So was Mitt right about building up our Navy?

Gee, maybe Mitt Romney should have been elected president back in 2012. Wasn’t he pushing for building more Navy ships?

Why are we just now waking up to find China has the world’s largest Navy?

According to a story I just read in the New York Times (in the middle of the night where I am; I could not sleep):

—

Last year, the Chinese Navy became the world’s largest, with more warships and submarines than the United States, and it continues to build new ships at a stunning rate. Though the American fleet remains superior qualitatively, it is spread much thinner.

—

And I am not sure I completely understand that paragraph. So supposedly China has more ships but not the quality and maybe capability of our Navy?

The story goes on to say that expert observers say that China is focusing on controlling the South China Sea (and all the waters that touch its shores) and that in that regard it is doubtful the U.S. Navy could prevail there.

I of course need to read more than one story in the middle of the night to get a grip on all this, but it is certainly coming to me in the middle of the night. And I get the impression it may be just dawning on some in Washington that it’s a new day in the Far East.

While we fight our ongoing culture war here at home, a new power is arising. The emerging power of course is China, both militarily and in world trade.

(I can’t say President Trump is not taking on China in trade. He is and the jury is out on how that will go.)

I for one think that we, the U.S., should strive to have good relations with all nations of the world to the extent we can but we should at the same time retain our strength. We will be sorry if we don’t.

Poor Mitt, no one listened to him about the need for ships. He also maintained that Russia was still a dangerous adversary as it was during the Cold War and was ridiculed for it.

It does not help that we are losing our leadership edge around the globe with a president who needlessly hurls insults at the world.

We’d be a lot stronger if we retained friends and respect around the globe.

We need cordiality from the White House backed up by military might, that old Teddy Roosevelt speak softly but carry a big stick approach.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Back in 1960 opposing politicians could face each other in a civil manner…

Sometimes I go back in time and revisit the world of politics as it was during my formative years, that is during the time I began to notice politics and get acquainted with the characters.

Last evening I watched part of what I think was the first of four presidential candidate debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon (the first-ever presidential debates on TV).

The striking thing in these days’ terms is how much they seemed to agree with each other and how they both were extremely civil to one another, and yet were able to critique each other’s specific policy differences.

At the time both Nixon and Kennedy favored the federal government’s role in serving as a safety net or in some type of economic support role for the populace. However it seemed that Kennedy the Democrat favored a more intensive role, while Nixon the Republican not as much — he was more for the free market being the big decider.

Kennedy handled a question about subsidizing farmers when small business did not get the same support. His answer was that farmers did not have a lot of leeway because they tended to follow the same cycle with their crops coming to market at the same time and for the most part had little to no control over the price their buyers offered.

Nixon suggested that the subsidies were the government’s doing when it was promoting full production in World War II but that the subsidies ought to be gradually removed and the free market take over.

(And the foregoing is of course my paraphrase or summary or generalization of what they said on the topic.)

And wouldn’t you know it? There was a kind of gotcha or I might say unfair question to Nixon from one member of the press. He asked Nixon to explain the fact that while he, Nixon, campaigned on the fact that he had experience (he was the vice president), President Eisenhower when confronted with the question of what important suggestions by Nixon had been made policy famously (or infamously) responded: “If you give me a week, I might think of one”.

I thought Nixon deftly handled that embarrassing question. He said something to the effect that it would not be proper for a president to relay what his advisors told him or to expect him to do so. When a decision is made it has to be the president’s alone, even though it may be made after counsel with his various cabinet members and advisors.

Both men comported themselves in a dignified way.

I’m pretty sure that if one of them had resorted to childish name calling he would have lost by a landslide.

My how the world has changed.

p.s.

I mentioned that the two seemed to have agreed with each other on most issues, with their differences being primarily in degree, but I think even if they had polar opposite views they would have conducted themselves in the same manner. They were men of their times.

 

 

 

 

The death of John McCain marks another loss in our honorable class…

I won’t say I liked John McCain’s politics. I mean sometimes yes, sometimes no. But what I will say is I liked the image of such a man and would have preferred to see such an image in the White House over the disgrace we have now.

I just read that Mr. McCain, U.S. senator from Arizona, has died at the age of 81.

And I hope that does not somehow sully the memory of the name of who many have called a war hero by making such a comparison at a time like this when maybe it is just more appropriate to say something nice and respectful about someone rather than to use the opportunity to take a swipe at someone else. But that is how I feel.

Mr. McCain was a Republican and of course he wanted Republicans to win and he wanted to win and become president. But when he was campaigning as the nominee for his party years ago now he did not stoop so low as to let a bigoted and false remark from a misguided woman go. She claimed Barack Obama was an Arab, and not that such would be so terrible (it was in the context of the time), but there was obviously just no truth to it. Our current president would have let such bigotry fly to put the crowd of his blind followers into a frenzy. Instead Mr. McCain politely corrected the woman. Of course he also lost the election. To him being accurate was more important. He was a man of honor.

We have lost one of a dying breed. A citizen who served in uniform, faced enemy fire (he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for several years), came back home, and served his nation in elective office.

He was generally considered conservative in politics but did not always follow lockstep. He was known as a maverick. From what I could gather he was more interested in doing what he thought was right for the people than the party or even himself.

(An example, already dying of cancer, he made it back to the senate to cast the deciding vote to save Obamacare, much to the chagrin of Republicans who wanted to kill the healthcare plan while offering no alternative themselves, despite several years in power that would have allowed them to do so.)

I recall back many years ago he joked about bombing Iran, singing “bomb, bomb, Iran ” (to the tune of the rock n roll tune that goes bah bah Barbara Ann). To me a little too flip when it comes to something so serious.

But you know, had he become president I imagine he would have toned that kind of thing down and made sober decisions, knowing first hand what it means to commit Americans to war or put them in harm’s way in military actions.

We’ve had a few presidents in relatively recent history who didn’t have that background but issued such orders. The office of the presidency is of course not a military one and there is no requirement that the president have military experience.

What I really am trying to say is that we have lost one of those rare breed that went into politics for service to country rather than themselves or perhaps their class of rich or elite.

Again, perhaps it was not appropriate to go on about that at this time. But that was my immediate reaction to the news that Mr. McCain has died.

He was not perfect but in total he was honorable. That class is dying out.

God rest his soul.

p.s.

I made an error in my original post. The woman called Obama an Arab not a Muslim. But that made me look up a video of the incident, and it was worse than I thought. The video shows clearly that in politics the people — at least people of a certain nature — have little use for honorable men — they booed McCain when he tried to assure them that his opponent was a good man, that he just thought he, himself was the better candidate. That video:

I finally get a smartphone, why? why ask why?

What? Maybe a decade after everyone else? I finally broke down and bought a smartphone. I’ve been using a flip phone all this time and had been quite happy with it. It seemed quite a marvel after that original bulky cell in the canvas bag that reminded me of an old army field phone.

Heck, I even remember when cell phones were only car phones. My wife switched jobs and went to work for a cell carrier and we got a car phone installed as a perk.

When I was 46 I had to find a new line of work and went into trucking. And can you believe it? We did not use cell phones then. My work as an over-the-road trucker depends upon communication. We used to have to find a phone booth to make check calls morning and night and to get our dispatches and other info. But during the time frame I began in the business cell phones were making their appearance.

I first found the advantage of them when I needed a load on the East Coast to get back to my home in the West Coast. I was team driving then and my partner and I had just unloaded and were ready to call in for a return load. We saw another driver from our company walking across the parking lot.

“He’s going to get a dispatch before us” was the reaction of both of us (and there might not be any other loads that day).

But I had a cell phone (thanks to my wife).

“Watch this”, I said.

I called in and got the load. And my recollection is there were no other loads that day. It’s dog eat dog out there folks.

It was not so long after that when cell phones took over and you couldn’t find a phone booth or a working one if your life depended upon it.

All that was like two decades ago. What I have a hard time wrapping my mind around is what we did when we broke down, flat tire or mechanical troubles. Old-time truckers know. They changed their own tires — an inside dual being problematic. They helped each other. They used the CB radio (I quit using that years ago, as did so many others– mostly profanity and idiots on it — but too bad because instant como between truckers on the road can be helpful).

But did I really need the smartphone? That is a question I have the day after. I’m on a hiatus from work right now. Good thing. I need time to figure the thing out. I made my first outbound call successfully but the first time I got an incoming, would you believe it? I could not answer it.

I got two brochures with it. One was a supposed set of directions. Pretty sparse, to say the least. I found, however, that a lot of the directions are on the internet (which besides my phone, I can of course access on my laptop and my tablet — yeah I have those too).

If they didn’t live so far away I could just ask my grandkids.

The second brochure seemed to be about health risks. It was really thick. I ignored it (I mean I pushed it to the back of my ever-eroding mind).

Probably Democrat-communist-climatechange freak propaganda. I WAS JUST BEING SARCASTIC THERE.

And like I alluded to up front, I am still asking myself why? Why did I need a smartphone?

I could list several reasons and I think they are legitimate. But that little flip phone was such a friend and so simple and so convenient and unobtrusive but there when I needed it. And what did I need it for? To make calls.

I have a laptop and a tablet to do the rest and am quite comfortable with them, even if I do often carry around what I call my “electronic backpack” with them and all the different charge cords and plug-in adapters (like they couldn’t just make it all universal?).

However, in this modern world I have run into some limitations with my flip phone. People now always want to send me apps to make it easier to do various things. Sometimes it almost seems a requirement. I could not make use of most of that with my flip phone. Also, of course, the smartphone combines a lot of functions so one does not have to carry around a laptop and/or tablet, and even camera everywhere.

(I do like to use a real camera, though, to record parts of my vacation. Cell phone cameras are top of the line now but still you can’t get it all with them as opposed to the actual thing that is just a camera.)

And now there are Uber and Lyft, and other ride-hailing services. Have not used them yet but you need a smartphone for that.

A widower for many years now, I don’t have much of a social life. But please don’t ever let me be sitting at a restaurant with a friend or friends and be looking at my cell  phone as opposed to enjoying their company.

So many people have written about this but I think seeing a man and woman or even a whole family sitting at a restaurant table all staring at the phones is the saddest and most depressing sight to see.

On a lighter note: I’m going to Spain again soon. I am no expert on their culture but I can tell you this: yes, they have cell phones, and you might witness a scene as I mentioned above — but that is not what I ever noticed there. I mean, yes, on the street they are just like here, especially in a big city, such as Madrid. But in a restaurant they talk to each other — and talk, sometimes for hours. They like the personal human contact.

What a concept.

Well I have to get back to learning my new smartphone: let’s see to answer a call there are many options (don’t answer), one is to swipe the screen from left to right…

 

 

If my guy does it, it’s a minor breach, if your guy does it, it’s a crime…

There is or has been hypocrisy among many Democrats on sex scandals true. I mean what is the difference between Bill Clinton’s escapades with an intern and his lewd behavior with others and Donald Trump’s grabbing and his consorting with prostitutes or shady women?

But I question the equivalence some Trump diehards express when Trump is accused of crime. Trump may have directed his then attorney, Michael Cohen, to break the law concerning campaign donations or at least cover up somehow his hush money to at least two who I refer to as prostitutes. His faithful seem to think it is no worse and maybe less of a crime than Hillary Clinton using her own personal computer server for government business. “Lock her up”, they chant. Really? For what? First of all I think she is probably like me and near clueless on the technical details of how computers work. Sure, she can operate one, we all can, but that does not mean we know the technology inside and out. And from what I have read she did not clearly break any law, policy perhaps, and others, including Republicans, including one of her predecessors as Secretary of State, Colin Powell, bypassed official channels in favor of personal equipment. Now in the process had she shared high-level state secrets, well that might be a different story. No evidence on that. The government likes to stamp everything secret — probably even lunch menus. And no evidence of intent anyway.

But that is what the Trump faithful fall back upon:

I grabbed this quote from one of them from the San Diego Union Tribune. A man said he would continue to support the Republican local congressman who along with his wife had just been indicted (not convicted) for using thousands of dollars of campaign funds for personal expenses to support their way-beyond-their-means-lifestyle.

“It seems if you’re a Republican, with the current Department of Justice, and you should get an IRS audit, you instead get federal court,” he said. “But if you’re a Democrat with a secret server in your basement, that seems to be OK. We see a double standard.”

Okay, yes, I will admit that some bias is probably there in the bureaucracy in what they choose to prosecute — but don’t do the crime and you don’t face the time.

The guilt is with both major political parties.

The rats continue to infest the swamp, not clean it.

p.s.

That congressman and his wife:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/22/politics/duncan-hunter-indicted/index.html

 

 

 

 

If it’s all a witch hunt as Trump proclaims, maybe some witches needed to be hunted…

If the Russia investigation that has morphed into an investigation of the sewer rats in the current administration really is a “witch hunt” as President Trump proclaims loudly and often then maybe some witches needed to be hunted.

I certainly don’t know if there is any direct connection between Trump and/or his administration or his presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to subvert democracy in the U.S. , but there seems to be plenty of evidence there was some nefarious dealings — some perhaps dealing with the electing of a president and some dealing with making money out of the whole situation or actually both at the same time.

I even have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept that paying off a whore or whores is some kind of campaign donation — that is for the courts to decide I suppose. What it all is though is tawdry, low and unethical, and should be below the dignity of our government and political system (but unfortunately is not). You cavort around with whores and then try to hide the fact, not so much that you are ashamed, but that you don’t want to make the good people of society, and the holier-than-thou (albeit hypocritical) religious right have a reason that they cannot ignore it all and support you (not to mention have your wife take you to the cleaners). As long as you can say it is all lies, then all potential supporters have cover.

---

And for the record here, let’s recap some of the events:

—  On Tuesday (Aug. 21, 2018), Michael Cohen, former lawyer and “fixer” for Trump, pleaded guilty to tax evasion and (Trump) campaign finance violations and accused Trump of directing him to break the law.

—  Also on that day, Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign manager, was convicted of financial fraud and has been charged with being an unregistered foreign agent.

—  On Feb. 3 of this year Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign adviser, pleaded guilty to financial fraud and lying to the FBI.

—  On Dec. 1 of 2017, Michael Flynn, former Trump national security adviser, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations with the Russian ambassador.

There are several others charged and some have pleaded guilty, but you get the picture.

(While this list is all public record and has been reported by various media, giving credit where credit is due, I got this partial list from the New York Times and quoted or paraphrased it, the list that is, not my own comments, that make up this post except for this little block, which are mine and mine alone.)

---

It’s been said so much now: ironically although Trump vowed to clean up the sewer that is our government and political system, he and many of his cohorts in his administration are the biggest sewer rats of them all. Why the ones who are not remain I have no idea. They must not be thinking long-term.

The grounds for impeachment are clearly present. But even if the Democrats take back the House and are able to impeach, the experts predict he could not be convicted in the Senate, which I guess is thought to likely remain in Republican hands.

Of course Republicans in large numbers could start to move away from their Trump support — well theoretically. But power, however tainted, is hard to give up.

All I can say to those who cling to Trump, whether from sincere loyalty and belief in his cause (whatever that may be) or from a sense of self-preservation — at long last, have you no shame?

It might well be better for the Democrats for Trump to remain in office. Might make a better platform for 2020.

I for one wished the national nightmare of Trump was over.

But how it all comes to an end is in question. At one time — silly me — I thought vice president Pence taking over would be preferable. But he now seems rather creepy to me. But it may be more of his narrow-minded hard right view on politics. I have not read of any real corruption on his part (but I don’t know).

To my mind, the country needs a middle-of-the-roader. I almost miss those days when the late George Wallace once proclaimed: there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, or something like that.

But moderate or middle of the road seems too dull and hopeless for a populace addicted to instant gratification or at least the idea of it.

And too, moderation sometimes amounts to go along to get along and don’t rock the boat — politicians get into office and become comfortable with what they have and the people be damned.

And I still cling to the notion that we would be better off with part-time elected officials who worked for stipends and held office out of a sense of patriotic duty.

Early on in our democracy many realized that control of the public purse was a way to riches. This attracted corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and whores — talk about a ménage à trois or an illicit threesome in bed with each other.

 

 

Americans appear willing to put up with corruption if the economy is good…

The fact that such a corrupt and malevolent and ill-prepared president is still in office — Donald Trump — is often blamed on that stubborn contingent of loyal, and blind, Trump supporters, and I would add other Republicans who just want to hold on to the power of the White House at any cost.

BUT, I think it is more that Trump got into office because of the antipathy, or weariness toward or about Hillary Clinton among Democrats and others, and still others who just wanted to gamble and see how things might work out not having conventional leadership.

And I heard one political science professor this morning opine that it was not the relatively small but loyal Trump following but a lot of other people who would not openly support him but don’t want to rock the boat what with good economic times and low unemployment.

So maybe just because his former lawyer today made a plea deal in federal court concerning bank and tax fraud and illegal campaign finance charges under the condition that he rat on Trump (my read on it, I explain at bottom), and just because one of his former campaign managers was convicted today on 8 of 18 counts of bank and tax fraud, does not mean the world is falling down around Trump — although it might be.

(I originally inadvertently typed 8 out of 10 instead of the correct 8 out of 18).

Meanwhile, wife Melania, some say, is trolling him, by going on a crusade against cyber bullying when she and all of us know that the president is the cyber bully in-chief with all of his wild and inflammatory tweets with all their mendacity.

I’ll just sum this up by saying I think it will take some major downturn in the economy or some other event — but economics is the key — people will turn a blind eye to a lot of things if they feel good about the economy — to turn the mood of the public and in turn the legislative branch of the government to move toward removal of Trump.

And these legal developments are old hat in politics where power and money corrupt.

Remember — if you’re old enough — the Jimmy Carter administration where the pious former Sunday school teacher Carter had a fella named Bert Lance in his cabinet. As I understand it, Lance never was convicted but all kinds of bank shenanigans back in Georgia were attributed to him.

Bill Clinton used his White House office as his private bordello, and ordered missile launches and air strikes overseas, some say in a wag-the-dog attempt to defect attention away from his own scandals.

Don’t blame the Russians for Trump. Blame all of those who voted for him and all of those who failed to vote against him. And the Electoral College system too.

And I should add: poor Hillary’s bad luck. I mean she was a shoo-in two times for the presidency, but the first time around came the first black man to attain enough support to be a contender (and who finally won of course) and then a bankruptcy prone real-estate charlatan who announced his candidacy on a lark and some say astonished not only a nation but himself by winning.

He won and law-abiding and moral and reasonable people lost.

We’ll get through it. I think…

---

P.S.

I wrote that Trump’s former lawyer (referring to Michael Cohen) made a plea deal involving ratting on Trump — maybe that is not precise. The New York Times and others report that ratting on Trump was not part of the deal. But if you read the stories you see he did and no doubt this will help him get a lesser sentence, I think. So it is at least an implied agreement.