Talk Talk Talk

Thursday, October 3, 2019

What We Know -- collated by PoppinKREAM of Canada

Here is a link to a Reddit.com post about recent events:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/dcqy4p/about_300_former_national_security_officials_and/

Below are two comments created by PoppinKREAM of Canada. I suppose he has been collecting these for some time.

What have we learned since the initial reporting of the President attempting to solicit support from a foreign government that relies on American aid in an attempt to take down a political rival? President Trump, Attorney General Barr, Secretary of State Pompeo, and Rudy Guiliani have been plotting to discredit the Mueller Report.

We learned that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in on the phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.^[1] Last week he denied knowing anything about the whistleblower complaint, however he has recently changed his tune following reporting indicating that he was in on the phone call.^[2]
We have learned that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr have been involved in President Trump's plot to try to rewrite the history of the 2016 US presidential election and Russian election interference.^[3]
We have learned that President Trump pressed the Australian Prime Minister to work with Attorney General Barr to discredit the Mueller report.^[4]
We have learned that AG Barr discussed the FBI Russia investigation with UK intelligence^[5] and that President Trump personally called Prime Minister Boris Johnson for help to discredit the Mueller report.^[6]
Congress has filed several subpoenas^[7] including the President's personal attorney Rudy Guiliani for acting as an agent of the President in a scheme to advance his personal political interests by abusing the power of the Office of the President.^[8] Guiliani has since hired a lawyer to represent him in the Ukraine scandal that's unfolding.^[9]
While the President of the United States has threatened to arrest Congressional house leaders for investigating the President's abuse of power^[10] and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has refused to comply with Congress' Impeachment inquiry,^[11] however 2 State Department officials rebuked Secretary Pompeo and have agreed to testify.^[12]

The Mueller Report is incredibly damaging to President Trump. The report confirmed that the Trump campaign attempted to solicit the support of the Russian government, however Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy. The Mueller report points out that the Trump campaign had improper conduct with Russia on numerous occasions. However they found that the value of the contact was not sufficient to rise to the level of a federal crime. The report goes to lengths explaining how difficult the investigation was due to obstruction and lying by those that were being investigated. The Mueller report confirmed much of the reporting about the Trump campaign's contacts with Russian operatives including;^[13]

Mueller report confirmed that Trump campaign chairman and deputy chairman Manafort and Gates were sharing internal polling data with an operative who Gates had thought was a Russian spy.
The Mueller report confirmed that Trump campaign manager and convicted felon Paul Manafort offered to give private briefings during the campaign to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.
Following Trump's public call for Russia to find Clinton's missing emails he privately directed former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to find them.
The Mueller report confirmed that foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos attempted to arrange meetings between Putin and Trump and that the President approved of Papadopoulos's work.
The report also confirmed that Trump campaign surrogates met with Russians in Trump Tower soliciting damaging information on their political opponent. The report goes on to mention that Trump surrogates who attended the meeting weren't charged with violating campaign finance law because there wasn't admissible evidence to show that Trump surrogates knew that what they were doing was illegal.
The report confirmed Russia's extensive election interference.
Over the course of the investigation we learned that a Trump campaign adviser was directed to find out about future DNC leaks. Roger Stone was in contact with Wikileaks and the Russian hackers known as Guciffer 2.0 and is currently on trial.
Over the course of the investigation we learned that the President's long time personal attorney and convicted felon Michael Cohen lied to Congress about the Trump Organization pursuing a lucrative hotel project in Moscow during the 2016 election.

The report outlines the Trump campaign sought to create a relationship with the Russian government. The same foreign adversary that was and currently is engaged in cyberwarfare with the United States of America. The report illustrates the Trump campaign showing a willingness to work with a foreign adversary to acquire damaging information on a political opponent. All while denying Russian election interference and refusing to notify the authorities of any overtures made to the campaign after they had been warned about election interference by the FBI. The report is quite illuminating and confirms many media reports including the fact that the President attempted to fire the Special Counsel while trying to force his subordinates to lie for him to investigators. It's all in the report and while its 448 pages long it's incredibly descriptive.

A breakdown of the significance of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky

In a phone call on July 25 2019 with newly elected Ukrainian President Zelensky, President Trump attempted to solicit the support of a foreign government and may be in violation of Federal Campaign Finance Laws.^[1] When President Zelensky asked about military aid to combat Russia, Trump immediately segued the conversation into requesting an investigation against one of his political opponents. President Trump repeatedly made requests including opening up an investigation into former Vice-Pesident Joe Biden and his role in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor that Trump claims was supposedly unfairly shut down by Biden because he supposedly feared his son was being investigated.

This is a complete mischaracterization of events. Following Ukraine's revolution and Russia's annexation of Crimea, Ukrainian President Poroshenko was dealing with corruption scandals. Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was a discredited individual who was leading an investigation into corruption. The corruption was staggering, for example following assistance from the International Monetary Fund a $1.8 billion loan to help the Ukrainian banking system disappeared offshore in accounts owned by a Ukrainian Oligarch.^[2] At one point Shokin fired prosecutors who were working on corruption cases against corrupt officials.^[3] Following pressure from Western Allies and the Obama administration the Ukrainian parliament overwhelmingly voted to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. The decision was celebrated by Western Allies that were providing financial support to Ukraine including the European Union to defend themselves from Russia.^[4] Moreover, in his most recent interview former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko debunked President Trump's conspiracy that Biden forced the firing of Shokin to protect his son, Hunter Biden, who had been working in Ukraine. Prosecutor General Lutsenko stated that ""[f]rom the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything," and added "Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival."^[5]

Days before his conversation with Ukrainian leader Zelensky the Trump administration suddenly froze aid allocated to Ukraine.^[6]

The White House has attempted to mislead the public by claiming that aid was frozen due to corruption, however NPR obtained a letter from the Pentagon that certified Ukraine had taken action to decrease corruption 2 months before President Trump blocked aid.^[7] A month before this phone call in June the Pentagon announced plans to provide $250 million to Ukraine in security cooperation funds for things such as training and equipment in an attempt to build the capacity of Ukraine's armed forces following Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.^[8] The State Department announced plans to provide $141 million in aid.^[9]

So why are the United States and Western Allies sending aid to Ukraine? In 1994 former Soviet Union member states including Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum. It was a diplomatic memorandum under which Ukraine removed all Soviet-era nuclear weapons and signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In return for these concessions the former Soviet state consecrated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state by applying the principles in a Cold War era treaty signed by 35 states including the Soviet Union. Russia violated this agreement in 2014 when they invaded Ukraine.^[10]

Since this story broke President Trump has threatened the whistleblower and has tweeted a quote about civil war if he is impeached.

Following the phone call a whistleblower from DNI filed a complaint that stated President Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the US 2020 election," characterizing the conduct as a "serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law". President Trump has been attempting to cover all of this up.^[11] A Trump appointed Inspector General detailed his concerns in letters where he stated that the whistleblower complaint being kept from Congress was both urgent and *"relates to one of the most important and significant of the (Director of National Intelligence)'s responsibilities to the American people."*^[12] President Trump attempted to block the whistleblower and called it fake news.^[13]

President Trump endangered the whistleblower by claiming he committed treason for notifying the authorities of the President asking a foreign nation to interfere with the 2020 election.^[14] Moreover, the President quoted and tweeted about a civil war if impeachment occurred which may be in violation of:^[15]

18 U.S. Code § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Monday, September 9, 2019

The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy

A friend has informed me that the world of Political Psychology has been shaken up by a presentation about "the fall of Democracy". I have a few words in response.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045

I have two different answers which refer to different aspects of this situation.

1. In comparison to other systems, except for perhaps primitive native tribal governance, Democracy has been far superior and we won't forget that. It is government by committee.

2. Our current problems, both domestic and internationally, may stem from a different and surprising drive. It is the difference between seeking an Ideal and of simply governing the people as they are (with all their faults).

In case of 1, Democracy simply wins.

In case of 2, we are currently seeing the Left and Right split drastically, as it was in the 1960s because one wants to strive toward the Ideals of the Constitution (the Founder's dream) and the other is the "culture wars" pragmatic side which wishes to remain as we have always been and not strive for any ideals except that the existing hierarchies be strengthened.

The latter is difficult because the Right-Wing political operatives have sought to use the energy of the Right to gain more political power and this has pushed the Left to do the same, ergo split. The answer is for both to give ground and find compromise, but that can't happen until the Right finds their approach isn't giving them what they want.

Internationally, America has tried since Woodrow Wilson (at least) to "promote Democracy" abroad. In many ways this has been terrific, but as with the domestic insistence by some to remain the same, internationally there will always be some people who don't want to "reach for any ideal" which isn't their own. So, America has to pull back internationally, let everyone settle-in and see if they like where things are and then perhaps in 30 years we can have another new approach.

Friday, August 23, 2019

Green Energy News -- August 2019

Electric Automobile Recharging

With fast-charging, electric cars will soon match or beat gasoline cars in every respect – ThinkProgress

Tesla-says-its-new-technology- can-recharge-a-car-in-15- minutes -- Bloomberg

Oil giant Shell buys leading operator of electric vehicle charging stations | TheHill

Electric Public Transit

Shenzhen shows the world how it’s done, electrifies all public transit with massive fleet of 16,000+ electric buses | Electrek

The increasingly irresistible case for electrifying city buses Almost half of all buses will be electric by 2025 - Business Insider

12 major cities pledge to only buy all-electric buses starting in 2025 | Electrek

'I leave the car at home': how free buses are revolutionising one French city | Cities | The Guardian Hyundai unveils all-electric bus with 180 miles of range on a 256 kWh battery pack | Electrek

Electric Cars and Bikes and Scooters

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/best-electric-cars/

https://www.myev.com/research/interesting-finds/electric-cars-and-crossovers-whats-new-for-2019

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/1365-best-electric-cars.html

https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/best-electric-cars/

US utilities have finally realized electric cars may save them -- Quartz

Would you buy a 500-mile range electric car that charges in one minute? – ThinkProgress

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/opinion/electric-bike-aging.html

https://www.pedegoelectricbikes.com/

https://www.evelo.com/shop/

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Sports-Outdoors-Adult-Electric-Bicycles/zgbs/sporting-goods/3405141

There are a zillion bike makers. That's far too many for me to provide links.

First 100 miles on my E-Bike: what I learned – Cognitio

New Electric Motor Could Boost Efficiency Of EVs, Scooters, And Wind Turbines IEEE Spectrum - IEEE Spectrum

https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/

https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/en/motorcycles/electric.html?source_cd=Vanity_electric

Other ways to save the planet and New Technologies

30+ Remarkable Ways To Reduce Your Carbon Footprint - Conserve Energy Future

Exxon Thinks It Can Create Biofuel From Algae At Massive Scale

The Liquid Metal Battery -- YouTube The Liquid Metal Battery 2 -- Youtube

New-artificial-photosynthesis- breakthrough-uses-gold-to- turn-co2-into-liquid-fuel -- ScinceAlert

Stronger than aluminum, a heavily altered wood cools passively | Ars Technica

Tesla's new Solar Roof V3 will be same price as shingle roof and electric bill, says Elon Musk - Electrek

Monday, August 12, 2019

Major Structural Changes to the Economy

Recently I've been hearing more and more people calling for major structural changes to the economy. Though the unemployment rate is below 4% there are people who don't think the economy is working properly. I agree and I've written a few posts some months ago on this topic and with specific suggestions to change things which will shift the distribution of wealth slowly away from the investor class and back toward the government and the workers.

Today's post is not another small technical change of that kind. It's about a shift in our economy which began with the political shift to the Right, back in the 1970s and early 1980s. It's about Vulture Capitalism and some associated things.

It may come as a surprise to many younger people, but in the 1970s during the malaise of the Carter administration (1977-1980) the economy grew at about 4% every year. This wasn't a major political advantage or surprising. It always grew at a strong pace because when it collapsed it fell badly. But, the general rate of growth (taking all the pluses and negatives into account) was very strong and a typical stock market increase would be about 7%. Recently it's been struggling to grow faster than 2% / year. The wealth through the 1960s and 1970s was fairly well distributed between labor and capital and all boats rose with the tide or sank the same. In the early 1980s there was debate about the coming revolution in the economy due to micro-computers and the Republican's planned assault on unions and one conclusion was that capital, and not labor, should get all the new profits due to their investments in computerization. Of course, capital would also get the longest straws when unions evaporated and wages went South (literally). Later there was also the beginning of globalization and many more women in the workforce and those too took a toll on worker wages. This and the fact people loved Ronald Reagan was a nightmare for worker wages and the Republicans loved every second of it. They nick-named Ronald Reagan "St. Ronnie".

With Republican deregulation of business and tax cuts and the usual economic ups and downs there were many business failures during recessions. I'm not absolutely certain of the provenance of Vulture Capitalism, but it may have begun with something called a "turn-around". When companies were being scrutinized to see if they could survive the next turn-down some investors decided there were a few companies which simply needed better management. They invested, changed the CEO and in many cases the companies did better to earn everyone a nice return on their investment. Workers benefited too since the companies didn't go bankrupt. I think it was in the 1980s that a few investors saw that rather than trying to turn a company around, they could just take it into bankruptcy, shed some debts, return to normal functioning, and make the company profitable again. This all sounds pretty good until some investors took another shot at making big money from weak companies. Rather than trying to turn them around, they put them into bankruptcy, shed debts, fired workers, sold the company for profits, and put the money in their own pockets. They didn't care about the life of the company or the livelihoods of the workers, they just wanted the money. These were the Vulture Capitalists -- picking over the carcasses of the companies they had killed.

A side-effect of this was that many very capable CEOs began to demand higher pay or other compensation (stock options, etc.), so that their ability to keep a company's stock price high was recognized. Keeping stock price up helped to keep away the Vulture Capitalists, though a cost of that was to shift attention away from normal business activities and investments. The increase in CEO compensation has contributed to the huge wealth gap which exists today. It drains money from legitimate business activities and puts it in the hands of a few. It's like paying mafia types, pirates, or kidnappers a regular fee (protection money or insurance policy) to keep them away. Over the long run it gives those bad guys far too much power. With that economic power they begin to be more represented in government too. The shifting of resources away from normal business activities has led to a weaker economy (growing about 2% / year).

Once you've seen that a weak, but going business, can be taken down and picked apart for instant profits, the idea of running a company that only returns 4-15% profit / year makes no sense. Why not just kill and pillage every company you can get your hands on? You may ask how this was all legal and I don't know the law very well, but you can rest assured that with Republicans in charge from 1981-1992, they found ways to ensure it was all legal.

Where were the Democrats? In the 1990s Bill Clinton was doing a lot of things, including making the economy run like a top. But, he only had 2 years with a Democratic Congress. After the Gingrich revolution of 1994 the Republicans stopped any and all progressive legislation. They ended by trying to tear down Clinton-Gore to win the next presidential election. They impeached Clinton, but failed to remove him from office. They didn't want to remove him, they just wanted to hurt him. If they had removed him the Vice President, Al Gore, would have been in great position for the next presidential election. Then the Republicans had the presidency from 2001-2008 and it was a catastrophe with 9/11, wars, spending out of control, torture, and everything else you can imagine. They ended with a recession which was the worst since the 1930s Great Depression. The start of the Obama administration (2009-2016) was obsessed with stopping the recession and passing financial reforms to prevent it happening again AND healthcare reform (see Obamacare or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the ACA). Pres. Obama also had only 2 years with a Democratic controlled Congress. So, the Democrats simply haven't had sufficient power and time to get a lot of things done -- after cleaning up Republican messes.

Today we still have a Republican president, Donald Trump, and an economy which is working the way Pres. Obama and the Democrats left it, except for a huge tax cut the Republicans passed and de-regulations the administration pushed through. Oh, and there are the tariffs. Pres. Trump has decided a trade war is the best way to convince China and some other countries to agree to a new trade deal that he likes. It's killing the agriculture sector of the economy and a lot of people are hurting.

I say, give the Democrats control and some time to make big changes and we can do much more to make the economy grow while employing most Americans and growing global trade.

Aside from eliminating the tariffs and working out a real trade regime that makes sense, the ridiculous tax cuts for the rich have to be rolled back to give the government a chance to get back on track. We can't run trillion-dollar deficits every year. Then we can turn to other changes of a fundamental nature which will help return the proper balance of labor and capital.

Looking at the changes which led to our current weak economy and wealth imbalance and lack of a real "American Dream" for most Americans, the changes which have to take place are largely a reversal of Reaganomics. We must tax the wealthier people in America to pay our debts. We must pay workers more (increase the minimum wage). We must NOT hinder unions since they have been a strong force to keep workers wages at good levels. But, more than that, we have to recognize that Vulture Capitalism is not only a failure, it's equivalent to a mugging or pirating or kidnapping for ransom. It's criminal behavior and it has to be stopped.

One of the key laws which is involved in Vulture Capitalism was recently mentioned in an on-line discussion. It is that when a company goes into bankruptcy the company's assets are distributed to the shareholders. But, what of the workers, their retirement funds, vendors, other debtors? I think the laws allow far too much benefit in bankruptcies for investors who supposedly knew the risks of investing, but who want to recover all the benefits available before other interested parties. I say that the social purpose of a company is to employ people usefully and to earn a profit everyone can share. If that is broken and only the capital investors benefit, then you no longer have reason for anyone to keep a company viable and operating when they can just put it into bankruptcy (to take advantage of the bankruptcy laws), stuff all its value into the Vulture Capitalist's pockets, and walk away. It's like bank robbery where you steal the entire bank instead of just the ready cash. Vulture Capitalism is like Bank robber Banking. It's an insane idea. No, the company assets in a bankruptcy proceeding must go to workers, worker retirement funds, and vendors before other debtors, so that the incentives are to keep a company functioning and profiting in a normal way for normal profits. Leave the pirate-level profits to people who should end in jail.

Perhaps one of the biggest revelations about Donald Trump, as it relates to the economy, is how he, as the self-labeled "King of Debt", borrowed money from banks for his businesses, took his own businesses into bankruptcy and took all their assets, leaving a carcass for the creditors and banks. He did this so many times there were finally no American banks which would lend him (or his businesses) money. He went overseas to Deutsche bank of Germany and it is suspected that during the 1980s or 2008 during a recession that he began to receive loans which were essentially Russian money. This process made him wealthy on American bank loans, but then poor during the American recession(s) and in hock to Russians when he got German bank loans (backed presumably by Russian money). It's a strange story, but an important lesson for how important it is to secure our banking system from this kind of fraud and to help the business community to get back to doing business instead of fending off Vulture Capitalists.

The Democrats, though some may seem radical, are offering a return to real capitalism and not Reaganomics or Vulture Capitalism.

Sunday, July 28, 2019

Anger at Trump Or Policy Differences?

I've heard some Republicans say that Democrats just don't like Trump or they are still upset that he won the election Democrats thought was in the bag. The way I see it is that everyone knew Donald Trump was not fit for office and yet he was elected. That's disturbing. Then there were the questions about his connections to Russia. That's disturbing. So, yes, there were plenty of reasons to not like Donald Trump, the person, his history, his rhetoric, and his lack of style debase America and disgusts everyone.

But more than that, we hate his policies. And it's this which leads us to call for his impeachment. We don't impeach someone for winning -- not like the Republicans who said they would impeach Hillary Clinton IF she won the presidency. That's wrong. No, the Democrats hate Donald Trump's presidential rhetoric which divides America and inflames hatreds and supports our enemies. We hate his governmental policies like caging immigrant children and separating them from their parents. We hate his deregulation in the EPA which makes our air and water more dangerous for people's health. We hate his economic policy of giving tax cuts to a handful of people who are already rich and to corporations which don't use the additional revenue to support their workforce or corporate growth. We hate his policy of private conversations with Vladimir Putin and inviting Russians into the Oval office and generally tilting U.S. policy toward Russia in every way. We hate his trade policy of tariffs and subsidy to farmers. We hate his name-calling of the media which endangers the freedom of the press and of speech. We hate his obvious racism when he created a ban on Muslims coming into America. We hate his abuse of planned budgeting & spending to divert monies to building a wall across the southern border. We hate his withdrawal from the JCPOA treaty with Iran and several other nations. We hate his ineptitude in relations with China and North Korea. We hate that he pledged to create an infrastructure law and then he didn't carry through. We hate that he used special privilege to get security clearances for family members who should never have had that. I could go on.

We hate almost everything he has said or touched. I'm hard-pressed to think of one of his policies which isn't bad for America. He's a disaster.

Weighing the dislike of him personally and of his policies it's clear Democrats dislike his policies enough to make a campaign based on being better for America than Donald Trump's policies.

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Children and Guns

I've written about guns a few times in the past, but the Republicans stifle every attempt to regulate them. Here's a new article from Bloomberg.com.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-17/gun-control-children-have-shot-someone-134-times-this-year?srnd=premium

When is enough enough?

Monday, June 24, 2019

Electronic Voting Systems and Foreign Ownership

NBC News has an article about this issue. Apparently there weren't any analyses of voting systems since 2016 until recently. Read the article. It explains a lot about foreign ownership.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/voting-system-vendors-reveal-owners-after-russian-hacks-investments-n1020956?cid=public-rss_20190624

I also have to wonder if American owners who have a political bias or agenda could be any more trustworthy than foreign owners. Isn't it in our best interests to know precisely what is in the software? Shouldn't it be open source for everyone to see?