It came to me as I was listening to John Meacham eulogize Herbert Walker Bush. Meacham explained that in his tours of duty in the corridors of power in Washington and elsewhere, Bush learned to appreciate the depth of knowledge of the people in the bureaus working under him. More often that not he followed their advise.
His negative attitude towards Israel can now be easily understood. The State Department has forever exhibited a negative attitude towards Israel. James Baker, working under Bush, famously said that if the Israelis wanted to speak to him, "here's my phone number." He had no intention of calling them.
Bureaucracies are not only good at gathering facts, they also come to conclusions that are not always correct. This applies to all bureaucracies, whether the State Dept, the CIA, or the FBI. When I mention these various departments, I don't mean the lower level people working at street level, but rather those few at the top who have managed to get themselves promoted to the upper levels.
It is these upper level bureaucrats to whom Bush paid special attention. In economic matters, it was what probably made him a one-term president despite his elegant manners.
Trump is the kind of guy who comes to his own conclusions. If they don't agree with those of his bureaucrats then the hell with the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats who have become taken by their self image as some sort of royalty resent this and will fight such a man every step of the way. But hopefully the people will give him a second term in office.
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Mohammed Bin Salman Owes America More Than A Weapons Order
We know what Arabia was. A land of warriors and a religious cadre, the Wahhabis. The warriors gave way to the rulers enriched from soon discovered oil. The Wahhabis could now spread the Salafist form of Islam far and wide.
In the short run, it worked marvelously. In the long run cracks are beginning to show in this Islamic nation. Where submission to ancient writings is valued over all else and where heresy is one of the most fearsome of charges, there can be little scientific progress. There may be some room for scientific progress but it will come mostly from Muslims who have been exposed to western ideas by studying in western countries.
It would seem the Saudi ruler has become aware of this. He wants to modernize his country. That he has opened the way for Saudi women to be given the right to drive is an indication of this. However, the fear and trepidations with which he has taken even this most tiny of steps shows clearly his concerns with changing his society too quickly. And, these fears are very likely well founded.
This is where America might step in and offer a helping hand. There are in our ranks trained individuals who have studied cultures and societies and who might offer ideas to the king as to how he might safely reshape his nation.
One idea might be to help moderate Islamic scholors review and recast the Hadith and the Sunna. This might create an opening to a recast Sharia. This won't be easy and it won't be fast. A first step might be to fund some mosques in America to be led by progressive Islamic scholars.
Associations should be formed in this country where progressive imams can meet and discuss with one another and their members ideas as to how Islam can cooperate with Christian and Jewish institutions. And, finally, such moderate institutions must reach out to Jews and end their war with Israel. The Palestinians won't like that, but it's got to be. If the king can end hatred towards Israel, much can be accomplished.
It's little enough to ask for our president's coverup of MBS's elimination of Khashoggi.
In the short run, it worked marvelously. In the long run cracks are beginning to show in this Islamic nation. Where submission to ancient writings is valued over all else and where heresy is one of the most fearsome of charges, there can be little scientific progress. There may be some room for scientific progress but it will come mostly from Muslims who have been exposed to western ideas by studying in western countries.
It would seem the Saudi ruler has become aware of this. He wants to modernize his country. That he has opened the way for Saudi women to be given the right to drive is an indication of this. However, the fear and trepidations with which he has taken even this most tiny of steps shows clearly his concerns with changing his society too quickly. And, these fears are very likely well founded.
This is where America might step in and offer a helping hand. There are in our ranks trained individuals who have studied cultures and societies and who might offer ideas to the king as to how he might safely reshape his nation.
One idea might be to help moderate Islamic scholors review and recast the Hadith and the Sunna. This might create an opening to a recast Sharia. This won't be easy and it won't be fast. A first step might be to fund some mosques in America to be led by progressive Islamic scholars.
Associations should be formed in this country where progressive imams can meet and discuss with one another and their members ideas as to how Islam can cooperate with Christian and Jewish institutions. And, finally, such moderate institutions must reach out to Jews and end their war with Israel. The Palestinians won't like that, but it's got to be. If the king can end hatred towards Israel, much can be accomplished.
It's little enough to ask for our president's coverup of MBS's elimination of Khashoggi.
Khashoggi -- Casualty of Islamic Politics
Khashoggi was a believer in political Islamic. His idea idea was to spread Islam by secular means. He felt that the Muslim Brotherhood had the right idea. Depending on whom he spoke to, Khashoggi would express admiration for the Muslim Brotherhood. He had been a member. However there were people with whom he'd speak and where he'd distance himself from the Muslim Brotherhood.
Khashoggi's views were unambiguous as to Turkey which he much admired. They were equally unambiguous as to El-Sisi of Egypt who Khashoggi strongly disliked. He was a Saudi citizen but felt strongly that Saudi Arabia should not involve itself in the ongoing struggle in Yemen. This more than anything else, marked him as an enemy of Saudi Arabia and a supporter of Iran.
The brutal fighting in Yemen results from Iran trying to gain a foothold in that sorry state. They supply the Houthis rebels with all sorts of weapons, starting with assault rifles and going up to rockets which have been fired against Saudi cities, as well as against an oil tanker passing through the Bar el Mandeb Strait, that separates Yemen from Africa. It is this strait that Iran seeks to control.
If Yemen were located in some other part of the world; say, somewhere in Africa, far from the Strait, it is unlikely the Iranians would give it a second thought.
Arab politics is no bean bag affair. Think for a moment how Hamas and Arafat dealt with one another. Think of how the Muslim Brotherhood was about to take over Egypt before el-Sisi and the Egyptian military entered the fray. In a showdown between Khashoggi and Mohammad bin Salman, Khashoggi never stood a chance. And from the American point of view that's a very good thing. The last thing America needs is for Iran to control the Bar el Mandeb Strait.
Regrettably, the manner in which the Saudi ruler disposed of Khashaggi has left America, and, more specifically, President Trump, with a problem. The Saudi ruler eliminated Khashoggi in such an amateurish way that it has become a public relation disaster for Trump. If Mohammad bin Salman wants to bump off his enemies, he's got to begin taking lessons from Turkey's Erdogan, or Russia's Putin, or China's Xi, or even North Korea's Kim Jong-Un.
As to Khashoggi being a reporter: So too was Kim Philby, who was placed in Beirut as a reporter for several British papers by British Intelligence. Russian intelligence is well known for its use of reporters to gather information. But, of course, American reporters would never allow themselves to be used in that way. Then again, Khashoggi wasn't an American.
Khashoggi's views were unambiguous as to Turkey which he much admired. They were equally unambiguous as to El-Sisi of Egypt who Khashoggi strongly disliked. He was a Saudi citizen but felt strongly that Saudi Arabia should not involve itself in the ongoing struggle in Yemen. This more than anything else, marked him as an enemy of Saudi Arabia and a supporter of Iran.
The brutal fighting in Yemen results from Iran trying to gain a foothold in that sorry state. They supply the Houthis rebels with all sorts of weapons, starting with assault rifles and going up to rockets which have been fired against Saudi cities, as well as against an oil tanker passing through the Bar el Mandeb Strait, that separates Yemen from Africa. It is this strait that Iran seeks to control.
If Yemen were located in some other part of the world; say, somewhere in Africa, far from the Strait, it is unlikely the Iranians would give it a second thought.
Arab politics is no bean bag affair. Think for a moment how Hamas and Arafat dealt with one another. Think of how the Muslim Brotherhood was about to take over Egypt before el-Sisi and the Egyptian military entered the fray. In a showdown between Khashoggi and Mohammad bin Salman, Khashoggi never stood a chance. And from the American point of view that's a very good thing. The last thing America needs is for Iran to control the Bar el Mandeb Strait.
Regrettably, the manner in which the Saudi ruler disposed of Khashaggi has left America, and, more specifically, President Trump, with a problem. The Saudi ruler eliminated Khashoggi in such an amateurish way that it has become a public relation disaster for Trump. If Mohammad bin Salman wants to bump off his enemies, he's got to begin taking lessons from Turkey's Erdogan, or Russia's Putin, or China's Xi, or even North Korea's Kim Jong-Un.
As to Khashoggi being a reporter: So too was Kim Philby, who was placed in Beirut as a reporter for several British papers by British Intelligence. Russian intelligence is well known for its use of reporters to gather information. But, of course, American reporters would never allow themselves to be used in that way. Then again, Khashoggi wasn't an American.
Monday, September 24, 2018
Why Judge Kavanaugh Deservers Confirmation
Until the last moment the Judge was a shoe-in for confirmation to the supreme court. He had had his background checked. His life off the bench had been found to be exemplary. His rulings as a judge in lower courts had been found to be well thought out and for the most part sustainable. A better candidate would have been hard to find, or so you'd think.
And then it happened. Charges were brought forth by a lady who claimed that when she was a high school student, she had been grappled, in a bed, by the Judge when he was a prep school student. She suggests that there might have been serious consequences if another student hadn't jumped on them, causing them all to fall off the bed. That's when she jumped up and ran out of the room.
More recently another lady has come forth with the claim that, as a college student, the judge had pushed his penis up against her face. Both ladies' charges were vehemently denied by Judge Kavanaugh.
There are a number of serious problem with these allegations. First and foremost is that there is no way of proving them. They are no more, or less, than allegations.
But that's not the most troubling thing about them. The charges were brought to Sen. Diane Feinstein several months earlier. She just sat on them for several months. This made it impossible to investigate them in a timely fashion.
Before getting to the bottom line, a few more observations:
As far as anyone can find out, the judge has lived a life free of any blemishes. Indeed it was a life anyone one of us would have been proud of. Men who molest women follow a pattern. They don't end the pattern in high school. Think, Bernie Weinstein. Think, Bill Cosby. Think, Bill Clinton. There's a long list of such abusers. Judge Kavanaugh's life has been nothing like that of these people.
The lady, who gave the story of her and Judge Kavanaugh in a bed, comes from a family with a beef against the Kavanaughs. It seems the lady's mother went to court regarding a real estate matter. The judge ruled against the woman's mother. That judge was Kavenaugh's mother.
Okay, why do I so strongly favor confirming Judge Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court of the U.S.? Sen Diane Feinstein is the answer. Her delay in coming forth with her witness against Judge Kavanaugh was clearly political. Had she disclosed her information promptly, an investigation could have been mounted that could have looked into the charges in a timely manner. But that's not what she wanted. Instead, she kept this information to herself until the very last minute. Her clear intension was to delay the confirmation beyond the time of the next elections. It was her hope that the Democrats would pick up enough votes to quash the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh.
It is true that that the Republicans used Senate rules to deny the appointment of a person the Democrats had favored for the Supreme Court. But, it's one thing to use Senate rules, fair or not, versus besmirching the reputation of a highly intelligent and well thought of man as a way of denying him confirmation. A line must be drawn. Judge Kavanaugh really ought to be confirmed.
And then it happened. Charges were brought forth by a lady who claimed that when she was a high school student, she had been grappled, in a bed, by the Judge when he was a prep school student. She suggests that there might have been serious consequences if another student hadn't jumped on them, causing them all to fall off the bed. That's when she jumped up and ran out of the room.
More recently another lady has come forth with the claim that, as a college student, the judge had pushed his penis up against her face. Both ladies' charges were vehemently denied by Judge Kavanaugh.
There are a number of serious problem with these allegations. First and foremost is that there is no way of proving them. They are no more, or less, than allegations.
But that's not the most troubling thing about them. The charges were brought to Sen. Diane Feinstein several months earlier. She just sat on them for several months. This made it impossible to investigate them in a timely fashion.
Before getting to the bottom line, a few more observations:
As far as anyone can find out, the judge has lived a life free of any blemishes. Indeed it was a life anyone one of us would have been proud of. Men who molest women follow a pattern. They don't end the pattern in high school. Think, Bernie Weinstein. Think, Bill Cosby. Think, Bill Clinton. There's a long list of such abusers. Judge Kavanaugh's life has been nothing like that of these people.
The lady, who gave the story of her and Judge Kavanaugh in a bed, comes from a family with a beef against the Kavanaughs. It seems the lady's mother went to court regarding a real estate matter. The judge ruled against the woman's mother. That judge was Kavenaugh's mother.
Okay, why do I so strongly favor confirming Judge Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court of the U.S.? Sen Diane Feinstein is the answer. Her delay in coming forth with her witness against Judge Kavanaugh was clearly political. Had she disclosed her information promptly, an investigation could have been mounted that could have looked into the charges in a timely manner. But that's not what she wanted. Instead, she kept this information to herself until the very last minute. Her clear intension was to delay the confirmation beyond the time of the next elections. It was her hope that the Democrats would pick up enough votes to quash the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh.
It is true that that the Republicans used Senate rules to deny the appointment of a person the Democrats had favored for the Supreme Court. But, it's one thing to use Senate rules, fair or not, versus besmirching the reputation of a highly intelligent and well thought of man as a way of denying him confirmation. A line must be drawn. Judge Kavanaugh really ought to be confirmed.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
George Soros Revealed
I, and others, have wondered how George Soros, a Jew, could be so hostile to Judaism and, more precisely, to Israel. Today, an article by Michael Steinberger, in the New York Times, 7/22/18 makes this clear. His searing experiences under Nazi occupation lead him to believe it was all a matter of tribalism.
The Nazis were a tribe. The Jews were a tribe. And, presumably the Poles, the French, and so forth were all tribes. To improve conditions in the world, one of his first goals was to eliminate tribalism.
If he could do that, he figured he'd be moving the world a giant step forward toward in the ways of democracy. (Not mentioned in this article was the fact that Soros's father was a strong proponent of Esperanto. He believed if the world learned to speak one common language, we'd all get along much better.)
What George Soros seems not to understand is that what he refers to as tribalism can also be described to as culture. These are the mannerisms and the ways of thinking we share with our fellow citizens. Unfortunately, not everything in a culture is positive. We must constantly strive to improve our individual cultures. But, that's far more doable than scrubbing away and eliminating our individual cultures.
The Nazis were a tribe. The Jews were a tribe. And, presumably the Poles, the French, and so forth were all tribes. To improve conditions in the world, one of his first goals was to eliminate tribalism.
If he could do that, he figured he'd be moving the world a giant step forward toward in the ways of democracy. (Not mentioned in this article was the fact that Soros's father was a strong proponent of Esperanto. He believed if the world learned to speak one common language, we'd all get along much better.)
What George Soros seems not to understand is that what he refers to as tribalism can also be described to as culture. These are the mannerisms and the ways of thinking we share with our fellow citizens. Unfortunately, not everything in a culture is positive. We must constantly strive to improve our individual cultures. But, that's far more doable than scrubbing away and eliminating our individual cultures.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Trump Wraps Up His Putin Meeting And Leaves The Trump-ranters Howling
Voices from Washington's snake pit include those of James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, John Brennan, former director of Central Intelligence, and James Comey, former Director of the FBI. These individuals have done grievance injury to America's security by politicizing their offices; offices which were never meant to have been politicized.
They were meant to serves as the eyes and ears of the executive branch of government regardless of which party was voted into officd. These individuals were never meant to serve as an alternative executive voice for America. It is true that every executive has his own style. If a man comes into office whose style you disapprove of, you have little choice but to resign and quietly leave.
These men from the Washington snake pit find this manner of voicing disapproval not to be to their liking. While it is true that they were never elected to anything, they feel that their appointments by previous administrations gives them certain rights and privileges found nowhere in the Constitution.
These rights seem to include trying to drag down the incumbent President.
Of course, to act in this way they find it helpful, indeed necessary, to prove that they are acting in behalf of America. To this end, they will not hesitate to call the President, who they despise, an idiot and a traitor. A moment of reflection will make it clear who is tearing away and undermining America's foundation. Indeed, the only reason they can act this way with impunity is that the press with certain exceptions despises Trump as much as they do. And the press supports their outrageous behavior.
While we're on the subject of the Washington snake pit, let's not leave out Mueller's indictments regarding 12 individuals who interfered with out elections. First, no one suggests that these individuals had any success in their efforts to subvert out elections. Second, none is in the U.S. at this time and available to our law enforcement people. Thirdly, the people and their actions were well known even before the U.S. elections. One can only wonder why these indictments were handed up at this time and for what purpose.
Can Trump make errors? Of course. Saying that he doubted (or words to that effect) that Russia tried to influence our elections was foolish. We all know they did. There's no news there. It's how Trump mishandled that question that has created for him a problem. He did come out with a statement saying he had messed up a word. This resulted in his saying something he hadn't intended.
Trump has said a number of things he shouldn't have said. His remarks on John McCain during the election campaign were inappropriate. McCain is a man who can be counted on to watch your back. McCain has an outstanding war record. He may not be the brightest bulb in the room, but you should never disparage his service to America. But campaigns are rough and Trump stepped over the line. Trump has said other things that were inappropriate.
But, I feel Trump knows were he's going. He's done some excellent work with our true allies. He's done a fine job with our economy. He brushes aside the small stuff and attacks the kind of problems other politicians would avoid. This kerfuffle with Putin will pass. In the end, I believe Trump will leave the U.S. a better and stronger country.
They were meant to serves as the eyes and ears of the executive branch of government regardless of which party was voted into officd. These individuals were never meant to serve as an alternative executive voice for America. It is true that every executive has his own style. If a man comes into office whose style you disapprove of, you have little choice but to resign and quietly leave.
These men from the Washington snake pit find this manner of voicing disapproval not to be to their liking. While it is true that they were never elected to anything, they feel that their appointments by previous administrations gives them certain rights and privileges found nowhere in the Constitution.
These rights seem to include trying to drag down the incumbent President.
Of course, to act in this way they find it helpful, indeed necessary, to prove that they are acting in behalf of America. To this end, they will not hesitate to call the President, who they despise, an idiot and a traitor. A moment of reflection will make it clear who is tearing away and undermining America's foundation. Indeed, the only reason they can act this way with impunity is that the press with certain exceptions despises Trump as much as they do. And the press supports their outrageous behavior.
While we're on the subject of the Washington snake pit, let's not leave out Mueller's indictments regarding 12 individuals who interfered with out elections. First, no one suggests that these individuals had any success in their efforts to subvert out elections. Second, none is in the U.S. at this time and available to our law enforcement people. Thirdly, the people and their actions were well known even before the U.S. elections. One can only wonder why these indictments were handed up at this time and for what purpose.
Can Trump make errors? Of course. Saying that he doubted (or words to that effect) that Russia tried to influence our elections was foolish. We all know they did. There's no news there. It's how Trump mishandled that question that has created for him a problem. He did come out with a statement saying he had messed up a word. This resulted in his saying something he hadn't intended.
Trump has said a number of things he shouldn't have said. His remarks on John McCain during the election campaign were inappropriate. McCain is a man who can be counted on to watch your back. McCain has an outstanding war record. He may not be the brightest bulb in the room, but you should never disparage his service to America. But campaigns are rough and Trump stepped over the line. Trump has said other things that were inappropriate.
But, I feel Trump knows were he's going. He's done some excellent work with our true allies. He's done a fine job with our economy. He brushes aside the small stuff and attacks the kind of problems other politicians would avoid. This kerfuffle with Putin will pass. In the end, I believe Trump will leave the U.S. a better and stronger country.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
And A Neophyte Will Lead Them
Recent tear-downs of Trump leave me scratching my head. "Look, " I'm told, "the Europeans were going to up their military budgets anyway -- before he gave his speech." Really!
And regardless of European hectoring, no one knows to what extent they will actually fulfill their NATO military commitments. Trump should be ashamed, the pundits say, that he would speak so directly and uncharitably to the Europeans. Well, occasions arise when the coach will have to lay it out for his team. Sure, you have to get the goodwill of the team, but you've also got to get their respect. Blowing smoke never works.
When asked how he felt about Trump chastising Merkel regarding the proposed gas pipeline between Russia and Germany, this deep, military thinker says, "I focus on military matters, not on gas pipelines. Is it really necessary to explain how stupid his remark was.
On MSNBC, some pundit on diplomacy suggests that Trump should have referred to Russia as the "enemy" not "our competitor." Does it really make a difference? Here we have European countries reluctant to develop their defenses against a true predator, and yet find time to harangue the only country in a position to offer them some protection by telling him it was a huge mistake to refer to their common enemy as their competitor. And, this is what's important to the Europeans?
And regardless of European hectoring, no one knows to what extent they will actually fulfill their NATO military commitments. Trump should be ashamed, the pundits say, that he would speak so directly and uncharitably to the Europeans. Well, occasions arise when the coach will have to lay it out for his team. Sure, you have to get the goodwill of the team, but you've also got to get their respect. Blowing smoke never works.
When asked how he felt about Trump chastising Merkel regarding the proposed gas pipeline between Russia and Germany, this deep, military thinker says, "I focus on military matters, not on gas pipelines. Is it really necessary to explain how stupid his remark was.
On MSNBC, some pundit on diplomacy suggests that Trump should have referred to Russia as the "enemy" not "our competitor." Does it really make a difference? Here we have European countries reluctant to develop their defenses against a true predator, and yet find time to harangue the only country in a position to offer them some protection by telling him it was a huge mistake to refer to their common enemy as their competitor. And, this is what's important to the Europeans?
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Trump: America's Gulliver Being Nipped At The Ankles
One of the major problems facing America has been a growing and malignint Chinese influence. From turning rock piles sticking out of the ocean into military fortresses designed to influence shipping and air traffic through and over the China sea, the Chinese are now shinning laser beams into the eyes of our pilots, Chinese aggression is manifest.
China has become comfortable with a parasitic relationship with the U.S. China has a strong and clever culture. Great scientific achievements lie ahead for them. But, if they can get others to do the ground-breaking work, why not let them and then simply scoop up the benefits without having to invest anything of their own? Want to build an airplane factory in China, so as to get closer to the Chinese market? No problem; however, China must have 51% ownership of any such factory, any trade secrets developed by the outsider plane maker must be shared with the Chinese. These trade secrets can then be used by the Chinese to start their own plane building facility. The research has cost them nothing.
One other thing: A small trade imbalance here, a small trade imbalance there and it's no real problem. However the size of our imbalance in trade with China has become enormous.
How this behavior on the part of the Chinese impacts other nations is not being much discussed. CEO's tend to take a short term view of most situations. Okay, they think, we're getting robbed, but the depredations take place over an extended period of time. All I have to do to make my bloated salary is to bring in a good profit over the next 3 years.
As Trump tries to correct this unfair Chinese trade, the Chinese are playing their other card -- North Korea. Be nice to us Pres. Trump, say the Chinese, and we'll help you bring peace to the Korean peninsula. Fight us on trade and you'll get nowhere with our North Korean rocket man.
How Pres. Trump addresses this formidable challenge, I have no idea. I wish him all the luck. He'll need it. In the meantime the Democrats howl for their open borders. A sense of priority has never been their long suite.
China has become comfortable with a parasitic relationship with the U.S. China has a strong and clever culture. Great scientific achievements lie ahead for them. But, if they can get others to do the ground-breaking work, why not let them and then simply scoop up the benefits without having to invest anything of their own? Want to build an airplane factory in China, so as to get closer to the Chinese market? No problem; however, China must have 51% ownership of any such factory, any trade secrets developed by the outsider plane maker must be shared with the Chinese. These trade secrets can then be used by the Chinese to start their own plane building facility. The research has cost them nothing.
One other thing: A small trade imbalance here, a small trade imbalance there and it's no real problem. However the size of our imbalance in trade with China has become enormous.
How this behavior on the part of the Chinese impacts other nations is not being much discussed. CEO's tend to take a short term view of most situations. Okay, they think, we're getting robbed, but the depredations take place over an extended period of time. All I have to do to make my bloated salary is to bring in a good profit over the next 3 years.
As Trump tries to correct this unfair Chinese trade, the Chinese are playing their other card -- North Korea. Be nice to us Pres. Trump, say the Chinese, and we'll help you bring peace to the Korean peninsula. Fight us on trade and you'll get nowhere with our North Korean rocket man.
How Pres. Trump addresses this formidable challenge, I have no idea. I wish him all the luck. He'll need it. In the meantime the Democrats howl for their open borders. A sense of priority has never been their long suite.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Did Putin Manipulate Our Elections To Favor Trump?
If he had manipulated America's elections, in whose favor would Putin have manipulated them? Trump? Hillary? Bernie Sanders? Let's agree to eliminate Sanders. He may have gotten more votes than expected, but Bernie was always a long shot. That left Putin with Trump and Hillary. Of the two, Hillary was clearly the more venal. Trump, on the other hand, was less experienced.
Neither Hillary nor Trump was out and out stupid. Not like Obama with his red lines. In foreign affairs, Obama seemed like a rank amateur. Look at that agreement he arrived at with Iran. Look at all that cash he released to Iran. Look how he stuck it to America's ally, the Saudis. Putin would have liked Obama to have had a third term but that, of course, was not possible with America's term limits. One didn't need spies in America to know that Obama hated Israel's Netanyahu. For Putin that was a very good thing. Netanyahu knew the game. It therefore wasn't in Putin's interest to get behind someone who was smart and might become close to Netanyahu.
Venal Hillary or stupid Trump? In the end, Putin chose to do what he could to help Trump. Anyway, if Hillary had gotten elected, Putin had enough on her to have her toe his line. But Trump struck him as callow and without any experience in the game of international chess.
In the end, backing Trump had it's good points and bad points. The Americans are a moralistic people. If they think they've caught someone in a compromising position, they love waggling their finger at the culprit. The ramifications of finger waggling generally escape them. When Bashar Assad once again used poison gas on his people, Trump, having told him not to do this, unleashed a number of rockets at Syrian airfields. Trump had set forth no red lines. There was no finger waggling. Trump had given warning and now the Syrians got their retribution. Suddenly, Putin realized that he may have misjudged Trump. But it was too late. Trump had become president.
But his efforts to help Trump get elected did have some positive aspects for Putin. The Americans could only suggest that he, Putin, had made an effort to get Trump elected. However, it was impossible to know whether Trump's victory stemmed from Putin's efforts to help him. And now that Trump was proving smarter than Putin had anticipated, it was fun seeing the American political system tear away at Trump because the Russians, had allegedly tried to help him through various dirty tricks.
Indeed, the Americans had launched an endless investigation of Trump and his friends as to how the Russians had enabled Trump to win the election. Putin couldn't help but admire Trump's resilience in standing up to the American political system in its efforts to tear him down.
Neither Hillary nor Trump was out and out stupid. Not like Obama with his red lines. In foreign affairs, Obama seemed like a rank amateur. Look at that agreement he arrived at with Iran. Look at all that cash he released to Iran. Look how he stuck it to America's ally, the Saudis. Putin would have liked Obama to have had a third term but that, of course, was not possible with America's term limits. One didn't need spies in America to know that Obama hated Israel's Netanyahu. For Putin that was a very good thing. Netanyahu knew the game. It therefore wasn't in Putin's interest to get behind someone who was smart and might become close to Netanyahu.
Venal Hillary or stupid Trump? In the end, Putin chose to do what he could to help Trump. Anyway, if Hillary had gotten elected, Putin had enough on her to have her toe his line. But Trump struck him as callow and without any experience in the game of international chess.
In the end, backing Trump had it's good points and bad points. The Americans are a moralistic people. If they think they've caught someone in a compromising position, they love waggling their finger at the culprit. The ramifications of finger waggling generally escape them. When Bashar Assad once again used poison gas on his people, Trump, having told him not to do this, unleashed a number of rockets at Syrian airfields. Trump had set forth no red lines. There was no finger waggling. Trump had given warning and now the Syrians got their retribution. Suddenly, Putin realized that he may have misjudged Trump. But it was too late. Trump had become president.
But his efforts to help Trump get elected did have some positive aspects for Putin. The Americans could only suggest that he, Putin, had made an effort to get Trump elected. However, it was impossible to know whether Trump's victory stemmed from Putin's efforts to help him. And now that Trump was proving smarter than Putin had anticipated, it was fun seeing the American political system tear away at Trump because the Russians, had allegedly tried to help him through various dirty tricks.
Indeed, the Americans had launched an endless investigation of Trump and his friends as to how the Russians had enabled Trump to win the election. Putin couldn't help but admire Trump's resilience in standing up to the American political system in its efforts to tear him down.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Ripping Children From The Arms Of Their Mothers
It's a bit of hyperbole, but it's more than a little true. Mothers with children that make it across the U.S./Mexican border are indeed separated from their children. And, this does offend one's social conscience. But, let's look at this matter a bit more closely.
Only now, during the Trump administration, have NBC, CNN and liked minded networks decided to highlight this situation. During earlier administrations, this matter was hardly ever talked about. Now, during Trump's administration this cruelty is being highlighted.
And, it is indeed cruel and heartless. But, how did we get to this point. Wasn't it these mothers who in the first instance decided to find a way to get into the U.S. even if it violated our laws. Weren't the mothers fully aware of the consequences of their reckless and unlawful actions? These procedures for dealing with the mothers and their children had clearly been established some time ago.
Okay, so how do we get ourselves out of this situation? The obvious answer is to create a barrier on our border than can not be breached. But, here we have a problem. The Democrats won't support border security and without border security foreign mothers will continue to enter the U.S. illegally. Their children become their get-out-of-jail card. With this card, illegal entry to the U.S. becomes unstoppable.
But, why do these people vote against their own homelands to make a fairly perilous trip to the Mexican-American border? Several possible answers have been cited. They include the following:
The poor economic condition in places like Guatemala, Honduras, etc. In the U.S., poor people are entitled to welfare. Not in these places. Then there's the real risk of physical harm back home. A risk stemming from criminal gangs preying on their their fellow nationals. In some cases, there's a desire to escape family violence. Americans can sympathize with people who find themselves in these situations. Whether seeking to escape danger or simply seeking better opportunities have always been the reasons that people want to come here. It's the reason most of our forefathers came here.
But, when a nation grows and matures, and especially in a time of relatively easy transportation, nations have to begin to consider the situation of the people who already made it and the generations of Americans that followed them. We're a pretty good nation because mostly we pay our taxes. We're a pretty good nation because we have relatively good laws and generally enforce those laws. We're a pretty good nation because we've come a long way toward eliminating ethnic, social and racial discrimination. We're not perfect, but we've come a long way and we've reached a pretty high level of fairness and equality. The question is can we do this for the world? Can we take in everyone who seeks to escape a corrupt and lawless nation? Can we do this for everyone everywhere in the world who seeks to escape poverty? Do we have that capability?
We see what is happening to European countries that have allowed unfettered immigration from the middle east. (They don't like to talk about it, but the stories are getting out.) We'd dearly love to help the whole world, but we simply don't have the ability.
Liberals often ask wasn't it immigrants who built this country? And, they're right. It was. But, they neglect to mention that we insisted that these early immigrants have sponsors who would keep their immigrant friends and family from becoming wards of the state. We also insisted that they be healthy. Illness was considered a valid reason for sending them back to wherever they came from. If you were from Europe and poor, chances were your first stop would be Ellis Island, the place where it was decided whether you'd be admitted.
The world's a tough place. We've got to do whatever we can to make it better for our citizens. Other countries have this same obligation.
Only now, during the Trump administration, have NBC, CNN and liked minded networks decided to highlight this situation. During earlier administrations, this matter was hardly ever talked about. Now, during Trump's administration this cruelty is being highlighted.
And, it is indeed cruel and heartless. But, how did we get to this point. Wasn't it these mothers who in the first instance decided to find a way to get into the U.S. even if it violated our laws. Weren't the mothers fully aware of the consequences of their reckless and unlawful actions? These procedures for dealing with the mothers and their children had clearly been established some time ago.
Okay, so how do we get ourselves out of this situation? The obvious answer is to create a barrier on our border than can not be breached. But, here we have a problem. The Democrats won't support border security and without border security foreign mothers will continue to enter the U.S. illegally. Their children become their get-out-of-jail card. With this card, illegal entry to the U.S. becomes unstoppable.
But, why do these people vote against their own homelands to make a fairly perilous trip to the Mexican-American border? Several possible answers have been cited. They include the following:
The poor economic condition in places like Guatemala, Honduras, etc. In the U.S., poor people are entitled to welfare. Not in these places. Then there's the real risk of physical harm back home. A risk stemming from criminal gangs preying on their their fellow nationals. In some cases, there's a desire to escape family violence. Americans can sympathize with people who find themselves in these situations. Whether seeking to escape danger or simply seeking better opportunities have always been the reasons that people want to come here. It's the reason most of our forefathers came here.
But, when a nation grows and matures, and especially in a time of relatively easy transportation, nations have to begin to consider the situation of the people who already made it and the generations of Americans that followed them. We're a pretty good nation because mostly we pay our taxes. We're a pretty good nation because we have relatively good laws and generally enforce those laws. We're a pretty good nation because we've come a long way toward eliminating ethnic, social and racial discrimination. We're not perfect, but we've come a long way and we've reached a pretty high level of fairness and equality. The question is can we do this for the world? Can we take in everyone who seeks to escape a corrupt and lawless nation? Can we do this for everyone everywhere in the world who seeks to escape poverty? Do we have that capability?
We see what is happening to European countries that have allowed unfettered immigration from the middle east. (They don't like to talk about it, but the stories are getting out.) We'd dearly love to help the whole world, but we simply don't have the ability.
Liberals often ask wasn't it immigrants who built this country? And, they're right. It was. But, they neglect to mention that we insisted that these early immigrants have sponsors who would keep their immigrant friends and family from becoming wards of the state. We also insisted that they be healthy. Illness was considered a valid reason for sending them back to wherever they came from. If you were from Europe and poor, chances were your first stop would be Ellis Island, the place where it was decided whether you'd be admitted.
The world's a tough place. We've got to do whatever we can to make it better for our citizens. Other countries have this same obligation.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Will Trump's Meeting With Kim Jong Un Improve Our Position On The Korean Peninsula?
I have heard so much discussion on the meeting between Kim and Trump on MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and Fox News. And, none said the obvious; namely, that the meeting will be found to have been successful because it meets the needs of America and China. For reason's incomprehensible to me, no one mentions China. Correction: I did see a newspaper that said China seems to have gained from the Kim/Trump meeting, as though that had been accidental.
"Seems to have gained" ? That's what the meeting was all about. Without China there would be no North Korea. By the same token, without the U.S. there would be no South Korea. With Kim and Trump threatening one another with fingers "on the button," China was getting increasingly uncomfortable. For their puppet in the north, to act in a barbaric fashion is of little concern to the Chinese. But to create a situation that leads to war on their door step was found by the Chinese to be unacceptable.
North Korea will not revert to its old, overly hostile behavior towards the U.S. because that's not to China's advantage. North Korea will stick to its charm campaign because that's what China wants.
Look at it this way: China needs no wall; they have North Korea.
"Seems to have gained" ? That's what the meeting was all about. Without China there would be no North Korea. By the same token, without the U.S. there would be no South Korea. With Kim and Trump threatening one another with fingers "on the button," China was getting increasingly uncomfortable. For their puppet in the north, to act in a barbaric fashion is of little concern to the Chinese. But to create a situation that leads to war on their door step was found by the Chinese to be unacceptable.
North Korea will not revert to its old, overly hostile behavior towards the U.S. because that's not to China's advantage. North Korea will stick to its charm campaign because that's what China wants.
Look at it this way: China needs no wall; they have North Korea.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
The Republican Lilliputians and ZTE
The giant telecommunications company, ZTE, violated the conditions under which it purchased components from American manufacturers. How should we best impress on them our displeasure?
Should we put them out of business? Should we fine them $1 billion? Should we place enforcement officers in their offices to monitor their activities? Should we call for the replacement of ZTE's board members?
If we refuse to allow American companies to sell to ZTE, we put ZTE out of business. That's what the Republicans want to do -- put them out of business. Donald Trump wants to do everything mentioned above except putting them out of business.
What would be gained by putting them out of business? What's been done has been done. You can't undo it. You can only hope to change future behavior. Clearly, if ZTE were to do it again, ending our sales to ZTE would necessarily become our only possible course of action.
If this is such a complicated decision, why not just put ZTE out of business now?
Consider this: ZTE is huge and being huge in China means you are a part of the Chinese government. Companies like ZTE fall within the purview of China. The measures suggested by Donald Trump do inflict pain on ZTE. In addition, they set significant precedents for dealing with such situation should they reoccur. Putting them out of business and inflicting dire pain on a Chinese entity seems excessive.
Why Democrats would act in this way is clear. Let's do everything, they say among themselves, to screw up Trump's chances of doing anything positive.
But, why do the Republicans act in this pernicious manner? Is it to exercise their power as members of the third branch of government? If so, they're cutting off the nose of Uncle Sam to spite Donald Trump.
Should we put them out of business? Should we fine them $1 billion? Should we place enforcement officers in their offices to monitor their activities? Should we call for the replacement of ZTE's board members?
If we refuse to allow American companies to sell to ZTE, we put ZTE out of business. That's what the Republicans want to do -- put them out of business. Donald Trump wants to do everything mentioned above except putting them out of business.
What would be gained by putting them out of business? What's been done has been done. You can't undo it. You can only hope to change future behavior. Clearly, if ZTE were to do it again, ending our sales to ZTE would necessarily become our only possible course of action.
If this is such a complicated decision, why not just put ZTE out of business now?
Consider this: ZTE is huge and being huge in China means you are a part of the Chinese government. Companies like ZTE fall within the purview of China. The measures suggested by Donald Trump do inflict pain on ZTE. In addition, they set significant precedents for dealing with such situation should they reoccur. Putting them out of business and inflicting dire pain on a Chinese entity seems excessive.
Why Democrats would act in this way is clear. Let's do everything, they say among themselves, to screw up Trump's chances of doing anything positive.
But, why do the Republicans act in this pernicious manner? Is it to exercise their power as members of the third branch of government? If so, they're cutting off the nose of Uncle Sam to spite Donald Trump.
I'm back.
I haven't posted anything since Jan. Let me assure my friends that I haven't been ill. I've been relocating. My good wife and I were residents of New York State until we decided to become Floridians. Let me tell you, relocating isn't easy. But, we've done it, and slowly our old routines are are beginning to return. Chuckling Over The Here And Now is back.
Monday, January 15, 2018
Hizb ut-Tahrir -- Why They're Relevant
Unless you're a reader of Indonesian newspapers, it's likely you never heard of Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, in a country with a massive Islamic population, they're beginning to exert their theology. This theology differs from the Islamic faith practiced by most Indonesians. It's far more radical and extreme than the traditional Islamic faith of Indonesia. (It's sometimes referred to as a Salafist type of Islam.) For thieves, Hizb ut-Tahrir favors amputating their right hand. For blasphemy, it can be death.
So how does an Islamic country deal with radical Islam? Not well, I'm afraid. They arrest and imprison the radicals for threatening, and actually, undermining the state of Indonesia.
That may get many radicals off the street, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem. The position of radical Muslims is that they represent the true faith. To be imprisoned for their steadfastness in behalf of that faith simply strengthens their resolve to fight ever harder for that faith.
A far better approach, in my opinion, would be to demonstrate that Salafist Islam is not true Islam. It is a deviancy from pure Islam. Liberal Islam is the true Islam.
The question then becomes whether Liberal Islam can be sold to Muslims as the true expression of Islam. Here is the argument I would promote:
All religions will on occasion take a wrong turn. Christians at one time in history went on Crusades. The Jews divided themselves between Pharasees and Sadducees, fighting with one another over the true practice of Judaism. Protestants struggled against Roman Catholics. And, on and on. Today, we have Iran contending with Saudi Arabia. One a Shiite nation, the other a Sunni nation. But, are these nations really so far apart in their theology or are they using theology as a cover for their political differences. And, who does Allah really favor? The Sunnis or the Shiites?
Many of today's religions interpret God's will based on their religious writings. For Christians, it's the Old and New Testaments. For the Jews, it's the Torah and the prophets. For Buddhists it's the words of Buddha as recorded by followers who sat around him taking down his words as he spoke.
For Muslims, it's the Quran as given to Mohammad by the Angel Gabriel. Islam has, of course, three texts; namely, the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah. But, while these three writings are of equal importance, the Quran is the touchstone.
But can the Quran be understood without interpretation. True, in a sense, the interpreter puts himself between God and the man seeking God's guidance. But all of this is beyond the understanding of a true Salafist. Muslims must do all possible to educate their fellow Muslims and explain that Salafism is not true Islam. It is a corruption of Islam.
So how does an Islamic country deal with radical Islam? Not well, I'm afraid. They arrest and imprison the radicals for threatening, and actually, undermining the state of Indonesia.
That may get many radicals off the street, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem. The position of radical Muslims is that they represent the true faith. To be imprisoned for their steadfastness in behalf of that faith simply strengthens their resolve to fight ever harder for that faith.
A far better approach, in my opinion, would be to demonstrate that Salafist Islam is not true Islam. It is a deviancy from pure Islam. Liberal Islam is the true Islam.
The question then becomes whether Liberal Islam can be sold to Muslims as the true expression of Islam. Here is the argument I would promote:
All religions will on occasion take a wrong turn. Christians at one time in history went on Crusades. The Jews divided themselves between Pharasees and Sadducees, fighting with one another over the true practice of Judaism. Protestants struggled against Roman Catholics. And, on and on. Today, we have Iran contending with Saudi Arabia. One a Shiite nation, the other a Sunni nation. But, are these nations really so far apart in their theology or are they using theology as a cover for their political differences. And, who does Allah really favor? The Sunnis or the Shiites?
Many of today's religions interpret God's will based on their religious writings. For Christians, it's the Old and New Testaments. For the Jews, it's the Torah and the prophets. For Buddhists it's the words of Buddha as recorded by followers who sat around him taking down his words as he spoke.
For Muslims, it's the Quran as given to Mohammad by the Angel Gabriel. Islam has, of course, three texts; namely, the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah. But, while these three writings are of equal importance, the Quran is the touchstone.
But can the Quran be understood without interpretation. True, in a sense, the interpreter puts himself between God and the man seeking God's guidance. But all of this is beyond the understanding of a true Salafist. Muslims must do all possible to educate their fellow Muslims and explain that Salafism is not true Islam. It is a corruption of Islam.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)