Weekly Finale: Devil Doll

Another week leads into weekend, so here is your musical finale to send you on your way.

This week, I offer for your consideration a very sexy tune, but it never really consummates with its subject.

The song is Bourbon in Your Eyes by a rockabilly band called Devil Doll:


Aside from lead singer Colleen Duffy's smooth as velvet voice which puts her in Peggy Lee's class of world class chanteuses, the song is a lyrical masterpiece:

Call me angel and take my hand,
Wishing you could be my man
But I can tell if it's truth or lies
When you've got bourbon in your eyes
Tell me something that I don't know
Then I Dare You to prove it so
I'd ask you to try this on for size,
But you've got bourbon in your eyes, 

You're so Mmmmm 

I find myself showing up at your front door
Although I can't come in I keep coming back for more,
And when you call me baby it feels just like a line,
And everytime you smile when you look into my eyes,
You don't have the guts to love me like you wish you could
I'm gonna find someone to make me feel the way I should. 

Run your fingers through my hair,
I want you to touch me there,
But I will not open up my thighs
When you've got bourbon in your eyes,
You're the one that makes me smile,
And I know you'd make it worth my while,
But she's waitin for you and I think she cries,
When you've got bourbon in your eyes. 

You're so Mmm, 

I find myself showing up at your front door
Although I can't come in I keep coming back for more,
And when you call me baby it feels just like a line,
And everytime you smile when you look into my eyes,
You don't have the guts to love me like you wish you could
I'm gonna find someone to make me feel the way I should. 

You're so sweet talkin
You're so fire walkin,
I know I shouldn't but I want some.
Little boy you're lost
I see you lookin around
But I think that you know more than you let on... 

I must leave you 'cause I know your kind
You'd wake me up just to say goodbye
And I know that's not a tear in your eye
'Cause boys don't cry and neither do I,
I may be in love but I'll never say
So I guess I'll be on my way
At least I gave it a try but you had bourbon in your eyes.

From "bourbon in your eyes" as a classier way of saying "beer goggles" (although with more than a hint that the drinking is a problem for the man in the song), to the whole repeated aspect of the lead singer finding this married/attached man attractive yet far too dangerous. It works as poetry as well as music.

Sadly, Devil Doll has been on hiatus since 2015 due to Colleen Duffy's battle with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. I sincerely wish her the best, because Devil Doll has a lot of good music left in them.

Have a good weekend folks, and try not to get too much bourbon in your eyes. Better to drink it!

The Korean Peninsula: Today's News for April 28th

Reuters:

Exclusive: Trump says 'major, major' conflict with North Korea possible, but seeks diplomacy

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday a major conflict with North Korea is possible in the standoff over its nuclear and missile programs, but he would prefer a diplomatic outcome to the dispute.

"There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely," Trump told Reuters in an Oval Office interview ahead of his 100th day in office on Saturday.

Nonetheless, Trump said he wanted to peacefully resolve a crisis that has bedeviled multiple U.S. presidents, a path that he and his administration are emphasizing by preparing a variety of new economic sanctions while not taking the military option off the table.

The key here will be getting China to not only agree, but to participate in the sanctions.

One interesting sidelight of the interview:

Trump, sipping a Coke delivered by an aide after the president ordered it by pressing a button on his desk...

Trump has a Coke button!

In other Korean news from the same interview...

Reuters:

Exclusive: Trump vows to fix or scrap South Korea trade deal, wants missile system payment

U.S. President Donald Trump told Reuters on Thursday he will either renegotiate or terminate what he called a "horrible" free trade deal with South Korea and said Seoul should pay for a U.S. anti-missile system that he priced at $1 billion.

In an interview with Reuters, Trump called the five-year-old trade pact with South Korea "unacceptable" and said it would be targeted for renegotiation after his administration completes a revamp of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico.

Whether KORUS (the U.S.-South Korean trade deal) is good or bad is a question for the experts. However, it seems to me a person with business expertise, like Trump, would be a better judge than Hillary Clinton (who negotiated it) or Barack Obama (former community organizer and Constitutional lawyer). But this could just be a political maneuver on Trump's part.

Speaking of the former president...

Fox News:

Obama reportedly pulls in another $400G for speech

Barack Obama, the former president, who has been criticized for taking in $400,000 for a Wall Street-sponsored speech, has reportedly pulled in the exact same amount for another speech in New York.

The former president appeared at the A&E Networks advertising upfront at The Pierre Hotel in New York City where he was interviewed by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin for more than 90 minutes in front of the cable network’s advertisers, The New York Post reported.

Earlier this week, the 44th president came under strong scrutiny after it was learned that he agreed to speak at a health care event in September sponsored by Wall Street Bank Cantor Fitzgerald, a speech that would earn him $400,000.

Surprisingly, Democratic Party leaders have come out to the media to harshly criticized Obama.

Where was Democratic Party outcry when Hillary Clinton was pulling down $250,000 per speech from Wall Street banks? Or is it just the amount of $400,000 crosses some arbitrary line?

Obama's defense:

Obama spokesman Ed Schulz insisted the former president remains true to his progressive values, and said taking money from Wall Street is not the same as being bought by Wall Street.

“With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, I'd just point out that in 2008, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in history — and still went on to successfully pass and implement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since FDR,” Schulz said. 

Actually, Schulz just made the Democrats' point for them. The so-called Wall Street reforms did nothing of the sort, allowing the "too big to fail" banks to grow bigger. Obama was bought and paid for by Wall Street before, and these speeches could be argued as a back-end payoff to him for what he did.

The Rest of the News for April 27th: American Treaties

Fox News:

Trump agrees to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada, Mexico leaders

President Trump and the leaders of Mexico and Canada agreed Wednesday to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the White House said Wednesday night.

"it is my privilege to bring NAFTA up to date through renegotiation," Trump said in a statement. "It is an honor to deal with both [Mexican] President [Enrique] Peña Nieto and [Canadian] Prime Minister [Justin] Trudeau, and I believe that the end result will make all three countries stronger and better."

The White House added that Trump "agreed not to terminate NAFTA at this time" and that all three leaders ""agreed to proceed swiftly, according to their required internal procedures, to enable the renegotiation" of the trade deal to "the benefit of all three countries."

What is most amusing with this story is how CNN framed the same story:

CNN:

Trump agrees 'not to terminate NAFTA at this time'

President Donald Trump told the leaders of Canada and Mexico Wednesday he was not immediately planning to end the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact which he railed against as a candidate and as recently as last week declared was harmful to US workers.

In a description of Trump's phone calls to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Enrique Peña Nieto, the White House said Trump "agreed not to terminate NAFTA at this time and the leaders agreed to proceed swiftly, according to their required internal procedures, to enable the renegotiation of the NAFTA deal to the benefit of all three countries."

"It is my privilege to bring NAFTA up to date through renegotiation," Trump said in a written statement that accompanied the readout of his phone calls. "It is an honor to deal with both President Peña Nieto and Prime Minister Trudeau, and I believe that the end result will make all three countries stronger and better."

You can decide yourself which story you would rather hear.

In other American treaty news...

AFP (via Yahoo News):

US may stay in Paris climate accord, with caveats

Signs are mounting that US President Donald Trump's administration may stay in the landmark Paris climate change accord of 2015, under pressure from big business and public support for the agreement.

But experts say the final decision, expected next month, is anything but certain, and staying at the table could come with significant caveats, like a weakening of US commitments to curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Note that the Paris climate change accord was never approved by Congress, so technically it isn't officially a treaty of the U.S. If Trump gets it changed and pushed through Congress, then it will have the authority of law. In other words, Trump will have accomplished for the myth of man-made climate change what Obama couldn't do.

The Death of ESPN: Today's News for April 27th

Fox News:

ESPN lays off about 100 employees, including Danny Kanell, Ed Werder

It’s a dark day at ESPN.

The sports broadcasting network sent a memo to employees early Wednesday, informing them that a series of previously announced layoffs would take place today. Familiar faces like Ed Werder, Danny Kanell, Jayson Stark, Trent Dilfer and Brett McMurphy are among those who have been let go.

The total number of employees cut will be around 100, Fox News has learned. 

ESPN, owned by Disney, has long been a drag on Disney's growth. A company that once was the definition of sports broadcasting has now become as much of an afterthought as a tv in a sports bar: Common, but not necessarily watched.

This layoff of 100 employees may not be the end of the network, but they are in the business version of intensive care. Going forward, expect ESPN to run on a much smaller business model cost-wise, with far fewer significant on-air personalities. Whether this is just a new business model, or the beginning of the end, remains to be seen.

In other news...

Vox:

Republicans exempt their own insurance from their latest health care proposal

House Republicans appear to have included a provision that exempts members of Congress and their staff from their latest health care plan.

The new Republican amendment, introduced Tuesday night, would allow states to waive out of Obamacare’s ban on preexisting conditions. This means that insurers could once again, under certain circumstances, charge sick people higher premiums than healthy people.

Republican legislators liked this policy well enough to offer it in a new amendment. They do not, however, seem to like it enough to have it apply to themselves and their staff. A spokesperson for Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), who authored this amendment, confirmed this was the case: Members of Congress and their staff would get the guarantee of keeping these Obamacare regulations.

This is typical of politicians placing themselves above the American public. However, when the light of the media shines on the cockroaches...

Vox:

GOP House member says he’ll fix the exemption for Congress in his health bill

A Republican legislator has vowed to close a loophole in his Obamacare replacement proposal, following Vox’s reporting on the exemption Tuesday night.

The amendment offered by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) would exempt health insurance plans held by legislators and their staff from key Obamacare repeal plans.

Congressional staff are currently required to buy coverage through the Obamacare marketplaces. The amendment offered by Rep. MacArthur would ensure that Hill staff continue to have access to Obamacare programs, like a ban on discriminating based on preexisting conditions, while other enrollees could lose those policies if their state applied for a waiver.

On Wednesday morning, Rep. MacArthur issued a statement saying he would work to eliminate this exemption...

Health Care: Singapore versus America

Ezra Klein makes a fascinating comparison of the health care systems of Singapore and the United States in his Vox editorial, "Is Singapore’s “miracle” health care system the answer for America?"

As Klein describes it:

When liberals talk about their health care utopia, they have scores of examples to choose from. Some name France’s high-performing multi-payer system (No. 1 on the World Health Organization’s rankings, in case you haven’t heard). Others point to Canada’s single-payer simplicity. The Scandinavian countries all do health care well, and there’s much to recommend Germany’s hybrid approach.

Conservatives really only have one example of a free market health care paradise to point to: Singapore. But oh, what an example it is! In a New York Times column called “Make America Singapore,” Ross Douthat called it “the marvel of the wealthy world.” After the election, Fox News published an op-ed headlined, "Want to ditch ObamaCare? Let's copy Singapore's health care miracle.”

Why are conservatives so taken with Singapore? The American Enterprise Institute’s glowing write-up explains it well:

What’s the reason for Singapore’s success? It’s not government spending. The state, using taxes, funds only about one-fourth of Singapore’s total health costs. Individuals and their employers pay for the rest. In fact, the latest figures show that Singapore’s government spends only $381 (all dollars in this article are U.S.) per capita on health—or one-seventh what the U.S. government spends.

Singapore’s system requires individuals to take responsibility for their own health, and for much of their own spending on medical care.

Klein goes on to make a reasonably fair assessment, both pros and cons, of Singapore's system.

But like any kind of comparisons between different countries, including the ones Klein mentions in the beginning of his editorial, there are many other factors which come into play, including living expenses (cost of living is important because health care workers have to live too).

So when Klein mentions the differences between Singapore and America as a factor in why their system wouldn't work here, he needs to remember that is also why the French, Canadian, Scandinavian, and German systems also will not work in America. Aside from living expense differences, there is a size difference: Smaller populations require less bureaucracy to make their systems run. In addition, there are fewer cultural differences in smaller populations, leading to a more homogenized thinking within a country. That doesn't mean all 81 million Germans think the same way, but you have a better chance there than in the United States, with 300 million people from a patchwork of cultures around the world.

To make an effective health care system in the United States, it will have to be done at the state level, regardless of whether it is modeled after Singapore, France, or something even better.

Trump's Bad Day: Today's News for April 26th

Fox News:

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

A California judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s executive order that sought to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities.”

The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump's order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.

The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued that the administration warning threatened billions of dollars in funding for each of them, making it difficult to plan budgets.

"It's not like it's just some small amount of money," John Keker, an attorney for Santa Clara County, told Orrick at the April 14 hearing.

Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said the county and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly. The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people's immigration status, he said.

The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said.

The judge disagreed with the Trump administration's interpretation, saying it was "broader" than they claimed.

Expect the courts to toss the order, with a revised executive order soon to follow, possibly before the courts finish with the old one.

In other Trump failures...

Huffington Post:

Trump Inauguration Admits Errors, Vows To Correct Numerous Faulty Donor Records

Donald Trump’s Presidential Inaugural Committee acknowledged late Monday that a final report it filed with the Federal Election Commission this month was riddled with errors, many of which were first identified through a crowdsourced data project at HuffPost.

“We plan to amend our report to reflect any changes that we have become aware of, including many of those donor records or technical glitches that we have recently become aware of, as is common practice with FEC reporting,” an inaugural committee spokesman, Alex Stroman, said Monday evening.

This is not the end of the world, or even a Watergate-level scandal. It is doubtful there will even be significant legal repercussions. Most of all, it doesn't mean Trump is a bad person or a moron. Mistakes happen.

Happy 20th Anniversary!

To my wife, on the day of the 20th anniversary of our wedding, I want to say thank you. You are the best friend and life partner for whom I could ever wish to spend my entire life. You are my raison d'être.

But most importantly:

 (hat tip to Motifake for the pic)

North Korea, Trump's Wall, and Lumber Tariffs: Today's News for April 25th

Fox News: 

US citizens held in North Korea see diminished hope of freedom amid rising tensions

North Korea has put another American behind bars, bringing to three the number of U.S. citizens imprisoned in the rogue regime's infamous gulags even as tensions on the peninsula threaten to spiral out of control.

Tony Kim, a 58-year-old Korean-American professor, was detained at Pyongyang International Airport after teaching accounting for a month at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology and working on aid and relief programs to North Korea.

In the past, North Korea has generally quickly released any American citizens it detained – waiting at most for a U.S. official or statesman to come and to personally bail out detainees. But that appears to be changing.

Kim’s arrest makes him the third American citizen currently detained in North Korea, and while activists and U.S. government officials have lobbied for the release of these prisoners, little progress has been made as relations between Washington and Pyongyang deteriorate amid the latter’s continued missile tests and refinement of nuclear weapons.  

Believe it or not, this is a good sign.If North Korea is resorting to kidnapping as a diplomatic ploy, that means they have no better leverage.

That said, before you suggest we should feel sorry for these Americans, remember they voluntarily, and stupidly, entered North Korea. If you walk into the lions' den, what do you expect to find?

In other news....

CNN:

Trump administration full of mixed messages ahead of shutdown fight

Less than a week before the federal government is scheduled to shut down absent a funding bill, the White House's battle lines remain fuzzy.

That's because, in part, President Donald Trump's top aides sent mixed signals over the weekend about how far he would go to secure funding for his border wall, a potential poison pill for the spending fight.

...But one White House official signaled on Monday that the President won't insist on funding for the wall in a spending bill to keep the government running past Friday. The official said that even some funding for "border security" could satisfy the President at this point, with the expectation that wall funding would come in future spending bill negotiations.

"Politics is the art of compromise," the official said.

The new flexibility comes after White House officials sounded as if they were insisting on wall funding as part of any proposal to keep the government from shutting down.

Not funding the wall? This would be a political disaster for Trump, along the lines of George H.W. Bush's "read my lips, no new taxes" promise. Trump already has little credibility when it comes to what he says.

Mind you, I do not personally support the wall, but the political loss for Trump in failing to build it is enormous.

Speaking of walls...

CNN Money:

Trump slaps first tariffs on Canadian lumber

The Trump administration is hitting Canada with stiff tariffs of up to 24% on lumber shipped into the United States.

These are the first tariffs imposed by President Trump, who during his election campaign threatened to use them on imports from both China and Mexico. The decision on Monday is bound to lead to a standoff and could stoke fears of a trade war between the US and Canada, two of the world's largest trade powers.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the tariffs, or taxes, announced Monday evening were being imposed after trade talks on dairy products fell through.

...The duties were imposed to create a level playing field for American lumber companies. 

U.S. lumber companies allege Canadian firms are provided with unfair subsidies by the Canadian government.

Canadian exports of softwood lumber to the U.S. were valued at $5.6 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.

...The lumber dispute isn't new, and it's not the first the U.S. has imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber.

In fact, it goes back decades. U.S. lumber companies started alleging in the 1980s that Canadian companies have been unfairly subsidized by their government. In 2002, the U.S. imposed a 30% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, which Canadian firms claimed cost 30,000 jobs at the time.

Canada has consistently denied it subsidizes its lumber companies. The World Trade Organization sided with Canada in 2004 and the two sides came to a temporary agreement in 2006, which expired last October.

Government subsidies come in many forms beyond simple monetary support. According to the U.S. Lumber Coalition (and consider the biased source when reading this):

...the cost of [U.S.] timber accounts for 60-70% of variable manufacturing costs and will rise as lumber prices rise. In stark contrast, the Canadian government -- which owns virtually all timberland in Canada -- shields Canadian lumber companies from market forces by artificially lowering those companies' wood costs by charging noncompetitive, below market prices for government timber and by distorting private log markets.

...The Canadian regulatory system provides special breaks for failing mills and discourages competition through limits on tenure transferability. This regulatory system, along with other systemic economic distortions, helps keep Canadian mills with high cost structures in business, facilitating uneconomic production and unfair competition.

In addition to providing unfair subsidies, Canadian provinces have instituted other policies designed to maximize jobs and production in the Canadian industry -- including minimum harvest requirements, domestic processing mandates, and log export restrictions -- resulting in artificially high levels of timber harvests and lumber production even when the market is oversupplied.

Putting aside the Canadian government support for failing lumber companies, what about the question of public timberlands in both countries? According to Forisk Consulting (a lumber industry research firm), from 9% to 14% of U.S. "industrial" timberland (timberland actually being worked) is privately owned, whereas only 7% of ALL Canadian forest area is privately owned.

On the other hand, the U.S. lumber industry isn't suffering nearly as much as they claim to be. According to the Realtors' Land Institute (whose bias is towards encouraging real estate and REIT investing):

...[U.S. lumber] exports to China will continue to increase. The U.S. is currently exporting ten times more wood to China than just seven years ago. Most of the timber being exported to China is coming from the Pacific Northwest.

...imported lumber from Canada will decrease because of the devastation of Canada’s timberlands from the mountain pine beetle. The mountain pine beetle infestation has reduced timber volumes by more than half in western Canada.

Overall, this is a complex issue with a lot of moving parts. While there is no real defining factor here, it is clear that Canada's government is gaming the system. The biggest threat to free trade in the world today is any specific government's hidden influences on their exporting industries.

The Greatest Civil Rights Issue of Our Time

What is the most helpless, unrepresented minority within the United States today? It is not gays, or blacks, or women.

It is fetuses.

How would you feel if the lives, not the lifestyles but their very LIVES, of gay people were in question? And they were unrepresented at any level of government?

What if black people were ripped from their mothers' wombs before they could be born?

And what if female babies were selectively killed before they were born?

The sad TRUTH is that all of the above are happening today. With approximately 926,000 abortions performed in 2014, that means plenty of gay, black, and female fetuses were killed. But this is no civil rights tragedy because a woman's body is more important than a fetus's life.

I totally get that, and I would agree with it, except for one possibility:

Imagine a world, perhaps a hundred years from now, maybe sooner or later, where a woman does NOT have to carry a fetus to term. As soon as the fetus is created, it can be removed and placed in a special incubator for 9 months, after which it is released to live with its mother or parents or even adopted parents. Considering the advances in postnatal technology, it is extremely likely we will see a day where a fetus's viability could start at day 1, with technological assistance. This would be preferable to the rigors of childbirth for most women, not to mention how this would maintain the sanctity of the woman's body.

But the best part is how it also allows a greater respect for human life, even at the most cellular level of it.

There will come a time in the future, where humanity will look back at abortions with absolute horror that we would ever do such a thing. It is even sadder that it will take technology for us to solve the greatest civil rights dilemma of our time, because we just don't have the moral fortitude for it. We refuse to recognize the most cherished civil right, the right to life, of the least among us.

The French Election: Today's News for April 24th

CNN:

Head to head: How Le Pen and Macron compare

The French electorate gave the country's political establishment a wake-up call Sunday as it voted for two outsider presidential candidates: one who has never held elected office and the other the leader of France's far-right party.

Fed up of the parties that have dominated French politics for decades, voters opted for the two politicians that promised the biggest shakeup -- Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, early results indicated. They will face each other in a runoff election on May 7.

"It's a political earthquake in this country and in Europe," veteran French journalist Christine Ockrent told CNN.

But the voters have chosen to trust politicians who they know relatively little about. 

There is a smug statement that doesn't belong in a news analysis. Exactly how does CNN know how much or how little the French voters know? The answer is obvious: The French voters failed to vote the way CNN thought they should, ergo they must "know relatively little".

Back in the USA...

USA Today:

Trump executive orders target tax rules, 'too big to fail' financial institutions

President Trump aimed to dismantle even more financial regulations with executive orders on Friday, directing Treasury officials to take another look at tax rules and oversight of "too big to fail" financial institutions.

In a signing ceremony at the Department of the Treasury, Trump once again signaled that he intends to roll back many of the sweeping regulations the Obama administration adopted in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Before the Lefties go screaming about how Trump is making us less safe, consider these regulations have done nothing to stop "too big to fail" banks from becoming even bigger. If they were too big before, what comes after big? Bigger? Biggest? Gargantuan?

Back to the executive orders:

The directives Trump signed Friday will: 

► Review significant tax regulations issued in 2016 and 2017 that are overly complex and "impose an undue financial burden" on taxpayers. 

...But the order is more likely to target corporate taxes than individual returns. Among the most significant tax regulations adopted in the last year of the Obama administration were a clampdown on so-called "tax inversions," which allow multinational corporations to get favorable tax treatment by merging with companies in lower-taxed countries.

This is the kind of crap you get with a complex tax code. Regardless of whether you think tax inversions are good or bad, tax inversions wouldn't exist without burdensome tax regulation. If you need to understand why we need tax reform, tax inversions are good evidence.

Continuing:

► Direct the Treasury Secretary not to use orderly liquidation authority to bail out insolvent financial institutions, reigniting the debate over a key provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Critics have said that provision could actually allow banks to take more risks than they ordinarily would, and Trump wants to re-examine whether court-supervised bankruptcy would be a better way to wind down failing banks.

...Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has been among those who are vocal supporters of the provision. Eliminating it “would be a major mistake, imprudently putting the economy and financial system at risk," he wrote in an essay for the Brookings Institution in February, calling the provision "an essential tool for ensuring that financial stress does not escalate into a catastrophic crisis."

The same Ben Bernanke who was in charge of the Federal Reserve when the economy tanked? Can we get someone's opinion who actually knows something, and not a political tool?

The fact is, if we had allowed the courts to oversee an orderly liquidation of the "too big to fail" banks, it would have sent a strong message to banks: Be averse to risk, or lose it all. Instead, government hopped into bed with the TBTF's, and we aren't any safer from systemic economic collapse then we were prior to 2008.

Continuing:

► Review the process for the Financial Stability Oversight Council to designate non-bank financial institutions like insurance companies as "systemically important" to the financial system. Those companies are then subject to additional oversight by the Federal Reserve. The order will impose a 180-day moratorium on new designations.

Trump said the regulations "enshrine 'too big to fail' and encourage risky behavior."   

Trump is right. By labeling any company as "systemically important", these regulations send the wrong message to companies that risk management isn't necessary, because the government will bail them out of any trouble, thus ensuring the very thing it is designed to prevent.

Finally...

Los Angeles Times:

Civilian casualties from airstrikes grow in Iraq and Syria. But few are ever investigated

A recent airstrike by the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is believed to have caused more than 270 civilian deaths, a tragedy that provoked an international outpouring of grief and outrage.

But the uproar over the March 17 deaths in the Jadidah neighborhood of Mosul masks a grim reality: Hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of other civilians have died in hundreds of airstrikes in Iraq and Syria during the war against Islamic State, and it appears likely that the vast majority of those deaths were never investigated by the U.S. military or its coalition partners.

It also appears that the number of civilian casualties has risen in recent months as combat has shifted to densely populated west Mosul and the coalition has undertaken the heaviest bombing since the war began almost three years ago.

...Coalition warplanes have carried out 20,205 strikes in Iraq and Syria since 2014, according to the latest published numbers, which the Pentagon says have aided in the killing of more than 70,000 militants. Yet Pentagon officials also claim to have killed just 229 civilians over that time.

But Airwars, a nonprofit with a staff of journalists and researchers who keep detailed records and conduct independent research, said its figures showed at least 3,111 civilians have been killed in 552 strikes for which it has significant evidence: Either the coalition has specifically confirmed the strikes, or it has confirmed strikes in the area on that date and Airwars has two or more credible sources.

Airwars has also tracked an additional 610 reports of strikes in which civilians were killed based on a single source or contested claims, which could mean that several thousand additional civilians have been killed. 

The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic. The number of corpses keep piling up, and yet we are no safer.

Weekly Finale: Prince

For this week's musical finale, I honor the one year anniversary of the death of Prince.

The best tribute to Prince is his signature song, Purple Rain. As he described the song, "When there's blood in the sky – red and blue = purple... purple rain pertains to the end of the world and being with the one you love and letting your faith/god guide you through the purple rain."

Here it is, from the 1984 movie of the same name:

 

Enjoy your weekend, and I will be back on Monday.

This is terrorism? Today's News for April 21st

The Sun:

PARIS TERROR RAMPAGE First pic of Paris shooting suspect as footage shows moments after AK-47-wielding ‘ISIS terrorist’ killed policeman 

and wounded three others on the Champs-Elysées

THIS is the first picture of a suspect being investigated by cops in Paris after a Kalashnikov-wielding gunman murdered a policeman and seriously wounded two others on the Champs-Elysées last night.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack after the killer got out of a car next to a parked police van and opened fire through the window before officers returned fire and shot him dead. A female foreign tourist was also wounded.

This is one of those acts that barely qualifies as terrorism. Especially when you consider:

Cops raided the home of Karim Cheurfi, who is said to have a previous conviction for shooting at police. 

 In addition:

A witness named Chelloug said the attacker pulled up beside a stationary police vehicle and fired through the window.

He said: "He parked just behind the van and he got out with a Kalashnikov and I heard six gunshots.

"I thought they were firecrackers, because we all looked around the road and there was no one.

"In fact, he was hidden behind the van and shooting at the police.

And yet, ISIS claimed responsibility for this. At some point, Western Civilization needs to say to ISIS, "Really? This is supposed to frighten us? What's your next act of terrorism, taking credit for Jack the Ripper?" Taking credit for a crime that would have happened without ISIS is silly. Cheurfi had a history of violence against police.

And yet:

Another terrorist attack in Paris. The people of France will not take much more of this. Will have a big effect on presidential election!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 21, 2017

So there is a French presidential election on Sunday. Are we really going to hype this? To be honest, I would have ignored this story. But then Trump commented on it, and not just a simple "our hearts go out" comment either.

Don't get me wrong. This story deserves news coverage in Paris, and maybe France. Spreading it all over the world just gives ISIS free publicity, and they didn't really earn it to be honest.

In real news...

CBS News:

Court approves single largest dismissal of convictions in U.S. history

The highest court in Massachusetts has formally approved the dismissal of more than 21,000 drug convictions that were tainted by the misconduct of a former state drug lab chemist.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts says the final order from the Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday marks the single largest dismissal of convictions in U.S. history.

“Today is a major victory for justice, fairness, and the tens of thousands of people who were wrongfully convicted based on fabricated evidence,” executive director Carol Rose said in a statement.

...The cases were called into question after chemist Annie Dookhan was charged in 2012 with tampering with evidence and falsifying drug tests. Dookhan pleaded guilty to perjury and other charges in 2013 and served a three-year prison sentence before being released on parole.

...Dookhan worked as a chemist at the Hinton State Laboratory Institute in Boston for nine years, testing more than 60,000 drug samples involving 34,000 defendants. Her arrest prompted the shutdown of the lab and the resignations of three officials. Nearly 200 inmates were released from prison within two months of Dookhan’s arrest.

Prosecutors said Dookhan admitted “dry labbing,” or testing only a fraction of a batch of samples and listing them all as positive for illegal drugs, to “improve her productivity and burnish her reputation.”

If you ever need to understand why government quota systems are bad, here is why. On the other hand, if government incompetence is the only way to end the pointless war on drugs, that will work too.

Speaking of government incompetence...

CBS News:

Disturbing video shows 10-year-old with autism arrested at school

A video clip posted online by a Florida mother shows the moment her 10-year-old son with autism was handcuffed, placed into a police car and taken from school.

In the shaky cellphone footage obtained by CBS News, Luanne Haygood can be heard asking two school resource officers, “Does a child not have the same rights as an adult?”

“I was extremely angry,” Haygood told CBS Miami last week. “I felt like this was a power play. I felt like this was a this is what you get. You can’t do anything about it. We’re going to arrest your son if he can’t abide by the rules,” she said.

His mother said this stems from when he kicked a paraprofessional at Okeechobee Alternative Academy in December 2016. The altercation allegedly left the teacher with scratches and other marks, CBS affiliate WPEC-TV reported.

“He didn’t feel good with a paraprofessional. He told me that and I told him you got to go back to school. He said, ‘I don’t want to go back to school. I don’t like him. I don’t like him. He hurts me,’” she said.

John’s mother does not deny her son’s troubled history in school, but says his autism is responsible for his behavior.

In October, John was expelled from school and forced to complete work from home.

But last Wednesday, when he reported back to school for the first time in five months for state testing, things didn’t go as planned. A school resource officer recognized him and confirmed he still had an outstanding warrant for the assault, WPEC reported.

Maybe it is just me, but I sense the mother is using her son's autism to excuse too much of his bad behavior. I doubt the school expelled him for one incident, and then John Haygood physically attacked a "paraprofessional"/teacher when he returned for counseling, He is clearly out of control.

Watching a 12 year old autistic boy get arrested is going to be disturbing anyway. The only thing that was done wrong was allowing the boy to remain free for so many months with an outstanding arrest warrant. This was a wake-up call that was desperately needed, and it wasn't like the boy was on the lamb. The entire educational system has failed John Haygood, and I include his mother in that assessment. Just because a child is autistic doesn't negate a parent's responsibility to discipline the child.

The Rest of the News for April 20th

There was too much news for just one post this morning...

Newsbusters:

Honeymoon from Hell: The Liberal Media vs. President Trump

As President Trump approaches the end of his first 100 days in office, he has received by far the most hostile press treatment of any incoming American president, with the broadcast networks punishing him with coverage that has been 89% negative. The networks largely ignored important national priorities such as jobs and the fight against ISIS, in favor of a news agenda that has been dominated by anti-Trump controversies and which closely matches what would be expected from an opposition party.

For example, President Trump’s push to invigorate the economy and bring back American jobs received a mere 18 minutes of coverage (less than one percent of all airtime devoted to the administration), while his moves to renegotiate various international trade deals resulted in less than 10 minutes of TV news airtime.

Eight years ago, in contrast, the broadcast networks rewarded new President Barack Obama with mainly positive spin, and spent hundreds of stories discussing the economic agenda of the incoming liberal administration.

For this study, MRC analysts reviewed all of ABC, CBS and NBC’s evening news coverage of Trump and his new administration from January 20 through April 9, including weekends. Coverage during those first 80 days was intense, as the networks churned out 869 stories about the new administration (737 full reports and 132 brief, anchor-read items), plus an additional 140 full reports focused on other topics but which also discussed the new administration.

In their defense, if you looked at a truly scandalous president, let's say Richard Nixon in 1973, you would see this kind of news coverage from the big three tv networks. However, Trump doesn't have a Watergate-level conspiracy. At most, he has the made-up Russian election hacking conspiracy, which the Media have still failed to prove.

Which leads us to one of the few rational voices from the Left:

Real Clear Politics:

Camille Paglia: Trump Already Headed Towards Reelection, 

Democrats Have Overplayed Their Hand

New York Times columnist Frank Bruni moderates a 'Times Talks' discussion between legendary feminist Camille Paglia and 'Watch What Happens Live' host Andy Cohen about life in the Trump era.

Paglia says Bruni's newspaper and the Democratic Party still have "soul searching" left to do about why they called 2016 wrong. "It is incumbent upon the defeated party to pull itself together, or else we're going to get the reelection of the present administration," she said.

"I didn't take him seriously at all," she said about the early days of the Trump campaign. "And then, shortly after the very first Republican debate, I saw Diamond & Silk, the African-American sisters doing a pro-Trump attack on Megyn Kelly on their podcast, and... I suddenly saw the populism, and from that moment forward, I could feel the momentum of it."

"The New York media was in an absolute bubble about this," she added. 

But Andy Cohen had the most telling statement about the lack of introspection on the Left:

...[Trump] was talking to people in a way that they were connecting with, and the thing that is so upsetting to me and a lot of people is that facts don't matter anymore. And he can lie and lie and lie, and it is his own truth, and it is funny you said you think he could be reelected. 

If you are watching a debate between two sides, and you know for a fact that one side (the Democrats in this case) is lying to you, it then becomes moot whether the other side (the Republicans) is lying.

Then it becomes about results, and the Democrats already failed. So-called facts don't matter when the results are failure. You can list excuses for why Democrats failed until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the TRUTH of the failure.

Mind you, this doesn't excuse Trump for lying. But it does explain why voters overlook it.

Trump's The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Today's News for April 20th

First, the good from Trump:

CNN:

China criticizes North Korea, praises US on nuclear issue

China may be getting fed up with continued nuclear bluster from long-time ally North Korea and tilting toward the United States.

A day after North Korea's Vice Foreign Minister said Pyongyang would test missiles weekly and use nuclear weapons if threatened, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing was "gravely concerned" about North Korea's recent nuclear and missile activities.

In the same press conference, spokesman Lu Kang praised recent US statements on the North Korean issue.

"American officials did make some positive and constructive remarks... such as using whatever peaceful means possible to resolve the (Korean) Peninsula nuclear issue. This represents a general direction that we believe is correct and should be adhered to," Lu said.

Whoa.

Trump has done what presidents for DECADES have been unable to do: Get China on our side over North Korea.

This isn't over, but this is a huge step in the right direction.

But all is not good in Trump-land. There is some bad too:

Newsweek:

WHY IS TRUMP SENDING MORE U.S. TROOPS TO SOMALIA?

There is a phrase in journalism, called "burying the lede". It occurs when the main part of the story gets buried deep within it. In the case of this story about Somalia, the answer to the headline question comes in the fifth paragraph:

Things are quite different in Somalia now from the time of the so-called Black Hawk Down incident, when the country had been plunged into civil war after overthrowing its strongman leader Siad Barre in 1991. The country has a recently-elected federal government, led by a dual U.S.-Somali national who has thrown down the gauntlet to Al-Shabab, an extremist militant group with ties to Al-Qaeda. Yet some of the same scourges that roiled Somalia in the early 1990s—including a harrowing drought that is threatening to escalate into famine; clan rivalries; and the instability caused by frequent bombings in the capital—remain.

A "dual U.S.-Somali national" is leading a "recently-elected federal government" in Somalia? The U.S. is propping up the government via rigged elections and military force. Feel free to explain what vital U.S. interest is being served in Somalia, because it isn't obvious. The war on terror? We have fought that for 16 years, with far more failure than success.

Now on to the ugly part of Trump:

Mother Jones:

Donald Trump Has a Conflict of Interest in Turkey. Just Ask Donald Trump.

Several media outlets have slammed President Donald Trump for congratulating Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on winning a referendum that will bolster his autocratic power and weaken that nation's democracy. International observers say the referendum took place on an "unlevel playing field" and voting irregularities raise questions about the outcome. A brief White House summary of Trump's call to Erdogan did not reference any such concerns. Ultimately, if the referendum stands, Turkey will shift from a parliamentary government to one largely controlled by the president—though many of the changes strengthening the president's powers won't take place until after the next election in 2019. (It's worth noting that before Erdogan became president, the role of this office was primarily ceremonial.)

And there's also another troubling layer to this story: Trump's business ties to Turkey create a conflict of interest. That's according to Trump himself. As Mother Jones reported in November, Trump mentioned his Turkey-related conflicts in 2015 during a conversation with Steve Bannon, who was then the executive chairman of Breitbart News. (Bannon would go on to become Trump's chief strategist.)

On Bannon's radio show, Breitbart News Daily, Trump said on December 1, 2015, "I have a little conflict of interest 'cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul. It's a tremendously successful job. It's called Trump Towers—two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it's two."

Trump was speaking truthfully. He had a vested interest in smooth relations with Ankara. And he owed Erdogan a solid. In 2012, Erdogan presided over the opening ceremony for the Trump Towers. (At the time, Erdogan was prime minister—a role the recently passed referendum would eliminate).

Trump gets the bear for this one:

Wednesday Wisdom: Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."--Albert Einstein

The truth in these words lies in the question, "What is the ultimate long-term purpose of science?"

While science does do many things to improve mankind's condition in daily life, to what end does that serve? Why make our lives easier? What is the direction of science, if there is no God or "grand design" to the universe (or universes if there are more we haven't discovered)? Why not just spend our days hunting wildlife or planting crops until we simply fade from being? This is why science without religion is a lame thing. Take away religion, and science loses motivation. Science is not an "ars gratia artis", and making it so removes its legs.

Ultimately, the quest for God, or "superior intelligence" if you find the idea of God too antiquated, is what drives mankind onward.

On the other hand, religion without science is what makes the idea of God antiquated. in that situation, religion becomes nothing more than a children's bedtime story, with a moral or a boogeyman to scare children into compliance for whatever reason a parent may have. Blind faith is for the silly masses. If science cannot show you God, then you simply are not looking at it.

Peter O'Toole said it best in the movie Creator:

"...one of these days we'll look in to our microscope and find ourselves staring right into God's eyes, and the first one who blinks is going to lose his testicles."

An Election, Bill O'Reilly, and Law Enforcement: Today's News for April 19th

As predicted yesterday:

Fox News:

Georgia congressional race: Democrat Ossoff, Republican Handel will go to run-off

A special election in Georgia’s Sixth congressional district failed to produce an outright winner Tuesday, forcing a June 20 runoff between upstart Democrat Jon Ossoff and former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel.

With 88 percent of the precincts reporting, Ossoff had garnered 48 percent of the vote, falling just short of the majority threshold required in the so-called “jungle primary.” Handel was the top GOP vote-getter at 20 percent, finishing comfortably ahead of technology executive Bob Gray, who received 11 percent of the vote, and former State Senators Judson Hill and Dan Moody, who received 9 percent of the vote respectively.

Don't be surprised if Handel wins the run-off election.

In other news about Fox News...

CNN:

Source: Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are talking exit

Fox News will no longer even respond to questions about whether Bill O'Reilly will return to his show.

A well-placed source said Tuesday afternoon that representatives for Fox and O'Reilly have begun talking about an exit. But this prompted a denial from sources in O'Reilly's camp.

Even one person close to O'Reilly, however, said he will probably not be back on "The O'Reilly Factor."

The original well-placed source said an announcement about O'Reilly's fate was likely by the end of the week.

...All of this is a reaction to a New York Times story about the settlement payments that O'Reilly, Fox and 21st Century Fox paid to women who accused O'Reilly of sexual harassment and verbal abuse.

Last week 21st Century Fox confirmed that an outside law firm was investigating allegations against O'Reilly.

For what it is worth, and this is just my opinion, for decades, I have viewed O'Reilly as more of a showman and not any kind of real conservative commentator. O'Reilly would support shooting his mother if it would get him viewers. Even when I watched tv (I dumped my satellite service 4 years ago this month), I would rather watch the History Channel than Bill O'Reilly.

Basically, I consider the loss of Bill O'Reilly from the airwaves as a plus for the public political discourse, and that is long before any kind of consideration for whether he is a sexual harasser.

In other news...

Politico:

Kelly to Homeland Security critics: Change the law or 'shut up'

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly offered a sharp rebuttal to critics of his department on Tuesday, challenging lawmakers who dislike its approach to immigration enforcement to change the law or “shut up.”

Employees at the Department of Homeland Security, he told an audience at George Washington University, “are often ridiculed and insulted by public officials and frequently convicted in the court of public opinion on unfounded allegations testified to by street lawyers and street spokespersons.”
  
“If lawmakers do not like the laws that we enforce, that we are charged to enforce, that we are sworn to enforce, then they should have the courage and the skill to change those laws,” Kelly said. “Otherwise, they should shut up and support the men and women on the front lines.”

Amen brother.

Seriously, demanding law enforcement to NOT enforce the laws is a recipe for anarchy. Certainly, unjust laws should be challenged by peaceful resistance, but that is not the role of the policing authorities. If a policeman thinks a law is morally unjust, then they have no business being a policeman.  

Pie-in-the-sky Leftist Dreams: Today's news for April 18th

NOTE TO READERS: I will be a little pressed for time this week, so I will probably only do the daily news post. I will try to slip in some other posts, but I cannot make any promises.

On with the news...

The New Yorker:

IN GEORGIA, JON OSSOFF TRIES TO VANQUISH 

SEVENTEEN CANDIDATES AT ONCE

[Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff for Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District seat (to replace President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price)] has risen to the head of an eighteen-candidate pack, garnering forty-five per cent of the vote in a poll released this past Friday.

(hat tip to WSB TV for the graphic)

It sounds good for Democrat Ossoff, until you consider how packed the field is with Republicans splitting the vote:

[Republican Karen] Handel has the lead among the Republicans in the race, at between seventeen and twenty-one per cent, according to the latest polls. On Tuesday, Democrats, Republicans, and independents will all appear on one ballot. Unless one candidate captures a full fifty per cent of the vote, there will be a runoff between the top two finishers, on June 20th. Ossoff’s overall polling lead is formidable, but it also reflects a crowded conservative field that features pro-Trump Republicans, establishment Republicans, at least one vocally anti-Trump Republican, and a John Wayne-quoting Muslim Republican named Mohammad Ali Bhuiyan. Their résumés are just as varied: at a nonpartisan candidate forum and luncheon in late March, Handel and Ossoff were joined onstage by a former flight attendant, a Georgia State University Italian professor, a cardiologist, the Trump campaign’s “diversity chief,” and twelve others. 

This creates the likely scenario of a run-off election between Handel and Ossoff in a Republican-leaning district, which will most likely vote for Handel in the end.

The only reason this is nationwide news is because Leftist editors in the mainstream media are having wet dreams about a Democrat winning a House seat in a Republican district. It isn't impossible, but these are also the same people who thought Hillary was a shoe-in last November.

This shouldn't even be news outside Georgia.

In other fake news...

NBC News:

Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dems and Republicans

A review of the surveillance material flagged by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes shows no inappropriate action by Susan Rice or any other Obama administration official, Republican and Democratic Congressional aides who have been briefed on the matter told NBC News.

President Donald Trump told the New York Times he believed former National Security Adviser Rice broke the law by asking for the identities of Trump aides who were mentioned in transcripts of U.S. surveillance of foreign targets. Normally, the identities of Americans are blacked out in transcripts circulated by the National Security Agency, but they may be "unmasked," if their identities are relevant to understanding the intelligence.

Before going any further, please notice that nowhere in this article is the question of whether the government should be allowed to knowingly gather intelligence on Americans who are not under active investigation. When the Americans in question are involved in the presidential campaign for an opposing party, this becomes the ethical equivalent of being able to perform a Watergate break-in without ever leaving your office, and with it all being fully sanctioned by the laws of the United States.

Here are the money quotes in the article:

Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees from both parties have traveled to NSA headquarters to review the relevant intelligence reports.

"I saw no evidence of any wrongdoing," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents, who would not agree to be identified further. "It was all completely normal."

His assessment was shared by a senior Republican aide who had been briefed on the matter but declined to speak on the record.

We know the first official is a Democrat, since the article says they had sources from both parties. However, the second Republican source is not quoted, so we have no idea to what extent they supposedly "shared" the democrat's opinion. It could have been the Republican only admitted what Rice did was legal.

Before you jump into the "it's legal so it's ok" camp, ask yourself this question: How will you feel if Trump's NSA director does the same thing to a Democratic presidential candidate's campaign in 2020?

Speaking of Trump...

Newsweek:

BREAKING DOWN ALL OF THE TRUMP FAMILY'S TRAVEL COSTS 

AND LAVISH EXPENDITURES

The Trumps are set to become the most expensive first family in history if they don’t immediately begin reducing their lavish spending habits and frequent trips across the globe – and taxpayers are set to continue picking up the tab for as long as they keep it up. For context, President Donald Trump is expected to outpace the entirety of former President Barack Obama’s eight-year travel costs with plenty of time to spare in just his first year as the leader of the free world.

Whereas Obama spent close to $12.1 million annually in travel costs, Trump may have already doubled that benchmark on trips to Mar-A-Lago alone before the close of his first 100 days. But getting the new president from point A to point B isn’t the only expenditure raising eyebrows: the price tag that comes with the new first family is quickly becoming equally concerning to Trump’s opponents and supporters alike.

Sadly, the article doesn't reveal any total figures, but a rough ballpark puts the costs mentioned at $109 million for the first 100 days, which will work out close to $400 million for the first year. Even accounting for the fact that Trump's family (7, including himself) is larger than Obama's (4, including himself), there is also the fact that 4 of Trump's children are grown and live jet-setting lifestyles, whereas Obama's children were still in school during his presidency.

Mind you, this doesn't excuse the Trump family for their lavish lifestyles and how much it costs the American public in security for them. But this one falls under the "elections have consequences" category. When you elect an older wealthy man with a large family like Trump has, this is what it costs to provide extra security on that lifestyle.

However, we can make some reasonable cuts to these expenses. Hotel and transportation costs for adult children should be paid for by them. We can still provide security, but that is all we should be paying.

Turkey's Dictator: Today's News for April 17th

Associated Press:

OPPOSITION TO CHALLENGE VOTES ON EXPANDING ERDOGAN'S POWERS

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- Turkey's main opposition party on Monday prepared to contest the results of a landmark referendum that gave a narrow victory to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's long-time plans to greatly expand the powers of his office.

Turkey's electoral board confirmed the "yes" victory in Sunday's referendum and said the final results would be declared in 11-12 days. The state-run Anadolu Agency said the "yes" vote stood at 51.41 percent, while the "no" vote was 48.59 percent.

The margin fell short of the sweeping victory Erdogan had sought in the referendum. Nevertheless, it could cement his hold on power in Turkey and is expected to have a huge effect on the country's long-term political future and its international relations.

Yesterday, I was chatting online with a friend I have in Turkey. He was deeply concerned about this, for two reasons: First, it effectively makes Erdogan a dictator. But second, it also increases the likelihood of some kind of western war against Turkey in the near future.

Obviously, it won't happen today or tomorrow, but considering how little provocation it takes to get America to attack any country nowadays, it remains well within the realm of possibility.

In other international news...

Raw Story:

Former CIA analyst on Korea slams Trump’s ‘gross miscalculation’ on North Korea

Dr. Sue Mi Terry once worked for the CIA as an analyst covering Korea and she’s deeply troubled by what she’s seeing coming out of President Donald Trump’s administration when it comes to North Korea.

Dr. Terry explained that the parades and trotting out of weapons are nothing more than a spectacle or display. However, she did confirm that they do have ICBMs that we know can reach the United States, they just haven’t tested it. Dr. Terry thinks that they’re about to, though.

“If this president is weighing, for whatever reason, some type of novel, newly aggressive military action toward North Korea, what are the options and what are the likely consequences?” host Rachel Maddow asked.

“He could weigh an option of intercepting a missile or an option of striking a nuclear test site,” Terry explained. “But I honestly don’t think it’s going to follow through with this. This is a problem with that policy because you’re putting yourself in a bind, either you have to back down or you have to lose your credibility, or now you’re stuck on a ledge and risk a military option, which is very, very risky. North Korea is not Syria or Afghanistan. It’s going to have to be devastating consequences. North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option.”

The problem with this analysis is it only looks at North Korea. Trump's strategy is to get China to press North Korea's buttons.

Speaking of dangerous games of chicken...

Business Insider:

Trump is playing a dangerous game of chicken with Democrats 

that could cause healthcare costs to skyrocket

In interviews over the past week, President Donald Trump has cast doubt on whether or not his administration will fund a key provision of the Affordable Care Act that helps offset costs for insurers.

The uncertainty Trump is sowing over the payments — known as cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments — has left insurers jittery and contemplating leaving the individual insurance exchanges created by the law known as Obamacare.

Trump has put CSR payments on the table in an attempt to convince Democrats to negotiate with him on his replacement plan for the ACA. But the end of the payments could mean higher premiums and a dearth of choices for insurance, experts say.

"Ending the cost-sharing payments would be a clear signal from the Trump Administration that they are not aiming to run the ACA marketplace effectively, so insurers would likely just throw up their hands and leave the market," said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "The uncertainty and ambiguity is already giving insurers pause about staying in the market for 2018."

The Democrats are trapped. If they don't give in to Trump, he can pull the CSR's, which will cause the ACA to die, leaving Democrats in the unenviable situation of trying to accuse Trump of killing Obamacare by withholding what is effectively corporate welfare. On the other hand, Democrats negotiating with Trump on a new health care plan won't sell any better with their base.

Trump is playing a masterful game of political chess here.

Weekly Finale: Led Zeppelin

Before I sign off this week for the Easter weekend, I offer the musical finale.

This week's finale centers around a classic rock tune from the 1970's, getting new life from yet another movie trailer. This has been a running theme lately in the advertising industry. But sometimes even the formula works when the elements come together perfectly. Shakespeare may have used iambic pentameter a lot, but he used it well.

The movie trailer in question is for "Thor Ragnarok", which is coming out in November. The trailer was released this week, to much fanfare for very good reason:



The song in the trailer is Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song, from 1970 and arguably one of the band's best songs.


But it is the lyrics of the song's first stanza that make it absolutely the perfect song for a movie about the Norse god Thor:

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow
The hammer of the gods
Will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying,
Valhalla, I am coming!
On we sweep with threshing oar,
Our only goal will be the western shore

Naturally, Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page and Robert Plant were inspired to write this viking-themed song during a tour where they played in Reykjavík, Iceland.

As for covers of the song, most people tend to stay respectful to Led Zeppelin's version, which is kind of silly since the Led Zeppelin version has proven impossible to top. Strangely, the one band I might expect to cover it well never played it: Heart. However, Heart's lead singer Ann Wilson did do a decent cover:



But what it needs is Nancy Wilson's guitar. Fortunately, there have been live performances by Heart, but the videos for them aren't that good (here is one example).

By the way, this isn't the only example of Heart successfully covering Led Zeppelin. Their cover of Stairway to Heaven at a Led Zeppelin tribute is classic:


That is all for this week. May your Easter weekend be heartwarming, and I shall return Monday for more.

Wagging the Dog: Today's News for April 14th

The Daily Beast:

U.S. Unleashes ‘Mother of All Bombs’—and a Press Release

U.S. Special Operations Forces dropped one of the world’s most powerful non-nuclear bombs on ISIS fighters in eastern Afghanistan on April 13, defense officials told The Daily Beast on Thursday.

The bombing could mark a shocking escalation of America's war in Afghanistan—one that places more civilians in greater danger than ever before, though military officials insist they wouldn't have acted if they had spotted civilians nearby.

Because it isn't like the U.S. military has already killed thousands of innocent Muslim civilians around the world.

End sarcasm, and continue story:

American forces were trying to root out deeply entrenched ISIS fighters when a U.S. Air Force MC-130 commando transport dropped the Massive Ordinance Air Blast munition in Achin district in Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan at 7:32 in the evening, local time.

ISIS has an estimated 600 to 800 fighters in Afghanistan, many of them in Achin, according to Pentagon spokesman Adam Stump, who said the strike was aimed at limiting their freedom of movement. 

Basically, this was a successful operation. But the timing of this announcement is curious:

Los Angeles Times:

U.S. military says misdirected airstrike in northern Syria killed 18 allied fighters

The U.S. military says a misdirected airstrike this week killed 18 friendly fighters battling Islamic State alongside the international coalition in northern Syria. 

U.S. Central Command said Thursday that coalition aircraft were given the wrong coordinates by the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces for a strike intended to target militants south of their stronghold in Tabqa.

Oops.

Also:

CNN:

US sending 'dozens' more troops to Somalia

The US is sending "dozens" of additional troops to Somalia to train and equip the Somali National Army and the forces participating in the African Union Mission in Somalia there, a US military official confirmed Thursday. 

They will join the US forces already there providing counterterrorism support to local forces battling the al Qaeda affiliate al Shabaab.

In other words, this 16 year long "war on terror" has been no more successful than our millennia-long war on ants.

For every success we have in the war on terror, we have more evidence of failure. The big bomb being dropped is just another example of the tail wagging the dog in this news cycle. We should be asking why this war is still going on, instead of marveling at the big explosion.

Correction: United Airlines story

Apparently, the Fox News link I posted earlier this week (which has since been removed by Fox News) about the United Airlines incident was incorrect in reporting:

On Monday, Chicago Police confirmed they were not involved in the incident and that the officers and security personnel seen in the now viral videos are with the Department of Aviation, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The TRUTH is that it was done by officers of the Chicago Department of Aviation, and not a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The fact it was a local police force and not federal doesn't change my personal opinion that this was a government authority performing an illegal policing action for a corporate interest, especially because the action was legal under federal laws and has been done before. I stand by my opinion piece from yesterday.

(hat tip to Despair for the pic)

The Absurdity of the United Airlines Fiasco Isn't What You Think It Is

There is something important for us to learn from the United Airlines fiasco of a few days ago, and it isn't what you may think.

It isn't about the greedy evil airlines. In fact, United arranged for the removal of a paying customer in order to transport a flight crew. They lost money on that deal, and that is before you even get into lawsuits and loss in stock value.

No, the true absurdity in it is WE THE PEOPLE arranged for and paid for a corporation to mistreat one of their customers. It was officers of the Department of Aviation (a division of the Department of Transportation) who performed the passenger removal at the behest of United Airlines. WE THE PEOPLE did it.

You can say, "But I never voted for anyone to do this kind of thing?" Of course you did. You voted for the legislators and government executives who oversaw the unbridled growth of the U.S. government, to the point where it was growing in ways that nobody ever expected or planned. Elections have consequences. If you do not want the responsibility, then don't vote. Nobody forced you to vote because of a 15 second sound-bite.

United Airlines may have made the call to drag an innocent passenger off their flight, but it was YOUR representatives by proxy who did the actual "beat him up and drag him off".

George Carlin said it best:

...I don't vote, because I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. I know some people like to twist that around and say, "If you don't vote, you have no right to complain." But where's the logic in that? Think it through: If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and you screw things up, then you're responsible for what they've done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote—who, in fact, did not even leave the house on Election Day—am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created. Which I had nothing to do with. Why can't people see that?

China and North Korea: Today's News for April 13th

Wall Street Journal:

Trump and Xi: Tensions Turn to Friendship

President Donald Trump was expansive on Wednesday about his relationship with a world leader he has gotten to know since taking office.

“We have a very good relationship,” he said in a Wall Street Journal interview in the Oval Office. “We have a great chemistry together. We like each other. I like him a lot. I think his wife is terrific.”

The leader who came in for those warm words? Chinese President Xi Jinping.

It’s safe to say very few people saw that coming. China was, as much as any country, the target of Trump broadsides during the 2016 presidential campaign—for not playing fair in the world economy, for taking advantage of the U.S., for stealing American business, for intimidating its neighbors.

Meantime, of course, Russian President Vladimir Putin was the great-power leader who was supposed to emerge as the Trump favorite, the one who would develop a close relationship and be forgiven for past transgressions.

Indeed. What happened to "Trump is working for/with the Russians"? Syria happened.

Continuing:

Yet somehow in the five months or so since Mr. Trump’s election victory, almost the reverse has happened. Now it appears the Trump-Xi relationship may be emerging as the world’s most important.

As Mr. Trump recounted in the interview, he spent hours with Mr. Xi at his Mar-a-Lago resort last week, including long stretches minus their retinues.  An opening discussion between the two “was scheduled for 10 to 15 minutes, and it lasted for three hours,” Mr. Trump said. “And then the second day we had another 10-minute meeting and that lasted for two hours. We had just a very good chemistry.”

Mr. Xi was the first world leader to learn of the American president’s decision to launch 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria; Mr. Trump told him over dessert at Mar-a-Lago last Thursday night.

Then the two talked by phone for another hour Tuesday night, specifically about the nuclear threat from North Korea, Mr. Trump said.

Asked whether he could have imagined that kind of relationship emerging from the smoke of campaign rhetoric, Mr. Trump replied simply: “No.”

He added: “He’s so smart. It’s to his advantage. I like to call it flexible.”

Is that "flexible", or "easy to manipulate"? According to Scott Adams, it may be the latter.

Regardless, it is good to see the U.S. having good, arguably great, relations with China. The closer China and the U.S. get, the less influence Russia has in the world.

Before you suggest this is just talk:

And, the president insisted, China may be starting to deliver. Mr. Xi told him in this week’s phone conversation that China has in recent days turned away some North Korean ships bearing coal—perhaps the most important North Korean export—as they were attempting to make deliveries to China.

If true, this is a huge step in Sino-American relations.

On the other hand, do you think North Korea is feeling the heat?

The Sun:

KIM TESTS THE WEST 

Kim Jong Un is ‘preparing to detonate a nuclear bomb in a tunnel’ to mark ‘Day of the Sun’ celebrating birth of North Korea’s founding father Kim Il-Sung

US military bosses fear North Korea is ready to detonate a nuclear bomb it has placed in a tunnel.

It is believed North Korea is in the final states of preparing for its sixth nuclear test. 

(hat tip to Pinterest for the pic)