Going around Derek for a bit, this equation and the results it produces are really bonkers.
Consider a couple of examples. First, Cambodia, which was given a 49% tariff rate. Cambodia is very poor, which means: a.) it doesn't buy much stuff from wealthy nations, including the U.S., because it can't afford to, and b.) its workers have very low wages, so they can make stuff cheap, which means they can sell a lot of stuff to us because we like to buy cheap things. So, according to Trump's data, Cambodia exported 12.66B worth of stuff, and imported around 0.32B. Using Trump's equation above, you'd do (.32B-12.66B)/12.66B, which gets you .975, which they presumably rounded to .98, then divided that by two, to get the "reciprocal" tariff rate of .49. In other word, because Cambodia is really poor, and can't buy stuff from us, but can sell us stuff cheap, we've imposed an almost 50% tariff on their goods. Will this compel Cambodia to become rich and start buying as much stuff from us as they sell to us? Only time will tell. Also, so much for buying cheap stuff from Cambodia.
It gets worse. Recall these are called reciprocal tariff rates, with the equation in Derek's link (which he hasn't read) actually supposed to show the tariff rate that we're reciprocating. But it's just a calculation of the trade deficit. So, using the silly equation, we're told that St. Pierre, a tiny island of fewer than 6k inhabitants with no actual tariffs has a 99% tariff rate on U.S. goods, meaning, because we divide that rate by two (see Derek's article, which he should read), our reciprocal tariff is 50%:
But wait, what is the source of the trade deficit? Inhabitants bought some sort of equipment from the US, and wasn't working and needed to be replaced or repaired, so they returned it, the Trump administration used that return as an export to the U.S., and now they get a 50% tariff.
I was not joking when I said this is hardly better than using AI. Really, I think they'd have produced less ridiculous results if they'd just used AI instead of their silly little equation (from Derek's article, which he really should read before commenting about it).
Back in the early Aughts, we definitely didn't live in a world where people could deal with these kinds of questions. Hell, to even attempt to understand why we had been attacked was deemed support for terrorism. It was a bleak time in American history, though bleak times in American history might be most of the time in American history, so that may not be saying much.
Let me also add that I think killing civilians is wrong regardless of who those civilians are, just so there's no doubt in what follows. I'm trying to get at what discourse is OK among faculty at a public university, and what discourse should result in harsh penalties for university departments, like what's happening at Columbia. That out of the way:
We know civilians are being targeted, and we know journalists are as well. It's not really up for debate, and I point you to google for the copious evidence.
But even if you don't agree that there is clear evidence Israel has targeted civilians, let's stipulate it for the moment. So, considering that Hamas argues, and has points in international law in favor of their argument, that as an occupied and/or besieged populace, it is legal for them to strike out at the people occupying besieging them. Put differently, Hamas believes they are at war, under military siege, and therefore what they did was an act of war. Many throughout the world see their actions as part of the resistance movement, even if they condemn violence against civilians and taking civilians hostage (Israel, to be clear, also regularly takes civilians hostage; and, it should be noted, regularly uses human shields).
Is this discourse, which might end up with some people arguing in support of Hamas, allowable, or do we have to ban it from universities? Who, then, gets to decide which attacks on civilians are terrorism, and which aren't? And therefore, which faculty can support, and which they can't?
A related question: Should the university allow debate about who is a terrorism, and what acts are terrorism, or should the university require all faculty to adhere to the official U.S. list of designated terrorist groups?
I think Ward Churchill is a good case to think about in this context. I assume everyone here is old enough to remember how in 2005, someone discovered his 2001 essay calling the victims of 9/11 "Little Eichmanns," creating an outrage that ultimately resulted in Churchill losing his job as a tenured member of the faculty at UC Boulder 2 years later. But remember, he didn't lose his job for the 2001 essay; he lost it because of research misconduct. Would he have been fired if he hadn't written the 2001 essay, or if the article had never been brought to the general public's attention? Who knows; his scholarship, such as it was, seems to have been largely ignored even within his field until then. But the main point is, Churchill was fired because of his academic work.
I suspect just about everyone is, when doing political speech in a public forum, is "signaling" to some extent, but I see no reason to think she's "signaling" any more than, say, people who post here.
For example, why is she saying "screw you" to Gal Gadot? Is it because she's Israeli? If so, why doesn't Zegler like that she's Israeli? Or is saying "screw you" to Gadot part of the signaling?
This reminds me of something I've been wondering: What comes after Trump?
After Trump's first term, in which he was largely a bungling and ineffective president, my big worry was that what would come next would be a more competent far right candidate, like say DeSantis or Vance, and they would much more effectively implement a far right agenda. I've since come to realize that, at least to this point, all of the other far right candidates the Republican Party has put forward, particularly Vance and DeSantis, have the charisma of a rotting tree stump. This is important, because it's really difficult to implement a far right agenda with the charisma of a tree stump. You really need a charismatic strongman to be that authoritarian.
And of course, now I know the real threat was a Trump administration populated entirely by far right true believers and Trump sycophants, all of whom had 4 years to coach up Trump and plan their strategy, with Musk thrown in as an extra wild card. But what comes after Trump after this term? I mean, a lot of damage will have been done, but how does the MAGA movement, and the Republican Party it's completely taken over, maintain this without a cult of personality to lead it?
Obviously there are other relevant questions, like what happens to a Democratic Party that's shown itself to be utterly worthless in the face of everything that's happening, and that currently has favorability ratings in the low 30s? Is there still a Constitutional order in 4 years? To what extent will state Republicans have so thoroughly undermined the integrity of elections that Dems can't win elections in Red States anyway? Etc. But mostly I just wonder, who takes over from Trump, and how unpopular will that person have to be, as they inevitably will be unpopular, for this shi*t to fall apart?
Well, lemme tell ya, the whole “cutting remark hiding behind superficial affirmation of membership in good standing” thing is something that the Babtists are pretty good at.
Is she saying she's a young progressive liberal by saying this, and not actually saying, "Free Palestine?"
I gather you're saying she's signaling, as the libertarians used to say. What I'd like to know is a) what you think she's signaling, and b.) why you think that.
My opportunities to see movies in theaters are limited. I probably won't see 5 movies in the theater this year.
And no, I have no idea what you're talking about. Like I said, I know very little about her, as a person or as a performer. Maybe you do have information I don't have. It would probably be easier if you just said what you're talking about.
I mean, I'm sure she's not sitting around worrying about Gaza 24/7, but other than you just know it when you see it, why do you think she doesn't sincerely believe that Gaza should be free? Because she's a celebrity? Because she's young? I'm confused. Personally, I know nothing about her, and I don't think I've seen her in a movie (I'll catch Snow White when it hits Disney Plus), but what I see here is a person saying something that could affect her career prospects, and obviously this particular movie's success, and I respect that.
People are complicated, and have complex motivations and feelings. That doesn't seem unusual; I'm sure you've experienced this as well.
Personally, when I see something about Teslas getting torched, my first thought is also, "Cool!" but then I think, "Actually, this is probably not helping, and risks escalation. People should come up with more productive ways of making sure Musk experiences consequences for buying the presidency and using it to destroy the federal government. But still, the pictures are great."
What she said, in 5-word tweet, has long been a cancellable offense in this country, and can now get you deported if you're not a citizen (how long before it can get you detained even if you are?). I am sure she knew their could be a cost. To argue that she didn't mean it, then, requires a bit more than, "I can recognize it when I see it, based on how I was raised."
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/31/25”
The lesson of St. Pierre is that we just need to return all of the Jordan's to Cambodia, and we'll be all even.
"
Going around Derek for a bit, this equation and the results it produces are really bonkers.
Consider a couple of examples. First, Cambodia, which was given a 49% tariff rate. Cambodia is very poor, which means: a.) it doesn't buy much stuff from wealthy nations, including the U.S., because it can't afford to, and b.) its workers have very low wages, so they can make stuff cheap, which means they can sell a lot of stuff to us because we like to buy cheap things. So, according to Trump's data, Cambodia exported 12.66B worth of stuff, and imported around 0.32B. Using Trump's equation above, you'd do (.32B-12.66B)/12.66B, which gets you .975, which they presumably rounded to .98, then divided that by two, to get the "reciprocal" tariff rate of .49. In other word, because Cambodia is really poor, and can't buy stuff from us, but can sell us stuff cheap, we've imposed an almost 50% tariff on their goods. Will this compel Cambodia to become rich and start buying as much stuff from us as they sell to us? Only time will tell. Also, so much for buying cheap stuff from Cambodia.
It gets worse. Recall these are called reciprocal tariff rates, with the equation in Derek's link (which he hasn't read) actually supposed to show the tariff rate that we're reciprocating. But it's just a calculation of the trade deficit. So, using the silly equation, we're told that St. Pierre, a tiny island of fewer than 6k inhabitants with no actual tariffs has a 99% tariff rate on U.S. goods, meaning, because we divide that rate by two (see Derek's article, which he should read), our reciprocal tariff is 50%:
https://x.com/a60483647/status/1907845183762268378?t=2fDogTqNqbKsncntRHVoYg&s=19
But wait, what is the source of the trade deficit? Inhabitants bought some sort of equipment from the US, and wasn't working and needed to be replaced or repaired, so they returned it, the Trump administration used that return as an export to the U.S., and now they get a 50% tariff.
I was not joking when I said this is hardly better than using AI. Really, I think they'd have produced less ridiculous results if they'd just used AI instead of their silly little equation (from Derek's article, which he really should read before commenting about it).
"
Strange to have a self-described billionaire as president, and the richest man on the planet as, er, co-president, and ask where the oligarchs are.
I mean, I get the joke, but the oligarchs are in the fishin' building.
"
OK, you didn't read the article you posted.
"
Did you read the article you posted?
"
Yes, using exports-imports divided by imports, then dividing that by 2, is much more scientific than using AI.
On “A Grudging Concession About Something Trump Did”
What are some good policies?
On “Martin Niemöller, and Who First They Came For”
Back in the early Aughts, we definitely didn't live in a world where people could deal with these kinds of questions. Hell, to even attempt to understand why we had been attacked was deemed support for terrorism. It was a bleak time in American history, though bleak times in American history might be most of the time in American history, so that may not be saying much.
"
(Oh look, more evidence just today.)
"
Let me also add that I think killing civilians is wrong regardless of who those civilians are, just so there's no doubt in what follows. I'm trying to get at what discourse is OK among faculty at a public university, and what discourse should result in harsh penalties for university departments, like what's happening at Columbia. That out of the way:
We know civilians are being targeted, and we know journalists are as well. It's not really up for debate, and I point you to google for the copious evidence.
But even if you don't agree that there is clear evidence Israel has targeted civilians, let's stipulate it for the moment. So, considering that Hamas argues, and has points in international law in favor of their argument, that as an occupied and/or besieged populace, it is legal for them to strike out at the people occupying besieging them. Put differently, Hamas believes they are at war, under military siege, and therefore what they did was an act of war. Many throughout the world see their actions as part of the resistance movement, even if they condemn violence against civilians and taking civilians hostage (Israel, to be clear, also regularly takes civilians hostage; and, it should be noted, regularly uses human shields).
Is this discourse, which might end up with some people arguing in support of Hamas, allowable, or do we have to ban it from universities? Who, then, gets to decide which attacks on civilians are terrorism, and which aren't? And therefore, which faculty can support, and which they can't?
"
Interesting. How would we classify Israel's killing of citizens in Gaza?
"
A related question: Should the university allow debate about who is a terrorism, and what acts are terrorism, or should the university require all faculty to adhere to the official U.S. list of designated terrorist groups?
On “The Greatest Strike in History”
The Cobb case was a bit more like the Malice at the Palace, no?
On “Martin Niemöller, and Who First They Came For”
I think Ward Churchill is a good case to think about in this context. I assume everyone here is old enough to remember how in 2005, someone discovered his 2001 essay calling the victims of 9/11 "Little Eichmanns," creating an outrage that ultimately resulted in Churchill losing his job as a tenured member of the faculty at UC Boulder 2 years later. But remember, he didn't lose his job for the 2001 essay; he lost it because of research misconduct. Would he have been fired if he hadn't written the 2001 essay, or if the article had never been brought to the general public's attention? Who knows; his scholarship, such as it was, seems to have been largely ignored even within his field until then. But the main point is, Churchill was fired because of his academic work.
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
I did not know there was a beef with Gadot. Where did it come from?
I have seen people being passive aggressive, of course.
"
Me either. To be fair to him, Saul mentioned Snow White, but man, talk about an obsession.
"
I suspect just about everyone is, when doing political speech in a public forum, is "signaling" to some extent, but I see no reason to think she's "signaling" any more than, say, people who post here.
For example, why is she saying "screw you" to Gal Gadot? Is it because she's Israeli? If so, why doesn't Zegler like that she's Israeli? Or is saying "screw you" to Gadot part of the signaling?
"
This reminds me of something I've been wondering: What comes after Trump?
After Trump's first term, in which he was largely a bungling and ineffective president, my big worry was that what would come next would be a more competent far right candidate, like say DeSantis or Vance, and they would much more effectively implement a far right agenda. I've since come to realize that, at least to this point, all of the other far right candidates the Republican Party has put forward, particularly Vance and DeSantis, have the charisma of a rotting tree stump. This is important, because it's really difficult to implement a far right agenda with the charisma of a tree stump. You really need a charismatic strongman to be that authoritarian.
And of course, now I know the real threat was a Trump administration populated entirely by far right true believers and Trump sycophants, all of whom had 4 years to coach up Trump and plan their strategy, with Musk thrown in as an extra wild card. But what comes after Trump after this term? I mean, a lot of damage will have been done, but how does the MAGA movement, and the Republican Party it's completely taken over, maintain this without a cult of personality to lead it?
Obviously there are other relevant questions, like what happens to a Democratic Party that's shown itself to be utterly worthless in the face of everything that's happening, and that currently has favorability ratings in the low 30s? Is there still a Constitutional order in 4 years? To what extent will state Republicans have so thoroughly undermined the integrity of elections that Dems can't win elections in Red States anyway? Etc. But mostly I just wonder, who takes over from Trump, and how unpopular will that person have to be, as they inevitably will be unpopular, for this shi*t to fall apart?
"
The closest I can find is here:
Well, lemme tell ya, the whole “cutting remark hiding behind superficial affirmation of membership in good standing” thing is something that the Babtists are pretty good at.
Is she saying she's a young progressive liberal by saying this, and not actually saying, "Free Palestine?"
I gather you're saying she's signaling, as the libertarians used to say. What I'd like to know is a) what you think she's signaling, and b.) why you think that.
"
My opportunities to see movies in theaters are limited. I probably won't see 5 movies in the theater this year.
And no, I have no idea what you're talking about. Like I said, I know very little about her, as a person or as a performer. Maybe you do have information I don't have. It would probably be easier if you just said what you're talking about.
"
I mean, I'm sure she's not sitting around worrying about Gaza 24/7, but other than you just know it when you see it, why do you think she doesn't sincerely believe that Gaza should be free? Because she's a celebrity? Because she's young? I'm confused. Personally, I know nothing about her, and I don't think I've seen her in a movie (I'll catch Snow White when it hits Disney Plus), but what I see here is a person saying something that could affect her career prospects, and obviously this particular movie's success, and I respect that.
"
You don't think she believes Palestine should be free?
And I'm pretty sure show biz is a high-status industry.
On “Don’t Go Torching Cyber Trucks”
People are complicated, and have complex motivations and feelings. That doesn't seem unusual; I'm sure you've experienced this as well.
Personally, when I see something about Teslas getting torched, my first thought is also, "Cool!" but then I think, "Actually, this is probably not helping, and risks escalation. People should come up with more productive ways of making sure Musk experiences consequences for buying the presidency and using it to destroy the federal government. But still, the pictures are great."
On “Open Mic for the week of 3/24/25”
What she said, in 5-word tweet, has long been a cancellable offense in this country, and can now get you deported if you're not a citizen (how long before it can get you detained even if you are?). I am sure she knew their could be a cost. To argue that she didn't mean it, then, requires a bit more than, "I can recognize it when I see it, based on how I was raised."
"
Her.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.