A Yankee at Large
Veteran newsman/traveler/writer Dan Newland comments from a maverick's viewpoint on global affairs, people and places, and on political and social issues affecting North America, South America and the world.
Saturday, January 11, 2025
Thursday, January 9, 2025
WHAT JIMMY CARTER MEANS TO ME
Today we said farewell to Jimmy Carter, perhaps the most underrated president, statesman and diplomat in the history of the United States. The former president died on December 29th, at the age of one hundred, prior to which, he was the oldest living president in US history. His state funeral services were held today in Washington, although his mortal remains will now be returned to his hometown of Plains, Georgia, for burial there.
Even in dying, President Carter demonstrated
his stubborn will and resilience. Lucid to the last, he had said he would live
long enough to vote for Kamala Harris for president, and did. I can’t help but
wonder if , given Vice President Harris’s loss, he didn’t also promise himself
to give up the ghost before Donald Trump took office again.
No matter how anyone views the
thirty-ninth president’s single term in office, no one, even more or less in
his or her right mind, can be dismissive of the superior moral, ethical and
humanitarian standards that marked President Carter’s long and accomplished life
and service. Not even President-elect Trump, who always seems ready and able to
say something derogatory about some of America’s most admirable people. In the
case of Jimmy Carter, Trump surprisingly wrote: “Those of us who have been
fortunate to have served as President understand this is a very exclusive club,
and only we can relate to the enormous responsibility of leading the Greatest
Nation in History… The challenges Jimmy faced as President came at a pivotal
time for our country and he did everything in his power to improve the lives of
all Americans. For that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude.”
Of course, that hasn’t kept the
president-elect from expressing his fury that, thanks to the timing of
President Carter’s death, the flag will be at half-staff during the Trump inauguration
on January 20th. (I’m imagining Jimmy’s genuine, toothy grin and a cosmic
onery wink to his most ardent fans as I write this). Perhaps that was something
that crossed Trump’s mind when he decided, after ranting insanely about
annexing Canada, buying Greenland and renaming the Gulf of Mexico, to also
include “taking back the Panama Canal”, and not ruling out using military force
to do so. It’s worth recalling that a major achievement of the Carter
Administration was to sign accords with Panama to end US imperialism in the
country’s Canal Zone, and to thus return full and effective sovereignty to that
Central American nation, while ensuring unrestricted international use of that vital
sea link between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
While historic, however, that was not the
highest achievement of his brief presidency.
The greatest of his presidential accomplishments was his astute and
persistent brokering of peace between Israel and Egypt, leading to the signing
of the so-called Camp David Accords of September 1978. Prior to that time, the
two countries had fought each other in four wars—the Arab-Israeli War of
1948-49, following which the State of Israel was founded, the Suez crisis of
1956, the Six-Day War of 1967, and the Yom Kippur War of 1973—while, in the
meantime, barely maintaining a fragile suspension of hostilities.
An ever-stubbornly determined Carter’s
peace efforts culminated in a summit between the Egyptian president, Field
Marshall Anwar Sadat, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the Camp
David Presidential Retreat. President Carter’s relentless diplomacy and
vocation for peace led all three men to remain at Camp David for nearly two
weeks straight until an agreement acceptable to both parties in dispute could
be hammered out and signed. The agreement ended more than three decades of hostility
between the two nations, with Carter negotiating a major commitment from Begin
for the return to Egyptian control over territory that Israel had illegally
seized on the Sinai Peninsula.
The peace treaty that resulted from the
Camp David talks and accords remains in effect and without violation to this
day, nearly a half-century later, maintaining a sound peace between those two
Middle East neighbors. This, despite the fact that Sadat literally gave his
life for that peace. On October 6, 1981, he was assassinated by extremist members
of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, who had long opposed the bilateral peace pact.
But his murder appears only to have fortified the resolve of both countries to
keep the agreement for which President Carter had served as peacemaker.
The following year, President Carter sat down
in Vienna with Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev to negotiate a Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty, better known as SALT II. Despite Brezhnev’s reputation as a
hardliner, and largely thanks to President Carter’s diplomacy and understanding
of positive compromise, an agreement was reached and an accord signed by the
two men.
It was as that major agreement was being delivered
to the US Senate for ratification, however, that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. True to his
staunch commitment to world peace and non-aggression, Carter withdrew the
treaty from congressional consideration. But despite that ethical stance
against Soviet expansionism, President Carter kept the lines of communication open
between the White House and the Kremlin, and managed to broker an informal commitment
for the superpowers to abide by the terms of SALT II.
In later life, Carter would express
frustration that he had not had a second term in which to continue his work
toward a lasting Middle East peace, by seeking a similar agreement to the Camp
David Accords—in the form of a two-state solution—between Israel and Gaza-West
Bank Palestinians. In this regard, in 2006, he authored a controversial book
entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, in which he argued that Israel's
continued control over and building of settlements on land rightfully belonging
to the Palestinians have created the primary obstacles to a comprehensive
Middle East peace agreement.
Based on what he posits in that book, the late
president has been quoted as saying: “The book has nothing to do with what's
going on inside Israel, which is a wonderful democracy, you know, where
everyone has guaranteed equal rights and where, under the law, Arabs and Jews
who are Israelis have the same privileges… That's been most of the controversy
(about his book) because people assume it's about Israel. It's not.”
President Carter apparently saw Gaza the way
many other clear-minded observers have. That is, basically, as an open-air
prison, not unlike the so-called “townships” of South Africa before the
dismantling of Apartheid, which was a repressive means of maintaining
segregation between Native Africans and their European rulers.
He made it clear, however, that in the
case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the separation policy isn’t about
race, but about territory. In Carter’s own words: “I've never alleged that the
framework of apartheid existed within Israel at all, (but) that what does exist
in the West Bank is based on trying to take Palestinian land, and not on
racism. So it was a very clear distinction.”
He went on to clarify, “When Israel does
occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the two hundred-or-so
settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians
from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates
even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in
South Africa.”
A series of international developments
largely beyond his control had consequences at home that whittled away at the
initial popularity of the Carter Administration. Adversaries were quick to
claim that Presidency Carter’s “weakness” as a leader was solely to blame and
managed to so undermine his popularity that he lost his bid for a second term
to Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980 and left office in January of 1981. Far
from considering that the end of his career serving his country, however, many
of his truly greatest diplomatic and humanitarian achievements were yet to come.
Less than a year after he left office,
President Carter, along with his wife Rosalynn, partnered with Emory University
to found the Carter Center, located just minutes from downtown Atlanta. The NGO’s
mission statement is to “advance human rights and alleviate human suffering”
worldwide. The center, whose board is made up of business leaders, educators, former government
officials, and philanthropists, is currently managing projects in eighty
countries, and its activities include election-monitoring, democratic
institution-building, conflict mediation, and human rights advocacy. The
Carter Center has also taken the lead in projects to treat long-neglected
tropical diseases including onchocerciasis (a parasitic illness sometimes
called “river blindness”) trachoma (a granular conjunctivitis that causes
blindness), lymphatic filariasis (better known as elephantiasis), malaria, and
dracunculiasis (parasitic Guinea worm disease).
The Carter Center’s work on such a wide
variety of humanitarian endeavors has been so effective that Jimmy Carter was awarded
the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee granted President Carter the
award for working through the Carter Center “to find peaceful solutions to international
conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and
social development.”
But in closing this tribute to a truly
great American patriot, humanitarian and world statesman, I’ll take a moment to
express what Jimmy Carter means to me personally.
I had the privilege of working with
award-winning international journalist Robert Cox at the Buenos Aires Herald
during the dark days of the military dictatorship commonly known as “el
Proceso”, that ruled Argentina with an iron fist from 1976 to 1983. In
fact, it was Bob Cox who provided me with my first opportunity to work as a
professional journalist, and he too who was not only my boss and friend, but
also my mentor in those crucial early years.
Although others of us would follow in his
footsteps—after the Proceso drove him and his family into US exile
in 1979—by continuing to bear the standard of democracy and human rights that
he had raised, it was clearly Bob Cox, and Bob alone, who established our paper’s
reputation as a bulwark of freedom and rule of law, and as a small but courageous
voice against the gross abuse and state terror perpetrated by the regime.
That said, I can’t help but wonder what
would have happened to us in that little English-language paper had Ronald
Reagan preceded Jimmy Carter as US president instead of the other way around. We’ll
never know, of course, but I suspect that, had that been the case, the Herald
might well not have survived the regime—and perhaps neither Cox nor James
Neilson and I, as the main editorialists
who succeeded him, would today be celebrating a brand new year at ages
ninety-one, eighty-four and seventy-five, respectively.
Indeed, those were dangerous times. Some
one hundred journalists and writers who dared investigate, who dared dissent,
were murdered or “disappeared”, along with tens of thousands of other people
caught in the gnashing teeth of the Proceso, never to be heard from
again. While it is true that the Herald was, for all intents and
purposes, a lone voice in the local press, recording and reporting what was going
on in real time, it is also true that, during the worst years of the regime, we
had a friend in Jimmy Carter.
After decades of US policy that took a
hands-off approach to “friendly dictators”, President Carter imposed a foreign
policy whose key tenet was the protection of human rights through diplomacy.
The dichotomy of US foreign policy up to then had always been that while
Washington preached democracy, rule of law and the Bill of Rights as basic
inalienable human and civil rights at home, it applied a double standard
elsewhere. It was tantamount to saying that Americans were just a little more
human than the people who had to live under the heels of dictators’ boots in
rightwing regimes that posed as front men for the US in its war on communism.
Never, in modern times, had a US president
emphasized as much as Jimmy Carter did the idea that US foreign policy should
reflect the highest human ideals of the United States and Western democracy.
And to make sure that his policies actually were implemented at a consular
level, Carter’s State Department instituted what was basically a human rights
section at the American Embassy in Buenos Aires, capably headed up by career
diplomat Franklyn Allen “Tex” Harris.
Tex and Cox worked closely together during
Tex’s tenure (1977-1979). It was a job Harris took seriously and one in which
he went above and beyond the call of duty to fulfil. The regime was not only
uncooperative, but often also obstructive. Still, Tex managed to save lives,
using the power and contacts with which
his post provided him to track many of the same cases of “disappearance”
as the Herald, and, as often as possible, trying to find out where
victims were being held without charge and pressuring for their release. As
such, he had a major influence on the Carter Administration’s foreign policy in
Argentina.
But Jimmy Carter’s human rights measures
didn’t end there. He also named staunch human rights activist Patricia Murphy
Derian to be his Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Affairs. As such, she immediately took
on the authoritarian regimes in places like Chile, Paraguay and Argentina, as
well as in apartheid-era South Africa and elsewhere. President Carter’s focus
in those years on cleaning up the human rights situation in Latin America and
putting these countries on the road to democracy was clearly a question of
starting in his own backyard and turning the Americas into a showcase for basic,
traditional American ideals.
Assistant Secretary Derian proved a
tenacious defender of that policy and of human rights in general. In the case
of Argentina, she openly accused the regime of crimes against humanity and became
instrumental in setting up an inspection mission that the Inter-American Human
Rights Commission (IHRC) carried out in Argentina under authority from the
Organization of American States (OAS) in 1979. It was also in September of that
year that she helped secure the release of Jacobo Timerman, former owner and
publisher of the center-left newspaper, La Opinión, who had been
imprisoned and tortured after being falsely accused of helping launder left-wing
terrorist extortion money.
Through Cox’s numerous editorials and
articles published in the news sections of the newspaper, the Herald had
already mounted a two-and-a-half-year local and international campaign for
Timerman’s release. But Patricia Derian’s
campaign for Timerman’s freedom
helped catapult his case to the forefront of international interest and put
such intense pressure on the Argentine military that they finally had to let
him go. Assistant Secretary Derian’s actions so infuriated the Argentine
military that they internally declared her their Public Enemy Number One and
are even reported to have entertained plans to have her killed. (Not
surprising, since this was how they had been handling the opposition of every
color up to then, and they were obviously arrogant enough to think they could
get away with it).
With Ms. Derian leading the action,
President Carter slapped sanctions on Argentina for failing to heed his demands
that human rights be respected, alienating the leaders of the Proceso,
but at the same time drawing ever-increasing international media attention to
what was going on, and making it impossible for the military to operate with
the same blanket impunity that they had early on after the coup. Suddenly, the Proceso
was high-profile and its image was abysmal.
In Argentina, Assistant Secretary Derian
would have to wait nearly three decades to receive the recognition she deserved
for hobbling the dictatorship and very likely saving thousands more lives that
would otherwise have been taken, but finally, in 2006, she was awarded the
Order of the Liberator General San Martín, with the rank of Officer–the highest
decoration granted by the Argentine government to foreign officials.
Following Ronald Reagan’s election win
over President Carter, things turned dangerous again. Reagan’s old-time “anti-red”
approach to foreign policy prompted him to almost immediately send his foreign
policy architect, Jeane Kirkpatrick, to let the Proceso leaders know
that the Jimmy Carter era was stone cold dead, and that from now on they would
no longer have to fret about pesky human rights investigators out of
Washington.
Dr. Kirkpatrick was a fervent
anti-communist and the author of what came to be known as the “Kirkpatrick
Doctrine”, one of the main principles of which was the exact opposite of the
Carter policy of pinning US support to democratic government and, above all,
respect for human rights.
The Kirkpatrick policy advocated
Washington’s support for just about any kind of government, including harsh far-right
dictatorships, with the only prerequisite for membership in the Reagan
Administration’s group of ‘friends’ being hardline opposition to all things
leftist. The Proceso was, obviously, a shoo-in. It had been so tough on
reds that it had wiped out every opponent that ever even dared to blush. And
the Proceso was more than willing to lend support to Reagan’s far-right Contra
guerrillas in Central America.
My own theory about how the Falklands War
between Argentina and Britain in 1982 took shape lays ample blame at the door
of the Reagan Administration for coddling the Proceso, prompting its leaders, erroneously, to believe
that Washington would back Argentina’s long-standing claim to the
Falkland-Malvinas Islands over that of Britain.
Had Jimmy Carter won a second term, I couldn’t be more sure that it was
a war that would have been avoided, and that the regime would have fallen even
earlier.
As such, President Carter will always hold a special place in my heart and mind. He represented everything that the United States should be, everything that the US should promote and defend.
May he rest in peace.
Monday, January 6, 2025
JANUARY SIXTH – A CRITICAL CHAPTER IN US HISTORY
January 6, 2025 - election certification |
No, I don’t mean the day that Congress
certifies yet another in our long history of democratic elections. That, though
fundamental to America’s democratic process, is a mere formality. Always has been…Except
for once.
No, no, I’m not talking about what was
once the mere formality of a peaceful transfer of power. I’m talking about the
time that it wasn’t.
Today, then, is the fourth anniversary of
the January Sixth Insurrection. That’s how it needs to go down in the
history books. Although, it could also very fairly be dubbed The January
Sixth Trump Sedition. I mean, when some historian with excellent research
skills writes about it many years from now, and recalls it as the point when
American democracy began to unravel.
The entrance to the Capitol, January 6, 2025 |
The president—I’m talking about President
Biden; he is still the president even though he seems to be allowing the
president-elect to suck up all the oxygen in the room—has mentioned how we
should never forget the day that Trump and his crew tried to overturn a free
and fair election “and democracy prevailed.” The thing is, it didn’t. Nor did
the criminal justice system. Nor, then, did the rule of law.
Granted, today Democrats followed the
rules, upheld America’s constitutional tradition, adhered to democracy. They didn’t
stir up trouble, call up swing-state colleagues and pressure them to “find votes” that didn’t exist. They didn’t attack Congress, doing millions of dollars in
damage and hounding legislators in those sacred halls, threatening to harm or
kill them. They didn’t call for their own vice president to be hanged or gang
up in a violent mob on overwhelmed Capitol Police with bear spray, fists and clubs,
killing one of them and sending one hundred forty others to the hospital, some
with very serious injuries. Nor did they bitch and rant that the umpire was
blind or that the game was fixed.
Democrats play the game with every ounce
of energy they’ve got, and if they lose, they quietly go home, figuring they’ve
been licked fair and square. That’s because modern-day Democrats are what their
name implies: democrats. They live, advocate and uphold democracy and the
rights of the people. They don’t simply use democracy as a meaningless
buzzword.
Capitol entrance, January 6, 2021 |
So how do I explain the dissonance between that depiction of the soon-to-be-ruling party and the unquestionably democratic process that took place today? Attempting, as I always do, to be, in every way, an independent and objective voice, objectivity dictates my bias in favor of anything but MAGA when it comes to democracy, fair play, and the rule of law. And today, democracy, in a certain sense, became its own victimizer, since it was Vice President Kamala Harris’s sad democratic and constitutional duty to certify an election whose winner will, indubitably, undermine the very democracy that, incredibly, returned him to power for a second time.
The scene inside the Capitol on January 6, 2021. |
So MAGA did what banana republicans
do—denied they’d lost—denied the truth, in other words—even though they knew
they had, and backed their authoritarian leader in mounting a protest that
turned into a riot, that turned into a full-blown insurrection, for the purpose
of preventing that election from being certified, as if halting certification
made it any less true that their candidate lost by an unquestionably large
margin. In the process, they violated one of the most sacred and fundamental
traditions of American democracy, the peaceful transfer of power.
That is huge. That is historic. And it
should be marked every single year as the historical enormity that it is.
But compare, if you will, what happened
today, on this particular January sixth, a quiet, snowy winter’s day, when the
certification process, headed up by Vice President Harris, and thanks to the ungrudgingly
democratic spirit of her party, came off without a hitch and Donald Trump’s
second term as president was formally certified, unquestioned by any member of Trump’s
opposition. Democrats simply did what was right, what constitutional law and
American tradition expected of them.
But it is unlikely that this will be
appreciated by any supporter of a man who considers even America’s heroes to be
“suckers and losers” for keeping their oath to support and defend the Constitution
and the country with their very lives, if necessary. Donald Trump’s reaction to
that sort of display of patriotic loyalty, while standing on the consecrated
ground of Arlington National Cemetery? "I don't get it. What was in it for
them?"
That brings me to why I say that,
historically speaking, the January Sixth Insurrection should be recalled as the
day when American democracy began to unravel, not when it prevailed. Because it was, and democracy is indeed unravelling.
There is simply no way that the US should
be on the verge of inaugurating yet another Trump presidency. I’m not
questioning the election figures. I don’t doubt that the election process was
as free and fair as it was in 2020. (Let the delusional MAGA crowd still
claiming that Biden didn’t win in 2020 take that as they will). I may be
utterly baffled by, but do not question the choice made by American voters
between the two candidates.
I do, however, question the democratic
logic behind the Republican Party’s having chosen Trump as their 2024 presidential
candidate. Thanks to the GOP’s leaders, we are about to re-inaugurate a felon,
an insurrectionist, a man with as much respect for the rule of law and for the
Constitution as for a roll of toilet paper.
But that’s not the only reason I believe
that American democracy is unraveling. It is also unraveling because justice,
in the case of Donald Trump, has not been served. Trump has been inadvertently enthroned
as the prime example of what has until now been a general perception, and that,
thanks to Trump, is now an indisputable fact: that “equality before the law” is
a mere myth. The rule of law, the Republican Party and their Trump-laden
Supreme Court have demonstrated, by endorsing the immunity of such a flawed and
openly corrupt man—for a second time—is only for the powerless. If you
are powerful enough, you are above it, and are entitled to a
get-out-of-jail-free card. And if you are a friend of the most powerful people,
you get a pardon, no matter what you’ve done. The probable consequences of that
now open fact have even seeped into the current presidency, prompting Joe Biden
to go against everything he has ever stood for, and to provide a blanket pardon
to his own son for fear of unjust reprisals under a new and ever more lawless Trump
administration.
But the GOP, no matter how MAGA-hijacked
and democratically bereft it has become, is not solely to blame for the
stunning materialization of yet another Trump regime. Blame also rests on the
shoulders of current Attorney General Merrick Garland, who dragged his feet for
a year before ever even entertaining the idea of an investigation of Trump’s
high crimes and misdemeanors, and then slow-walked the process afterward so
that the possibility of prosecution was perceived as “election interference”,
and was rendered, in the end, academic.
As a result, the Justice Department has
suffered a humiliating defeat. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith and the federal
courts have been forced to back down in the face of Trump’s return to the
presidency, which hasn’t erased the serious crimes with which the president-elect
has been charged, but which has rendered his prosecution moot.
Attorney General Garland has suggested
that he might release Prosecutor Smith’s full investigative report to the
public. Personally, I can only shrug and ask, so what? Is that supposed to be a
consolation prize? Will we get to read the report—I mean, unless Trump’s
lawyers are successful in suppressing it—to know “what might have been,” if
only Garland had done a better job at defending democracy and the Constitution?
Because the truth is that if the attorney general had, from the outset, made
keeping a would-be autocrat from ever getting near the Oval Office again, Donald
Trump’s candidacy, rather than the rule of law, would have been the moot point.
Trump would already have been tried, convicted and sentenced before the
election cycle began. He would have been in prison, or, at the very least,
banned from ever holding public office again.
Instead, here we are once more…
The next four years are a puzzle, both
predictable and an enigma. Trump clearly won’t change. A narcissistic
megalomanic can’t change his stripes, so expect more insanely undemocratic and
ally-alienating behavior. Indeed, we’re already hearing the most outrageous of
rants emanating from Mar-a-Lago about “buying Greenland” and about “making
Canada the fifty-first state.” But more serious considerations are inevitable:
Questions like, will Donald Trump seek a way around the two-term rule and go
for a third, perhaps citing FDR’s mandate as a precedent? And if he can’t swing
that, will he again attempt to refuse to leave office at the end of his term and
spark an insurrection to back the perpetuation of his reign? And as his
autocratic bent becomes more problematic, what will the GOP do? Keep embracing
MAGA and kissing Emperor Trump’s ring, or come to its senses and find ways to
limit Trump’s quest for authoritarian power?
At this critical point in American
history, we have little choice but to watch and see.
Saturday, December 21, 2024
TROUBLE IN MAGADISE?
Ah yes, adults in the room. Every
dictator’s nightmare.
After the incoming—but not yet official—Musk-Trump
administration managed twice to tank legislation to avert a Christmas season
government shutdown, there was a frantic flurry of bipartisan activity this
weekend on Capitol Hill in which cooler, or perhaps just more highly determined
heads prevailed, and a bill was passed that will keep the government open and
operating into March of next year.
There is really no urgency to pass a
debt-ceiling measure. Except that Trump wants there to be for questions of his
personal political expediency. The crisis of this past week was an invention of
Elon Musk to keep himself from looking bad in his new role as the supposed
budget-cut czar of the incoming Trump administration.
How so? By using government shutdown as a
bargaining chip to get President Biden’s lame duck administration to approve a
higher debt ceiling before Trump takes office. That way, Musk and Trump could
blame higher spending on their predecessor and provide themselves with a veneer
of fiscal responsibility, while squandering huge sums on more tax cuts for the
wealthy. Bernie Sanders could explain this much more eloquently than I can, but
you get the picture.
The fact is that the extended tax cuts
that Trump has promised his billionaire cohorts, including Musk—Elonius Rex as
budget czar is really like putting the fox in charge of chicken-house
security—will actually add an estimated four trillion dollars to America’s
burgeoning thirty-six-trillion-dollar national debt. That, of course, will come
in addition to the nearly seven trillion dollars that Trump already added to
the deficit during his first four years, from 2016 to 2020, much of which was
also the fault of the veritable tax holiday that he provided then, as well, to
his euphoric fellow billionaires.
But this weekend’s vote to leave the
debt-ceiling discussions on hold until next year and thus to avert a shutdown
tends to show that the “mandate” Trump claims to have been given by American
voters isn’t translating to the Senate. The third vote that finally pushed back
against Musk-Trump bullying reveals resistance to Trump’s dictatorial
bent—after Republicans in Congress caved to him repeatedly in the past as he
sought to keep running the show from Mar-a-Lago once voted out of office.
To be clear, this was, by no means, a
close vote. The Senate passed the eleventh-hour legislation that will avoid a disastrous
government shutdown by a margin of eighty-five to eleven. And the bill—backed by
Speaker Johnson—had already been approved by the House by a margin of three
hundred sixty-six to just thirty-four. That’s basically the entire bi-partisan
population of Congress opposing MAGA on Trump’s attempt to once more savage the
whole country for his own advantage. (Some of us are still sufficiently
un-amnesiac to recall the last government shutdown fostered by Trump and his
congressional cronies, which tanked Wall
Street and laid waste to people’s 401K savings investments—and here I speak
from personal experience during that time).
Apparently, only a fanatical fringe joins
Team Don & Elon in relishing the chaos that a shutdown would breed.
Perhaps the difference this time has been
how Trump’s message reached the Senate GOP. It didn’t come from him. It came
from his (world’s wealthiest) handler, Elonius Rex. And, finally, some folks in
the GOP “grew a pair” and weren’t having it. Maybe some of that party’s number
are finally getting sick of having their party hijacked, not just by Trump, but
by any super-magnate who happens along.
Wishful thinking? Yes, maybe. Probably,
in fact. Once Trump is back in office, they’re apt to all go back to sleep
again. But for now, it has worked.
They’s good reason to believe that Senate
Republicans were shamed into action by a week of their being portrayed by
opposition politicians and the media as
weak-kneed vassals being manipulated by a not-yet-inaugurated president—one
president at a time, please—and his super-billionaire buddy, who holds
absolutely no position in government and who has zero government experience.
Alexander Pope once wrote, “Hope springs
eternal in the human breast.” Dare we hope Republicans will rein in a would-be
dictator and his gazillionaire Rasputin, and manage to keep the wheels on
democracy over the course of the next four years?
I have my doubts. But only time will tell.
Friday, December 20, 2024
ELONIUS REX
All right, here’s an idea for the coming New Year. Why don’t we just get real and inaugurate—perhaps coronate would be a better term—Elon Musk on January 20. Clearly, judging from January 6, 2021, the GOP isn’t partial to election certification anyway, so what the hell? Why not? Voter will be damned.
I mean, the all-male Republican Party “leadership”
has apparently become a sniveling pack of geldlings subordinate to any billionaire
dictator willing to hijack the party and call the shots, so, hey, why not the
richest man in the world while we’re at it, not some paper-tiger billionaire
who got kicked off of the Forbes 400 list in 2023. Okay, in all fairness, if
you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel for billionaires, Trump, hanging by
his tiny fingernails, is back on this year—could it have been the golden
sneakers, the chintzy bibles (I’m assuming specially designed to be read upside
down), or a new surge in MAGA caps that made the difference? Who knows?
But it’s hardly a secret that he’s no
longer in charge. At least not after this week, when Elonius Rex bared his
teeth and tanked a solid bipartisan attempt to avoid a government shutdown—a thoughtful
pre-inauguration gift from Musk-Trump/MAGA to the Nation in the mean-spiritedness
of billionaire Noël. Face it, no quantity of ghosts of Christmas Past, Present or
Future are going to shame these guys into a Dickensian redemption. They’re just
plain mean-for-life.
Anyway, it has become abundantly clear,
even before the latest edition of the Trump Era has officially begun, that
Elonius Rex isn’t the pasty, clownish, foppish, fatuous Trump cheerleader that
he appeared to be during the campaign. No, no, this is the world’s richest man,
and that kind of wealth can buy almost anything. I mean, except a way out of a
final meeting with the Grim Reaper, and, statistically speaking, Trump and I
are a lot closer to keeping that date than Elon is. Personally, I’ve been aware
of that for a very long time now. But I have a feeling it will come as an
incredible shock to the Trumpster when the Reaper’s schedule-keeper punches the
Duke of Orange’s ticket.
Meanwhile, Trump did all the heavy lifting
of winning the election and giving Elonius Rex an unofficial, unassailable title.
One that allows him to act in Trump’s name with zero accountability before the
other branches of power. It’s the Rasputin Effect. Elonius calls the shots, and
Trump makes it official. Why? Because, Elonius Rex has bought and paid for a
presidency—just what every megalomaniacal magnate wants, the levers of the most
powerful position on earth, without the headaches of having to answer to voters.
And he bought it—or is reported at least to have bought it, although perhaps he
paid more than we’ll ever know—for the relatively paltry sum of two hundred
fifty million dollars.
Sure, that sounds like a lot of money to
people like us, who, as my Aunt Marilyn used to say, “are just peckin’ shit
with the chickens,” but for Elonius Rex, who accumulates an estimated forty-three
thousand dollars a minute, it’s pocket change—or taking Aunt Marilyn’s metaphor
to the limit, mere chicken feed. And if the government shuts down, it’s
certainly no skin off his teeth: he’s never had to be a federal employee, a
soldier, a sailor or any of their family members wondering where their next
paycheck will come from; he has no government health benefits for a shutdown to
suspend; he isn’t on welfare or Social Security and, I’m sure, has never given
a split-second’s thought to how such people survive even with those
benefits, let alone without them.
No, for Elonius Rex, this is all a game,
and he’s showing Mike Johnson and all the rest of the papier mâché members
of the GOP’s mock leadership who the winner is. This is The Apprentice:
Super Celebrity Edition, and Elonius Rex is the star of the show. The Don
is just holding the mic for him.
Tuesday, December 17, 2024
IT’S AN OLD WHITE GUYS’ WORLD
Here's a little brain candy for the fifty-three percent of white women who voted for Trump and the hijacked GOP. If you love getting things mansplained to you, and having patriarchs tell you what you can and can't do (even with your own body) hey, you just got your wish!
Merry Christmas, then!
For the eighty-five percent of black women and forty-seven percent of white women who didn’t vote to be dominated by white guys and the far-right macho
psyche, ladies, you have every reason to be furious. Because, make no mistake,
the rights you fought so hard for are on the line.
Saturday, December 7, 2024
WELCOME TO GESTAPO POLITICS – Part One
Matt Gaetz |
It seems pretty obvious that Gaetz was supposed to be a lightning
rod, a name that would explode on the political and media horizon like a
gigantic Roman candle, and draw all attention to it. Meanwhile, Trump would
flesh out the rest of his cabinet with other mostly controversial and
inexperienced characters that would, nevertheless, pale by comparison to Gaetz,
but who would pledge loyalty to Trump—a paramount requirement for joining the president-elect’s
inner circle this time around—rather than to the Constitution.
The level of confidence (or lack thereof)
that Trump has in the moral and ethical rectitude of members of what is
virtually his “shadow cabinet” seems clear from his attempts to forego any sort
of investigation of the candidates’ backgrounds. The question that seems to
loom is, what might a thorough probe turn up in such a veritable clown car of
nominations?
Fox "talent" Pete Hegseth |
Perhaps one man’s questionable moral and
ethical standing might serve as an expendable distraction for controversial
cabinet picks, but can two? That’s the question more than a handful of GOP
senators are asking themselves right now. Moreover, it seems to become more
obvious all the time that some Republican senators have finally caught on to
the fact that Trump isn’t a man who works within any sort of rule structure,
and, at least for now, a few of them are willing to push back. Perhaps their
idea is to show Trump from the outset that they take their official
advise-and-approve role seriously. In other words, some of them have no plans
to let the president become a king.
The refusal of Trump to subject his
cabinet picks to traditional background checks—if he indeed gets away with it
completely—is so far proving to be a pyric victory over traditional norms. Such
checks before the candidates were actually announced could have saved him the
embarrassment of having Gaetz and Hegseth’s dirty laundry being aired in
public. At least in the case of Gaetz, however, there are some compelling
questions as to whether Trump would have wanted to avoid such public
revelations, if the theory is correct about his using the former MAGA
representative as a diversionary prop.
But was that also the case with Hegseth?
Not likely. What happened, then, was that, even if Trump and the Senate were
going to shirk their background check duties, the media weren’t. In other
words, if a secret vetting was ruled out, then the cabinet candidates were
pretty much bound to be vetted publicly by the press. This was a fact that
caused Hegseth to lose his cool this week and shout at journalists waiting for
him in the halls of Congress that he didn’t answer to the media, “not to that
camera, and not to any of you.” Which seemed like a contradictory sentiment
from a guy who has been making five million dollars a year as a Fox News
“talent”. (Even they don’t call them journalists).
That said, however, after what the GOP has
considered—erroneously—a “landslide victory”, it is doubtful that the party’s
Senate leadership is going to want to give any more black eyes to their chief
executive than they absolutely have to. And there’s the rub. While they stood
their ground against Gaetz in Justice, and could very well do the same against
Hegseth in Defense, it seems pretty likely that other questionable nominations
might well get through the confirmation process unscathed.
That, in the view of no few observers,
could be a real problem. There are a couple of cases in point that it makes
sense to look at in studying this Era of Trump phenomenon. One is Kashyap Patel
(for FBI chief) and the other is Tulsi Gabbard. Let’s leave “Kash” for later
and, today, start with Gabbard, Trump’s pick to head national intelligence.
Tulsi Gabbard with Trump and Fox conspiracy theorist and Putin supporter Tucker Carlson |
The forty-three-year-old Gabbard has an
honorable seventeen-year career record in the military. As an enlisted woman,
she reached the rank of Spec-4 in the Hawaii National Guard. She was attached
to the Twenty-Ninth Medical Brigade, in which her MOS (Military Occupational
Specialty) was as a medical instrument repairer. During that time (2004-2005)
she was deployed to Iraq in that MOS. In
2005, she was awarded a Combat Medical Badge for “participation in combat
operations under enemy hostile fire.”
When she returned to the US, she entered
Officer Candidate School, accelerated out at the top of her class, and was granted
a commission as a second lieutenant. As she moved through the officer ranks,
Gabbard did a variety of jobs, including serving as a military police platoon
leader. That was while she was stationed in Kuwait in 2008 and 2009. By 2015,
Gabbard had risen to the rank of major in the Hawaii National Guard. She
transferred five years later to the Army Reserve, and, the following year
(2021) was promoted to lieutenant colonel while serving in Africa.
Lt. Colonel Tulsi Gabbard |
Parallel to her military career, in 2013,
Gabbard won a seat in the US Congress as the representative for Hawaii’s Second
District, becoming the first Samoan-American ever to serve in Congress. Gabbard
ran as a Democrat. She held that seat from 2013 to 2021 and served from 2013 to
2016 as vice-chair of the Democratic National Convention. In 2022, Gabbard
announced that she was leaving the Democratic Party to become an Independent.
In 2024, she took a further step to the right and joined the Republican Party.
Clearly, hers is a straightforward and
transparent record that is far removed from the shadowy pasts of a Gaetz or a
Hegseth. However, Trump’s nominating her to head the nation’s intelligence
apparatus is fraught with controversy. For
one thing, she has no background to speak of in intelligence operations. For
another, like Hegseth, she is a Fox News alumna, often appearing as a
consultant on the Murdoch infotainment network, a major contributor to the propagation of myriad debunked conspiracy
theories that it continues to champion despite numerous lawsuits and a 787-million-dollar
loss to a voting machine manufacturer that it slandered in falsely claiming
that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
Acting as a mere stringer on the dominant mock-news
far-right propaganda channel (sometimes referred to by its detractors as “Faux
News”) wouldn’t be such a big deal. But Gabbard has even occasionally stood in
as a replacement host for top primetime Fox anchor Tucker Carlson—arguably the
most nefarious conspiracy theorist on cable, and a staunch supporter of Russian
dictator Vladimir Putin.
But of much greater concern, in this case,
are Gabbard’s own links to Russia. The most glaring of these was laid out in a
2017 memo she penned while serving in the House of Representatives. The wording
was so extreme that it put her at odds with her own (then-Democratic) party. According
to ABC News, which obtained a copy of the memo, Gabbard blamed the West and
NATO for Putin’s invasion of Ukrainian territories. It wasn’t a new conspiracy
theory, especially not among the far-right and far-left fringes of European
politics. But it was certainly an uncommon stance in the US and especially in
the Democratic Party.
Gabbard using Tucker Carlson's primetime slot on Fox News to push her pro-Russia arguments |
Had this always been her position, it
would not have been nearly as curious or shocking as it was—though clearly just
as controversial. But earlier, in 2014, when Putin annexed Crimea, Gabbard had
supported sanctions against the Russian government, saying specifically that
the US should not be “standing idly by while Russia continues to degrade the
territorial integrity of Ukraine.” The one-eighty that she executed without a
hitch three years later couldn’t have come in sharper contrast to her apparent thinking
in 2014. In the 2017 memo, according to ABC, she wrote that the “Russian people are a proud
people, and they don't want the US and our allies trying to control them and
their government.” (This flies in the face of the inescapable fact that,
in Russia, nobody’s position matters but Putin’s, since he is as powerful as
Stalin or the Russian czars once were; therefore, what’s happening in Ukraine
has precious little to do with the “pride of the Russian people”).
She also blamed the US and NATO directly
for the annexation of Crimea, saying that is was Western hostility toward Putin
that had forced him to invade Ukrainian territory. “There certainly isn't any
guarantee to Putin that we won't try to overthrow Russia's government,” she
wrote. “In fact, I'm pretty sure there are American politicians who would love
to do that.”
Both positions were not only contrary to
her stance of a few years before, but smacked of the style and wording of
Putin’s propaganda playbook, as espoused by RT (formerly Russia Today),
an international publication widely believed to front for the Kremlin and
Putin’s disinformation mill. According to allegations by staffers in Congress, it is also a publication that
Gabbard has frequently cited and mentioned as a source.
Since then, Gabbard has doubled down
repeatedly on pro-Russian stances. On Fox News she has gone as far as to posit
that US leaders are “knowingly provoking Putin,” a notion that echoes Putin’s
self-justification for threatening any country in the West that aids Ukraine in
its use of long-range missiles to drive back advancing Russian forces with
possible nuclear attack. Despite this kind of saber-rattling by the Putin
regime, Gabbard has more than once suggested that instead of remaining at odds
with the Russian strongman, the US should extend a hand of friendship to him.
Gabbard has made her enthusiastic support
for Putin and Russia extensive to Putin’s now freshly embattled ally, Bashar
Al-Assad, the Syrian dictator who has slaughtered an estimated five to seven
hundred thousand of his own people (often by the cruelest of means including
aerial barrel bombs stuffed with nails and poison gasses banned by Western
rules of engagement, to say nothing of the fifteen thousand people he is
estimated to have tortured to death and the one hundred fifty thousand held
without charges or trial in his prisons). Nor does that take into account the
more than ten million Syrians now either internally displaced or living in
foreign exile as a result of the grinding civil war.
Rebels drive into Homs after retaking the city from Assad's Russian-backed troops in Syria |
The only “crime” of the Syrian people—even
more distinct from Assad than the Russian people from Putin—has been to rise up
since the Arab Spring of 2011, and demand a democratic opening and an end to
the fifty years of tyranny imposed by Bashar Al-Assad and his father before him.
That long and costly war in human sacrifice is now apparently paying off. The
rebels, taking advantage of the fact that Russia is throwing all of its
resources at its war with Ukraine, have, in the last few days, turned the
tables on Assad and recaptured major Syrian cities, including the crucial Homs
and Aleppo.
Children were among the most highly affected victims of Al-Assad's chlorine gas attacks on his own people. |
Even then-President Trump, the man who has
now tapped her to head up US intelligence, disagreed, and ordered retaliatory
airstrikes against sites deemed to be the ones from which Assad had launched
the fratricidal attack. But Gabbard, at the time, pushed back against Trump,
calling his decision to retaliate “dangerous,
rash and unconstitutional.”
It is important to note that Gabbard’s
trip to Damascus, in which she met face-to-face with Al-Assad, was sponsored by
none other than the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. The SSNP is a fanatically pro-Assad
organization that is virulently antisemitic. It basically represents Syrian
Nazism. Even its party symbol, the zawbaa, is reminiscent of the Nazi
swastika.
Since then she has continued to offer an impassioned defense of Assad, echoing the Kremlin’s argument justifying the actions taken against the Syrian dictator’s people as being part of an effort to wipe out terrorist organizations that are a threat to the world. Well, speaking of terrorist organizations, it should be noted that a staunch ally of both Assad and Russia in the Syrian Civil War has been the rabidly anti-American, pro-Iranian terror group Hezbollah. Hezbollah has long been an ally of the Al-Assad family’s Ba'ath regime. In providing anti-rebel fighters to the Syrian dictatorship, Hezbollah has framed its participation as vital to its own position, since, in the terrorist organization’s eyes, the rebellion against Assad is part of "a plot to destroy Hezbollah’s alliance with al-Assad against Israel" (its sworn enemy and America’s staunchest ally in the region).
But none of that leads to the conclusion
that Gabbard has been fronting for Assad. No. She has been fronting for Putin.
Or at least that can be conjectured from her open backing of the actions of the
Putin regime and Putin’s intimate relationship with Assad.
The truth is that Assad could not have
been as successful as he has been until right now in crushing the rebellion
against him without enormous Russian aid. And Putin has given that to him, both
financially and materially, with Russian fighter pilots and Russian planes
running hundreds of bombing missions against the pro-democracy rebels. At the
height of the war, there were also Russian troops on the ground in Syria. And
still today, Putin has been supplying Assad with military advisers and
trainers, as well as military police units to help the dictator try and keep
his country locked down.
So, is this all just a love affair between
Putin and Al-Assad—with Tulsi Gabbard, possibly the next chief intelligence
officer of the United States, as their cheerleader? Of course not. Assad and
the permanence of his regime are key to Russian
military and geopolitical interests in the Middle East.
In the post-World War II era known as the
Cold War (1947–1991)—a period of bipolar global power in which the world was
pretty neatly divided between East and West, with Soviet Russia heading the
East and the US the West—Syria sided with Russia. Between 1955 and 1958, Russia
provided two hundred ninety-four million dollars in military aid to Syria,
equivalent to about 3.2 billion dollars today. Russia was instrumental in
aiding Syria during the Suez War (1955-1958) and those relations only deepened
as the Syrian Ba’ath Party gained strength. The Ba’ath movement was the big
winner in the Syrian Revolution in the mid-nineteen-sixties, and it was in this
period that Bashar Al-Assad’s father, Hafez Al-Assad came to power.
The material and financial support lent to
the regime by Russia led to an agreement with the elder Al-Assad to permit the
Russians to open a powerful naval military base in Syria at the port of Tartus.
In exchange, the Assads continued to receive military and financial aid from
Russia, and thousands of Syrian military officers have received professional
education and training in Russia from the seventies into the twenty-first
century.
Syria has since become the Kremlin’s
closest strategic ally in the Middle East, providing it with rapid naval
response capabilities by perceived threats from the US and Western allies in
the region. And as mentioned before, Assad’s Syria—and hence Russia—is a major
threat to US regional allies including Israel.
When we have a president-elect who, in the
past, has shown himself to be a sort of dictator groupie, who has spoken
admiringly of Putin, it may be hard for some of his most fanatical supporters
to keep track of who the bad guys are in Western relations. But let’s keep it
simple. Like it or not, as long as Russia is being ruled by Vladimir Putin, it
is not America’s friend or ally. On the contrary, Putin’s ultimate plan
is to take back everything the former Soviet Union lost with the fall of the
Berlin Wall in late 1989. And, make no mistake, Ukraine is where he’s kicking
off that campaign. How far he gets will depend on how much appeasement the US
and the West afford him.
Some detractors have gone as far as to
suggest that Tulsi Gabbard might actually be an agent of Russia. Perhaps,
perhaps not, at least in any official sense. But if she is not a double agent,
then, she is at least a “useful idiot” for the Putin regime, and as such, far
too naïve about who Putin is to head up American intelligence operations, which
in large measure, should be targeted squarely on the threat that Russia and
Putin pose to the US and to the West as a whole.