View on Threads
Voodoo Trade Policy Comes to AmericaWhat to expect when you’re expecting tariffs...Donald Trump didn’t impose tariffs on day one. But he did say, more or less unambiguously, that he plans to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico on Feb. 1 unless they stop massive flows of migrants and drugs across their borders. This will be a hard demand to meet, because to a large extent those massive flows exist only in Trump’s imagination. Canada in particular will find it hard to “stop” massive border violations because they aren’t happening; both illegal crossings and drug smuggling across our northern border are in fact trivial.Still, so far markets have shrugged Trump’s tariff threat off, apparently in the belief that he won’t follow through....I believe that the only thing that might dissuade him from destructive policies would be a severely adverse market reaction — which means that the lack of such a reaction, based on the belief that he won’t really do it, greatly increases the probability that he really will.So what happens if he does? Let me make four points about tariffs.1. 25 percent tariffs would be really, really high — and destructive2. Consumers would pay a heavy price3. The tariffs would raise far less revenue than Trump imagines4. While some industries might gain, tariffs at this level would destroy many jobs... The bottom line is that what Trump is saying he’ll do would do a lot of damage to U.S. families and producers, without delivering the benefits he thinks it will. But he doesn’t know that. And market complacency makes it likely that he’ll go through with his tariffs and only discover the consequences when it’s too late.
— Morgan J Freeman (@mjfree.bsky.social) January 20, 2025 at 8:19 PM
Trump’s Plan to Leave the WHO Is a Health DisasterThe exit will cut a huge chunk from the World Health Organization’s budget, but the short-term financial gain for the US could come at the cost of disease outbreaks flaring up across the world....“Withdrawing from WHO makes us more alone, more vulnerable, and more fragile in the world,” says [Lawrence Gostin, a professor in public health law at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC]. “You can’t shut down a border against a pathogen. We need WHO to be on the ground to put out fires before they get to the United States. And we also need WHO’s vast network to provide us with the information about mutations and viruses that we need to develop life-saving vaccines and medical treatments.”...“Polio could come surging back,” says Gostin. “Remember we had polio in the wastewater in New York just a couple of years ago, and our kids are not being immunized. And we’ve had other real health scares in the United States, not just Covid-19, which killed more than a million people. We’ve had Zika, and the next health emergency might be just a mutation or two away. Maybe it’s already here in the form of avian influenza, and we’re going to need WHO to help us with that.” ...“We spent over $2 billion preparing for Ebola to hit US shores in 2014 and 2015, and since we only had five or six cases, that was very cost-ineffective,” says [Sten Vermund, chief medical officer of the Global Virus Network]. “So that’s a typical example of how when the US goes it alone, it will be very inefficient compared with contributing to a multinational response to control a disease in the country of origin.”...
View on Threads
Illegal Orders in a Time of UncertaintyApropos of nothing, I thought it might be a good time to review how a military in a democracy reacts to illegal orders and applies the various laws of armed conflict. ...Regardless of the political climate, professional armed forces in democracies operate within a framework designed to prevent the misuse of military power. This ensures that the military remains a stabilizing force, not a political tool. Within NATO, adherence to the laws of armed conflict is a core requirement, ensuring that military force is applied proportionately and responsibly. This commitment reflects the democratic values shared across allied nations. In keeping with my policy of “staying in my lane,” I’ll describe the Canadian system, remembering that it can be applied to most NATO and other allied forces.The Chain of CommandIn Canada, members of the Armed Forces are technically not employees of the government but have a direct relationship with the Crown. They swear a personal oath to the monarch, accept limitations on their personal freedoms, and have—in large part—a separate and distinct justice system. If you think the Prime Minister can just pick up the phone and order a soldier to march somewhere, think again. Orders have to travel through the proper chain of command—and trust me, it’s a lot more complicated than it looks on paper.Instead, all government direction must be passed through the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS)....The Law of Armed ConflictOn operations, the Forces are bound by a variety of domestic laws and international conventions. These are designed to regulate the use of force and ensure it’s employed in a proportional and minimal fashion. After all, militaries in democracies are the only organizations where the use of lethal force is an integral part of their role.This is where the Geneva Conventions come into play and are incorporated into The Canadian Forces Code of Conduct...Illegal OrdersOver my years in uniform, I’ve been asked countless “what if” questions about illegal orders, especially when political tensions heat up. It’s an understandable concern—Hollywood loves to dramatize the idea of blind obedience in the military. But the reality is much less dramatic and far more professional.Some, particularly on the left, assume that soldiers will follow any order, no matter how absurd or debased. In fact, in almost every democracy, it is, paradoxically, illegal to follow a manifestly illegal order. In other words, soldiers are expected to disobey orders that are obviously illegal. In other words, soldiers are expected to disobey orders that are obviously illegal. The actual regulations are quite clear:“An officer or non-commissioned member is not justified in obeying a command or order that is manifestly unlawful. In other words, if a subordinate commits a crime in complying with a command that is manifestly unlawful, he is liable to be punished for the crime by a civil or military court. A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal; for example, a command by an officer or non-commissioned member to shoot a member for only having used disrespectful words or a command to shoot an unarmed child.” [King’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces, Volume 1, Section 1, 19.015 - LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS]That seems quite clear and is consistent with the norms shared by most NATO forces, including key allies. Further, while the examples in the direction above are localized, the same rules apply to larger-scale situations. Given the strategic environment right now, this could become important....
Roundup: Such concern about drugsAnother day, and other leak that claimed that Trump wasn’t really serious about the tariffs, but that this was just him trying to get an early start on New NAFTA re-negotiations rather than waiting for 2026, and trying to bring more auto manufacturing back to the US-side of the border. But when asked about this during his media availability, Trump insisted that no, he was very serious about the “millions” of people who had come illegally through Canada (it’s certainly not in the millions), and the scourge of fentanyl. He even went on this extended tirade about how mothers never recover when they lose their sons to drugs, and so on. But then he also issued a pardon to Ross Ulbricht, a crypto drug dealer. So yeah, he’s really concerned about the scourge.Really puts his overwrought speech about mothers who've never recovered after losing their sons to drugs into perspective.
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) January 21, 2025 at 7:54 PM
[image or embed]https://t.co/HZADvw8AcO pic.twitter.com/Pkr0YJYlFC
— Alheli Picazo (@a_picazo) January 22, 2025
Meanwhile, Danielle Smith spent the day in full-on appeasement mode, insisting that we need to find a diplomatic solution rather than stand up to Trump’s bullying. Oh, and she also tried to blame this situation on Trudeau, because of course she did. What I find particularly irksome, however, are the whitebread pundits who also try to keep blaming Trudeau for Smith not falling into line, because he should somehow debase himself in order to get her on-side when it’s clear that she has no interest (and absolutely no incentive) to do so. Her political brand and that of her party right now is about hating Trudeau. Nothing he can or will do will get her on-side, particularly when her ideology is more in line with Trump’s than it is to stand up for Canada....The restraints on Canada's response are political, and Justin Trudeau no longer needs to worry about his electability. Fire on all cylinders at these assholes.
— Emmett Macfarlane (@emmettmacfarlane.com) January 21, 2025 at 8:42 AM
Lots of reporting suggested that, this time around, Trump and his lawyers would avoid the sloppy legal work that plagued his first administration so they’d fare better in the courts. I see no evidence of that in this round of executive orders. This is poor, slipshod work obviously assisted by AI.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) January 20, 2025 at 9:10 PM
Typos and formatting errors get repeated across EOs, revealing extensive use of copy-paste. The rhetoric sounds like a ChatGPT imitation of the 5th Circuit’s laziest rulings. And the legal arguments are frequently fringe in the extreme, in a way that will likely piss off Roberts and Barrett.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) January 20, 2025 at 9:12 PM
Finally, introducing a new occasional feature that I am calling the FAFO Watch:Maybe the Trump administration’s legal output will improve when Bondi is confirmed as AG and she can staff with the DOJ with at least marginally competent MAGA lawyers. But the early signs here are not encouraging. Remember that CJ Roberts repeatedly DQed Trump policies based on bad lawyering.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) January 20, 2025 at 9:15 PM
3 comments:
Musk may not suffer any DIRECT repercussions from that Nazi salute. But I checked a Bluesky counter today and it was going at 3.7 new users per second. Did some math--if that keeps up, it works out to nearly 10 million users a month. Probably it will slow down, but I think that Nazi salute may have pushed a lot of people who were sort of thinking of leaving Twitter but might never have gotten around to it, into just taking the step. Every time he opens his fool mouth more people will leave. Eventually he won't have a platform for his vileness any more.
Oh yeah, and the Chinese are starting to eat Tesla's lunch.
Yes, he got carried away with pandering to the pro-Trump crowd and finally it is unforgiveable. I myself am trying to never use Twitter material again, though I still check it, but mostly the same stuff is now available on Threads (which has its own problems) and on Bluesky now.
It was said that hell would freeze over when Trump returned!
Post a Comment