More Wednesday Male Beauty

 

Trump Finally Drops the Anti-Semitism Pretext

Like most things coming out of the Felon's mouth, the claim that elite universities are seeing grants - many pertaining to medical research - and federal funding slashed because of their failure to stop on campus anti-Semitism is a lie.  Truth be told - and as substantiated by a recent letter to Harvard -  the universities real offense is that they are liberal and teach courses, especially accurate history,  not to the liking of the ignorance embracing white Christian nationalists behind Project 2025 which is being implemented by the Felon's regime. What makes the lie all the more absurd is that white Christian nationals only care about Jews and Israel in the context that they are key to bringing about Armageddon (which would see most Jews die).  Adding to the hypocrisy is the reality that, in my view, the Felon is himself a racist and anti-Semite.  Beyond that, the entire agenda is about  white, heterosexual "Christian" male supremacy and renewed white rule at the expense of everyone else.  Thankfully, as noted, the lie has been exposed a letter on its face supposedly authored by the Felon's secretary of education which has a litany of grievances against Harvard, none of which include anti-Semitism.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at the dropping of this disingenuous pretext. Here are highlights:

The intensely hostile letter that Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent to the leadership of Harvard yesterday has a lot going on. But the most notable thing about it is what it leaves out.

To hear McMahon tell it, Harvard is a university on the verge of ruin. (I say McMahon because her signature is at the bottom of the letter, but portions of the document are written in such a distinctive idiolect . . . . that one detects the spirit of a certain uncredited co-author.) She accuses it of admitting students who are contemptuous of America, chastises it for hiring the former blue-city mayors Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot to teach leadership (“like hiring the captain of the Titanic to teach navigation”), . . . and accuses its board chair, Penny Pritzker (“a Democrat operative”), of driving the university to financial ruin, among many other complaints. The upshot is that Harvard should not bother to apply for any new federal funding, because, McMahon declares, “today’s letter marks the end of new grants for the University.”

What you will not find in the McMahon letter is any mention of the original justification for the Trump administration’s ongoing assault on elite universities: anti-Semitism. As a legal pretext for trying to financially hobble the Ivy League, anti-Semitism had some strategic merit. Many students and faculty justifiably feel that these schools failed to take harassment of Jews seriously enough during the protests that erupted after the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas. By centering its critique on that issue, the administration was cannily appropriating for its own ends one of the progressive left’s highest priorities: protecting a minority from hostile acts.

Now, however, the mask is off. Aside from one oblique reference to congressional hearings about anti-Semitism (“the great work of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik”), the letter is silent on the subject. The administration is no longer pretending that it is standing up for Jewish students. The project has been revealed for what it is: an effort to punish liberal institutions for the crime of being liberal.

The effort started with Columbia University. . . . . Having successfully extracted concessions from Columbia, the government moved on to Harvard. On March 31, the administration said that it was reviewing $9 billion in federal grants and contracts awarded to Harvard. As with Columbia, it argued that the university had not sufficiently combatted anti-Semitism on its campus. Harvard then began negotiations with the federal government. But on April 11, the administration sent Harvard a list of far-reaching changes that the university would have to make to continue to receive federal funding. These included screening international students for disloyalty to the United States and allowing an external body to audit faculty viewpoints to ensure diversity.

This was too much for Harvard. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government,” the university’s lawyers wrote in a letter to administration officials. The university sued the Trump administration, arguing that the government had violated Harvard’s First Amendment rights and failed to follow the procedures to revoke federal grants.

Even as the war escalated, the putative rationale remained the same. Trump “wants them to come to the table and change things,” McMahon told Fox News. “It’s a civil-rights issue on campus relative to the anti-Semitism.” McMahon never explained how cutting funding for biomedical research would help address anti-Semitism on campus. But the administration at least gestured in that direction.

No longer. The offenses enumerated in the McMahon letter are a disconnected grab bag of grievances. The closest thing to a legal theory for denying Harvard future grant funding is the accusation that the school has violated the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down race-based affirmative action. But revoking an institution’s funding under federal nondiscrimination law requires following a multistep process that takes months . . . Without showing that Harvard has violated nondiscrimination law—as opposed to merely asserting it, without evidence, in a rambling letter—the government can’t refuse to award it grants.

The fact that the university is willing to make changes strengthens its legal case challenging the cancellation of funding. Several legal experts have predicted that the university will prevail in court.

In a 2021 speech titled “The Universities Are the Enemy,” then–Senate candidate J. D. Vance declared that universities, as left-wing gatekeepers of truth and knowledge, “make it impossible for conservative ideas to ultimately carry the day.” The solution, Vance said, was to “honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.” We’ve been seeing the aggressive part of that formula for two months. With the McMahon letter, the administration has gotten much closer to honesty.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Tuesday Male Beauty

 

The Weaking Dollars Spells Bad News for Consumers

While the Felon's regime continues to create fear and uncertainty domestically - over the weekend the Felon stated (i) he doesn't believe in due process rights, (ii) he doesn't believe he has to support the U.S. Constitution, and (iii) that he is okay with a recession  - internationally, his changing tariffs and mistreatment of long time allies are turning international trade upside down with American consumers targeted to foot the bill for higher prices.  In addition to uncertainty at home for American consumers,  the chaos and uncertainty surrounding the Felon's economic policies is weakening the U.S. dollar on the international stage.  A weakened dollar means among other things that goods cost more for American consumers, the U.S. government's borrowing costs increase, and foreign investors may decide to invest elsewhere.  Further fueling the uncertainty and economic risks posed by the Felon's tariff policies, the reality is sinking in that both American and foreign economic stability depends on the whims of a malignant narcissist with seemingly not even a rudimentary grasp of economics.  Pieces in Politico and the New York Times look at where American consumers find themselves.  First this from Politico:

President Donald Trump’s threats to upend international trade and disrupt global alliances have triggered doubts about whether the dollar’s dominance will fade.

The consequences of that would be profound.

Dollars and U.S. debt securities are the red blood cells of global markets, and any deterioration of their appeal could shake the foundations of both Wall Street and household finances, economists warn. Borrowing costs and import prices would rise. The value of investment assets that prop up retirement savings accounts would fall. And the government’s ability to run massive deficits to fund everything from Medicare to the defense budget could be diminished.

“Everything would be more expensive than you thought it would be. You’re not making as much as you thought, and the stock market isn’t getting the returns you expected,” said Martha Gimbel, a former Biden administration economist who now leads the Budget Lab at Yale, a policy research center. “Things kind of become shittier.”

As Wall Street heavyweights and top Trump administration officials gather in Beverly Hills this week for the Milken Institute’s annual conference, Trump’s stewardship of U.S. financial markets will be a prevailing theme. Many of the president’s policies are favored by industry leaders — particularly tax cuts and deregulation — but the president’s [the Felon's] singular focus on tariffs has rattled confidence in his ability to preserve the attractiveness of the dollar, Treasury securities and other U.S. assets. Trump has said he’d prefer a weaker dollar but has also aggressively defended its status as the world’s predominant currency.

The dollar’s value against other currencies has fallen by roughly 9 percent since Trump’s inauguration. Demand for U.S. Treasuries — normally a haven for investors in times of strife — retreated after the president shocked markets with his “Liberation Day” tariff announcement.

The column in the Times continues this theme and looks at the potential consequences of a falling dollar.  Here are excerpts:

The U.S. dollar has been a symbol of American power for decades. Of the $7.5 trillion in global currency transactions that take place each day, some 90 percent feature the dollar. The majority of central banks see it as the core of their reserves. Consumers run to it in times of stress. Businesses prefer it for trade invoicing, whether they are based in Milwaukee or Malaysia.

The dollar may not lose its globally dominant role anytime soon. . . . . But it is suffering from a self-inflicted wound and the consequences are just starting to be felt around the world.

A trickle of selling began in mid-January as investors bought euros on the hopes that a new German government would loosen its purse strings. That trickle turned into a “sell America” torrent after President Trump unveiled shockingly large, broad-based tariffs on April 2, and followed that by stepping up his attacks on the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell.

A search for new safe harbors began. In the week ending April 16, gold funds had their biggest inflows since 2007, while selling of U.S. bond funds was the highest recorded since late March 2020. Stock markets churned in ways not seen since either the pandemic or the 2008 financial crisis.

An uneasy stability has returned since the president paused most tariffs and seemed to back down from his threats to fire Mr. Powell. But damage has been done. This year, through April 25, the dollar has lost more than 8 percent in value versus the currencies of its major trading partners.

The way the Trump administration is pursuing its goals is unnerving investors and leaving them less certain about their U.S. assets. They are questioning not only how the trade war will affect global growth but also the strength of American institutions and the country’s reliability as a global partner.

The White House has overturned long-held assumptions on issues such as the future of Ukraine and the sovereignty of Greenland and Canada and just a few years after Mr. Trump touted his U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal as “the most modern, up-to-date and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country.”

The April meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington were filled with chatter about how America was acting like an emerging market (think Turkey). . . . .

Investment committees around the world, including at pension funds, endowments and central banks, will now decide whether to trim their U.S. investments. As of mid-2024, overseas investors held over $31 trillion in U.S. stocks and bonds. Large institutional investors tend to move slowly, so any shift would likely happen gradually. That said, it would still diminish the dollar’s dominance.

What will this weaker-dollar world feel like? There are some benefits, including how a depreciating currency would help American exports. . . . . It would also make foreign assets more attractive. Let’s say I buy a pied-à-terre in Paris (we can all dream). . . . If the dollar weakens further against the euro, when I sell the apartment and bring my money home, I make a profit not just from any gains in my real estate but also through the exchange rate. A stronger euro means I get a larger number of dollars back.

Sadly, that’s not the end of the story, because a weaker dollar also introduces significant potential costs. It makes imported goods more expensive, most likely increasing prices and undermining household purchasing power. Procter & Gamble, in its latest quarterly earnings release, said it planned to raise prices on some of its products even though consumer demand has slowed. Imports, including raw materials, packaging and some finished goods, account for roughly 10 percent of all the P&G goods sold in the United States.

[O]n the horizon is slower growth and potentially faster inflation. . . . The rest of the world is caught in the crossfire. Take Japan. Two weeks after Mr. Trump’s tariffs were announced, private Japanese investors sold more than $20 billion worth of foreign bonds. During the first week, U.S. Treasury bond yields surged, suggesting that American debt was among the assets the Japanese were selling.

This dynamic is playing out across America’s largest trading partners. Even if the weaker dollar helps American exports, global demand for its goods is softening.

History tells us that a softer dollar isn’t a panacea, and that it’s also important to understand why the currency is falling. The policy path being pursued today may result in some improved bilateral business opportunities. But those gains will be offset by damage, which will flow through to consumers and businesses, potentially for years to come, in the form of relatively higher prices and interest rates.

If America wants to help manufacturing and export workers, and also have a weak dollar, it should think hard about what policies can lift America and the rest of the world together. Let’s hope Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will encourage his White House colleagues to act more in line with his recent remark in Washington when he said, “America First does not mean America alone.”

 The thing to remember is that this harm is self-inflicted and caused by one individual - the Felon - who seemingly cares nothing about the harm done to everyday Americans and small businesses.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

Monday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Sunday Male Beauty

 

Trump's Tariffs: Look At America's Ports, Not the Stock Market

The stock market is still down thousands of points since its peak in January and millions of everyday Americans have seen their 401(k) and retirement accounts savaged thanks to the Felon's tariff pronouncements.  Yet, as a piece in The Atlantic notes, perhaps a better gauge of the damage done - and still to come - by the malignant occupant of the White House is what is happening in America's ports, including locally in the Port of Virginia here in the Hampton Roads area.  For now, the worse impacts are on the West Coast ports where traffic is down an estimated 35% with further declines likely to come.  This reduction in port traffic from China in particular signals not only disruptions in the supply chain - the Felon has stated children can get by with fewer dolls for Christmas - but also the vast transportation network (and related jobs) that carry goods across America. Sadly, the Republican controlled Congress has refused to rein in the Felon's irrational and mercurial tariffs and utterly failed to assert its own power and authority.  Personally, I hope the tariff nightmare continues for long enough to have the Walmart shopping MAGA base experience both higher prices and empty shelves and just maybe come to the realization that the Felon cares nothing about them.  Here are article highlights:

Stock markets plunged for days after President Donald Trump announced steep tariffs on imports from around the world. The sell-off ebbed only when he suspended most, but not all, of the new measures for 90 days. The ticker tape is just one indicator of an economy, and other signs are growing more and more ominous—including at the Port of Los Angeles, where high tariffs on China are crushing maritime traffic. “Essentially all shipments out of China for major retailers and manufacturers have ceased,” Eugene Seroka, the executive director of the port, said on April 24.

Trump views tariffs as essential to rebuilding the manufacturing economy that the United States once had. But his erratic tariff announcements have badly disrupted the economy that the country has today, and that pain is already being felt in the world of logistics. . . . . “The tariffs themselves are a shock to the system, and the shock is echoed and amplified across the entire chain. Even if there is resolution, it will take nine to 12 months to work out these bumps.”

The Port of Los Angeles, the busiest in the Western Hemisphere, processes about 17 percent of everything the United States imports or exports in shipping containers. The adjoining Port of Long Beach accounts for another 14 percent. Over the years, a whole ecosystem has arisen to support the loading and unloading of the cars, clothes, electronic gadgets, and other things that people want. There are workers and warehouses, trucks and loading pads, security structures and rail lines.

Seroka estimated that cargo arrivals would soon be down 35 percent over the same time last year. At the moment, the drop in traffic seems likelier to accelerate than to reverse. . . . . The economy, and the supply chains that allow it to function, can adjust fairly quickly to certain shocks, including weather disasters and even a pandemic. . . . . But Trump’s trade war is different because it is unpredictable and indefinite. Even if he were to renounce tariffs tomorrow, Trump has already shaken global confidence in American economic-policy making. No one can comfortably make business decisions based on what he does. Unless the Republican-controlled Congress steps in to quickly take away the president’s ability to impose import duties at will, a failed effort so far, even foreign trading partners who believe they have a deal with the United States could be at risk of capricious new taxes on their products.

Tariffs don’t just reduce the flow of goods coming into the country; they also cause an atrophying of the logistics system that moves products into, out of, and around the United States. “Less cargo volume, less jobs.

Like the shipping business into and out of Los Angeles, the nationwide trucking industry is slowing down, because drivers have a lot less cargo to move. Without inventory arriving or en route, small businesses will falter; bigger industries will shrink; shelves will be empty.

This week, Trump blamed former President Joe Biden, rather than his own policies, for the recent turmoil on Wall Street. What’s happening in Los Angeles suggests that, if anything, financial markets have yet to fully price in how much Trump’s tariff war is hurting the economy. The stock market goes up and down. Maritime indicators keep on sinking.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty