Trump said that allowing prosecutors to seek the death penalty for drug dealers — an idea he said he got from Chinese President Xi Jinping — is “a discussion we have to start thinking about. I don’t know if this country’s ready for it.”
“Do you think the drug dealers who kill thousands of people during their lifetime, do you think they care who’s on a blue-ribbon committee?” Trump asked. “The only way to solve the drug problem is through toughness. When you catch a drug dealer, you’ve got to put him away for a long time.”
Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post
It was not the first time Trump had suggested executing drug dealers. Earlier this month, he described it as a way to fight the opioid epidemic. And on Friday, The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration was considering policy changes to allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty.
(This quote comes from the newsfeed that is built into Microsoft Windows 10 and is labelled “Washington Post”… by the way, the newsfeed aggregates stories from numerous outlets, starting with New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, NBC, CBS, and so on; it also includes such fringe franchises such as Fox “News”, Buzzfeed, The Hill, )
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and Bru-nO)
Nationalist “Presidential Adviser” Stephen Bannon Plays Up to French Right-Wing National Front
The Washington Post reported on Saturday morning that Stephen Bannon had travelled to France to address the National Front in France and give his support to Marine Le Pen, its new leader. Mr. Bannon is well-known in this country for his nationalism, xenophobia, “populism”, and racism, and perhaps for an incipient fascist streak. Ms. Le Pen has long been estranged from the National Front’s original leader, her father Jean-Marie Le Pen. Ms. Le Pen lost badly in last May’s presidential elections in France, gaining only a third of the country’s votes against Emmanuel Macron. The National Front did even worse in legislative elections, losing all but eight seats in the 577-seat Assembly.
Italy’s nationalists did much better in their recent elections; a divided government, with nationalists in key positions, appears to be under organization. Italy’s membership and/or participation in the European Union may be in danger as a result. Cynics would attribute the success of nationalists in Italy to their poor defenses against cyber-sabotage and payoffs directed by Vladimir Putin and the Russian government. The French, on the other hand, were able to suppress cyber-propaganda of foreign origin very effectively.
Nonetheless, Mr. Bannon claimed that nationalists were winning and the republican parties were losing; he was quoted as claiming, “The tide of history is with us, and it will compel us to victory after victory after victory.” Note the words “tide of history”– Mr. Bannon has described himself as a Leninist, but he is thought to refer to Lenin’s tactic of completely destroying the government he was taking over and remaking it in his own image. He is not thought to be a Marxist; if he were, his reference to the “tide of history” would be understandable as referring to Marx’s “historical” theory of the development of feudalism followed by capitalism followed by communism. Instead, his reference is more likely to be part of a delusional, popular rant for the ears of his nationalist supporters in which nationalists are winning control of the world.
Assuming he were serious, we can readily argue that historical trends appear to be leaving nationalism behind. The twentieth century saw the rise of multinational corporations who were able to “sit out” the second world war and maintain their viability and profits by dealing with all sides in the world-wide conflict. In this century, multinationals are becoming larger than many countries; one or two US states is already larger than all but four or five of the largest nations. Nationalism as a force (for good or ill) appears to be waning as corporations win control over larger asset sets and are gaining partial immunity against sanctions and depredations of most countries.
The persistence of nationalism as a force is of course championed by almost all nations, most demagogues, and many national leaders. The most powerful proponents of nationalism are the leaders of China, Russia, and the US.
The concept of nationalism is inimical to the best interests of the Earth as a whole as well as to the well-being of the humans on it (the interests of Earth and of humans are not identical.) Nations are artificial constructs and they depend on the ideas of race, culture, and national identity. Race is an extremely superficial concept, as modern genetics has shown us: it is determined by skin and hair color and texture and facial characteristics, which do not assort genetically with intelligence or any of the many determinants of personality. Culture is a powerful and subtle concept, but it is mutable and evolves over time– what is more, it is not distinct between nations. National identity as a construct is useful only to national governments that wish to motivate their young men to die for their country and their young women to raise “good Americans” or “good Russians” (allowing that nationalism and sexism are equally obsolete concepts.)
The top ten multinational corporations, by annual revenue, according to the Telegraph (UK), are :
- Sinopec (China) – $267.5bn.
- China Natural Petroleum (China) – $262.6bn.
- Toyota Motor (Japan) – $254.7bn.
- Volkswagen (Germany) – $240.2bn.
- Royal Dutch Shell (Netherlands) – $240bn.
- Berkshire Hathaway (US) – $223.6bn.
- Apple (US) – $215.6bn.
- Exxon Mobil (US) – $205bn.
All of these companies have smaller total revenues than the GDP of Egypt (40th in the world.) However, tax revenues show that South Korea, fourteenth in the world, has similar receipts as the total revenue of the largest corporation. This may be a more accurate measure of a country’s power compared to a company’s power. These numbers show that large corporations are capable of buying immunity from prosecution in most countries in the world.
I am not trying to say that nationalism is bad or that corporatism or globalism are good, merely that their relative strength as concepts has undergone changes over the past two hundred years. Proponents of nationalism, in this day and age, tend to have ulterior motives like personal power.
Quoting from the last part of the article presented by Microsoft’s News application (part of Windows 10) (these articles usually are word-for-word extracts of articles that appear in their respective sources):
Le Pen has long sought to “de-demonize” her party by distancing it from its origins.
The National Front was co-founded in 1972 by her father, the convicted Holocaust denier Jean-Marie Le Pen, who continues to refer to Nazi gas chambers as a “detail” in the history of World War II. Last week, he published the first volume of his memoirs, “Son of the Nation,” which feature an empathic defense of Philippe Pétain, the leader of France’s Vichy government, a body that willingly collaborated with Nazi Germany during the war.
Although several of Marine Le Pen’s aides were also accused of Holocaust denial during the recent election campaign, she claims to be estranged from her father. The party conference in Lille will also feature a vote as to whether the elder Le Pen can keep his title as the party’s honorary president. His daughter officially expelled him in 2015, for repeating the gas chamber remark.
Bannon had some advice for those who might be embarrassed by such a history. “Let them call you racists. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativists,” he said. “Wear it as a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker.”
In French media, Jean-Marie Le Pen — noting that Bannon was widely perceived as the “most radical” of Trump’s advisers — cast doubt on the value of his daughter’s American guest.
“I think this is not exactly the definition of ‘de-demonization,’” he said.
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and Alexas_Fotos)
One subject that Steele is believed to have discussed with Mueller’s investigators is a memo that he wrote in late November, 2016, after his contract with Fusion had ended. This memo, which did not surface publicly with the others, is shorter than the rest, and is based on one source, described as “a senior Russian official.” The official said that he was merely relaying talk circulating in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but what he’d heard was astonishing: people were saying that the Kremlin had intervened to block Trump’s initial choice for Secretary of State, Mitt Romney. (During Romney’s run for the White House in 2012, he was notably hawkish on Russia, calling it the single greatest threat to the U.S.) The memo said that the Kremlin, through unspecified channels, had asked Trump to appoint someone who would be prepared to lift Ukraine-related sanctions, and who would coöperate on security issues of interest to Russia, such as the conflict in Syria. If what the source heard was true, then a foreign power was exercising pivotal influence over U.S. foreign policy—and an incoming President.
(This quote comes from a New Yorker article about Christopher Steele and his investigation)
Whether Mr. Trump really would have offered Mr. Romney a post as Secretary of State, or any other post, and whether Mr. Romney would have accepted are unknown factors. The Russians would like to think that they influenced the decision to hire Mr. Tillerson, a great friend of Russia and sponsor of a grand partnership between Rosneft and Exxon, for State. Subsequent events have confirmed their happiness with the choice of Tillerson.
(photo of St. Basile’s church in Red Square courtesy of pixabay.com and opsa)
A Rant About the “Just Facts” Website: It is Right Wing Propaganda Cleverly Disguised As Facts
I can conclude that “Just Facts” is a right-wing think tank that is only going to present “Facts” that it thinks refute the left-wing positions it abhors. It is not going to present facts that suggest that any of its right-wing positions are wrong.
The biases of “Just Facts” are obvious. While everyone has biases, it is clear to me that what is presented on the “Just Facts” website is propaganda, right-wing propaganda, and not just facts. If you have any problems with that statement, try reading a selection of “Just Facts” articles and you will see that not one of the articles presents important facts that would tend to suggest that right-wing positions are actually wrong.
Let us take an example: “Just Facts” top article: “Income, Wealth, and Poverty”…
1. the definitions of income omit inheritances. Inheritance is an important source of wealth and income for a certain proportion of the population.
2. Income is presented first as a numerical average, then as median figures, without explaining the difference– although there is an obvious difference, which is explained by skewing of the numerical average with small numbers of people who have very high incomes.
3. In the section on sources of income, inheritances are omitted from the “sources of income” and the following statement appears:
“In 1979, roughly 40% of U.S. households received more in federal, state, and local government benefits than they paid in federal taxes…”
State and local taxes, like sales taxes, are completely omitted from the “paid” column and are not further discussed… such taxes are regressive, as opposed to the federal income tax, which is progressive.
3a. In the same section, the following statement is presented:
” Government benefits can suppress market income by:
providing the means and incentive not to work.[56] [57]
reducing the incentive to work by cutting take-home pay (if taxes are raised to pay for the benefits).[58] [59] [60]
depressing wages by decreasing productivity-enhancing investments (if governments borrow the money to pay for the benefits).[61] [62]”
Notice that “government benefits suppress market income” is a statement of opinion, which is followed by “reasons” that are given references (which I did not peruse)… “reasons” that include conclusions such as “produce the means [obvious] and incentive [not so obvious] not to work” and “reducing the incentive to work” and finally “decreasing productivity-enhancing investments”… these are all conclusions that right-wing ideologues swear by, namely that government benefits make poor people lazy (“reduced incentive to work”) and the money would be better spent on “productivity-enhancing investments” (in what way investments enhance productivity is not described, but this could be debated for a long time and is certainly not obvious.)
The observation that poor people want to work and would work if given the opportunity is never revealed nor discussed; this is perhaps the most important aspect of the entire “welfare” controversy. Right-wing ideologues insist that welfare benefits make people lazy (especially black people– this is a common canard that is presented in movies from the thirties and forties from the mouths of black actors.) They ignore the obvious statements from the mouths of the poor people themselves, who say “Just give me a job! I need work to be able to respect myself.”
[What is more, and never mentioned, is that government benefits are immediately spent by their recipients. This actually stimulates the economy rather than “suppress[ing] market income”… and what does “suppress market income” actually mean? Does it mean that “market income” is reduced when a person receives a government benefit? That is obvious and irrelevant to the individual, who perceives only total income and the potential for purchasing. So in fact, government benefits enhance the individual’s total income and purchasing power, which is positive for the economy. Such benefits may mean the difference between having to choose between homelessness and starvation, and being able to avoid both homelessness and starvation.]
- I could continue if I had time, but in summary, the long series of statements and tables presented by “Just Facts” has the appearance of presenting all of the objective facts when it in reality omits or distorts certain important facts that tend to change the import of the overall picture in a “left-wing” direction. This is right wing propaganda disguised as objective facts.
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and aitoff)
(this rant was submitted as a comment to the Retraction Watch site discussing pro-lifer’s demand that an article in JAMA about whether the fetus can feel pain be retracted, because some of the authors had associations with institutions that performed abortions, or had performed abortions themselves. The demanders referenced the “Just Facts” website, which presented a slanted review of recent research on the subject.)
A further rant about abortion in relation to the controversy over whether the fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks (or whenever):
I would like to point out that the issue of whether the fetus can (and probably does) feel pain (it does have nerve endings that, in the adult, transmit pain) is entirely separate from the issue of whether the mother has the right to have an abortion performed and thereby kill the human fetus. The mother has an absolute right to kill a human invader who has parasitized her womb, whether or not that uninvited presence can feel pain. The fetus has no ethical right to take over a mother’s body and life for its own nourishment without her consent.
The fact that the fetus is developing the apparatus for feeling pain is undeniable, whatever stage that apparatus is at and whether or not it is hooked up to the brain regions that perceive and react to pain (which is an open question, currently under investigation.) That is entirely beside the point of whether the mother has a right to abort.
Fake News Travels Faster than Real News Because it is Shocking, and it is Shock Value that We Crave
A new study reports that “fake news” travels six times as fast as true items, by studying almost all of hundreds of thousands of Twitter posts over a period of years. The study was unveiled yesterday in the NYT and by today, had been reviewed by New Scientist. The reason for the speed of lies? They seemed to cause shock or consternation, or even surprise, which caused human viewers of the items to re-post them more often and more quickly. Contrary to popular impressions, bots had little or no hand in the speed of fake news– all of the retweeting was done by humans, who often were so surprised by the items that they responded by asking, “is this true?”
The characteristics of fake news are shocking, surprising, and confusing because they seem to stand out as different from true news items– different enough for people to take notice. That is the characteristic of fake news that is inherent in its popularity and menace: its shock value. We are shocked, shocked to hear that Hope Hicks is telling everyone she’s going to have Don’s baby– but we almost believe it.
(illustration courtesy of pixabay.com and pixel2013)
“Listening to a garrulous old guy spout nonsense is annoying in the best of circumstances. But when this particular old guy controls the world’s largest military, nukes included, it’s downright scary.”
Paul Krugman’s column in the NYT yesterday, complaining that it’s one thing to listen to a confused, deluded old drunk ranting on a barstool . It’s totally different when the deluded old guy is the President, and he doesn’t drink. Mr. Krugman points out that Mr. Trump is wrong on many critical facts. He could snap his fingers to get a complete briefing on all the facts known to the US government from an expert in the relevant department. But no. Instead, he turns on Fox “News” and watches misinformed news readers with political biases and grievances who twist the “facts” (when they don’t get them completely wrong) to fit their agendas. What are their agendas? Their over-riding, all-important agenda is to get their viewers angry and anxious over the state of affairs in the world, so they can make them less friendly to their neighbors. Fear is what drives Republican votes.
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and TheDigitalArtist)
The New York Times reported that Congress had authorized the State Department to spend $60 million a year for two years, starting in late 2016, for the specific purpose of assembling a staff and equipment and conducting operations to counter the perceived threat from Russian cyber-meddling. The Obama administration had become aware of this problem in 2016 and rushed to obtain authorization from Congress to set up a counter-cyber-espionage program, which was granted. The State Department already had a unit called the Global Engagement Center, and this unit was tasked with countering Russia’s disinformation campaign that was unrolling on Twitter and Facebook. From the article:
The role for the Global Engagement Center would be to assess Russian efforts and then set about amplifying a different set of voices to counter them, perhaps creating a network of anti-propaganda projects dispersed around the world, experts said.
“There are now thousands of former Russian journalists who have been exiled or fired who are doing counter-Russian stuff in exile who we could help,” said Richard Stengel, who as the under secretary for public diplomacy in the Obama administration had oversight of the Global Engagement Center.
In other words, the money was available starting in October, 2016, the beginning of the country’s budget year– it was to be sent from the Pentagon, where our military spends billions on counter-espionage programs unrelated to social media as such– it was oriented to fighting cyberattacks in which critical infrastructure is damaged and other programs, not open communications on Facebook and Twitter. The State Department was supposed to cooperate in a government-wide effort to counter the malicious posts that were appearing in social media. However, when Mr. Trump won the election, the State Department was left without a leader who could direct the hiring of Russian-speaking experts in computer programming, and without direction to fight the Russians.
The article states that Mr. Tillerson, the new Secretary of State, tabled the decision as to where to spend the money for seven months, resulting in no progress on the organization of a crew to do the work which was obviously needed. When the issue of the money transfer from Defense to State became public last August as the result of an article in Politico, the Pentagon finally announced on February 26 that it would transfer $40 million to the State Department, describing the creation of “An Information Access Fund to Counter State-Sponsored Disinformation.”
The Center for Global Engagement, with 60 employees and 23 contractees, many fluent in Arabic, Urdu, and so on, has been concentrating on countering anti-jihadist propaganda and has succeeded, for example, in demonstrating in a video that ISIS was responsible for destroying the al-Nuri grand mosque in Mosul. This threat comes from an entirely different direction. Unfortunately, none of the personnel currently employed or contracted by the Center speaks Russian.
The article in the NYT goes on to describe the extreme level of dysfunction that Mr. Tillerson has allowed to develop throughout the State Department. The plan appears to be to run State into the ground by not doing any of the things that it has been doing under previous presidents. Mr. Trump seems to believe that the federal government is a business enterprise and that he can allow traditional functions like diplomacy to simply wither away while he concentrates on supporting the Defense Department in its plans to militarize foreign affairs.
Mr. Tillerson’s close ties to Russia from his years in Moscow as an Exxon employee finally come into focus. He is an agent of the Russians and Mr. Trump and his plan is to destroy the State Department.
There are no words to describe how bad this is for us as Americans. Our nation is being transformed into an autocracy– and by definition, autocracy is dysfunctional. We must band together as people to return our government to a democracy by all Constitutional means. Impeachment of the President and Vice-President is the first order of business and must be preceded by an electoral transformation of Congress. We are handicapped by perversions of democracy like gerrymandering, which ensures such results as that in Wisconsin– where the Republican minority controls two thirds of the seats in the House under the current district configuration. We must organize as Democrats to reverse gerrymandering, obtain a level playing field, and throw the rascals out of Congress.
If the Supreme Court– already perverted by a judge selected by the Republican leader of the Senate McConnell instead of the Democratic President Obama– refuses to reverse the gerrymandering of districts in most of the states, then Democratic revolution is the only answer. Be prepared and vote this November.
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and ParentRap)
Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax and a Trump friend, said, “I’m bewildered when I see these reports that he’s in turmoil. Every time I speak to him he seems more relaxed and in control than ever. He seems pretty optimistic about how things are shaping up.” (Gleaned from Microsoft News Feed March 4, 2018)
Mr. Ruddy may be deluded because he is a wealthy friend of Donald or he may just be trying to spread propaganda, as his company is so fond of doing. Newsmax is no better than the Enquirer when it comes to political propaganda. Unless Mr. Trump is deliberately trying to destroy the institution of the presidency (which is a possibility that I have considered), there is no way he could be “relaxed and in control.”
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and novelrobinson)
“I spent years as a foreign correspondent in Latin America. To say we are being governed like a banana republic is an insult to banana republics. It’s that bad, and no one should pretend otherwise.”– Eugene Robinson, the Washington Post, March 1, 2018
(photo courtesy of pixabay.com and RyanMcGuire)
The Guardian reported today (attributing the first report to Think Progress) that Carl Icahn, worth about $17 billion, sold a million shares in a company that experienced a sharp loss after President Trump announced a 25% tariff on imported steel to take effect next week. Mr. Icahn sold his shares in Manitowoc, who makes cranes, starting February 12, for roughly $32-34 million. The Commerce Department reported its recommendation for tariffs on February 16. By this morning, the share price had dropped 5.48%, meaning that Mr. Icahn avoided a loss of roughly $6 million.
A little history: Manitowoc was selling at roughly $23 a share until last July, when it began to rise dramatically, to a peak of $43.59 on January 26. It then began a rapid drop, past $32 on February 12, to $27 this morning. So Mr. Icahn should have sold in January. It seems that this company, which is barely making a profit, has share prices that are greatly affected by peripheral news, such as the performance of Caterpillar, a much larger maker of the same equipment. Mr. Icahn had been holding his shares for three years.
Mr. Icahn was named as one of Mr. Trump’s special advisors during the presidential election but resigned his position due to complaints about conflicts of interest. He apparently remains a major Trump supporter. Meanwhile, Australia obtained an assurance that they would be exempted from the tariffs last July at the G20 summit when Mr. Trump was considering a tax of 20%– less than his final figure of 25%.
The whole idea of slapping heavy tariffs on steel imports is a typical Trumpian nationalist notion, in line with his pronouncements since his presidential campaign. According to news accounts, companies that consume steel account for eighty times as many jobs as companies that produce steel in the United States. So this tariff will do nothing to improve the US jobs picture, at the same time that it risks starting a nasty global trade war. It is unlikely that US companies will suddenly start producing enough steel to satisfy the demands of our companies that consume steel, and the imposition of tariffs will have a distinctly negative effect on our economy.
Jim Sciutto tweeted that the European Union is planning to place retaliatory tariffs on Harley-Davidson, Levi’s, and bourbon whiskey.
Therefore, the likelihood of US economic growth improving over the next year has suddenly been significantly reduced. Negative effects on our economy will result in Mr. Trump becoming even less popular than he is today, perhaps making his impeachment and removal more likely. The substitution of “Moral Mike” Pence as president will, however, not be an improvement.
Logically, if we establish that Russian meddling in the presidential election has caused a fraudulent result, both Trump and Pence should be impeached and removed for cheating. That will probably not happen.
Conrad Theodore Seitz 