Subscribe via RSS Feed

Race and Food Injustice

[ 47 ] May 14, 2015 |

fixes-food-desert-blog427

One of the reasons I vastly prefer Mark Bittman to Michael Pollan among famous food writers is that Bittman gets that injustice is a major issue whereas Pollan is mostly happy to talk about the glories of foraging for mushrooms and longing for women to go back into the kitchens, blissfully ignoring most issues of poverty and food. Bittman has his own blind spots, no doubt. But at least he tries. Bittman’s good side has come out again. In the wake of the protests in Baltimore and Ferguson, Bittman notes how racism and food access intersect:

And — since I’m the food guy, it’s worth pointing out — without access to good food or nutrition education. This is murder by a thousand cuts. The rate of hunger among black households: 10.1 percent. Among white households: 4.6 percent. The age-adjusted rate of obesity among black Americans: 47.8 percent. Among white Americans: 32.6 percent. The rate of diabetes among black adults aged 20 or older: 13.2 percent. Among white adults: 7.6 percent. Black Americans’ life expectancy, compared to white Americans: four years less. (The life expectancy of black men with some high school compared to white men with some college: minus 14 years.)

These numbers are not a result of a lack of food access but of an abundance of poverty. Lack of education is not a result of a culture of victimhood but of lack of funding for schools. And rather than continuing to allow these realities to divide us, we should do the American thing, which is to fix things. Which we can do, together.

Not long ago African-Americans were enslaved; until recently they were lynched. Isolated racist murders still occur, but they are no longer sanctioned or tolerated, and we’re seeing the vestiges of that as both national and local attention is paid to violence by the police against black people.

But oppression and inequality are violence in another form. When people are undereducated, impoverished, malnourished, un- or under-employed, or underpaid and working three jobs, their lives are diminished, as are their opportunities. As are the opportunities of their children.

This is unjust and intolerable. The bad news is that we should be ashamed of ourselves: As long as these things are true, this is not the country we say it is or the country we want it to be.

The good news is that it’s fixable, not by “market forces” but by policies that fund equal education, good-paying jobs, and a good food, health and well-being program for all Americans.

He doesn’t pretend that food access is going to solve larger problems, which is an issue among many food writers who see food as a mystical experience. But he notes that we can solve the interconnected issues of poverty, injustice, and food access through good policy. Which is absolutely true and the position that the entire food movement should be taking on the recent uptick in protest against racism.

Some men you just can’t reach

[ 21 ] May 14, 2015 |

sm

Updated below

How much money has the law school reform movement cost ABA law schools?

This is not very difficult to calculate, if we define the law school reform movement as including everyone who has helped bring about more transparency regarding employment outcomes for law graduates: scambloggers, journalists, Law School Transparency, internal critics of the system, internal defenders of the system making arguments that are so bad that they lend yet more legitimacy to criticisms, etc.

If you assume none of the above had done any of the stuff they’ve done over the past few years, it seems reasonable to assume that, conservatively speaking, there would have been no downturn in law school enrollment (actually it seems more realistic to assume enrollment would have continued to climb, but we’ll go with the more conservative assumption that it would have remained where it was five years ago). It also seems reasonable to assume that effective tuition (sticker minus discounts) would have continued to climb at its recent rate of two or three percent a year above inflation, instead of flat-lining as it has over the past couple of years.

On the basis of these assumptions, a legal academic world without any push-back to the carny barking that dominated the information available to students until about four years ago would feature about 147,500 JD students this coming fall, who would be paying about $31,500 per year, on average, in effective tuition. So law schools would be extracting about $4.65 billion in tuition revenue from their JD students during the 2015-16 academic year.

Instead, they’re going to be getting a lot less. This year’s enrollment cycle is almost complete, and at this point it’s easy to estimate within a few hundred students how many people will matriculate this fall. Schools are going to receive applications from just under 53,000 applicants. The quasi-open enrollment policy already in place at several dozen schools means that approximately 80% of these applicants will be accepted to at least one school to which they apply (many applicants won’t apply to schools with open enrollment policies, plus about 10% of the applicant pool won’t be admitted anywhere because their files more or less scream potential litigation exposure risk to any school reckless enough to take them).

Of those who are admitted to at least one school, around 87% will end up matriculating somewhere. That means the first year class is going to be around 36,850 students, which in turn means the total JD population this fall will be about 111,000. (This past fall’s total JD enrollment was a little over 119,000, and the 2015 entering class is going to have about 8,000 fewer students than that of 2012). How much they’ll be paying in average effective tuition is a touch more speculative, but massive tuition discounting at many schools over the past couple of cycles will if anything be likely to intensify, so it would be optimistic to assume that schools will be getting more than the $28,500 per student they were pulling in three years ago. But let’s assume an average effective tuition of $30,000, just to be on the generous side.

That adds up to $3.33 billion in total JD tuition revenue this coming year. So schools are looking at about $1.3 billion less this fall in tuition revenue than they would have enjoyed if only some troublemakers had gotten their minds right. That in turn is about $6.37 million per school, on average, which works out to about $140,000 less tuition revenue per faculty member.

When you put it that way, I almost want to fire myself.

Update: Pace’s law school’s dean — Pace University, which was founded in the 19th century, has its main campus is in lower Manhattan, but the law school, which is 39 years old, is in White Plains — has apparently sent out a Secret Memo to the faculty, which, in the way of such things, is no longer secret. (The secrecy was supposed to be maintained by a secret invisible watermark on the memo, which was designed to identify any potential Deep Throat to a vengeful administration).

The memo announced an immediate 10% salary cut for all faculty, the elimination of summer research stipends and sabbaticals, and a 5% salary cut for some staff. These measures are designed to eliminate $2.1 million of the law school’s current $5 million operating deficit. Interestingly, the administration apparently hasn’t offered to buy out any faculty.

h/t Taxprof

“It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes”: The Ballad of Roscoe Filburn

[ 120 ] May 14, 2015 |

mr-plow3_

Recently, Bijan reminded me in comments that I’ve never quoted some of my favorite passages from the United States Reports here. These quotes from Robert Jackson’s opinion in Wickard v. Filburn aren’t well known because they come from the section dismissing the particularly frivolous due process claim. But they sum up the case and the having-it-all-ways faux libertarianism the case has come to represent in many quarters perfectly:

It is agreed that, as the result of the wheat programs, he is able to market his wheat at a price “far above any world price based on the natural reaction of supply and demand.” We can hardly find a denial of due process in these circumstances, particularly since it is even doubtful that appellee’s burdens under the program outweigh his benefits. It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.

[…]

Only when he threshed, and thereby made it a part of the bulk of wheat overhanging the market, did he become subject to penalty. He has made no effort to show that the value of his excess wheat consumed without threshing was less than it would have been had it been threshed while subject to the statutory provisions in force at the time of planting. Concurrently with the increase in the amount of the penalty, Congress authorized a substantial increase in the amount of the loan which might be made to cooperators upon stored farm marketing excess wheat. That appellee is the worse off for the aggregate of this legislation does not appear; it only appears that, if he could get all that the Government gives and do nothing that the Government asks, he would be better off than this law allows. To deny him this is not to deny him due process of law.

Filburn was not a hobbyist growing a little food for his family. (If he was, there would have been no case; the quotas didn’t apply to farms growing less than 15 acres of wheat.) He was someone with a commercial farm who not only wanted to sell substantial amounts of wheat but wanted to take advantage of federal price supports that allowed him to sell the wheat for more than twice the price it would command on the world market. While he wanted to take advantage of the federal guarantees, however, he wasn’t willing to comply with the federal regulations, which included a production quota that was a crucial element in the price supports. Filburn’s opposition federal regulation of the interstate wheat market applying to him was highly selective.

The only reason to be the slightest bit concerned about the Court’s obviously correct holding in Filburn is the slippery slope. Without it, as one commenter [mds!] astutely noted, you’re left with an argument that the congressional regulation of commercial wheat production is fine, but actually applying the regulation to a commercial entity involved in wheat production just goes too far. But when the facts are no longer carefully sanitized, it’s pretty hard to argue that there’s a direct path between Wickard and JACK BOOTED FEDERAL THUGS seizing the broccoli from your home garden while simultaneously requiring you to purchase it from Big Broccoli. Article I gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commodity markets, and doing so requires the federal government to regulate individual commercial entities, even if not everything these entities grow will be sold on interstate markets. It’s really not a complicated question, and Wickard is not a slippery slope to unlimited federal power.

Nail Salons

[ 135 ] May 14, 2015 |

Thuy Vo

You probably read Sarah Maslin Nir’s excellent investigative report on the labor conditions inside New York nail salons, which are brutal and including wage theft, poisoning from breathing in cosmetics, and physical abuse. There are relatively simple answers to solving these problems, which are strong labor enforcement of state and federal law. The report convinced Andrew Cuomo to announce “emergency measures” to help these workers, including more inspections and a multilingual attempt to inform workers of their rights. We’ll see how real this is once people stop paying attention.

Anyway, the unfortunately most common response is what we often see from empowered individualistic consumers, which is “how can I consume ethically.” The question turns the issue from being about the workers to about the consumer. We see this in apparel activism too often from people who think that buying second-hand clothing is an answer to sweatshop labor. Michelle Chen answers the question about what you can do quite simply–support worker organizing–and she provides plenty of information about how that is shaping up. Amanda Marcotte takes on the middle class guilt part of this debate more directly (with plenty of links of this sort of thing if you are so inclined). She writes:

I don’t mean to pick on people,I really don’t. These huge labor and immigration issues can feel overwhelming and I get that people want to know what part, however small, they can play. But that leads to this unfortunate tendency to frame these issues around middle class complicity, as if that were the main problem and not just a sideshow. The problem with that is that these sort of individualized rituals of self-sacrifice in the name of purity do almost nothing to actually improve the lives of marginalized or exploited people. In some cases, it might make it worse—in this case, for instance, the end result will be that a smaller proportion of customers in nail salons will be good tippers who are nice to the workers. Great.

To be fair, some writers cleverly used the “how to assuage your guilt” click bait headlines to compel people to take real action, such as calling the authorities when they discover a salon is breaking labor laws or to surreptitiously distribute materials informing workers of their rights in their native language. These are still small actions, but they are actions that might actually help a real person who actually needs help, and that’s not nothing. But most of what I saw out there was focused on how you personally can feel better about yourself. That’s not helpful to people who actually need help.

And then she says what you actually can do, which is to make this a political issue and call your politicians to demand they do something about it. Like just about everything else when it comes to workers, the way to solve these problems is to give workers power. That means actively taking power from employers. The nail salon workers are the modern version of immigrant sweatshop labor a century ago and while we’ve outsourced that work to people we can exploit far out of our sight, the need for service labor means there are still workers who we do see. We can demand the rigorous inspections of these agencies with shutdowns and heavy fines for employers who violate the law.

Of course, if you are a libertarian, your hot take on all this is that there’s no way we should do anything about these workers. After all, how can we know what they want since we are not them? Of course we could ask workers what they want but that would mean libertarians talking to real people and I mean, c’mon. Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown:

Getting more government involved when it’s not at the behest of these workers, however, is only going to lead to more hardship for those most marginalized. When state investigators find a bunch of undocumented immigrants working as unlicensed manicurists—yes, being a manicurist in New York technically requires a state permission slip—for under the minimum wage, do you think they’re going to stop with forcing employers to institute a pay hike? Do you think salon owners under more investigative scrutiny from government agents are going to be more attune to requests from their underground employees?

I don’t want to diminish the concerns of workers in these communities. But this top-down, outsider, progressive, law-and-order view concerns me. Would workers be better off with no jobs or means to support themselves? Living back in their home countries? Maybe in some cases, yes, but we don’t know because we are not them. And I tend to believe that immigrant salon workers, being as intelligent and rational as the rest of us, are capable of weighing their own interests and situations and acting accordingly.

This of course is nothing more than the same Gilded Age arguments conservatives have always loved, that workers make rational decisions and that if they didn’t think it was in the interest to work in dangerous jobs, they wouldn’t do so. Nevermind that government can actually make that work less dangerous or that the unions these people inevitably oppose can do the same or that workers don’t actually have choices if the “choice” is work or starve. For conservatives, this is all a fun theory they can sit in their comfy houses and pontificate about. They aren’t interested in actual workers and their lives.

Then there’s this:

Increased FDA oversight can’t educate nail workers about the importance of leaving the job when they’re pregnant, or help make doing so financially feasible; it can’t instill simple best practices, like wearing gloves, that could mitigate skin problems; it can’t encourage salon owners to install work on better ventilation systems. These sorts of education and outreach efforts are best undertaken by public health nonprofits and people in these communities. And they would have a much more immediate effect than the years or decades it could take to get accomplish similar feats via federal regulation.

Actually increased oversight can do those exact things. Maybe not through the FDA but through OSHA. OSHA can educate workers. OSHA can instill best practices and mandate wearing gloves. OSHA can fine employers for not installing ventilation systems. And if there’s a reason that it is hard to make federal regulation work on these issues, it’s because people like Brown and her plutocrat masters spend money opposing these regulations.

Quite the hot take there.

A Centrist Weepy

[ 62 ] May 14, 2015 |

PH2006120701299

This Robert Draper profile of a Democratic Party supposedly in turmoil because its base is demanding politicians stand up for values outside of Beltway centrism is ridiculous. Note that the only non-politician who gets any major play here is Jonathan Cowan, president of Third Way. And that’s what this whole article is–a lament that the Democrats are stepping away from Broderism. There’s little that causes more concern trolling among the Washington press corps than Democratic voters demanding that Democratic politicians stand up for liberal values, especially on economics. Certainly when the most inane journalism awards of the 2016 elections are held there are going to be worse articles than this. But it should at least get an honorable mention.

The FBI and Keystone

[ 22 ] May 14, 2015 |

Keystone-Pipeline-protest

Above: Obvious environmental extremists

It’s ridiculous that the FBI was violating agency protocol by going to rather extreme measures in monitoring those protesting the Keystone XL Pipeline. Calling the opponents “extremists” (because nothing screams extremist, near-terrorist activity like Bill McKibben…), the FBI cultivated informants and connected its monitoring of the protesters to anti-terrorism investigations. This is pretty bad. But it also suggests how law enforcement sees basically all protestors as enemies and essentially serves not as a neutral agent in society but rather as one defending power.

Idiotic Invasions Cannot Fail, They Can Only Be Failed

[ 59 ] May 14, 2015 |

Shorter Quin Hillyer: The Iraq War would have worked out great if it wasn’t for that meddling Barack Obama.

For old time’s sake, I can’t resist quoting this particular line of bullshit:

Second, he still did have traces of weapons of mass murder (WMM — a better term than WMD). And he had maintained the capability to rapidly rebuild his stocks.

Saddam didn’t actually have WMDs. But he had “traces” of them, which we can pretend means something. And we cannot in theory rule out the possibility that he could have acquired more. Let’s give them a scarier name. And what threat would these WEAPONS OF MASS MURDER have posed to American civilians? Look — it’s the new Thomas Jefferson, Ahmed Chalabi! Let’s spend trillions of dollars to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Impressionist Review of “Interstellar”

[ 59 ] May 13, 2015 |

  • Shot of a cornfield
  • Shot of dust storm
  • Secret NASA hideout located near farm. Convenient!
  • Look, it’s Michael Caine
  • Oh, Matthew McConaughey’s character used to be an astronaut. Convenient!
  • That robot is chunky and clunky
  • Anne Hathaway’s hair is short
  • Shot of Earth from space
  • Matthew McConaughey is crying attractively
  • Boring conversation
  • Matthew McConaughey is crying attractively
  • Relativity is an a-hole ‘cuz McConaughey’s daughter is now being played by Jessica Chastain
  • Holy crap, it’s a Casey Affleck sighting
  • OMG, is McConaughey crying again?
  • Shot of Earth from space
  • Oh, hey, here’s a cool fucking planet. Let’s spend 5 minutes there then get back to shots of Earth from space and corn fields
  • I’ll be damned: It’s Matt Damon
  • Corn fields, dust storms
  • Close-up of Jessica Chastain looking concerned
  • Topher Fucking Grace?
  • Something about gravity, another dimension
  • Dust
  • Oh, hey, Matthew McConaughey is in some other dimension instead of exploring a cool new planet, moving dust around and being a time-traveling ghost
  • Oh, hai, “Contact.” what are you doing here?  Why do you seem so familiar? Are you my dust-Morse-Code ghost?
  • Matthew McConaughey is crying again.

The End.

Dear Boners

[ 134 ] May 13, 2015 |

 

Dear Boners,

Hi, how are you? Sounds like you’re still upset you’re not King of Liberal. In fact, sometimes I wonder why you want to be King of Liberal since you seem to dislike so many liberals (especially feminist liberals). I can only assume it’s because you’re still sore about this that you typed literally 50 billion words to talk about how a few jerky tweets represents the entire Kingdom of Liberal. (Or Queendom, amirite?)

Listen, I get it. Liberals get circle-jerky; they get lazy. Yes, it’s true. Occasionally liberals fall back on parroted insults rather than engage an argument on its merits. (I would argue that often they do this because the argument has no merits, but whatev.) Anyway, you’ve discovered–to my shock and horror–that liberals enjoy the company of other liberals. And sometimes when they do this it gets a little echo-chambery. I get that.

Still, I don’t understand how a few less-than-impressive tweets and an unfunny list translates to “liberals are jerky slacktivists.” I would be the first person to tell you that when I tweet snarky tweets, I’m not trying to change the world. Nor am I trying to change the world when I write snarky comments on a blog. I do this to stay sane, plain and simple.

Here’s the thing: a lot of people make arguments that are in bad faith. A lot of people are trollin’ even when it sounds like they’re not. And when people take the time to give a reasoned response (that they may have already given 1000 times) to trolls and assholes, this is time stolen. Time that can’t be gotten back. So, sure, I know that sometimes when people respond with snark, they’re doing it because they’re lazy or because they’re afraid to engage on the substance of an issue. But sometimes they’re just snarking just to snark and they’re not trying to win converts when they do so.

Your complaint here seems to be that liberals are afraid to argue, at least substantively. So I’ve tried to tell you–substantively–why I think you’re full of shit. And I’ve done that even though I think–based upon  your past writings–that you’re a clueless jerk.

Love,

bspencer

Hersh Thoughts

[ 145 ] May 13, 2015 |

US One Cent Obv.pngCall me guilty of gliding past “He’s an insane crank,” and moving directly to “And we already knew all of this stuff anyway,” but I suppose my biggest beef with the now-infamous Hersh piece is the small stakes.  Hersh has a theory about a conspiracy (which is not, it bears mention, the same as a conspiracy theory) among a large number of Pakistani and US government officials to mislead their publics about a) the nature of Osama bin Laden’s relationship with Pakistani intelligence services, b) the role that those services played in his death, c) the nature of his death, and d) the disposal of his body.

C) and d) do not, to me, seem like the sort of things that government officials would take much time out of their days to lie extensively about, especially given that the lies themselves (because of the number of people who actively witnessed both incidents) would be far more risky than simply telling the truth. The number of people (and especially of American voters) who care about whether bin Laden actively resisted in Abbottabad, or how precisely his remains were disposed of, approaches zero, and quite possibly might be smaller than the number of people who witnessed either event. Government officials lie, but generally they like to have a good reason to tell risky lies, and it’s hard for me to see the reasoning here.

A) and b) are more interesting, but also a bit more narrow.  Plenty of Americans suspected that the ISI had some kind of relationship with bin Laden (whether as his jailer or protector, or both) prior to the  Abbottabad operation, and the course of the operation did nothing to dissuade this concern. The description of the “walk-in” Pakistani source isn’t exactly new, and does not, in and of itself, contradict the mainstream account of the operation. Neither revelation would be faintly embarrassing to the United States, or the Obama administration. More significant are Hersh’s revelations, if we believe them to be accurate, that the ISI worked directly to facilitate the operation, and that the US and Pakistan had planned a cover story about a drone strike in Afghanistan.

I suppose that’s something. It’s not wholly implausible, obviously, that the White House would have adopted a story in order to attempt to protect the Pakistani government from embarrassment.  It’s odd, though, that the chosen cover story looks on its face to be even more embarrassing to Pakistan, with the Pakistani security services unable to find bin Laden as he was living right under their collective nose, and unable to stop the United States from carrying out a significant raid in Pakistani territory.

And so I’m struggling with how to make sense of the story.  And that says nothing about the bigger question of how we should view a story that is sourced almost entirely on anonymous, retired members of the IC, especially when lots of non-anonymous, retired and not-retired people are willing to go on the record saying Hersh is wrong.

Government subsidies and the spiraling cost of higher ed, con’t

[ 46 ] May 13, 2015 |

treasure

I have another piece on the relationship between government subsidies for higher ed and tuition rates. When I wrote about this last month in the Times, various people complained that I didn’t emphasize sufficiently the relative decline of state appropriations for higher ed on a per capita student basis (While total state appropriations for higher ed have increased by 48% in real terms since 1980, enrollment in public higher ed has grown by 60% since then).

But, as I mentioned at the time but didn’t explore in any detail, state funding is just part — in fact it’s almost exactly half — of the picture when it comes to government subsidies of higher in America. Many people are aware of the Pell grant program, but what isn’t nearly as well known are the ways in which the federal tax code has been amended in recent years to subsidize higher ed.

According to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation’s most recent estimates of federal tax expenditures, the IRS is currently redistributing approximately $45.7 billion annually in tax revenue in ways that directly and indirectly support American higher education. (This represents a 675 percent increase in such spending since 1990.) These subsidies can come in the form of tax credits or other types of favorable tax treatment—excluding certain forms of income from taxation or creating special deductions, for example.

The policy dynamics driving these increases are fairly straightforward: Democrats generally like to subsidize public goods such as education, and Republicans typically like tax cuts. (A number of GOP politicians have also started to champion the for-profit college industry.) Tax credits and deductions for higher education enable Congress to simultaneously pursue both of these policy preferences.

The net result of all this is that per student government subsidies for higher ed are at an all-time high in real dollars, and are a good deal higher than they were in the 1980s and 1990s, when tuition at both public and private schools was drastically lower on average.

This graph represents the change in direct and indirect subsidies over time:

ChartGo-2

Here’s how that translates into per student subsidies:

ChartGo-5

Now here are the same totals when limited to direct subsidies (appropriations, grants, and tax credits):

ChartGo-3

ChartGo-4

The disturbing bottom line:

Whether measured in terms of both direct and indirect subsidies, or in terms of direct appropriations, grants, and tax credits, total per-student government support for higher education has increased. Yet this increase has failed to stop or even slow massive tuition increases at both public and private schools.

It’s important to emphasize that this torrent of increased revenue has not been going to people who perform relatively marginal tasks within the modern American university, such as for example teaching and research. Per capita salaries for university faculty are much lower now than they were in the 1970s (This fact is conveniently obscured if you don’t consider the people who do the majority of the teaching at most universities, i.e., contingent faculty, to “really” be part of the institution).

Nor is it going to the people who clean the buildings, cook the food, take care of the grounds, etc. etc. (I’m currently taking part in a union-led movement to try to do something about the disgraceful fact that there are more than 500 full-time employees at the University of Colorado-Boulder who are paid less than $15 an hour — more on this soon).

I appreciate that government subsidies for higher ed constitute a tricky issue for progressives. Certainly, appropriately broad access to reasonably-priced higher educational options needs to be high up on any progressive agenda. But what we have now is something quite different: an invidious synergy between administrative rent-seeking in the guise of expanding educational opportunity, and the political process’s affection for transferring tax revenue to the upper classes (tax credits for tuition payments are a perfect example of the latter).

Reforming America’s higher ed system needs to be based on the understanding that shoveling ever-larger amounts of money into the hands of the contemporary administrative class for them to redistribute as they see fit is at best an incredibly inefficient way to promote genuine educational opportunity. More realistically, the current system promotes the interests of those at the top of the higher educational hierarchy, at the expense of the vastly larger number of people in less privileged positions within these institutions.

Raptor Raptor Everywhere!

[ 17 ] May 13, 2015 |
Aerial port view of two aircraft in flight, one on top of the other. The bottom aircraft is a four-engined propeller-driven aircraft, which is escorted by a jet fighter.

“Raptor and TU-95″ by U.S. Air Force photo – http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/071122-f-1234X-001.jpg. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

What if the US hadn’t refused to export the F-22?

In 1997, the United States government determined that the Raptor, America’s most advanced air superiority fighter, could not be exported to any foreign government, even those of close allies. The unstated reason for this ban was suspicion that Israel would, if it gained access to the F-22, transfer technology associated with the aircraft to Russia or China. The United States cannot, as a political matter of course, single out Israel for a ban on the sale of advanced technology, and so the F-22 export ban covered all potential buyers.

On the upside, this left the United States as the sole operator of what is probably the world’s most effective air superiority aircraft. On the downside, it forced U.S. allies (not to mention Lockheed Martin) to rely heavily on the success of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as well as legacy platforms.

Page 50 of 2,070« First...102030...4849505152...607080...Last »