 percentage point range from -1% to
13.5%.
Suddenly, it feels as though we are in a “Back to the Future” sequel
with Michael J. Fox. Rising prices and a slowdown in the economy — the
worst of all worlds.
I predict that there will be many more strikes in the months ahead.
Unions will flex their muscles in part because they have Joe Biden in
the White House, who genuflects in front of the union bosses who spent
hundreds of millions of dollars on his campaign. Reagan famously fired
illegally striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Does anyone believe
Biden would ever have the backbone to do that?
Bottlenecks now squeeze a supply chain that was once the hallmark of
American economic efficiency at every turn. It’s getting worse, and the
unions and their rank-and-file workers paying higher bills aren’t happy.
Nor should they be.
History shows that strikes are a form of mutually assured
destruction. Both sides generally lose in the long term from work
stoppages — and so does America.
The best way for Washington to ensure long-term worker gains, for
union or non-union workers, is to get inflation, which is a de facto
wage tax, under control. It would help if Congress would cease and
desist from spending and borrowing trillions of dollars we don’t have
because this could ignite even faster inflation.
Americans are aware Big Tech has been censoring, shadow banning,
and/or de-platforming people for years. These social media sites
regularly suppress information they don’t like, and outright ban those
with views that are antithetical to their ideology.
The argument from the political right and the left is basically that
Congress should regulate these entities. Conservatives say more content
should be allowed; Liberals say there should be much less.
Regardless of any potential congressional regulations, you know Big
Tech is shutting down your voice, but what you may not know is that Big
Tech may also be shutting down your vote.
In the face of an unprecedented, unforeseen current global pandemic,
rogue Secretaries of State, Attorneys General, Governors, State Supreme
Courts, Election Boards, and many others, decided to cash in on the
left’s well-known, and often-used axiom: “Never let a serious crisis go
to waste.”
The US Constitution gives the authority to decide the manner in which
states conduct elections to state legislatures, but these elected
officials used Coronavirus to push radical rule changes that in many
cases violated their own state law. Simultaneously, Congress passed the
Covid Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) – which gave
$339.8 billion to state and local governments. After violating laws and
passing more than a trillion dollars in aid, it still wasn’t enough for
liberals.
Enter Big Tech.
Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and his wife Priscilla Chan poured in
nearly $400 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) and the
Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) under the guise of
helping states conduct elections. CTCL and CEIR, in turn, gave grants to
counties under the auspices of taking extraordinary measures to
properly handle the election amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thanks to the Zuckerbergs’ donation, 2,500 election departments
across 49 states received ‘Zuckerbucks’. On its face, this seems like an
admirable act of charity, administered equally to all states and their
people to conduct free and fair elections in the face of a global
crisis…until you follow the money.
The Thomas Moore Society and the Amistad Project shed light on this
when they released a report in January of 2021 showing Zuckerbucks were
in fact politically targeted to only benefit certain voters in certain
areas – potentially violating the law in the process.
The reports found that in Wisconsin, funds provided allowed
traditionally liberal strongholds of Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison,
Milwaukee, and Racine to spend $47 per voter to get out the vote, while
traditionally conservative areas of the state were only allocated
somewhere between four to seven dollars per voter.
In predominately liberal Delaware County, Pennsylvania, the funds
were used to create a high volume of voter drop boxes – one for every
four square miles – or one for every 4,000 voters. In the 59 counties
carried by President Donald Trump in 2016, there was only one drop box
for every 1,100 square miles – or one for every 72,000 voters.
Perhaps more stark is that three Georgia counties – Cobb, Fulton, and
Gwinnett, all historically Democrat voting counties – received more
than $15 million in grant money from CTCL. That accounted for 76 percent
of President Joe Biden’s vote margin gain relative to Hillary Clinton’s
2016 performance.
There have also been allegations that election officials were
literally bought off with Zuckerberg-funded grant money. Reports have
circulated that Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson, had ties to
a 501(c)(3) called the Michigan Center for Election Law and
Administration (MCELA) which received $12 million from CEIR. According
to the report, the MCELA spent 99 percent of this money with two
political consulting firms which only represented left-leaning clients.
In fact, New York has double the population of Michigan, but received
just $5 million – less than half of Michigan’s funding. As
conservatives pointed out at the time, if the funds were truly meant ‘to
provide nonpartisan, accurate, and official voting information to the
public,’ why did more populous but uncompetitive states receive less
money?”
Good question.
The concern over Big Tech’s blatant unequal application of their
terms of service is a serious problem – as conservative viewpoints and
inconvenient truths continue to be crushed across their platforms.
However, Big Tech’s new found desire to use hundreds of millions of
dollars to tip the scales in our elections is unprecedented.
was intended to validate aspects of one of the Pentagon's hypersonic glide vehicles in development, two of the people said.
Hypersonic
glide vehicles are launched from a rocket in the upper atmosphere
before gliding to a target at speeds of more than five times the speed
of sound, or about 3,853 miles (6,200 kilometers) per hour.
In
a separate series of tests conducted on Wednesday, the U.S. Navy and
Army tested hypersonic weapon component prototypes. That test
successfully "demonstrated advanced hypersonic technologies,
capabilities, and prototype systems in a realistic operating
environment," the Pentagon said in a statement. read more
The
United States and its global rivals have quickened their pace to build
hypersonic weapons - the next generation of arms that rob adversaries of
reaction time and traditional defeat mechanisms.
U.S.
President Joe Biden expressed concern on Wednesday about Chinese
hypersonic missiles, days after a media report that Beijing had tested a
nuclear-capable hypersonic glide weapon. read more
Glide
bodies are different from their air-breathing hypersonic weapon cousins
which use scramjet engine technology and the vehicle's high speed to
forcibly compress incoming air before combustion to enable sustained
flight at hypersonic speeds. An air-breathing hypersonic weapon was
successfully tested in September. read more
Companies such as Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) and Raytheon Technologies (RTX.N) are working to develop the hypersonic weapon capability for the United States.
WASHINGTON,
Oct 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy and Army tested hypersonic weapon
component prototypes on Wednesday that will inform development of new
weapons, the Pentagon said, calling the three tests successful.
The tests occurred the same day that U.S. President Joe Biden said he was concerned about Chinese hypersonic weapons. read more
Sandia
National Laboratories ran the tests from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility
in Virginia which will help "inform the development of the Navy's
Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) and the Army's Long Range Hypersonic
Weapon (LRHW) offensive hypersonic strike," a statement said.
The Navy and Army will conduct a flight test of the common hypersonic missile in fiscal 2022, which began on Oct. 1.
Hypersonic
weapons travel in the upper atmosphere at more than five times the
speed of sound, or about 3,853 miles per hour (6,200 kph).
These
tests "demonstrated advanced hypersonic technologies, capabilities, and
prototype systems in a realistic operating environment," the Pentagon
said in a statement.
The
United States has actively pursued the development of hypersonic
weapons as a part of its conventional prompt global strike program since
the early 2000s.
Companies such as Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) and Raytheon Technologies (RTX.N) are working to develop the hypersonic weapon capability for the United States.
(This story refiles to pluralize 'Laboratories' in third paragraph of Thursday story)
On Thursday morning, Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) joined Dana Perino for an
interview on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” to discuss the Democrat’s
“reckless tax and spending” reconciliation package, the Biden
administration's proposal to have the IRS monitor bank accounts, and the
Democrats’ efforts to federalize elections.
To
start off, Perino asked McConnell what he thought about the Democrat’s
reconciliation package, noting the Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, from
Arizona, said that she is not a proponent for any new taxes.
“The
American people will be a lot better off if this reckless tax and
spending package never passes. They didn’t get a mandate from the
American people to do this,” McConnell said in the interview. “American
people didn’t vote to turn this country into Bernie Sanders’ socialist
vision.”
McConnell then shared his opinion on a proposal
from the Biden administration that would allow the IRS to monitor
American’s bank accounts. First,
the proposal, which is included in Biden’s massive Build Back Better
spending plan, would allow the IRS to monitor all transactions exceeding
$600. As Katie reported,
this faced a massive pushback from GOP lawmakers and the public, and
the benchmark was raised to $10,000 this week. The White House claimed
that the surveillance of bank accounts is needed to ensure people are
“paying their fair share” in taxes.
“It’s as if every
single American was under audit every year. This is completely
outrageous, a violation of privacy and I hope in the end those
advocating this will back away from it. I think the American people will
go berserk over this,” McConnell said in the interview.
Before
wrapping up, McConnell spoke on the Democrats’ efforts to federalize
all elections, saying that they want the federal government to take over
elections though elections have historically been administered at the
state level.
“What they're trying to do is have the
federal government take over all the ways that we do elections in this
country, which have historically been administered at the state level.
There is not a single state in America enacting new laws after the
pandemic trying to suppress the vote based upon race. If the Justice
Department thinks any state is doing that, they can go to court,”
McConnell said at the end of the segment. “Americans all over the
country can easily vote right now.”
Watch the interview below.
President
Biden is simultaneously saying that their latest spending spree will
cost zero dollars and that it’ll take massive tax hikes and an invasive
IRS dragnet in order to pay for it. The American people didn't vote for a
massive socialist transformation. pic.twitter.com/tP5LqMswxe
We already knew that the Biden administration's statistics on Americans in Afghanistan were, shall we say, incomplete. They're now admitting as much to Congress. For weeks and weeks, the official line out of the White House has been that approximately100 US citizens "who wish to leave" remained in the Taliban-controlled country (the Senate majority leader falsely claimed that "all" Americans were out). Math has never been my strong suit, but this number is definitely higher than 100, yes?
State
Dept. informed congressional staff Thursday that it is in touch with
363 American citizens in Afghanistan, 176 of whom want to leave, per @jmhansler
That is significantly higher than the estimates of roughly 100 in Aug. which Admin officials regularly cited.
CNN's Mattingly also relays
how "officials said that they have gotten 218 American citizens and 131
legal permanent residents (LPRs) out of Afghanistan since August 31."
Let's set aside the reality that it's military veterans and private
organizations doing most of the heavy lifting to rescue Americans and allies, and the Biden State Department doesn't get to claim credit for the work of others. Recall how Biden asserted
that there were roughly 100-200 Americans left in Afghanistan on August
31, after his disastrous pullout. By his own State Department's new
admission, 349 Americans have gotten out of the country since that date,
with hundreds more in contact with the US government. Why should we
believe any of their numbers? Their math has never added up – and their
definition of "Americans" almost always excludes legal permanent
residents, of which thousands remain stuck
in Afghanistan. And it certainly does not include the tens of thousands
of Afghan allies whom we promised to evacuate, then didn't. I cannot
fathom their desperation and sense of betrayal with these sorts of horrors playing out:
An
Afghan volleyball player on the girls’ national team was beheaded by
the Taliban — with gruesome photos of her severed head posted on social
media, according to her coach. Mahjabin Hakimi, one of the best players
in the Kabul Municipality Volleyball Club, was slaughtered in the
capital city of Kabul as troops searched for female sports players...She
was killed earlier this month, but her death remained mostly hidden
because her family had been threatened not to talk, claimed the coach,
using a pseudonym, Suraya Afzali, due to safety fears. Images
of Hakimi’s severed neck were published on Afghan social media,
according to the paper, which did not say how old she was...“All the
players of the volleyball team and the rest of the women
athletes are in a bad situation and in despair and fear,” she told the
paper. “Everyone has been forced to flee and live in unknown places.” One of the players who escaped, Zahra Fayazi, told the BBC last month that at least one of the players had been killed.
I'll leave you with this. The Taliban are hardened, fanatical, homicidal, anti-American jihadists. Of course, they're not going to work with us to counter Islamist extremists. They are Islamist extremists:
The
Taliban have promised plots of land to relatives of suicide bombers who
attacked U.S. and Afghan soldiers, in a provocative gesture that seems
to run counter to their efforts to court international support. via @samya_kullabhttps://t.co/KrhWb8Y5yg
The Taliban have promised plots of land to relatives of suicide bombers who attacked U.S. and Afghan soldiers,
in a provocative gesture that seems to run counter to their efforts to
court international support. The Taliban’s acting interior minister,
Sirajuddin Haqqani, offered the reward to dozens of family members of
bombers gathered at a Kabul hotel, Interior Ministry spokesman Saeed
Khosty tweeted on Tuesday. Addressing the gathering Monday evening, Haqqani
praised the sacrifices of “martyrs and fedayeen,” referring to fighters
killed in suicide attacks, Khosty tweeted. Haqqani called them “heroes
of Islam and the country,” according to the spokesman. At the
end of the meeting, he distributed 10,000 afghanis ($112) per family and
promised each a plot of land. Khosty posted photos of Haqqani, his face
blurred, embracing the relatives in a packed auditorium.
The Chinese Communist Party poses the most comprehensive 21st-century
threat to the American nation, the American people and the American way
of life. The first half of this century will be defined by how the U.S.
meets the Chinese challenge across the full spectrum of economic,
national security, geopolitical and cultural issues. And an easily
neglected aspect of our new great-power competition with our Far East
archfoe now cries out for diligent and prompt attention: safeguarding
the fruits of the nascent, but ascendant, cryptocurrency revolution.
Last
month, China effectively banned all cryptocurrency trading and mining,
which the Communist Party increasingly views as a threat to its planned
"digital yuan" sovereign digital currency, which may be released as
early as 2022. The People's Bank of China, the Chinese central bank and
Federal Reserve equivalent, barred international exchanges from
providing cryptocurrency services to Chinese investors and speculators.
It also banned financial institutions and digital exchanges from
facilitating domestic crypto transactions.
China's moves have
further exacerbated already high volatility in the crypto markets,
leading to intensified calls for the Securities and Exchange Commission
to provide "regulatory clarity." For instance, Sen. Pat Toomey,
R-Pennsylvania, an orthodox free marketeer, noted last month that in
some recent crypto-related enforcement actions, "the SEC did not
identify the securities involved or the rationale for their status as
securities, which would have provided much-needed public regulatory
clarity."
The issue with extant SEC enforcement in the crypto space, as
Toomey indicated, is its wildly inconsistent -- and oftentimes outright
punitive -- nature to date. Crypto proponents contend that the only
clear guidance from the SEC has been found through various one-off
lawsuits. They point to the SEC's ongoing case against Ripple Labs, a
blockchain software company that uses the XRP cryptocurrency in
cross-border payment settlements for banks. Ripple sought SEC guidance
for years while billions of XRP tokens circulated, but never received
any. In December 2020, the SEC then filed a $1.3 billion enforcement
action alleging that every XRP sale since 2013 constituted an
unregistered securities trade. That is not how due process of law is
supposed to work in a well-functioning republic.
As the U.S. locks
horns in a generation-defining struggle with China, and as the recent
Chinese crackdown on cryptocurrencies opens the door for the U.S. to
regain the global mantle on crypto innovation, it would be a mistake to
simply double down on more of the SEC's peculiar brand of "regulatory
clarity."
The U.S. should support emerging technologies with the
potential to add value to the economy, so long as those technologies are
not detrimental to the national interest and the common good. The way
to do that is not via inconsistent and incoherent regulatory enforcement
based on whether a specific type of cryptocurrency is found to
constitute an "investment contract" (i.e., security) under the
Securities Act of 1933, according to the Supreme Court's Howey Test from
over 70 years ago.
SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has thus far unhelpfully stated
that most cryptocurrencies are likely securities. That is insufficient
guidance. President Joe Biden is said to be weighing an executive order
to direct agencies to craft clearer crypto regulations, but it is
impossible to have any faith in doddering Uncle Joe's ability to
unilaterally help matters in such a novel area of the economy. An
entirely new approach is needed.
One need not think very hard about where that new set of coherent
legal guardrails ought to come from. "In republican government," James
Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, "the legislative authority
necessarily predominates." And so it ought to be for crypto regulation
in the year 2021, as well.
Congress urgently needs to step in and
either force the SEC to provide actual, meaningful "regulatory clarity"
for the entirety of the cryptocurrency industry, or to draft
legislation. Such legislation would be a modern-day Securities Act
update and would provide extremely clear guidance as to which forms of
cryptocurrency -- Bitcoin, Ether and so forth -- constitute
securities/"investment contracts" under the Securities Act of 1933 and
which do not. The former category of securities would require SEC
registration, whereas the latter category of commodities would fall
under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's regulatory ambit.
Massive, economic paradigm-shifting industries require the most
rudimentary of guidelines and categorical sorting to best channel their
comprehensive societal value-add. This is simply not a partisan issue
either. Just as the Securities Act of 1933 was needed in its day, so is a
Securities Act of 2021 needed now. It's time for Congress to get
moving.
The left claims that their most urgent battle is to save democracy,
but when it comes to any questioning of the LGBT lobby, they are the
ones who sound like authoritarians. The overtones are unmistakable in
the "news" coverage promoting "dozens" of employees walking out of
Netflix in Los Angeles on Oct. 20 in protest. The target? A popular Dave
Chappelle comedy special, "The Closer."
Tens
of thousands of anti-abortion advocates can assemble and be ignored,
but assemble two dozen transgender lobbyists and NBC and PBS will treat
it as momentous.
Take NBC's story. Anchor Lester Holt began: "A
battle raging inside Netflix for weeks boiled over today. Employees
staging a walkout in terms of the streamer's latest Dave Chappelle
special in which the comedian mocks transgender people."
Reporter
Steve Patterson began: "Tonight, Netflix employees walking out of the
company's Hollywood office after weeks of internal backlash." They
didn't specify a number of protesters. But the story had all sound bites
from one side: the LGBT side. That's unless you count them reading a
quote from Netflix CEO/Obama money man Ted Sarandos apologizing
profusely for "screwing up" with the outraged radical employees.
NBC
featured two angry trans activist sound bites and two sound bites of
openly gay Variety "reporter" Matt Donnelly, who acted more like a
spokesman for the protesters. He said Sarandos originally "did not feel
it was hate speech, which went down incredibly badly with Netflix's
trans and LGBTQ-plus employees." NBC noted the in-house protesters made a
list of demands, and Donnelly added, "I think that Netflix is going to
have to put its money where its mouth is. This specific bloc of
employees are galvanized to continue to hold them accountable."
For what? NBC's stilted story failed to offer one clip or quote
or explanation of what Chappelle said that was offensive. We can guess
it's because the comedian said "gender is a fact," and, "Every human
being on Earth had to pass through the legs of a woman to be on Earth.
That is a fact." Is that somehow too horrific for NBC to include?
NBC
also shamelessly failed to report that there were counterprotesters
sticking up for Chappelle right there at this walkout. In the video, you
can briefly see a protester holding up a "Jokes Are Funny" sign, but
otherwise, NBC couldn't offer one hint of dissent.
Over on the
"PBS NewsHour," anchor Amna Nawaz displayed the taxpayer-funded
network's allegiances by putting on trans woman Imara Jones of TransLash
Media. No debate allowed. Nawaz attempted one question about free
speech in comedy. "They just say comedy is supposed to be provocative.
Shouldn't there be a space for that?"
Jones fiercely said there's no space for that. "Well, it's also
supposed to be intelligent. And there's nothing intelligent about
mocking trans people. There's nothing interesting or provocative about
mocking trans people." She argued Chappelle offered "essentially hate
speech disguised as jokes."
So, stating that human babies come out of women is "hate speech."
Right before her comedy question, Nawaz assisted Jones by
offering gay-lobby estimates. "The data does speak volumes here.
According to Human Rights Campaign, 2021 is set to be the most violent
year on record for transgender and gender-nonconforming people." Make a
joke and you're responsible for murder?
Jones concluded, "Netflix
may become a stigma brand. That is to say, it may no longer be a place
where you're proud to say that you work... Netflix could be in real
trouble." And so our "free speech" media offers themselves as eager
allies with trans tyranny over what kind of speech can be allowed.
I see a lot of bluray collections on reddit and bluray forums that joined the 1000 club. I wished I collected some Criterion discs. I have 9 Criterion movies.
I only have 600 dvds + blurays over 20 years. I have 1500 videogames
and 200 cds. In this Great depression 2, I thought I finish up on the
movie collection, the game collection and music collection. I have 3
shelves double stacked and 10 shelves of videogames. Then I have some
Retropie of 14,000 games consoles and a few with 8000 games consoles.
I’m in good shape going into the Great Depression 2. I have people who
love me, yet are baby boomers. I was watching Jeremiah babe and Epic
economist in 2018. I really liked my videogames and movies. Unsure about
the CDs, I like owning CDs almost as much hearing raves that aren’t on
the Internet. I should have bought less CDs and more videogames. I have
all the important blockbuster videogames of my teens and 20s. I have
every videogame I really wanted by 2022. Nobody knew was into pokemon
trading cards or Magic the Gathering. I own 3050 Magic the Gathering
cards, because it was a big part of the atmosphere.
The neighbors didn’t invite me to Minnesota State Fair, bar/pub
parties, any parties, gatherings. This woman from Roberts say I wasn’t a
part of their community anymore. I was a part of the Toyriffic
community for 15 years until the helicopter parents in my early 30s. It
went bankrupt in 2019. I must’ve bought 25 videogames from that shop.
The Magic the Gathering side of business wasn’t doing well so it went
bankrupt. Roberts Wisconsin was kind of mean streets. If people don’t
need me, I won’t hear from them. The bars were getting dangerous. I
could be punched. Everybody was trigger happy with the Castle doctrine.
Even people were wondering if I carried a gun.
On Myspace, I saw a lot of people go into bars and having parties
because it was Wisconsin. Bars were celebrated in the 20s in Myspace and
first 10 years of Facebook. Then I saw pickups, wites and children on
Facebook in the 2010s. I remember getting banned on Plentyofifsh for 15
years or no dates off Okcupid for 15 years (partly because the A-list
took bank accouwints not gift cards).
Employment is such a rat race and they want me to work without
relationships and with speed, the grind. I be both alone and without
owing anything fun possessions if people had their way. Co-workers
didn’t want to spend time in restaurants or malls or coffee shops. They
seem to be on the social networks however.
In almost every way measurable, millennials in the U.S. at 40 are
doing worse financially than the generations that came before them.
Fewer millennials own homes than their parents did at their age. They
have more debt — especially student debt. They simply aren’t as
wealthy.
Now, if predictions of a long, post-Covid economic boom are to be
believed, this may be the last opportunity an entire generation has to
build wealth before heading off into retirement.
For Kellie Beach, a real-estate attorney who turned 40 in April, that
means starting by aggressively paying down her credit-card debt. Beach
has cycled between periods of carrying balances and paying it all off.
“I stayed afloat with credit cards,” she said. “I was just used to
swiping and overspending.”
The pandemic jolted her into taking a hard look at her habits.
“Now I have this feeling — like this fire — of urgency,” Beach said.
“I’m not going to be in this place again. I can’t wait to get out of
this debt. I can’t wait to save up for my emergency fund and invest
again.”
Wealth Woes
Net worth has declined since 1989 while wages remain
stagnanthttps://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/4aae4bcd197147ed8289ab1cc0a12a03?hideLogo=true&hideTitles=true&web=true&
Source: Federal Reserve
In April, a month after turning 40, Dustin Roberts bought his first
house. He was older than his parents were when they became first-time
homeowners: his mom in her 20s and his dad in his 30s. He wasn’t able to
save more quickly for a down payment because money instead went to his
student loan payments. He has $38,000 remaining in student debt from San
Diego State University.
“My dad had always tried to tell me how important it was to buy a
house, how that was a mode of financial security for him,” said Roberts,
who works in sales at Milwaukee Tool in Savannah, Georgia. “I’m making
more than my dad did, but am I better off? I don’t know that I can say
yes.”
The oldest U.S. millennials — born in 1981 — turn 40 this year. Older members of the generation — mocked recently
as “geriatric millennials” — came of age during a long stretch of
prosperity in the 1990s, the second-longest period of expansion in U.S.
history. Unemployment was steadily falling. If millennials remember a
recession at all from their childhood, it might be a brief one in 1990
in which the economy contracted less than 2%.
But since entering adulthood, they’ve been hit with major recessions
at critical stages in their financial development: They were 27 years
old when Lehman Bros. went bankrupt, and the Great Recession dug in when
they should have been establishing themselves in the workforce. “The
Great Recession knocked everyone for a loop,” said William Gale, senior
fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution. “It
caused unemployment. It caused slow wage growth. It made it harder to
accumulate wealth.”
Then, as millennials hit the point in their careers where people
traditionally move into higher-paying managerial roles, the pandemic
hit. In 2020, the U.S. economy contracted 3.5%; When the oldest Baby
Boomers turned 40 in 1986, the U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% rate.
Now the U.S. economy is humming again, with sectors like retail sales
and manufacturing stronger than they were before the pandemic. Stocks
are at record highs, and wealth is swelling — especially for the
wealthiest Americans. It remains to be seen whether jobs and wages will
catch up.
Student debt
Some of the differences in wealth among the generations can be attributed to student debt.
More millennials borrow to pay for college than previous generations,
and the loans are bigger. Millennials, who started college in 1999, paid an average
of $15,604 per year for undergraduate tuition, fees and room and board.
When Gen Xers and Baby Boomers started college, that number — adjusted
for inflation — was about $10,300 for each of them.
Changing Debt Burden
Millennials have more student-loan debt but less mortgage obligations
than their Boomer and Gen X counterparts when they were
40https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/1af9c014904f427db2c2124a7ed3c401?hideLogo=true&hideTitles=true&web=true&
Source: Federal Reserve
Those costs often follow people for years. Summer Galvez, who turns
40 this month, attended Clark Atlanta University in Georgia for a couple
of semesters but withdrew because she couldn’t afford it. During the
financial crisis, she was laid off from two jobs. Galvez now runs two
successful businesses in Dallas — a marketing firm and a bakery — but
she is still paying student loans 20 years later, even though she didn’t
receive a degree.
Galvez says she relies on her own skills and hustle because big
companies don’t provide job security. “There are always economic factors
that could happen that could just really upend your life,” she said.
Going to college was more important for today’s 40-year-olds.
Millennials with bachelor’s degrees or higher earn 113% more than what
they would have earned with only a high-school diploma. But
college-educated Baby Boomers made only 57% more than their peers with
high school degrees.
“That’s one of the stark evolutions of the job market, where
education has become a greater predictor of success,” said Lowell
Ricketts, data scientist for the Institute for Economic Equity at the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Homeownership
Image: Getty(2)
Some economists predicted millennials would avoid buying homes after
the 2008 housing market crash. They haven’t, but their homeownership
rates are lower than previous generations at the same point in their
lives: 61% for older millennials, 68% for middle-age Gen Xers and 66%
for middle-age Boomers.
“The basic way that middle American households build wealth is
through their homes,” said Richard Fry, a senior researcher at Pew
Research Center. “Millennials have been less likely to be homeowners.
Fewer of them have begun the process of building home equity.”
One culprit could be housing prices, which have increased —
especially compared with earnings. Millennials are paying a median of
$328,000 on homes. Baby boomers only had to spend $216,000 — adjusted
for inflation — in 1989. Wages, on the other hand, have only risen 20%.
Soaring Prices
Millennials are paying 50% more for homes now than Boomers were in
1989https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/ee88b72c3c894010abcbcb0a6b7670e4?hideLogo=true&hideTitles=true&web=true&*Note:
Inflation-adjusted to January 2020 dollars Source: Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis
In 2020, 18% of millennial renters said they planned to rent forever,
up for the third consecutive year, according to a report from Apartment
List. Among millennials who do plan to buy a home, 63% have no money
saved for a down payment, the report said.
The share of millennials living with their parents is also
significantly higher than in previous generations. “Conceptually, that
could help their wealth accumulation because they’d be paying less for
rent and they could save more,” said Gale of Brookings, a co-author of
the NBER working paper. “But in practical terms of what happens is it’s
an indicator of lack of economic status.”
Another factor: The housing market right now is ultra-hot, thanks in part to ultra-low mortgage rates.
“That’s great if you’re a homeowner,” Gale said. “But it’s terrible if you’re a renter trying to buy a home.”
Net worth
The typical Baby Boomers had about $113,000 — in today’s dollars — in
wealth in 1989, when they were in their early 40s. Older millennials
had a net worth of just $91,000 in 2019.
The millennial cohort is also more racially diverse than the
generations before it, and because of structural racism, minority
populations often have lower wealth accumulation and wages, which weighs
on net worth averages, Gale said. The median White family has nearly
eight times as much wealth as the median Black family, and more than
five times as much as a Hispanic family.
The pandemic has widened inequalities in the U.S.: The unemployment
rate for Black Americans has recovered slower, and remains much higher,
than the rate for White Americans. Meanwhile, Americans of color are
more likely to be employed in industries that are undergoing rapid
change with automation and e-commerce, including retail and
transportation.
“If we continue to see these inequities, it suggests that we’re
really going to have a hard time achieving financial stability and
upward mobility more broadly among American families,” Ricketts said.
Catching up
: Getty(2)
Because the life expectancy of the American population is on the rise, millennials also receive family inheritances
— if available to them — later in life, which could account for why
people turning 40 today have lower net worth than generations prior.
By then, “it might be too late for them to take advantage of it and
meet some of those mid-life goals that wealth really helps with
achieving,” such as owning a home, investing in the stock market and
paying down debt, Ricketts of the St. Louis Fed said.
For individuals, the first step is figuring out where you are — and
what you need most, whether that means minimizing taxes or expenses, or
generating more income, said Juan G. HernandezAriano, a certified
financial planner and director at WealthCreate, a financial advising
firm in Spring, Texas. Many people would benefit from figuring out a new
payment plan for student debt. In addition, people who have newly hit
middle age have some flexibility their parents didn’t have: more ways to
invest, different car insurance options or the ability to work from
home, for example.
“Bottom line: Are millennials behind? Yes. Can you catch up? Yes,” he
said. “How? First and foremost, defining your goals. Once you define
your goals: build a budget, improve that budget, diversity not only from
an investment perspective but an income perspective.”
Older millennials can move the needle, starting with an emergency
savings account — and even small amounts can help, said Signe-Mary
McKernan, an economist and co-director of the Opportunity and Ownership
initiative at the Urban Institute in Washington. They can then focus on
contributing to retirement accounts, or buying — and keeping — a home.
“I don’t think it’s too late,” she said. “If we set up this stronger
foundation for economic security, if it’s institutionalized for
everyone, then it could make life better for young millennials, for
older millennials, for future generations and for the country as a
whole.”
Employees are preparing to quit their jobs in droves after “falling
out of touch” with their employers during the pandemic – with IT staff
even more likely to walk.
Research by HR software firm Personio found that four in ten
employees (38%) in the UK and Ireland were planning to change roles in
the next six to 12 months or once the economy had stabilized – rising to
55% of 18-34 year olds
The research,
which quizzed 500 HR decision makers and more than 2,000 workers,
warned of a “post-pandemic talent exodus” that could cost businesses up
to £17 billion (US $23.9bn).
Tech workers were even more likely to be eyeing a career change, with
58% of respondents in IT and computing roles saying they were
considering a new role.
Personio also found that, while almost half (45%) of employers were
worried about post-pandemic resignations, few were looking to make
talent retention a priority for their organization – leaving them
“sleepwalking” towards a costly talent exit.
Hanno Renner, co-founder and CEO of Personio, said: “The last year
has been a challenging one for businesses and HR teams who have often
found themselves ‘firefighting’, dealing with multiple new tasks and
concerns. For some, this has caused other areas such as people strategy
to fall to the wayside – but this negligence comes at a cost.
“Falling out of touch with the workforce’s problems and priorities
means that not only could people be more frustrated and ready to resign,
but employers will be poorly prepared to prevent people leaving –
resulting in lost talent and productivity, and damaged employer brand.”
A fraught tech talent market
Mass resignations of top technology talent could be catastrophic for
businesses at a time when many are trying to fast-forward digital
transformation initiatives.
The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a flurry of competition for developers
and software professionals, with previous research indicating that many
companies will struggle to hire and retain skilled technology staff.
Bev White, CEO of recruiter Harvey Nash Group, said tech
professionals were beginning to weigh up their futures as pandemic
restrictions eased – posing a retention challenge for businesses.
“In the last few weeks, we have not only experienced a surge in new
tech jobs – up over 100% on the previous year – but we are also seeing a
strong demand from a wide range of candidates including those that have
worked for their employer throughout the pandemic, but now have
different priorities,” White told TechRepublic.
Technology remains a predominant theme in the conversation around
remote work, as well as a persistent source of frustration for employees
working from home.
The pandemic may have accelerated the use of digital tools that, in
many ways, have made our lives easier, but the sudden and mandatory
switch to remote working has also had consequences for employee performance and wellbeing .
Almost half (44%) of HR decision makers surveyed by Personio reported
an increase in the number of digital tools they used during the
pandemic. In all, researchers found that companies were using an average
of six different tools for people-related tasks and insights alone –
rising to eight in larger organizations.
Staff have also seen an increase in the number of digital tools
they’re using to carry out day-to-day work, leaving many feeling
overwhelmed. Over a third of employees (37%) said there were “too many
digital tools to use at work”, with 36% reporting a negative impact on
their productivity as a result.
Despite the very real threat of staff leaving for new pastures as the
economy strengthens, Personio researchers found that only 26% of HR
decision makers cited talent retention as a priority for their
organization over the next 12 months.
Aidan Donnelly, director of technology platform at Personio, warned
that employers would feel the sting of resignations more acutely at a
time when tech has rocketed to the top of investment agendas .
“Businesses should be aware that the loss of tech talent and
subsequent need to recruit and onboard new hires is time consuming and
expensive. This can be disruptive to businesses at a time when many are
investing in digital transformation plans, or growing as technology
providers,” Donnelly told TechRepublic.
“To prevent tech talent leaving, and protect their business,
employers need to take time to speak to employees to understand their
challenges and needs – and address these accordingly. Ultimately, this
is the whole business’s responsibility, and management and leaders
should be leading the way in opening these conversations and bridging
any gaps.”
A growing disconnect
The switch to remote working makes managing employees and sustaining workplace culture particularly challenging.
Many employees have been left feeling untethered after spending
months working from home, with progression opportunities and career
development seemingly grinding to a halt.
For employees looking elsewhere, Personio found that the most
influential factors were a lack of career progression opportunities
(29%) and a perceived lack of appreciation for the work they do (29%).
This was followed by poor management (25%), a pay freeze or cut (23%),
and boredom with their job (23%).
The research also identified a disconnect between what employers felt
would cause staff to quit and the reality. In particular, employers
were found to “drastically underestimate” the impact of a toxic
workplace culture on employees’ decisions to leave, with almost twice as
many employees (21%) citing this as a significant push factor than HR
leaders (12%).
HR decision makers also underestimated the influence that a lack of
progression opportunities and a lack of appreciation had on workers’
decisions to quit, with just 17% and 15% identifying these as
significant push factors, respectively.
Personio found that that employers were likely to feel they had
supported teams better than employees felt they had, which it said was
“indicative of a broader disconnect that could be contributing to a lack
of loyalty amongst employees”.
HR leaders were more than twice as likely as staff to rate their
company’s support for career development as ‘good’ (64% vs 30%), and
more likely to view its support for work/life balance (70% vs 53%) and
mental and physical wellbeing (68% vs 44%) favorably.
This optimism amongst employers could be blinding them to a “looming productivity drought”, researchers said.
While some reports have suggested that remote work has led to an uptick in employee productivity
– at least, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic – Personio found that
the proportion of employees who felt their productivity had increased
over the past year was roughly equal to those who believed their
productivity had fallen.
Again, HR professionals were more likely to be optimistic with their
reporting: 52% said they noticed an increase in staff productivity since
the start of the pandemic, compared to 33% who’d noticed a decrease.
“This optimism could pose a risk; if employers don’t recognise that a
productivity drought is occurring, they’re less likely to take steps to
address it – and this could cost them dearly,” the researchers said.
The value of flexible working
A growing impetus for workers’ career decisions is the offer of flexible-working arrangements.
Harvey Nash’s 2021 Technology and Talent Study revealed that work location and remote working had become one of the top three most important factors for tech professionals when looking for a new job, with strong culture and leadership also ranking highly.
White said that providing a flexible mix of remote working and time
spent in the office could represent “the best of both worlds for
individuals and employers alike,” by helping to foster the strong and
supportive culture that many employees desire following the events of
2020.
“Getting this right could be the key for organisations in retaining
talent under threat – while for hiring managers looking to attract new
people, demonstrating that their business is aligned with the new deal
concept could send out a powerful message that helps them capture the
interest of the tech professionals they need,” said White.
“It’s not surprising that people are looking to move roles as the
economy improves, as many people have stayed put and put job changes on
hold while the labour market was more uncertain,” said Seychell.
“As the economy recovers and people have more confidence in the job
market, not only will people have more opportunity and confidence to
leave their jobs for pastures new, but burnout and frustration with lack
of employer support during the pandemic may push them out the door… At a
time when employees are ready to walk, any change that’s poorly managed
could risk setting off a raft of resignations.”
Let’s face it – the news that former Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo intends to challenge former president Donald Trump in a 2024
primary puts one to mind not of Godzilla v. King Kong, but of Godzilla v. Bambi.
It’s Muhammad Ali stepping into the ring against Don Knotts. Pompeo is
doomed. But we should be glad that he is offering up himself for
sacrifice. Many conservatives are open to a competitive GOP primary,
not because they dislike Trump (they like him) but because they want to
make sure we nominate the strongest candidate in 2024. Moreover, Trump
needs a challenge to prepare him for the real fight in the general. And
he’s not afraid of one.
Will Pompeo really run? Reporters with good sources are saying Pompeo is telling his donors he is.
And I have heard the same thing from inside sources who would know. Of
course, the buried lede is that Pompeo has presidential campaign donors –
well, there’s one born every minute.
Other top-flight
potential GOP candidates are not jumping in. Ron DeSantis is focused on
his family (we’re all pulling for his wife) and winning reelection.
Robert O’Brien, the former (excellent) National Security Advisor, is
busy helping win back the House and intends to endorse the President the
day the President announces. DC establishment darlin’ Nikki Haley, the
Jeb! of 2024, will do whatever she has to do to get ahead, and right now
she thinks that means staying out if Trump gets in.
But will Trump run? I originally did not expect him
to run, but now I do. Between Asterisk’s floundering poll numbers and
Trump’s public words and actions, as well as people who would know
telling me that he’s running, it’s clear he’s leaning that way. He’s
biding his time, and he should. There’s no reason to do anything now but
build up his team for a third campaign – and it seems that’s what he’s doing.
All this is setting up a clash of the titan…and Mike Pompeo.
Now,
to point out that Mike Pompeo’s chances of prevailing in the primary
are about the same as Kamala Harris winning “Border Czar of the Year” is
not to throw shade on him. Pompeo would make a fine president. I have
heard him speak on the Trump Doctrine, the America First foreign policy
that he helped execute and that the current crusty occupant of the White
House’s serial failures have fully vindicated. He was excellent,
demonstrating a deep and thorough understanding of the challenges we
face, which – contrary to our current pseudo-leadership’s view – are not
climate change or systemic racism. He’s very conservative. Despite him
being a West Pointer, should he be nominated we can all give him our
enthusiastic support. And if he is nominated over Trump, we can all ride
on our unicorns to the polling places to vote for him.
Pompeomania is just not a thing and isn’t going to be.
The
best argument for Pompeo is that, unlike Trump, he doesn’t scare the
unsatisfied suburban wine women who make up the Democrat base like Trump
does, but don’t worry – he’ll be literally Hitler
when the time comes. The argument against him is that he’s bland. Trump
oozes charisma (and, to leftists and cruise ship cons, its opposite)
while Mike Pompeo inspires, at best, “Well, I guess he’s okay. Yawn.”
To
want a real primary challenge is not the throw shade on Trump either. A
real campaign will sharpen Trump, hone him, and get him ready for a
real fight, be it against Kamala or someone remotely competent.
This
should not be a coronation. Trump has to earn his right to make his
Grover Cleveland move. That means a real primary with a real challenger,
not a media-driven, toobinesque vanity run by some Never Trump doofus
like Larry Hogan or the Beltway Cowgirl, who will have nothing to do
after being tossed from office next year.
We saw what not having a challenge did to Hillary.
She was out-of-shape, soft, unready, and unprepared. Trump needs to go
into the general with momentum, the momentum one gets from crushing his
primary opponents. And Trump thrives on competition – if you want him to
win the general in 2024, then you want him to spar hard in the primary.
Trump has to work out some kinks in his delivery. As Byron York observed,
at a recent rally he had the crowd rocking when he was roasting
President * over his myriad failures, from the border to Afghanistan to
inflation and beyond. Yet, when Trump started going on and on about 2020
in excruciating detail, the rally got off to a flying stop.
If
his campaign is about relitigating the last one, we lose. We all know
2020 was rigged. I was in Nevada lawyering for the president in the
aftermath, so I saw the traditional fraud, the unlawful rule changes,
the zillionaires’ ”donations” to government election agencies, and the
informal rigging of the media and corporations in 2020. But that’s the
past; the 2020 fight is over. The only thing I want to hear about it is
how Ronna McDaniel is preparing – with lots of lawyers and lots of money
– for the fight in 2024, because her inexcusable failure to prepare for
the legal fights in the half-dozen blue cities where the shenanigans
took place caused that fiasco. The Arizona audit revealed a bunch of
corruption. Great. What is the name of the GOP law firm currently filing
lawsuits in Arizona to fix those issues? Tumbleweeds.
And they are boring tumbleweeds. A boring Trump is a
losing Trump, and talking about 2020 won’t win is a single new voter,
Conversely, the Democrats whining like little female doggies over the
January 6th insignificant “insurrection” is their own losing tangent.
Fix the problems, then talk about how Democrats suck. There’s your
winning strategy.
We also need assurance that Trump has fixed his personnel
problems. The fact that Ronna McDaniel is still around after botching
the election integrity fight for him is unsettling. But the fact that,
towards the end, he hired solid folks, including Mike Pompeo, is
hopeful. It would be good to see Pompeo ask Trump in a debate why he
didn’t fire Tony Fauci and Chris Wray – and for Trump to answer “I
should have, and I learned that lesson. No slack during Trump 2.0!”
Oh, hell to the yeah!
Bringing
up tough questions and having Trump address them is the most important
reason we need a primary challenge, even one that’s relatively hopeless.
We need Trump to confront his mistakes and assure us he’s learned is
lessons. The guy accomplished amazing things even with the entire
establishment against him and despite his self-inflicted wounds. We
can’t assuage the establishment’s fury, but imagine what he will do with
fewer own-goals. And imagine how angry the establishment hacks will be
when he beats them again.
Trump is likely to triumph in
the end, but he also needs to be circumspect. He could crush Pompeo like
a bug if he wished, with the cutting invective that put the gooey likes
of Jeb! away in 2016. But he’s not the outsider this time. Like it or
not, Trump is the insider, the voice of the GOP base, and now he has to
build the movement and reinforce party rather than just lay waste. He
needs to thread the needle and prevail over Pompeo and any other
non-Conservative, Inc., candidates without leaving them smoking craters.
Save the nukes for the Liz Cheneys.
The fact is that
2024 is neither 2016 nor 2020. This third campaign needs to be
different. So, if you want to see Trump win in 2024, bring on the
challengers.
Washington -- Several years ago, while perusing material for my
favorite department of "The American Spectator," the Current Wisdom, I
came across an obvious lie perpetrated by Terry McAuliffe, this season's
Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia. It was a pretty bold
lie, too, and he was quite proud of it as you will see.
The
Current Wisdom is a department of "The American Spectator" that
includes quotations that are obviously foolish but rarely out-and-out
lies. This time the quote in question was an out-and-out lie. It was
also quite foolish, but more to the point it was a lie, and it was
perpetrated by the future governor of the great state of Virginia who
now hopes to serve yet again. His opponent is Glenn Youngkin, and he
better be on his toes with this Democratic opponent who seems to be
getting desperate in his race with Youngkin.
On page 58 of his
2007 memoir, "What A Party! My Life Among Democrats: Presidents,
Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals,"
McAuliffe wrote that in past issues, "The American Spectator" published
articles "alleging" that Bill Clinton "ordered the murder of political
opponents." I very politely asked him during a chance encounter in the
green room of MSNBC where I might find the errant quote or quotes. Which
issue was it in? I then followed up with a letter to Terry. (And I
think I might call him Terry. After all, he ended our correspondence
calling me Bob.) Remember, I edit "The American Spectator," and if any
of our aggressive young editors are pulling a fast one on me, I would
want to know. Moreover, murder is a crime even in Arkansas.
By the way, there was another lie in my long-going
correspondence with Terry. On July 11, 2007, he accused us at "The
American Spectator" of taking "under-the-table money from an
ultraconservative named Richard Mellon Scaife and used it to send
reporters out to do just enough digging to give the veneer of truth to
wild, unfounded charges." What nonsense! Seth Lipsky, the founder and
editor of the "New York Sun," has called "The American Spectator"
probably the most thoroughly investigated magazine in the country
(thanks to Terry's friends, the Clintons), and we were never
investigated for taking money "under the table," or for that matter,
murder. He then prattled on about his "homeland of Ireland." Actually,
he was born in Syracuse, and he assumed the posture of a schoolmarm in
lecturing me on the stylistic elements of a paragraph. In as much as I
doubt he even wrote his memoirs, I would not go into such issues of
grammar with me.
For that matter, concerning the outcome of our
investigation with the federal government and Bill's outcome with his
investigation with the federal government, I would caution Terry to
follow another course. At the Spectator, we at least ended the
investigation hearing the word "exoneration" directed at us. That was a
word that the Clintons have never heard directed at them, and Bill ended
up paying tens of thousands of dollars in fines. He had his law license
suspended for five years, and he was impeached before the Senate let
him off the hook.
But back to Terry. Why would a public figure lie about a
matter so easily verified? "The American Spectator" is a magazine easily
accessed in many public libraries, starting with the Library of
Congress. Anyone seeking to verify what we have said about Bill or
Hillary merely has to go to a local library and look up our back issues.
In fact, we provide a yearly index at the back of every bound issue.
Moreover, if we suggested a public figure of Bill Clinton's stature was
ordering murders, I am sure there would be hell to pay. I would think
the Secret Service would have paid me a visit long ago. As I said
before, Terry McAuliffe has obviously lied, but why would he tell such a
whopper?
I think it is because Democrats such as Terry lie all
the time. They trade in a regular discourse of lies, and their
supporters are used to it. They probably believe his lies. So, Glenn
Youngkin had best get used to Terry's lying. I would suggest that every
time Terry tells a lie, Youngkin responds with, "There you go again."
That line has a familiar ring to it, no?
In A.D. 286 the Roman emperor Diocletian split in half the huge Roman
Empire administratively — and peacefully — under the control of two
emperors.
A Western empire included much of modern-day Western Europe and
northwest Africa. The Eastern half controlled Eastern Europe and parts
of Asia and northeastern Africa.
By 330 the Emperor Constantine institutionalized that split by moving
the empire’s capital from Rome to his new imperial city of
Constantinople, founded on the site of the old Greek polis of Byzantium.
The two administrative halves of the once huge empire continued to
drift apart. Soon there arose two increasingly different, though still
kindred versions, of a once unified Romanity.
The Western empire eventually collapsed into chaos by the latter fifth century A.D.
Yet the Roman eastern half survived for nearly 1,000 years. It was
soon known as the Byzantine Empire, until overwhelmed by the Ottoman
Turks in 1453 A.D.
Historians still disagree over why the East endured while the West
crumbled. And they cite the various roles of differing geography, border
challenges, tribal enemies and internal challenges.
We moderns certainly have developed unfair stereotypes of a
supposedly decadent late imperial Rome of Hollywood sensationalism that
deserved its end. And we likewise mistakenly typecast a rigid,
ultra-orthodox bureaucratic “Byzantine” alternative that supposedly grew
more reactionary to survive in a rough neighborhood.
Yet in both cases, separate geography multiplied the growing
differences between a Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian and older
civilization in the east, versus a more or less polyglot and often
fractious Christianity in the Latin West.
Byzantium held firm against ancient neighboring Persian, Middle
Eastern and Egyptian rivals. But the West disintegrated into a tribal
amalgam of its own former peoples.
Unlike the West, the glue that held the East together against
centuries of foreign enemies, was the revered idea of an ancient and
uncompromising Hellenism — the preservation of a common, holistic Greek
language, religion, culture and history.
By A.D. 600, at a time when the West had long ago fragmented into
tribes and proto-European kingdoms, the jewel at Constantinople was the
nerve center of the most impressive civilization in the world,
stretching from the Eastern Asia Minor to southern Italy.
There is now much talk of a new American red state/blue state
split–and even wild threats of another Civil War. Certainly, millions of
Americans yearly self-select, disengage from their political opposites
and make moves based on diverging ideology, culture, politics,
religiosity or lack of it, and differing views of the American past.
More conservative traditionalists head for the interior between the
coasts, where there is usually smaller government, fewer taxes, more
religiosity and unapologetic traditionalists.
These modern Byzantines are more apt to define their patriotism by
honoring ancient customs and rituals — standing for the national anthem,
attending church services on Sundays, demonstrating reverence for
American history and its heroes, and emphasizing the nuclear family.
Immigration in fly-over country is still defined as melting pot
assimilation and integration of new arrivals into the body politic of a
hallowed and enduring America.
While red states welcome change, they believe America never had to be
perfect to be good. It will always survive, but only if it sticks to
its 234-year-old Constitution, stays united by the English language, and
assimilates newcomers into an enduring and exceptional American
culture.
In contrast, the more liberal blue state antithesis is richer from
globalist wealth. The west coast from Seattle to San Diego profits from
trade with a thriving Asia. It is bookended by the east coast window on
the European Union from Boston to Miami.
The great research universities of the Ivy League, MIT, Caltech,
Stanford, and the University of California system are bicoastal. Just as
Rome was once the iconic center of the entire Roman project, so blue
Washington, D.C., is the nerve center for big-government America.
The salad bowl is the bicoastal model for immigration. Newcomers can retain and reboot their former cultural identities.
Religion is less orthodox; atheism and agnosticism are almost the
norm. And most of the recent social movements of American feminism,
transgenderism and critical race theory grew out of coastal urbanity and
academia.
Foreigners see blue coastal Americans as the more vibrant,
sophisticated, cosmopolitan — and reckless — culture, its vast wealth
predicated on technology, information, communications, finance, media,
education and entertainment.
In turn, they concede that the vast red interior — with about the
same population as blue America but with vastly greater area — is the
more pragmatic, predictable and home to the food, fuels, ores and
material production of America.
Our Byzantine interior and Roman coasts are quite differently
interpreting their shared American heritage as they increasingly plot
radically divergent courses to survive in scary times.
But as in the past, it is far more likely that one state model will
prove unsustainable and collapse than it is that either region would
ever start a civil war.
Nearly 14 million gun-sale background checks have been conducted in 2021.
As
more Americans purchase firearms, it’s natural to see participants from
more diverse racial and socio-economic backgrounds. For gun control
interests, this is unsettling. Why? They arrogantly assume it’s sexist
and racist to support gun rights. And they couldn’t be more wrong.
That’s
why organizations like the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA)
hope to capitalize on this positive trend through their Reality Check campaign.
I recently spoke
to two USCCA ambassadors, firearms instructor Beth Alcazar and Top Shot
Season 4 Champion Chris Cheng, on why a strengthened firearms community
can derail gun control policies going forward.
What ‘Reality Check’ Entails
As of this writing, USCCA
boasts over 500,000 members. The group desires to give “responsible gun
owners the knowledge and training they need to stay safe before, during
and after a threat.”
Its Reality Check campaign aims to train 1.3 million Americans about safe and responsible firearms use by 2025.
“The
face of firearms is kind of maybe different from what that stereotype
is,” said Alcazar. “Luckily, in the gun industry, we have seen this
changing over the last couple of decades.”
“You’ve got
advocates or you’ve got business owners. Entrepreneurs. The whole
spectrum,” added Concealed Carry Magazine’s Associate Editor. “Reality
Check, I think, is just a way to kind of mimic that or mirror that and
show that it’s people— everyday folks, all backgrounds, all walks of
life.”
“For me, I was invited by USCCA to participate
in the Reality Check campaign as a way to reach out to LGBT and Asian
shooters and potential gun owners and current gun owners,” said Cheng.
“I
think the idea of the Reality Check campaign is to talk about change
isn't scary, and it shouldn't be scary—especially when we're talking
about all of the new gun owners that we've seen over the past year and a
half,” added the Top Shot Season 4 champion. “With all of these new
faces— and new gun owners—our rights are being more protected with more
gun owners that we bring into the fold.”
Of the 1.3 million goal, Cheng said, “I think it's a very audacious goal, but also very attainable.”
“And
[the] Reality Check campaign is about reaching out not just to new gun
owners but even existing gun owners, right, who maybe they bought a
firearm during the pandemic but they didn't have a chance to go to the
range.”
Diversity in the Gun Community is Good for America, Bad for Gun Control
Chris Cheng, an advisor to the Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association (APAGOA), said his outreach efforts were questioned by gun control outfits like the Violence Policy Center.
“I
was a little shocked at this recent report that came out about two
weeks ago by the Violence Policy Center, which was basically criticizing
the National Shooting Sports Foundation and criticizing me and other
advocates for talking about Asian outreach in the firearms community,”
said Cheng. “What was shocking is, you know, they’re criticizing the gun
industry for reaching out to the Asian American population, and they’re
accusing me and others of leveraging fear, right, that the pandemic has
brought and scaring Asian Americans into buying guns—which is the
furthest thing from the truth. And quite frankly, it’s insulting and
borderline racist.”
Outreach to women, Alcazar added, was initially met with resistance but is paying off today. Why? Women accounted for almost 50 percent of new gun owners last year.
“It's
very interesting that so many folks seem to be against diversity,”
noted Alcazar. “I know that as more and more women got involved with the
firearms industry and with just taking ownership of their lives and
responsibility for their own personal safety, I think that's where the
media or the anti-gun folks started to get really nervous because it's
so much easier to kind of be against a stereotype and against a group.”
“I think they're really frightened by the fact that the gun
community now looks like America,” she added. “I mean, we are literally
every kind of person you can imagine. And that's what's so cool...we're
not hiding that fact anymore.”
A Political Force Going Forward
Both Alcazar and Cheng believe as the gun community grows, support for gun control will continue to wane.
“I'm
encouraged that maybe we can start making a stronger difference or a
stronger voice in our own communities, and hopefully that will later
affect what's happening maybe on a federal level or what's happening in
D.C.,” Alcazar stressed.
“Each one of us can have a huge
effect in our own communities, with our own legislators— whether that's
a local community, whether that's a school, whether that's for our own
states,” she added. “I like to say we can be pebbles in puddles. And if
you throw a pebble in a puddle, it's going to make that ripple effect.”
Cheng’s group, which filed an amicus brief in support of the forthcoming Supreme Court gun case, also plans to make waves.
“'I’m
excited that APAGOA submitted this amicus brief in support of concealed
carry rights,” he added. “We're really excited to have been involved in
one of these key democratic processes in participating in the United
States Supreme Court case sitting before them.”
Under a patina of impartiality, fact-checkers have long engaged in a
uniquely dishonest genre of journalism, claiming mastery over truth and
facts when, most often, they are merely editorializing on highly
debatable contentions
Here, the
Associated Press, once the most reliable straight-news source in the
nation, claims that a viral tweet from critical-race-theory opponent
Christopher Rufo, which criticized the National School Boards
Association (NSBA) for requesting the FBI investigate school-board
protests as "domestic terrorism," was false. "Contrary to false claims
circulating online," wrote the AP, "the National School Boards
Association didn't ask President Joe Biden to label protesting parents
'domestic terrorists,' and there's no indication Biden or the Justice
Department called them terrorists, either."
Perhaps there is some
unstated semantic reason AP author Terrence Fraser uses to rationalize
his position, or maybe he failed to read the letter. Even The Washington
Post reported that NSBA "likened the harassment and abuse over face
coverings in schools to domestic terrorism." The letter literally
compared parents to "domestic terrorists" on two separate occasions; the
phrase is the only real justification for White House intervention
using the PATRIOT Act "in regards to domestic terrorism." As the NSBA
surely knows, "These parents are really annoying us" wouldn't have
triggered federal intervention. The call for the administration's help
is predicated on the existence of potential widespread violent "domestic
terror" -- a phrase that continues to lose meaning as it is weaponized
for political purposes.
Here, for example, is wording from the letter: "As these acts
of malice, violence, and threats against public school officials have
increased, the classification of these heinous actions could be the
equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes."
The
NSBA offers 20 recent instances of intimidation and harassment in the
entire nation. We'll have to take the organization's word for it. In any
event, it's inexcusable to break the law. But even if there is a spike
in criminal behavior, even violence (which has not happened), it is the
job of the local police to investigate, not the FBI. Yet, Attorney
General Merrick Garland quickly acquiesced to the NSBA with a memorandum
to the FBI and U.S. attorneys' offices directing them to investigate
parents who are protesting school boards over issues the administration
supports, such as critical race theory and mask mandates.
The
Department of Justice's directive doesn't even specify what it
classifies as a crime in these cases, because the entire effort seems to
be meant to chill speech. This form of state intimidation plays out in
two ways.
First, parents, who have every right to confront board
members at meetings, write them angry emails and call their offices,
shouldn't be treated like the Weather Underground simply because a small
fraction of them act like buffoons. If we used the Biden administration
standard, presidents would summon the FBI to investigate domestic
terrorism for virtually any political protest.
Can you imagine the outrage if a Republican
administration had written directives on how to investigate women who
were participating in "resist" meetings or the Black Lives Matter
movement? When the Trump administration sent federal agents to Portland,
Oregon, after professional antifa rioters -- a group widely celebrated
by left-wing commentators -- tried to firebomb a federal courthouse,
there was hysteria. "Trump's Occupation of American Cities Has Begun,"
wrote Michelle Goldberg in The New York Times. "Can we call it fascism
yet?"
Second, Garland's memorandum creates the impression that parents who
are legally confronting school boards that enact (unscientific) masking
policies for elementary-school children are in league with political
extremists. It treats those who oppose curriculums that instruct kids to
view fellow citizens solely through the prism of race or teach them
that the United States is a fundamentally racist enterprise as would-be
violent radicals -- rather than patriots.
Domestic terrorism
entails the use of violent, criminal acts to further specific
ideological goals. There is no evidence such a movement exists. But
contra the Associated Press, and many others, the same president who
says the harassment of a senator in a bathroom by illegal-immigrant
activists is just part of "the process" is using an NSBA claim of
"domestic terrorism" as an excuse to deputize the nation's top domestic
police force to halt lawful speech.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday broke his silence about a
whistleblower’s testimony, in which the company was accused of
prioritizing profits over the wellbeing of its users, by alleging that a
“false picture” of the social media giant was being painted.
“Now that today’s testimony is over, I wanted to reflect on the public debate we’re in,” Zuckerberg said in a Facebook post
that was also sent to company employees. “I’m sure many of you have
found the recent coverage hard to read because it just doesn’t reflect
the company we know. We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being
and mental health. It’s difficult to see coverage that misrepresents
our work and our motives. At the most basic level, I think most of us
just don’t recognize the false picture of the company that is being
painted.”
Zuckerberg’s comments come after Frances Haugen, a former Facebook
product manager who leaked thousands of internal documents about the
company, testified Tuesday at a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing,
where she alleged that the tech giant’s products “harm children, stoke
division and weaken our democracy.”
Haugen also accused Facebook of relying too heavily on artificial
intelligence in its effort to combat hate speech, misinformation and
inappropriate ads for minors, and that the company’s AI systems would
only catch, at best,10 to 20 percent of banned content.
Zuckerberg further responded to Haugen’s testimony by lauding
Facebook’s “industry-leading” research that helps the company to
understand important issues while also holding itself accountable. He
also rejects the notion that his company should be attributed for
society’s polarization.
“If social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some
people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US
while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use
of social media around the world?” he asks.
The billionaire CEO took particular issue with the claims that
Facebook is detrimental to children, emphasizing that “it’s very
important to me that everything we build is safe and good for kids.”
He praised the company’s work in creating a safe environment for children through its launch of Messenger Kids.
Zuckerberg also expressed his support for updated internet
regulations regarding elections, harmful content, privacy, and
competition.
He went on to say that it is “disheartening” to see Facebook’s work
“taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative.”
“I know it’s frustrating to see the good work we do get
mischaracterized, especially for those of you who are making important
contributions across safety, integrity, research and product,”
Zuckerberg said. “But I believe that over the long term if we keep
trying to do what’s right and delivering experiences that improve
people’s lives, it will be better for our community and our business.”
But in her testimony Tuesday, Haugen said that Facebook’s
counterespionage team could only tackle about a third of cases regarding
harmful content at any given time.
“We know that if we built even a basic detector, we would likely have many more cases,” she said.
Will China Invade Taiwan? Despite the recent saber-rattling, probably not any time soon. It lacks the amphibious capacity
to land the 30-plus brigades it will need to overcome the island’s
defense. “China does not appear to be currently investing in the
equipment likely required for a direct assault on Taiwan, such as large
amphibious assault ships and medium landing craft necessary for a large
beach assault.”
Beijing’s current naval build implies that the prerequisite for
taking Taipei is neutralizing the U.S. navy. “China’s recent spate of
military exercises and the PLA Navy’s focus on building large aircraft
carriers, escort cruisers and amphibious transport dock (LPD) ships
suggest the military, for now, is geared toward blue water naval
operations and smaller expeditionary missions.”
In other words, the CCP thinks Washington must “fall” before Taipei
can be stormed. That strategy could change, but not overnight. Since an
invasion of Taiwan would have to be on the scale of Operation Overlord
or Iceberg (the invasion of Okinawa) to overcome 22 defending brigades,
the buildup could not easily be concealed, and there should be no
surprises. Given this, conventional wisdom holds that China, rather than
attempting a quick pounce, is executing a siege strategy, and will use
so-called “gray zone” warfare to gradually encircle Taiwan.
It’s not the final, titanic clash
that Taiwan has long feared, with Chinese troops storming the beaches.
Instead, the People’s Liberation Army, China’s two-million-strong
military, has launched a form of “gray zone” warfare. In this irregular
type of conflict, which stops short of an actual shooting war, the aim
is to subdue the foe through exhaustion.
Beijing is conducting
waves of threatening forays from the air while ratcheting up existing
pressure tactics to erode Taiwan’s will to resist, say current and
former senior Taiwanese and U.S. military officers. The flights, they
say, complement amphibious landing exercises, naval patrols, cyber
attacks and diplomatic isolation.
The United States is very
concerned by the People’s Republic of China’s provocative military
activity near Taiwan, which is destabilizing, risks miscalculations, and
undermines regional peace and stability. We urge Beijing to cease its
military, diplomatic, and economic pressure and coercion against Taiwan.
But there is more than a tactical “miscalculation” at play here.
There is a strategic shift. Looming large over the scene is the
perception that China is becoming more dangerous because it is a
declining power. As the American Enterprise Institute
put it, based on a recent piece in Foreign Policy, “The United States
needs to prepare for a major war, not because its rival is rising but
because of the opposite.”
Why do great powers fight great
wars? The conventional answer is a story of rising challengers and
declining hegemons. An ascendant power, which chafes at the rules of the
existing order, gains ground on an established power—the country that
made those rules. Tensions multiply; tests of strength ensue. The
outcome is a spiral of fear and hostility leading, almost inevitably, to
conflict. “The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this
inspired in Sparta, made war inevitable,” the ancient historian
Thucydides wrote—a truism now invoked, ad nauseum, in explaining the
U.S.-China rivalry.
The idea of a Thucydides Trap, popularized by
Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, holds that the danger of war
will skyrocket as a surging China overtakes a sagging America. Even
Chinese President Xi Jinping has endorsed the concept arguing Washington
must make room for Beijing. As tensions between the United States and
China escalate, the belief that the fundamental cause of friction is a
looming “power transition”—the replacement of one hegemon by another—has
become canonical.
The only problem with this familiar formula is that it’s wrong.
If China is actually declining, not only economically but demographically,
then it doesn’t have the time to strangle Taiwan before itself
collapsing. Taiwan becomes a problem of Now or Never for Beijing, with
all the disastrous risks desperation elicits. But it’s not game over if
Joe Biden can match Chinese decline with a collapse of his own. Alex Lo of the South China Morning Post poses the question: “Suppose both China and the US are in decline …?”
“I was led to this bitter train of
thought after someone emailed me a new article, “China Is a Declining
Power – and That’s the Problem”, in Foreign Policy. Please note I am not
upset because my inner Chinese patriot is offended by the claim.
Frankly, it may well be the case with China today, or not. I just don’t
know. What really frustrates me is that the authors, both American
political science profs, of course, are arguing against other political
scientists, who argue “China is the rising power – and that’s the
problem”. (Sorry, I summarized the last bit, but I think that’s the
gist.)” …
American democracy? It looks more and more like an
oligarchy by the day, the rule by/for/of the rich and special interests.
The Chinese economy? Is it capitalist, communist, hybrid or mixed? Who
knows what it is these days? Certainly, both systems are showing serious
cracks, with their foundational flaws exposed.
But let me venture
another possibility, combination or permutation, say, both superpowers
are in decline. Whatever we mean by “decline”, relative or absolute,
hegemonic or not, it’s not an unreasonable presupposition about the
state of the two countries. I am sure there is plenty of data out there
that would paint a pretty grim picture of both countries.
So, I
ask our wise political scientists: if both superpowers are in decline or
have peaked, are they more or less likely to go at each other’s
throats? Well, judging by the aforementioned discussions, if both sides
are in decline, wouldn’t both be the problem? And that’s the real
problem for the rest of the world.
Barack Obama
reportedly said: “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to (expletive)
things up.” Speaking of Joe’s $3.5T “Build Back Better” bill, House
Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth told CNN’s Erin Burnett,
“It’s not a question of what we can afford. The federal government can
afford anything that it feels it needs to do and right now that’s what
we ought to be focused on.”
If you can’t beat China, join them.
A scenario where entropy wins means that, rather than achieving an End of History similar to what followed the fall of the Soviet Union,
the struggle between the U.S. and China will result in a collapse of
the old Global World, succeeded by an unsettled period like that after
World War 1. Joe Biden won’t be the next Ronald Reagan, at best only the
new Woodrow Wilson.
