This Photo Encapsulates the Trump Presidency

The discipline and poise of a master politician with ample experience dealing with the fits of children. A petulant man-child who prefers to insult everyone than bring together a divided nation and govern accordingly, let alone support allies and stand up for human rights. The earnest interest in actual policy matters, clearly visible in Senator Reed’s posture and stoic look. The shame and defeatism of Trump’s allies in Congress, seen in Minority Leader McCarthy and Minority Whip Scalise’s face to the ground. And finally, the crestfallen despondence of the military men at the table, only interrupted by Defense Secretary Esper’s full body attempt to emulate a centuries old statue. The completely unaware publication an image that hurts the president more than it helps, just like the Ukraine call summary.

The following day, the Speaker said the following of what transpired at the moment of the photograph: “I think I was excusing myself from the room… The thoughts I conveyed to the president in the meeting about the 354 to 60 votes in the House disapproving of his Syrian actions… My concerns about all roads leading to Putin. And if the president is saying, “I said during the campaign I will take the troops home,” is home Saudi Arabia? That would be the essence of either sitting down or standing up what my conversation was with the president. Most important part of the meeting was, what is the plan? That was part of my report on the legislation on the floor: what is the plan for fighting ISIS? Now we have reneged on our handshake with the Kurds to do that fighting for use there? That was strongly presented by Senator Schumer. So one or the other of those things was being said. I think it’s interesting–you tell me–if we could have a recording of what goes on in those offices? Because they come out and say “oh, this happened, that happened,” it’s like we must have been at two different meetings because that didn’t happen… No fidelity to facts… At that moment, I was probably saying, all roads lead to Putin.”

It is all here. This is the textbook photo for the future, augmented with the thumbs-up photo of Trump and Melania with an orphaned child in El Paso.

Stop Calling Mueller Old

This is bullshit. Try testifying on the most important issue in this presidency. Stop fucking pointing out how old or sick Mueller seemed in testimony. People are being discriminatory as fuck out here.

 

 

 

Why Partisan Politics Is Clouding Understanding of the Russian Incursion in Crimea

Regardless of the reasons for Russia deploying military personnel to southeast Ukraine, the aptitude of American politics to affect this process requires the media, public, and policymakers to understand a set of dynamics that have developed in since the USSR dissolved and Yeltsin ushered in the contemporary mob state. First, any criticism of Obama’s leadership in dealing with Putin—that somehow he is a weak leader and that someone else would do it better—affixes a simple partisan motivation to a deep-seeded structural reality. Namely, no American president in the last century would send troops to back up a deeply divided and volatile Ukraine. Even Harry Truman, who sent “military advisers” to bolster Turkey and Greece, would not send troops in this situation. Even Lyndon Johnson, who was so insecure in his knowledge and confidence to handle foreign affairs that he erroneously escalated the war in Vietnam, would not send troops into a country neighboring Russia (or within the USSR as Ukraine was during the 1960s). Here is a cold hard fact for any anti-Obama neo-conservative who thinks Lindsey Graham, John McCain or Ronald Reagan would handle this situation better: America has no military power on in the former USSR part of eastern Europe. Although the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the threat of Iran, have fostered American military relations with the Turkic -stan countries, the extent of U.S. military power in eastern Europe is far inferior, NATO notwithstanding. The extent of military planning in the former Soviet bloc essentially at missile defense planning. No military bases housing American troops exist in this region, with the closest being in Germany and Turkey.

We cannot project our power might here! And if we could, why would we?

Economic sanctions, trade restructuring, and collective pressure through diplomacy (both bilateral, trilateral, and through the UN) are the only possible mechanisms to express displeasure with Russia. Constant dialogue with the pseudo-governing parliament in Ukraine to ensure they do not make the mistake of attacking the Russian military is also paramount. If Russia decides to take any more regions in the country, an argument for self-defense and action would be highly legitimate, but as it stands, Ukrainian forces cannot survive a war with Russia. The only way out of this is to negotiate a preferential deal for Russia and Russian sympathetic Crimeans, and have a full withdrawal of Russian forces. As long as Russian troops maintain a presence in the region, they will pay a continuous price for such behavior. So far, no one has died, kidnappings have not been reported. This is as symbolic as it is belligerent. Cooler heads must prevail.

For America’s part, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox (albeit unlikely), must maintain an objective understanding of what is transpiring in Crimea. Showcasing partisans such as Lindsey Graham, Newt Gingrich, and John McCain, should be met with direct question of “what would you do differently?” It should not be sufficient to simply talk in terms of leadership, since it is an intrinsically subjective quality, but instead decision-making. If the aforementioned conservatives disfavor military intervention, which they have, then they should spell out what their viable alternative is to the Obama administration’s policies.

The NY Times, among others, have shown the language disparity in Crimea. Though this creates more nuance in the public understanding, the narrative of Crimea being receptive to Russian troops is incorrect. Russian Ukrainians are still Ukrainians. The only Ukrainians that do not share a dual Russian-Ukrainian identity are nationalists, who make up a very small percent of the general public. During the tsarist and Soviet eras, Ukrainians identified nationally as Russian, but lived in a distinct historical and cultural region. The only split in the country is political, not cultural or linguistic. The plurality of citizens speak both Ukrainian and Russian, and many households have speakers who know both, even if their children might not.

x

Vice Presidential Debate Analysis

It has certainly been awhile, but the VP debate poses as good an opportunity to get back into the swing of things as any other event. Let’s do it, bullet-point style:

• When Ryan claims that his Medivoucher program will not cut benefits to anyone who needs them, but simply reduce benefits for the rich, it is the first step in a long process to end the program. True, vouchers with support for the poor is not so bad in itself, if indeed it covers everyone’s medical costs (unlikely as it is), but turning a universal benefit program into a means-tested program is the easiest way to reduce the policy constituency and therefore splinter the political clout of those who are still in the program. Universal programs have much more of a shelf-life than means-tested ones, and Ryan is quite aware of this. This is why it is true that Ryan would end Medicare—his policies would create a path dependence in which the complete retrenchment of the social safety net would  take shape.
• Essentially the playbook of Romney-Ryan is to take the opposite view of Obama-Biden. It is pretty odd that such a strategy would be employed in America’s uber-ideological struggle. However, the one characteristic of the current party system that is more dominantly divisive that ideology is partisanship, and essentially that is what this is. Romney-Ryan will position themselves wherever they see an electoral advantage, but the problem is they are alienating their base

British Question Time: A Contrast In Political Dialogues

Question time is always fun. What is most interesting to any American viewer is the constructive nature of the dialogue. What did Leader of the Opposition Miliband rise to ask Prime Minister Cameron about as this screenshot was taken? Infrastructure development and crony capitalism, accusing the Conservative government of allowing the railroad companies to raise rates on working families while executive pay increased with little government attention. PM Cameron said he was for infrastructure investments and that he would address the executive pay issue, whereas his opposition neglected it.

Why is this important? Both sides are in favor of infrastructure development during a recessionary/recovery period, and both sides are against executive pay excesses (at least publicly). This is a positive policy and oversight discussion, that though it may be heated, and yes, there are talking points, pointed fingers, and crowd noise, it is still a more productive government dialogue than the one Americans are accustomed to.

In the United States, it is always about political maneuvering and who can reduce government the most, and lower taxes the most, and badmouth institutions the most. While the Democrats typically concede their strongest bargaining tools before negotiations, thereby selling out their constituency, and Republican elected officials emulate their parties out of touch elites and not the economic interests of its constituents, both sides end up barking over who is to blame for the death spiral instead of properly fixing it. I do not know about the UK, but facts seem to matter less here than there.

Facts only matter to those who value them. How many congressman are driven by ideology and not an understanding of the facts? I would say about three-fifths, with the remaining opportunists and pragmatists with all the responsibility to create a constructive dialogue and effectively legislate.

Anyway, back to Question Time. Scottish Nationalism came up, and both parties seem to agree that the union benefits everyone within it, but that if Scotland wants more domestic decision-making institutions, they should be able to have it. Additionally, many questions were levied about maintaining, or increasing, the current tax burden on the richest Brits, to which Cameron usually responds with a remark about fairness, but that the point of taxes is to raise money, and that if these do not raise that much money they should be reconsidered. Not knowing the dynamics of the British tax code, I would say his position is pretty reasonable for the right-wing in a country, especially when America’s right-wing is against all taxes, in theory and practice.

A question on National Health Service solvency came up, to which Cameron said he, unlike his opposition, supports increasing the funds for the NHS for the next several years, and that he wants to make some reforms giving clinicians more say and looking into the effect alcohol has on draining health resources away from other potential sources. Again, seems reasonable. He is not talking about removing socialized medicine, or personal responsibility, or the nanny state. In fact, he seems to be positing that alcohol users either i) need to pay higher health costs for their actions (big government) or that alcohol should be harder to obtain (bigger government). Libertarians must hate British politics, as the most conservative party supports further restrictions on individuals.

The dialogue in a parliamentary democracy can afford to be far more vitriolic than in a system of divided government, yet a simple comparison between the two countries’ government seems to contradict that logic. Obviously size and diversity of the governed citizens is a component, but political leaders are supposed to forge consensus and construct successful policies, not subscribe to the lesser views of a polarized and ill-informed electorate.

There’s No Business Like North Korean Propaganda… Business

Today we celebrate the death of a tyrant!

For a man who wore spectacles all his life, it is very interesting his portrait omits this fact. Maybe Pol Pot has a special ideological role in NK.

The death of the North Korean dear leader (which I guess is a pseudonym for tyrannical and oppressive military dictator), provided the politburo with an opportunity to pull people out of their houses under the threat of imprisonment to show how much they loved their oppressive domineer. The pictures featured in this post do not quite display how inauthentic this whole rouse was “live.” The whimpering of many of the military and non-military personnel was way over the top. As anyone who has actually experienced the shock of losing a loved one, the likelihood that you are going to be screaming and pacing back in forth in uniformity with a group of 12 people (all doing the exact same behavior) is very unlikely. People experience grieving differently, so the propaganda fails on a very basic level to capture human emotion, which makes sense coming from the most austere regime in the world.

Beautiful weather for a beautiful country. That building is not menacing at all.

The overwhelming number of people in attendance were in military garb, which makes sense since the country still has forced conscription. Additionally, military personnel may be easier to organize into a procession than the oppressed peasantry and workers who have been so brutally oppressed that their genetic phenotypes have actually changed as a consequence (such as height and dietary needs).

This is what a republic of workers looks like...

The North Korean regime, aided with China’s sympathetic media outlets, has claimed “hundreds of thousands” of citizens have come out to mourn the death of a truly grotesque human being. But watching the video, you can see there are about 5000-15,000 military personnel, and maybe 1000-5000 members of the public. These are just based on the visuals, but they are certainly propping this up to be a one of the premier civic moments in the country’s history. Unfortunately, everyone knows the depths to which the regime uses coercion to manufacture images of public support for the military dictatorship.

Yeah, that's hundreds of thousands of people...

The use of American cars is also a funny note, since unlike South Korea, North Korea has not mastered the art of manufacture assembled production, especially not vehicles. Almost all of North Korea’s weapons and manufactured goods are from China or Russia (or some are stolen from Japan and South Korea, along with their citizens).

I'd be sad too if I would go to a prison camp for not appearing sad enough.

When I see these images, which are clearly feigned and poorly acted, I have to wonder: what if they were sad? What would they be sad about? Are they sad the man who oversaw the genetic debilitation of a people and isolation of a nation pass? Are they afraid that his overfed son will be a much worse leader? Are they worried that imminent random disappearings will take place if they stop crying for one second? Do they think Jong-un will exacerbate problems with the world community? If I had these questions spinning in my head I might half-heartedly cry too, out of confusion and pent up animosity to a regime that hates its own people more than anything else in the world.

Very poor acting, but I guess I cannot expect starving people to have enough energy to feign sadness properly...

I see plenty of reasons for the people pictured above and below to be very sad about the lives they have to live. I guess I just do not understand why they would be sad to see the man responsible for much of these conditions die. That unless the cycle of fear is still not over. One day, North Koreans will authentically have tears of joy when they are released from the bondage of one of the most anachronistic and vile regimes in the contemporary world. For their sake, and the sake of members of the global community who do not want to die at the hands of a North Korean nuclear onslaught, I hope the genuine tears of joy come sooner rather than later.

They look so sad. Sad that if they don't feign enough sadness they will be authentically sad in a prison camp.

Marco Rubio Continues To Lie

As an avid reader of Daily Kos, (which interestingly enough had the best image of Rubio for this blog post) I am quite familiar with how Marco Rubio is opportunistic, inauthentic, and a compulsive liar. But waking up this morning to c-span and seeing the senator on the floor, I was curious what he would say. He was speaking about the oppressive “communist” regime in Cuba (big surprise). The Cuban regime is as close to Rubio’s arch-nemisis as any thing in the world (over such things as poverty, corruption, ill-functioning government, etc); basically, his fixation with Cuba defines his world outlook.

Anywho, I found his speech reprehensible. The hypcocrsy was dripping from his lips faster than his snake tongue could wipe it up. Two things he said really bothered me, considering his experiences:

1. Rubio spoke of the Cuban regime beating peacefully assembled protestors, which if substantiated, is a horrible way to treat your citizents. But shouldn’t Rubio care about Americans too? I think he should, and yet he has been silent on the preponderance of police violence on Occupy protestors throughout the country. I understand the right-wing position of command and control, tough on crime, police statism, but then why does he care if it occurs in Cuba. Oh yeah, they are not free, so violence against their citizens is worse than in the free and democratic America. Hypocrisy…

2. Additionally, Rubio and his staff claimed Univision was blackmailing him into doing an interview or Univision was going to run a negative story on his brother. If you believe this story, you would get the feeling Rubio is against blackmail. But during this same floor speech, he then mentions that he has placed two holds on presidential nominations until the white house looks at the Cuban travel issue. Two holds on unrelated presidential appointments in order for them to act in a manner he wants, which seems like blackmail to me. Therefore, Rubio is only against blackmail when it is against him, but he is perfectly willing to blackmail others.

This is Marco Rubio. He is a liar. He has no integrity. And he is going to be the senator from Florida for the next 5 years.

I Agree with David Cameron on Something!

After Cameron took a whooping from Opposition Leader Ed Milliband, he answered his Right Honourable Friend regarding Eurozone intergration by saying he sees some benefit, but that he would want to protect and retain the pound sterling. If I were Prime Minister, I would carry the same view. That might be the first time I have shared a belief with Cameron.

The Dilusions of Military Leadership

In a press conference Wednesday following the deaths of 30 troops in Afghanistan over the weekend when their Chinook helicopter was shot out of the sky, General Allen claimed it is important not to take this as a sign of how the war has been progressing and that the insurgents are in their thralls. Do military leaders ever actually report the perilous situation on the ground or do they always, unequivocally have to make it seem like every military engagement this war-like nation enters is successful. Just like the Pentagon will never willingly cut their budget, military leaders will never say a thing to indicate the fallibility of their tactics and our military force. The Taliban will be in Afghanistan long after we leave, and yet we continue to lose troops and build an Afghan army that costs more to operate than Afghanistan’s entire GDP. All this makes you wonder who has control over American policy? Are they even elected? Do we know who calls the shots? Either we have weak and/or corrupt leaders or we have a shadow government that runs things; neither possibility is good…

Benjamin Netanyahu: The Perfect GOP Candidate for President?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to congress today was a stirring and rousing display of Netanyahu’s comfort with the American audience. The countless (really 29) bipartisan standing ovations he received are more than most president’s receive in their State of the Union address. He reasserted his will over the potential peace process by restating his unwillingness to return to the pre-67 boundaries, and furthermore his absolute refusal to negotiate with the “Israeli version of al-Qaeda,” Hamas. Congressional leadership fell over themselves to compliment, and show support for, Netanyahu. He did photo ops with prominent Republicans, especially Majority Leader Cantor. Nothing like the Evangelical right, lone Jewish Republican in congress, and the Israeli PM to form a perfect union.

With the weak Republican field to face Obama, it would seem the most popular conservative in Washington these days in Netanyahu. He went to MIT and has many monied connections in America to mount a campaign. Too bad for Art. I Sec. III of the Constitution.

As much as this is a pervasive joke by those who propose it, he would be a very strong candidate in both the Iowa caucuses and in a general election. His contentiousness with Obama would give him plenty of campaign fodder to rally the anti-Obama looney tunes. It would definitely be an interesting race…