Weekly Finale: Zola Jesus and "In Your Nature"

For this week's musical finale, I am drawn to a 2011 song by a lesser known artist, Zola Jesus.

Overall, I am not a fan of Zola Jesus. Her music isn't approachable, as her lyrics are mostly too vague. Listening to her music is like looking at some impressionist paintings: You can see there is something there, but it isn't clear exactly what it is. Her vocals are powerful, and yet they lack clarity, almost like a drunk opera singer. Her music isn't for singing along.

But the song "In Your Nature" carries such an intensely beautiful darkness to it, I cannot resist it:


So what is she singing about here? Here are the lyrics (from Genius.com):

Eyes above me
Eyes are blown
And now just when the wall becomes a hole
I don't want to know

The ground is shaking
Out of realm
A hunted world
Where it never shows
I don't want to go

I feel it forming
Through the skin
Swallow me whole
Let it bury me in
And there i go

It's coming down
Like a sharp
Curve in the sky
I don't even know why

If it's in your nature you'll never win
[If it's in your nature you'll never win]

It used to be that
A war was brought
But now the end becomes us again
We never let it in

And in the shadows
A burning light
It's getting deeper for the fight

So run off run off
Let it drip down you
Run off run off
Like it was born for you

If it's in your nature you'll never win
[If it's in your nature you'll never win]

And then you go [down] that same forgotten road
And i'm not the one to say i told you so
And you know
Oh you know

If it's in your nature you'll never win
[If it's in your nature you'll never win]

Sadly, I cannot find what these lyrics mean, so I will take an interpretive stab at it.

It seems to be discussing war. The early lines "when the wall becomes a hole", "The ground is shaking", "A hunted world",  sounds like scenes of war. On top of that, the trio of lines describing the "Curve in the sky" sound like a missile launch. If that isn't enough to give it away, she hits us over the head with:

"It used to be that
A war was brought
But now the end becomes us again"

Ultimately, her point is that we fight wars not for a goal, but rather because it is in our "nature". When the goal is just to fight the fight, "you'll never win".

If this is what she means, it is a profound thought. If it isn't, I tried.

That's all for me this week. I hope it's in your nature to enjoy this weekend. I will return Monday with more blogging.

Past Sins, Today's Problems

I was having a discussion online today with a friend from Belgium, discussing the situation in Puerto Rico. When I mentioned it was a protectorate of the U.S., he asked what that was, and I told him it was similar to what the Belgian Congo used to be. He admitted what the Belgians had done in the Congo was atrocious, with some people using it as an excuse for terrorism today.

The Belgian Congo rebelled and achieved their independence in 1960, 57 years ago. But this is just one example of a grudge held for such a long period. Many blacks today still hold whites accountable, not only for racist acts, but also for century old Jim Crow laws, as well as slavery itself. Many Christians today hold Jews accountable for the death of Jesus Christ two millennia ago. And Americans today hold Muslims accountable for multiple terrorist acts committed against us over the last two decades, even as Muslims hold Americans accountable for our support of Israel over the last 70 years.

All of this hatred could be wiped away with the simple act of forgiveness.

At what point should the sins of a group of people be forgiven?

To blame a group of people for a sin assumes complicity of the entire group with the sin itself. It is easy to blame the German people for the Holocaust, but most Germans did not vote for Hitler. In fact, Hitler never won an election in Germany. He was appointed chancellor by the winner, Paul von Hindenburg. Then Hitler succeeded Hindenburg after Hindenburg's death in 1934. Hitler eliminated the president's office and created the new office Führer und Reichskanzler, thereby making himself the supreme ruler of Germany. The Germans were only guilty of passively accepting Hitler's rule, during a time of desperate economic straits, brought on by French vindictiveness after World War I.

Knowing all that, even if you still blame the German people for allowing the Holocaust and World War II, at what point should they be forgiven? Certainly it makes sense to blame those who committed atrocities, but what of their children? And their children's children? Are the sins of the fathers to be the sins of the sons too? Even if you never forgive the perpetrators, shouldn't their children be forgiven?

If we don't draw a line somewhere, and say, "At this point, all sins are forgiven," then we are all to be damned as evil for all eternity. Because I can guaranty at some point in your ancestry, somebody related to you did somebody else wrong.

When does the lack of forgiveness become a sin in itself?

Hypothetical question: If your father was a serial killer, and you had nothing to do with his crimes, should you be hated for his actions? Of course not.

If the father of your neighbor down the street was a serial killer, should you be hated for his actions, by virtue of where you live? Of course not.

If a white-skinned person owned slaves, should all white-skinned people be held accountable for this for all time? How about Jim Crow laws? Lynching of blacks? Bull Connor?

If you need to understand why we have a revival of old-fashioned racism today, after decades of near dormancy, look no further than a lack of forgiveness.

We live in a time of a double standard, but this one applies to blacks. Black people can say nearly anything they like about whites, without fear of media retribution. On the other hand, if you keep the hurtful comment but change the color of the speaker, and it suddenly becomes not only wrong, but blasted across all media. People even lose their jobs over such things. Mind you, I am not calling it unjustified when hurtful racial comments result in bad consequences. I am calling it unjustified when blacks aren't held accountable for the same kind of hurtful comments against whites.

When racism, regardless of who is on the receiving end, is given a free pass, there will be consequences.

One of those consequences comes with young people, who had nothing to do with any of the past evils perpetrated by whites upon blacks, and yet they are accused of racism at every turn. What exactly is an economically poor young white person to think when they hear the term "white privilege"?

A lot of the modern racism argument against all whites comes down to police shootings, which ignores the fact that MORE WHITES ARE KILLED BY COPS. Certainly, more blacks are killed as a percentage, but the mere fact that whites are involved in more killings by cops proves this isn't racial. Add onto that fact that most of the police shootings of blacks are later judged to be justified, and what we have is a knee jerk, and wrong, assumption of racism.

It is easy to sit back and call this some kind of reverse racism by blacks. But it isn't that. Generally, blacks don't believe they are "superior" to whites. No, this is an expectation of racism from whites. Why would they expect it? Because they assume there is an intent in whites to commit acts of racism against them.

This assumption comes from a lack of forgiveness.

By not forgiving the person or people who have wronged you in the past, then you expect the evil to remain in their hearts.

The problem here comes with children. Children faced with certain expectations of them tend to live up to those expectations. If you expect children to be evil, don't be surprised if they grow up to be that way. If you expect them to be racists, don't be surprised when they become racists. We are seeing that now.

We cannot continue living with this "sins of the fathers are the sins of the sons" attitude, or we will bring the racism pendulum back upon ourselves again and again.

But racism is not the end of this discussion. 

We also need to forgive Islam, and the Muslims need to forgive us.

Admittedly, we are in the midst of a bad period with Islam, where we are in wars in Muslim-dominated nations all over the world. It's been 16 years of endless war with Islam, and it needs to end. When that happens, we will need to forgive, and to seek forgiveness, or else we will return to this mess in the future.

There will always be times when some people in the world will have evil in their hearts, for a multitude of reasons. They will need to be dealt with appropriately. But once they are, we must remember to "forgive them their trespasses". If we do not, we will only remain in an endless cycle of hate, revisiting the same problems again and again.

The TRUE Story about Puerto Rico: Today's News for September 29th

CNN:

Trump White House feels heat on Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico and Washington seem farther than 1,500 miles apart right now -- in fact they're experiencing a different version of reality.

Nine days after Hurricane Maria ravaged the island, emerging video and news reports of a heartrending humanitarian crisis are jarring with the Trump administration's upbeat assessment of the relief effort.

And as the islanders' plight is revealed, the White House risks becoming increasingly exposed politically at a time when it is already being pummeled by a tide of scandal and defeats, including the controversy over Cabinet members using private jets and the latest failed bid to repeal Obamacare.

Huh? How does Obamacare belong in an article about hurricane devastation in Puerto Rico? CNN was doing really good until they took the side trip into Leftist complaint mode.

Continuing...

The dire situation, and the reluctance of President Donald Trump to publicly embrace complications in the relief effort, are also raising questions about why the response to Maria seems more sluggish than the government efforts following monster storms that hit Florida and Texas over the last month. 

Indeed, these are good questions.

However, there is another side to the story:

Fox News:

Trump admin pushes back against accusations of slow response to Puerto Rico crisis

President Donald Trump on Thursday declared relief efforts for Puerto Rico are succeeding, nine days after Hurricane Maria hit -- despite critics' claims that people on the island have been waiting too long for aid.

The president cleared the way Thursday for more supplies and tweeted that relief was indeed getting through.

Trump issued a 10-day waiver of federal restrictions on foreign shipments of cargo to the island. And, House Speaker Paul Ryan said the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster relief account would get a $6.7 billion boost by the end of the week.

The waiver of the Jones Act, which was done for the hurricane damage in Texas and Florida immediately, but on which Trump dragged his feet with Puerto Rico until yesterday, is the biggest part of this story. Kudos to Fox for at least getting to it early in their report, whereas CNN didn't even mention it until the 34th paragraph in their story. CNN covered a Trump-condemning tweet by a Democratic senator in the 15th paragraph.

Frankly, CNN has no editorial control of their news stories, allowing their reporters to turn them into opinion pieces, instead of just reporting the facts.

That said, Fox could have reported this problem sooner and with a bit more urgency. Ignoring the blatant hypocrisy of the Trump administration in this obvious situation shows their own political bias.

Maybe the waiver of the Jones Act isn't "sexy", but is the devastation in Puerto Rico related to the foot-dragging enough to keep viewers interested? You can make an interesting story out of this, if you try.

In another news story...

Mother Jones:

A New Study Shows Just How Many Americans Were Blocked From Voting 

in Wisconsin Last Year

Rebecca Brinkman moved to Baraboo, Wisconsin, an hour north of Madison, from Ohio in the spring of 2016 for a job as a zookeeper. She worked from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Election Day before rushing to her polling place.

In addition to her Ohio driver’s license, she brought a manila envelope stuffed with documents to confirm her identity, including her credit card, her Social Security card, her rental lease, and a paycheck. “I was very well organized,” she told me. But November 2016 was Wisconsin’s first major election with a strict voter ID law in effect, which required voters to present one of a handful of categories of government-issued photo ID. Brinkman couldn’t get a Wisconsin driver’s license in time because her birth certificate was in Ohio.

Why is the birth certificate an issue? Because of  tens of millions of illegal immigrants in this country. If you cannot prove you are in this country legally, then you have to be able to prove you were born here. That is the law, and some states (like Wisconsin) choose to actually enforce it.

Back to the story:

A comprehensive study released today suggests how many missing votes can be attributed to the new law. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison surveyed registered voters who didn’t cast a 2016 ballot in the state’s two biggest counties—Milwaukee and Dane, which is home to Madison. More than 1 out of 10 nonvoters (11.2 percent) said they lacked acceptable voter ID and cited the law as a reason why they didn’t vote; 6.4 percent of respondents said the voter ID law was the “main reason” they didn’t vote.

The study’s lead author, University of Wisconsin political scientist Kenneth Mayer, says between roughly 9,000 and 23,000 registered voters in the reliably Democratic counties were deterred from voting by the ID law. Extrapolating statewide, he says the data suggests as many as 45,000 voters sat out the election, though he cautioned that it was difficult to produce an estimate from just two counties. 

Let us ignore the sheer tenuousness of the conclusion for a moment, and assume it is right. And let us assume that a big majority of these voters would have voted for Hillary Clinton, and given the state to her instead of Trump. Clinton still would have lost the election, as Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes would not have made a difference, and Trump still would have won the electoral college by a count of 296-242.

Overlooking the pointlessness of this one specific state example, let's consider what it might say in a broader context.

Here is what the details of this survey showed about the law deterring and preventing votes:

There is a conclusion to be drawn here, but it isn't necessarily the "racist" conclusion. 

That is a fairly large percentage of white voters affected by this voter ID law. While it may affect black voters in larger percentages, there is clearly something else about this voter ID law affecting ALL people. The larger black percentages are due to a problem not covered in this survey.

Income levels usually correlate to intelligence (not perfectly, but a better statistical correlation than most), and we can see a lot of the impact of the voter ID law is felt among the less intelligent elements of society. A fair extrapolation can be made that the harder you make voter ID compliance, the fewer stupid votes you get.

While this is a worthy goal in itself (do we really want stupid people deciding elections?), it is still wrong. People who meet the qualifications of being able to vote in this country should be allowed to do so, whether we like it or not.

But the story continues:

The new study also suggests that the number of voters disenfranchised by the law is far greater than the number of fraud cases that it was designed to stop. In 2014, during a federal trial where Wisconsin failed to present a single case of voter impersonation that the law would have prevented, a federal judge found that 300,000 voters lacked the strict forms of ID required by the state.

“The number of people who were deterred from voting is many thousands of times greater than the number of cases of voter impersonation that are prevented by this law,” Mayer says.

Here is the problem with this statement: The study includes LEGAL voters DETERRED from voting. How many ILLEGAL voters were DETERRED from voting by the voter ID law? The study doesn't show that, so there is no basis for statistical comparison.

You cannot use prosecutions as your basis for having a law in place.

Until we fix the illegal immigrant problem, voter ID laws are a necessary evil. If anything, this should encourage our government to make every effort to fix illegal immigration as soon as possible.

Trump's Tax Cuts: Today's News for September 28th

Associated Press:

Trump plan promises huge tax cuts, but big questions remain

Promising big tax cuts and a booming economy, President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans unveiled the first major revamp of the nation’s tax code in a generation Wednesday — a sweeping, nearly $6 trillion tax cut that would deeply reduce levies for corporations, simplify everyone’s brackets and nearly double the standard deduction used by most Americans.

Trump declared repeatedly the plan would provide badly needed tax relief for the middle class. But there are too many gaps in the proposal to know how it actually would affect individual taxpayers and families, how it would be paid for and how much it might add to the soaring $20 trillion national debt.

Republicans love to cut taxes, even though that isn't our government's problem. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the spending, stupid." The spending is what hits the economy right between the eyes, not the taxes. If the taxes are more than the spending, then the taxes are the problem, but that hasn't been the case for many decades.

The reason for this is simple: Government overspending has to be financed, and this creates new government bonds, which most big money investors will buy long before they will put money into the more risky venture capital opportunities. But it is also those risky venture capital opportunities which grow the economy in the long term. In other words, government overspending kills capitalism and the free market economy.

By the way, there is also a little political dagger in this tax cut plan for the Democrats:

Los Angeles Times:

Here's why Trump's tax plan will hit Californians especially hard

Many Californians face a big financial hit under the Republican tax plan, which would eliminate a major tax break that benefits state residents more than those anywhere else in the U.S.

The federal deduction for state and local taxes allowed Californians to reduce their taxable income by $101 billion in 2014, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

From the Tax Foundation:

You will notice the big hit in most of the so-called "blue states", which are dominated by Democrats.

Before this debate is over, expect the Democrats to be accusing this plan of doing everything short of clubbing babies.

In other news...

Fox News:

Hugh Hefner, Playboy founder, dead at 91

Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy magazine, died Wednesday at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, surrounded by loved ones, the magazine said in a statement.

He was 91. He died of from natural causes, the statement read.

With a bon vivant philosophy, urbane sophistication and sheer marketing brilliance, Hefner was an icon for the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the man-about-town embodiment of the lifestyle he promoted with gusto and a sly wink to readers.

Asked by the New York Times in 1992 of what he was proudest, Hefner responded: "That I changed attitudes toward sex. That nice people can live together now. That I decontaminated the notion of premarital sex. That gives me great satisfaction."

This blog won't take a position on the virtue/vice of Hefner. But it is safe to say that he impacted more than one generation of young people.

But he did get at least one thing undeniably right:

After a round of celebrity cheating by Tiger Woods and Jesse James was exposed, Hefner summed up his own attitude: "I had a lot of girlfriends, but it's not the same as cheating. I don't cheat. I am very open about what I do. ... I think that when you are in a relationship, you should be honest. The real immorality of infidelity is the lying." 

In international news...

The Sun:

Theresa May threatens to blacklist Boeing after America puts over 4,000 UK jobs at risk 

with threat of tariff on UK-made Bombardier passenger jet

THERESA MAY threatened to blacklist Boeing after America put over 4,000 UK jobs at risk in a bitter trade dispute.

And the PM's Cabinet colleagues from Boris Johnson to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon waded in as the row risked turning into a fierce transatlantic spat.

The US Department of Commerce sparked outrage by warning it could slap a punitive 220 per cent tariff on the jets made by Anglo-Canadian group Bombardier, one of Northern Ireland’s biggest employers.

It followed a complaint by Boeing that Bombardier was benefiting from illegal state aid.

But a furious Theresa May hit back by saying she was "bitterly disappointed".

And she said Boeing's relationship with the Government was being "undermined".

In a warning to the US giant, she said: "We are very clear about the importance of Bombardier and the importance of those jobs in Northern Ireland.

"And we will be doing everything we can to ensure that we can see those jobs being guaranteed in the future."

Sorry Britain. You started this mess, so you get the world's smallest violin:

Seriously though, Britain should know better. When companies dump products in other countries, whether it is steel or airplanes, these actions have consequences. Just because we are friends with you doesn't give you the right to screw us.

Right now, they are worried about Bombardier jobs. How many American aerospace jobs have already been lost because of Bombardier's actions? Actually, Britain deserves one more award:

Back in the Western Hemisphere...

Newsweek:

DONALD TRUMP REFUSES TO SEND MORE AID TO PUERTO RICO, 

CITING BUSINESS INTERESTS

President Donald Trump has made it clear his administration isn't planning to allow any additional outside aid to get into Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Maria.

Speaking with reporters on Wednesday afternoon, the president cited business interests as the reason for refusing calls from lawmakers and activists to allow international organizations and governments to ship aid to the island.

Trump said he was initially considering whether to implement a temporary waiver of the Jones Act to allow it, but decided against doing so as "a lot of people that work in the shipping industry…don’t want the Jones Act lifted."

Also called the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the Jones Act requires all goods shipped between American ports to be on ships built, owned and operated in the United States.

The refusal to work with intergovernmental networks eager to supply aid to the devastated island was then echoed by Trump’s Department of Homeland Security. "Based on consultation with other federal agencies," spokesman David Lapan said Wednesday, "DHS's current assessment is that there is sufficient numbers of U.S.-flagged vessels to move commodities to Puerto Rico."

The department did waive the Jones Act to aid Houston and parts of Florida that were ravaged by hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Senator John McCain, who has repeatedly fought to repeal the act, slammed the Department of Homeland Security for failing to extend the same relief efforts to Puerto Rico that it provided to parts of the mainland United States.

It is one thing for the government to perform acts of charity. It is another for the government to openly interfere with acts of charity. This is a case of the latter.

The worst part of this is that shipping is the best way to get significant aid to Puerto Rico, whereas Houston and Florida could have easily received more aid over land. And yet the Jones Act was waived for the two areas in the continental U.S., but not for the island protectorate where it is more shipping is desperately needed?

And finally today...

Sporting News:

Why didn't TV networks show angry, booing NFL fans Sunday or Monday?

With President Donald Trump's attacks against protesting NFL players still reverberating, the league's TV partners decided to air live coverage of the national anthem before Week 3 games. Those partners left out a key element of the coverage: crowd shots of angry fans.

Networks typically do not televise the national anthem except for the Super Bowl and other special occasions, but they recognized there would be intense viewer interest this past weekend.

Some fans, if they reacted at all, happily clapped and cheered during protests, but others did not, and they angrily let their home teams know it. The audio mics picked up the boos. Yet the TV networks mostly avoided crowd shots Sunday, so there was never a chance for viewers to see fans jeering players.

This is selective reporting, where details that could influence a story's interpretation are intentionally left out so as to influence the reader/viewer's opinion of the story.

This is sadly typical of media coverage. Even when you think you are seeing something on tv, you may not be seeing everything.

Wednesday Wisdom: Mark Twain

"The modern patriotism, the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism is loyalty to the nation all the time, loyalty to the government when it deserves it."--Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Obamacare, Spain, and Puerto Rico: Today's News for September 27th

Associated Press:

‘Obamacare’ survives; GOP concedes on last-gasp repeal try

 “Obamacare” lives on.

Senate Republicans, short of votes, abandoned their latest and possibly final attempt to kill the health care law Tuesday, just ahead of a critical end-of-the-week deadline.

The repeal-and-replace bill’s authors promised to try again at a later date, while President Donald Trump railed against “certain so-called Republicans” who opposed the GOP effort. But for now, Trump and fellow Republicans who vowed for seven years to abolish President Barack Obama’s law will leave it standing and turn their attention to overhauling the nation’s tax code instead.

In summary, the Republicans want to get rid of Obamacare, but they can't agree on the best approach to do it. Ironically, they won't even agree to just dump it completely.

Whether this is a failure of the Republican Party, or just American politics in general, remains in the realm of history to judge.

In other news from across the pond...

The Guardian:

Spain to deploy police to prevent Catalan independence vote

Police will be deployed at polling stations to prevent people from voting in the Catalan independence referendum, the Spanish government has confirmed.

Although the Catalonia regional government has insisted the unilateral poll will go ahead on Sunday, the Spanish government has vowed to stop the vote, which it says is a clear violation of the constitution. Spain’s constitutional court has suspended the legislation underpinning the referendum while it rules on its legality.

A spokesman for the Spanish government’s Catalan delegation said on Tuesday that the region’s prosecutor had ordered the Mossos d’Esquadra, Catalonia’s police force, to take control of polling booths and identify those in charge.

“The order has been conveyed and it will be executed with all normality,” he said.

The Spanish government said the steps it had taken over the past week, including raiding Catalan government offices, arresting 14 officials and seizing almost 10m ballot papers, meant the vote could not take place.

“Today we can affirm that there will be no effective referendum in Catalonia,” the Spanish government’s representative in Catalonia, Enric Millo, told reporters on Tuesday. “All the referendum’s logistics have been dismantled.”

If this was taking place in Russia or China or any third world country, the media would be screaming. In a western country? Barely an eyelash batted, because all government is good in western countries (or so the media thinks).

Change the players in this and see what you think: What if California were holding an independence vote, and the U.S. federal government tried to stop it, imprisoning state officials and ordering the police to arrest anyone who tries to enable the vote to take place?

So what is the U.S. response?

CBS News:

Trump, Rajoy commit to fighting threats to democracy

[President Donald] Trump stood in solidarity with [Spanish Prime Minister Mariano] Rajoy, who protested that Catalonia cannot legally hold a "valid democratic referendum."

"I'm for united Spain," Mr. Trump said. "I really think the people of Catalonia would stay with Spain," he later added.

Think about that: President Trump supports the denial of voting rights by the Spanish government. If that's how he feels about Spain, what would he do in the U.S.?

Speaking of problems in America...

CNN:

Puerto Ricans still waiting for aid a week after Maria's devastation

A week after Hurricane Maria ravaged Puerto Rico, millions of the US commonwealth's residents are struggling to survive without basic necessities.

In the town of Utuado, Lydia Rivera has started to ration crackers and drink rain water to keep her two grandchildren alive.

"No water, no food," Rivera told CNN. "It's nobody's fault. It's the weather. You have to go on."

The storm hit the US territory last week, killing at least 16 people and knocking down power, communication and water grids across the island. But the recovery efforts there have been markedly different from those in Texas and Florida after recent hurricanes.

...With nearly all 1.6 million electricity customers in Puerto Rico without power, the lack of fuel is a key problem across the island.

People are relying on generators to keep appliances such as air conditioners, medical devices and refrigerators running.

Many hospitals are struggling to treat patients and scores of people are lining up with gas cans for hours.

With supplies running out, many of the island's residents are collecting water from mountain streams.

Harry Torres said the water is all they have for cleaning and drinking until help comes. They've heard on the radio that FEMA trucks loaded with supplies have arrived on the island.

"We haven't seen any," Torres told CNN.

Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands have seen fewer personnel since Hurricane Maria hit than Texas and Florida during the recent hurricanes.

There are two ways to look at this situation.

First, you can be appalled at the government's pitiful response. Comparably speaking, Texas and Florida should require less assistance than Puerto Rico. In the continental U.S., at least people have the option to go somewhere else if things are too bad where they live. They can even walk there in the worst case. But there are no options like that on an island like Puerto Rico. There is nowhere to go.

On the other hand, kudos to the Puerto Ricans for finding ways to survive in this mess. It shows that people don't need government when all is said and done. Sure, they have it rough now, but they will find a way.

Having said all that, of all the people who have suffered from the recent hurricanes, the American protectorate of Puerto Rico deserves our help the most. Here is a New York Times article listing various charities which are helping with Puerto Rico's recovery.     

A Real Trump Controversy: Today's News for September 26th

Let's get all the garbage controversies out of the way, shall we? 

First, forget Russiagate. Even though the Huffington Post is still harping on unproven reports from January, when Obama was president, even the Leftist CNN has moved away from that storyline.

Which brings us to "kneel-gate"...

ESPN:

Cowboys, Cardinals lock arms for national anthem in show of unity

The Dallas Cowboys and Arizona Cardinals displayed unity before their game Monday night in an expression of displeasure with comments made by President Donald Trump on Friday .

As the Cardinals were introduced, Cowboys owner and general manager Jerry Jones, and executive vice presidents Stephen Jones, Charlotte Anderson and Jerry Jones Jr., stood locked arm in arm with Dallas' players, coaches and staff.

Before a giant American flag was unfurled that covered almost the entire field, the Cowboys -- including Jerry Jones -- took a knee briefly as a group. This took place before the national anthem, and led to a smattering of boos from the crowd in Arizona that included a large number of Dallas fans.

But during the national anthem, the Cowboys stood locked arm in arm, and no one took a knee or appeared to show any sign of silent protest.

The Cardinals lined up along the goal line of the southern end zone as Jordin Sparks sang the national anthem behind them. Some players linked arms. Some put their hands on the shoulders of teammates. 

As usual, the Cardinals were kind of disorganized, and the Cowboys were a team, even in their political response:

"I made my mind up on this issue," Jerry Jones said after the Cowboys' 28-17 win, "that I wasn't going to comment other than I am very proud of the fact that the Dallas Cowboys and our players have always stood for the flag and the recognition for the flag always. What is important is to figure out that to show the kind of respect and the perception of respect. How can [the team] in front of a national audience show unity and a statement of equality. [The team] wanted to do that. It evolved throughout the organization, particularly over the last two days, and it was executed.

"I can't say enough about the understanding and the awareness of our team and these young men, if you will, that basically said, 'You know, that makes sense.' There's no need for us to talk about unity and equality and have 60 percent of this country mad at you because you're not being perceived as honoring the flag. And this was a way to do both."

At the end of the day, what has kneel-gate proven? Nothing. It was a silly dispute, started by a silly football player (Colin Kaepernick), and then inflamed by President Trump's silly remarks, until it becomes nothing more than a weird pissing contest between football players and the president.

Shakespeare described this best:

"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Want a real controversy? Here you go:

Politico:

Use of personal devices widespread in Trump's West Wing

Frustrated with West Wing aides’ rampant use of personal communications devices for official business, former chief of staff Reince Priebus tried over the summer to stop — or at least limit — the practice.

During a July senior staff meeting, Priebus asked aides to either store their personal phones in secure lockers in the White House or leave them at home during the workday, according to people who attended. The administration subsequently installed additional lockers, typically found only outside secure rooms, in the West Wing, as part of an effort to force aides to use their White House accounts for communications.

But the request was largely ignored, according to six current and former administration officials, advisers and others who correspond with the White House. Aides laughed about Priebus’ request, and senior officials — including Priebus — continued to use their personal phones for phone calls, text messages and emails for White House matters.

Is it any wonder that Priebus was fired? He didn't even follow his own directives.

Continuing:

Now, as congressional committees launch investigations into Jared Kushner’s use of a private email account to sometimes conduct government business, more information is emerging about the widespread nature of West Wing aides’ reliance on private devices — a controversial practice that raises record-keeping, cybersecurity and political concerns.

A number of top aides, including Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, and Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic adviser, have also maintained private email accounts from which they have occasionally corresponded with other White House officials and Cabinet members.

Ivanka Trump’s account was set up with her husband, Jared Kushner, last December on a family email account, according to public records, while Cohn created a private account in December before joining the White House.  

This is the same kind of controversy spawned by Hillary Clinton with her personal email server escapades. Sorry Trumpsters, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The rules haven't changed just because you won the election.

Fortunately, some in Washington seem to be paying attention:

Politico:

House Republican demands details on Trump aides' use of private email

A top House Republican investigator on Monday demanded details on any senior aides to President Donald Trump who have used private email addresses or encrypted software for government business, following a POLITICO report that Jared Kushner used a personal address.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, along with his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, called for the Trump White House to disclose by Oct. 9 the names of any top administration officials who use a private email address for government work and to identify any accounts and cell phone numbers that may have been used to transmit encrypted messages.

"With numerous public revelations of senior executive branch employees deliberately trying to circumvent these laws by using personal, private, or alias email addresses to conduct official government business, the Committee has aimed to use its oversight and investigative resources to prevent and deter misuse of private forms of written communication," Gowdy and Cummings wrote in a letter to White House Counsel Don McGahn.

The request echoed a similar inquiry the committee made in March, when it was chaired by Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz, who has since left Congress. At the time, a top administration official, Marc Short, responded that "there are no senior officials covered by the [Presidential Records Act] with multiple accounts."

But POLITICO reported on Sunday that Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, has traded work-related emails using a private domain. His attorney insisted that fewer than 100 relevant emails were exchange on the server from January through August.

"Fewer than 100"? It is still in violation of the Presidential Records Act, although the national security implications are far more serious. If they pass classified information in their personal email accounts, that could bring other laws into play. Hillary Clinton learned this lesson the hard way.

We will see if the Republicans actually practice what they preach.

Kneeling: Today's News for September 25th

Yahoo News: 

Wave of protests grip NFL after Trump urges fan boycott

A wave of protests swept across the National Football League on Sunday as President Donald Trump escalated his feud with players who kneel during the US national anthem to draw attention to racial injustice.

Trump ignited a firestorm of criticism after comments on Friday in which he described NFL players who chose to take a knee through renditions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" as "sons of bitches" who should be fired.

The US leader doubled down on those remarks in an early morning tweet, urging fans to boycott the NFL as long as the protests continued.

"If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag & Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!" Trump wrote.

Yet players throughout America's most popular sport took a defiant stance just hours later, kneeling, linking arms or raising clenched fists during the anthem.

More than 150 players could be seen kneeling or sitting in the 14 games that took place Sunday, easily the largest such demonstration since former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first began protesting in 2016.

...Kaepernick's protest was aimed at drawing more attention to treatment of minorities in America following a spate of deadly police shootings of black men.

This situation cannot be discussed without starting from the beginning, the protest of shootings of black men by police, even though most of the shootings were later deemed to be justified. Since the playing of the National Anthem prior to a game is an act of patriotism, or even nationalism if you prefer, and standing is merely an act of respect towards our country. This act has nothing to do with racism.

Colin Kaepernick's protest was, in effect, saying the shootings were a result of racism by the entire country. Why protest a patriotic display unless you were making a comment about the entire country? But that is what Kaepernick did, and what other players have been replicating since then.

Before we go any further, let us remember the basics: Freedom of speech is the paramount issue here. While there should never be any legal consequences for utilizing free speech rights (short of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater), that does NOT mean there are no consequences to free speech. If you call your boss a jackass, he can still fire you.

Whether you agree or disagree with Kaepernick and other players protesting in this manner, they had the right to make such protests. But the NFL also has the right to take action against them for it if they want. That is basically what President Trump was calling for from the NFL.

On the other side of this issue:

In subsequent remarks to reporters, Trump denied there was a racial dimension to his criticism of activist athletes, most of whom are black.

"This has nothing to do with race or anything else. This has to do with respect for our country and respect for our flag," Trump said.

Trump is both right and wrong. Because the protests are incorrectly directed at the entire country, they disrespect our country. On the other hand, the purpose of the protests is to point out racism, so naturally there is a racial dimension to this issue.

Before drawing any conclusions, let's consider one more view on this issue:

The Hill:

Chiefs QB: Why is Trump condemning football players more harshly than white supremacists?

Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Alex Smith questioned why President Trump was condemning NFL players more strongly than he did white supremacists last month.

Smith called Trump’s criticism of NFL players who kneel during the anthem “alarming” because he was “targeting the NFL, targeting the quality and character of guys in this league for that very protest," according to the Kansas City Star.

“It’s the same guy who couldn’t condemn violent neo-Nazis. And he’s condemning guys taking a knee during the anthem,” Smith said.

“There are bigger issues out there that he probably should be worried about. But for some reason the NFL is on his mind.”

Smith said it was “uncomfortable” for him to talk politics but that “it struck a chord a little bit to see guys get attacked for a peaceful protest.”

A peaceful protest, by virtue of its existence, does not make its point correct. It just means somebody is protesting, and they still have the right to be wrong. When and if they are wrong, if someone calls them out on it, that is the consequence of free speech.

Back to Smith's main point about Trump. Actually, Trump called out both the white supremacists and the Leftist supremacists (aka Antifa) for their violent actions at the Charlottesville protest. But Smith's point is valid in that Trump was a bit more animated in his complaint about the kneeling NFL players. But does that make Trump wrong about this? Not really.

Even if Trump was right, he handled this so poorly that he made the idiot athletes look like geniuses.

Ultimately, this comes down to a disagreement between millionaires and a billionaire over an issue which shouldn't be an issue in the first place. A century ago, the media might have praised the police shootings of black men. 50 years ago, the media might have ignored the shootings. Now, the media reports the shootings as the greatest of sins, but before they have all the facts (and when the facts do come out, they get the page 17 treatment). So idiot football players take up the cause that shouldn't exist, using it as an excuse to damn our entire country. Then our president steps into this mess in the most un-presidential way possible, sounding more like a drunk idiot spouting off in a bar.

In other news...

NBC News:

New Version of Graham-Cassidy Health Bill Would Add Sweeteners for Alaska

An updated version of the Graham-Cassidy health care bill circulating among lobbyists and on Capitol Hill on Sunday night has changed to provide more benefits to Alaska, a move to appeal to Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who has been highly skeptical of efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The new version would grandfather Native Alaskans into Medicaid so they wouldn't lose coverage after the expanded Medicaid program is rolled back in 2020, according to a section-by-section summary of the new legislation obtained by an industry lobbyist (PDF).

The update would also carve out a special provision for states with low population densities so that 5 percent of federal funds would be guaranteed for rural states, including Alaska.

It's still unclear, however, whether the legislation will be brought to the floor for a vote this week before the deadline of Saturday. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., came out in opposition to the bill Friday because of what complained was a rushed and closed process. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Sunday that it would be difficult for her to get to "yes" on the legislation.

Because no Democrats are expected to vote for the bill, Republicans need 50 of their 52 members to vote for it.

...Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has also said he's likely to vote against the bill unless a number of his demands are met. It's unclear whether this version would meet his requirements. 

So even if this change makes Sen. Murkowski happy, that still leaves 2 Republicans as firm "no's", and one Republican leaning against it. Expect to see a change which makes Sen. Collins able to "get to yes" on this legislation.

Weekly Finale: The Night Stalker & Gargoyles

Welcome to the weekly finale.

Normally, I reserve this spot for my take on music, but today I am going to offer some entertainment for your weekend, with two classic cheesy films from 1972, both found on Youtube.

First, there is "The Night Stalker", which introduces what is in my opinion Darren McGavin's defining role, which led to a followup movie, "The Night Strangler", and later his 1974-1975 tv series:



The beauty of "The Night Stalker", and specifically McGavin's character, Carl Kolchak, is that he keeps his mind open to the truth, and usually finds it, in spite of the rest of the world closing their eyes to it. He was Fox Mulder before David Duchovny came along.

Now if you want something a bit heavier on the cheese factor, enjoy "Gargoyles":



That is all for me this week. Don't be afraid to enjoy yourself this weekend, and I will return with more blogging on Monday.

North Korea's Pacific Threat: today's News for September 22nd

Fox News:

North Korea could test hydrogen bomb in Pacific, top diplomat says

North Korea's foreign minister has said the Communist nation may test a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean after dictator Kim Jong Un vowed he would take the "highest-level" action against the United States, South Korean media reported Thursday.

The Yonhap news agency reported on comments made to reporters by Ri Yong Ho on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

"We have no idea about what actions could be taken as it will be ordered by leader Kim Jong Un," Ri was quoted as saying by Yonhap.

Such a test would be considered a major provocation by the U.S., South Korea and Japan. Ri was scheduled to address the U.N. General Assembly on Saturday, a day later than previously scheduled.

Before you write this off, consider the potential damage here. If Kim were to activate a nuclear bomb high enough above the Pacific Ocean, the electromagnetic pulse could knock out electricity all the way to Alaska, Hawaii, or even the west coast of North America.

Even if he doesn't go for that kind of damage, the damage to wildlife in such an area would be extraordinary. Not to mention what could happen to unaware ships in the area.

In other international news...

PJMedia:

Alarmed by Islam, Europe's Gays Are Moving to the Right

For decades, in both America and Europe, the gay establishment – gay magazines, gay rights organizations, and self-designated gay leaders – have been dictating politics to the gay multitudes. Those politics have been consistently left-wing and Democratic. Not all gays have played follow-the-leader, but most have, so that in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections Hillary Clinton won a far larger percentage of the gay vote than Donald Trump.

Even though Hillary had opposed same-sex marriage until 2013, had taken millions of dollars from governments that execute homosexuals, and was married to the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, the gay mafia had managed to depict her as gay-friendly while depicting Donald Trump, a longtime gay marriage supporter, as an enemy of gay rights.

...in fact, the Koran contains explicit condemnations of homosexual conduct, while the punishments for such conduct are spelled out in Islamic law.

...No ideology on Earth is more anti-gay. In ten Muslim countries, gay sex is punishable by death. To pretend that there's any way of reconciling homosexuality and Islam, or any chance of transforming Islam into a gay-friendly faith, is to encourage a menacing fantasy.

So it's promising to observe that as Islam plants its roots ever more deeply in the soil of Western Europe, more and more European gays are wising up, breaking ranks with the fools and liars in their midst who preach that the “gay community” and the ummah are natural allies, and casting their ballots for politicians whom they'd previously scorned.

In April, for example, Thomas Adamson of the Associated Press reported that although gay rights groups in France had not wavered in their fierce opposition to Marine Le Pen's Front National (FN), the party now enjoyed a higher level of support among gay voters than among straights. 

... On September 14, CNN's website ran a story about gays in Germany who are supporting the Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD). A middle-aged Bremen couple interviewed for the piece had been violently gay-bashed by “two locally known Muslim extremists” who “were never arrested and later fled to Syria.” After failing to receive justice from local prosecutors and the mayor's office, the couple had cast their lot in with AfD.

“I don't like everything they say,” admitted one of the two gay men, a longtime leftist and former Green Party voter, “but this is too dangerous for gay people to live openly here, if we get attacked like that. We need a party that's talking openly about this.” Like FN, AfD opposes same-sex marriage – but also has gay people in its leadership, and is supported by a higher percentage of gays than of straights.

There is much more in the article, but you get the idea. When it comes down to their lives, suddenly gay marriage seems less important.

Sadly, politics forces such either/or choices. Even in Europe, where the political choices are much more granular, you have to vote for the most popular Right or Left party, or else you get little representation. Even if your 3rd/4th/5th party representative is elected, he/she ends up in some coalition dominated by the Right or Left. Admittedly, these coalitions allow third parties to at least get their main concerns addressed for a time.

Regardless, it is good to see some on the Left waking up to the dangers inherent in a diversity that doesn't recognize the anti-diversity aspects of Islam. Now it is up to the Right to find a way to compromise with these political refugees from the Left.

Finally, in other news...

The Telegraph:

'Stupidly politically correct society is the death of comedy', 

warns veteran comedian Mel Brooks

Society's "stupidly politically correct" sensibilities will lead to the "death of comedy", the veteran Hollywood comedian Mel Brooks has warned.

Brooks, known for his plethora of acclaimed comedy movies, said political correctness was becoming a stranglehold on comedians.

"It's not good for comedy. Comedy has to walk a thin line, take risks," he said.

"Comedy is the lecherous little elf whispering in the king's ear, always telling the truth about human behaviour."

The producer and director said that his iconic western parody Blazing Saddles could not be made in today's political climate.

The 1974 comedy western starring Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder featured a black sheriff in a racist town.

Brooks said it was the racial prejudice portrayed within the film that was the mechanism behind its cultural significance.

"Without that the movie would not have had nearly the significance, the force, the dynamism and the stakes that were contained in it,” he said.

Agreed.

There are some comedians like Wyatt Cenac who is quite funny, but the rules for black comedians and white comedians are very different. It is a greater shame that Wyatt Cenac has to be categorized as a "black comedian", instead of simply as a comedian.

On the other hand, there are also comedians like Bert Kreischer who push the PC envelope.

And yet, none of them rank with the "greats", such as George Carlin, who were more philosophers than comics. The true art of comedy is not only to make you laugh, but also to make you think. great comedians point out the foibles of humanity, and poke fun at them.

When we draw imaginary lines and say, "No, you cannot talk about this," we are cutting ourselves off from potentially making bad situations better. By ignoring our problems, we can never solve them.

But that leads us back to Mel Brooks:

The director said he could find comedy in almost everything but conceded there were areas even he would not mine for material.

"I personally would never touch gas chambers or the death of children or Jews at the hands of the Nazis," he told the BBC's Radio 4's Today programme.

"Everything else is ok."

Three words for you Mel: "Springtime for Hitler".



From the movie, "The Producers", written and directed by Brooks, it shows that even Hitler can be a source for humor. Maybe Anne Frank is still a raw nerve for some, but a good comedian like Bert Kreischer can mine such sacrosanct topics for comedy gold (WARNING: The following is NSFW, and potentially offensive to some, but insanely funny to normal humans):



The problem isn't our PC society, but rather comedians being unwilling to challenge PC rules. Kreischer proves it can be done.

Unmasker Revealed, Maria, and Rand Paul: Today's News for September 21st

(Samantha Power, former UN Ambassador)

Fox News:

Samantha Power sought to unmask Americans on almost daily basis, sources say

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.

Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

The details emerged ahead of an expected appearance by Power next month on Capitol Hill. She is one of several Obama administration officials facing congressional scrutiny for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports – but the interest in her actions is particularly high.

In a July 27 letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the committee had learned "that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration."

The "official" is widely reported to be Power.

If true, this is a monstrous allegation. This could prove the Obama administration was using the intelligence-gathering apparatus of the U.S. government for strictly partisan political purposes. If you can link it back to Obama himself, this would be bigger than Watergate.

That is a LOT of "ifs". But it is certainly something that should be watched.

In other news...

CNN:

Puerto Rico governor: Power could be out for months

Puerto Rico's energy grid took such a severe blow from deadly Hurricane Maria that restoring power to everyone may take months, Gov. Ricardo Rosselló told CNN on Wednesday night.

The entire system is down, the governor said. No one on the island has power from utilities.

Puerto Rico, which has been through a long recession and is deeply in debt, has a power grid that is "a little bit old, mishandled and weak," Rosselló told "Anderson Cooper 360˚."

So with all that government spending, their infrastructure is still unable to withstand a hurricane?

Next time some politician tells you, "Government overspending is no big deal," refer them to the example of Puerto Rico.

The inherent problem with government overspending is that it is done to win votes, and not prepare for a catastrophe. Preparing your electrical grid for a hurricane when you are smack dab in the middle of the Caribbean seems logical, but logic doesn't win votes.

Finally...

Politico:

Republicans rip Rand for rejecting Obamacare repeal

Rand Paul might soon go down as the Republican who saved Obamacare — and he couldn’t care less.

"I'm actually happy to be out there as the leading advocate for repealing Obamacare, not keeping it," the Kentucky Republican said in an interview. Of his GOP colleagues, Paul added: "These people, they so totally do not get it."

Despite being one of the Senate’s most conservative members, Paul has been the loudest GOP critic of legislation to repeal the health care law that Republicans are desperate to jam through before a Sept. 30 deadline. His recalcitrant opposition left GOP leaders with virtually no breathing room as their whipping got underway, since they can lose only two votes and still pass the bill.

Even the face of GOP moderation, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, initially expressed more openness to the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill than Paul had.

Actually, the fact Collins might support it tells you how close to Obamacare the new plan really is.

So what's Paul's beef?

But to Paul, his opposition to the Graham-Cassidy measure is a perfectly principled stand. The Graham-Cassidy plan would leave the crux of Obamacare intact, he argues, and that's simply not good enough for a party that has promised to nix the Democratic health care law.

The Kentucky senator has rattled off a litany of complaints about Graham-Cassidy, saying it would just redistribute a mountain of federal cash from states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare to states that chose not to. Because Republican states would largely benefit at the expense of Democratic ones, Paul said Tuesday, it essentially amounted to “petty partisanship.”

When pressed on the criticism from fellow Republicans that he was merely helping Democrats to keep Obamacare the law of the land, Paul responded: “Yeah, well, these people would be confused.”

It all comes down to the question of whether to reject a step in the right direction because it doesn't go nearly far enough.

Wednesday Wisdom: Donald Trump and John Stuart Mill

"If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength."--Donald Trump's speech to the United Nations on September 19, 2017

"What is called the Law of Nations is not properly law, but a part of ethics: a set of moral rules, accepted as authoritative by civilized states. It is true that these rules neither are nor ought to be of eternal obligation, but do and must vary more or less from age to age, as the consciences of nations become more enlightened, and the exigences of political society undergo change. But the rules mostly were at their origin, and still are, an application of the maxims of honesty and humanity to the intercourse of states. They were introduced by the moral sentiments of mankind, or by their sense of the general interest, to mitigate the crimes and sufferings of a state of war, and to restrain governments and nations from unjust or dishonest conduct towards one another in time of peace. Since every country stands in numerous and various relations with the other countries of the world, and many, our own among the number, exercise actual authority over some of these, a knowledge of the established rules of international morality is essential to the duty of every nation, and therefore of every person in it who helps to make up the nation, and whose voice and feeling form a part of what is called public opinion. Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."--John Stuart Mill in "Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews" on February 1, 1867

The Trump Doctrine: Today's News for September 20th

Do you ever get the feeling we are in the "end of days"? Between category 5 hurricanes and 7.1 magnitude earthquakes, the world is getting the apocalypse feeling to it.

But here is the brutal TRUTH: This is NOT the end of the world. And even if it was, there is nothing you can do about it. Only worry about what you can control, and the end of the world, whenever it comes, is out of your hands.

So kick back and enjoy the news, minus the Irwin Allen aspects...

Los Angeles Times:

In U.N. speech, Trump defines his foreign policy doctrine as sovereignty for major powers

President Trump used variations of the word “sovereign” 21 times during Tuesday’s 42-minute speech to the United Nations General Assembly, driving home his belief that countries, not international institutions like the U.N., will and should determine the fate of the world by pursuing their own best interests.

The speech offered the most fleshed-out definition yet of the Trump doctrine, a style of big-power nationalism that the president and his advisors have also labeled “principled realism” and “America first.” It brushed aside decades of American policy in favor of an approach that was dominant in the 1940s and 1950s.

“The nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition,” Trump declared. “Our success,” he said, “depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty, to promote security, prosperity and peace for themselves and for the world.”

The speech’s emphasis on nationalism was consistent with Trump’s campaign themes, but its assertive view of the U.S. role in the world broke sharply with some campaign rhetoric that suggested a more isolationist path.

...“We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions or even systems of government,” Trump said. “But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.”

As the speech showed, Trump accepts that rival powers like China and Russia will pursue their own goals, which will often run afoul of American values or even global norms. He treats relationships with those countries as transactional, aimed at serving security or economic goals. He thanked both Moscow and Beijing for help with sanctions against North Korea and avoided any criticism of either by name, making only oblique references to instability in Ukraine and the South China Sea.

Yet even as Trump preached a live-and-let-live philosophy with America’s most powerful rivals, he made exceptions for weaker ones. He made clear that his respect for sovereignty does not cover the behavior of smaller countries that he considers to be “rogue regimes,” employing his most bellicose rhetoric to threaten them with destruction and belittle their leaders. He directly and at length denounced North Korea, Iran and Venezuela and offered shorter criticism of Cuba. 

You can read the text of the entire speech here, or watch it above.

Overall, this speech is one of the most important foreign policy speeches from an American president in recent times. From a libertarian perspective, this speech makes perfect sense: With other superpowers of the world, America should take a live and let live perspective, working together with them when we can, and agreeing to disagree when we cannot agree. With smaller rogue regimes, all the powerful nations of the world should come together to keep them in check. Allowing rogue regimes like North Korea or Iran to threaten powerful nations with nuclear weapons is a threat to world security. This is good stuff.

But does this speech translate to action? That is questionable in the face of  America elevating troop levels in Afghanistan, which doesn't threaten anyone with nuclear weapons. One can argue about terrorism, which is a much more ideological and personal threat. Trump's domestic policy to restrict immigration does more to prevent terrorism than any kind of military action elsewhere.

If Trump wants to work with China to march troops into North Korea, and even hand it over to the Chinese, that would be a positive action stemming from the doctrine present in this speech.

If Trump truly believes what he said, then he needs to redirect our country's actions to match his words. This could be a good prescription for world peace, and one which Russia and China can support.

But talk is cheap.

Georgia Tech and St. Louis: Today's News for September 19th

Fox News:

GEORGIA TECH: 3 arrested as protest turns violent after police shooting

This is how it started:

Investigators said police shot and killed Scout Schultz late Saturday night after the 21-year-old student called 911 to report an armed and possibly intoxicated suspicious person who fit Schultz's physical description. Police said an officer shot Schultz after she refused to drop a knife. The student’s family claimed the officer overreacted. ‘

A lawyer for the family told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Schultz was carrying a small utility tool. He said the blade was not out.

This is the result:

Three people were arrested when protests turned violent at Georgia Tech Monday night in the wake of a fatal shooting days ago by campus police.

The three were arrested and charged with inciting a riot and battery of an officer.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that two police officers suffered minor injuries, one of whom was sent to the hospital.

University spokesman Lance Wallace said in a statement that after the vigil, a group of about 50 protesters marched to the campus police department.

At least one protester reportedly tossed a flare into the police vehicle, setting it ablaze.

This follows violent protests over the weekend in St. Louis, after the acquittal of a police officer who shot and killed Anthony Lamar Smith.

The difference between these two incidents couldn't be more striking. Anthony Lamar Smith was gunned down by police after dangerously fleeing from police in his vehicle. Scout Schultz was killed by campus police after refusing "to drop a knife", that was later suggested to be a "utility tool".

In addition, Smith was alleged by police to have been involved in a drug deal, whereas Schultz was the person who reported a possible crime to campus police.

Finally, let us not forget the racial aspect: Smith was a black man and Schultz was a white woman.

The only common aspect to both of these crimes is the use of questionable lethal force by police after two people refused orders by police.

In the case of Smith, the use of his car as a means to evade police, and his willingness to use it as a weapon, made the killing justified. Sorry St. Louis, but this guy was a thug. If he had been white, he would have deserved it. Criminals like this are why we have armed police.

As for Schultz, there may be more to this story than we are hearing.

The problem in these stories isn't so much the use of questionable lethal force by police, but rather the way the stories are framed by the media, followed quickly by a public over-reaction. When there are limited details in the early days of these shooting stories, the media puts them out there in the worst light possible, which causes the public to reach a fever pitch, leading to violent riots. By the time the full story gets out, the violence is already done.

This is why we have a justice system in the first place: To take the time to reasonably deliberate the TRUTH of any case. One can argue the justice system is stacked against certain people, but rioting without even giving the justice system a chance is the proverbial "two wrongs make a right" solution.

Having said all that, there have been some clear cases of injustice by police, even after the fact.

Personally, I still consider the death of Eric Garner to be a textbook example of excessive force by police, in spite of the fact his family got a nice pay-off ($5.9 million) from New York City. That doesn't do Eric much good.

On the other hand, the shooting of Walter Scott finally led to some justice when the cop who shot him in the back pled guilty to civil rights violations (in exchange for dropping the murder charges) back in May.

The justice system isn't perfect, and if anyone has suggestions to improve it, we are all ears. But rioting isn't a suggestion, or a solution.

In other news...

CNN:

How Obamacare repeal came back with a fury

Republican senators couldn't escape the question as they shuffled to the Senate floor for votes Monday night. Would they support the Graham-Cassidy bill, perhaps their last chance to overhaul Obamacare?

It's a repeal-and-replace proposal that less than a week ago seemed dead on arrival in the Senate. The Republicans, after all, had tried repealing Obamacare before - multiple times in fact -- and the bill's lead sponsors Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana were two of the only members willing to go on record to say the Senate had to try it again.

Their optimism, however, seemed to spread in a closed-door meeting Thursday in which members and aides say that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear that he would bring the bill to the floor if Cassidy and Graham delivered the votes to pass it. There was a recognition that the GOP didn't have any choice but to try again to finally deliver on their seven-year campaign promise. 

What caused this to happen?

Last month, the Senate's parliamentarian informed the budget committee that the Senate only had until September 30 to repeal Obamacare with just a simple majority.

So what does this bill do?

The Graham-Cassidy bill could be the most far-reaching of the repeal efforts this year.

The legislation would eliminate federal funding for Medicaid expansion and for Obamacare subsidies that lower premiums, deductibles and co-pays in 2020.

Instead, states would receive a lump sum of money annually through 2026 that they could use in a variety of ways, including helping consumers pay for premiums or shielding insurers from costly, sick enrollees by funding high-risk pools or reinsurance programs.

The bill would also waive several key Obamacare protections for those with pre-existing conditions. While insurers would be required to provide coverage to everyone, it would allow carriers to charge enrollees more based on their medical history.

The legislation also would eliminate Obamacare's essential health benefits provision, which mandates insurers cover an array of services, including hospitalization, maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse services.

The bill shares several measures with its predecessor repeal bills in the House and Senate. It would repeal the individual and employer mandates. It also would reduce federal support for the overall Medicaid program by sending states a fixed amount per enrollee, known as a per-capita cap, or a lump sum, known as a block grant. And it would allow states to institute a work requirement.

It would defund Planned Parenthood for one year. The bill would also repeal a few taxes, including the much-loathed levy on medical devices. But it would keep the taxes on health insurers and on the wealthy. 

Let's pretend Obamacare never existed, and look at this bill in isolation. Does it make sense to send money to Washington, to have them send it back to your state to pay for whatever health insurance scheme your state decides to inflict upon you?

Admittedly, this bill is less onerous than Obamacare, but that doesn't make it a good solution. Just a less bad one.

Finally, in news of the climate change apocalypse...

The Telegraph:

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests

Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

The renewable energy explanation is a speculation based on absolutely no proven scientific correlation between man-made CO2 production and the climate. Because CO2 is absorbed by plant life on this planet, nobody has yet to look into how this works on a planetary scale. Does CO2 consumption by plant life increase when it is present in greater levels? The existence of more and larger plant life during the Earth's dinosaur periods (when CO2 was also present in the climate in far greater percentages than today) would seem to suggest that.  

Continuing:

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

...According to the models used to draw up the agreement, the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th-Century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above.

The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model. 

No, the discrepancy just means the models are wrong. The reason they are wrong is because they overestimate the impact of man-made CO2 on climate change, and underestimate the impact of this big hot ball in the sky which produces ALL global warming on every planet in this solar system, including Earth:

 (hat tip to BasedPhoenix on Youtube for the pic)