There is a scheduled stat of the union address coming up and without any advance knowledge except the general behavior of this President we know he will declare himself the Greatest of All Time.
Obviously he isn't, except in his own mind and in a few of his fervent followers.
The most surprising thing about his administration is that it hasn't resulted in more disastrous results.
The one place he likes to take credit is on the economy which in some respects remains strong. It was strong when he replaced the previous President and while the stock market has continued its rally it is in some respects not as good. Because of the tariffs and trade wars we have seen negative impacts on farmers and some manufacturing. Some of this was offset by a tax reduction that contributes to the high deficit but most Americans are not worse off, some got richer and we continue to transition from manufacturing to service.
We do have that deficit to deal with and it is potentially devastating.
Concerning foreign affairs we are clearly much worse off than we were. We were used by North Korea and provided them with a lot of propaganda. Our allies no longer trust us. The middle east is getting worse. We did continue our policy which came close to eliminating ISIS but after our betrayal of the Kurds and our recent behavior is troublesome. Its hard to imagine anyone thinking we are better off.
His behavior in the Ukraine was clearly self serving and has led to articles of Impeachment. While he is likely to be acquitted on political grounds but the behavior has been confirmed.
Domestically some areas might depend on your political perspective, like abortion. Others like hate crimes, health care, tax fairness, gun control, social justice, we see nothing good.
Finally, everyone agrees that the country is more divided than anyone would want. When you get elected due to a quirk in our constitution after losing the popular vote significantly, you should probably consider the desires of the majority.
He doesn't.
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Is This Helping America?
When you consider the middle east and our involvement in it, it boils down to two issues, Oil and Israel.
Now for various reasons we have been identified as enemies by many natives in the region resulting in various attacks on us as "The Great Satan".
The current situation has a rather long and complex history, with escalations at each stage involving us more and more in countries which in all honesty have no great impact on America, except of course for the fact that we have troops there.
What is probably the next stage is increasing hostilities, possibly war, with Iran which I'm sure we can "defeat" but which I doubt we can subjugate.
We had at one time installed a friendly ruler there, the Shah, and we know how that worked out.
The question now is how many Americans and Iranians are going to die now?
It is almost certain that in ten years time we can use the following sentence,
"After xxx casualties and $xxx dollars we have no resolution in sight and must maintain our presence in the area."
So dead Americans and wasted billions, if not trillions.
Refugees and ruined lives for many Iranians.
And the benefit is?
Are the lives of our young people really that unimportant?
What about the potential terrorist victims here and abroad?
And no real reason why.
Now for various reasons we have been identified as enemies by many natives in the region resulting in various attacks on us as "The Great Satan".
The current situation has a rather long and complex history, with escalations at each stage involving us more and more in countries which in all honesty have no great impact on America, except of course for the fact that we have troops there.
What is probably the next stage is increasing hostilities, possibly war, with Iran which I'm sure we can "defeat" but which I doubt we can subjugate.
We had at one time installed a friendly ruler there, the Shah, and we know how that worked out.
The question now is how many Americans and Iranians are going to die now?
It is almost certain that in ten years time we can use the following sentence,
"After xxx casualties and $xxx dollars we have no resolution in sight and must maintain our presence in the area."
So dead Americans and wasted billions, if not trillions.
Refugees and ruined lives for many Iranians.
And the benefit is?
Are the lives of our young people really that unimportant?
What about the potential terrorist victims here and abroad?
And no real reason why.
Monday, January 6, 2020
Justification?
When I watch some of the Sunday news shows, you hear explanations for certain action by this administration. They are frequently illogical and condescending to both the American public and sometimes the world.
The recent assassination of an Iranian general has no real legal justification. We are not at war with Iran and while we may attribute certain action by Militias in Iraq and Syria to Iranian influence to hold a high official in the Iranian government personally responsible would mean our officials can be held responsible for acts performed by militias we support.
If he was indeed planning an "imminent" attack on this country or our citizens it might be justification, but such an attack would need to be actually in the works and imminent.
It should also be noted that the attack was done without internal notification and on a third party countries territory.
No matter how bad he might have been, and he clearly was, he was still an official of a country we are not at war with.
The danger is that our ability to simply kill actors from a distance adds a new dimension to this sort of assassination. Had we at least accused him internationally of war crimes we may have had some justification.
Repercussions are already started and they are likely to escalate. That is not the reason the assassination was wrong, it is wrong because it is essentially a violation of "thou shall not kill".
Whatever exceptions we have applied to that, none of them seem to apply here.
The recent assassination of an Iranian general has no real legal justification. We are not at war with Iran and while we may attribute certain action by Militias in Iraq and Syria to Iranian influence to hold a high official in the Iranian government personally responsible would mean our officials can be held responsible for acts performed by militias we support.
If he was indeed planning an "imminent" attack on this country or our citizens it might be justification, but such an attack would need to be actually in the works and imminent.
It should also be noted that the attack was done without internal notification and on a third party countries territory.
No matter how bad he might have been, and he clearly was, he was still an official of a country we are not at war with.
The danger is that our ability to simply kill actors from a distance adds a new dimension to this sort of assassination. Had we at least accused him internationally of war crimes we may have had some justification.
Repercussions are already started and they are likely to escalate. That is not the reason the assassination was wrong, it is wrong because it is essentially a violation of "thou shall not kill".
Whatever exceptions we have applied to that, none of them seem to apply here.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Increasing Danger
Its impossible at this point to determine the full consequences of our recent assassination of a foreign General we are not at war with. It Is at the very least a strong recruitment tool for various terrorists groups. The claims that this saved American lives is probably specious and of course without further information we will never know, but considering the lie record of this President it is likely false.
We see our country now on a heightened level of alert and everyone expects retaliation of some sort. How much this will escalate the fighting in the middle east is unpredictable, but we have a President throwing fuel on the fire with ongoing public threat that sound a lot like rhetoric you usually hear for terrorist leaders or petty tyrants.
He may qualify as both.
The justifications for this assassination are not very convincing and certainly not based on sound legal doctrine. The idea that it was done in self defense is just not very credible. He was certainly providing advice and guidance to various militias operating in Syria and Iraq but that is nothing new and there is no evidence it was aimed at us in particular. It is also unlikely that his death will make much difference since the people planning these events are still there.
It is very likely that plans will not be made to target American interests more than before. It has made the world and this country less safe for Americans. It is also likely to be the total end of any compliance with the nuclear deal they agreed to.
Not too long ago there was a movie called "Real Genius" about students at I believe MIT . In the movie they learned that Government project they were working on was for a weapon that would allow the military to assassinate foreign enemies from space, and they proceeded to effectively sabotage it. The general idea of using science as an instrument of assassination was abhorrent to them.
Of course science has always enhanced our ability to kill each other and the movie while funny was naïve. The research would go on despite their actions and our ability to kill remotely would grow.
Of course that is a double edged sword ultimately.
We see our country now on a heightened level of alert and everyone expects retaliation of some sort. How much this will escalate the fighting in the middle east is unpredictable, but we have a President throwing fuel on the fire with ongoing public threat that sound a lot like rhetoric you usually hear for terrorist leaders or petty tyrants.
He may qualify as both.
The justifications for this assassination are not very convincing and certainly not based on sound legal doctrine. The idea that it was done in self defense is just not very credible. He was certainly providing advice and guidance to various militias operating in Syria and Iraq but that is nothing new and there is no evidence it was aimed at us in particular. It is also unlikely that his death will make much difference since the people planning these events are still there.
It is very likely that plans will not be made to target American interests more than before. It has made the world and this country less safe for Americans. It is also likely to be the total end of any compliance with the nuclear deal they agreed to.
Not too long ago there was a movie called "Real Genius" about students at I believe MIT . In the movie they learned that Government project they were working on was for a weapon that would allow the military to assassinate foreign enemies from space, and they proceeded to effectively sabotage it. The general idea of using science as an instrument of assassination was abhorrent to them.
Of course science has always enhanced our ability to kill each other and the movie while funny was naïve. The research would go on despite their actions and our ability to kill remotely would grow.
Of course that is a double edged sword ultimately.
Friday, January 3, 2020
Terrorism?
Was the United States justified in assassinating Qassem Soleimani?
We are not at war with Iran or Iraq and our decision to bomb his vehicles in a foreign country is not justified by any normal rule of war.
Of course if you classify him as a terrorist and justify it on those grounds it may have some validity.
Was he a terrorist? Well he was no friend to the US and may have provided some support to groups we consider terrorist, but it should be noted he was a high level official in the Iranian Government and was not accused of War Crimes in any recognized tribunal.
For us to determine he was a terrorist, and send an air strike into Iraq to kill him sounds a bit like a terrorist action itself..
What if Iran was to decide to execute American officials in retaliation? They may not have the means but would our action give them that right?
Perhaps there are more details to come but on the facts it looks a lot like a terrorist attack.
If the rule is we did it because we can, well that isn't a great defense.
We are not at war with Iran or Iraq and our decision to bomb his vehicles in a foreign country is not justified by any normal rule of war.
Of course if you classify him as a terrorist and justify it on those grounds it may have some validity.
Was he a terrorist? Well he was no friend to the US and may have provided some support to groups we consider terrorist, but it should be noted he was a high level official in the Iranian Government and was not accused of War Crimes in any recognized tribunal.
For us to determine he was a terrorist, and send an air strike into Iraq to kill him sounds a bit like a terrorist action itself..
What if Iran was to decide to execute American officials in retaliation? They may not have the means but would our action give them that right?
Perhaps there are more details to come but on the facts it looks a lot like a terrorist attack.
If the rule is we did it because we can, well that isn't a great defense.
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Fairness
There was a time when we thought of the world as effectively infinite, where its riches could be had simply by finding and taking them. Of course since earliest times the challenge was for those who found the resource, i.e. a tree full of ripe fruit, to keep it for themselves.
So first come first served was effectively the order of the world. This is in fact the fundamental requirement for a capitalist society, the ability to keep your assets and use them as you see fit.
However the world is not infinite. Society has to decide what is fair?
We see wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer people as time passes. The old saying about the rich getting richer is truer today than it ever was. It becomes especially problematic as technology finds replacements for human power.
The ability to get a entry level job and work your way up has become more and more a thing of the past. We hear about the gig economy where people survive by having relatively short term gigs, one after the other.
The security of working at a company for years, getting promotions and pay raises and building up a pension is becoming a bit of an anachronism. Instead everyone has to constantly compete and reinvent themselves, unable to achieve security or decent benefits, saddled with student debt, constantly on edge.
Of course its not all that way, but its is moving towards it.
Should each person have some guaranteed security and an opportunity to excel or should it remain a dog eat dog sort of world?
A rich country like ours can certainly help its citizens to a certain level of security regarding education, health care and old age pensions. Or we can have the elites and the rest of us.
So first come first served was effectively the order of the world. This is in fact the fundamental requirement for a capitalist society, the ability to keep your assets and use them as you see fit.
However the world is not infinite. Society has to decide what is fair?
We see wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer people as time passes. The old saying about the rich getting richer is truer today than it ever was. It becomes especially problematic as technology finds replacements for human power.
The ability to get a entry level job and work your way up has become more and more a thing of the past. We hear about the gig economy where people survive by having relatively short term gigs, one after the other.
The security of working at a company for years, getting promotions and pay raises and building up a pension is becoming a bit of an anachronism. Instead everyone has to constantly compete and reinvent themselves, unable to achieve security or decent benefits, saddled with student debt, constantly on edge.
Of course its not all that way, but its is moving towards it.
Should each person have some guaranteed security and an opportunity to excel or should it remain a dog eat dog sort of world?
A rich country like ours can certainly help its citizens to a certain level of security regarding education, health care and old age pensions. Or we can have the elites and the rest of us.
Wednesday, January 1, 2020
Hiding the Truth
Generally in a trial two things need to be determined. The first is whether what happened constituted a crime. The second is whether the accused did in fact commit the act.
Impeachment is really no different with a major difference. An Impeachable offense does not have to be a crime, only something deemed impeachable. The duty to determine that is invested in the House of Representatives and they have returned two impeachable acts.
Under our constitution, that determination is final and we now proceed to the Senate.
The Senate conducts the equivalent of a trial to determine a number of things. Did the President actually commit the acts he is accused of? Do those acts merit the only punishment available under the constitution, removal?
We see both of these items under assault or at least being challenged on social media by the President. Despite that, it is pretty clear he did in fact perform the acts he is accused of.
What is therefore the remaining issue, and the one that the last Impeachment trial turned on, is do the offenses merit removal? It seems most likely that the Senate will decide they don't and whatever your political leanings, the actions involved, at least so far, did not result in any specific harm to the country or its citizens, outside of the real but somewhat esoteric issue of violating the Constitution.
So assuming the Senate goes the way expected, the next step is the election to follow. This is the issue related to the details of the Senate trial currently being fought over. The more witnesses and the longer it goes, the more likely the public will absorb the misdeeds that occurred.
A quick acquittal will keep the public uninformed.
Seems to be the result desired by Republicans.
Impeachment is really no different with a major difference. An Impeachable offense does not have to be a crime, only something deemed impeachable. The duty to determine that is invested in the House of Representatives and they have returned two impeachable acts.
Under our constitution, that determination is final and we now proceed to the Senate.
The Senate conducts the equivalent of a trial to determine a number of things. Did the President actually commit the acts he is accused of? Do those acts merit the only punishment available under the constitution, removal?
We see both of these items under assault or at least being challenged on social media by the President. Despite that, it is pretty clear he did in fact perform the acts he is accused of.
What is therefore the remaining issue, and the one that the last Impeachment trial turned on, is do the offenses merit removal? It seems most likely that the Senate will decide they don't and whatever your political leanings, the actions involved, at least so far, did not result in any specific harm to the country or its citizens, outside of the real but somewhat esoteric issue of violating the Constitution.
So assuming the Senate goes the way expected, the next step is the election to follow. This is the issue related to the details of the Senate trial currently being fought over. The more witnesses and the longer it goes, the more likely the public will absorb the misdeeds that occurred.
A quick acquittal will keep the public uninformed.
Seems to be the result desired by Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)