The looming threat

Our former president's mug shot.  

No matter what they say about Trump, things could be worse.  The man was totally incompetant and not able to change the nature of our political system, but he came close to doing so.  He normalized being openly hateful of vulnerable minorities, and unleashed a movement of malcontents which will likely survive his potential incarceration. 

So why do I say that there is a looming threat?

Several things have happened as a result of this man's time in office.  First, this man has said that if he regains the office of president, he will attempt to consolidate political power in the executive branch.  This is dangerous, as our system was designed to work (or, not work, as of late) with the powers of each branch of government being checked and balanced by the other two.  Second, this man has only anger to propel him.  He has never forgiven the public, nor the honest officials that some may have elected, for not putting him in office for a second term.  What revenge would he try to take at the expense of his perceived enemies?  Most elected leaders in his party are afraid of his cult, and are following his mob to stay in office.

But what happens if this man is not nominated to be his party's presidential nominee?  Will the followers of his cult believe that the elections weren't rigged?  On 01/06/21, we saw the violence that his cult was capable of.  Could it happen again?  What if the man were convicted in one of the courts? Even worse would be the chaos that might happen if the election were close.  For years, Americans have been self-selecting into like-minded communities.  People live in communication bubbles where they select news from sources that reinforce their views, and find it hard to imagine how others could have different views when "the truth" should be self apparent.  If you lived in Rural America, watched Fox "News" on a regular basis, and have been trained by your church to see the world in binary terms, would you be able to challenge the orthodoxy that you've been fed for years?  Wouldn't you want to defend your country from "criminals" from the left?

Years ago, Senator John McClain held a campaign rally where one of his loyal GOP constituents started labeling then Senator Barack Obama as a communist traitor.  Senator McClain interrupted this woman, saying that Senator Obama was a good man with whom he had political differences.  Could anyone see this happening today, where radicals from the far right are calling for President Biden's impeachment? The leaders of one political party have enough "sober" people to govern, while the other's leaders are afraid of the mob who elected our former president.

In 2016, our former president ran for office with the campaign slogan:  

Make America Great Again

Did any of his constituents ever ask: 

When did America stop being great?  

Why is America not great anymore?  

What needs to be done to make America great again?

I never heard any of these questions answered to my satisfaction.  Instead, MAGA anger comes from people who have lost their place in society.  They see our former president as someone who would (at least) give lip service to their feelings, if not restore their former positions in the larger society.

The next year, the former president held a campaign rally in Charlottesville, where he effectively said that there were good people in the neo-Nazi movement :

“You had some very bad people in that group,

 but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

Once a person implies that there some good neo-Nazis, where does permission to act on one's hatred end?  I can still remember chants of:

"Jews will not replace us!"

As if any self respecting Jew would want for his/her children to grow up with skills so limited that they could not earn a good living.  What successful person of any ethnic group would want for their child to become a bagger at the local Piggly Wiggly?  Many of the MAGAloons are poorly educated, resistant to change, and follow bombastic leaders without bothering to ask: "Does what they are saying make sense?"  They gravitate to "strongmen" who say things that validate their feelings, and not to people who understand the nuances of objective truths.

So, what is the looming threat?

In short, the threat is that our ex-president has unleashed a monster that can not be sent back to its cave before it causes a lot of destruction.  As I started writing this, Jacksonville, FL is dealing with the aftermath of a white nationalist killing 3 black people at a local supermarket.  What will it take to stop this?  I don't know.  But if the ex-president again comes anywhere near the levers of power, god help us.

A short note on a small plot of land.

In an ideal world, the map of Israel (and its neighbors) would look something like the map above. Israel could be the orange shaded nation in the middle, while Palestine would be tha nation shaded in gray.  This is the "Two-State" solution that most people want and believe in.

With the effective annexation of the West Bank, successful negotiations could have taken place on Israel's terms, as it would control what land would have been given to Palestine for nationhood.  But this was, is, and probably not be what Israel wants to do.  Instead, it has placed illegal settlements in key sites in the West Bank, making it impossible for a practical two-state solution to be negotiated.

There is no way to say any one party to this inter-generational conflict is guilty or innocent. The forebears of today's Israelis were kicked out of the land by the Romans roughly 2,000 years ago.  The British promised this land to both Jews and Arabs at the end of World War 1, and the aftermath of World War 2 made it necessary for Jews to establish a home in their traditional homeland.

- - - - - -

Recently, the US abstained from a vote condemning Israel for its illegal settlements on the West Bank. Trump went wild, saying that Obama has betrayed our national interests.  But whose interests come first - USA's or Israel's?  The only reason that America doesn't abandon Israel is the political support Israel gets from American Jews and Christian Fundamentalists who want a place for the Messiah's second coming.  Both groups support Israel for religious reasons, and not for reasons that benefit America.

There is only one reason for America to support Israel, and that is a moral one. We should support democracies wherever they are found, and respect them even when they act in their interests, not ours.  But if we did that as a policy, we'd never have had the pissing match with Iran, we'd have never have used the CIA to overthrow Salvador Allende, and we'd insisted on an official "Two-China" policy.  Sadly, Israel is evolving into an Apartheid state, and none of the pro-Israel camp seems to care.  Soon, demographics being what they are, there will be more disenfranchised Arabs in the lands Israel controls, and no way to allow them a voice in their lives - as that would come out as "Death to Israel!"

Time is running out for a Two-State solution, and Israel's actions are only making matters worse for that solution.  Our Secretary of State has effectively said, that in a Single State solution, Israel could either be a Jewish state or a Democracy, but not both. Most people want the Two-State solution, but radicals are making this impossible.  Is helping the radical element a way to make peace?  I doubt it. 

- - - - - -

Today's GOP is filled with people who would usurp the power of the presidency and invite the Prime Minister of Israel to speak to Congress, bypassing the State Department.  It looks like they will give Israel everything it asks for - and then some. This is not a healthy development.  It'll be like a kid in a candy store, and mistakes of excess will likely be made. Slow moving initiatives with countries such as Iran will be scuttled.  Who knows what will happen then?

Every nation has a right to be secure in its borders.  And every people have a right to be treated fairly in the nations in which they live. The Israel-Palestine conflict will likely be with us for generations yet to come, as both sides are taking positions only meant to stir up people for the benefit of those other than themselves.  Religious zealots living in Israel have no desire to live in peace with their Muslim neighbors. The Arab side is no better, as Muslims have been taught for generations that the Infidel is their sworn enemy, and that the Infidel must be expelled from Muslim territory.

In a way, the Arab nations are right.  Solve the problem of Jerusalem and you'll solve the problem of the Middle-East.  Sadly, I don't see a huckster real estate promoter being up to the challenges this region will present him in the next four years....

When did America stop being great?

When did America stop being great?

The false prophet always plays his siren's song to the same type of people - those who have lost many benefits of privilege, but don't see that they didn't deserve them in the first place. Trump appeals to those who want to return America to the 1950's, where "White America" ruled the world. Of course, they gloss over evils such as "Jim Crow" and enforced conformity to get there.

It is right to fear what will happen in this country. We're already seeing violence committed by Trump supporters who think they have the right to force others to submit to their will. (We never saw this with the Bushes, Clinton or Obama.) We've opened the social equivalent of an infected pus ball under the skin, and have only started to see the ugly mess come out. There is a lot of repressed hatred coming out from people who could not properly articulate or manage their problems. And it will go somewhere, causing a lot of damage.

We can't expect ignorant people to educate themselves. They often think they have more knowledge than they have, making it impossible for them to see how ignorant they really are. (See: Dunning-Kruger effect.) Think of the person who says: "God said it, I believe it, and That's it!" First, how can he prove that God said something? Next, how can this person know that his preacher or rabbi is telling him the right way to understand the holy book? And then, why is he absolutely sure that his beliefs are correct? Has he tested them? (Even Christ had to undergo tests of faith in the Bible.) These are among the people who have supported Trump, and still follow this extremely flawed leader only out of tribal loyalty.  And now, they have gotten what they want - a messianic leader even more flawed than they are.

Sadly, the worst will likely happen in this country over the next few years. We've already seen the North Carolina legislature go back on a deal involving their law authorizing discrimination against the GLBT community. We've seen that same legislature strip away power from the governor, to keep it in the former executive's party's hands. We've seen that same legislature make it impossible for the opposing political party to have an effective check and balance in the bureau of elections - making sure that the opposition party only has power in non-election years. This is the kind of behavior that signals the end of a republic, and the Trump supporters have "drunk the Kool-Aid."

The "Thousand Year Reich" only lasted 12 years. Who will lead the world when America falls? China? We are unprepared for the loss of what we cherish most, and many of us don't even see what is happening yet. I never experienced fear like this before, as I didn't understand what could be lost. Now, I see evil for what it is, and we've gotten way too close to the fires of Hell not to get burnt. I hope we will reverse this course towards the destruction of our country, but I doubt it.

I am lucky to have experienced America close to its greatest period in history. I am lucky to have known an America that looked outward to the world. I am lucky to have grown up in an America that welcomed diversity. Yes, it was a very flawed America, but one we could be proud of. My sincerest hope is that we will weather this coming storm, and that our children's generation will restore the greatness America lost during this coming era of darkness.

The fear of censorship is real

The internet "Wayback Machine".  It is an invaluable resource housed in a server farm in California, and is used by news outlets from both sides of the aisle to extract an objective truth of what was publicly available on the internet at any given time.  I have used it myself for more mundane issues, such as retrieving web pages for a defunct "Church of Elvis" site which has been down for about 15 years. And with the election of President to be Trump, they consider the prospect of government interference enough to announce that they will clone their entire server farm in Canada to preserve their essential data. 

I am not a fan of Trump, and I think worse things could happen than if a GOP congress were to impeach him, and let VP Pence take the reins of the executive branch of government.  But this is far from ideal.  As I write this, the Electoral College hasn't voted, and enough "faithless electors" could potentially change their allegiances to affect this election.  But I strongly doubt this will happen.  For the first time in my memory, we will see a president elected who openly claimed that the election was rigged - even after he won the election!

What does this mean to America?

Sometime in January, President Obama will hand over the reins of government to the new President Trump.  We will have a man in power who has no respect for legal precedent, no respect for the rights of citizens to protest the government, and has no respect for previously negotiated contracts.  His administration will be known for promises not kept, and conflicts of interest that will only serve to make this man and his family richer than they are now. It will also be known for the political extremists who joined his cabinet, as political payback to extremist groups who supported him during his campaign.  

Over time, I expect to see attacks on hard won labor rights and hard won civil rights.  Look at Trump's position on labor issues - he recently said that wages as a whole are too high. Yes, he has flip flopped on this issue several times in regard to the minimum wage.  But can we trust labor rights to a man who discriminates against American labor?  In addition, with a vice president who ignored the AIDS crisis and supported Gay Conversion Therapy, can we expect someone like that to protect the rights of this community?

Trump has said that he'd nominate a man like Antonin Scalia for the vacant Supreme Court seat.  And recently, he has said that he would take away American Citizenship AND put a person in jail for at least a year, if convicted of burning an American flag.  Can we say that he will respect any constitutional right when Scalia himself said that flag burning is a constitutionally protected right?

How do we deal with the potential threats of a Trump presidency?

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Luigi Zingales says that the Democratic party should work with Trump when he wants to do something that helps the party achieve some of its goals, and strongly oppose him when he goes the other way. The Democrats should resist having another Clinton dynasty come in the persona of Chelsea, but should grow new leaders from their ranks.  Opposition to Trump should be modeled on Italy's opposition to Silvio Berlusconi, as they were able to remove him from office using issues instead of personality hatred as their means of motivating the electorate.

The above only covers resistance at a macro level.  What about the little people who could get in Trump's way?  For me, I believe that if one could get a second passport, that one should do so now.  Money can slowly moved outside the country and invested elsewhere. This could be done legally, without records, if the amounts are small and the resulting foreign investments were not interest bearing. (I'll let my readers figure this out for themselves. There are legal issues involved in the movement of money across our border that I don't want to discuss here, lest I am charged with giving information on how to commit a financial crime.)  Ideally, one would have a skill that is in hot demand AND would make it possible for a quick exit to Canada. Americans with skills on this list will likely be welcomed North of our border. But what about the rest of us?  The New York Review of Books published Rules for Survival in an Autocracy. And they are:

• Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
• Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality. Consider the financial markets this week, which, having tanked overnight, rebounded following the Clinton and Obama speeches.
• Rule #3: Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed.
• Rule #4: Be outraged. If you follow Rule #1 and believe what the autocrat-elect is saying, you will not be surprised.
• Rule #5: Don’t make compromises. Like Ted Cruz, who made the journey from calling Trump “utterly amoral” and a “pathological liar” to endorsing him in late September to praising his win as an “amazing victory for the American worker,” Republican politicians have fallen into line. Conservative pundits who broke ranks during the campaign will return to the fold.
• Rule #6: Remember the future. Nothing lasts forever. Donald Trump certainly will not, and Trumpism, to the extent that it is centered on Trump’s persona, will not either. 

I don't know exactly what will happen over the next few years.  But I do think these will be trying times, and it will be our duty to protect America from its own delusions of greatness.


 

Sold American!

Years ago, one tobacco company advertised its wares with the phrase "Sold American!" Well, I am reminded of that phrase today, when major GOP leaders such as Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are calling Trump's statements totally irresponsible and offensive, and yet will still vote for him in the general election. 

President Obama joked about Trump being a candidate that the Democrats could love (because he is so bad). And then he talked about the dysfunction in the GOP and about the need for a healthy "right-center" political party to give meaningful, loyal opposition to ideas from his "left-center" party. Again, our president surprises me - he's saying something serious and meaningful, and not lowering himself to the level of his opponents.

Sadly, tribal loyalty is trumping (pardon the word) benign self interest.  There were other more reasonable choices throughout recent years, but the GOP has allowed itself to shift to the extreme right. The loyal GOP followers have only themselves to blame for Trump - they voted in liars who never delivered on their promises to the base, and now are voting for Trump because he will upset the elite. If these people had only said - the GOP's policies do not reflect my needs, and then voted in their self interest, none of the clowns who steered the GOP to the hard right would have ever gotten power. And, as a result, moderates would have worked with Democrats and dealt with serious problems.  This has not been the case....

Until the GOP base says - let's elect a truth telling moderate, the party will head towards its own destruction.  We've see what happened the last time a major American political party fell apart - and I'm afraid history will repeat itself.

Cuba Libre... More than just a drink.

The Cuba Libre - a drink that has both political and social meanings.  

As I write this, President Obama is about to visit Cuba - the first American President to visit in approximately 90 years.  Much has changed in both countries, and in the drink since then, As a result, many angry words have separated these two countries - countries that should have been friends for most of the past 60 years.

One can not say for sure that the original drink was made with Coca Cola according to the linked article.  But by the 1940's, a Rum and Coke was what was understood to be a Cuba Libre.  During this time, Ernest Hemingway was becoming a native of both Florida and Cuba, being well known for being a patron of El Floridita.  Fast forward a few years, and we have the Cuban Revolution - where Castro threw out the corrupt Batista regime (as well as the American mob), and sided with the Soviets in the time of the Cold War.  As a result, the American public became brainwashed to see Cuba as an enemy nation.

During the early stages of Castro's rule, he nationalized virtually all of Cuba's industry, and did not compensate their owners (mostly American) for the taking of their property. (Bacardi's holdings were affected.  Luckily, they had enough resources to relocate their brand and production to Puerto Rico.) A large wave of people fled Cuba, coming to the US, and many of them settled in Florida - distorting the politics of the state for generations to come. Not only did we have an important group of business leaders who had a bug up their collective ass regarding Cuba, but we had a vocal group of people making sure that we couldn't easily make peace with the Castro regime.

Let's look at some complications that caused us problems: 

1. Bay of Pigs fiasco
2. Cuban Missile Crisis
3. Cuban Trade Embargo
4. Kennedy Assassination

Each issue on its own wouldn't be that bad.  But when the net effect of all of them are put together, it's easy to see how we'd be unable to have official relationships between our countries for 50+ years.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco made it possible for Castro to use his revolution as a potent symbol to encourage support for his regime against the will of the USA. The Cuban Missile Crisis allowed the US and USSR to deescalate tensions, preventing a war (that Castro wanted). The Cuban Embargo which prevented commerce between the two nations didn't help but to further separate the two nations from each other. Most people don't know this, but Kennedy was working on ways to get rid of the embargo before he was killed. Sadly, the one person who could have reversed this pattern of animosity between nations wasn't around to fix things - and as a result, we had an extra 50+ years of separation.

It's amazing how much flak Obama received for starting the process of normalizing relations between our two countries.  Unlike North Korea, Cuba has not developed nuclear weapons, nor has it developed intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Yet, until recently, I could legally spend money in the DPRK, and not in Cuba.  This is ludicrous!  I'm glad that I'm seeing positive changes occur in my lifetime....

But I will close out with a thought I had about 20 years ago, and wish I could have made true.  When my dad was cleaning out my grandmother's apartment, he found a bottle of Bacardi Rum that was labeled "Product of Cuba".  (I wish I could have saved that bottle and its contents.)  A few years later, the CEO of Coca Cola was a Cuban emigre. A couple of my co-workers were Cuban exiles.  A perfect thing to do would have been to bring in this bottle of rum, have a fresh bottle of Coke near my desk, and bring these two men over on New Years Eve to wish them a Happy New Year, and a free Cuba, all with true Cuba Libres in our hands.....

Is she fit to serve?

I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton.  She is and always will be a Machiavel, but this is not a bad characteristic for someone running for the office of president.  Instead, it is a potential risk if she wins the election, because one can't be sure of what will guide her when in office - save for self interest.

Strong leaders tend to be Machiavels to some degree or another. One has to be enough of a psychopath (no moral judgement here) to sacrifice one group of supporters for a "greater good" - and Hillary has proven herself capable of doing that. But she has a habit of snatching defeat out of the claws of victory, by underrating the power of her opposition. When her husband was president, she couldn't get healthcare reform done.  Like her husband, she was a lightning rod for the opposition's political lightning strikes.  And in the 2008 election cycle, she underrated Barack Obama - to her regret.

She is a very intelligent lady, and is very pragmatic.  Yet, she put her foot in her mouth by agitating for a "no fly zone" in Syria.  ISIS has no air force.  So who does this affect? Russia! Can we afford to antagonize the Russians when we have a common enemy?  Why shouldn't we let the Russians look like the bad guys - even if it means that we sacrifice our rebel friends to keep the Syrian government nominally in power?

Much noise has been made by the GOP about her use of private email servers. But government officials from the GOP have done the same thing.  Given the data security breaches in Federal Government computer systems, it is likely that her private server may have been more secure than the government servers she was expected to use. (It is also possible that her private servers may have been "Honey Pots" designed to feed false information to people spying on her.)  Bernie Sanders is likely right - this is a non issue.

There is something not generally reported in the press - she has a soft, human side that people don't often see on the political trail.  She likely hides it because of the double standard imposed on women - if she is soft, she is weak.  And if she is hard, she still can't be as imposing as a male.  In short, she is not allowed to be herself - no matter how qualified she is for office.

So the big question is:  Is Hillary Clinton qualified to be president?  She hasn't done anything important enough to disqualify herself.  But has she developed enough skills to steer this country?  Or, is she the only logical choice left, given the non-logic coming from the opposition?  Only time will tell....

He kept us safe....

I have to admit - Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air, mixed with the usual smog of politics. And recently, he opened up a conversation that mainstream Republicans wanted to avoid - was George W. Bush's presidency a great failure?

In an interview, Trump opened up a pissing match with Jeb Bush, noting that Bush #43 was president on 9/11, and we went down the wrong path by destabilizing the Middle East.  Jeb responded that his brother "Kept America Safe".  Does any sane person really believe that Bush #43 actually kept us safe - even though it might be unfair to hold him accountable for 9/11?

This idea "he kept us safe" is the one thing that many Republicans hold on to which prevent themselves from massive "transformative learning". It's hard to admit that one's leadership got it totally wrong to such a large degree as Bush #43 did.  And Jeb is making the mistake of saying his brother did the right thing, while the majority of Americans (including a growing minority in his own party) believe that his brother was a total failure as president.

- - - - - -

If we go back to 2003, Bush #43's administration made a decision to remove Saddam Hussein's government from Iraq, setting the stage for a "forever war" the minute a power vacuum was allowed to exist in Iraq.  Obama, giving the American public what it wanted, pulled troops out of Iraq, allowing ISIS to form.  This was a two-stage clusterfuck. We either had to stay in Iraq, with thousands of Americans coming home in body bags - or, we could pull out, and take a risk of radical Islam gaining power.  There was no good choice - and this was Bush #43's legacy.

Did he keep us safe?  No.  But he did create great political theater to make us feel this way. When you look at the TSA and their continued screw ups, one wonders how more incidents haven't happened.  They can spy on our high tech communications.  But they can't spy on low tech (paper) in the same way.  Each time there is a failure in keeping us safe, the TSA tightens things up until the public complains, then eases off a bit.  There is no way to preserve absolute safety - but the public is being treated like a bunch of children and is not being told the truth - life, itself, is a bunch of risks.

- - - - - -

There is a growing list of politicians who are willing to discuss the mistakes this country made in the wake of 9/11.  And this is a good thing.  The GOP can not govern unless it is willing to look at itself honestly and say what they got wrong, and what they got right.  If they build on the things they do right (and we're not talking pandering to ignorant, dogmatic parts of the base), they have a chance to sell America on a market based economy, with all of the risks markets entail.  But this will include safety nets for whom the market can not serve.  If the party fails to address these points adequately, it will shrink in importance as its base shrinks as a part of the general population.

Would you vote for a man named Bernie? Many people would....

It's hard to believe how well Bernie Sanders is doing in recent polling.  Not only is he a serious contender for the office of POTUS, but this "Democrat" (he was elected to the Senate as an Independent) has amazingly high ratings against GOP competition.

A recent article notes that Sanders is either ahead of (or virtually tied with) all the top 3 GOP candidates.

SANDERS: 48%
BUSH: 47%

SANDERS: 48%
WALKER: 42%

SANDERS: 59%
TRUMP: 38%

Too bad that the election couldn't be held today....  It'd be nice to see an independent voice cause some trouble in Washington.  But people are following Trump for the same reason - they feel betrayed by Washington, and Trump has become a "rara avis" - a rich populist who speaks with the emotional style craved by many working class conservatives.

- - - - - -

Hillary Clinton is still the most likely Democratic candidate for POTUS, even though she has a very high dislike rating. The "powers that be" prefer HRC to Bernie Sanders (or Trump) because they represent real change. Hillary may say that she stands for progressiveness, but hardly anyone believes her. Most people (even Democrats) see her as a Machiavel - a dangerous person.  

But what happens if HRC becomes the Democratic candidate?  An article in the Washington Post indicates that she has a lot to worry about.  Americans tend to elect presidents with whom they'd like to have a drink.  (Obama in my opinion is a noted exception.)  Other research has shown that Americans vote for the best looking candidate, and not the most competent candidate. This means that younger GOP candidates would have another edge over her.  Sadly, even the New York Times says that HRC has a lot of problems with this presidential run - the article may be hinting that she might not be the Democrats' best candidate without openly stating this. (The Times leans left of center these days.)

- - - - - -

Yet, I see an interesting possibility.  What if Trump is able to bully his way to the top of the GOP heap, and stay there against all the wishes of the GOP nomenklatura?  And, to make this more interesting, what if Bernie is able to leapfrog Hillary to the Democrats' nomination, against the wishes of its nomenklatura?  Who is most likely to win?  Given that Trump is a blowhard that has no idea of how to run a country according to law, would that be enough to get disaffected Republicans to consider a Democrat?  Only time will tell....

And now, for your amusement - Jeb Bush!

As David Letterman said before he retired: "Bush presidencies are like Godfather movies - it's best to stop at two."  I don't recycle this Letterman joke because I dislike the fellow. Instead, I recycle it as a reminder that he would be the third member of his family to hold the office of President if elected - something he downplayed very much in his announcement that he was running for POTUS.

- - - - - -

Jeb is the Bush brother who was being groomed for the presidency. It was a surprise to his dad that Jeb lost a gubernatorial election in Florida, while his brother won in Texas. And, as a result, it was "W" who ran for POTUS and won in 2000.  (I can only imagine what might have happened if Jeb had been in office instead of his brother - would he have come off as more competent?  Only god knows - I certainly don't.) But I expect that Jeb will be the likely GOP 2016 nominee - and will run against Hillary Clinton.

Let's contrast the two likely candidates at first glance.  Jeb's web site and other media downplays his membership in the Bush family. Hillary in her announcement made a big deal about her connections to both her husband Bill (former POTUS) and Barack Obama (current POTUS). What does this say about Jeb? Does he fear being tarred by the same brush being used on "W"?  I can't blame him - I think "W" was a terrible president.  (Too bad that he can't distance himself from "W" without also distancing himself from his father - who was a decent president.)

- - - - - -

I am very leery of having another Bush run for POTUS. This family has been extremely well connected for the past 150+ years - and electing one of the entrenched elite from a family who has already supplied 2 POTUS's makes me worry about a static elite in this country. Our founding fathers lived in a world where one could go from poor to rich and back to being poor within a generation or two.  This is no longer the case.  So I pose the question - can we afford to have families who lock themselves permanently into both the economic and political elites?

Even though Jeb may be a decent man, my concerns about him and his family are solely about the establishment of a permanent elite, and whether a democratic republic can afford to have one. As much as I hate to compare the United States and France, sometimes the comparisons can't be avoided. In this case, history gave us a France with a static elite. The rule of law was perverted to keep this elite in power, and social injustice was rampant. Eventually the pot boiled over, and France had its revolution.  The signs are there that America hasn't learned its European history that well - and I am very concerned about what might happen in our lifetimes....

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

Although I am still a registered Republican, I don't remember the last time I could honestly say that I could vote for a candidate on the Republican Party line. The wingnuts have taken over the party, and the rhetoric coming out of some former standard bearers has been an embarrassment for any thinking person.

Recently, Rudy Giuliani has stated that he doubted that our president, Barack Obama loves America. It seems that he believes that if we love our country that we should blindly praise our country without question, and never criticize it.  This is not love - this is blind, unthinking loyalty to a potentially corrupt leadership. Did the Abolitionists (pre Civil War) not love their country because they disagreed with the law of the land? What about people like Martin Luther King Jr. - could you say that he didn't love this country because he was critical of how it treated his race? What about the Japanese-Americans who were herded into prison camps? Almost every group who are present in this country has a legitimate gripe to complain about - do their complaints mean that they do not love this country?

Giuliani stated that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. Later, on Fox News, he "doubled down" and restated the same claim. (And this, with Fox News trying to give him a chance to hedge things, so that he didn't look as much like an idiot as he did.) The former NYC mayor opened up a firestorm, as CNN noted that this puts the GOP 2016 contenders for the Presidency in a bind - Do they support Giuliani, and disrespect the office of the President? Or, do they criticize Giuliani, and say something good about Obama to show respect for his office? Of course, the left has had a field day, with one congressman using the constitution's "3/5ths Human" value of a slave for the head counts needed to determine the number of congressmen a state has.

To me, the most galling of Giuliani's statements show how racist he really is.  Giuliani stated that he was OK to criticize Obama in his way because he (Obama) had a white mother. To me, that's like saying someone isn't racist because he/she has a black friend. Our society has a lot of racist elements in it, and they can not be eliminated overnight. But to say that the sitting president of our country doesn't love his country because he refuses to shout meaningless lines like "we're number one!" and makes valid criticisms of this country is insulting to those who want to continue making this country a better country for all.

Our country was founded as a result of a minority revolt against unjust authority. It caught the British by surprise, as the British acted as it being associated with Britain was reward enough for any injustice suffered by the colonists. History has proven the British wrong - growth always is dependent on a "What have you done for me lately?" attitude. If we're not moving forward as a nation, then we are backsliding. And this president does not seem to be a backslider - even if a critic disagrees with the direction in which the president wants to take this country.

I love my country. But I do not think it is the best country in the world. Instead, we may have the best ideal, the best goal for a society in this world. The opening of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind - "We hold these truths...." We are far from that ideal - but it is a direction we all should take. If we didn't criticize our society, we would have blind obedience to corrupt leaders - and never would have given Blacks the right to vote, nor would we have given Women the right to vote. We never would have fought to end Jim Crow, much less had our current president in office, if voices of criticism were silenced, and defiance of unjust policies never occurred.

No, our president does not love this country in the same way that Rudy Giuliani does, and I thank God for that. I'd rather have a man in charge who is comfortable with criticism than to have a leader who squashes all dissent. 

A long needed thaw - something I never thought I'd see....

This is what most Caribbean nations dependent on tourism feared - the United States and Cuba gradually warming up to each other. There are so many things which should be binding the two nations together, but for bad politics (on both sides) and an assassinated American President that got in the way of common sense.

One person told me that addiction is similar to having to choose between opening two doors. The first door will allow you to exit the room. The second door will have you beaten up by a gorilla. The addicted person keeps repeatedly choosing the second door, while the non-addict will quickly choose the first door and leave the room. When the addict is asked why he keeps choosing the same door, the addict will respond with something to the effect - well, it can eventually change, can't it?

Our policy towards Cuba has been very much like that of the person who keeps opening up the wrong door - the Castro regime has not been ousted, and it has become even more entrenched over the years. Many people want to punish Cuba for its actions of 53 years ago, but most people alive today weren't alive when the embargo was put in place. What good does punishing a country do when the people being punished are not responsible for the problem. This punishment seems to be a misguided approach to keeping the first generation of Cuban exiles happy and voting according to their current patterns.

Most people don't know that it is perfectly legal for Americans to visit North Korea, a country more troublesome to American interests, and spend money there. Yet, in a country that has not been shown to sponsor terrorism (save, in the figments of collective Washington, DC political imagination), it is effectively illegal for Americans to be there. Something is very wrong - and it likely has to do with American political paralysis.

There are issues that will need to be negotiated before a full thaw has occurred. And they have nothing to do with promoting democracy in Cuba. Instead, they will have to do with trademarks and the exports of certain goods. For example, Bacardi Rum got its start in Cuba. The family took the brand along with them when they left Cuba, and established it in Puerto Rico. Do you think they can afford to have the Cubans sell rum under the Bacardi name after the embargo is lifted? Another example is Cohiba cigars. The brand available in the USA is made in the Dominican Republic, while the brand available in most of the world is made in Cuba. How will this get resolved?

If anyone brings up the idea that Cuba stole property from its rightful owners, it should be noted that Russia and China have done the same thing, and that the United States has relationships with these countries. In fact, one might find the history of Smirnoff Vodka interesting, as the trademark left Russia - and when Russians resurrected it in their own right, a "peaceful" settlement was reached. This makes me comfortable with the idea that both the United States and Cuba will resolve issues like this to their mutual satisfaction.

Obama, like him or hate him, is a person who plays the long game. The game with Cuba will play out long after Obama is out of the game. It will take time to negotiate and resolve the issues that have arisen over the 53+ years that we have had an embargo. And the negotiations have only just begun....