Harris’ ‘Equal Outcomes’ Is Dangerous To Your Rights

“There’s an attack right now on diversity, equity, and inclusion… where supposed, so-called extreme leaders are suggesting it’s a bad thing to care about and pay attention to inequities, to say DEI is a bad thing, when in fact, if we want fair outcomes, we must understand what are disparities and then accommodate and adjust for those disparities, if we want equal outcomes.”

That was Vice President Kamala Harris outlining her vision for equity and “equal outcomes” at a panel at Hampton University in Virginia in Sept. 2023.

Equity sounds like such a benign concept, often confused with its sister word, equality. But the two words have very different meanings.

Equality is equal opportunity under the law. Where every American can achieve according to their abilities and the work they put into it regardless of race, color, creed or religion.

Equity means equal outcomes. Where every American is allocated the same amount of wealth regardless of their achievement, effort or value they add.

Harris understands this important distinction because she stated, “if you don’t start on the same base — everybody can have an equal amount — you’re still not going to end up on the same base, right? If we want equal outcomes, we need to take into account not everybody starts out on the same base. And we have to make adjustments.”

Why does this matter?

Because this is no different than Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability to each according to his needs” in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme.

This is the presumptive Democrat nominee for president, Kamala Harris, on record as supporting equity over equality, where she declared that she wants to “put equity firmly at the center of our economic policy,” as she told U.S. Department of Treasury in Dec. 2021.

While it should not come as any surprise that the left favors redistribution of wealth and the right less so, it used to be rare for a candidate to so blatantly declare the desire to use government to force “equal outcomes.” But post-fundamental transformation neo-Marxism is the new normal and Kamala Harris’ support for equal outcomes should not surprise.

When taken in the context of the insistence by the left that they are “defending” democracy, it is important to remember that true democracy can be explained as two big kids coming up to a third kid and voting two to one to take his bicycle, which was why the Framers settled on a constitutional limited government instead with the separation of powers and property rights duly protected under law.

Vice President Harris’ constant refrain about reimagining the world “unburdened by what has been,” as she told administration officials at the Eisenhower Office Building in March 2022, clearly demonstrates her willingness to use draconian measures to achieve equity through forced redistribution by a government unmoored from constitutionally restrictions.

In this broader context it becomes more obvious that using government to achieve equal outcomes ends the precept of equal treatment under the law, since when outcomes are unequal, whether on the basis of race, sex or something else, the government must, per Harris, “adjust for those disparities.”

Equal outcomes means that the doctor who sacrificed and went to school for a decade receiving extensive training while sacrificing the first thirty years of his or her life to become a brain surgeon should be compensated the same as a drugged out high school drop-out who contributes nothing of value.

Equal outcomes means that the inventor who poured his heart, soul and wealth into creating a new way to convert hydrogen into fuel for private vehicles should have that invention forcibly taken away by the government and made free for anyone to use with the inventor getting no extra compensation or value for his dedication, investment and sacrifice.

Equal outcomes means that everyone playing in the National Basketball Association gets paid the same as anyone in any other job. But, since the decision of who gets to play in the NBA will be made based upon a talent-blind selection system, it is doubtful that anyone would watch it anyway.

Equal outcomes means that the student who studies to get grades to allow them to go to the college of their choice will then be put into a weighted merit-free lottery of all students to determine admissions.

So, under this equity equation why would anyone strive to achieve?

They wouldn’t. This is why societies which try to force equal outcomes fail.

What Kamala Harris and her ilk won’t tell the voting public is that she supports unconstitutional affirmative action college admissions standards which discriminate against Asian-American and white students in clear violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.

She won’t tell you that equity is the excuse for lowering qualification standards so that underrepresented groups can qualify for a job that they physically cannot perform. In fact, the entire Diversity, Equity and Inclusion movement is designed to force hiring quotas that have little to do with the ability to succeed in the job in clear violation of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment on the same basis.

And it should surprise no one that a candidate chosen for the Vice Presidency due to the color of her skin and sex, should embrace the same standard that led to her ascension.

Kamala Harris is the completion of the fundamental transformation of America. The only question is whether the country reject her radical ideology — or embrace it.

https://dailytorch.com/2024/07/harris-equal-outcomes-is-dangerous-to-your-rights/

*****************************************************

Don’t Expect New Sanctions on Russia to Do Anything

Although, in the wake of attacks by Iran-supported groups in the Middle East, a senior White House adviser claimed that “extreme sanctions” had throttled the Iranian energy sector, a New York Times investigation reported that the country was still exporting billions of dollars of oil. The investigative report—complete with substantial photographic evidence of sanctions evasion by oil tankers coming from Iranian ports or transshipping oil to other tankers at sea—blows a big hole in the White House narrative of effectively ratcheting up the pressure on Iran for its proxies’ attacks on U.S. military activities in the region.

The Times reported that the end-run around sanctions is occurring by the tankers, insured for liability by a U.S. company, spoofing their GPS locations by broadcasting fake locations while picking up oil at Iranian ports or transferring Iranian oil to other nations’ tankers at sea. Shipowners willing to violate the sanctions get a premium on their normal commissions and importing countries choosing to ignore them—in this case, China—get oil at a cheaper price than normal.

Similar evasion has occurred with trying to limit Russian exports of oil in the wake of its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. In that case, because Russia is such a big oil producer, the aim was not to choke off all its oil exports—which could have resulted in a sustained elevation in the world price of oil, thereby endangering the election prospects of certain Western politicians—but to create a price ceiling under which only Russian oil could be sold. Enforcing this price ceiling regime is difficult too. Spoofing tanker locations and oil transfers at sea can also help hide the origin of Russian oil to evade the price ceiling. The Times also found spoofing on cargoes of sanctioned Venezuelan oil exports.

And economic sanctions on oil exports are not the only ones that can be flouted. Sanctions can be unilaterally imposed or multilaterally promulgated by a cartel of countries. Unless a single country imposing the sanctions has a monopoly (is a single seller) or a monopsony (is a single buyer—in which case unilateral sanctions might substantially raise or lower the price of the product, respectively, thus hurting target country—unilateral sanctions usually are merely symbolic to indicate displeasure with target by the sanctioning nation. Getting other countries to go along with sanctions to form a sanctioning cartel—as the United States normally attempts—can increase the price effects but rarely can completely cut off the target from importing or exporting target products because of the evasion techniques, including those above.

Multilateral sanctions take more time to coordinate and implement than unilateral sanctions and may bite for a while, but then most target countries learn ways to substantially evade them over time. The sanctions against Russia for its invasion (and likely the ones to be imposed for the death of dissident Alexei Navalny), and on Iran and Venezuela for behaviors the United States doesn’t like, have all had some economic effect, but they cannot be evaluated for success solely by short- or long-term economic pain inflicted. They have in fact not radically changed those countries’ actions.

Economic sanctions are economic punishments used to achieve political ends. Even if the sanctions are comprehensive (on all exports and imports of the target nation), very multilateral with many countries participating, and thus inflicting excruciating economic pain for a time, they often fail politically. Sanctions are usually more successful with limited goals—for example, getting a target nation to stop a minor specific behavior. They are usually unsuccessful in achieving major changes in target policy or governance.

Some of the most severe sanctions ever deployed did not compel Saddam Hussein to rescind his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, have not yet motivated Vladimir Putin to withdraw his invasion force from Ukraine, and have not caused Iran or North Korea to end their nuclear programs and behave better internationally. Sanctions from abroad may have had some role in getting South Africa to abandon apartheid, but forces internal to the country were the driving force behind it.

So, if economic sanctions can have a high cost to both sanctioning and target nations and don’t have a high success rate in achieving major political goals, why do countries—especially the United States, the leading user of such tactics—still use them? The answer is that sanctions have symbolic value. In the sanctioning country, imposing sanctions to show concern about the target nation’s policy to the watching international community—and, most importantly, to important internal political audiences—is often a middle ground between a seemingly lame diplomatic protest and an over-the-top military or covert attack on the target.

Many times, policymakers choosing the Goldilocks option of sanctions may not even believe the measures are likely to achieve their political goal or even, considering likely rampant evasion, cause much economic distress on the target; nevertheless, they are relatively sure that the purported economic punishment will serve the symbolic goal of showing that they are “doing something” about the target’s outrageous behavior. The sanctions for Navalny’s death aren’t really aimed at Russia, then; they’re aimed at you.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14847&omhide=true&trk=reltitle

*******************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************