This is one brave Democratic Congresswoman indeed!
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Thursday, January 19, 2017
The Trump Doctrine: Turning the Clock Back to 1991
For those trying to make sense of Trump's controversial interview with The Times of London and the German newspaper Das Bild, it is important to combine his ideas about nationalism, mass immigration, Islam, and Russia.
In that interview, Trump spoke candidly about the European Union and its current troubles.
The way the EU has developed, when a country joins the Union, that nation gives up a significant amount of its national sovereignty, including the right to establish and police its own borders. Instead, the various bureaucracies of the EU makes those decisions. That is the essential problem, as Trump views these things. The 'natives' of the various European states are getting restless, as they see the power to make their own decisions about their own countries depleted and turned over Brussels bureaucrats. This is especially true when it comes to mass immigration.
The rest of the EU is creaking and groaning toward the future. The Euroskeptical nationalist (so-called 'far-right') parties of the various EU countries are gaining in popularity and political power, again mostly because of their loss of power to determine such crucial issues as immigration and counter-terrorism. Right or wrong, it seems clear that Trump is not opposed to a fragmenting of the European Union.
Trump is also opposed to mass, uncontrolled immigration, whether it's from Mexico and Central America into the US, or from the Muslim nations of the Middle East and North Africa into Europe. Such immigration threatens the historical and national identity of the Western countries and given the importance of nationalism to his worldview, it's no wonder that he opposes it. And when you add in the threat of Islamic jihadist terrorism, well, what more needs to be said?
But it's not just the EU, it's also the NATO alliance. Trump has been openly critical of NATO, which has led to much gnashing of teeth both in Europe and in the American political Establishment.
One of the least discussed realities of the last 20 years is how the US (and its European allies) pushed the NATO military alliance toward the new borders of Russia, in the process antagonizing the Russian leaders and causing them to become both defensive and increasingly hostile toward the West. Trump has tried to reverse this process, though in the process infuriating the Western foreign policy Establishment.
Bottom-line, Trump's views are almost diametrically opposed to the foreign policy Establishment of both Republican and Democratic parties. He has honestly earned their enmity.
It strikes me that if Trump could turn back the clock to around 1991--when we were still friends with Russia, before NAFTA, before the Iraq Invasion, etc.--and start over again, he would. And perhaps that's exactly what he's trying to do. He probably won't succeed, but hang on, because,one, he's starting to shake things up, and two, it doesn't pay to be too skeptical of the Donald.
The president-elect is much less sanguine about the future of the EU itself. A combination of economic woes and the migrant crisis will, he believes, lead to other countries leaving. “People, countries, want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity. But, I do believe this, if they hadn’t been forced to take in all of the refugees, so many, with all the problems that it . . . entails, I think that you wouldn’t have a Brexit. This was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. . . I believe others will leave. I do think keeping it together is not gonna be as easy as a lot of people think. And I think this, if refugees keep pouring into different parts of Europe . . . I think it’s gonna be very hard to keep it together because people are angry about it.”Trump is clearly a Euroskeptic; in other words, he sees the project of the European Union--created for the purpose of forging a superstate not unlike the United States out of the many disparate nations of Western, Central, and Eastern Europe--as problematic.
The way the EU has developed, when a country joins the Union, that nation gives up a significant amount of its national sovereignty, including the right to establish and police its own borders. Instead, the various bureaucracies of the EU makes those decisions. That is the essential problem, as Trump views these things. The 'natives' of the various European states are getting restless, as they see the power to make their own decisions about their own countries depleted and turned over Brussels bureaucrats. This is especially true when it comes to mass immigration.
While he expresses admiration for Angela Merkel, Mr Trump believes that she made 'one catastrophic mistake' by welcoming an unlimited number of Syrian refugees. More than one million migrants from north Africa and the Middle East arrived between 2015 and 2016. He adds that he believes the West should have built safe zones in Syria — paid for by the Gulf — to limit the surge. 'I think she made one very catastrophic mistake and that was taking all of these illegals, you know taking all of the people from wherever they come from. And nobody even knows where they come from.'
There is no rancour or glee in his prediction of the break-up of the EU, quite the opposite. His demeanour is warm and genial, the flame-throwing rhetoric of his rallies and press conferences replaced with showers of compliments. He describes Jean-Claude Juncker as a very fine gentleman, and says that he has great respect for Mrs Merkel.
His pessimism about the EU is rooted in his view of it as anti-jobs and anti-growth. And it springs, as so much of his world view does, from his experience as a businessman rather than any ideological preconception.
Mr Trump’s view is that Europe is dominated by Germany, and Britain was wise to extract itself: 'You look at the European Union and it’s Germany. Basically a vehicle for Germany. That’s why I thought the UK was so smart in getting out.'President Obama was opposed to the Brexit vote, Trump was in favor of it. The UK, to everyone's surprise, voted in favor of getting out of the EU. Trump's position was vindicated by the British public, and so it should be no big surprise to anyone that he is now talking about working closely with the current UK leadership to forge a new and closer alliance.
The rest of the EU is creaking and groaning toward the future. The Euroskeptical nationalist (so-called 'far-right') parties of the various EU countries are gaining in popularity and political power, again mostly because of their loss of power to determine such crucial issues as immigration and counter-terrorism. Right or wrong, it seems clear that Trump is not opposed to a fragmenting of the European Union.
Trump is also opposed to mass, uncontrolled immigration, whether it's from Mexico and Central America into the US, or from the Muslim nations of the Middle East and North Africa into Europe. Such immigration threatens the historical and national identity of the Western countries and given the importance of nationalism to his worldview, it's no wonder that he opposes it. And when you add in the threat of Islamic jihadist terrorism, well, what more needs to be said?
But it's not just the EU, it's also the NATO alliance. Trump has been openly critical of NATO, which has led to much gnashing of teeth both in Europe and in the American political Establishment.
Mr Trump’s hostility to the EU has been matched by his scepticism towards another pillar of the postwar order, Nato. But the president-elect was at pains to emphasise that he is committed to the defence of Europe and the West. His concerns are, principally, that Nato had not reformed to meet the main threat that we face — Islamist terrorism — and its members had relied too heavily on America. “I said a long time ago that Nato had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago. Number two the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay. I took such heat, when I said Nato was obsolete. It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying Trump is right.Add to all this Trump's view on Russia and you have the makings of a sea change in American foreign policy (and I haven't even brought up China!). One of Trump's long-standing views is that we need to try and normalize our relations with post-Communist Russia, given the fact that they have left their Marxist-Leninist ideology behind and restored their old Russian identity, which is (potentially) much less hostile to the US, Europe, and the world.
“And the other thing is the countries aren’t paying their fair share so we’re supposed to protect countries. But a lot of these countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying, which I think is very unfair to the United States. With that being said, Nato is very important to me. There’s five countries that are paying what they’re supposed to. Five. It’s not much.”
One of the least discussed realities of the last 20 years is how the US (and its European allies) pushed the NATO military alliance toward the new borders of Russia, in the process antagonizing the Russian leaders and causing them to become both defensive and increasingly hostile toward the West. Trump has tried to reverse this process, though in the process infuriating the Western foreign policy Establishment.
Bottom-line, Trump's views are almost diametrically opposed to the foreign policy Establishment of both Republican and Democratic parties. He has honestly earned their enmity.
It strikes me that if Trump could turn back the clock to around 1991--when we were still friends with Russia, before NAFTA, before the Iraq Invasion, etc.--and start over again, he would. And perhaps that's exactly what he's trying to do. He probably won't succeed, but hang on, because,one, he's starting to shake things up, and two, it doesn't pay to be too skeptical of the Donald.
Monday, January 9, 2017
On The Wikileaks Emails
With regard to the Wikileaks emails and the alleged Russian hacking of the election, here are some of my thoughts.
First, I always assume that all the world's major powers are conducting espionage and 'cyber-warfare' against each other all the time, to the best of their ability and in their own self-determined national interest. That's just the nature of international politics. First and foremost among those powers is the United States, China, and Russia. But they are joined by many others, including the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, Iran, and so on.
Second, I'm not sure why it should be so surprising to anyone that Russia may have an interest in 'interfering' in our election. We have certainly not hesitated to 'interfere' in their political system since the end of WWII, and that continued in a even more enhanced way after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s.
The best accounting of this US involvement in Russian politics that I've read is by Stephen Cohen, long-time professor of Russian History at, first, Princeton and now at NYU, both in his numerous articles for The Nation magazine and in his books, esp. 'Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia'. What he shows is how extensive (and counterproductive!) our 'democracy-promotion' efforts in Russia have been in the last 25 years, actually causing the majority of Russians to move from a pro-US position to an anti-US one over the decade of the 90s and into the new century. Add to this the efforts of the US to push the NATO military alliance to the borders of Russia, and you have all the ingredients necessary for a new and very dangerous Cold War, which is what Cohen says is going on now.
Furthermore, we conduct espionage and influence campaigns on our own allies, for God's sake. In Germany in 2013, the US was caught wiretapping the phone calls of Chancellor Angela Merkel. Israel does it to us all the time, and I assume we do it to them. And Russia and China do it to all of the above. It's just the way the real world works.
My sense of this recent post-election contretemps is that no one 'in the know' is really shocked about all this, except for some gullible Americans. And that of course is the whole point, isn't it? Keep the outrage and resentment about the recent election churning.
Third, why should the recent pronouncement of Messrs. Comey, Brennan, Rogers, and Clapper be considered as if it were objective, non-partisan, and, well, infallible? If I remembered correctly, the Clintons were as recently as a few weeks ago blaming FBI Director James Comey for Hillary's loss. I guess they don't figure that he is so infallible. And wasn't DNI Director James Clapper being considered for perjury charges for having lied to Congress about NSA bulk data collection from Americans just a few years ago? And isn't the CIA widely considered to be the private army of the President, with its director being under the direct control of the President and no one else? Why would anyone necessarily think that CIA Director Brennan is totally and completely impartial when it comes to this very partisan issue? I don't.
I for one will be very interested to see how the assessment of all this changes when Trump's people take over. If they have a different take, then I guess it shows that the leaders of the Intelligence Community can't always be taken as totally objective, infallible, and non-partisan. Which is what I happen to think now.
Fourth, for what it's worth (and I'm not sure how much it is), Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, has said that it was not the Russians who gave Wikileaks the Podesta emails. And again, for what it's worth, it doesn't look to me like it would be all that difficult to have hacked Podesta's emails....or Clinton's for that matter, given she had her private server in her bathroom at home. With such nonchalance and indifference to cyber security, why give the Russians any credit at all for having 'hacked' these emails? It probably could have been any reasonably talented teen computer nerd of any nationality.
And finally, the Wikileaks emails, wherever they came from, were not the reason Hillary lost this election. There were any number of reasons more important, starting with the fact that Hillary was just a really lousy and unpopular candidate.
In any case, the Wikileak emails, none of which by the way have been refuted or denied, just added a little pizzazz to the excruciating spectacle of the 2016 Presidential Election. Indeed, far from being misinformation of any kind, the Wikileak emails were just a tiny, transparent window onto the actual operations of the Democratic party and the Clinton Campaign. And it wasn't very pretty at all. But who ever said democracy was pretty and neat, instead of ugly and messy?
First, I always assume that all the world's major powers are conducting espionage and 'cyber-warfare' against each other all the time, to the best of their ability and in their own self-determined national interest. That's just the nature of international politics. First and foremost among those powers is the United States, China, and Russia. But they are joined by many others, including the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, Iran, and so on.
The best accounting of this US involvement in Russian politics that I've read is by Stephen Cohen, long-time professor of Russian History at, first, Princeton and now at NYU, both in his numerous articles for The Nation magazine and in his books, esp. 'Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia'. What he shows is how extensive (and counterproductive!) our 'democracy-promotion' efforts in Russia have been in the last 25 years, actually causing the majority of Russians to move from a pro-US position to an anti-US one over the decade of the 90s and into the new century. Add to this the efforts of the US to push the NATO military alliance to the borders of Russia, and you have all the ingredients necessary for a new and very dangerous Cold War, which is what Cohen says is going on now.
Furthermore, we conduct espionage and influence campaigns on our own allies, for God's sake. In Germany in 2013, the US was caught wiretapping the phone calls of Chancellor Angela Merkel. Israel does it to us all the time, and I assume we do it to them. And Russia and China do it to all of the above. It's just the way the real world works.
My sense of this recent post-election contretemps is that no one 'in the know' is really shocked about all this, except for some gullible Americans. And that of course is the whole point, isn't it? Keep the outrage and resentment about the recent election churning.
Third, why should the recent pronouncement of Messrs. Comey, Brennan, Rogers, and Clapper be considered as if it were objective, non-partisan, and, well, infallible? If I remembered correctly, the Clintons were as recently as a few weeks ago blaming FBI Director James Comey for Hillary's loss. I guess they don't figure that he is so infallible. And wasn't DNI Director James Clapper being considered for perjury charges for having lied to Congress about NSA bulk data collection from Americans just a few years ago? And isn't the CIA widely considered to be the private army of the President, with its director being under the direct control of the President and no one else? Why would anyone necessarily think that CIA Director Brennan is totally and completely impartial when it comes to this very partisan issue? I don't.
I for one will be very interested to see how the assessment of all this changes when Trump's people take over. If they have a different take, then I guess it shows that the leaders of the Intelligence Community can't always be taken as totally objective, infallible, and non-partisan. Which is what I happen to think now.
Fourth, for what it's worth (and I'm not sure how much it is), Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, has said that it was not the Russians who gave Wikileaks the Podesta emails. And again, for what it's worth, it doesn't look to me like it would be all that difficult to have hacked Podesta's emails....or Clinton's for that matter, given she had her private server in her bathroom at home. With such nonchalance and indifference to cyber security, why give the Russians any credit at all for having 'hacked' these emails? It probably could have been any reasonably talented teen computer nerd of any nationality.
And finally, the Wikileaks emails, wherever they came from, were not the reason Hillary lost this election. There were any number of reasons more important, starting with the fact that Hillary was just a really lousy and unpopular candidate.
In any case, the Wikileak emails, none of which by the way have been refuted or denied, just added a little pizzazz to the excruciating spectacle of the 2016 Presidential Election. Indeed, far from being misinformation of any kind, the Wikileak emails were just a tiny, transparent window onto the actual operations of the Democratic party and the Clinton Campaign. And it wasn't very pretty at all. But who ever said democracy was pretty and neat, instead of ugly and messy?
Monday, December 19, 2016
A Report Card on the Trump Transition Five Weeks After the Election
Now that Donald Trump has received the necessary Electoral College votes to become President, it may be appropriate to hand out a report card on his first 5 weeks of transition.
I voted for Trump, as I wrote here the day before the election, much to the consternation of many of my family and friends. But I did it because I believed that Trump was not the crazy, mindless demogogue and bigot that the Clinton campaign and much of the media portrayed him to be. And because there were quite a few issues that he was addressing (or might address) that I thought to be very important to our future, important enough to sustain the 'slings and arrows' of outrage from my family. Obviously, I could be wrong about Trump, so I've watched with considerable interest and (at least some) anxiety.
So how are things turning out, now that we've watched Trump begin his transition to the Presidency?
The first thing to consider is his pick for the White House chief of staff position. Trump had already picked the well-thought-of Mike Pence as his VP, a widely applauded choice in terms of his political experience, intelligence, and overall conservative philosophy. Now, he selected the head of the RNC, Reince Priebus, who knows everybody in the Republican Party, to be his primary assistant in the Oval Office. A wise way to start the transition, without a doubt, because this gives you two experienced and conservative Republican professionals right next to him all the time. For this he gets from me a grade of A+.
The second thing to consider is Trump's choice for Secretary of Defense, certainly one of the most important of the Cabinet positions. In a very (and unusually) public process conducted in Trump Tower in NYC, Trump finally settled on retired Marine General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis. This selection has been praised across the board as excellent. Another A+.
Trump's choice for CIA Director is congressman Mike Pompeo, and it is (like the others) a widely praised selection. Homeland Security will be led by universally admired General John Kelly. His UN Ambassador nominee will be Nicky Haley, the very capable governor of South Carolina and the daughter of Sikh immigrants from India. All of which earns Trump an A+.
One of the most important Cabinet positions is, of course, Secretary of State, and for that Trump has picked Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson. This choice has been a bit more controversial, primarily because of the recent sensitivities over our relationship with Russia, and Tillerson has a long-standing relationship with Putin because of the Russian oil industry. However, assuming the second-in-charge under Tillerson is an knowledgeable and experienced State Department pro, then I think Tillerson is an excellent choice, given his extensive knowledge of the world and the world's leaders, and especially in terms of working out a more cooperative and less dangerous relationship with Russia. I give Tillerson an A+.
I like Jeff Sessions at the Attorney General position, and give him an A+. This will be controversial because of a statement of his that will be dredged of from 40 years ago, but he should be approved because of his long Senate service and because of his past experience.
When it comes to all the domestic Cabinet positions, they appear to me to be conservative choices who will be in synch with the Republican-controlled Senate and House. I don't necessarily agree with all their positions, but they seem to be capable people who will definitely bring change to Washington. And that is probably a good thing, although continued discussion of many of the relevant issues is also a good thing. I give Trump's domestic picks for the Cabinet a B.
Oddly enough, Trump has managed to sideline three of his earliest and most devoted supporters: Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich. All three could have done a good job in certain positions, but for different reasons, either were not chosen or themselves chose not to serve. Probably just as well.
Donald Trump decided to do a 'thank you' tour of the country, especially the states that he needed to win. It has had the effect of keeping his base on board, while the MSM, along with the Democrats and the Left in general, continue to hammer him. It also seems to energize him and give him a break from the tedium of the transition. Probably a good idea. B.
The one thing I wish (along with most people, according to polls) that Trump would stop is his tweeting. It is undignified, dangerous, and unnecessary. For that, and that alone, I give him an F.
All in all, I am pleased (and relieved) with the way the Trump Transition is going (except for the tweets). I haven't yet mentioned his (to all appearances) good relationship with President Obama.
Contrast all this with the disarray in the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, their contesting of the election through protests and sundry statements, their refusal to take responsibility for their loss, and their pushing of scapegoats. Compared to all this, the Trump Transition looks like a well-oiled machine! This is indeed an auspicious sign for the future.
I voted for Trump, as I wrote here the day before the election, much to the consternation of many of my family and friends. But I did it because I believed that Trump was not the crazy, mindless demogogue and bigot that the Clinton campaign and much of the media portrayed him to be. And because there were quite a few issues that he was addressing (or might address) that I thought to be very important to our future, important enough to sustain the 'slings and arrows' of outrage from my family. Obviously, I could be wrong about Trump, so I've watched with considerable interest and (at least some) anxiety.
So how are things turning out, now that we've watched Trump begin his transition to the Presidency?
The first thing to consider is his pick for the White House chief of staff position. Trump had already picked the well-thought-of Mike Pence as his VP, a widely applauded choice in terms of his political experience, intelligence, and overall conservative philosophy. Now, he selected the head of the RNC, Reince Priebus, who knows everybody in the Republican Party, to be his primary assistant in the Oval Office. A wise way to start the transition, without a doubt, because this gives you two experienced and conservative Republican professionals right next to him all the time. For this he gets from me a grade of A+.
The second thing to consider is Trump's choice for Secretary of Defense, certainly one of the most important of the Cabinet positions. In a very (and unusually) public process conducted in Trump Tower in NYC, Trump finally settled on retired Marine General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis. This selection has been praised across the board as excellent. Another A+.
One of the most important Cabinet positions is, of course, Secretary of State, and for that Trump has picked Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson. This choice has been a bit more controversial, primarily because of the recent sensitivities over our relationship with Russia, and Tillerson has a long-standing relationship with Putin because of the Russian oil industry. However, assuming the second-in-charge under Tillerson is an knowledgeable and experienced State Department pro, then I think Tillerson is an excellent choice, given his extensive knowledge of the world and the world's leaders, and especially in terms of working out a more cooperative and less dangerous relationship with Russia. I give Tillerson an A+.
I like Jeff Sessions at the Attorney General position, and give him an A+. This will be controversial because of a statement of his that will be dredged of from 40 years ago, but he should be approved because of his long Senate service and because of his past experience.
When it comes to all the domestic Cabinet positions, they appear to me to be conservative choices who will be in synch with the Republican-controlled Senate and House. I don't necessarily agree with all their positions, but they seem to be capable people who will definitely bring change to Washington. And that is probably a good thing, although continued discussion of many of the relevant issues is also a good thing. I give Trump's domestic picks for the Cabinet a B.
Oddly enough, Trump has managed to sideline three of his earliest and most devoted supporters: Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich. All three could have done a good job in certain positions, but for different reasons, either were not chosen or themselves chose not to serve. Probably just as well.
Donald Trump decided to do a 'thank you' tour of the country, especially the states that he needed to win. It has had the effect of keeping his base on board, while the MSM, along with the Democrats and the Left in general, continue to hammer him. It also seems to energize him and give him a break from the tedium of the transition. Probably a good idea. B.
The one thing I wish (along with most people, according to polls) that Trump would stop is his tweeting. It is undignified, dangerous, and unnecessary. For that, and that alone, I give him an F.
All in all, I am pleased (and relieved) with the way the Trump Transition is going (except for the tweets). I haven't yet mentioned his (to all appearances) good relationship with President Obama.
Contrast all this with the disarray in the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party, their contesting of the election through protests and sundry statements, their refusal to take responsibility for their loss, and their pushing of scapegoats. Compared to all this, the Trump Transition looks like a well-oiled machine! This is indeed an auspicious sign for the future.
Just Remember this, Mr. Potter
As for the election whiners in Hollywood, trying to change the outcome of the Electoral College with their obnoxious televised appeals, this writer from the American Thinker blog responds superbly....
Imagine a guy who “play acted” as a wartime doctor during the Korean War (when he was actually filming in Malibu Creek State Park in sunny southern California) telling some blind veteran who’s in a wheelchair, missing several limbs because of an IED, that the vote that he and so many have fought and died for shouldn’t count.
Or how about the “celebrity” who “play acts” as a cop from the safety of a sound stage, telling the surviving wife and kids of a “real life” hero patrolman, executed solely for wearing a badge, that their votes shouldn’t count.
Well, these real life “play actors” who get paid outrageous amounts for pretending to have skills they don’t, have appeared in a PSA calling themselves “Unite for America” -- really. The PSA should actually be called “Sore Losers”.
With the sound turned off, it looks like a Medicaid ad, but turned up, it is a bunch of whiney liberal “play actors” urging the members of the Electoral College to ignore the law, centuries of fair play and tradition, and do what they say, because Hollywood actors know what’s best for us rabble.
What qualifies these people who have personal assistants, makeup artists, stand-ins, stunt men, plush motor homes, and their specific brand of chilled sparkling water and treats to even think for a second that they are qualified to comment on “real life” issues much less subvert a long standing election process?
Apparently when you “play act” as a ruthless bad guy who goes around shooting as many people on film as you can qualifies you in “real life” to push gun control on the millions of responsible citizens that don’t commit gun crimes.
Perhaps an actress worth countless millions who tells “real life” working moms how tough it is being a “working” “play actress”, having to leave for weeks at a time to make millions qualifies them?
Does working in an industry rife with addicts, alcoholics, and perverts qualify them?
Liberal Hollywood actors are entirely out of touch with reality; overpaid, pampered, egotistical, out of step with regular hard working Americans, yet they somehow feel qualified to act as a force majeure and have the Electoral College consider disregarding their word of honor.
Those of us who go to work every day to take care of our families, often working two or three jobs to pay the bills, buy food and hopefully have enough left over for gas and some extras, have spoken, and after eight years of these spoiled brats getting their way, we are sick and tired of their temper tantrums.
We’re in the trenches, doing it every day, year after year, while whiney “play actors” receive thousands of dollars an hour, yet many Americans would be happy to earn $12.00 an hour.
Don’t get me wrong, Hollywood has produced some great actors, one of the top being Jimmy Stewart. In It’s a Wonderful Life he tells Mr. Potter; “Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community”.
We’re not rabble, you’re just lousy losers.
The Whiniest Democrats Ever
Watching the Democrats (and their allies in the media, academia and, especially, Hollywood) thrash around in pain and suffering after their loss in November's election is a sight to behold. I have never in my life seen such poor, pathetic sore losers. And to think that before the election, they and their media friends were so skeptical of Trump's willingness to accept the election results.
It's FBI Director Comey's fault! It's Anthony Weiner's fault! It's those Fake News sites' fault! It's White Supremicist Steve Bannon's fault! It's those young Clinton staffers' fault! It's Michigan's voting machines fault! It's Bill Clinton's fault (for being too charismatic)! It's Vladimir Putin's fault! It's the Constitution's fault (for setting up the Electoral College)! Blah blah blah....
Come on, Democrats. Stop your childish whining! No one, outside your tight circle, wants to hear it. It only makes us think less of you than we already do, if that's possible.
If one wants to 'blame' anyone, obviously that has to rest on the shoulders of one person alone. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Let the buck stop right there with one of the weakest (or unluckiest, or both) candidates ever to run for President.
Here's a word of advice for Democrats. Stop trying to blame anyone and look inside your own hearts. As a national party, you are really in bad shape right now. But this is a good opportunity to get your house in order.
But that won't happen if you just keep acting like spoiled brats.
But that won't happen if you just keep acting like spoiled brats.
Monday, December 12, 2016
Rex Tillerson on Life and Work
An interesting video on Rex Tillerson, Trump's possible Secretary of State, in which he presents a lot of information about his background. Filmed within the last year or two, I think. At about the 37 minute point, he addresses his relationship with Putin and Russia. At about the 50-51 minute mark, he talks about climate change.
Robert Kagan and the Fury among Neoconservative Hawks
If you want to read one of the truly hysterical reactions to the election of Donald Trump, read this op-ed in the Washington Post by Robert Kagan.
To be this viciously opposed by such a war-monger as Kagan is really a great compliment, actually. It must mean that you are a peace-maker as heart. So take heart, DJT! To be called a fascist or Hitler or tyrant or Napoleon by Robert Kagan, is really a great compliment.
As Oscar Wilde once put it, "you can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies."
This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who single-handedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.This man has clearly gone off the deep end. Perhaps the leading neo-conservative foreign policy guru in the United States, Kagan shifts back and forth between the Republican and Democratic Party, depending upon which of their candidates is the most hawkish, especially toward Russia. In 2008, he supported 'bomb-bomb-bomb' John McCain, and in the 2016, he deserted the Republican Party to become a Democratic supporter of Hillary Clinton, the woman who said about Qaddafi, 'we came, we saw, he died'.
To understand how such movements take over a democracy, one only has to watch the Republican Party today. These movements play on all the fears, vanities, ambitions and insecurities that make up the human psyche. In democracies, at least for politicians, the only thing that matters is what the voters say they want — vox populi vox Dei. A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses. If someone criticizes or opposes the leader, it doesn’t matter how popular or admired that person has been. He might be a famous war hero, but if the leader derides and ridicules his heroism, the followers laugh and jeer. He might be the highest-ranking elected guardian of the party’s most cherished principles. But if he hesitates to support the leader, he faces political death.
As Oscar Wilde once put it, "you can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies."
Rex Tillerson and Normalizing US-Russia Relations
Let me start this post by stating the obvious. The United States spies (hacks?) on every important nation around the world, whether it is friend or foe. Proof? How soon we forget:
Now, can you even begin to imagine the spying and other shenanigans that our intelligence community engages in against adversaries like Russia and China (including in their elections)? I'm sure it would boggle the mind of any normal person.
So, do you really think that anyone in the know in Washington is the least bit surprised that Russia may be spying on us in return? Isn't that simply what Great Power opponents do? That's not to excuse it, of course, but simply to explain it and to say that there's little reason to get all up in arms about it.
As Jesus said once, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."
In any case, all the hubbub about Russia is not really about their recent spying, such as it may be. It is simply one more example of a bigger problem in the Washington foreign policy establishment: an obsession with Russia and its current leader, Vladimir Putin, as if the Cold War had never ended and the Soviet Union had never collapsed.
Frankly, none of this would be under discussion if Trump had not won. If Hillary Clinton had won, or if any other Republican had won, everyone would be fine and Russia would not be under discussion. Why? Because the ongoing demonization of Putin and Russia would have been vindicated by the election, and the bizarre effort to bring us back to a Cold War standing would be ongoing. It wouldn't need to be discussed in public, because it would be full-speed ahead in private and sub rosa.
The only reason this is now being raised in the MSM is because Donald Trump is threatening to carry out his election promise to begin normalizing our relationship with Russia. And the first major sign of this is his apparent intention to nominate Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon, as his Secretary of State.
I should reiterate that one of the very first things that attracted me to Trump many months ago was his interest in normalizing our relations with Russia. As I put it in my post explaining my vote:
On Morning Joe this morning (perhaps the best source of real news--instead of 'fake news'), the panel seemed to believe that Tillerson would be able to survive a tough Senate grilling from the Republican neo-cons (especially McCain and Graham) because of strong support from Republican 'realists' like James Baker, Condie Rice, and Robert Gates (all Bush people). It helps of course that Tillerson is an oil man from Texas!
I am greatly encouraged by all this. If all Trump manages to do is to reduce tensions with Russia and get us back on track to a normal Great Power relationship, he will done us all a great favor.
The US National Security Agency tapped phone calls involving German chancellor Angela Merkel and her closest advisers for years and spied on the staff of her predecessors, according to WikiLeaks.That was just a little over a year ago, and with one of our closest allies.
A report released by the group on Wednesday suggested NSA spying on Merkel and her staff had gone on far longer and more widely than previously realised. WikiLeaks said the NSA targeted 125 phone numbers of top German officials for long-term surveillance .
The release risks renewing tensions between Germany and the US a month after they sought to put a row over spying behind them, with Barack Obama declaring in Bavaria that the two nations were “inseparable allies”.
Now, can you even begin to imagine the spying and other shenanigans that our intelligence community engages in against adversaries like Russia and China (including in their elections)? I'm sure it would boggle the mind of any normal person.
So, do you really think that anyone in the know in Washington is the least bit surprised that Russia may be spying on us in return? Isn't that simply what Great Power opponents do? That's not to excuse it, of course, but simply to explain it and to say that there's little reason to get all up in arms about it.
As Jesus said once, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."
In any case, all the hubbub about Russia is not really about their recent spying, such as it may be. It is simply one more example of a bigger problem in the Washington foreign policy establishment: an obsession with Russia and its current leader, Vladimir Putin, as if the Cold War had never ended and the Soviet Union had never collapsed.
Frankly, none of this would be under discussion if Trump had not won. If Hillary Clinton had won, or if any other Republican had won, everyone would be fine and Russia would not be under discussion. Why? Because the ongoing demonization of Putin and Russia would have been vindicated by the election, and the bizarre effort to bring us back to a Cold War standing would be ongoing. It wouldn't need to be discussed in public, because it would be full-speed ahead in private and sub rosa.
The only reason this is now being raised in the MSM is because Donald Trump is threatening to carry out his election promise to begin normalizing our relationship with Russia. And the first major sign of this is his apparent intention to nominate Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon, as his Secretary of State.
I should reiterate that one of the very first things that attracted me to Trump many months ago was his interest in normalizing our relations with Russia. As I put it in my post explaining my vote:
The second thing that caught my attention were his statements on Russia. DJT was the only candidate of all seventeen Republicans who didn't try to demonize Russia or paint them as our primary enemy in the world. Instead, he talked respectfully about Russia and their current leader, Vladimir Putin, and emphasized the importance and possibility of working with them as two great world powers, instead of going back to old, now antiquated Cold War stereotypes.I am gratified that my instincts about Trump and his interest in a kind of 'detente' with Russia were correct, and that he is actively moving on that front. The Tillerson nomination has not yet been formally announced, but if it is, I think he will be a fine choice.
I have in recent years felt like a real outlier in my views on Russia. While the MSM and the political establishment have basically taken to viewing Russia as if nothing has changed from the old days of the Communist-era Soviet Union, and in the process painting Putin as essentially an expansionist tyrant, I see Putin as a talented Russian leader who has brought his great country back from the brink of social, political, and economic anarchy and chaos. And he has done it while rejecting Communism, encouraging the growth of Christianity in Russia after decades of persecution, establishing the basic rule of law, and reaching out to the countries of the world to establish a variety of normal international relationships.
My research on Russia goes back to around the 2012 Sochi Olympics. It was clear that the US was going to effectively boycott those Olympics for all intents and purposes, which led me to do a lot of reading about the issues related to Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union and the evolving relationship between the US and Russia. I found myself taking the contrarian view expressed in the preceding paragraph and opposed to this ongoing effort by many in the US Establishment to isolate and demonize both Russia and Putin.
So how is it that Trump shares this contrarian position on Russia? No one seems to be able to explain it, yet I think it tracks better with the reality in Russia and around the world than other views. We don't need to return to a Cold War-style relationship with Russia, and in the process risk a nuclear confrontation. That is truly foolhardy and dangerous.
On Morning Joe this morning (perhaps the best source of real news--instead of 'fake news'), the panel seemed to believe that Tillerson would be able to survive a tough Senate grilling from the Republican neo-cons (especially McCain and Graham) because of strong support from Republican 'realists' like James Baker, Condie Rice, and Robert Gates (all Bush people). It helps of course that Tillerson is an oil man from Texas!
I am greatly encouraged by all this. If all Trump manages to do is to reduce tensions with Russia and get us back on track to a normal Great Power relationship, he will done us all a great favor.
The Russian Hacking BS
So Trump won the election because of Russian hacking? That's such sore loser bullshit, albeit a very predictable attempt (along with all the 'fakenews' hysteria going on in liberal circles) to, one, avoid seeing the plain truth and, two, try to delegitimize if not overturn Trump's victory.
I mean, who even remembers any of the Wikileaks emails that supposedly Russia supplied to them? The only one I remember is John Podesta supposedly going to some 'spirit dinner' or something strange like that. Totally forgettable.
This Russian nonsense is being peddled by the same Russian demonizers--the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, John McCain and the other rabid neo-cons--who have been doing the same thing for years now, seemingly trying to ramp up the Cold War all over again.
The email scandal that actually might have helped Clinton lose was of her own doing, namely her own private email server, the FBI investigation into it, and Jim Comey's public communication about it. THAT was damaging, without a doubt, and frankly, Hillary's own damn fault. I fully expect much more information to come out about that in the near future, that will be even more damaging to her long-term reputation.
Perhaps it takes a Canadian to spell out the very plain reasons why Trump won (political scientist Clifford Owen at the University of Toronto, writing in the Globe and Mail):
I mean, who even remembers any of the Wikileaks emails that supposedly Russia supplied to them? The only one I remember is John Podesta supposedly going to some 'spirit dinner' or something strange like that. Totally forgettable.
This Russian nonsense is being peddled by the same Russian demonizers--the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, John McCain and the other rabid neo-cons--who have been doing the same thing for years now, seemingly trying to ramp up the Cold War all over again.
The email scandal that actually might have helped Clinton lose was of her own doing, namely her own private email server, the FBI investigation into it, and Jim Comey's public communication about it. THAT was damaging, without a doubt, and frankly, Hillary's own damn fault. I fully expect much more information to come out about that in the near future, that will be even more damaging to her long-term reputation.
Donald Trump’s victory was surprising and, to those of us who failed to predict it, downright abnormal. Yet sift through the still smouldering data and you’ll find an election that was in many respects quite normal.
According to the exit polls, 88 per cent of avowed Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton and 89 per cent of avowed Republicans for Mr. Trump. Those leading Republicans who had repudiated Mr. Trump ended up with elephant egg on their faces. It’s a two-party and highly partisan country. (Mr. Trump triumphed among independents, 46 per cent to 42 per cent.)
There was not, overall, any popular upsurge for Mr. Trump. He received about as many votes as Mitt Romney in 2012. Mr. Trump’s votes were just better distributed. He lost Romney voters he could afford to lose (in no-hope states like California and New York, for example). He won Obama voters that Ms. Clinton couldn’t afford to lose, in the “Blue Wall” states of the industrial Midwest, in Iowa and in North Carolina. The surge of white working-class support for Mr. Trump, in urban and rural areas alike, was indeed crucial to his victory.
Was this then the decisive factor in the election? Well, not exactly. It was necessary for a Trump win, but not sufficient. He still had to do better with black and Hispanic voters than Mr. Romney.
He did. With Barack Obama off the ticket – and Ms. Clinton on it – higher percentages of both groups voted Republican last month. Black voters helped Mr. Trump even more by staying home. In crucial Michigan and Wisconsin, Ms. Clinton received an estimated 129,000 fewer of their votes than Mr. Obama, more than Mr. Trump’s combined margin of victory in the two states.
In so close an election presenting a puzzle of so many bits and pieces, we can’t point to any one as decisive. Each, like a winning basket at the buzzer, is so only in the context of all the others, any of which can therefore claim to be as decisive as it. (The first basket counts as much as the last.) It just happened to add up to a narrow Trump victory, in the Blue Wall states and overall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)