I saw the following posts on Glen Reynolds Instapundit site where I learned that the capture of Maduro is not only a victory for the Trump Administration but also White men. Yes, White men are the only one’s capable of pulling off such competence needed for such a special military operation. No people of color or women involved at all so the only reason it came off without hitch was because White men were in charge of the project and White men performed all of the tasks.

This isn’t the least bit racist either because he is just pointing out the facts. There were only White men involved and the result was military success.

What a crock. There have been lots of successful military operations in the past 6,000 years. Some of them surely involved people of color.

And just in the spirit of balance, I would like to point out the many historical disasters initiated by White men — trench warfare and Viet Nam will suffice as gentle reminders that depending on White men sometimes leads to disaster.

This is, given the divisive nature of the Trump administration and criticism regarding their racial politics, oddly counter productive to what I would think is the goal of such an operation. This was a necessary action conducted for the nation and benefit all Americans. We are all in this together.

But if you are going out of your way to gloat about the performance of just White men than, yeah, great, go White men. The Venezuela Operation is all about White men.

On the other hand, if anything goes wrong later, and surely an undertaking of this size, something will go wrong. We can assign the blame for these mistakes on White men.

Sorry for the photographs. I couldn’t link to the post so I took pictures. If you want to go to Instapundit site and find these posts of January 4 around 5PM.

I was talking with my brother about the Hitler/Trump comparison and I always end up in the same place. Trump just isn’t Hitler. Not even close. It is an impossible measurement. Hitler is one of the all time champion dictatorial monsters. Valid comparisons to Hitler are Stalin and Mao but Trump falls short in this competition. Way way short.

This doesn’t mean Trump isn’t dangerous, he just fails to match Hitler.

I think the Hitler comparison comes about because Hitler’s rule was so disastrous for the entire world. A lot of people died directly and indirectly during his rampage through history. He is the worst case scenario. Hitler is meant to scare people. But because Trump isn’t nearly as bad as Hitler the comparison fails to accomplish this task and might even be counter productive.

The danger of this comparison is that people will judge the comparison as faulty and dismiss the argument.

The real problem, as my brother pointed out, is that Trump is crossing lines that are intolerable in democracy. He is arresting people and taking over countries with very thin pretexts. He is condemning people to death without trial. He thinks the president can do anything he wants. He is no longer playing by the rules of American democracy so when is it all right for people who disagree with him to stop playing by those rules.

This is a much more difficult proposition and one we need to be very careful about. Political violence is terrible because once it starts, all bets are off. Once the bodies pile up, things get pretty bloody awfully fast. I, personally, would like to avoid that if at all possible. I may be wrong but I still think we aren’t at a point to stop playing by the rules.

I have been looking for an example of what is wrong with the present political system that isn’t about Donald Trump doing something outrageous. This has been a difficult task because Trump is consistently behaving outrageously. It is so frequent that I started writing the present blog minutes before I discovered Trump kidnapped the Venezuelan president and his wife. I had to stop this blog to write another blog because kidnapping a president and taking over another country is pretty big news.

I now feel comfortable to return to the less outrageous, but concerning, actions of a politician I happen to like — Nancy Pelosi. She believes there is something wrong with Donald Trump’s mental capacity related to his advanced age. I happen to agree with her. The problem I have is her diagnosis is tainted by her previous toleration of Joe Biden’s declining mental capacity while he was president. She was quite willing to foist a declining senior citizen who also happened to be a Democrat on us until it became obvious to the general public that Biden was no longer capable of doing the job.

So thanks but no thanks for this helpful information about Trump. Her words here are meaningless because she changes her tune depending on what party the declining senior citizen is a member. The same criticism goes for all the many Republican and conservative pundits who delighted in pointing out Biden’s decline while presently ignoring the deteriorating health of Trump. How can you take seriously people who complain about putting an old man into power while simultaneously nominating a 78 year old man for president. Huh?

But Trump isn’t the same as Biden. Maybe, maybe not. The issue, however, is putting an aging person in a position of power. The health of 78 year old can change and change rapidly. It isn’t a particularly wise move particularly if you say you are concerned about an aging person in power. What makes putting a 78 year old in power in 2024 different from putting a 79 year old in power in 2020?

So talk all you want about your concerns but it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in your opinion when you selectively use arguments that are important when your party is out of power and not so important when your party is in power. It is, in fact, irritating to hear such hypocrisy roll of the tongues of leaders who expect, in return, that you take it as received wisdom. So blah blah blah right back at you.

I have to give Donald Trump credit. He chooses his enemies well. Nicolas Maduro is an unpopular asshole and difficult to defend as he is probably, at least passively, involved in the drug trade. A good portion of his own people are glad to see him go which puts people who question Trump’s action in the awkward position of saying but what about the law. Yeah, well, keep talking because I don’t think it is going to matter much. This would only matter if he had fucked it up and he didn’t.

People will be outraged. Rightfully so, but it will have little effect. What is the frequent theme for television heroes? A guy who doesn’t let the rules get in the way of him doing the right thing. Over and over again. The hero, if ever, is very rarely a rule following fussbudget. The hero isn’t going to get all the right forms completed and then signed off before arresting the villain. The hero is a rule breaking rouge, a bit of a scoundrel, who figures a way to get the villain despite those annoying rules.

This isn’t a television show and Trump is no television hero. Right. That is the theory any way. The reality, I’m afraid, is somewhat different because why has everyone been glued to their televisions for the past year waiting for Trump’s next move. The Trump show keeps coming up with different ways to shock and entertain us. What will he do next?

But this is an illegal operation, done without congressional authorization, against a head of a legally elected government. But but but and blah blah blah.

To be clear, I don’t support this in any way. I am saying that the outrage will be limited to the people who already hate the man. I doubt very much that anyone else will have their minds changed about him particularly when a Trump controlled Venezuelan government floods the energy markets with cheap oil. I hope I am wrong and the world will come to their senses and turn on Trump. Right now, I doubt it.