Never Again

“Never again” is a phrase or slogan which is associated with the Holocaust and other genocides.

A large sculpture stands in front of Dachau. Located just outside Munich, it was the first concentration camp opened by the Nazi regime. Just a few weeks after Adolf Hitler came to power, it was used by the paramilitary SS Schutzstaffel to imprison, torture and kill political opponents of the regime. Dachau also served as a prototype and model for the other Nazi camps that followed.

Six Million Jews were killed by the Nazis.  Hitler’s intent was to kill all Jews in the world. It was a genocide.  The 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention defines it as, “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” And there are many other genocidal acts unfolding in countries around the globe, right now, of which you may be unaware.

The world is bearing witness to the deliberate murder of Ukrainian civilians, for one reason and one reason only: that they were Ukrainian. When you are killed, tortured, or kidnapped, as part of an organized effort, simply for being a member of an identifiable group, that is genocide.     

NATO nations are to filled with fear to standup to Vladimir Putin.  That is how bullies dominate.

In other words “never again” is an unenforceable slogan because actions speak louder than words. Putin has proven that fact.

New Vehicles must average 40 mpg by 2026, up from 28 mpg

For the current model year, standards enacted under Trump require the fleet of new vehicles to get just under 28 miles per gallon in real-world driving. The new requirements increase gas mileage by 8% per year for model years 2024 and 2025 and 10% in the 2026 model year.

The Department of Transportation released tailpipe pollution standards Friday that would require average fuel efficiency of new cars and light trucks to reach 49 miles per gallon in less than four years.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which shares responsibility for overseeing the standards and issued its own companion rule in December, estimates its tightened emissions rules would achieve roughly 40 miles per gallon in real-world conditions, up from about 32 miles per gallon under the Trump administration.

Ford, on Friday, noted its history of standing with California on mileage standards during the Trump years. In a statement, Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel Steven Croley said the company “applauds NHTSA’s efforts to strengthen fuel economy standards and create consistent benchmarks to accelerate our national transition toward a zero-emissions transportation future.”

Auto dealers say more stringent requirements drive up prices and push people out of an already expensive new-car market. NHTSA projects that the new rules will raise the price of a new vehicle in the 2029 model year by $1,087.

Automakers are investing billions of dollars to develop and build electric vehicles but say government support is needed to get people to buy them. The companies want government tax credits to reduce prices as well as more money for EV charging stations to ease anxiety over running out of juice.

I just bought a new car with a conventional internal combustion engine. The car has an EPA mileage rating of 31 MPG average city/highway.

Car manufacturers will be pushing hybrids.  Most likely no longer offering internal combustion vehicles. For those of us who can’t afford the high price of all electric cars called EVs, the solution is probably going to be buying a hybrid. These cars typically cost $2,000 to $3,000 more than comparable conventional cars, although the difference in purchase price is often offset by fuel savings.

The 2022 Honda CR–V Hybrid can achieve up to an EPA-estimated 40 mpg city / 35 mpg highway.  By 2026 the mpg will most likely be even better.  The current price is about $3,000 more than the combustion engine model.  

Donald Trump’s Admiration of Dictators

Donald Trump chose a rally in Georgia on Saturday night once again to praise Vladimir Putin, calling the Russian president “smart” even as he said the invasion of Ukraine amounted to a “big mistake”.

The Republican former president also had warm words for China’s president Xi Jinping and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and referred to such leaders collectively by saying: “The smartest one gets to the top.”

He spoke admiringly of Xi in terms of the fact that he “runs 1.5 billion people with an iron fist” and referred to Kim as “tough”.

Then of Putin, Trump told the crowd: “They asked me if Putin is smart. Yes, Putin was smart.”

He also praised Russia’s strategy of a huge accumulation of military force on its border with Ukraine prior to invading, even if the war is not going well for the aggressor.

He is the man who pressured Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden’s victory.

Given a second term as president, Donald would end democracy in America.

It was Beat Up the SCOTUS Nominee Day

After Monday’s warm-up session of opening statements, this morning, Judge KETANJI BROWN JACKSON entered what Senate Judiciary Chair DICK DURBIN described as a “trial by ordeal,” with questioning from all 22 members of the panel. The seven morning inquisitors seven had their chance to beat up Mrs. Jackson

Here are some highlights from this morning’s questioning:

— On Roe v. Wade: “‘Roe’ and ‘[Planned Parenthood v.] Casey’ are the settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a woman’s pregnancy,” Jackson said. “They have established a framework that the court has reaffirmed.”

— On court-packing, Jackson repeatedly declined to wade into the issue: “My North Star is the consideration of the proper role of a judge in our Constitutional scheme. In my view, judges should not be speaking to political issues, and certainly not a nominee for a position on the Supreme Court.”

— On marriage rights for same-sex couples: Sen. JOHN CORNYN (R-Texas) asked if Jackson agreed with him that the Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (which found that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry”) creates “a conflict between what people may believe as a matter of their religious faith, and what the federal government says is the law of the land.” “That is the nature of a right,” Jackson replied. “When there is a right, it means that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

— On claims that she has been lenient with sentencing in child sex abuse cases: “As a mother and a judge who has had to deal with these cases, I was thinking that nothing could be further from the truth,” Jackson said. “I impose a strict sentence and all of the additional restraints that are available in the law. These people [convicted in these cases] cannot use computers in a normal way for decades. I am imposing all of those constraints because I understand how significant, how damaging, how horrible this crime is.”

— On whether she thinks Supreme Court hearings should be televised: “I would want to discuss with the other justices their views and understand all of the various potential issues related to cameras in the courtroom before I took a position on it.”

The most explosive moments from this morning came from LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.), who used a substantial portion of his time to lament the treatment of Justice AMY CONEY BARRETT during her confirmation process.

GRAHAM: “What faith are you, by the way?” JACKSON: “Senator, I am Protestant. Non-denominational.” GRAHAM: “How important is your faith to you?” JACKSON: “Senator, personally my faith is very important. … It’s very important to set aside one’s personal views about things in the role of a judge.”

Then Graham turned it up: “On a scale of 1-10, how faithful would you say you are in terms of religion?” Jackson responded: “Senator, I am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way just because I want to be mindful of the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views.”

Graham continued: “Well how would you feel if a senator up here said, ‘your faith, a dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.’ … Would you find that offensive? I would if I were you. I found it offensive when they said it about Judge Barrett. … You’re reluctant to talk about it because it’s uncomfortable. Just imagine what would happen if people on late-night television called you an ‘effing nut speaking in tongues’ because you’ve practiced the Catholic faith in a way they couldn’t relate to or found uncomfortable. So, judge, you should be proud of your faith. I am convinced that whatever faith you have and how often you go to church, it will not affect your ability to be fair. … Judge Barrett, I thought, was treated very, very poorly, so I just wanted to get that out.”

Graham’s questioning later turned to her work representing Guantánamo Bay detainees, and an amicus brief she filed during her time at a law firm that challenged Bush-era detention policies. The topic produced a tense back-and-forth between Graham and Jackson in which the senator attempted to get an explanation of whether she agreed with the challenge. The context, via NYT’s Charlie Savage

It’s safe to say Graham left unsatisfied. Here’s what he told CNN’s Manu Raju after exiting the room for a break: “Graham emerged from hearing and said it’s ‘fair to say’ he sees red flags with [the] Jackson nomination. He criticized her explanation of defending Guantanamo detainees as an attorney. ‘It just doesn’t make sense to me,’ he told me.”

Graham also lamented that J. MICHELLE CHILDS, a judge from his home state, had not been selected as the nominee, claiming that progressives torpedoed her chances in favor of boosting Jackson.

— Worth noting: Graham was one of three Republican senators who voted to confirm Jackson to her post on the D.C. Circuit.

Even in a Down Stock Market the S&P 500 is Still the Best Bet

When competitor Money magazine ceased print publication in 2019, Kiplinger’s acquired roughly 400,000 of its monthly subscribers.

Kiplinger continues to offer investment advice in both a printed magazine and an on-line version. 

But what is the point of trying to outsmart the index low fee investments? 

When I started investing in the late 1980s every fund compared itself to the S&P 500.  Oh, I said to myself, those managed funds are trying to tell me that they have the formula to beat the index.  Why not just invest in the index?  Then I learned about a Vanguard fund that simply emulated the index.   

“Let me summarize what I’ve been saying about the stock market: I think it’s very hard to come up with a persuasive case that equities will over the next 17 years perform anything like—anything like—they’ve performed in the past 17. If I had to pick the most probable return, from appreciation and dividends combined, that investors in aggregate—repeat, aggregate—would earn in a world of constant interest rates, 2% inflation, and those ever hurtful frictional costs, it would be 6%!”

— Buffett, Fortune (1999)

Warren Buffett has been a supporter of index funds for people who are either not interested in managing their own money or don’t have the time. Buffett is skeptical that active management can outperform the market in the long run, and has advised both individual and institutional investors to move their money to low-cost index funds that track broad, diversified stock market indices. Buffett said in one of his letters to shareholders that “when trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients.” In 2007, Buffett made a bet with numerous managers that a simple S&P 500 index fund will outperform hedge funds that charge exorbitant fees. By 2017, the index fund was outperforming every hedge fund that made the bet against Buffett.

COVID-19 History

The deaths, spread out across four states in January 2020, had become part of a scattershot collection of clues about the virus’s early spread.

In early March 2020, an elderly man died in In California Placer County of COVID-19.

The death prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to declare a state of emergency to allow the state to respond faster to health worker needs. Less than two weeks later, schools across the state would shutter and, shortly after that, California entered the first of several stay-at-home orders.

In March 2020, the Trump administration started conducting daily press briefings at the White House. They became a joke after Trump seriously suggested that injections of bleach might kill the virus.

By April 2020 daily cases exceeded 2,000 people nationwide.

By November 2020 cases exceeded 100,000 a day. By December of that year the cases exceeded 200,000 per day. It stared ebbing in January 2021 to less than 100,00 daily cases but resurged in August and September to over 100,000 new daily cases.

December 11, 2021 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. It became available in January 2022.Three vaccines developed from different pharmaceutical companies soon became readily available.

Despite the availability of vaccines about one third of Americans refuse to be vaccinated. Daily rate of new cases still exceeds 30,000 people.

 

Old West Gunfights and the Putin Challenge

Vladimir Putin is desperate

“The most important lesson I learned was the winner of gunplay usually was the one who took his time. The second was that, if I hoped to live on the frontier, I would shun flashy trick-shooting as I would poison. I did not know a really  proficient gunfighter who had anything but contempt for the gun-fanner, or the man who literally shot from the hip.”

 — Wyatt Earp

In the spring of 1879, the wicked little town of Dodge City, Kansas “There is seldom witnessed in any civilized town or country such a scene as transpired at the Long Branch Saloon, in this city, last Saturday evening, resulting in the killing of Levi Richardson, a well known freighter, of this city, by a gambler named Frank Loving.

Putin is desperate to win his war. Just as in the Old West he has been challenging the West to take the first shot. He is itching for a war with NATO and the United States. Putin said on Saturday that the sanctions introduced on his country are “equivalent of a declaration of war.” If he believes that then his next step would be to start shooting at NATO nations. Or is he trying to goad the West to start shooting first and then claim he is merely defending his nation.  President Joe Biden and other NATO nations are not taking the bait.

Threats of a nuclear war that would kill half the world’s population make no sense.  The real question is Vladimir Putin of sane mind?