Tag: Politics

By on

I have to hand it to Donald Trump. He picks his targets wisely. Trans people are an infinitesimally small minority that most people don’t understand and don’t have any contact with. They are mostly an unknown, not likely to get people out into the streets. Immigrants can’t vote and are being blamed for many of the social ills that afflict the country. Their status is vulnerable because many are here illegally. Now, he has declared foreign drug smugglers as terrorists which gives the government the ability to blow them out of the water without trial. Brilliant. Trump gets to pick on two hated groups for the price of one — they are foreigners so they can’t vote and they are engaging in an illegal act so they aren’t very popular. Bingo.

Defending them is tantamount to saying I want drug smugglers importing their poison into the country. Is that what you want? It’s awkward position to have to defend but, then, defending despicable people is sometimes necessary to defend every citizen’s rights. So here goes nothing.

What is disturbing me is that I thought I understood my legal rights as a citizen. This understanding seems out of steps with what the Trump Administration believes. I thought that terrorists had the same rights as any ordinary thug. It seems like a regular old American drug dealer unloading drugs at a dock in an American city would be treated differently than the drug smugglers killed recently in the Caribbean. They should be given an opportunity to surrender and given an opportunity to explain themselves in court. Right?

As far as I can tell, they weren’t given an opportunity to surrender. Again this seems like a reasonable first step in any police action where lethal force might be used. Why kill the suspect when you can get them to surrender. But these suspects weren’t warned. This doesn’t seem like a difficult step to take. Put a helicopter in the air, have someone with a megaphone explain the situation to the trapped smugglers and give them an opportunity to surrender.

Then there is the killing. My understanding of using lethal force is that it is limited to imminent danger. Someone’s life has to be in danger now, not some person who might use the drugs a week from now. This doesn’t seem to be the case here. The U.S. Navy was in control. They didn’t ask them to surrender and there was no imminent danger to anyone until the Navy attacked the drug smugglers.

Finally, drug smuggling isn’t a capital crime. No where in the United States can anyone be executed for drug smuggling. Again, what would have happened if this had happened on U.S. soil? Also has the status of terrorists been designated to local drug dealers? Can we expect executions in the streets to ensue?

Of all the shitty things that Donald Trump has done, this, I believe, is the worst because he has undermined my notion of what my rights are. I used to be able to say with some confidence what they were. Now you can say well as long as you don’t engage in drug smuggling you are safe. For now, maybe, but this man has intimidated his way into being the final say about what the law is and how the government interprets the law. So far he has used them against unpopular and marginal targets. As I am gay and reside in a more vulnerable part of the population, I question how safe I really am. All I can say is I don’t feel particularly safe anymore.

By on

I love Bill Maher’s response to Karoline Leavitt’s defense of Trump calling a reporter piggy. Leavitt thinks it is good that Trump is so honest and frank with reporters. Maher took her up on her defense of being honest and frank and called her a bitch. Good for him.

Trump is nearly 80 year old man. He knows that he crossed a line when he called a woman he has a professional relationship piggy. Anyone, as Trump has been, involved in the business world of the last 50 years knows it. The woman deserves an apology but won’t get one because Trump, in that warped little mind of his, thinks that apologizing is some form of weakness and he is so worried about being perceived as weak that he will never deign to apologize to anyone.

This isn’t really the worst problem this little foot-in-mouth incident exposes. Getting an apology is between Trump and the reporter. What is troubling is that Leavitt and other Trump lackeys aren’t willing to call him out for it. No one is willing to remind him of the hard truths of living in the 21st century and how he should conduct himself in his professional relationships.

Yes, she wants to keep her job but this would seem like a good opportunity to help the boss out. An apology would end this relatively minor dust up. Now he looks like an asshole when he could look like less of asshole, sorry he will always be an asshole in my eyes, with a simple I’m sorry. Since Leavitt isn’t saying that an apology is order, it speaks volumes about Trump’s management style. You can’t speak honestly with him even when the stakes are low.

This is a terrible person to be in charge of a business and potentially disastrous person to be running a country. But hey ho at least those Commie Democrats aren’t in charge.

The good news is I think every reporter in the White House pool should feel free to address him as President Fatso. I mean just to be honest and frank with him. He clearly values that kind of honesty.

By on

Having been Wily Coyote to Roadrunner Donald Trump numerous times since Trump took office, I am a bit suspicious that the Epstein Files are going to change anything. Truly, if the Democrats had anything significant on him they would have released it before now and Trump has changed his mind about releasing them, I think, then, there can’t be anything more damaging to Trump than what we already know.

Consider:

  1. The Justice Department has had this information for years. If there was something worth pursing, it would have been pursued by now. It just beggars belief that Democrats would sit on something that was damaging to Trump for this long. If they did, then they should be sued for political malpractice.
  2. The new evidence would have to be undeniable and horrible. Barring videos depicting Trump struggling with an underage girl then I think he is going to be fine. Let’s face it, he was convicted of sexual abuse and still won the 2024 election. There would have to be something truly damning for this to matter and if they had this damning evidence why did the Justice department sit on it so Trump could win the 2024 election. It doesn’t make any sense.
  3. If all the new evidence shows is that Trump knew Epstein and Epstein thought Trump was an asshole, then I am afraid that is a lot of nothing. Lots of people knew Epstein and lots of people think Trump is an asshole. Tell me something new.
  4. Trump is willing to release the evidence. I don’t mean to give Trump a compliment here but he isn’t that dim. The thought that he would willingly release evidence that would prove he was involved in child sex trafficking and rape is under estimating the man who has bested his betters quite a lot.

My point here is that I lived through too many Trump is finally cornered situations only to see Trump beep beep right out of the corner. Maybe let’s wait on the celebration and champagne until Trump is really backed into a corner. I just don’t think this is it.

By on

I know I hold a minority opinion among Democrats about the shutdown but what is the point of keeping government shutdown any longer. I believe that government has a job to do and it best get back to doing it — even if it is less than perfect and it will always be less than perfect.

There is a segment of the Republican Party who hates government so much that they don’t particularly care if it is open and will use any opportunity to undermine its function and will look with glee at its destruction. This segment of the Republican party doesn’t care if people go hungry. The Rich were not being hurt by the shutdown. The Poor were.

The Democrats, being the minority party, had very little leverage to change minds. Trump holds sway with the Republicans. What he says goes. He wasn’t going to backdown and there is little evidence that there were Republicans getting ready to bolt this position.

The idea that holding out longer would create a Democratic victory was a pipe dream. The Democrats who voted to reopen government are not traitors. They looked at the facts and made a reasonable decision. Continuing the shutdown was pointless and it was hurting actual people.

The Democratic Senators that voted to reopen tended to come from Purple states where either party could win an election. You don’t get to govern unless you win elections. A lesson that Liberal Democrats need to be reminded of all the time. Yes Mamdani won New York but there is little evidence that the same holds true for say New Hampshire or Wisconsin.

Given our forefathers structure of government, this means winning in states with a more conservative electorate. These moderates are needed in order to win future elections. So I think all this talk of punishing them is incredibly unhelpful. Indeed this is how Trump is keeping his party in line — punishing the Republicans who don’t agree 100% with him.

Let’s keep everyone on board.

By on

Republicans are complaining about Virginians electing Jay Jones as Attorney General. Jones’ emails were released that showed him wishing violence on both his opponent and his opponent’s kids. Wow. What would be thought of as a disqualifying action with the voters wasn’t enough to defeat Jones.

I feel their pain. This is how I felt when Trump defeated Harris in 2024. How the voters could elect such a nakedly corrupt individual over a rather mundane political hack was beyond me. But the voters had a choice. A lot of voters felt they had a bad choice but a choice nonetheless. They choose the nakedly corrupt Trump which means that they feared Harris more than they did from Trump.

Now I disagree with the voters who opted for Trump over Harris as the lesser of two evils. But when Democrats got upset about it, I felt they were missing the point. When Trump is seen as the lesser of two evils, the problem isn’t with the voters. The problem is your candidate. Something was turning marginal voters against the Democrat’s candidate. Instead of complaining about the voters, it might be wiser to look at why people made this decision and alter your course.

The Republican brand might just be having a similar problem right now. Given a bad choice between a man who would like to see his opponent shot and a Republican incumbent then it might be time for a little self reflection on how voters see the Republican Party. I am fairly certain that they will resist this temptation. But, honestly, if you can’t beat a candidate with such negative press and a weak defense of his actions, you are in bigger trouble than you can comprehend.

By on

I am amazed when I see posts like the one above. People who want to do away with taxes and regulations have this idea that once they are free from taxes and regulation that they will have all this extra money to spend and lead a glorious government free life. Unfortunately the tax free, regulation free past was miserable. It is only with the expansion of government which regulated the market economy and the taxes paid by the public for these changes did this general misery end.

Once you remove taxation and regulation, people will be presented with an array of new bills which have to be paid. Things like nuclear weapons, the army, the navy, the air force, the justice system, police protection, fire protection, road repair, street lights — all these things and so much more will need to be paid for. Then people will have to figure out if their restaurants meet health standards, buildings are being built so that they will stay up during earthquakes, stopping people from dumping toxins into rivers, checking to see if every household is disposing of human waste properly, to name just a few. Who will do it? How will they be paid?

Is Government perfect? Absolutely not. Could it be done better? Of course. Is this a reason to do away with it completely. No. No more than a Market Economy can’t do everything to meet all of our needs, at least, not without the help of government.

Here is the bottom line — the vast majority of people in this country want a market economy. This isn’t going to change in the near future. In order to make this market economy work, we also need a strong government presence to ensure that the rich, people who have power and money, don’t abuse this power and money to take advantage of people who do not have power and money. This also isn’t going to change in the near future.

This means that we have to figure out a way to make these two, sometimes, antagonistic systems work together. Is this perfect? No but then no system is perfect. Ever. This is our common challenge — how to make an imperfect world work for as many people as humanly possible. It will always be imperfect and we will always be working to make it better. But, given the present interlocking structures that is our system, eliminating Government is absurd and unworkable.

By on

Texas wants to bring back religious training back to the public schools. The idea here is that the majority religion is Christianity and, given this fact, Texas’ children will learn a little bit about it and become model citizens.

I am probably more blase about religious education than the typical non-religious person. It doesn’t bother me in the least because I know after 12 years of Catholic education, religious training only increased my antagonism towards religion. Add forced Sunday church services like my parents did and Texas will probably get the same share of non-religious people as before Texas began religious education. Really if kids are already having problems with math, history, English and science what makes Texas think that educators will be any better with teaching religion?

But that is not that question before us — the question is can Texas government make children learn about Christianity. I would unequivocally say yes if it weren’t for one important factor. The assumption here is that Christians will sit down and agree on what is to be taught.

Given the past 2,000 years of Christians bitter and brutal quarreling about Christian doctrine, this assumption is a lot of wishful thinking (See Savonarola, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, 1970’s Northern Ireland if you need some refresher on this). The primary reason the founding fathers separated the Church from the State is that European Christians had spent the last thousand years or so killing one another over religion. All of whom claimed, by the way, they were Christians.

The Founding Fathers thought that any preference to any religion would cause trouble with the other religions — especially within the various Christian groups. Better to leave religion to the individual who can practice as they wish without government interference or, and this is important, government giving a preference to any one belief.

The public schools are already a cultural battleground. Texas will only make it worse with the introduction of religion. Part of me, would love to see the various Christian groups attacking one another about the right Christian doctrine to teach. Particularly since they also claim that the Bible is clear cut about doctrine. Not. Only my sympathy for teachers and students who face an already difficult struggle with non-religious education and, of course, the fear of bloody sectarian warfare keeps me from fully supporting religious education in the public schools.

But Texas is going do what Texas is going to do, so we shall see. Have your bandages ready.

By on

One of the more telling aspects of both parties trying to gerrymander the electoral maps in states where they are the dominant party is that it sounds like both parties have given up on winning over enough members of the other party for a big win. Both parties prefer to rig the system where they can. Then they will rile their base and pick off enough undecideds to win a slim majority. Not a terribly confident strategy nor very promising strategy in getting things done.

It means that the nation is stuck in deadlock. The only way to make things happen is for people who don’t care about our political process and will ram their agenda through using extra-Constitutional methods — like Trump. Trump isn’t the problem. He is a symptom of a greater problem. The system is no longer working as it should. Changing the system, thanks to our clever forefathers, is nearly impossible without a supra majority.

To end this stalemate and hopefully save democratic institutions (or if you prefer republican ones), the country needs a modicum of co-operation between the two parties in order to make this happen. I just don’t see that happening in the present political circumstances.

It is all very depressing.

By on 1 Comment

Unless someone can provide evidence to support some criminal conspiracy was afoot, the only person who deserves blame for the murder of Charlie Kirk is Tyler Robinson who is accused of shooting him. It is important to emphasize accused because, at this point, we, and by we I mean the public, the press and the pundits, know very little to ascertain anything.

This, of course, doesn’t stop anyone from speculating. There is all this finger pointing. The shooter was Trans. The shooter was left wing. The shooter was a Mormon. The shooter came from a MAGA family. The shooter was a white man. All of these may be true but none of these groups bear any responsibility in the shooting.

Charlie Kirk fans want revenge. Against who exactly? Saying you don’t like someone or his politics and wishing them dead is not a crime. It is akin to someone in a fit of anger saying I could kill him. The important thing is they didn’t. It was a feeling that wasn’t put into action. There is nothing wrong with that and I don’t see the point of pursuing a vendetta against anyone who did. Poor taste isn’t a crime and, by all means, feel free to point out the bad taste but that is about all anyone should do about that.

Jimmy Kimmel eluded to some vague connection of the accused being a white man with a wink wink and nudge nudge, like this is supposed to mean something. I am a white man, Jimmy Kimmel is a white man, is he saying that white men are prone to murder? It is as ridiculous of a statement as the Texas congressman who wants to take Trans people off the street because a few of them have been involved in some highly visible crimes. We no more can take Trans people off the street than we can take White men off the street. These are meaningless bits of information that tell us absolutely nothing about what happened.

Here is a time when speculation is particularly dangerous. Charlie Kirk was a controversial figure. Some people are angry that he was murdered and others blame him for his contributions to a poisonous political environment. Pulling these meaningless facts out as if they mean something is pouring more fuel on an already burning fire. Now is a very good time to keep your mouth shut until you know more and then, and only then, punish the man who actually pulled the trigger instead of a group who might share some identification with the shooter.

By on

I can’t get over how often things I read on the internet are wrong. I have learned my lesson the hard way. I check everything out now because it happens so often. Even if I want it to be true, I check it out. Unless, of course, it is funny and then I pass on without further clarification.

So yesterday I read the following post in Instapundit, a conservative/libertarian site, with a bit of skepticism:

How could 1 million people march in London? That’s 10 percent of the population of central London. The number looked suspicious to me. So I checked new sources who give a significantly lower number of between 110,000 and 150,000 people. This is still a pretty large number of people but off by 850,000. I was going to write about this but decided it could wait until tomorrow.

To my surprise, today Instapundit is reporting 3,000,000 marchers:

So I checked newspapers and the Independent is still using the 110,000 to 150,000 number. Which sounds about right. Think about 3,000,000 people in the streets around Whitehall. It was difficult enough to get 150,000 in there much less 3,000,000.

What bothers me is that the actual number, which is quite impressive, isn’t good enough. Why lie about it? And why lie with such a patently unbelievable numbers. And if you will lie about this, what else will you lie about? It undermines anything you have to say to me because if you lie to me once I can guarantee I will be checking you out every single time you try to use numbers to convince me.