Monday Motivation: Samuel Johnson

(hat tip to Wikipedia for the pic)

"The use of travelling is to regulate imagination by reality, and instead of thinking how things may be, to see them as they are."--Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)

The Lesson of Venezuela: Today's News for July 31st

The meltdown of socialism in Venezuela isn't necessarily important news in the United States, except as an abject lesson in the evils of socialism. But that lesson will be lost on the Left here, as is evidenced by a little media bias.

First, the view from the Right:

Fox News:

State Department slams Venezuela 'sham' elections

The U.S. slammed the elections in Venezuela on whether to grant the country’s ruling party unlimited power Sunday, vowing “strong and swift actions against the architects of authoritarianism.”

The State Department released a statement in response to what it called a flawed election of a constitutional super-body under President Nicolas Maduro.

...Venezuelan electoral authorities said on Sunday that more than 8 million people voted to create a constitutional assembly endowing Maduro's ruling socialist party with virtually unlimited powers.

Members of the opposition said they believed between 2 million and 3 million people voted and one well-respected independent analysis put the number at 3.6 million.

An exit poll based on surveys from 110 voting centers by New York investment bank Torino Capital and a Venezuela public opinion company estimated 3.6 million people voted, or about 18.5 percent of registered voters.

"The results thus suggest that the government maintains an important loyal core of supporters that it can mobilize in both electoral and non-electoral scenarios," the report concluded.

The same exit poll also noted that Venezuela has an estimated 2.6 million government employees, "suggesting that a large fraction of the votes could have not been voluntary."

In addition:

Fox News:

Venezuela election sees mass boycott; 7 killed as protests turn violent

Venezuelans stayed away from the polls in massive numbers on Sunday in a show of protest against a vote to grant President Nicolas Maduro's ruling socialist party virtually unlimited powers in the face of a brutal socio-economic crisis and a grinding battle against its political opponents and groups of increasingly alienated and violent young protesters.

The government swore to continue its push for total political dominance of this once-prosperous OPEC nation, a move likely to trigger U.S. sanctions and new rounds of the street fighting that has killed at least 122 and wounded nearly 2,000 since protests began in April.

Venezuela's chief prosecutor's office reported seven deaths Sunday in clashes between protesters and police across the country. Seven police officers were wounded when an explosion went off as they drove past piles of trash that had been used to blockade a street in an opposition stronghold in eastern Caracas.

Across the capital of more than 2 million people, dozens of polling places were virtually empty, including many that saw hours-long lines of thousands voting to keep the government in power over the last two decades. By contrast, at the Poliedro sports and cultural complex in western Caracas, several thousand people waited about two hours to vote, many drawn from opposition-dominated neighborhoods where polling places were closed. But at least three dozen other sites visited by The Associated Press had no more than a few hundred voters at any one time, with many virtually empty.

Opposition leaders had called for a boycott of the vote, declaring it rigged for the ruling party, and by late afternoon they were declaring the low turnout a resounding victory.

Looks pretty ugly, right? Anyone can argue why socialism failed in Venezuela, but there is no doubt it has. This leaves the Left in America in a difficult situation, especially the media. How does one defend their political ideology when faced with an obvious example of failure?

CNN:

Venezuela: Maduro claims victory for new assembly

WHAT?! That is the headline?

Hopefully, the story gets better. Let us see how far into the story we can get before the objective TRUTH leaks into it:

President Nicolás Maduro has thanked "the brave people of Venezuela" for voting in a controversial election for a new Constituent Assembly that will have the power to rewrite his country's constitution.

The election will allow Maduro to replace Venezuela's current legislative body -- the National Assembly -- with the new assembly, made up 545 members, all nominated by his administration.

"We have a Constituent Assembly. I said, come hell or high water-- and hell and high water came -- and the Constituent Assembly arrived from the hand of the people, from its conscience," Maduro said, claiming victory.

The opposition boycotted the election as a fraud and has called for massive protests to begin again Monday.

Wow. Four paragraphs.

And what about those protests?

CNN:

Deadly election day in Venezuela as protesters clash with troops

Deadly clashes between protesters and police marred voting on Sunday, as Venezuelans cast ballots on a controversial measure that could mark a turning point for their country.

The election will allow President Nicolás Maduro to replace Venezuela's current legislative body -- the National Assembly -- with a new institution called the Constituent Assembly that will have the power to rewrite the constitution.

You have to read 9 paragraphs into the story before the opposition gets mentioned.

By the way, to get to the article about the protests, you have to go through that first article. There is no link on the front page of CNN. This is shameless bias.

In CNN's defense, they did get the John Kelly analysis correct:

CNN:

Why John Kelly may be destined to repeat history

In case you missed it Friday, President Trump replaced chief of staff Rence Priebus with General John Kelly. But CNN brought up an excellent historical precedent to describe how Kelly's tenure is likely to go:

The best comparison might be Gen. Alexander Haig, who became chief of staff for an embattled Richard Nixon in 1973.

Right in the middle of the Watergate investigation, Nixon turned to Haig when H.R. Haldeman resigned on August 30, 1973. The appeal was clear. The 47-year-old career military officer had worked as a senior military adviser to national security adviser Henry Kissinger and as Army vice chief of staff. Haig brought the kind of "can-do" attitude toward problems that the President hoped would help him.

"He'll be superb in the new job. He'll get decisions made, orders implemented and papers flowing into the President's office," predicted President Lyndon Johnson's aide Joseph Califano, "He'll work 20 hours a day, and he knows how to get along with people." Haig, who had shown his scrappy character by earning enough money to pay for college by delivering newspapers and working in a department store after his father died when he was only 10 years old, was a compelling figure with strong convictions and an unyielding drive.

The problem for Haig -- and Kelly might want to take note -- was that there was little he could do to turn around the dire situation he inherited. By the time he was hired, Nixon was deep into battle mode, combating the multiple investigations that were taking place into his administration. The investigators were already exposing a deeply troubled president who had abused executive power and acted in vindictive ways toward his perceived adversaries. Nixon had allowed many people to work for his administration who didn't have a strong ethical compass and who had been willing to do whatever was necessary to achieve success. And, as the "smoking gun tape" recording would reveal, Nixon had been willing to obstruct justice in 1972.

There was nothing Haig could do to make all this go away. Indeed, Haig, though not without a spine, became part of the problem. He was the person who delivered the instructions to acting Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre.

As a loyal foot soldier, he fueled some of Nixon's worst behavior. 

In Kelly's case, do we really need someone who will just fuel Trump's worst behavior?

That said, a good chief of staff is just a reflection of a good boss. If Trump is a good boss, and that remains to be seen, then Kelly will be a better choice than Rence Preibus, who was clearly over his head in the job.

Weekly Finale: Since I Fell for You

To finish off this week, it is time for another musical finale.

This week's finale is dedicated to a classic song, "Since I Fell for You". It is one of the saddest songs of a life ruined by lost love.

It was first released in 1947, with two versions. The first was by Annie Laurie with Paul Gayten and His Trio:



The second version was slightly better, sung by Velma Middleton with Louis Armstrong's All-Stars. Velma Middleton really established the standard for how this song should be sung:



But leave it to Dinah Washington, working with Quincy Jones back in 1961, to elevate the song to another level:



Fontella Bass, of "Rescue Me" fame, actually nailed the bluesy aspect of the song with her 1966 cover:



But the perfect cover of the song was done by singer Al Jarreau and saxophonist David Sanborn in 1986:



Jarreau won a Grammy for it in 1987. Sadly, Jarreau died in February this year, at the age of 76.

That is all for me this week. Get rid of your blues this weekend and come back here Monday for more.

GOP Lied: Today's News for July 28th

CNN mustered all their schadenfreude into one big glaring headline this morning: 

OBAMACARE REPEAL FAILS

Sadly, their overjoyed headline ignores bigger problems for their Republican opponents.

But first, the story...

CNN:

GOP Obamacare repeal bill fails in dramatic late-night vote

The Senate has dealt a devastating setback to Republican efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, defeating a GOP "skinny repeal" bill early Friday morning.

Sens. John McCain, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins joined with Democrats to oppose the measure, a major blow to President Donald Trump and the Republican congressional agenda.

These three are the heart of the Left wing of the Republican Party, so it is no surprise they would be against any repeal of Obamacare.

McCain, who ran as "me too" against Barack Obama in 2008, is a former fiscal conservative who lost his way in trying to win the White House, and never really came back.

Murkowski is the daughter of former Alaska governor Frank Murkowski, who crookedly bought himself an airplane with state money. Thanks to that, Alaska voters gave us Sarah Palin to replace him. Lisa Murkowski lost to a Tea Party candidate in 2010, only to run as a write-in candidate and win the general election.

Susan Collins has a long tradition of bucking the GOP on social issues, and has danced on both sides of the health care issue, having supported the State Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, but voted against the original Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

At this defeat, President Trump expressed the sentiment of many Republicans best:

3 Republicans and 48 Democrats let the American people down. As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal. Watch!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 28, 2017

Of course, Fox News downplayed this news somewhat:

Fox News:

Senate rejects amendment to 'skinny repeal' of ObamaCare as 3 Republicans vote no

Senate Republicans failed to pass Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s proposed “skinny repeal” amendment in a vote Friday morning, signaling what could be the end to any hopes of repealing and replacing ObamaCare.

Notice the lead sentence in both stories. In the CNN story, it was "The Senate has dealt a devastating setback", whereas Fox has it as a simple "Senate Republicans failed to pass". On the other hand, CNN was more tepid about what this means for repealing Obamacare, calling it only a "setback", whereas Fox was a bit more definitive, saying it signals "what could be the end to any hopes of repealing and replacing ObamaCare".

How would I have written that first line?

A Senate vote on a proposed "skinny repeal" amendment, which would have ended parts of the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare, was defeated when 3 Republicans voted against it.    

Admittedly, it lacks the schadenfreude of CNN, or the chicken little posturing of Fox, but it tells the story accurately.

But there is more to this story:

Washingtonian:

Eric Cantor: “If You’ve Got That Anger Working for You, You’re Gonna Let It Be”

This interview with the former House Republican majority leader reveals a truth Republicans might not want you to know right now:

Let’s back up a moment. Remember the summer of 2013, when the “Defund Obamacare Tour” drove the news cycle all through Congress’s August recess? The town halls organized by the political arm of the Heritage Foundation enlivened the base and furthered what had been the GOP’s core message since 2010—that Obamacare was bad and, if Americans helped Republicans hold both chambers, it could be repealed.

Cantor helped create that perception. Earlier that summer—after many failed attempts over the years to shred the law piecemeal—Cantor promised colleagues that the House would vote on a “full repeal.” But even after it did, the measure was dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Cantor—in Congress 13 years and, fairly or unfairly, once thought to be above electoral reproach—paid the price. His 2014 avenger, now-congressman David Brat, bludgeoned him for being soft on Obamacare, among other things. But the failure to make a dent in the law landed a bigger blow on the party. After seven years of pledging they could dismantle Obamacare, if only they had control of Congress and the White House, Republicans—at last in charge of both—have faced deep divisions over a replacement.

Asked if he feels partly responsible for their current predicament, Cantor is unequivocal. “Oh,” he says, “100 percent.”

He goes further: “To give the impression that if Republicans were in control of the House and Senate, that we could do that when Obama was still in office . . . .” His voice trails off and he shakes his head. “I never believed it.”

He says he wasn’t the only one aware of the charade: “We sort of all got what was going on, that there was this disconnect in terms of communication, because no one wanted to take the time out in the general public to even think about ‘Wait a minute—that can’t happen.’ ” But, he adds, “if you’ve got that anger working for you, you’re gonna let it be.”

Time for the TRUTH: The Republicans NEVER intended to repeal Obamacare.

In summary, the Democrats were honest but stupid about Obamacare, and the Republicans lied about their intentions to get elected. America, have you figured out that neither political party was ever on your side? You got played.

Gone fishing!

I am taking the day off. I have a lot of personal stuff to do today. But I will be back tomorrow.

Movie Review: Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Some movies transcend "cinema" and enter the realm of art. "Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets" is just such a movie. (Note: No spoilers here, so feel free to read if you haven't seen it yet.)

Starting with the cinematography, which may be the most outstanding of any movie ever made. If cinematographer Thierry Arbogast doesn't get bogged down in awards for his work here, then it is a sin. I would be tempted to buy a tv to put this movie on autoplay continually, because it is a visually incredible moving work of art.

The visuals will draw comparison to the movie "Avatar", but Valerian delivers on the unfulfilled promise of "Avatar". Avatar's planet Pandora is almost ripped off here by Valerian's planet Mül, although Mül is a bit more of a tropical beach paradise, as opposed to the rain forest planet Pandora. But both planets feature alien races living in perfect harmony with their planet's environment. Where the movies part ways is in Valerian's "James Bond"-like plotline, as opposed to Avatar's "hit you over the head" environmental message. Basically, Valerian is just more fun.

That is not to say this movie is flawless. The most glaring flaw is the leading man, Dane DeHaan as Major Valerian. This role screams for a Han Solo-esque character, but Dane is more like Luke Skywalker trying to act like Han Solo.

Fortunately, Cara Delevingne's Sergeant Laureline, Valerian's partner, is a Carrie Fisher for the 21st century. Delevingne does this "tough as nails but still a woman" role to perfection. This movie could easily be called Laureline instead of Valerian.

The rest of the cast is acceptable, with a special appearance by singer Rihanna as an alien shapeshifter named Bubble. Kudos to Rihanna, who showed some real acting chops with this one, making Bubble lovable in a limited number of scenes.

Since a good villain makes a good movie, this leads to Clive Owen's Commander Arun Filitt. He was dislikeable enough, but I would prefer a bit more scene-chewing from him. Fortunately, there are a few other villains that carry the scene-chewing, like Igon Siruss, voiced by John Goodman perfectly.

Overall, Valerian falls just short of "Star Wars" among epic science fiction films. I would give Valerian 3.8 stars out of 4, but that still leaves it as a must-see movie this year.

Another Obamacare Repeal and Replace Dies: Today's News for July 26th

Fox News:

Senate blocks proposal to repeal and replace ObamaCare

The Senate has blocked a wide-ranging proposal by Republicans to repeal much of former President Barack Obama’s health care law and replace it with a more restrictive plan.

Senators voted 57-43 late Tuesday to reject the plan in the first vote on an amendment to the bill. Those voting “no” included nine defecting Republicans.

The Hill reported that the nine Republicans included GOP Sens. Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham, Dean Heller, Mike Lee, Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul.

The list includes both moderates and conservatives. The vote underscored problems Republicans will have in winning enough votes to recast Obama’s statute.

Especially surprising is the Senator John McCain voted for the bill, while Senator Lindsey Graham voted against it. Those two are usually in lockstep.

On the bright side:

Washington Examiner:

Rand Paul says GOP will vote on Obamacare 'repeal and delay'

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Tuesday that Republicans will be pursuing the "repeal and delay" strategy on Obamacare once they vote Tuesday to debate a House-passed healthcare bill.

If that is the plan, I will vote to proceed to have this vote. I also now believe we will be able to defeat the new spending and bailouts.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 25, 2017

If the GOP cannot pass this bill, they will have some serious explaining to do to their constituents.

In other news...

CNN:

Woman slapped Minneapolis police car before she was shot, report says

In an interview with investigators last week, one of the two Minneapolis police officers involved in the fatal shooting of Justine Ruszczyk said he was startled by a "loud sound" near the squad car.

Immediately after that loud sound, Ruszczyk approached the driver's side window of the car and was fatally shot by Officer Mohamed Noor, according to investigators.

A recently revealed search warrant may explain the source of that startling sound: a slap.

A woman presumed to be Ruszczyk was killed after she slapped the back of the police car, according to a search warrant obtained from Hennepin County District Court by Minneapolis Public Radio and the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension used the warrant to search the area where the shooting happened, Minneapolis Public Radio said.

"Upon police arrival, a female 'slaps' the back of the patrol squad," the search warrant states, according to Minneapolis Public Radio. "After that, it is unknown to BCA agents what exactly happened, but the female became deceased in the alley."

While this doesn't justify the shooting, it certainly explains it a little better.

Finally in today's news from across the pond...

The Guardian:

Britain to ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars and vans from 2040

Britain is to ban all new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 amid fears that rising levels of nitrogen oxide pose a major risk to public health.

The commitment, which follows a similar pledge in France, is part of the government’s much-anticipated clean air plan, which has been at the heart of a protracted high court legal battle.

The government warned that the move, which will also take in hybrid vehicles, was needed because of the unnecessary and avoidable impact that poor air quality was having on people’s health. Ministers believe it poses the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK, costing up to £2.7bn in lost productivity in one recent year.

Clean air, sure. Whatever floats your boat. So the never-ending war on Islam, which controls a lot of the world's oil, had nothing to do with this decision?

Austin Petersen for Senate: An Analysis

Former Libertarian presidential candidate Austin Petersen has declared himself as a Republican candidate for the Missouri senate seat currently held by Democrat Claire McCaskill. Normally, a Republican candidate for a senate race during a mid-term election (2018) would be of mild importance, lost in the shuffle of many senate races vying to change the senate calculus from one party to another. However, Petersen's candidacy is part of a larger wave in the Republican Party, moving the party away from the neoconservative, "compassionate conservative" politics of the Bushes, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan, and towards the libertarian politics of the Tea Party, Rand Paul, and his father Ron Paul.

Speaking of Ron Paul, Petersen claims him as one of his inspirations, and it shows: Both men are libertarian ideologues who can expound their views in detail, and with pitbull-like tenacity. Petersen showed this tenacity during the Libertarian presidential debates, where he took apart both eventual candidate (and former Republican governor of New Mexico) Gary Johnson and also-ran billionaire John McAfee. Even though the Libertarian Party played it safe by re-selecting their 2012 presidential candidate Johnson, Petersen made it a much closer race than anyone expected. On top of this, Petersen shares Paul's disdain for abortion. Both men controversially support the fetal right-to-life above those of a woman's right to her body.

 Speaking of the issues, here are Petersen's stands, taken directly from his website:

1. Healthcare:

We need a clean repeal of Obamacare. Period. While President Obama was in office, Republicans in Congress tried to accomplish this over 50 times. What’s changed now with President Trump? This is the problem with Washington: politics, partisanship, and putting special interests front and center — instead of keeping your promises and putting the American people first.

This stands in direct opposition to Petersen's expected opponent Claire McCaskill, who voted for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) back in 2009. This is also a stronger view than that espoused by many waffling Republicans who cannot seem to pull themselves away from the Obamacare-style Rube Goldberg health care model.

2. Jobs

Government doesn’t create jobs, but it can certainly inhibit job growth. The truth is that if our government is going to spur growth, it has to be pruned — a lot. It’s time to radically reduce excessive and harmful regulations that inhibit economic growth and the creation of new jobs. It’s not rocket science; the more roadblocks you put in the way of entrepreneurs and job creators, the fewer jobs will be created. The more hoops you make people jump through, the more time they’ll have to spend jumping through them instead of spending that time creating a better product, thinking of new and innovative ways to get their product to market faster and more efficiently, or hiring that next employee.

Economist Thomas Sowell once said that government is all about trade-offs. You can get it to do whatever you want, but you will have to give up something on the other end. Call it the law of unexpected economic consequences. Government creates regulations like eating peanuts. but each of those regulations has a consequence, and Austin Petersen is one of the few politicians who understands the true cost. While McCaskill claims to have similar views on government regulation, I don't recall her ever complaining about any of Obama's regulatory expansions.

3. Taxes

“If cigarette taxes are meant to discourage people from smoking, what are income taxes supposed to stop people from doing?” In a perfect world, we would get rid of the income tax. In the meantime, we need a flat tax — 15% across the board: personal, corporate, capital gains, you name it. This is the only way to make the system fair. Currently, it’s not just regulations that crush small businesses and innovators — it’s taxes as well.

I would add to Petersen's first line, "What are progressive income taxes supposed to stop people from doing?" You can go back to Karl Marx and get the answer to that: Keep them from getting wealthy. And yet how many Republicans are opposed to the progressive income tax? Petersen is one of the few. McCaskill claims to be for "fair and simple" taxes, yet she never supported a flat tax like Petersen does.

4. Spending

We need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Government spending is like Mark Twain's alleged quote about the weather: "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." We all know it is a problem, but nobody will do anything about it. Until we force Constitutional discipline on our government's spending, we will never get it. McCaskill talks about spending like Petersen does, even supporting  a balanced budget amendment, and yet nothing has changed.

5. Criminal Justice Reform

Prohibition is one of the most expensive and deadly failures in American history. This war on drugs is a war on American citizens. It’s costly, and it creates more violence on the border. You can build the tallest wall in history, but smugglers will find a way to get under it, or go around it. To fight drugs, we have to remove the economic incentive for them to bring these substances into our country. We’re destroying people’s lives — we should be treating drug abuse as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. Drugs are dangerous in part because they’re created on the black market, just as it was in the days of bathtub gin. We must be compassionate towards those who are suffering with chemical dependencies, and let them come into the light and seek treatment and help. This is absolutely a constitutional conservative issue. We need to reinstate the Founders’ original intent with regards to constitutional checks and balances by eliminating federal “mandatory minimums” laws and restoring power to the judicial branch. We need to end the practice of “civil asset forfeiture” — also known as legal governmental theft. And we need to end, once and for all, the federal government’s “war on drugs.”

The "war on drugs" is just as much of a failure as Prohibition was. We are no closer to eliminating drugs than we were in 1970, when the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was passed. But we have managed to incarcerate millions of Americans whose only failure was drug addiction, which is no better or worse than imprisoning people for alcohol or tobacco addiction. To McCaskill, the war on drugs is a non-issue. But that is one of the advantages of being a Democrat: No amount of failure is ever enough to concede defeat, since nobody ever holds Democrats accountable for policy failures.

This is actually a key area of difference between Petersen and the only other declared Republican in the race, Tony Monetti. Like McCaskill, Monetti is all about continuing the drug war.

6. Foreign Policy

Currently, we spend more on our military than the next 8 highest spenders combined — and we haven’t audited the Pentagon since 9/11. The American people deserve better than this. Our troops deserve better than this. America first! No more nation-building. The United States should seek to protect and defend its security, its allies, and its national interests abroad, but any military actions taken must come with a proper debate and vote in Congress and comply with the War Powers Act. No president should have the power to unilaterally declare war. That’s Congress’ job, as per the Constitution.

It is funny to see a Republican candidate taking the peaceful route in opposition to the Democrat's war hawkishness. But Petersen lays out a solid case for peace, while McCaskill is all about killing Muslims overseas, with no cost in American lives and money being too much.

Overall, Austin Petersen is representative of a continuing trend in the Republican Party, that started with Ron Paul and exploded with the Tea Party candidates of the 2010 midterm election. With Republican Representative Ann Wagner pulling out of contention for the senate race, it almost looks like the GOP is conceding the seat, allowing the libertarian wing of the party an opportunity to prove it can succeed where more establishment-oriented Republicans don't see it as possible.

The Russian Obsession: Today's News for July 25th

CNN is obsessed with Russia. One might think they want to single-handedly re-start the Cold War. Case in point:

CNN:

Videos suggest Russian government may be arming Taliban

The Taliban have received improved weaponry in Afghanistan that appears to have been supplied by the Russian government, according to exclusive videos obtained by CNN, adding weight to accusations by Afghan and American officials that Moscow is arming their one-time foe in the war-torn country. 

The use of the word "appears" in that first sentence is quite subjective. Consider:

US generals first suggested they were concerned the Russian government was seeking to arm the Afghan insurgents back in April, but images from the battlefield here corroborating these claims have been hard to come by.

These two videos show sniper rifles, Kalashnikov variants and heavy machine guns that weapons experts say are stripped of any means of identifying their origin. 

...The videos don't provide incontrovertible proof of the trade, of which Moscow has categorically denied involvement. 

If you don't realize this, US generals are not an impartial bunch. Generals need to make the case for bigger budgets and more weapons. Former President Ronald Reagan introduced the term "welfare queen" into our political lexicon, but some of the biggest welfare queens in our country are generals. Demagoguing Russia plays right into their hands.

Mind you, that doesn't mean Russia isn't a threat to the U.S. They certainly are. But this thing about Russia supplying guns to the Taliban? Kalishnikov variants have been around since 1947, long before the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989). The Taliban could have easily acquired many of these guns from that conflict.

Continuing:

Two separate sets of Taliban, one in the north and another in the west, claim to be in possession of the weapons, which they say were originally supplied by Russian government sources. One splinter group of Taliban near Herat say they obtained the guns after defeating a mainstream rival group of Taliban. Another group say they got the weapons for free across the border with Tajikistan and that they were provided by "the Russians."

Notice how we have Taliban fighting Taliban here? The Taliban aren't much of a threat if they are killing each other.

Note the splinter Taliban group is saying the other group got their guns from Russia, while the other Taliban group claims to have gotten their guns from Russia. Is it possible something is getting lost in translation?

One case they mentioned is pretty weak:

In one video the Herat group are seen brandishing the guns, which they said were taken from the mainstream Taliban, led by Mullah Haibatullah, after that group attacked them. Eighteen of their rivals were killed in the attack and six were captured, they said.

"These weapons were given to the fighters of Mullah Haibatullah by the Russians via Iran," said their deputy leader, Mullah Abdul Manan Niazi. He went on to repeat the often-heard rationale behind the arming -- which Moscow denies -- that the weapons were supplied to help the Taliban better fight ISIS.    

"Via Iran"? Could the Iranians have bought guns from the Russians, and then turned around and sold or given them to the Taliban? Of course they could. But then that isn't the Russians arming the Taliban, but the Iranians.

In addition:

Weapons experts from the Small Arms Survey studied the videos and said there was little in them to directly tie the guns to the Russian state. The weapons were not particularly modern or rare, and even some of the more elaborate additions, like a JGBG M7 scope on one machine gun, were Chinese made and readily available online, they said.

Yet Benjamin King from the Survey said, "the weapons didn't seem to have the manufacturer markings where we would expect them." He said that elsewhere there have been reports of supplying governments and others going to great lengths to remove identification markings from weapons.

If someone is intentionally arming the Taliban, they wouldn't want the guns traced back to them. It makes perfect sense they would remove any manufacturer markings. That doesn't mean it was the Russians doing it. Russians sell guns to much of the world, so there are plenty of ways they could go from Russia to the Taliban via a third party.

But let us throw in a hypothetical: What if the Russians are supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan with weapons? After 16 years of war in Afghanistan, does ramping up our efforts now sound any more likely to end this war?

In other news...

Fox News:

Trump asks if The Washington Post is an Amazon 'lobbyist weapon'

President Trump took to Twitter late Monday to call out The Washington Post and ask if the paper is being used as a 'lobbyist weapon' for internet giant Amazon.

Is Fake News Washington Post being used as a lobbyist weapon against Congress to keep Politicians from looking into Amazon no-tax monopoly?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Billionaire Jeff Bezos owns the paper and is the founder of Amazon.

...Amazon.com collects state sales taxes in all 45 states with a sales tax and the District of Columbia, according to their website. State governments have sought to capture sales taxes lost to internet retailers, though they have struggled with a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that retailers must have a physical presence in a state before officials can make them collect sales tax. 

...In 2015, [Trump] wrote that Bezos bought the Post “for purposes of keeping taxes down at his no profit company, @amazon.” He added that “If @amazon ever had to pay fair taxes, its stock would crash and it would crumble like a paper bag. The @washingtonpost scam is saving it!”

While Trump is correct here, as this Newsweek article from last year shows, the question is why is Trump bringing this up now? Fox News speculates:

Trump was apparently upset with the paper's report on Syria.

Specifically:

The Amazon Washington Post fabricated the facts on my ending massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Trump does appear to be referring to this article from last week:

Washington Post:

Report: Trump ends covert plan to arm Syrian rebels

President Donald Trump has decided to halt the CIA’s years-long covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the regime of the nation’s president Bashar al-Assad. Russia had long pushed the United States to end the program.

The phasing out of the secret program was reported by The Washington Post on Wednesday. Officials told the newspaper that ending the operation reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia.

The program was a key component begun by the Obama administration in 2013 to put pressure on Assad to relinquish power. But even its supporters have questioned its usefulness since Moscow sent forces in Syria two years later.

The Post article isn't against what Trump did. There is no apparent bias. On top of that, Trump's tweet admits the program was making "massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels".

My speculation on this is it revolves around the line, "ending the operation reflects Trump’s interest in finding ways to work with Russia." Not a bad thing, but in the current media feeding frenzy over all things Russia, it appears President Trump has gotten overly sensitive to the Russia issue.

A Better Deal: Today's News for July 24th

Daily Intelligencer:

Democrats to Unveil New Slogan Promising a ‘Better Deal’

Though the 2018 midterms are still a long way off, national Democrats have caught some flak for not yet developing a unified message to sell to voters beyond “Trump Is Bad.”...

To get the ball rolling in their quest to pick up the 24 seats needed for a congressional takeover, Democrats will unveil their gleaming new motto on Monday, which is … “A Better Deal.” Or, more specifically, “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.”

If this rather anodyne phrasing sounds familiar, it’s because it recalls two successful slogans of presidents past: Theodore Roosevelt’s “Square Deal,” back in 1910, and, of course, FDR’s “New Deal,” which he rolled out to great effect in 1932. (If you thought there might have been advances in political-branding technology in the intervening 85 years, you’d be wrong.) It also may work as a foil to the supposed “dealmaker-in-chief” who currently occupies the White House.

Basically, the Democrats are trying to play off of Trump's book title, "The Art of the Deal". Unfortunately, as Jay Willis at GQ pointed out, they ended up sounding more like this guy:

(hat tip to Papa John's for the pic)

In other news...

New York Times:

Sean Spicer Resigns as White House Press Secretary

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, resigned Friday after telling President Trump he vehemently disagreed with his appointment of Anthony Scaramucci, a New York financier, as his new communications director.

After offering Mr. Scaramucci the job on Friday morning, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Spicer to stay on as press secretary, reporting to Mr. Scaramucci. But Mr. Spicer rejected the offer, expressing his belief that Mr. Scaramucci’s hiring would add to the confusion and uncertainty already engulfing the White House, according to two people with direct knowledge of the exchange.

Mr. Spicer’s top deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, will serve as press secretary instead.

This story got a lot of media play on Friday, and the media has enjoyed bashing Spicer, but the press secretary is arguably one of the least important positions in the White House.

When Trump bashed his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, that was more impactful than Spicer resigning.

In odd news...

The Hill:

Burr: Nunes 'created' unmasking allegations against Rice

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) pointed to his House counterpart Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) for the narrative that former national security adviser Susan Rice improperly "unmasked" or revealed the identities of Americans swept up in intelligence reports.

"The unmasking thing was all created by Devin Nunes, and I'll wait to go through our full evaluation to see if there was anything improper that happened," Burr told CNN in comments reported after his committee interviewed Rice in a closed session on Friday.

"But clearly there were individuals unmasked. Some of that became public which it's not supposed to, and our business is to understand that, and explain it."

Nunes raised the notion earlier this year that Rice improperly requested the identities of Americans incidentally surveilled, claiming he viewed intelligence reports that showed President Trump and his associates were among those caught up in surveillance of foreign targets.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers who viewed the intelligence reports in question after Nunes, however, have said they show no evidence that Rice or any other member of the Obama administration did anything unusual or illegal.

Using intelligence reports for political purposes should be illegal, or at the very least unethical. The fact they don't consider it "unusual" is worrying.

It is also odd that Burr basically says Nunes "created" this, and then says that individuals were unmasked inappropriately. So which is it? It is possible that maybe Susan Rice didn't authorize it, but it did happen on her watch, so she is ultimately responsible if something was done improperly and she didn't call a foul on it.

Finally...

The Hill:

Pentagon to address $28M spent on untested Afghan camouflage

The Pentagon is expected to address the findings of a report that said it spent $28 million on camouflage uniforms for Afghan soldiers despite the lack of forests in the country.

According to USA Today, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) sent a letter to the Pentagon last week about the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction report, which found that the uniforms were purchased without testing to be used in a country that's just 2 percent woodland. 

The Pentagon gets the bear for this one:

Weekly Finale: Poppy and the cure for Lana Del Rey

For this week's musical finale, I was going to review singer Lana Del Rey.

When I logged on this morning, I noticed "#LustForLife" trending on Twitter, due to Lana's newest album release, "Lust For Life". So I listened to it.

Big mistake. A Gregorian chant would be more chipper than Lana's music. Her music is background for her lyrics, which are derivative and joyless poetry, if I dare ruin the word "poetry" by comparison to anything involving Del Rey. Frankly, I wanted to shove an ice pick in my ears to make her music stop.

After I finished listening (Thank you, merciful pause button!), I needed something a bit more happy. Then I remembered the oddest interview I have seen in some time over at Circa, with Youtube singer Poppy. And I checked out her music.

Poppy is weird. However, Poppy's music is bouncy and positive, and the perfect cure to the ennui from Lana Del Rey's music. Here is her silly song "Computer Boy", about a girl who falls in love with her laptop:



However, I found her song "Interweb" to be her best, with a catchy tune and mysterious lyrics:



I won't go into the whole mystery that is Poppy. There's an article over at Wired that covers her in depth. Suffice it to say, she is a great cure for Lana Del Rey.

That's all for me this week. Enjoy your weekend, and try to avoid Lana Del Rey. I will return Monday for more blogging.

Maxine Waters for President? Today's News for July 21st

American Mirror:

MAXINE 2020? Waters appearance in NH on Sunday

Is 78-year-old “Auntie” Maxine Waters seriously going to make a run for the White House in 2020?

Speculation is increasing as it’s revealed the California congresswoman and darling of Trump haters nationwide will be making an appearance in the early presidential primary state of New Hampshire on Sunday.

“According to an invitation, obtained by WMUR from Democratic sources, Waters will be in the state on July 23 for the picnic to be held at the Miller Farm in New Durham,” WMUR reports, where she will hobnob with the Strafford County Democratic Committee.

President Trump has been a favorite punching bag for Waters, who seems to spin a new conspiracy theory about his administration and aides every few days.

Waters has been intentionally antagonistic towards the president’s supporters, as well.

During a screed on the House floor in March, Waters played the race card and the patriotism card against supporters of the president.

“Mr. Speaker, my position against this president and his administration is clear. I oppose this president. I do not honor this president. I do not respect this president,” Waters said during a nearly 9-minute speech.

“African-Americans have struggled and fought historically, many African-Americans have paid a huge price fighting for justice and equality in this country, have died for it. I don’t have to call the names of Martin Luther King and all the others. We have paid a price, we have fought.

“But guess what? Despite the fact that America has not always been there for us, we’ve always been there for America. We have fought in America’s wars. We have suffered discrimination, we have suffered isolation and undermining. But we stand up for America, oftentimes when others who think they are more patriotic, who say they are more patriotic, do not,” Waters said.

“When we fight against this president, and we point out how dangerous he is for this society and for this country, we’re fighting for the democracy. We’re fighting for America. We’re saying to those who say they’re patriotic but they’ve turned a blind eye to the destruction that he’s about to cause this country, ‘You’re not nearly as patriotic as we are.’”

My first reaction:

If there is a definition of "unhinged Leftist", Maxine Waters is it.

But what does she have to say about this rumor?

The Daily Caller:

Maxine Waters: I’ll Run For President If Millennials Want Me To

California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, a favorite among liberal progressives, told The Daily Caller Thursday that this weekend’s scheduled appearance in New Hampshire has nothing to do with potentially running for president in 2020.

But she said that she would run for president if millennials want her to.

“I’m just going up to do a county Democratic thing. That’s all,” she said.

When TheDC pressed further, Waters, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, said laughing, “I’m not running for anything but my own seat. I don’t have any presidential aspirations. If the millennials want me to do it, I’d do it, though.”

Somebody needs to inform Maxine, who will be 82 if elected in 2020, that the president represents the entire country, not just one demographic, like millennials. Or maybe she understands older Americans know what a loon she is?

Speaking of unhinged Leftists...

Newsweek:

RUSSIAN PLOT TO ELECT TRUMP INCLUDED JILL STEIN, 

ACCORDING TO LATEST GLEEFUL TWITTER THEORY

She’s back, and nobody knows why.

There are 41 names included in the document requests sent to Donald Trump Jr.’s lawyer, Alan Futerfas, and Paul Manafort’s lawyer, Reginald Brown, by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The requests include communications involving many individuals known to be ensnared in the Russia investigation, from President Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But while this roster of characters would have made for a fine John Le Carré novel, one name included therein immediately attracted online speculation: that of former Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein.

What, exactly, Stein has to do with Trump Jr.’s meeting last summer with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is unclear, as the Senate Judiciary Committee provided no context for its demands, which are to be honored by August 2. A request for an explanation to Stein’s former campaign manager remains unanswered at this time. And though she is active on Twitter, Stein has made no acknowledgement on that social media network of her name’s appearance in the Trump Jr. inquest.

None of this, of course, prevented some on Twitter from rejoicing at the prospect, however unfounded, that Stein was herself the subject of investigation. The glee is premature but understandable. Stein’s self-righteousness exasperated many supporters of Hillary Clinton, as did her portrayal of Clinton as effectively no better a choice for true liberals than Donald Trump. Some have blamed Stein for “spoiling” the election, doing for Clinton what her fellow progressive Ralph Nader had done 17 years before for Al Gore. Her demand for a recount—a demand for which she reaped $7 million in donations—struck some as a pointless publicity ploy.

That’s all to say that, as the curiosity about her involvement with the Russia investigation plainly demonstrates, there remains remarkable ill will toward Stein and her role in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The questions about Stein’s ties to Russia are not new. They stem from a single photograph of Stein’s trip to Moscow in 2015. The image shows her dining at a table with Putin and Michael Flynn, the disgraced Trump adviser at the heart of the Russia probe.

The evidence:

REMINDER a picture of treason in action, Jill Stein seated with Mike Flynn and Vlad Putin....Stein is now a part of russiagate investigation pic.twitter.com/2MPeCMLy6b

— mark john junor (@markjunor3) July 20, 2017

Stein's response to the letter:

“That picture didn’t start to circulate until long after the election,” Stein said, adding a little later: “It’s funny,...you have to ask why is that picture kicking up a storm right now? I think it’s very related to the fact that the Democrats are looking for someone to blame.” 

The Left is officially insane now. They have started to cannibalize their own.

Speaking of insanity...

Independent:

Donald Trump in talks with Russia over 'creating cyber security group'

Moscow and Washington are in talks to create a joint cyber security working group, a Russian news agency has reported.

In its report, RIA news agency cited Russia’s special envoy on cyber security, Andrey Krutskikh.

“Different proposals are being exchanged and are being studied, nobody is avoiding the need for negotiations and contacts,” Mr Krutskikh said, according to the agency.

“There is no need to overdramatise the working process, it is underway without doubts, it is difficult taking into account the US realities, but this is more of the issue of the US administration, not ours.”

Last week, Russia said Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin had discussed forming a group on cyber security.

Admittedly, this is just talk now, but why? This is a political non-starter right now. So why would Trump even pursue it? There is a fine line between outside-the-box thinking and utter insanity. Trump loves to walk that line.

Thursday Thought: Ayn Rand

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."--Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

McCain's Tumor: Today's News for July 20th

The big story today is Senator John McCain had a malignant brain tumor removed. You would think such a story could avoid political bias, but no. Even brain tumors are subject to political bias nowadays.

First, the story from the Left:

CNN:

Sen. John McCain has brain cancer, aggressive tumor surgically removed

Sen. John McCain, 80, has been diagnosed with a primary glioblastoma, a type of brain tumor, Mayo Clinic doctors directly involved in the senator's care told CNN exclusively. The doctors spoke directly to CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

The senator underwent surgery to remove a blood clot on Friday at Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix. Lab results from that surgery confirmed the presence of brain cancer associated with the blood clot.

The rest of the article is straightforward and fairly objective. In my opinion, it is a good example of bias-free reporting.

And then we get to Fox News:

Fox News:

'I've been through worse': War-hero McCain tells Senate pal he'll be back

U.S. Sen. John McCain, who has been diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor, told Sen. Lindsey Graham over the phone Wednesday that he’s “been through worse,” and then went on to discuss health care and other policy issues.

McCain talked about the long road ahead regarding treatments, but said that he’s been though wars. Graham said McCain-- who is resting at his home in Arizona-- sounded resolved and determined.

“The disease has never had a more worthy opponent,” Graham said.

McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for more than five years. Injuries from being tortured left the longtime Arizona senator unable to lift his arms above his head.

Gush much? It is surprising that Fox didn't use iambic pentameter for this article.

In other news...

New York Times:

Citing Recusal, Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Hired Sessions

President Trump said on Wednesday that he never would have appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions had he known Mr. Sessions would recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation that has dogged his presidency, calling the decision “very unfair to the president.”

In a remarkable public break with one of his earliest political supporters, Mr. Trump complained that Mr. Sessions’s decision ultimately led to the appointment of a special counsel that should not have happened. “Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” Mr. Trump said.

It is never good when your boss says he wouldn't have hired you if he knew then what he knows now. Although you have to admit no previous president would have ever made such a statement about their current attorney general.

And finally today...

Baltimore Sun:

Body camera footage shows officer planting drugs, public defender says

Police and prosecutors in Baltimore have launched investigations after being alerted to body camera footage that the public defender’s office says shows an officer planting drugs.

One officer has been suspended and two others have been placed on administrative duty, police said. Police said they have not reached any conclusions as to the conduct depicted in the video. Other cases in which the officers are involved are now under review as well, police and prosecutors said.

The public defender’s office, which released the footage, said it was recorded by an officer during a drug arrest in January. It shows the officer placing a soup can, which holds a plastic bag, into a trash-strewn lot.

That portion of the footage was recorded automatically, before the officer activated the camera. After placing the can, the officer walks to the street, and flips his camera on.

“I’m gonna go check here,” the officer says. He returns to the lot and picks up the soup can, removing the plastic bag, which is filled with white capsules.

Police cameras have a feature that saves the 30 seconds of video before activation, but without audio. When the officer is first in the alley, there is no audio for the first 30 seconds.

The public defender’s office flagged the video for prosecutors last week, prompting prosecutors to drop the heroin possession charge against the man arrested.

The man, unable to post $50,000 bail, had been in jail since January, according to attorney Deborah Levi, who is leading a new effort to track police misconduct cases for the public defender’s office.

Police officers like this should not only be fired, but they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Cops like this are worse than serial killers, because they undermine our faith in law enforcement everywhere.

Wednesday Wisdom: Ron Paul

(hat tip to Wikipedia for the pic)

"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."--former congressman Ron Paul

Politics and Police Shootings: Today's News for July 19th

One would not think that a police shooting would be subject to the political biases of the "cold civil war", as Carl Bernstein called it. Sadly, one would be wrong:

Fox News:

Australian woman shot after Minnesota cops heard loud sound, officials say

The Minneapolis police officer who shot and killed Australian woman Justine Damond heard a loud sound near his squad car before firing the fatal shot, according to information released Tuesday by investigators.

Damond approached the driver’s side window of the police vehicle immediately after the two responding police officers heard a loud sound.

The officer in the passenger seat, Mohamed Noor, fired his weapons through the open driver’s side window, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).

The officer driving the car, Matthew Harrity, interviewed with the BCA, but Noor declined to be interviewed.

...Harrity said he was startled by a loud noise just before Damond approached the driver’s side window. That’s when Noor fired his gun, according to Harrity.

If that is the reason Noor eventually provides for the shooting, consider that a moment: "I heard a loud noise, so I drew my gun and shot her." Note that it wasn't, "I was startled by a loud noise and the gun in my hand accidentally discharged." Noor had to actually draw the gun. Unless he is a quick draw artist, then it sounds like he heard a loud noise and immediately decided to shoot the 40 year old woman approaching the car.

In summary, the view from the right seems to be at least an attempt to explain what happened from the cops' perspective.

The view from the Left is the shooting cop isn't talking:

CNN:

New details emerge in officer-involved shooting in Minnesota

The mayor of Minneapolis said she wants to hear from the officer who fatally shot Justine Ruszczyk.

But so far, officer Mohamed Noor has exercised his constitutional right to not speak to state investigators, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said Tuesday.

And, it's not clear if or when he will.

Note how CNN has gone to using Justine's maiden name (Ruszczyk), although she had already started using her fiance's last name (Damond). While the maiden name is technically her legal name, she was only a month away from her wedding when she died. If she was transsexual and was using the name "Justin" instead of "Justine", any wagers that CNN would have honored that choice?  

In CNN's defense, they did elaborate on the story which Fox used as their lead:

According to the BCA, Harrity was driving and Noor was in the passenger seat as they drove through the alley looking for a suspect. The squad lights on their vehicle were off.

Harrity told investigators that as they drove down the alley, he was startled by a loud sound near the squad car. Immediately afterward, Ruszczyk approached the driver's side window and Noor fired his weapon, striking Ruszczyk through the driver's side window, Harrity told the BCA.

There are still a lot of questions here. For example, how much time elapsed between the "loud sound" and the shooting? Was Noor looking at Damond when the "loud sound" occurred?

This shooting was sad. But the fact that our media sources use it to push their own agendas is even more sad.

In other news...

Bloomberg:

Finally, a Poll Trump Will Like: Clinton Even More Unpopular

For a president with historically low poll numbers, Donald Trump can at least find solace in this: Hillary Clinton is doing worse.

Trump’s 2016 Democratic rival is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans in the latest Bloomberg National Poll, two points lower than the president. It’s the second-lowest score for Clinton since the poll started tracking her in September 2009.

The former secretary of state has always been a polarizing figure, but this survey shows she’s even lost popularity among those who voted for her in November.

More than a fifth of Clinton voters say they have an unfavorable view of her. By comparison, just 8 percent of likely Clinton voters felt that way in the final Bloomberg poll before the election, and just 6 percent of Trump’s voters now say they view him unfavorably.

“There’s growing discontent with Hillary Clinton even as she has largely stayed out of the spotlight,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer, who oversaw the survey. "It’s not a pox on the Democratic house because numbers for other Democrats are good."

The former first lady and New York senator has made a few speeches and occasionally tweaks Trump on Twitter, but has mostly kept out of sight since a defeat in November that shocked the political establishment and surprised markets.

In follow-up interviews with poll participants, Clinton voters denied that their negative feelings about her had anything to do with her losing the election and, therefore, helping Trump move into the White House.

Instead, their comments often reflected the ongoing angst among Democrats about how best to position themselves against Trump and Republicans in 2018 and beyond. Many said they wished Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had won the Democratic nomination, or that they never liked Clinton and only voted for her because she was the lesser of two bad choices.

As bad as Trump is, the alternative was worse. Even Democrats realize that now.

Trumpcare Dies, Obamacare Repeal on the Table: Today's News for July 18th

Associated Press:

2 more GOP senators oppose health bill, killing it for now

The latest GOP effort to repeal and replace "Obamacare" was fatally wounded in the Senate Monday night when two more Republican senators announced their opposition to legislation strongly backed by President Donald Trump.

The announcements from Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas left the Republican Party's long-promised efforts to get rid of President Barack Obama's health care legislation reeling. Next steps, if any, were not immediately clear.

Lee and Moran both said they could not support Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's legislation in its current form. They joined GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky, both of whom announced their opposition right after McConnell released the bill last Thursday.

If Will Rogers were alive today, he could say, "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Republican."

Seriously, the amazing thing is that Mitch McConnell thought he could suggest any kind of dog food, and the Republicans would just eat it.

On to plan B...

Republicans should just REPEAL failing ObamaCare now & work on a new Healthcare Plan that will start from a clean slate. Dems will join in!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2017

Fortunately, Mitch McConnell read the writing on the wall (or in this case, the writing on Twitter):

Axios:

McConnell: Next step is a straight repeal vote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bowed to pressure tonight from conservatives — and President Trump — to bring up a straight repeal of most of the Affordable Care Act as the next step now that the Senate health care bill appears to be dead. It will be based on the repeal bill Congress passed in 2015, which then-President Barack Obama vetoed.

His statement: "Regretfully, it is now apparent that the effort to repeal and immediately replace the failure of Obamacare will not be successful. So, in the coming days, the Senate will vote to take up ... a repeal of Obamacare with a two-year delay to provide for a stable transition period to a patient-centered health care system that gives Americans access to quality, affordable health care."

Reality check: It's highly unlikely to succeed, but conservative groups won't consider the GOP's health care promises to be fulfilled until Republicans have at least tried a straight repeal vote. It will put enormous pressure on the moderates, who are sure to have reservations. But as conservatives will remind them, most of them already voted for straight repeal in 2015 — and it will be hard to explain why they wouldn't do it again.

This is perfectly reasonable. The only thing worrisome is they think it will take two years to write a health care law. Anything that takes two years to write tends to be fiction.

In other news....

StarTribune:

Woman was fatally shot through door of Minneapolis police car, sources say

A 40-year-old woman who family members said called 911 to report a possible assault in the alley behind her home Saturday night was fatally shot by a Minneapolis police officer.

The shooting happened at the end of the alley on W. 51st Street between Washburn and Xerxes avenues S. in the city’s Fulton neighborhood.

The woman, Justine Damond, from Sydney, Australia, and her fiancé lived in the 5000 block of Washburn.

Three sources with knowledge of the incident said Sunday that two officers in one squad car, responding to the 911 call, pulled into the alley. Damond, in her pajamas, went to the driver’s side door and was talking to the driver. The officer in the passenger seat pulled his gun and shot Damond through the driver’s side door, sources said. No weapon was found at the scene.

On the surface, there doesn't appear to be any reason for this shooting. But let's add some more current information:

StarTribune:

Medical examiner: Justine Damond died from gunshot wound to abdomen

While many of the details about what happened Saturday night in the city's southwest corner have not been disclosed, this much was: She called to report a possible assault in the alley behind her house in one of the city's safest neighborhoods and was unarmed when officer Mohamed Noor shot her.

...The Hennepin County medical examiner said Monday evening that Damond, also known as Justine Ruszczyk, died from a gunshot wound to the abdomen.

Noor, a second-year officer whose identity became public Monday, has retained a lawyer. Attorney Thomas Plunkett said in a statement that Noor "takes these events very seriously." 

...Sources identified Noor's partner on the scene, who did not fire any shots, as officer Matthew Harrity, 25, who earned his peace officer's license last year. 

Noor, the second-year officer, sees a woman dressed in pajamas approach her partner, the rookie Harrity. Noor knows they are there to investigate the report of a possible assault. They are in a well-lit alley, so whatever Damond does is well-seen by both officers. What happens next?

Let's play devil's advocate here. Rookie Harrity orders the woman to step away from the police car. She doesn't comply, perhaps asking why, or going into an explanation that she was the woman who called 911. Noor is in a bad position to hear what Damond is saying, but he knows his partner Harrity just issued an order and Damond isn't complying, maybe even hearing something in Damond's tone of voice that makes him suspicious of her intentions, or perhaps he misheard something she did say. Or maybe she tries to reach into the window to shake the officer's hand, and Noor thinks she is reaching for Harrity's gun. Or maybe she tried to reach into her pocket, and Noor thought she was going for a gun.

We can play with hypotheticals all day long, but there is one TRUTH we can take away from this: A 40 year old woman died unnecessarily due to a gunshot wound from a cop. When dealing with police officers, regardless of why, you are walking on glass. Treat the situation as though he is pointing the gun at you already, because he is.

Joining the Zombies: Today's News for July 17th

Los Angeles Times:

George A. Romero, 'Night of the Living Dead' creator, dies at 77

It was the night of April 4, 1968, and George A. Romero was driving to New York City from Pittsburgh on a mission: In the days to come he was to meet with film studios in hopes that one might buy the horror film he was lugging in his trunk, “Night of the Flesh Eaters.”

None of the studios was interested, but Romero still managed to get his $114,000 film in front of audiences that year. And though critics panned the picture, retitled “Night of the Living Dead,” moviegoers were mesmerized — packing theaters, hitting the drive-ins in droves and making Romero the father of the modern movie zombie. Romero’s “Living Dead” franchise went on to create a subgenre of horror movie whose influence across the decades has endured, seen in movies like “The Purge” and TV shows like “The Walking Dead.”

Romero died Sunday in his sleep after a “brief but aggressive battle with lung cancer,” according to a family statement to The Times provided by his longtime producing partner, Peter Grunwald. He was 77.

As the article points out, "Night of the Living Dead" went on to gross $50 million. While Romero was an American success story, his impact on our culture cannot be overstated. Prior to Romero's movies, zombies were an insignificant blip, even within the horror/monster movie genre. Today, we even have A-list stars like Brad Pitt making zombie films like "World War Z".

On top of this, we can add zombies to the pantheon of monsters like vampires and werewolves.

It was Romero who touched on that one fear we all have. Next time you walk through a graveyard, you know you will imagine a rotting, flesh-covered hand reaching out from the ground of one of the graves, or perhaps a corpse stepping out from behind a tree and walking towards you to do unspeakable things. You can thank Romero for that image.

In news of another loss...

Los Angeles Times:

Oscar-winner Martin Landau, who starred in 'Ed Wood,' 'North By Northwest' and 'Entourage,' dies at 89

Martin Landau, the Oscar-winning veteran who appeared in classic films such as Alfred Hitchcock’s “North By Northwest” and starred in the “Mission: Impossible” television series in the 1960s, has died. He was 89. 

Landau died Saturday at UCLA Medical Center, where he experienced “unexpected complications” during a short hospitalization, his publicist confirmed.

For me, I will always remember Martin Landau for "Space: 1999", which aired during television's science fiction dark ages from 1975-1977. As a young science fiction fan, this was the period where there were no first-run tv shows available, except for "Space:1999". "Star Trek" re-runs were about it, and "Battlestar Galactica" didn't start until 1978 (in response to the movie success of "Star Wars").

It wasn't until years later that I saw him in Alfred Hitchcock's "North by Northwest", which was surprising to me. Having been used to his "Space: 1999" role as Commander John Koenig, to see him playing a villain was a shock, although a pleasant one as he did the role perfectly, and really added to the conflict in the film. A good villain always makes a move better.

In other news...

Washington Times:

Carl Bernstein: 'Cold civil war' gripping US as media embrace 'different truths'

Carl Bernstein depicted the contentious nature of politics as being in the middle of a "cold civil war" as President Trump pushes back against what he calls "fake news" and various news outlets are perceived as espousing different "truths."

Appearing on CNN's "Reliable Sources" on Sunday, alongside Leonard Downie, former executive editor and vice president of the Washington Post, Bernstein compared the current media climate to that of the Watergate era. He stressed the importance of anonymous sources and said "quote 'leaks' which really are not leaks" are instead "mostly reporters trying very hard to get truthful information and put some context to this story."

...Bernstein said one of the big difference between Watergate and now is "that we are in the midst of a cold civil war in this country."

He expanded on that idea, saying that there is a political and cultural civil war and all of our reporting is taking place in the context of that cold civil war. And nothing quite like that existed at the time of Watergate."

Part of the "cold civil war," Berstein added, can be pinned on the "configuration of media with Fox News, with CNN being perceived by different sets of viewers as representing different truths." Singling out Fox News, he said the right-leaning cable news channel has "changed American politics as perhaps no other institution has."

Not all of his critique focused solely on specific networks, but on cable news in general, which he described as a "hothouse of political debate in which fact-base debate is becoming impossible in this culture."

Watch out for that phrase, "cold civil war". That may be the most apt description of our current political climate.

Weekly Finale: Driver's Seat

Yes it is Friday, and that means another edition of the weekly musical finale.

This week's finale centers on a one-hit wonder, Sniff 'N' The Tears, and their lone hit from 1978, "Driver's Seat":



It's not exactly a deep song. According to Paul Roberts, the song's writer, it is about the "fragmented, conflicting thoughts and emotions that might follow the break-up of a relationship". So is Prince's "Nothing Compares 2 U", and it is a far better song.

Where "Driver's Seat" succeeds is the music, with a driving beat (pardon the pun) and just an overall good feeling to it, even though the song is technically about heartache.

As for covers, there is really only one creative cover of "Driver's Seat", and that is by D.H.T. (featuring Edmée):



That is all for me this week. so pick up your feet and enjoy this weekend, and come on back here Monday.

This Was About Junior? Today's News for July 14th

(hat tip to Wikipedia for the pic)

So the entire Russian collusion investigation was about catching Donald Trump Jr.? Really?

Based on what is being said by the talking heads, one might assume as much. Consider the following from columnist David French:

National Review:

There Is Now Evidence That Senior Trump Officials Attempted to Collude With Russia

Donald Trump Jr.’s e-mails are damning.

Just hours ago, Donald Trump Jr. released one of the more astounding e-mail chains of the entire Russia controversy. The end result is that Americans may now be introduced to the term “attempted collusion.” Or, perhaps more accurately (based on present information), “failed collusion.”

In other words, there now exists evidence that senior members of the Trump campaign tried unsuccessfully to facilitate Russian government efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton.

In other words, this big massive search for collusion between the Russian government and Donald Trump's campaign has netted us one failed collusion attempt by Trump's idiot son? The media has spent months in an Ahab-like effort to catch the great orange whale, and managed to net a remora?

This is French's conclusion:

As of now, we should have zero confidence that we know all or even most material facts. We should have zero confidence that Trump’s frustration is entirely due to his feeling like an innocent man caught in the crosshairs of crazed conspiracy theorists. It now appears that his son, son-in-law, and campaign chair met with a lawyer who they were told was part of an official Russian government effort to impact the presidential election. The Russian investigation isn’t a witch hunt anymore, if it ever was. It’s a national necessity.

Leftist websites like Vox are even holding up David French to make themselves feel better about this.

The problem with the interpretation by French is it ignores a more plausible explanation: The actual hacking that was done of Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC never touched the Trump campaign. If the Russians were behind it, and wanted the Trump campaign to win the election, why would they ever get in touch with Trump or his people? They could easily release the information to the public without risking contact with Trump's campaign. Actual collusion between Trump and the Russians would do irreparable damage to U.S.-Russian relations, not to mention the damage to Russia's international reputation. In a risk-reward calculation, collusion would be a loser for Russia.

Needless to say, the Left and the Democrats have their hyperbole in overdrive, and incorrectly (as usual):

Washington Times:

Democrats claim ‘treason,’ but the law says otherwise

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), “This is moving into perjury, false statements and even into potentially treason.”

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), “If this isn’t treasonous, I’m not sure what is.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), “Trump Jr. was willing to betray US to cheat for his Dad’s campaign.”

The treason law says something else:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

Look directly at what the law requires for someone’s actions to rise to the level of treason.

1- One must owe allegiance to the United States AND

2- Levy war against the United States OR

3- Adhere to enemies of the United States, giving them aid or comfort within the United States or elsewhere

Donald Trump Jr. did not levy war against the United States. He did not give aid or comfort within the United States or elsewhere to our countries enemies. There is absolutely no rational basis to claim that he committed treason against the United States of America, but Sen. Kaine and others continue to rattle off their baseless claims. 

To put it in the simplest terms possible, we are NOT at war with Russia. Junior might be an idiot, but he isn't a treasonous idiot.

Now let us look at some REAL news:

CNN:

Graham, Cassidy unveil details of alternative health care plan

With the prospects for passing the current Senate Republican health care bill still in jeopardy, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, are working with their GOP colleagues on an alternative approach to replacing Obamacare: keeping much of the federal taxes in place and sending that money to the states to control.

"Here is what will happen," Graham said in an exclusive interview with CNN's Kate Bolduan. "If you like Obamacare, you can re-impose the mandates at the state level. You can repair Obamacare if you think it needs to be repaired. You can replace it if you think it needs to be replaced. It'll be up to the governors. They've got a better handle on it than any bureaucrat in Washington."

Cassidy, who is a physician, explained that the plan would keep popular protections under Obamacare, including a ban on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

...Graham and Cassidy, who have been working closely with former Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, argue that one of the main reasons that Republicans are having such a hard time agreeing is because they are working from the Obamacare template -- particularly federal control of health insurance.

"The reason we can't pass a bill is because we are trying to do it in Washington, so stop it," Santorum, a CNN contributor, told CNN. Both senators agree that the key to making their plan work, is giving states flexibility. "A blue state can do a blue thing, a red state a red thing," Cassidy said. "My state is going to repeal and replace Obamacare with something that gives power to the patient, but that starts with us giving power to the states."

My two cents: This is an improvement on Obamacare, although I don't see it as a perfect solution. Perhaps it is a mildly acceptable alternative? Until the government is removed from health care, and control is given to the free market, then health care costs will continue to go up. At least under this plan, it is possible that some states could model a good free market solution.

Finally, in other news...

Wall Street Journal:

Hawaii Judge Orders Loosening of Trump Travel Ban

A Hawaii judge late Thursday ordered a nationwide loosening of President Donald Trump’s temporary ban on U.S. entry for some travelers from six Muslim-majority countries, ruling the administration’s strict approach contradicted a recent Supreme Court ruling.

The decision is a fresh legal blow for the president just two weeks after a Supreme Court ruling allowed the administration to implement its travel ban against refugees and foreign nationals from six countries who have no connection to the U.S.

Begin sarcasm.

In another ruling, judges stated that Amish people immigrating from these Muslim countries must be allowed, but only if they enter the U.S. on a Tuesday during a full moon while Congress is in session.

End sarcasm.