The First Debate

I watched about half of the debate.  I'd say Hillary was far more disciplined and prepared.  She landed some good points on Trump.  Clearly, the tax returns issue was gold for her as he started riffing about his taxes and building values and other stuff that in no way advanced the debate; it was defense or pointless rambling, you choose.  Trump landed some good points with regard to Hillary having been in public life for 30 years and only now is she going to fix things.  Her argument that we are on the cusp of real recovery with lots of jobs and rising incomes if we just stay on the current path was weak sauce.  Trump tried to tie her to Obama's policies, especially TPP, but she generally dodged that without being forced to criticize Obama; that in itself was good strategy on her part and again showed that Trump needs more practice at debating.

 

Trump came off as a protectionist.  He is unhappy with NAFTA - calling it the worst deal ever - and says TPP is almost as bad.  He wants to levy a tax on imports (that would be called a tariff, by the way) and renegotiate trade deals.  Reminded me a bit of Pat Buchanan.  To the good, he wants to reduce regulations and taxes.  Clearly, if we couldn't reach 3% growth for even 1 quarter out of the last 7 and a half years while driving up the debt by nearly $10 trillion, the government isn't doing a better job of spending that money than private people would have.

 

Hillary had a tough row to hoe on her side.  She offered the same policy prescriptions as Obama did 8 years ago.  We have 8 years of results which are not great.  After all these years, it is still the Bush economy to hear her tell it.  If she wins, is she inheriting the Bush economy or the Obama economy?  I am astonished she rolled out the 'rich need to pay their fair share' bromide.  Always the answer is to tax the rich.  Again, we've just had 8 years of her policies and, though better than the trough of the Great Recession, it is below average.

 

Though I read that some rated it a draw, I would give Hillary the edge for the first debate.  Her discipline did her great credit.  Trump needed to stay on message and not drift.  Also, he need to trust the audience more.  There was too much repetition.  This is going to get replayed ad nausea for the next several days; it is better to say it just once and let the media replay it for you.  He is too used to playing a crowd rather than engaging in a back and forth debate.

 

If I get around to watching the second half, I may offer revisions.

EXTRA! Woman gives birth!

Yes, that is what actually happened but, because the woman is a transgendered man and his wife is a transgendered woman, the 'man' of the couple gave birth because he was the one with the womb.  Really?  The reason they were able to conceive was neither had had 'corrective' surgery yet.  Corrective!  If not for the fact that each member of this couple claims to be the opposite sex - which clearly they are not - this would be a non-story.  Man impregnates woman.  Woman gives birth.  OMG!  Wait until a car identifies as a garage and a garage identifies as a car, then we can park the garage in the car!

If Machado and Rodriguez want to swap genders in their relationship, that is fine.  However, this is another in the line of pregnant man stories that isn't true but gets a big headline.  It's a hoax in which the participants want to believe.  This reminds me of the case of Thomas Beatie, the pregnant man from Oregon.  He had begun his 'corrective' surgery (double mastectomy) but still had the plumbing to get pregnant, which he did.  Pregnant man.  Sigh.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?  Four.  Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Abraham Lincoln

By the same token, if you call a man a woman, she still can't get pregnant.  This is obvious lunacy and yet you are a bigot if you don't embrace it.  Live as you wish to live but you cannot require my participation in your fantasy.  We have come to where a Monty Python sketch is taken seriously.

Balance of Decorum

For years, Democrats have made a practice of seeding embarrassing guests at joint events.  The most noteworthy of them was Cindy Sheehan who was invited by Representative Lynn Woolsey to attend the 2006 State of the Union Address.  She wore a shirt critical of President Bush and the Iraq War.  The shirt violated rules of the House and she refused to cover it.  She was arrested and held for 4 hours before being transferred to Capitol Police HQ.  This became a big story and that was the point.  It was a political chess move and Cindy Sheehan was a willing pawn.  By contrast, Republicans are less prone to inviting obstreperous critics, certainly not ones who earn headlines like Sheehan.  This is because Republicans possess decorum.  Part of the reason that Republicans are far more decorous than Democrats is that the media will hammer them for improper behavior that would be ignored when committed by Democrats.  They are held to a higher standard.

 

That brings us to Monday's impending debate.  Hillary has invited Mark Cuban, a former Trump supporter and now Trump critic to sit in the front row.  Now, Cuban won't be disruptive like Cindy Sheehan but he will provide an opportunity for the media to discuss him and his criticism of Trump.  It is political chess, placing a story on the field and trusting that the media will pick it up.  It's like setting an attack ad against Trump that will appear as unbiased news from the pundits.  No one thinks twice when sports commentators point out the QBs wife in the stands with some color commentary.  Whereas a Romney, McCain, or Bush had too much decorum to reply in kind, Trump doesn't.  He is willing to fight fire with fire.  He has invited Gennifer Flowers!  Let's see what the pundits have to say about her.

 

Called and raised!

Regret of an Anti-Brexit Voter

Rupert Myers has an interesting take on the Brexit, noting that he is concerned that those on the wrong side of the vote have lost some say on how to deal with wrinkles in the impending departure from the EU.  He makes some good points.  However, one thing that struck me was when he said it impossible to know who was right because there isn't a Control Britain that is remaining in the EU.  I disagree.  In a few years time, it will be possible to compare the economic growth of the UK to that of the EU.  It will be possible to compare the trajectories of France and Britain prior to the split and what happens to each afterward.  If the UK goes into an economic tailspin while the EU experiences a booming economy, the anti-Brexit group will have cause to say "We told you so."  If it goes the other way, then the pro-Brexit crew will gloat.  Of course, the economy isn't the only issue.  The UK is escaping the barely controlled immigration that is sweeping Europe.  Ten years hence, will Britain be an island of calm compared to a continent besieged by Islamic terrorists?  That too could favor the Brexit.

 

Let us consider the case of America leaving the British Empire in 1776.  There was a control and it is called Canada.  Let's do some simple comparisons.  What is the per capita income of Canada vs. the United States?  $46,000 vs. 57,000.  England has done better than Canada in this metric, having a per capita of $50,000, but that is still short of the United States.  Economically, splitting from the British Empire has proven a good decision.  I have no doubt that Canadians could offer alternate metrics that demonstrate that they are better off for having stayed.  It comes down to priorities.  As the Brexit was mostly framed on economics, that is the best indicator for whether Brexit was wise or foolish.

Part of the Prank?

There is a video on YouTube that claims that the missing audio jack on the new iPhone 7 can be restored with a drill.  Yes, just grab your drill and restore that jack in jiffy.  The comments are a mixed bag but there are people who claim to have done it and it didn't work.  I would like to think all the comments are from people who are just playing along with a crazy video.  It looks like the Sun story is based solely on the comments and not reports of iPhones being brought back to Apple for repair/replacement.

Manufacturing a Riot

This is a troubling trend.  Seventy percent of the people arrested in Charlotte have out-of-state IDs.  These people were sent to Charlotte for the purpose of rioting and creating a crisis.  As Rahm Emanuel said, one should never let a crisis go to waste.  A crisis provides an opportunity to advance agendas.  A lot of power was ceded to government in the wake of the 9/11 Attacks.  People will accept a bad deal during a crisis that they would never accept under normal circumstances.  This psychological truth is used against the voters by having an endless series of crises, this manufactured riot is just one.  That is not to say that the police shooting should be ignored or overlooked, but nor should it be used as a pretext for a riot with the goal of boosting the African American vote in November.

 

If Black Lives Matter really cared about black lives, they would be spending a lot of time protesting in Chicago.  Why aren't they?  BLM is an arm of the Democratic Party and Illinois is solidly in the Democrat camp.  Why waste the effort?  Now Missouri (Ferguson riots) and North Carolina (Charlotte riots) are states that can go either way.  Consider this: An armed black man was killed by a black cop from a police department with a black police chief; this is a sign of racism and resulted in a riot by out-of-state goons.  In Oklahoma, an unarmed black man was killed by a white officer from a department headed by a white police chief and no riot.  Why?  Oklahoma is solidly Republican; it would be a waste of money to dispatch busloads of out-of-state goons to riot there.

 

It is troubling to admit, but there is a fifth column in the United States that is seeking to undermine the country.  There have long been fifth column groups (e.g. Communist party) but they were never this out in the open and openly funded.  DCLeaks hacked some George Soros emails and it was clear that he wants to transform the country and thinks Black Lives Matter riots are a valid strategy.

Cruz for Trump

Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump for President.  Unfortunately, this comes long after considerable damage has been done to his political prospects.  His re-elect numbers in Texas took a big hit with his explicit failure to endorse Trump at the Republican Convention.  Rather than a considered endorsement, this looks more like political calculus.  If it was principled to not endorse Trump then, what has changed to make it principled now?  The NeverTrumpers are beside themselves about Ted's defection.  Trump's rising poll numbers make the endorsement look more like a political calculation.  For a man who has made a name for himself in Washington by standing on principle, such political strategizing is anathema.  He shot himself in the foot at the convention and has been hobbling around since.  However, jumping on the Trump bandwagon before some of the other Republican candidates may improve his standing in comparison to those who have not yet endorsed Trump should Trump win.

 

I like Ted Cruz because he fights.  He doesn't try to get along with the Democrats which has only succeeded in the century long slide toward socialism.  A recent article accused the Republicans of being the Washington Generals, the team that always loses to the Harlem Globetrotters.  For my entire adult life, Republicans sing the praises of limited government but never seem to enact it.  Even when the White House, the Senate, and the House were all Republican, the government just got bigger and less limited.  Cruz called out his fellow Republicans for sticking with a losing playbook.

 

That he has botched the politics of this is, in a sense, a good sign.  It took him some reflection to realize that, whatever his principled opposition might be, the next president is going to be either Trump or Clinton.  For better or worse, he chose Trump.

Transparency!

Who knew that the reason this was going to be "the most transparent administration in history" would be proved correct thanks to computer hackers and FBI probes?  It turns out that though President Obama claimed to learn about the private server the same time as everyone else, he had exchanged emails - using a pseudonym - with Hillary using her non-state department email address.  I will grant that it is possible someone else program her address into his account and he never saw the actual address.  However, whoever did put that email address in the president's contacts list should have sounded an alarm when the email didn't end in .gov.

 

As for the argument that emails between Obama and Clinton should not be subject to FOIA requests on account executive privilege, that strikes me as a weak argument.  If emails sent between the White House and the State Department are to be covered by executive privilege, why not the entirety of the audio tapes recorded entirely within the Oval Office of the Nixon White House?  Executive privilege expands and contracts depending on which party is in the White House.

 

Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, DC Leaks, Guccifer and others have all contributed tremendously to the transparency of both the Obama Administration and the DNC.  Of course, this transparency is achieved because the administration is very bad at protecting secure information.  If there is a Cyber Cold War in progress, it sure looks like we are getting stomped.

Federal Bureau of Immunity

In yet another jaw-dropping revelation to the never ending email scandal, it turns out the FBI gave immunity to Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department.  Is this an investigation or a cover-up?  Let's review from the start.

The technician who setup the server, Bryan Pagliano, invoked his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination 125 times during a 90 minute deposition; the FBI granted him immunity.  The Platte River Network technician who used BleachBit on the server, Paul Combetta, was granted immunity.  Amazingly, despite this grant of immunity, he too invoked his 5th Amendment right not to self-incriminate.  Isn't that the whole point of the immunity?!  You grant immunity to the lesser criminal so that his testimony will convict the greater criminal.  In this case, the FBI granted immunity and the guy won't talk.  What exactly is the FBI trying to accomplish here?  John Bentel, the IT guy at the State Dept, somehow didn't know about Hillary's private server.  Merely admitting that should be cause for firing.  Of course, he too was granted immunity.  Why?  He knew nothing!  Moving on, we come to Heather Samuelson, a lawyer who had been a staffer during the 2008 presidential campaign.  She is one of the lawyers who went through the emails to determine what was work-related.  She too was granted immunity!  And that brings us to Cheryl Mills, the Chief of Staff.  Immunity is given to people who have committed crimes!  We have a line of criminals that lead from the server all the way to Hillary Clinton's doorstep.  Combine this with the classified, top secret, and pay-for-play emails that have been recovered, and you have multiple crimes with buckets of intent.  All that immunity and not a single charge filed.

 

When will the FBI finally reveal that they offered Hillary Clinton immunity in order to have that Saturday interview?  At this point, I would not be surprised.  Roger Simon observes that this kind of blatant excusing of the elites while at the same time consistently bungling catchable domestic terrorists is ruining all faith in the FBI and the DOJ.  The rule of law must be restored or the banana republic we have will become permanent.

Turns out the Spoils System Thrives

Not only were the majority of non-governmental people she met with also donors to the Clinton Foundation, it turns out that 40% of the people she appointed to advisory boards were also donors.  Who is it who wants to get money out of politics?  Is this not the most obvious case of buying access ever?  Of note, only 6% of the Clinton Foundation money actually goes to charity.  The rest funds travel, hotel rooms, expenses, salary for employees, etc.  Sid Blumenthal, Hillary's aide-de-camp, is a highly paid employee ($10K a month) of the Clinton Foundation.  He is clearly a political operative for the Clintons, not a charity worker.  The Clinton Foundation money is a slush fund hidden beneath the veneer of a charitable organization.

No Penalty for Intentional Kneeling

Commissioner Goodell praised players for protesting the National Anthem.  Why is it okay for the players to disrespect the country but a touchdown celebration is a 15 yard penalty.  Uncitizenlike conduct is lauded but unsportsmanlike conduct is a 15 yard penalty.  What message is being sent here?  End Zone dance is bad.  Kneeling during the anthem is good.  Eventually, this is going to get out of hand (if it isn't already) and the league will be forced to do something.  It would have been so easy to fine or sanction Kaepernick that first time and then football would be just about football, not social justice.  The old saying is that you should never talk politics or religion.  What do you talk about when politics and religion get involved in every facet of life?

These highly-paid athletes who are almost universally in the top 1% of earners in the US have the temerity to protest the country where that was made possible.  Spend some of your fortune to better the lives of people who are actually oppressed rather than this virtue-signaling crap.  Disrespecting the flag is disrespecting the country is disrespected Americans.  That is not a good tactic for keeping an American audience.

Undermining the Narrative

This is just the story that the Obama Administration didn't need published.  All that talk of how we couldn't get money we "owed" to Iran through standard banking practices and thus we had to send laundered cash on an unmarked plane.  Oh, we have done wire transfers to Iran?  Hmm.  Then maybe the cash was to hide the transaction?  Suddenly, instead of paying off a longstanding debt, the narrative could instead be painted as US Government caught secretly sending millions in cash to Leading State Sponsor of Terrorism.  That is what happened but they had their repayment story and an inability to wire the money.  What is the real story?

Sully

The movie opens the morning after the crash in the Hudson River.  Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger (Tom Hanks) awakens from a nightmare of crashing his plane into a building.  Soon thereafter, he has a meeting with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is standard after all crashes.  Though Sully is celebrated in the press as a hero for having successfully landed the disabled airplane in the Hudson River, the NTSB proves to be less impressed and think he needless ditched the aircraft.  Computer models show that he could have made it back to LaGuardia.

I had expected a movie that opened with a bunch of people boarding a plane followed by a dramatized crash and rescue, and then maybe the aftermath; the usual disaster movie stuff.  This is more of an after action report that reconstructs the events.  The contentious NTSB turns this into something of a court drama with Sully trying to save his career and reputation.  The real NTSB is disappointed by the negative and inaccurate characterization of them in the film.  The movie is a character study, a mini biography, of Sully in the wake of the crash and one cannot but be impressed.

 

Great movie and thumbs up!

Birth of the Birther Story

I was listening to the radio on Friday when the top of the hour news announced that Trump had accused Hillary Clinton of starting the Birther issue during the 2008 primary.  Intriguing though that was, the more interesting bit followed.  The newsreader then announced that there was no evidence for this claim.  I cannot recall the last time I heard fact-checking as part of the newsfeed.  Basically, the news is that Trump is lying about Hillary and now here's the weather.  Huh.

Later that day, evidence that the 2008 Clinton campaign had considered a strategy to paint Obama as less American because he spent a considerable chunk of his childhood in Indonesia.  Of course, Hillary says they never used that tact.  But then it comes out the Sid Blumenthal, a Hillary intimate who is coincidentally also involved in the interminable email scandal, is reported to have handed the Birther story to the McClatchy News Service.  McClatchy sent a reporter to Kenya to check it out.  Then there is the picture of Obama in Muslim garb that was released by the Clinton Campaign.

 

I am now annoyed that the newsreader offered that fact-check.  Whether you agree or not, there is evidence for the claim that questions of Obama's birth started in the Clinton campaign.  Well, in truth, the birther debate started with Obama himself.  Snopes confirms that in 1991, Obama was shown on the bio page of a booklet as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia."  In fact, some have claimed that Obama gamed the system to get into more prestigious schools than his grades would have allowed by claiming to be a foreign exchange student.  Thus, Obama has refused to release his college transcripts that would reveal such.  Maybe.  More likely, his grades are mediocre and that would not have helped his campaign.

Why is this in the news again?  Hillary has attacked Trump for his participation in the Birther debate in 2011.  Trump hammered the topic sufficiently that Obama finally released his long form birth certificate which ended - for most - the debate.  Thus Trump's claim that he "finished it."

Unilateral Disarmament

Trump will occasionally make a very good point but do it in a clumsy manner, especially when the 2nd Amendment is involved.  Hillary is a big fan of gun control, even commending the gun confiscation of Australia at one point.  Of course, Hillary has, and will for the rest of her life, armed Secret Service agents protecting her.  She doesn't need a gun because she has half a dozen people with guns.  Trump suggested that she have her detail disarm and "see what happens."  The way he says it reminds me of Joe Pesci in Goodfellas, which is not a good image for a candidate for president to have.  Still, it makes a valid point.  It is easy for the protected elites to demand that the peasants in fly-over country are disarmed because it will not impact the guns that protect them.

 

Those who demanded the 2nd Amendment feared that a powerful government with a standing army - like they had just experienced with Great Britain - would oppress the people.  Against this fear, they provided that the citizens would be armed with the same weaponry wielded by the military, the musket.  If any of them were around today, they would argue that citizens should be armed with the M4 carbine that is the current standard-issue weapon.  The intent is to make a military takeover nigh impossible.

 

If you desire peace, prepare for war.  That is good advice for a country but also true for citizens with regard to their government.

Teenaged Terror

Beware the rise of the new terrorism from teens.  Yes, in this article we discover that Haroon Ali Syed wanted to kill people in a manner similar to the 7/7 Bombings at a concert where a gay man would be performing.  Haroon was apparently inspired to this terrorism while watching a lot of beheading videos from ISIS.  Interestingly, though his name and that he was really into ISIS videos does fit him into a certain group - no, not teenagers - his religious affiliation is never mentioned.  Is Haroon an Anglican?  Hate gays, admiration for the 7/7 Bombings, desire to kill civilians, likes to watch beheading videos?  Yeah, the evidence is clear; he's probably an Anglican.

Party-affiliation Buried

Ex-mayor charged in 4-year-old’s rape said girl was a willing participant, records say

The Washington Post

 

Beyond the horrific picture that is painted by the headline, I immediately noticed that the mayor's party affiliation wasn't included in the headline.  Let's see how long it takes in the article to mention.  Ah, there it is in the 14th paragraph: Richard Keenan is a Democrat.  I'm sure that is how long it normally takes to get to that point.  Hmm.  Let's check.  To provide a similar circumstance, let's only consider Republicans with little or no name recognition.

 

Christopher Lee had posted shirtless pictures of himself in 2011.  Here is an ABC story that offers the details.  Oh, first sentence of first paragraph notes that he is Republican.

 

Chris Myers, also a mayor, is the 'Knucklehead of the Week' in this 2011 story.  It isn't until the 6th paragraph that his party-affiliation is mentioned.  Of course, that is also the first paragraph in which he is mentioned.  Hmm.

 

Phillip Hinkle, an Indiana legislator, was caught in a sex scandal in this story.  Not only does the headline reveal his affiliation, it is also mentioned in the first sentence of the article.

 

Mike Duvall bragged about his sexual prowess on an open microphone in this LA Times story.  His party is revealed in the subhead and again identified in the 2nd paragraph of the article.

 

In this Daily Beast story, Senator John Ensign of Nevada is revealed to be a Republican in the 3rd Sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

 

Okay, maybe it was a fluke that Richard Keenan's affiliation appeared late.  Let's see how quickly Democrats are identified in stories.

 

In this 2013 Huffington Post story regarding Anthony Weiner, his party affiliation is never mentioned.  Well, he is widely known to be a Democrat but there isn't even a perfunctory (D) after his name.

 

Here is a story in the New York Times about Eliot Spitzer suing a woman who accused him of choking her.  Interesting.  Though the story mentions that Spitzer is a former governor, it somehow never comes up that he is a Democrat.  Huh, that's odd.

 

Buzzfeed details the antics of former Congressman David Wu.  Though the article makes it clear that Wu is friendly with Democrats and was forced to resign by Democratic leadership, he is never identified as a Democrat.  Very peculiar.

 

In this 2008 Newsweek article, sex scandal involving Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick somehow fails to mention that he is a Democrat.

 

In this 2011 Time piece, John Edwards is listed among the Top 10 Political Sex Scandals and yet his party is not mentioned.  Actually, this is a great piece to use though it does repeat much of what has already been detailed.  I'll just go through the 10 and look for party identification:

 

1. Mark Sanford: It is noted that he was the head of the Republican Governors Association, thus revealing his party.
2. John Ensign: That he is a Republican is not mentioned.
3. David Vitter: Not only is he described as a staunch conservative advocate, it is also noted that he is a Republican.
4. Kwame Kilpatrick: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.
5. Larry Craig: That he is a Republican is not mentioned.
6. Barney Frank: He is identified as a longtime Democratic Congressman.
7. Bill Clinton: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.
8. Eliot Spitzer: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.
9. John Edwards: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.
10. Anthony Weiner: That he is a Democrat is not mentioned.

 

Wow, that is interesting.  There are 4 Republicans and 6 Democrats.  Though half of the Republicans are revealed, only 1 in 6 of the Democrats is.  Weird.  That probably wasn't intentional, was it?  It's also interesting that the first 3 on the list are all Republicans.  If you stopped reading half way through, you would be of the impression that 80% of sex scandals are Republican.

 

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit often says that if you look at the media as Democratic operatives with bylines you won't go far wrong.  This would appear to prove his point.

Leprosy in America

With the increase in illegal immigrants and refugees in recent years, diseases thought to be eradicated in this country -- like tuberculosis, polio, measles and leprosy -- have unfortunately reemerged in the United States.

But those borders have never been more secure.  Is it any wonder that Trump rocketed to the lead in the Republican primary by proposing an alternative.  Both Republicans and Democrats have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to control the flow of people - and diseases - into the country.  Ellis Island existed to screen would-be immigrants, partly to keep diseases from entering the country with them.  Also, we don't want criminals like the man who shot Kate Steinle.  Why is it racist to propose that the immigration laws are enforced?  Why is the Obama Administration willing to overlook sanctuary cities that effectively nullify federal immigration law but sues the state of Arizona for attempting to enforce federal immigration law?  One would almost think the president approves of illegal immigration.  Sadly, the establishment Republicans are mostly on the same page with the president.

Fish Falls from Sky

And now for a laugh.  The headline grabbed me and the full story - pleasantly brief - left me giggling.  Really, how do you not laugh at a fish falling from the sky and smacking someone in the face?  Slapstick gold!

Google for Hillary

I had seen the original video that this article mentioned and was surprised.  I suppose I shouldn't have been.  The case is clear and hard to refute.  Google is in favor of Hillary and has blunted negative searches about her while promoting positive ones.  I may have to reconsider my default search engine.

9/11 +15

It is now fifteen years since the 9/11 attacks that triggered our recent flurry of Middle Eastern engagements and, if anything, we have lost ground.

After the 9/11 attacks, the country was on guard.  In the rest of the Bush Administration, 25 people were killed in Muslim attacks and 14 were injured.  During the Obama Administration, 114 people have been killed and 373 injured in Muslim attacks.  This only counts attacks on American soil.  The success rate of the enemy on our turf has gone up.  Homeland Security failure!  Worse off.

Afghanistan was the host of al Qaeda and the Taliban were toppled during the Afghan War.  Rebuilding efforts have been mostly for naught.  The continued presence of US troops makes the region less hospitable to al Qaeda and its ilk but a lasting victory is not established.  Better off.

The anti-American Saddam was toppled during the Iraq War and had become a relatively stable pro-American democracy thereafter.  However, US troops were completely withdrawn in 2011 and ISIS and Iran filled the power vacuum shortly thereafter.  The successes of ISIS have resulted in US re-engagement in the region.  Trade Saddam for ISIS?  In 2010, we had clearly been better off but as of now, we might be at status quo ante bellum.  Break even.

 

In 2011, Libya was involved in a Civil War and the United States opted for the non-Gaddafi side.  Libya has become a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorist groups, including a branch of al Qaeda.  The bill for this came due in Benghazi, 4 years ago today.  Worse off.

Egypt's stable, though repressive, pro-American regime was toppled and replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.  This was in turn toppled and made way for a new stable, though repressive, not so pro-American regime.  Worse off.

Yemen's pro-American government has been toppled and Yemen is another failed state with both al Qaeda and ISIS affiliates.  Worse off.

 

The US became entangled in the Syrian civil war thanks to a red line.  The red line put US standing and reliability on the block.  Failure to do anything when the red line was crossed has hugely diminished US prestige in the world.  Russia, Iran, and Turkey have all moved into Syria and attacked the US-backed rebels.  Worse off.

 

Seeing the writing on the wall, Israel, America's staunchest ally in the region for decades, has recently had a high level meeting with Russia.  With American power waning, Israel needs to make arrangements should the decline continue.  Worse off.

 

Turkey has gone from a secular democracy to an Islamist state.  President Erdogan has viewed democracy as a tram that one takes until you reach your stop.  He reached his stop and gotten off.  Like Israel's Netanyahu, Erdogan has also made pilgrimage to Russia.  Though a member of NATO, Turkey is looking to improve bi-lateral relations with NATO's traditional enemy.  Worse off.

 

Iran was anti-American at the start and remains so.  The Iran Nuclear Deal, which has gifted hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to the Iranian regime, is a catastrophe that only gets worse.  Sanctions have been lifted and Iran is cheating on the deal, cozying up to Russia, and expanding its influence in the Middle East.  Much worse off.

 

As it stands, we are losing the war.  We may win skirmishes with various terror affiliates but such affiliates are popping up faster than we are stomping them.  Worse still, every candidate for the Presidency will continue to lose the war.  Trump, Johnson, and Stein would all wash their hands of the region (Trump talks about crushing ISIS but has little interest in the larger war).  Hillary helped formulate our current losing strategy and is likely to stay the course.  However, she is probably the most hawkish of the bunch and had disagreed with Obama on some policies where he proved more dovish.

 

Like the Cold War, we will eventually win this one.  However, it is going to take another 9/11-like attack against us (or a nuclear one against anyone) before we adopt the unconditional surrender posture that served us so well in WWII.

Hell or High Water

The Howard brothers, Tanner (Ben Foster) and Toby (Chris Pine), are robbing Texas Midlands Bank in order to raise funds to pay off the mortgage for the family ranch.  They need a little more than $40,000 to lift the lien on the property and rescue it from foreclosure.  Texas Rangers Marcus (Jeff Bridges) and Alberto (Gil Birmingham) get the case and start tracking the bank robbers.  Marcus has a keen mind and is able to discern much about them and eventually predict their next target.  Unlike most such movies, this one leaves a lot of loose ends, reminiscent of No Place for Old Men.  There are certainly some parallels with that film.

The movie feels like an old fashioned Western just set in modern times.  The fact that the robbers are in more gun battles with civilians than the police is very different from the usual crime drama.  Tanner notes that concealed carry laws make being a bank robber more difficult.  At times, this could be viewed as a pro-2nd Amendment film.  The impromptu posse of armed Texans who pursued the brothers out of town was humorous.  That everyone one of them drove a truck was also very Texan.  :)

The premise is thin.  If oil has been discovered on the ranch, why didn't the Howards just offer the first year of production to a driller who would pay off the lien?  In fact, the property value should have skyrocketed with the discovery of oil and refinancing based on that appreciation should have been an option.  There are constant hits against the banking industry as if the banks are robbing the people and the Howards are just balancing the scales.  The movie holds it as an undisputed fact that banks are out to steal from their customers and foreclose on their houses.  This shows a profound misunderstanding in how banks operate.  The movie feels like a depression era movie.  There are frequent debt relief billboards, rundown towns with closed stores, obviously struggling people, and talk of hard times.

The best part of the movie is the interaction of the characters.  The dialogue is great, the acting is strong, and even minor characters are compelling and memorable.  There was a refreshing bluntness to some of the characters.  Marcus is a constant jerk to his partner and yet it is clear that he holds him in high regard.  Toby's ex-wife feels no need to express anything but indifference when she hears that her mother-in-law died, telling a great deal about a relationship that is never shown on screen.  Tanner is a happy-go-lucky ex-con who is entirely comfortable with what the brothers are doing and fully expects to get caught.  Toby serves as a guardrail to his brother's recklessness, a mostly grim planner who, by contrast, seems to take no joy in anything.

 

The acting is great, particularly Bridges and Foster.  Jeff Bridges has the veteran lawman down to a T at this point.  Reminding me of his stint as Rooster Cogburn in True Grit a few years back, he plays a canny ranger with a sharp tongue.  Gil Birmingham is a great straight man and allows Bridges to shine even more brightly.  Every scene with Bridges is fun to watch.  Ben Foster was very like Emilio Estevez in Young Guns.  In past roles, he has always been this humorless stiff but here he is an easy-going charmer, a good ol' boy who might be friends with the Dukes of Hazzard.  Really, I would have expected him to play the role that Chris Pine had based on his films I have seen.  My opinion of him as an actor went way up.

Except for the silly premise, I enjoyed the film.  There is a lot here to like.  Thumbs up.

Health Matters

Back in 2008, John McCain's health was an issue.  He had had multiple brushes with skin cancer, one that required facial reconstruction surgery.  This article even notes the 5 and 10 year survival rates; McCain was 8 years along from the incident so might very well die in 2010.  Turns out that McCain is a tough old bird and still around but his health was absolutely a valid issue.

 

Today, the Democratic nominee is the case for concern.  Her unsteadiness on her feet, her persistent cough, issues with blood clots, and extended absence from the campaign trail do not paint a picture of health.  Her health issues are considered serious by an informal survey of 250 doctors.  Unlike McCain, Hillary has not released any medical records to counter the concerns.  As before and after photos of those who have served as president show, the job takes a heavy toll.  Is Hillary up to it?  That is not an unreasonable question.

Obama Hates America

Yet again, President Obama has gone overseas and told foreigners of his disappointment regarding America.  Yes, we just keep letting him down.  I remember back when Bill Clinton was running in 1992, one of the attacks against him was that, while a Rhodes Scholar in England, he participated in an anti-American protest.  Heck, even during George W. Bush's presidency, the Dixie Chicks triggered a backlash for dissing the president while on tour in London.  It used to be bad form to attack your country on foreign soil.  Well, now the president does it.

 

Though the article provides 18 particular points that the president made, it can be condensed to the following: Americans are a stingy, cold-hearted, racist, lazy, discriminatory, environment-destroying, racist, murderous, thoughtless people who are failing to stay true to our founding ideals.  This is far from the first time Obama has criticized his country overseas.  He opened his presidency with the infamous Apology Tour.  Really, what kind of president goes to Cuba and says we can learn from the Castros?

 

These repeated jabs at his country, the country that elected him as president, demonstrate that he is not a fan of his country.  That is tragic.  Though I am no fan of George W Bush, at least he loves America, warts and all.  America deserves to be loved, especially by the person elected to lead it.

The Wrong Track Problem

"That other basket of people are people who feel that government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures. They are just desperate for change. Doesn't really even matter where it comes from."

Hillary Clinton

 

What?  I thought Obama was the best president ever.  Obama saved the economy from the disaster that Bush left, got us out of Iraq (briefly), got the US to be respected and beloved around the world, fixed our health care system, and resolved global warming.  Hillary is essentially running as a third term of Obama policies and yet she is out there saying that the government has let them down.  Huh?

 

Polls regularly show that a majority of Americans, somewhere around 70% of them, think the country is on the wrong track.  Hillary was an integral part of the administration that put the country on this track, at least as far as foreign policy.  Thus, she needs to acknowledge the perception of the electorate about being on the wrong track on the one hand but not criticize the current administration which chose that track.  It is a difficult position to hold and may explain Hillary's avoidance of press conferences.

The Border has Never been More Secure

Sure, this is just one guy out of the millions but how does he keep coming back?  This catch and deport system we have is not doing the job.  It is time to revive the old practice of transportation.  It used to be that criminals were sent to penal colonies, such as Virginia or Australia.  The moon looks like an ideal site for a penal colony.  We can finally establish that moon base I was promised in 2001: A Space Odyssey and not be particularly concerned with safety.  Try coming back from there, amigo.

Where's the Big Fish?

The man who deleted the emails from Clinton's private server, even after having been notified that the information was under a Congressional Subpoena, was granted immunity during the investigation.  Typically, one offers immunity to the little fish in order to nail the big fish.  So, where's the big fish?  The use of BleachBit sure does sound like it would prove the intent that FBI Director Comey said was lacking.  A conference call that involved the server company and Hillary's lawyers shortly before the server was wiped?  Hmm, sounds suspicious.  These lawyers are certainly bigger fish than the computer tech who bleached the emails.  Were they indicted?  No?  And now it turns out that the immunity deal is going to derail further investigation?  Oh, what an unfortunate turn of events!  Oops!  Looks like we screwed up and no one will be prosecuted for the destruction of government records.  Oh, that's a felony?  Huh.

Uncivil Service

Here is an excellent article by Glenn Reynolds.  The civil service has demonstrated that it is in the pocket of the Democratic Party.  The DOJ declined to indict Hillary but was happy to go after Republican Governor Bob McDonald.  The DOJ had plenty of free time to harass Tea Party groups applying for tax free status but somehow could not do anything regarding the armed Black Panthers who had loitered at a polling station during the 2008 election.

 

In the late 19th Century, it was determined that something needed to be done about the spoils system.  Back then, when a new President arrive in Washington, he started handing out jobs to supporters.  This wholesale sweep of government officials to make room for Cousin William, long time friend Robert, and that fellow who provided alcohol for that campaign event started to look bad.  It had looked bad for a long time but it had become intolerable.  Thus, Civil Service Reform was passed and one of my heroes, Theodore Roosevelt, served on the US Civil Service Commission, seeking to stamp out the spoils system.  Henceforth, there would be professional civil servants who would do their job regardless of which party was in office.  Now the Department of Justice would indict criminals without regard to party affiliation.  Right?  The IRS would apply the same standards to applications for tax free status regardless of political beliefs.  Wouldn't it?

 

It turns out that people in favor of bigger government are the kind of people who become civil servants in bigger government.  Over the decades, the various bureaucracies have been taken over by Democrats.  Sure, the occasional Republican will be appointed to run the bureaucracy but the leftward bent remains entrenched.  This is certainly a huge improvement from the Democrats' view but a permanent and growing obstacle to Republicans even when they are in charge.  Democrats want to expand government, something civil servants want.  Republicans supposedly want to shrink government, which means job losses for civil servants.  Is it any wonder the bureaucracies are innately hostile to right-leaning groups and also willing to ignore wrongdoing by Democrats?

 

Nepotism is less corrupt.  Bring back the spoils system!

And You Thought $400 Million was Bad

I have a hard time believing this story.  Where did the administration get the money?  Congress has to allot money and this is a lot of money.  At the high end estimate, that is 1% of the budget.  Sure, that sounds small but that exceeds the entire annual budget of the Department of Energy and yet no one noticed until now?  What happened to the story of how we owed a total of $1.7 billion?  Were we paying $700 million a month just so they would negotiate?  Every new reveal makes the Iran Deal far, far worse.  It is already widely known that Iran is cheating on the deal and we're not going to do squat about it.  Therefore, we have given billions of dollars, lifted sanctions, and helped fund the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world for a useless 'agreement' that Iran has already ceased to observe.  Shhh!  Don't tell anyone until the next president is inaugurated.  Obama's 'Smart Diplomacy' is a catastrophe far beyond what even the most anti-Obama critic could have imagined.

 

If President Obama was a Manchurian Candidate for Iran, how would this be worse?  What better outcome could Iran have had?  Sanctions lifted, billions of dollars flooding in from the Great Satan, toppling American-aligned strongmen (Saleh in Yemen, Mubarak in Egypt) that provide opportunities for expanding the Iranian sphere of influence, reduction of US influence in the region, feckless response to Iran's Syrian ally, harsh rebukes toward Iran's Israeli enemies?  Yes, check all the boxes.  Neville Chamberlain got a better deal from the Nazis than Obama got from Iran.

E-Mail Scandal Grows

Destruction of evidence?  Meh.  What's another felony or two?  Maybe an obstruction of justice?  Really, at this point, what difference does it make?  Laws are for the little people.

Government Run Healthcare

Here is a preview of things to come if the current path for healthcare is not repealed.  A government system will destroy cost-containment (competition is the best method to keep prices down), so it will be rationing.  The first method of rationing is waiting.  We see this being used by the Veterans' Administration throughout the country.  Vets wait weeks or months for an appointment, some of them dying during the wait.  Yes, this was a scandal a few years ago but the problem persists.  However, now it is just old news.  Move on.  If waiting is not containing costs enough, then denial of service kicks in.  Oh, but it will work in the United States.  Sure, the Obamacare Exchanges are going bankrupt but that just proves that business is too greedy to run things.  Yes, it is time for single-payer, just like the UK's National Health Service.

 

It is very unfortunate that we cannot learn from the experience of others.  Nationalized healthcare, Muslim immigration, high taxation, excessive regulation, and multiculturalism have all resulted in decline in Europe.  But we will do it so that it works!  Ah, optimism.

Don't Breathe

Rocky (Jane Levy) is living with her mother and young daughter in a trailer in Detroit.  She makes a living through burglary with Alex and Money.  Rocky wants to leave the life and get out of Detroit.  She, her daughter, and Money plan to go to California as soon as they amass the funds.  Their fence reveals a potential target, a blind man (Stephen Lang) who was awarded a six figure settlement when his daughter was killed in a car accident.  Rumor is that he has the money in cash in the house, which is located in an abandoned part of the city.  It is just the score they need.

 

Though the movie has a couple of jump scares, it is not generally scary.  I would put it firmly in the thriller genre, not horror.  Stephen Lang does prove to be extremely formidable despite being blind. The very act of Rocky, Alex, and Money breaking into his house makes them bad guys who richly earn any fate that befalls them.  This undermines a lot of the suspense since it is hard to have much sympathy for burglars who chose to rob a blind man.  That he isn't a good guy does not mitigate that fact.  Indeed, he is a very bad guy although I question how he managed to achieve his basement arrangement.  Also, it was a bit too convenient that every cell phone either had its battery die or was destroyed early on.  Cell phones are a growing problem for horror films.  In this day and age, it is all too easy to ask, "Why didn't he just call 911?"  Of course, that is probably why our 'heroes' are criminals, to prevent them from pressing the easy button.

 

It isn't bad but there is no rush to see this on the big screen.  Based on the budget and the box office receipts so far, this is a big hit and could result in a franchise, or at least a sequel.

Going Senile?

I am old enough to remember that when a politician repeatedly did not recall something - say Ronald Reagan regarding Iran-Contra - it was an early sign of his Alzheimer's Disease.  Really, if his memory was that bad and he was that far out of the loop, what business did he have being president?  Point taken.  Now let's talk about Hillary Clinton's responses to the FBI during her recent interview.  After 8 years as First Lady, 8 years as a Senator, and 4 years as Secretary of State, she could not recognize the Classified demarcation on documents.  Really?  Either she is lying so that she does not admit guilt to gross negligence in handling classified material or she is incompetent/going senile.  Take your pick.  She provided a long list of I don't know and I don't recall responses.  Do you remember being instructed on handling of classified information?  No?  You signed the form.  See, here is your signature.  Do you recall that the FBI said don't use a Blackberry?  Heck, you sent out a memo instructing State Department staff of that very issue.  However, you continued to use a non-governmental Blackberry, overseas no less!

 

Hillary is lying to avoid convicting herself of crimes by her own statements.  However, it is also possible she is going senile, that the blood clot in her head was a stroke that has diminished her capacity and wiped out some of her memory.  Whichever it is, she should not be president.

Gender Bender Insanity

I just saw a video on YouTube proposing the Top 10 Actresses Who Could Play James Bond.  The obvious answer is none, but that would make for a very short video.  Though I like all the actresses listed and think each and every one of them could make a great agent in MI-6, none of them can be James Bond.  Just like none of them can be Winston Churchill, Alfred the Great, or King Arthur.  The point is that filmmakers today lack the talent to create an original secret agent who could get the kind of audience that the name James Bond attracts.

As described by Ian Fleming, Bond looked like Hoagy Carmichael, an American composer and actor.  He also had a scar on his cheek, which has been ignored in the movies.  He was not a woman.  He was not black.  If you want to make a James Bond who is not a white male, create your own damned character!  Eidos wanted to have a female Indiana Jones and rocked it with Lara Croft.  Do that.  Make the female version of Bond, but don't have some actress deliver the line, "Bond, James Bond."  At least the Ghostbusters reboot had the decency to have different characters, not a female Venkman, Stantz, Spengler, and Zeddemore.  Make a movie about 006 or 008 but leave 007 alone.

 

If this travesty does come to pass, I want to start seeing videos of Top 10 Actors Who Could Play Lara Croft, Modesty Blaze, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  Or how about Nancy Drew, Katniss Everdeen, or Pippi Longstocking?  Of course, I find all of those suggestions equally ludicrous.

Free Speech on Your Own Time

Colin Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, has been in the news lately for sitting or kneeling during the national anthem.  Those who want to defend him say that he is merely exercising his right to free speech.  Not exactly.  The 49ers hired him to throw a football and help win games, not make political statements.  If he wants to make a political statement, he should do it on his time.  Freedom of speech gives me the opportunity to write this blog but my employer would be rightly upset if I was doing so while at work.  Sports is supposed to be an escape from the stresses of daily life, not another platform for political grandstanding.  There is no question that Kaepernick could offer his insights on the ills of America on some talk show or another.  If the NFL is going to deny the Dallas Cowboys the 'free speech' to honor the recently slain Dallas police officers, it is unacceptable that it would not similarly limit Kaepernick.  Well, unless the NFL has a bias.  Does it?