Сделаем Америку снова великой

I'll admit, I'm old school, and in most cases I don't apologize for it.  Especially when it comes to my intense wariness concerning all things Russia.  I'm not paranoid....I don't see a Rooskie behind every tree....but my memory is still vivid enough to remember stories of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on a desk back in 1956 before a gathering of Western ambassadors and telling them "We will bury you!"

Back then Russia was the Soviet Union, and their enforcers were their KGB.  They were to the Soviet Union what the Gestapo was to Nazi Germany.  Think secret police.  Nasty, evil people they were.  When the Soviet Union disintegrated and collapsed in 1991, Vladimir Putin was a proud member of that nefarious group.  For nearly 20 years now he has been the supreme authority in Russia.  The name may have changed, the flag may have changed, but Russia is just as untrustworthy today as it was back in the old Soviet days.  There's no daylight between Putin the KGB agent and Putin, the President of Russia.

Vladimir Putin desperately wants to see his Russia back on par with the United States as a world superpower.  He knows that won't happen, though, as his Russia only has an economy roughly equal to California's.  They're living hand-to-mouth.  His only hope is to saw the legs out from under the US, and the European Union, and NATO.  If he can't stand 6'4 like us, he wants us to be 5'7 like him.

Vladimir Putin is a bully, he gets what he wants, and he will do whatever it takes, legal or not, to get it.   Many psychologists say that bad boy, gang leader image is how Donald Trump sees himself, too.  They say he feels a certain kinship with Putin.  Others say it's more complicated, and commercial, than that.  They say Trump has depended on Russian money for years to keep his Trump Organization afloat.

 Vladimir Putin has been patiently cultivating Donald Trump for years.

Regardless, I can't forgive Donald Trump for not standing up to Russian evil.  With this President, I'm a one-issue citizen.  My displeasure with him is not about his foreign policy, or his economic policy, or his cabinet choices, or even his private life.  Some I agree with, some I don't.  But overriding EVERYTHING is America's security, and on this, our Commander-In-Chief has failed us.  Unless he can somehow find the courage to step up and go toe-to-toe with Vladimir Putin, I will continue to be critical of him.  Why any red-blooded American would cover for him baffles me.

S

Have we put Cousin Eddie in charge?

I feel sorry for my conservative friends who are trying to divert attention away from President Trump and focus instead on what they think is a reasonable agenda.  They articulate something worthy of debate, and then the President dumps on their message with his regular 2 am stream of brain dysentery.

Our politicians all combined couldn't lead a 2-car funeral procession out of a parking lot.  Our healthcare situation is a mess.  The Democrat's answer was ObamaCare, and the best the Republicans can come up with is their ScrewYouAmericaCare.  That's it....Plan 1, ObamaCare; or Plan 2, ScrewYouAmericaCare.  

Where's Plan 3?  "Oh, there isn't a Plan 3" they tell us.  That's because we don't have leaders who can count beyond 2!  What they've proposed amounts to putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.  Not only can't they think outside the box, they can't even find the damn box!

Of course we need to control our borders.  Every country does.  But proposing a 21st Century "Maginot Line"-like wall to keep the "murdering, raping Mexicans" out, and then expecting the murdering, raping Mexicans to pay for it is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever head of.  Somebody please enroll Donnie John in a Dale Carnegie How To Win Friends And Influence People course.

Trade agreements need to be beneficial to all involved, but over time they sometime lose their fairness.  Calling all parties to sit down together and negotiate a mid-course re-alignment is reasonable, but that won't work if our Negotiator In Chief is slinging personal insults and threats at the other participants.  Make that a remedial How To Win Friends And Influence People course!

With the end of the Cold War many of our NATO partners let their guard down.  With just a few exceptions they spent their tax dollars on everything but their own national security, thinking America always had their back.  Asking them to step up now and contribute more to the alliance is reasonable, but it should be done in respectful negotiations, not by lining up our allies and lambasting them in public. That was cringe-worthy.

We have many serious issues that need attention requiring a top notch team.  So who does President Trump choose to be on his team?  Gen. James Mattis at Defense....OK, he got that one right.  And Rex Tillerson at State....I must say he's doing much better than I expected (although reports are he's about ready to throw in the towel.)  But the rest of them aren't worth shooting.  Steve Mnuchin at Treasury?  Remember the big economic meltdown back in 2008?  Then we had a team of outstanding economic minds who, together, pulled us through.  Mnuchin was one of those who got us INTO that mess, and certainly not one who has the credentials to get us out of the next one.  God help us!   

Beauregard Sessions as AG?   Does anyone think he'll last the year?  And how about Tom Price, the architect of that great healthcare reform plan that enjoys the support of a whopping 17% of the people?  And last but not least, Betsy DeVos, Education Secretary only because her family is a mega-$$$$$ Republican contributor.  Of all the possible excellent talent he had to choose from, President Trump chose these? *sigh*

As I said, conservatives deserve to have their agenda fairly heard and debated, just as liberals do.  But where are today's composed, articulate leaders like Kennedy and Reagan, leaders who were respected if not always agreed with?  Even hardcore Republicans who have been chewing on their tongues for months trying to defend Trump are beginning to turn on him.  He's an embarrassment!

It isn't necessarily the message*, but Trump as the messenger that is threatening to send the Republicans into the political abyss, to join Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats who have already made themselves at home there. 

I feel like we're living one of those movies where both pilots have flatlined and left the plane, and the passengers, to fend for themselves.   You think Air Traffic Control will be able to talk us down?

S

* Well OK, maybe some of it is the message. ;)

In this corner...Vladimir Putin, and in this corner...the rest of the world

The first round of the French presidential election is this weekend, and it has the potential to be as much of a world changer as did Donald Trump's election in the US last year.  The big Wild Card will be how well National Front candidate Marine Le Pen does.

The five leading candidates are on this first-round ballot, with the top two going on to the final election ballot next month, assuming no one receives a 50% true majority in this first test.  Ms Le Pen is expected to make it to the final round, and that's why much of the western world, and Europe in particular, is holding their breath.

Their unease is because Ms Le Pen is friendly towards Russia, has received campaign financing from a bank close to Putin, and is likely to follow Britain's lead and will try to take France out of the European Union, and perhaps the Euro Zone (the common European monetary system), as well.  She isn't too keen on France's NATO participation, either.

Ms Le Pen and her party are anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant (read: anti-Muslim), and ultra-right-wing nationalist.  Many say her "France First" theme is a take-off of Donald Trump's "America First".  Both she and Candidate Trump slammed international trade agreements (harmful to their economies), NATO (outdated and too expensive), and have questioned sanctions on Russia.  Le Pen has even said quite clearly that she would end sanction on Russia if she was elected, and offered no objection to their "annexation" of Crimea.

If Le Pen ultimately becomes the French President, Russia will be the big winner.  The thing Russia / Vladimir Putin wants most is to see the West weakened.  A European Union without both Great Britain AND France might completely collapse, as might the Euro monetary scheme without the French.  Weakened trade relations might see barriers arise again between countries now held tight by their economies, and a NATO without one of its most powerful members may not have the same resolve.  

Putin knows he will likely never be able to go toe-to-toe with the power and influence of the United States and a united Europe.  He sees that his best chance to restore Russia to its previous glory is to bring his opponents one-by-one down to his level.  He likes leaders and countries that he sees as friendly or at least malleable.  That's why Putin was so interested in seeing Trump elected President, and why he wants to see Le Pen elected now in France, and a Russia-friendly German candidate win later this year, too.  He's been chip-chip-chipping away at us since the day he assumed power, and frankly, he's winning.  If he wasn't, I wouldn't be writing this.

Once again, it's an interesting world we live in, and we have a ringside seat to some amazing history in the making.

S

Our unraveling world

Let me just throw out some random observations regarding what's going on in the world today and then let you connect the dots:

Donald Trump campaigned on "America First", and for better or worse, he's delivering on it.  Among his demands is that NATO members should start pulling their weight financially.  They had previously agreed to each spend 2% of their GDP on defense, collectively strengthening NATO, but so far all but the US, Greece, the UK, Poland, and Estonia have reneged.  The German Foreign Minister recently said it was "quite unreasonable to believe Germany would spend 2% of its economic output on the military."

Last year the United Kingdom voted to separate themselves from the European Union, aka Brexit.  And now Scotland is again making noises about separating itself from the UK.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the French National Front Party, who vows to follow the UK's Brexit lead and get France out of the EU (Frexit?), is on the short list to become the next President of France.  She also says she will strengthen French relations with Russia.   

Speaking of:  The Russia of Vladimir Putin is punching above its weight class.  It's expanding militarily, although still for now exhibiting more bluster than true power.  At home it's an economic basket case, but Putin still has visions of Russia regaining the glory and prestige it had back in the days of the old Soviet Union.  They meddled in the recent US election (fact), and right now are meddling in the upcoming elections of France and Germany.  Their cyber-warfare capabilities are immense and expanding, and we don't seem (?) to have a way to counter them.

Russia is leaning heavily on some of their former Soviet Republic neighbors, occupying Crimea, and now actively stirring things up in the Balkans (south-eastern Europe).  Meanwhile, back at home, the Putin regime is under pressure to reform, which he isn't about to let happen.  Although it's seldom reported in the press, there is considerable public discontent with Putin.  And what often happens when a leader wants to deflect attention away from discontent at home?

The leader of Turkey, Recip Erdogan, an avowed Islamist, is consolidating power, slowly but surely dismantling the secular state established there after WWI.  He is rapidly filling the power vacuum left by crumbling neighbors Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and others.   Turkey is a long-time member of NATO (another eventual nail in NATO's coffin?) , but not a member of the European Union. (They applied, but so far have been rebuffed).

North Korea is perfecting their nuclear arms at a steady pace.  So far no one has been able to convince them to cease and desist, not even their benefactor communist neighbor, China.  North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has shown nothing but contempt for the rest of the world and seems hellbent on seating himself at the Big Table with the major powers.  He doesn't seem frightened by the concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction", which for 40 years kept the US and the USSR from attacking each other.  We don't seem to have any feasible way to dissuade North Korea.

The United States, traditionally the most stable country in the world, is still stable, but feeling some tremors.  We need some truly dependable allies, but they seem to be few and far between (see above).

Our climate is changing.  It's getting warmer almost everywhere.  Whether this is due to natural cycles or man-made factors, who knows?  But instead of playing it safe and being pro-active, we're looking the other way and just chasing the Almighty $$$.

Folks, we need to get our shit together.  Look back through history and you'll see we've been in hellacious messes before and gotten ourselves out, and we can now, too, assuming it's part of God's Grand Plan.  But just like in those past situations there will be a serious price to pay.  

The soft life we've been living for many generations may be coming to an end, which actually isn't a bad thing.  To eventually prevail we'll need to stop thinking in terms of "me, me, me" and start thinking of the common good for a change.

And as a personal request, can we please get all this worked out before next football season?  *wink*  

S
aka Chuckles :)

She played him like a three-dollar fiddle....

Did you watch the Presidential Debate last night?  What did you think?  I'm in a unique position to comment as I don't plan to vote for either of them.  As if you care, here are my thoughts:

Overall, Donald Trump had a few good ideas, but he failed to articulate them in terms voters could understand.  He often didn't connect the dots.  For example, he claimed that our trade deals to date, particularly NAFTA, were bad for working Americans.  Hillary said NAFTA was a net jobs creator for the USA.  But Trump didn't follow up with, "yes, but we lost millions of good paying manufacturing jobs and gained lots of lower paying transportation and distribution jobs.  That's a major reason our middle class is in decline."  I think he'll see that as a lost opportunity.

He said he didn't think many NATO members were paying their fair share of the organization's costs.  I tend to agree.  But he could have followed up with "those Europeans who enjoy that comfortable social safety net you're so envious of can only afford to do that because they scrimp on their own defense....they know we'll cover their a$$ if they're ever seriously threatened.  We can't afford those things for our people because we're paying to protect their people."*

But he didn't.

*Not all 28 NATO countries are stingy funding their military.  Notable exceptions include The UK and France.

Trump pointed out that there were TRILLIONS of dollars of earnings kept by American companies overseas because our high corporate tax rate prohibited them from bringing it back here.  Why didn't he expound on that by asking "why would they want to bring it back here and pay 35% when they can leave it in Ireland or the Cayman Islands and pay a single-digit tax rate?"  That might make a believable case for a corporate tax cut.

But he didn't.

When he said that he would stop American companies from moving overseas, and Hillary asked "how", he said he would put a big tax on their (now cheap) products being brought back here for sale. In other words he would start a trade war....a big no-no.  

He could have pointed out that as our tax laws are now written, companies that make a move overseas can take a one-time tax write-off for the expenses involved, often up into the $BILLIONS for large companies.  In other words, the American taxpayers are subsidizing their move....the very taxpaying workers being laid off are paying their former employers for laying them off!  

But he didn't.

Hillary let more than a few opportunities slip by, too.  When Trump said his massive tax cut (to the wealthy) would enable them to create new and expand existing businesses and jobs, all Hillary said was "Trumped-up trickle-down economics doesn't work".  Why didn't she quote some of the authoritative research (such as by the Wall Street Journal) that says there is at least $1.7Trillion in wealth sitting idle on the sidelines right now because wealthy individuals and companies can't find enough good places to invest it, and when they do, it's often overseas?  A tax cut to the wealthy will likely create relatively few new American jobs.  

A lost opportunity, Hillary.

When she pointed out that years ago Trump was sued for racial discrimination regarding the leasing practices of his properties, his comeback was, "and I settled that without admitting any guilt."   She could have said that was like a mobster saying sarcastically "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing."  It isn't that he didn't discriminate, it's just that he got away with it.  Bye-bye black vote.

But she didn't.

I could go on and on, but you saw the same thing I did.  Basically I thought Hillary looked poised and well rehearsed, while Trump was just scattershooting and rude.  Hillary goaded him and he took the bait.  She had him on his heels most of the night.

Overall I didn't get a warm fuzzy about either.  Ummm....where was the Libertarian candidate?  The stage looked plenty big enough for a third podium to me.   ;)

S

Point / Counterpoint

The West, led by the United States, as well as Israel and most of the UN, are dead set against Iran developing nuclear weapons.  Of course we are.  Iran's leaders don't seem to think the way we in the West do.  They see sacrificing a few million of their own people in a counter-strike in order to wipe out Israel a fair trade.  Their idea of "national pride" is near suicidal.  The same goes for North Korea.

But what right do we have in telling them they can't pursue a nuclear program?  How can one sovereign nation, or group of nations, tell another sovereign nation what they can do internally?  As long as they don't use their nukes against others, shouldn't that be their right to have them?

It would be like the OPEC nations prohibiting the US from pursuing hydraulic fracturing to recover more domestic oil.  Of course it would be against their national interests for us to do so, but they don't have the right to prohibit us from doing it.

Seems to me we are just throwing international law out the window here.  That said, this is one area where I think Civil Disobedience is justified.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The US and Europe are also all bent out of shape over Russia's incursion into Ukraine and their annexation of the Crimean peninsula.  It just seems like a land grab, much like what Nazi Germany did when they took over Austria and Czechoslovakia prior to WWII.  That's how we see it at least.

But the Russian psyche is much different than ours.  They have a long memory and remember how they have been invaded repeatedly from the west.  That's why after WWII they set up all their Commie proxies....E Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungry, etc....between Western Europe (read: NATO) and themselves.  

If the West attacked again, they could devastate those proxy countries before they reached The Motherland.  At least that was their plan.  Now with many of their former Warsaw Pact allies (?) actually part of NATO, and right on their border at that, they are super antsy. 

When Russia saw the overt courtship going on between the West and Ukraine, they no doubt saw full-fledged European Union and NATO membership for Ukraine on the horizon.  Their already tightly wound paranoia snapped.  I think we were a bit too "bull-in-a-china-closet"-ish.  Now it's gonna be difficult if not impossible to get that genie back into the bottle. 

As I see it, here's our dilemma:  We need to punish and marginalize Russia for their actions without actually pushing them over the edge (letting the Russian Federation dissolve).  

Remember what happened the last time we took down evil (Iraq, Libya, and soon Syria)?  What we got was dramatically more dangerous than what we dismantled. Of course we (the West) could collectively take Russia down, but would that necessarily be a smart thing to do?

S

Now you see it....now you don't

 I love weather....nothing destructive of course, but just lots of lightning, thunder, and rain coming down in sheets.  Saturday evening I was like a kid on Christmas morning when a line of heavy thunderstorms rolled through.

In Texas, more often than not these storms come through in long, narrow north/south bands moving from west to east.  It will storm wildly for half an hour, then....it's over.  Just like that.

I was impressed by this "supersonic goose" flying in from the northwest.  It looks like it has its wings swept back like an F-14.

And then, pretty much as fast as it blew in....

....it was gone.

(Full disclosure: these beautiful photos were taken by K. :)  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My Deep Thought for the week:

These are interesting times we live in.  I've always enjoyed studying international relations.  It's like a giant chess game:  The smart players plan many moves ahead instead of just reacting to the last move of their opponent.  

 

Oops!

Yesterday Vladimir Putin made another move towards "check".  The people of Crimea voted to join Russia, and of course Russia will immediately accept.  Then they will no longer be an "occupier"; Crimea will be an integral part of the Russian Federation.

Shortly the ethnic majority in eastern Ukraine, also Russian speaking, will start down that same road.  Those regions will sooner rather than later demand an election, the conclusion forgone, and Russian troops currently sitting just across their common border will move in to "protect" them.

The US, EU, and NATO will sit on their hands as usual while all this happens.  They have the ability to act, but lack the will to do anything.  Which is just as well since those regions mean more to Russia than they do to the West, and any efforts to intercede would be doomed from the get-go.

Fortunately for the West that will be as far as it goes.  Any attempt by Russia to take over the rest of Ukraine would be received much the same as the treatment the Rooskies and the US experienced in Afghanistan....there would be a guerrilla behind every rock, something they can't afford.

I'm sure Russia would like to regain control of their former Baltic republics, but they are now integrated as full members of NATO and the European Union, and the West probably would get physically involved there if push came to shove.

That's my prediction.  Let's see if I read it right or not.  And If it turns out I did read it right, that begs the question, if dumb s__t little me sitting here in Frisco, TX can figure it out, why can't those overpaid gubment weenies in Washington figure it out, too?  Why are they always caught flat footed?

S

Sleep well tonight...NATO has your back

There was a time after WWII when the US, UK, and western Europe had real reason to believe the Soviet juggernaut would just roll right on across the Iron Curtain border and claim everything right up to the US continental shelf.  That spawned the creation of NATO.  We had the money and hardware, they had the manpower.  Fair enough.

But over the years the western Europeans got back on their feet and became solid economic powers on their own.  But they also had warm feelings for social services for their people and decided to spend their money on their people instead of their militaries.  Of course they spent some, just not as much percentage wise as they should have.  Why should they as long as Uncle Sugar was there with his checkbook?

Today we're all in economic straits, cutting back on everything, yet the US still pays for 75% of NATO's expenses.  Only the US, the UK, and basket-case Greece pay their treaty-mandated 2% of their GDP for defense spending.  (The US actually spends 4.9% of our GDP.)

Remember a couple of years ago when Europe was all up in arms about the mess Muammar Gaddafi was making of Libya?  With great chest-beating they demanded NATO military intervention.  Yes, they got it.....on our dime.  And a nickle of that we had to borrow.

According to an article in the NYT:

 “We are moving toward a Europe that is a combination of the unable and the unwilling,” said Camille Grand, a French military expert who directs the Foundation for Strategic Research. “European countries are continuing to be free riders, instead of working seriously to see how to act together.”

Meanwhile, elsewhere the news reported that many cancer treatment centers here who serve Medicare patients may soon have to turn some away because of a lack of funding, airline flights are backed up because we can't pay for enough air traffic controllers (that sequester thing), and our veterans can't get the VA benefits we promised them without waiting up to a year for their paperwork to be processed.

I'm no longer getting a warm fuzzy about NATO covering my back.  What exactly does NATO do these days, except spend our money for us?

S

Taxes....the good, the bad, and the ugly

This week it's all about taxes.  First the good:  April 17th is Tax Freedom Day.  The average American has essentially paid all the money he's earned so far this year to Uncle Sam to satisfy his tax bill.  After tomorrow he'll be working to put money in his pocket.  YEA!!


Now the bad:  Your taxes are due today.  Pay up.  BOO!!


Finally, the ugly:  IMO most Americans wouldn't mind paying their taxes IF we felt our government was being run efficiently and fairly.  I've heard it said that most Europeans don't mind paying much higher taxes than we do because they feel like their government is run efficiently (?) and they're getting something for their money.  A college education is inexpensive or even free for most, child care is free or heavily subsidized, unemployment and job re-training is much more generous, etc.  We won't even go into health care.  


Yes, those things cost a lot of money, and Europeans are taxed through the nose to pay for it (except the Italians and Greeks apparently), but at least they get something for their tax dollars...er...euros.  And yes, since the end of WWII NATO (read: the USA) has covered much of the cost of their national security, leaving them more money for their social programs, but still....  (European readers, if this is not true please feel free to correct me.)  


By contrast, here in the US we have a system that taxes one group and generally gives the benefits to another group, fomenting class conflict.  For example, I had to pay 100% of the cost to have braces on my kid's teeth.  I didn't qualify for any type of government help.  (Here in Texas kids on Medicaid can get them for free.)   College....100% on me.  We made too much to qualify for any grants.  Child care....no government assistance for us.  I know some will say, "But Scott, you could afford to pay for those things for yourself."  I disagree.  It was a HUGE struggle for us at the time.  We had to go without a lot, but my tax bill still came due on April 15th.  Imagine paying for car insurance, then having an accident and being told you didn't qualify for a repair because you made too much money.  Same principle.  You can imagine how such treatment might lead to "tax resentment".


Yes, of course, the rich pay LOTS in taxes, but they also get LOTS of special treatment / tax breaks, etc. And corporations....somebody 'splain to me again why we give BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies to highly profitable companies like ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConAgra, and others?


Here's my point:  I'm not necessarily suggesting we should adopt Europe's social programs.  We can't afford what we have now, I contend because our government is run so inefficiently it's criminal.  What I am suggesting is that we need to spread the payment of taxes and the benefits they bring more evenly.


OK, rip me. 


S