I would have said "Scandals", but it didn't begin with the letter "T", so "Tribulations it is.
Reading the many articles on what is happening in Washington, D.C. can be head-spinning. I was relieved to find a couple of articles which explain what has happened and is the current situation and an opinion from an experienced Pentagon Russia watcher.Thursday, February 16, 2017
The Three Trump Tribulations...Simplified
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
North Koreans are Ignoring Reality
At the United Nations there were countries which protested the recent launch of a ballistic missile which flew 500 kilometers toward Japan before falling into the sea. The North Korean ambassador spoke to this issue. From a HuffingtonPost.com article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-korea-missile-test_us_58a32966e4b094a129ef251c?
"Han said the divided Korean peninsula 'remains the world's biggest hotspot with a constant danger of war'. He condemned joint military exercises carried out annually by South Korea and the United States, as well as what he called 'nuclear threats' and blackmail towards his country. 'It is the legitimate self-defense right of the sovereign state to possess strong deterrence to cope with such threat by hostile forces aimed at overthrowing the state and the socialist system,' he said."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-korea-missile-test_us_58a32966e4b094a129ef251c?
"Han said the divided Korean peninsula 'remains the world's biggest hotspot with a constant danger of war'. He condemned joint military exercises carried out annually by South Korea and the United States, as well as what he called 'nuclear threats' and blackmail towards his country. 'It is the legitimate self-defense right of the sovereign state to possess strong deterrence to cope with such threat by hostile forces aimed at overthrowing the state and the socialist system,' he said."
If there have been nuclear threats to North Korea they could easily have been executed since the United States has had that capability for decades. For North Korea to believe they need nuclear weapons for defense is incorrect. I do not know what 'blackmail toward his country' refers to. If North Korea actually had opponents which wished to do it harm, they would clearly have the right to defend themselves. In recent years I have seen no evidence of attacks against them. Clearly the ambassador's statements are incorrect. It indicates the North Koreans have ulterior motives and the most obvious is to destroy neighbors it dislikes. It may even wish to attack South Korea to take back the entire peninsula under their dictatorial system of government.
Their belief they will be allowed to possess nuclear weapons which could destroy their neighbors or the United States is also quite delusional. The United States already feels threatened, especially since North Korea's president Kim has indicated he wants to attack America. thus, America would feel the need to attack quickly and destroy any ballistic missile before it can do harm. We have not done so because it has not been clear that the North Korean missiles could reach other nations. Nevertheless, North Korea should feel warned. If they continue, there will be consequences which they will have precipitated.
Friday, February 10, 2017
Lightning Seen From Space
I read an article about an observation which is quite amazing. We have all seen lightning come 'down' from the clouds during a storm, but what happens above the clouds?
http://www.businessinsider.com/blue-jet-astronaut-images-video-space-2017-2
http://www.businessinsider.com/blue-jet-astronaut-images-video-space-2017-2
Friday, February 3, 2017
Republican Provocation
I have noticed several members of Congress on television and it's interesting that they were all in districts which may be hotly contested in two years. Apparently the current thrashing of the Trump administration has left them feeling vulnerable and in need of some air time. I have no doubt this situation has also led many to begin their campaigns with tactics meant to waste America's time, but to get their voters excited.
The trick: start talking about scary things like the Bowling Green Massacre -- which in fact didn't happen, or the necessity of having guns, despite the obvious anger the Left has towards guns. Hot button issues like this are bound to get Liberals into an argument which only the Right can win.Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Change Is Hard
When told the Earth was not the center of the Universe, the Catholic Church revolted. Eventually they came to realize the Truth, but in the short run they were very unhappy and they inflicted their anger on anyone who expressed or upheld the Truth. In that instance the man-made system (the view of the Church) was being supplanted by an objective fact. Since the opposing view was not also a man-made construct it was perhaps easier for the Church to accept it.
When Martin Luther told the Catholic Church that the Church was not necessary for individuals to speak to God, the Church was once again very upset. This time the fact this new view was a man-made construct made it much more difficult to accept. Nevertheless the Protestants created their own churches. It could be noted that Martin Luther and most like him were 'white' or 'men', but that is not to the point.
When Americans under British rule told the King of England they did not require his 'governance' or military defenses, the king was very upset and a war ensued (the American Revolutionary War). The new construct is the United States of America and its politcial-economic system.
When the "South" seceded from the United States and the "North" fought to prevent that it brought forth another big change, the end of slavery. The "South" was very upset and remained so for many years after the Civil War.
When the 'nobles' of France were preventing most of their countrymen from being happy, the general public revolted and slew the "nobles". This radical change eventually led to them becoming a republic in a form a lot like the United States.
In Russia, there was a revolt where the Tsar and his family were killed and the 'people' created a new political-economic system.
In these cases, France and Russia and China, the revolutions wiped away the old order and the people who had created the old order. That is somewhat different than what happened between the American colonists and the British monarchy or the Protestants and the Catholic Church or the "North" and "South" during the Civil War.
South Africa saw a very different kind of revolution: the 'whites' had run a republic with only the minority and they had kept apartheid in order to 'hold down' the 'blacks'. When the revolution came the 'blacks' took over -- without slaughtering all the 'whites'. Instead they maintained and even improved the political-economic system and continue it today.
It has often been noted that "white" men create systems and when someone else takes them over the "white" men destroy them, so as to remain in power. This is not always true: in China, for example, the Chinese ruled before and after the Maoist Communist revolution. In South Africa the White minority had ruled with an iron fist over the 'blacks' until the revolution and then the 'blacks' too charge. It is still that way today.
Among children a change which is not acceptable to the child who brought the 'toy' is usually met with anger, frustration, and "taking their ball and going home". Continuing the game with another child or group in charge isn't acceptable. The people who create a system expect it to remain in order and for themselves to have a preeminent role. The fear that the change will bring a loss of position, power, and even lives, prevents major changes from happening easily. Every king who has been deposed and lost his life could attest to that.
In the world today we are witnessing several different kinds of rebellion: the militant jihadi Muslims are crying out for a continuation of their culture and ancient way of life where men and Muslims remain in charge of their part of the world. The influence of "The West" and money has scared them and they aren't going to take it without a fight. In Russia there is something similar, where Vladimir Putin has said he doesn't like Hillary Clinton and the modern idea that women can be a man's equal. It is supposed he supported Donald Trump's candidacy for this and several other reasons. In Europe, the influx of many Muslim immigrants and refugees worries them that their values will cease to be in the majority and their society will change for the worse. In the United Kingdom some have rebelled and created "Brexit" to oppose that possible change.
In the United States we are seeing a slightly different kind of rebellion. The Republican Party can see the writing on the wall. The demography of America is changing and their Party is having difficulty adjusting. Richard Nixon chose to use the Southern Strategy which secured a lot of Southern voters, some of whom had even been Democrats, and that locked the Party into a fixed part of the American electorate. This had the unforseen consequence that over time, as the nation changed, they were to become a minority party. This accident of fate has them worried. They have taken two presidential races by narrow margins (George W. Bush won by one Supreme Court vote and Donald Trump won by a freak accident). Since they are the Party of elite white males who see themselves as the Creators of this American political-economic system, they also see it as their right to "take their ball and go home". They thought the system was good when they were the primary benefactors, but when it becomes clear another group is going to reign supreme, they don't like it. They are outraged.
One clear example of their outrage is the way they are opposing this natural change. They are fighting within the political system to maintain their power and the system they still enjoy. It provides safety, prosperity, and comfort. But, it is becoming threadbare. Their machinations are making it more clear by the day that they won't completely support the system unless they get to "win". In fact Donald Trump said to his supporters, "we will win win win until you're sick of winning". He didn't say we will improve America or make our political system better.
In the Congress the Republicans have been changing the rules in small ways to ensure their own victories. They have gerrymandered districts to ensure a majority in the House. They use the Hastert Rule to ensure their Party remains united and only their policies or legislation go into effect. They have used the Senate filibuster to limit Democratic Party power. And, in the most recent row, they have denied a Democratic president's nomination to the Supreme Court a hearing or vote. They pretend that it's alright and have nominated their own candidate as though nothing unusual is happening.
Naturally, this backlash has angered everyone else who thought we were all going to "play by the rules". So, the natural change angered the Right and this backlash angers the Left. What can be done?
In cases where an entire political-economic system is upended there is usually a violent war. I don't think that is what the Republicans want or they would simply have begun that. But, without the natural checks and balances in the political system it is very difficult to see it ever working properly. There is no Left to balance the Right and no division of power in the branches of the government (the Republicans have "unified government").
It has been suggested that the Republicans should become more inclusive. Even some Republicans have embraced that idea. Most of their voters didn't like that idea. This is one reason some people think the Republican Party is about gender and race. There is a history of that, but more likely it is the general idea of who created this system and should be allowed to control it. Interlopers are not seen as fit to change it and yet the immigrant, the person-of-color, the Democrats are in the majority now..
When Martin Luther told the Catholic Church that the Church was not necessary for individuals to speak to God, the Church was once again very upset. This time the fact this new view was a man-made construct made it much more difficult to accept. Nevertheless the Protestants created their own churches. It could be noted that Martin Luther and most like him were 'white' or 'men', but that is not to the point.
When Americans under British rule told the King of England they did not require his 'governance' or military defenses, the king was very upset and a war ensued (the American Revolutionary War). The new construct is the United States of America and its politcial-economic system.
When the "South" seceded from the United States and the "North" fought to prevent that it brought forth another big change, the end of slavery. The "South" was very upset and remained so for many years after the Civil War.
When the 'nobles' of France were preventing most of their countrymen from being happy, the general public revolted and slew the "nobles". This radical change eventually led to them becoming a republic in a form a lot like the United States.
In Russia, there was a revolt where the Tsar and his family were killed and the 'people' created a new political-economic system.
In these cases, France and Russia and China, the revolutions wiped away the old order and the people who had created the old order. That is somewhat different than what happened between the American colonists and the British monarchy or the Protestants and the Catholic Church or the "North" and "South" during the Civil War.
South Africa saw a very different kind of revolution: the 'whites' had run a republic with only the minority and they had kept apartheid in order to 'hold down' the 'blacks'. When the revolution came the 'blacks' took over -- without slaughtering all the 'whites'. Instead they maintained and even improved the political-economic system and continue it today.
It has often been noted that "white" men create systems and when someone else takes them over the "white" men destroy them, so as to remain in power. This is not always true: in China, for example, the Chinese ruled before and after the Maoist Communist revolution. In South Africa the White minority had ruled with an iron fist over the 'blacks' until the revolution and then the 'blacks' too charge. It is still that way today.
Among children a change which is not acceptable to the child who brought the 'toy' is usually met with anger, frustration, and "taking their ball and going home". Continuing the game with another child or group in charge isn't acceptable. The people who create a system expect it to remain in order and for themselves to have a preeminent role. The fear that the change will bring a loss of position, power, and even lives, prevents major changes from happening easily. Every king who has been deposed and lost his life could attest to that.
In the world today we are witnessing several different kinds of rebellion: the militant jihadi Muslims are crying out for a continuation of their culture and ancient way of life where men and Muslims remain in charge of their part of the world. The influence of "The West" and money has scared them and they aren't going to take it without a fight. In Russia there is something similar, where Vladimir Putin has said he doesn't like Hillary Clinton and the modern idea that women can be a man's equal. It is supposed he supported Donald Trump's candidacy for this and several other reasons. In Europe, the influx of many Muslim immigrants and refugees worries them that their values will cease to be in the majority and their society will change for the worse. In the United Kingdom some have rebelled and created "Brexit" to oppose that possible change.
In the United States we are seeing a slightly different kind of rebellion. The Republican Party can see the writing on the wall. The demography of America is changing and their Party is having difficulty adjusting. Richard Nixon chose to use the Southern Strategy which secured a lot of Southern voters, some of whom had even been Democrats, and that locked the Party into a fixed part of the American electorate. This had the unforseen consequence that over time, as the nation changed, they were to become a minority party. This accident of fate has them worried. They have taken two presidential races by narrow margins (George W. Bush won by one Supreme Court vote and Donald Trump won by a freak accident). Since they are the Party of elite white males who see themselves as the Creators of this American political-economic system, they also see it as their right to "take their ball and go home". They thought the system was good when they were the primary benefactors, but when it becomes clear another group is going to reign supreme, they don't like it. They are outraged.
One clear example of their outrage is the way they are opposing this natural change. They are fighting within the political system to maintain their power and the system they still enjoy. It provides safety, prosperity, and comfort. But, it is becoming threadbare. Their machinations are making it more clear by the day that they won't completely support the system unless they get to "win". In fact Donald Trump said to his supporters, "we will win win win until you're sick of winning". He didn't say we will improve America or make our political system better.
In the Congress the Republicans have been changing the rules in small ways to ensure their own victories. They have gerrymandered districts to ensure a majority in the House. They use the Hastert Rule to ensure their Party remains united and only their policies or legislation go into effect. They have used the Senate filibuster to limit Democratic Party power. And, in the most recent row, they have denied a Democratic president's nomination to the Supreme Court a hearing or vote. They pretend that it's alright and have nominated their own candidate as though nothing unusual is happening.
Naturally, this backlash has angered everyone else who thought we were all going to "play by the rules". So, the natural change angered the Right and this backlash angers the Left. What can be done?
In cases where an entire political-economic system is upended there is usually a violent war. I don't think that is what the Republicans want or they would simply have begun that. But, without the natural checks and balances in the political system it is very difficult to see it ever working properly. There is no Left to balance the Right and no division of power in the branches of the government (the Republicans have "unified government").
It has been suggested that the Republicans should become more inclusive. Even some Republicans have embraced that idea. Most of their voters didn't like that idea. This is one reason some people think the Republican Party is about gender and race. There is a history of that, but more likely it is the general idea of who created this system and should be allowed to control it. Interlopers are not seen as fit to change it and yet the immigrant, the person-of-color, the Democrats are in the majority now..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)