A blog of political positions and thoughts, from a liberal who evolved into a moderate, and who keeps on evolving. Open-minded analysis. Plain writing. Occasional profanity.
Sunday, March 24, 2024
Long delayed Afghanistan post
Thursday, June 16, 2022
More great assorted links
I'm a fan of history especially history that helps explain the world I live in today. One piece I got to see personally was the science-led ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). I did independent study on the issue while in college in the late 70s, and it's fascinating to look back. Back then, science was more respected and not just a ping pong ball in adversarial politics.
A great, passionate talk about race relations in the US. Insight after insight. Watch and learn so much that you need to learn.
Unusual mail-in ballot numbers in Wisconsin. Probably some fraud, but not huge amounts. And during covid, nursing homes were making sure residents got to vote. But that makes sense because residents weren't getting visits.
Explanation of US oil production and the effects of covid. Demand cratered, pumping didn't slow, the market was over saturated, prices cratered, producers went bankrupt, production dropped sharply.
The view from Twitter employees on the Musk takeover. Nervous. (Funny, this one fell apart, but here's a historical record.)
Fact-checking the 'blockbuster' expose movie about voter fraud. The premise is very weak--the Dems supposedly had 2000 ballot harvesters, based on cell phone tower ping data.
The military has a problem with white supremacists. But according to some conservatives, the military is actually trying to censor conservatives. Here are some cases.
Mark Esper, former Secretary of Defense, describes how Trump was unfit to be president. Maybe compare that with Rick Scott's reasons for calling Biden unfit.
How were voting rights for black people secured? It was a long process, where the federal government ignored the problem for years despite having the mandate right in the 14th amendment to enforce those rights.
A pilot project sent mental health teams to respond to minor police calls in Denver. It was successful, so maybe we'll see more diverse response teams become more common rather than relying so much on police.
An software engineer at Google has been suspended for sharing private information. It concerns his opinion that an artificial intelligence (AI) application has achieved sentience. That puts the engineer into an ethical dilemma.
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Turkey, Syria, the Kurds, and Trump
However, Trump's withdrawal announcement was clearly very abrupt. It looks like Turkey's dictator Erdogan had been threatening to invade Kurdish-held areas for months, and he finally flipped the switch. Trump didn't know what to do, so he claims that he's withdrawing the troops, not due to pressure (which would make him look weak) but because the US doesn't need to be involved in endless wars.
Hew and cry because it looks like the US is abandoning our Kurdish allies to be slaughtered by the Turks (not their friends). Also, the Kurds are holding thousands of Isis fighter and their families in camps, and may release them under the onslaught. Cue Trump to say stupid, insensitive things like where were the Kurds on D-Day?
Two days later, Trump sends VP Pence to try to negotiate. Oh, there was a childish letter in the mix somewhere too. Pence gets an agreement from Erdogan about some limits on the invasion. The stated goal for Turkey is to secure a 20 mile wide strip along the border so the Kurds in Syria can't aid the Kurds in Turkey. When I heard that, it didn't seem too bad to me as long as the Turks weren't killing civilians or Kurdish fighters not involved in Turkey. I have my doubts about Turkey's claims about Kurdish fighters, knowing that Turkey has a long history of oppressing the Kurds. But it's possible that their goal is only to set up a secure zone.
This is a big sudden shift in the military situation, and it's accompanied by new alliances. Turkey has been cozying up to Russia in trade and military equipment for a while, but this is the clearest rapprochement so far. Syria isn't happy about the deal due to the loss of territory to Turkey, and they responded with their own surprising alliance with the Kurds. The US and Iran seem to be left out of the deal-making--we don't think they'll do a deal with each other as the only ones left at the dance.
After a messy war and a messy stand-off, this might bring a more stable peace. We'll have to see. One late change is that Trump was convinced to leave some US troops in Syria to control oil fields. He needed the issue dumbed down to that point since fair treatment and loyalty to our allies mean nohting to him.
The whole Syrian war has defied early expectations. At first it looked like an Arab spring uprising, but then everyone and their brother got involved with providing arms and pursuing agendas. The Islamic butchers known as Isis became the horrid common enemy that appeared even worse than the pre-war status quo. Perhaps they saved Assad even more than Russia did. Very strange indeed.
It's hard for me to guess what the ramifications of the US move will be on the future of the Middle East and US policies there. It seems bad policy to flush longterm alliances away, and even worse ethics if it leads to massacres. I can only hope the price isn't too high for both us and the Kurds.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Interesting links again
Signs of war in Korea. The military choices in Korea aren't great. If the US decides on a military offensive against N. Korea, typically there would be a build-up of military resources and a withdrawal of civilians. Of course, that signals a military step to N. Korea, and they might strike because of it. It seems to me that an unannounced, substantial attack would be more effective. However, a deadly response from N. Korea has to be expected. I don't see any military response with minimal casualties. A write-up of the possibilities and their disadvantages.
Rational approach to Russia. I'm suspicious of most American opinions about Russia. Political blogs are awash with Russian shills and bots commenting. Partisan politics has overshadowed clear thinking. So I wondered what the Germany policies toward Russia are. Here's a summary.
New strategy in Afghanistan. Actually, somewhat the same strategy, but with some more troops and maybe stronger tactics. Afghanistan will not be fit to defend itself anytime in the foreseeable future, so it makes sense to try to minimize the terrorists Afghanistan would harbor. Trump talked of winning and peace, but reality is that the military mission is successful with much less than that--such as the avoidance of Afghanistan becoming a major terrorist training and safe zone.
An archive of Trump's lies. This might be handy. However, I wonder whether the Washington Post would be archiving the lies of Hillary Clinton as carefully.
Late additions. List of Arpaio outrages in honor of his pardon by President Trump. This is only a partial list. I visit my parents in Phoenix, and remember Arpaio having a peaceful speaker arrested at an evening meeting because he didn't like her viewpoint. Arbitrary arrests didn't even make the outrage list.
Description of Hurricane Harvey. The aspects that caused it to flood so much of east Texas.
Friday, August 4, 2017
Trump update: Bad week, then getting better
This week, it's much calmer, most likely due to John Kelly becoming White House chief of staff on 7/28/17. This whole week as been such a contrast... and such a relief.
Last week, Trump was floating the idea of replacing Session using his power to make recess appointments. A bunch of senators were telling him not to do that--telling him through the public media so we could all listen to the warnings.
Trump also added a kink to the week with a tweet declaring transgender people couldn't serve in the military 'in any capacity.' Where did that come from? Probably a mish-mash of things Trump heard, and he decided that particular day was a good day to pretend he could act by fiat. Fiat hasn't actually worked. So far, the military has ignored him. His declaration may die just like his declaration that Obama wiretapped him died. "It's just another Trump eruption. Pay no attention." Really, it's pretty stupid to announce an important new policy via twitter, and not to have any plans for implementing the policy. But Trump is that stupid.
But back to Kelly. I have a guess that Kelly saw the craziness of July 24-27, and concluded he had to do something about it. That 'something' was calling Trump and volunteering to be chief of staff and clean up the whole mess. Plenty of credit to Kelly for stepping up. A bit of credit to Trump for saying yes. I hope this works. Reminder--this is my speculation on what happened.
Extra. The small worries about Kelly taking this job. Kelly got Trump to stop bashing Sessions. Idiotic opinion piece on how Trump should resist firing Mueller, but should fire Sessions and Rosenstein.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Russia infiltrates American blog
The number of pro-Russian commenters on this post is terrifying. Furthermore, they are well armed with talking points: we have to avoid a confrontation that would lead to WWIII, NATO wastes so much money on unneeded defense, Russian isn't threatening or expansionist, it's the governments in ex-Warsaw Pact nations that pushed to join NATO, not the people, etc.
I'm not going to list and debunk all their arguments because that takes a hell of a lot of effort, as you'll see if you read the comments. Suffice to say, the Russian shills are persistent.
What does it mean that there are so many Russian shills on this one thread? How many are commenting here and elsewhere, often pretending not to be Russian, and trying to influence US opinion? To me, it's very worrying indeed. Back in 2012 I detected what I thought were anti-Obama commenters, particularly people pretending to have voted for him in 2008 but deciding against him in 2012.
These Russians are more numerous than those anti-Obama fakers, and the stakes are higher. I'm seriously worried that US policy against Russian could weaken, and leave Russia emboldened to retake lost territory. I wasn't horrified by them taking the Crimea because it was traditionally Russian, and ended up in Ukraine when maps were redrawn (if the capsule history I read was accurate).
But if Russia has its eye on territory in the Baltic regions, that will be very nasty. An invasion there would have been unthinkable a few years ago, but no longer with a Putin-worshipping idiot president (Trump) in the White House. Or Russia might do something else somewhere else. I don't know what to predict, but they must be held in check for the good of the rest of the world. A muscular Russia has rarely been a boon to the world, and I'm not betting it will be better now.
Also very scary is how many on the right are repeating Russian talking points. The right wing media has turned people into parrots. They are such dutiful parrots that they don't even recognize or remember that Russia and its totalitarianism is an enemy. I wonder whether the leaders of the right-wing media have forgotten that too. Maybe they've been bought off, blackmailed, and have gotten so stupid that they don't remember either. Twits... or worse.
Extras. Here are the names of the Russian shills commenting or upvoting on the discussion thread connected to this article. I'll be watching for their activity elsewhere, and adding to the list as warranted.
Likely Russian shills without Russian names. Many don't write, but upvote and therefore may be shills-in-waiting.
- R.W. Emerson II
- EmilyEnso
- aprecoup
- Styx
- Aldous Huxley
- Southern Cross
- michaelbarningham
- Kapricorn4
- John
- Bob Belz
- Juan Pablo
- fafniro
- JOSEPH
- helena violet
- Theodora Angelina
- NATOcracy
- Popcorn (probably not--his comments as of 2/13/18 seem very independent)
- Che Guevara
- ES71
- Enrique Costas
- Ron Halaka
- lawfrench
- Go Wild Rose
- Big John
- Jim Jacobson
- Gary Sellars
- BlackRoseML
- Doom Sternz
- George Evans
- Dig 'Em
- Maelstrom_19
- ApqlA
- Lord Lemur
- MR
- ed H
- Zack Smith
- Kimo Krauthammer
- Goldenah
- drkkrw
- Mirumir
- Saint Jimmy (Russian American)
- chris chuba
- Anja Boettcher
- dorotea
- Leftofleft
- Qephetzial
- Jav
- shmaktastic
- Bruno Clabot
- Huaimek
- Hedel
- Timo Okello
- Eugen Hartescu
- Martin Alfven Haider
- Maji_Baridi
- Aaron Kirsch MDPhD
- Phil
- Stelios Touchtidis
- roberto
- nick1111
- Ramnik Singh
- Dan Delgado
- Ztop
- Atlas
- Southern
- Winston_S_43
- Leonardo Giuseppe Masia (Italian but still a shill)
- Nomadic Man
- Savage Savant
- Farmer Scott
- Attila
- Diego Van (mixed signals earlier, but lately very shillish)
- John
- EF304
- Mark Thomason
- JAMES PETKOVITS
- experience
- Rock IT!
- Carl Tycon
- Arthur
- toucheamigos
- Winton
- terry
- Sean.McGivens
- Puigdemont Catalan
- timepass?
- KissMyAss88?
- Tokaro?
- Bankotsu - it's a Japanese name, but many shill-like activities. Sometimes he seems independent, and sometimes like a highly paid, highly intelligent shill. Note: He's identified himself as Chinese.
- tweets 21 (maybe not--seems more logic-based)
- Power Girl (probably not--pattern of comments is ad hoc, like a real person)
- Putler Polak (weird name, but uses Russian)
- Kalinin Yuri
- Gazpikae (with a Romulan avatar)
- Jozsef Volgyi
- Sergey Tokarov
- Andrey Koleshov
- novychelovek
- German Yakovlev
- Jew from Russia
- Keruzkho
- Victor Krachkovsky
- stephen kulodrovic
- Dmitry Vakin
- anonaccount - comments on lots of topics, usually with an alt-right spin. Wrote that whites are superior.
- Pseudo Turtle - sounds reasonable sometimes, but hates libs and wants his country back.
- profwatson - a very strange commenter with a lot of craziness (Porklandia) but also tried to be serious at times. He upvotes a lot of Russian shills.
- discoverer
- Soldiers spies traitors books
- Mike
- James
Update 11/9/17. Putin had a press release/speech published in Bloomberg View. The good part was that comments weren't disabled, so people went to town. I argued with a bunch of Russian shills including their top gun Emerson. Nothing new really. The same talking points about Russia being good, Ukraine being corrupt and full of Nazis, armies at the doorsteps, etc. I added some new shills to the list.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Downed Russian plane cools cries for war
Well, no, the conservatives didn't say that. Hardly anyone in politics or punditry admits a mistake, so it's no surprise. But it did mute their cries for the US to get further involved, especially as a strong man dictating what should happen. Maybe it also paused their admiration for Putin as a strong man who gets the job done.
The downing of the Russian plane should give everyone pause. Russia may want to respond by shooting down some Turkish planes or destroying something in Turkey, but there would be a high price for doing that. Turkey is in the NATO alliance, and you can't just start a war with a NATO country without bringing much of NATO down on you. Because of that, I think Turkey isn't going to suffer any major consequences for downing the plane, and Putin is going to have to take his lumps on it.
Charles Krauthammer, a supreme neocon, is backing down somewhat. He said these unexpected words:
"I give Obama credit for this..."The credit being that Obama doesn't want Russia in the coalition fighting ISIS--the coalition having 65 member countries. Krauthammer was singing a different tune just 6 weeks earlier;
"And he said, oh yes, ‘the community of nations’ will take it on. The community of nations doesn’t exist."I agree with Obama's limits on involvement. The Syrian conflict is amazingly messy, and no side is going to get a clean win, no matter how much money and troops they commit. If that's true, that there can't be a clean win, what should our strategy be? Does military history provide us with an answer?
Not that I know of. It doesn't look like anyone else has the answer either, no matter know loud they shouted a week ago.
Extras. HotAir has little analysis of what it means to the US role in Syria. Marco Rubio thinks Russia got what it deserved. Paleoconservatives, being a different breed from neocons, say that this clearly shows what a mess Syria is. Weird theories from the internet here and here. Much more sober analysis here, including a reminder that this would be much more common with a no-fly zone. Hillary will want to rethink her support for a no-fly zone if she's elected. Finally, a round-up of crazy courtesy our presidential candidates.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Hillary being stupid on Syria
This time it's calling for a no-fly zone in Syria. As a candidate, she can do this without political cost to herself, as she isn't the president who'd have to deploy forces, order missile attacks, order shots fired at Russian aircraft, and deal with the consequences.
She should shut up and rethink her position.
Syria has proven to be a no-win situation. We dislike Assad, but we dislike ISIS even more. The only people we half-way trust have failed and/or been crushed. We should chalk this up as a short term loss, with the long term not visible at all at this point. Unfortunately, the hawks in the US aren't able to accept this loss, and they seem to want to throw more into this no-win situation. BAD IDEA!!! I don't know how much clearer it could be.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Short: Manipulated into war
The most interesting reason (in my opinion) was the last one:
"We are very vulnerable to false flag operations and paid foreign propaganda. Various foreign nations or rebel interests want us to bomb and/or invade their local enemies... Saudi Arabia wants us to destroy Iran, Turkey wanted us to attack Assad in Syria, Israeli (and neocon) hawks wanted us to “rip apart” Iraq..."So we have both internal and external factions pushing us into hopeless wars. How should we deal with these internal and external factions?
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Did you notice we survived 2014?
According to conservatives, the world was almost certainly going to end in 2014. The Russians were overrunning Ukraine (due to Obama's incompetence), ISIS was going to take over the Middle East and launch massive attacks on western countries (due to Obama's incompetence), and Ebola was going to decimate the US (due to Obama's incompetence).
If these things didn't happen, does that mean that Obama isn't as incompetent as portrayed? According to classic symbolic logic (if X, then Y), yes, it means Obama isn't as incompetent as stated. But, honestly, 1) conservatives aren't interested in logic and 2) classic symbolic logic is so limited as to be pretty useless. Here's a little known fact--logic doesn't deal with actual causation. 'If then' isn't necessarily a causal statement in classic logic. This is deeply disappointing.
I think Obama did pretty well in each of these crises, mostly by not flipping out. Instead of starting a war with heavily armed Russians, he encouraged the Ukrainians to stand up for themselves, which is a VERY GOOD THING. More countries should do this instead of whining for the US to intervene and also conveniently bear most of the costs. The sanctions have hurt, but what's even better is that Obama has let the Russians show their true nature--militaristic liars. If we had gone to war, the narrative could have been that the US is the world-wide bully, and the Russians are heroes making a stand against the US. Instead, the Russians are the local bully, and the Ukrainians are the heroes. Other countries around Europe are seeing that you can make a stand against Russia. (At least I hope this analysis is correct. World affairs isn't my strength.)
(As an aside: This also bolsters the first lesson I learned that disproved a liberal tenet. Liberals said that demilitarization was good and morally superior. I learned, by observation, that being strong enough to defend your country was much more important, and the supposed moral superiority of demilitarization was hogwash. Liberals are so stupid sometimes that it boggles my mind.)
The surge of ISIS definitely was a crisis instead of being a faux-crisis trumped up by opponents. Obama reacted in way we haven't seen before--turning the crisis into a teaching moment. That may sound ridiculous--that you would allow a deadly crisis to play out instead of ending it as soon as possible. But I think this was the right approach.
In the Mideast, as in much of the world, too many people want the US to swoop in and save them (while also conveniently bearing most of the costs). It's a VERY GOOD THING for countries to get a reality check that the US might not be willing to do this, so they better be ready to defend themselves. Plus, they may want to identify threats early and do their best to avoid them.
Perhaps some people in Iraq finally learned the lesson this time. If you oppress large numbers of Sunnis, you create an angry insurgency that will try to take over the country. So don't oppress them. That's a relatively simple lesson that Iraq government under Nouri al-Maliki refused to learn. (Another aside--much of the Mideast, having been locked into strong-man dictatorships for so long, is now learning a lot of lessons. The learning process is important, so we shouldn't short-circuit it by swooping in like a helicopter parent.)
The last threat that we survived was Ebola. The conservative response was so stereotypical as to be laughable. Talk about people not learning lessons--the conservatives really don't seem to understand science, and that the US response was going to be scientifically sound and based on evidence. So we brought a few infected citizens back to the US for treatment, and we learned from doing it. When we made mistakes, we learned and didn't repeat those mistakes. It is so incredibly simple, but partisan politicians seem not to know how to learn from mistakes. This is very strange, and I'll have to research why reality doesn't force politicians to learn.
While we're reviewing crises that didn't pan out, there was one liberal crisis that didn't end up nearly as horrible as predicted. The crisis of immigrant minors crossing the US-Mexico borders supposedly required an infusion of $3.7 billlion. Not surprising, but the House did not dutifully comply with the request. Somehow, the Obama administration managed to deal with the crisis without the cash, so perhaps they didn't need the money after all.
Congratulations, everyone, we survived! Well, to be more specific, congratulations everyone except:
- Militaristic Russians
- ISIS and their sugar daddies
- Stubborn Iraqi politicians
- Overheated American conservatives
- Pollyanna American liberals
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Tiptoe around the War Powers Act
Obama sent a letter to Congress on August 8 in compliance with the War Powers Act, which requires the president to notify Congress of military intervention, and conduct it for no more than 60 days without congressional authorization. So if the US continues bombing beyond Oct. 7, Congress needs to authorize it.
But wait! That's less than a month before the election. Will Congress be willing to take such a vote then? According to this article (and observations of this Congress), Republicans won't want to vote for anything the president requests. But they don't want to vote against military action either when it's action against murderous fundamentalist Muslim forces who are conducting mass shootings, terrifying minority religious groups, beheading high-profile prisoners, and threatening to take over the world. If you're a Republican, you hate Obama, but you hate Muslim extremists more. That still doesn't make it an easy vote, so Republicans will probably want to avoid it.
Dems have their own reasons for wanting to avoid it. They don't like reminders of how many Democrats voted for Bush's Iraq war resolution. If that was a mistake, wouldn't this be a mistake too? That's the easiest way to look at it. They can try to lessen the unease by putting limits on the military actions, but it's unclear that will satisfy wary Dems who'll have to take that vote.
So both Dems and GOP fear making a mistake on this vote. Will Obama force them to take a vote? If history is a guide, he won't. He never forced a vote on Libya. He got a lot of pushback against a vote authorizing bombing of Syria, and the vote never materialized. There's a very good chance that this vote won't happen either.
That's not good. We don't need yet another military action where the Congress was too divided to discuss and vote on it. We don't want to add to the precedent of a president and a Congress being too cowardly to follow a perfectly reasonable law... do we?
Maybe we don't mind it. Skirting laws probably happens all the time. The president and Congress don't follow the law, but they get away with it because ... the law is a pain in the ass, and no one that important is going to complain about the breach. Breaking the law is less embarrassing than having to decide which way to vote, so it's tough noogies to the law. Hey, maybe we shouldn't bother having laws at all.
Well, on second thought, laws are generally good, and it's best to abide by them for the most part. The War Powers Act is a reasonable law, and should be followed. Obama shouldn't be such a wuss--he should go to Congress and ask for authorization, a definite yes or a definite no. Then it's on Congress to act. They can authorize, vote against the authorization, or they can wimp out and not vote at all. If the members of Congress can't get a vote, they are the ones who failed to express their will, and Obama should do what he thinks needs to be done. That's still not in compliance with the law, but at least he gave it a chance.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Short: What do we owe to the British empire?
Don't be scared off by the polemical title of this fascinating article. After reading it, you'll think a little differently about the connotations of the word 'empire' and you'll be grateful for the British empire too.
The thesis, briefly, is that the British empire gave us Americans a lot of breathing space to develop good governance. Besides that, the British also developed a form of government that was influenced by and conducive to trade and commercial wealth. This benefited lots of people, including us Americans. Since WWII, it's been our turn to provide the general peace that is the foundation for a decent life and prosperity.
These ideas aren't new to me. My first separation from liberal orthodoxy was over the role of the military in our country and the world. I had to admit that US military power seemed to be generally a boon to the world rather than a murdering, bludgeoning curse. (Generally, not always.)
This article draws the clear connection between the British empire and liberal democracy. Most liberals wouldn't even consider that there is a connection, but there is. Take that, you pinko liberals.












