So do you pick what's behind door #1, door #2, or door #3?

On August 3rd, after being forced (Senate override guaranteed) to sign a tough sanctions position against Russia, Pres. Trump tweeted:

To which Sen. John McCain replied:

Now think about this for a second.  Which sounds more rational?  Did the US and our allies impose sanctions on Russia originally for no reason?  Did we just want to be jerks?  Or did we impose sanctions on Russia in response to their military invasion and annexation of Crimean Ukraine?  Who started this chain of events?

I can only imagine three possible explanations for Pres. Trump's position:

1.  President Trump and his campaign knew of and welcomed Russian assistance in helping their 2016 election campaign.  (The Russians would then be expecting a "thank you" easing of sanctions in return from a President Trump after his inauguration.)

2.  The Trump election campaign knew of and welcomed Russian assistance, while Pres. Trump was kept in the dark at the time, but is now trying to interfere and discredit the Special Counsel's investigation to expose the collusion.  (This is the same type of obstruction of justice vs the crime itself that brought down the Nixon White House.)

or

3.  This "smoke" is all just a coincidence and there is no "fire".  Pres. Trump simply has a serious infatuation with Putin, Russia, and their billionaire oligarchs and the organized-crime-like way they are able to conduct their business without interference from government regulators, honestly elected civil servants, and a free press.

IMO none of these three possible explanations are in the American public's best interest.  If you disagree, or can imagine a fourth possibility I haven't thought of, please state your case.  I would honestly, respectfully like to hear your opinions.

S

Label snobs

We are obsessed with labels.  Sometimes labels can serve a very useful purpose, but at other times they just get in the way.  How...why have we become like this?

When I was a kid in the last century I remember there were Ford guys and there were Chevy guys, and the two would never mix.  Each felt they were always right, and the other side was always wrong.  Fast forward and today we have rock-solid Lexus guys and Mercedes guys.

Wine:  Aristocrats (wannabe or actual) always chose French wines.  California wines were unthinkable.  Labels rule!

Style:  Neiman Marcus vs Saks Fifth Avenue has now deteriorated to Walmart vs Target.  Labels rule!

And of course, philosophy.  We Americans seem hopelessly wed to our labels of either Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, capitalist or socialist.  Labels rule!

Today there are a few new caveats, however.  A new subset of voters is based on race or gender or sexual preference.  A female candidate will pull in many more than the usual number of female voters.  A black candidate will get the black vote.  An LGBT candidate will likely get the LGBT vote.  Labels rule!

As President Nixon was boarding his helicopter to leave Washington back in 1974, there were still 24% of the American people (mostly hard-core Republicans) who supported him.  Labels rule!

Currently a vast majority of Republicans (but only 35% +/- of the population) feels President Trump is doing a great job.  Labels rule!

Listen up knuckleheads:  LABELS ARE STUPID!  We're being played.  It's a public relations game.  The PR guys can regurgitate on demand all the "facts" that support their point of view, and just conveniently omit those pesky facts that don't.  And if they don't have any facts to support their position, they just make some up.  Why do you think Snopes exists?

Democrats need to understand that Republicans CAN have some good ideas, and vice versa.  Capitalism is great, except when it's hijacked by greed.  Socialism is IMO generally flawed, but can also give us some incredibly useful programs, like public financing of schools, and (some would argue) Social Security and Medicare.

Learn to think for yourself, because if you let someone else think for you, they will own you.  And there's a label for that, too.

S

Heroes or villains?

Washington has been turned inside out recently by leaks to the press telling us what's REALLY going on there behind closed doors.  Meanwhile the debate heats up....are the leakers heroes or villains?

Many see the issue in black or white terms.  The hard-core Trumpsters and Tea Party-types seem to think the leakers are all traitors, no exceptions.  "We need to find those who spilled the beans about President Trump giving away intelligence secrets and send them to prison for life + 20 years."  Ummm....what about the fact that Prez Trump GAVE AWAY INTELLIGENCE SECRETS?  That doesn't seem to bother them.

Then the crowd who has no love for Mr. Trump thinks that the leakers are all saints and deserve the Medal Of Honor.  Whether it's tidbits about whether the President's feet stink or whether he has a Russian KGB mistress on the side, it's all good.  Unless it smudges the reputation of one of their favorite mobsters politicians, then they want to lock 'em away, too.

It seems to me there is a huge gray area not being considered, namely WHAT is being leaked.  If the leaker sees what is going on behind closed doors and honestly believes a crime is being committed, or if they see a blatant misuse of power, and if they also see an active coverup in progress, then I can understand why they might want to put their career and maybe even their freedom on the line for the good of the country.  

A good example would be Mark Felt, the #2 man at the FBI during the infamous Watergate scandal back in '72.  He knew what was going on, saw the nefarious efforts being taken to protect President Nixon, and knew it was wrong.  His conscience told him to feed tips to Washington Post journalists Woodward and Bernstein, enabling them to get the truth out to the American people.  If his identity had been known he would surely have lost his job at the FBI and perhaps even been prosecuted.  (His identity was kept secret for 30 years.)

This contrasts to leakers like Wikileaks' Julian Assange.  He isn't leaking what he does out of some sort of righteous indignation of a wrong going unpunished.  He's just a prick.  He wants to pick and choose who he hurts and who he helps based on his personal likes and dislikes.  He just loves causing trouble and sticking a sharp stick in the eye of anyone who he feels slighted him or someday might slight him.  Plus he's a misogynist.

IMO, leakers can be both heroes (like Mr. Felt) or villians (like Mr. Assange), depending on their motives.  So far, the leakers who are coming out with disturbing info regarding President Trump and his associates and their actions vis a vis Russia seem to fall into the category of the former.  The copycat leakers likely to eventually show up with nothing more than embarrassing gossip looking for their 15 minutes of fame deserve the latter title.

Let's look at motives carefully before we assign either medals or prison uniforms.

S