So at the moment, the trade war seems to be with China

The New Neo Posted on by

Accent on the phrase “at the moment.” But I do think it’s highly possible that was the intent all along.

A description:

China announced on Friday that it will raise tariffs on U.S. imports from 84% to 125%, further escalating the trade war between Washington and Beijing.

The move is largely symbolic. As former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Fox News host Larry Kudlow on Thursday night, once tariffs hit 50%, further increases have limited practical impact. At that point, Ross explained, leaders effectively signal that they no longer seek a trade relationship. …

China expert Gordon Chang joined Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on Thursday morning to discuss the mounting conflict between China and the U.S. Chinese President Xi Jinping, he claims, is in an increasingly difficult political position because he can’t do what “absolutely” must be done which is to open up the lines of communication.

“Picking up the phone and calling President Trump would be the economically rational thing to do,” Chang said, “but Xi Jinping has configured the Chinese political system so that only the most hostile answers are considered to be acceptable, which means he’s boxed himself in.” …

“The Chinese don’t have any cards in this,” he explained. “They’re only holding a pair of twos and Trump has a royal straight flush. The Chinese think they can intimidate Trump, they can coerce him into surrendering preemptively.” But Trump is not backing down. …

According to the report, the U.S. and Panama have formally entered into a new defense and security agreement designed to strengthen oversight of the Panama Canal—an initiative Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described as essential for countering China’s expanding influence in the region.

Is Chang correct? I don’t know. This is not my field of expertise, as I’ve often stated. But it makes sense to me that the goal – or at least one big goal – is to put the squeeze on China. Much of what we get from them is shoddy consumer goods, but there’s also rare earths (do I hear Greenland? Australia? or even the US itself see this) and pharmaceuticals (do I hear India?).

NOTE: See also this.

And our resident condescending British friend has been talking about the bond market. For those who might be curious about that, please see this for some background in terms of the Trump/Vance administration.

The House was busy today

The New Neo Posted on by

It passed the SAVE Act, which requires proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, plus the removal of non-citizens from voter rolls.

I’m not 100% certain that this law will stand – even if it manages to pass the Senate, which is a big “if”. States have usually been the arbiters of voting rules, although Congress has some say in federal elections and this bill is merely an amendment to a previous voting act passed by Congress. So if it passes in the Senate it might very well become the law.

Just a few short years ago its elements would have had wide bipartisan support. No longer, although it has nominally bilateral support because four Democrats voted yes: Rep. Ed Case (HI), Rep. Henry Cueller (TX), Rep. Jared Golden (ME), and Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA).

In other actions, the House passed a budget resolution:

The House of Representatives passed a budget resolution, which gives President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill its first win.

However, it once again shows Republicans are not as committed to cutting spending as they claim.

NOTE: DOGE has also been busy – very very busy:

Here’s what the investigation revealed:

24,500 people, allegedly over 115 years old, claimed $59 million in benefits.

28,000 supposed children between the ages of 1 and 5 claimed $254 million.

9,700 claims from people with future birth dates totaled $69 million.

On tariffs: what is Trump thinking?

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump: genius, or not-so-amiable dunce?

In my opinion – somewhere in-between but so far in terms of results on all fronts closer to genius and definitely an unusual person. The left and all his other enemies either don’t understand Trump at all or pretend not to in order to portray him as a complete dummy as well as very dangerous. Maybe he is very dangerous to them, if their specialty is grift-by-government.

But it’s also true that Trump takes risks, which is often frightening even to those who don’t hate him. And it’s also true that to win in The Art of the Deal you can’t make your intentions completely known, because if at times you’re bluffing you must seem as though you’re not. After all, that’s what bluffing is about.

When Trump put a hold on huge tariffs yesterday (except for China), the MSM headlines were all about him capitulating, blinking, being weak. Then again, the action may have been (and probably was) part of his plan, which at the moment seems focused on squeezing China. See this for a fuller explanation. See also this for the way the MSM and the left are managing to frame it.

And this thread has a lot of revealing reactions. For example from Bill Ackman:

This was brilliantly executed by @realDonaldTrump. Textbook, Art of the Deal.

And from Greg Price:

Yes, totally caved by… *checks notes*…. successfully using his leverage to bring the nations of the world to the negotiating table for fairer trade deals while realigning global trade against China.

From Peter Schiff:

It looks like Trump has already surrendered in what may go down as the shortest global trade war in history. I guess once he saw how badly the U.S. was losing, he needed to find a graceful way to save face.

Does Schiff really think Trump expected that his opening move would be the end of it? I very much doubt it. But even if Schiff is correct, the fact that Trump could and would back down and change course somewhat in the face of a bad result would be a good sign, wouldn’t it?

I’ll give the last word to Ted Cruz, on the “angels and devils on the president’s shoulder” – one of them being himself (the portion I’ve cued up is just a couple of minutes):

NOTE: In somewhat related news, inflation reports are good.

For those who this Easter season are mourning the demise of Russell Stover pectin jelly beans

The New Neo Posted on by

They were the best, the very best. And now they’re gone.

I’m speaking, of course, of the world’s best jelly beans, IMHO the only type of jelly bean worth eating. I’ve written about the original Russell Stover version here. But a couple of years ago they became difficult to find, and by last year it was clear they were no longer being made. They’re still not being made, and I doubt that will change.

But these are almost the same. Maybe they even are the same. I don’t know, because I’m going on memory, and memory can play tricks on us. But even if not exactly the same, they’re close enough – although significantly more expensive and only obtainable through online order.

I bring you the pectin jelly beans from the Vermont Country Store:

The ones in the photo are mine, safely arrived and prior to the big feed. You can order some here. And no, I don’t even get a commission, just the joy of spreading the word as a public service.

An astute and kindly reader also let me know the pectin jelly beans are available here as well. They’re even a little less expensive – but alas, they’re out of stock for this year.

Enjoy. Your dentist will thank you.

Closing time for Gerard’s blog – plus an update on the poetry book

The New Neo Posted on by

I knew it had to happen, although I’d been delaying it: closing down Gerard Vanderleun’s blog. For one thing, he left instructions to me to leave it up for two years and then to take it down. So it was his wish. I’ve been tending it by posting photos and open threads three days per week as its once-robust readership dwindled, and now it’s been two years and two months since Gerard’s death.

So it’s time to do it – really, past time to do it. But still difficult. That blog was his lovingly tended work, full of photos and essays and poetry and humor. There were over five thousand posts there, and the number was only that small because he’d gotten rid of everything prior to 2017 except some old favorites. Gerard could be ruthless that way; he was always pruning the blog.

If you go there now you’ll see a message that it’s closed (some strange code has snuck in, too, and I don’t know how to get rid of that so I’ll let it be). I’m busy canceling the autopays and after that the site will probably give forth a basic 404 message. But I’ve edited the essay book and I’ve got the poetry book in the works, with the latter probably due to appear in the next month or two. I’ll announce it here when it’s available for purchase.

But before I closed Gerard’s blog down I copied a bunch more of his essays into another document and I may – accent on the may – decide to put out a second essay book of his. I’m not sure yet if I will, but I’m considering it.

One of Gerard’s readers has also started a new site so that whoever wants to can continue to post and talk: here it is, in case you’re interested.

Gerard really liked the poem The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. And so do I. So for this occasion, I’ll close with a verse from it that seems appropriate:

Come, fill the Cup, and in the Fire of Spring
The Winter Garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
To fly—and Lo! the Bird is on the Wing.

The increasingly colorless world

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s part of an essay Christopher Cook wrote yesterday:

I occasionally point this out to my wife as we’re driving along. Why have car colors become soooooooo boring?

The rest of the essay explores ideas about what the reasons might be, and why it also is true in architecture and clothing.

But you heard it here first: fourteen years ago, to be exact. The following was the entire 2011 post of mine on the subject:

Whatever happened to car colors?

It seems these days that gray’s the thing, in every possible shade and tone: silver, metallic, charcoal, light, dark, middling, and every type of gray in between. Much more gray than I care to look at.

I ask you: whose decree is this, and why?

The comments there are quite interesting as well.

But here’s an update: it’s only gotten worse. And yes, clothing is involved too. I know many people – and we’re talking women here, not men in gray flannel suits – who only wear neutrals like black and beige. My closet is very colorful, but maybe that marks me as a dinosaur, fashion-wise.

But perhaps the worst offender in recent years has been interior decoration. For quite a while everything was gray – except for kitchens, which were white. I used to sometimes put a house remodeling channel on TV while I was working, as a sort of background babble, and it featured young couple after young couple looking at perfectly lovely kitchens and saying they of course had to be totally remodeled, with everything white except for silver appliances.

I know some of it has to do with the idea of resale value, and that blandness is inoffensive to most people. Well, it’s pretty offensive to me.

I’ve been looking for a new couch. My old one is uncomfortable (and when I write “old” I mean about 25 years old) and it wasn’t much to begin with. It is a pretty color green, though, and that’s what I want for my new one, too. It can be done, because fortunately there are usually many fabrics from which to choose.

But the salesroom of the store I entered? Everything was beige or gray. And I mean everything. It was uncanny and unsettling, and I even mentioned it to one of the salespeople. She said they were going to be getting a new decorator and more color. Perhaps a trend? If so, it’s one I’d welcome.

Netanyahu explains

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t actually watched this interview with Netanyahu yet, but I’ve seen it highly recommended by several people, including Scott Johnson at Powerline, who writes:

In the interview Netanyahu walks us through all the major decisions that shaped the Iron Swords war thus far. The interview is conducted in Hebrew and posted with English subtitles. This is a remarkably illuminating document on the crucial decisions [he] has had to make in the course of the war so far. Among other things, he frankly describes his interactions with President Biden and other Biden administration officials … [It is a] living lesson in the art of statesmanship.

Here’s the interview:

Reflections on the stock market

The New Neo Posted on by

The stock market partially recovers today, then drops again:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 320 points after giving up an earlier surge of 1,460, while the Nasdaq composite lost 2.1%. Uncertainty is still high about what President Donald Trump will do with his trade war. The latest set of tariffs, including a massive 104% levy on Chinese imports, are scheduled to kick in after midnight.

What does it all mean? It means that people are nervous and that change is in the air.

I watched a good podcast discussing tariffs yesterday. Here it is in its entirety, but it’s not necessary to watch the whole thing to get the gist of it:

The other thing I need to say is that my sense of the stock market has always been that it is risky. Even bonds can be risky; my very first experience with investing came when I was 21 years old and my father gifted me with three thousand dollars and told me to buy a New York City bond with it. My father was ordinarily very good with money, but New York almost went bankrupt while I held that bond and there was a lot of stress involved.

Then, as young parents, my then-husband and I lost an enormous percentage of our still-meager holdings in 1987. I wasn’t the one who had decided to invest the money; my husband was. But it never occurred to me to blame him because without his investing our money would never have grown in the first place.

Then, as a newly-divorced person, in 2008 I lost over half my still-not-enormous worth in the 2008 crash. It came back, but it took a long long time and much angst. I had so many other difficult things on my mind back then that I didn’t stress out too much.

Will this be different? Will this be better or worse? I certainly don’t know. But at the moment I’m philosophical.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is in the news again [see UPDATE]

The New Neo Posted on by

I read about it at Althouse:

I don’t know if Kristol knows what he’s telling us we need to “be,” but he’s upset that “pursuant to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to purge so-called DEI content from military libraries and classrooms, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was removed, along with 380 other books, from the U.S. Naval Academy’s Nimitz Library.”

Kristol asserts, despite not having read the book, that “‘I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings’ is not ‘DEI content.’ It’s a quintessentially American autobiography—a popular and important one. It’s a book a student at the Academy might want to read for his or her education, or for pleasure.”

Why would the story of a particular individual represent the promotion of the DEI agenda?

Althouse goes on to add that a commenter of hers observed that perhaps this was a case of malicious compliance from some anti-Trump holdover. That’s certainly possible. It’s also possible that in general books that aren’t especially related to naval or military matters are being pulled.

The reason I’m writing about this is twofold, however. The first is that pulling a book from a library or a school isn’t “banning” it or making it so that students can’t or shouldn’t read it, but stories in the MSM about Republicans doing that are common in order to depict them as racist troglodytes. The second is a point about the book itself, which is certainly not a DEI polemic or a polemic of any sort: it’s a coming-of-age story. Because the protagonist, Angelou, was born in 1928 and raised mostly in a small segregated town in Arkansas, of course racism is part of the story. But to me – and I read the book when it first came out in 1969, and even own it – it wasn’t the main part at all.

I was going to write a description of the book here, and then I realized – as often happens – that I’ve passed this way before. Here’s the post I wrote about it in 2014, on the occasion of Angelou’s death. Summary version: it’s a great book. Some people don’t like memoirs, but I happen to like them and this one is excellent, touching, and well-written, and was especially powerful if read when it first came out. It also has the single most compelling and sensitive description of child sexual abuse I’ve ever read. Here’s what I wrote about that in 2014:

The rape that occurs [to the author] later, at the hands of Angelou’s mother’s live-in boyfriend when 8-year-old Maya and her brother have been sent back to St. Louis to live with her, is heartbreakingly rendered. Described from the child’s viewpoint, it somehow manages to depict something that has rarely been conveyed so well: how the child’s starvation for paternal affection can set up the neediness that makes him/her vulnerable, how wily and then how brutal the rapist can be, and how a sensitive child might react. In Angelou’s case, when her uncles took revenge and murdered the rapist, she felt that her talking about the rape had caused his death, and so she decided to stop talking entirely …

Angelou wrote many more memoirs besides Caged, and over the years I’ve read quite a few of them. They’re of interest to anyone interested in Angelou’s life, and they constitute a story of overcoming great odds. But none of them even remotely touches the heights of her first book. I’ve often thought that many writers have one book in them that they must write, are driven to write, and that for Angelou that book was Caged. The rest was commentary.

UPDATE 10 PM:

Apparently Kristol got his facts wrong. See this:

I looked at the list. It is NOT Maya Angelou’s book that is being pulled. It is a collection of “critical essays” about her book. The full title is “I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings – Critical Essays.” edited by Mildred Mickle. It’s was the “edited by…” That clued me in. Because I KNOW that Angelou’s book didn’t credit an editor. That, and the 2010 publication date. I looked it up. It’s academic critical essay crap.

If the idiots at the New York Times would bother to actually look up what was being pulled…

I also suspect a little “malicious compliance” by whomever typed up the list. They were sly about not including the full, correct title of the ACTUAL book. (The only thing Mildred edited about “caged birds” is this collection of essays.)