Biden On Speed

Joe Biden is acting like he is 49, not 79.

Here is his speech to the Democratic National Convention on September 8, 2022....

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-president-biden-deliver-remarks-at-democratic-national-committee-reception

Biden did not miss a single step while delivering this speech over about 25 minutes. He delivered the speech without notes or a teleprompter.  

This contrasts markedly with his many missteps, hesitations and inexplicable confusions displayed in speech after speech and interview after interview over the last few years; confusions and missteps so serious as to put his competency as president and future as a presidential candidate in 2024 into very serious question. With this latest speech, it is clear that something has changed. Has Biden started taking uppers? Is he napping a few times a day, and before he addresses the Nation? He certainly appears to have gone all out to prepare for this speech, and it worked.

Biden has also changed his tactics. Previously, he had been trying to unify legislators, driving both Democrats and Republicans to support bi-partisan legislation. While he has previously been attacking Trump and what he calls "MAGA Republicans" for years, he ramped things up very significantly with a rather ill-advised speech in Pennsylvania last week. He took a less aggressive approach in the speech noted above yesterday, where he again strove to exploit a wedge between the politics of normal Democrats, Independents and Republicans, and the MAGA Republicans. 

Biden now clearly sees an opportunity for his party to actually win the mid-term elections in November, which would be unprecedented for a president in his first term when the legislature usually flips away from the party of the president to the one in opposition. He is trying to take advantage of the efforts of people like Liz Chaney who has declared war on the Trump wing of the Republican Party, and to seek to mobilize female voters who are upset with the overturning of Roe v Wade. If he can mobilize Democrats, Independents and normal Republicans against MAGA Republicans, the Democrats have a very good chance of holding onto the House of Representatives and Senate in November. 

And looking forward to November, the Republicans now have a very significant tactical problem. Usually the party in opposition runs against what the party in office has done while in office, and succeeds as it is easier to run against something than it is to run for something. In succeeding in reversing Roe v Wade, and with some Republicans proclaiming that they will also go after same sex marriage and even Social Security, the Republicans have handed the Democrats something to run against, in spite of the fact that they actually control Congress and the Presidency. 

The days when Republicans could raise bogeymen such as trans-friendly toilets and other socially-liberal issues in attacking Democrats may be over now, largely because of what the Republicans themselves have said and done. Add in the existential issue related to democracy itself, and what Biden calls normal politics versus what the MAGA Republicans stand for, and there is a very good chance that the Republicans may not succeed in taking the House of Representatives and the Senate in November.

These are not normal times. Biden senses this, and has moved aggressively to take advantage of what may be an historic opportunity to avoid a flipped legislature in November. He may even be taking naps before he makes his speeches, which could be bad news for people like Donald Trump.

P.S. The week that Biden made his ill-advised speech, Trump aggressively demanded that he immediately be returned to office as President of the United States. This demand seemed to have come out of nowhere. As noted here before, Trump wants to be president again to avoid criminal prosecution, as a siting president cannot be charged with a crime while he is in office. These two events happening in the same week got me thinking...have both men been advised that charges are pending against Trump with the Department of Justice advising Biden, and Trump's lawyers advising him, causing both men to seek to move the bar forward as a result? 

We shall see...

Why China's Zero COVID Policy?

The Chinese real estate bubble is bursting! 

Millions of people are at risk of losing all of their personal wealth, as it is normal for citizens to put their entire life savings into real estate in that country. In fact, 70% of all wealth in China is held in the form of homes and condos - usually safe bets that are about to go bust.

These people are getting organized. They are demonstrating daily across the country against real estate developers and banks, even in the face of viscous police suppression. 

Beyond that, up to 300 real estate developments have seen prospective home owners stop paying their mortgages until they get assurances that their homes will actually get built, or they get their money back. Note - they are "prospective" as buying a home in China and taking on a mortgage means buying a home that will only be built at some point in the future. As in, millions of people have put down their entire life savings and are paying mortgages on properties that don't actually exist.

This movement is spreading rapidly, and is risking the political control of the country by the Chinese Communist Party.

Enter...a Zero COVID policy.

The CCP sees everything through a political lens. One purpose of this Zero COVID policy is most assuredly to shut down the ability of citizens to organize and demonstrate against anyone - banks, developers, or local governments - as a result of the collapsing real estate bubble. 

The Zero COVID policy is enforced by the police and even by the army, including the use of armoured vehicles. If the goal is to keep the populace under wraps, this policy should do the trick. Every time the CCP or its banker and developer buddies face a serious problem in the way of a demonstration or a protest, the CCP will simply declare that a single COVID case has been found in the city in question and shut it down.

One city, one protest; one COVID patient, no problem!

But wait. May there be one small problem with this plan? 

Do you think any police officers or military personnel have bought prospective houses and have also lost their life savings?  

Many a dictatorship has ended when the cops and army decided to abandon repression and side with the people instead.

Stay tuned...

PDAC Stock Pics!

I went to the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) convention in Toronto in early June. The convention was very busy, and there were many good companies on offer - many of them clearly grabbed all the cash they could while money was cheap. Good for them.

I found a number of companies that meet the requirements that I laid out for for stock picking at the convention. Here are the requirements:

Money 

These are small exploration companies - without money, they are dead. The companies that I pick therefore have to have enough money to meet their stated strategic objectives. One of my pics does not...I'll tell you why I'll be buying some of their shares later in the summer.

Geography

I will not invest in companies that are exploring in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Kenya. I have been burned on investments in countries like those far too often. Until they clean up their act, they will not see a penny of mine - as if anyone in these places cares about my investments! For me to invest, the country where the exploration is taking place must have a stellar reputation. All of the companies below are exploring in Canada.

Drilling

Many small exploration companies go on and on about their intentions to drill some day, or about great past drill results. Good for them, but explorers need to explore! Unless the companies have an actual active or immediately pending drill program, they don't pass my test.

Shares

I don't like companies that have more than 100 million shares out because good news has to claw through too many shares in order for the share price to appreciate enough to matter. This is the weakest indicator - if a company meets the other tests and has even 200 million shares out, I may buy if the drilling looks good enough and they have loads of cash. In fact, some of my pics do have above 100 million shares out. 

Gold!

I only invest in Gold explorers that are looking for Gold where there is Gold! This may sounds nuts, but I won't invest in companies that are not exploring near old Gold mines or old Gold finds. where they are virtually guaranteed to find Gold. Some of my pics are drilling near, not old mines or proven ore bodies, but near their own previous Gold finds, which works for me.

The list...company names with stock symbols.

TRU Precious Metals Corp - TRU.V

Delta Resources - DLTA.V

Troilus - TLG.TSX (Possible Buy-Out Target)

Galway Metals - GWM.V

Banyan Gold Corp - BYN.V

Cassiar Gold - GLDC.V (This company has a mill that generates revenue to pay for drilling)

Moneta Gold - ME.TSX (Possible Buy-Out Target)

Northstar Gold Corp - NSG.CSE 

Sixty North Gold - SXTY.CSE 

This last company does not meet the tests. It is planning to have a mill and mine up and running in 2023, processing up to 100 tonnes of ore a day. They have a permit. 

What they don't have is money - a search of their financials shows that they have a whopping $51,000!  Their stock is trading at $0,04 a share! 

This is a huge long shot, but if they get cash and do what they plan to do, assuming even 0.75 ounces per tonne (consistent with ore in other mines in the area), at 100 tonnes per day they will be producing 7.5 ounces a day meaning a revenue of about $13,500 a day at today's Gold prices. That is $4 million in revenue per year, if we assume 300 days of operations per year. I think this works out to $0.45 a share with a PE of 30, if you assume 60% of their revenue is profit. A ten bagger! I'll buy a couple of hundred dollars worth of this stock...there is a reason why this is called "gambling".

DUE YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE! WE (ME) SEEK SAFE HARBOUR!

Roe v Wade - Lost Opportunity for Unity

The United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade this morning.

Here is what you may not know.

1. The Actual Decision.

Roe v Wade did not grant an absolute right to abortion in The United States of America. The Wiki page actually summarizes the decision very well...

During the first trimester, governments could not regulate abortion at all, except to require that abortions be performed by a licensed physician. 

During the second trimester, governments could regulate the abortion procedure, but only for the purpose of protecting maternal health and not for protecting fetal life. 

After viability (which includes the third trimester of pregnancy and the last few weeks of the second trimester), abortions could be regulated and even prohibited, but only if the laws provided exceptions for abortions necessary to save the "life" or "health" of the mother.

The United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to not overturn Roe v Wade, but to confirm it today. In reversing that decision, they made a terrible mistake.

Enforcing Roe v Wade could have involved overturning a later decision called Planned Parenthood v Casey that abandoned the trimester distinctions in Roe v Wade, and opened up abortion to any point in a woman's pregnancy. While that would have limited access to abortion in the USA, confirming Roe v Wade could also have provided a balanced position between the two solitudes in the United States; between those who see abortion as the hallmark of freedom and women's rights, and those who see it as murder. 

More specifically, had the Supreme Court chosen to confirm a right to abortion in the first trimester; limited ability of states to restrict abortion in the second trimester; and supported an outright ban in the third trimester except in situations of risks to the health of a woman, incest or rape, they could have set up a situation where both sides could claim a victory of sorts in this fifty-year culture war - those supporting abortion could have seen access confirmed in the first trimester and in a more limited way in the second trimester, and those opposed to it would see access disappear in the third trimester. With the court having made clear that there would be no outright winner here, a relaxation of the tensions in that country could have set in over time.

Instead, five justices of the Supreme Court overturned the entire decision. This situation may rip the United States apart, meaning what may be the most aggressive and even violent congressional elections in a century this November. The Court may have set in train a new series of events that could have profound implications for national unity in the USA. 

2. Bork Triumphant. 

Roe v Wade made no sense. This decision found a right to privacy containing a right to abortion in the United States Constitution that isn't written anywhere. The arguments for its repeal have been obvious for anyone who bothered to use their brain since the day the decision was rendered. 

How bad was this decision? 

When I was in university, Roe v Wade was the sole subject of a final test in a course on logic. Students were asked to just read and comment on the decision. The right answer was that this decision made no sense from a logical and reasonable perspective because you can't find rights in a document where there is absolutely no mention of those same rights. 

The most prominent proponent of the repeal of this decision and the need to resort to the literal wording in the United States Constitution was probably Robert Bork. He called what the court did in Roe v Wade "Judicial Imperialism" as he thought it showed a tendency on the part of the court to make up or find rights in the constitution that were not there, simply because they suited the court's policy preferences and not the original intent of the framers of the US Constitution, which he though should be the basis of all interpretation. 

Bork's nomination to be a justice of the court in 1987 was rejected by Congress because of his view on judicial intervention versus original intent. Translation - it was obvious to Congress that he would have voted to repeal Roe v Wade, so he was rejected.

He didn't hide his intentions. When standing for confirmation, he actually said this to the committee tasked with approving his elevation to the highest judicial office in the land..."I am convinced, as I think most legal scholars are, that Roe v. Wade is, itself, an unconstitutional decision, a serious and wholly unjustifiable judicial usurpation of state legislative authority," 

And so, Bork never sat as a justice of the Supreme Court. But please compare his brutally honest assessment re Roe v Wade when he was questioned by the committee on the subject under oath, with the disgusting lies spewed by the five sitting Conservative justices of the court who, when asked if they "respect precedent" - as in, would they uphold Roe v Wade which was judicial precedent at the time - all said that they would. 

They lied...he did not. Bork stands redeemed today, not only for his theory of judicial interpretation, but more so for his refusal to lie to Congress under oath in aid of his personal and political ambitions.

3. The Left's Missed Opportunity and The Future of Gay Marriage. 

The Left in the USA has had fifty years to move forward an amendment to the Bill of Rights that would confirm a right to privacy and abortion in the United States Constitution. Had they done so, no Supreme Court could not have done anything about it, as even someone putting forward an "original intent" argument would have had to conclude that such a right does exist.

Instead of securing the right as an amendment, the those who favour abortion have relied for almost fifty years on the US Supreme Court to protect this right. Today, the Supreme Court laid bare what, as noted above, has been obvious since the day that Roe v Wade was rendered back in 1973; this decision was very vulnerable to being reversed some day.

Going forward, those who favour abortion on demand will likely try to get back to the court with other cobbled-together rationales for a right to abortion, including the right to equal treatment under the law.  They will likely argue that restricting a woman's right to abortion renders them unequal to men, so a right to abortion must be supported. Similar arguments were made regarding the right to gay marriage in the USA, where homosexual couples argued that denying them the right marry rendered them unequal to those who could marry, namely heterosexual couples.

No one knows how this Supreme Court would rule should such arguments be brought forward. However, if the Conservatives on this court are bold enough to reverse a fifty year old decision like Roe v Wade after promising under oath to Congress to not do so, one would think that Obergefell v Hodges, which is the case which legalized gay marriage only in America in 2015, is also be under very serious threat.

4. The Culture War is Full On.

I think this Conservative court sees itself as engaged in a counter attack in a fifty year long culture war.  If so, this is a turning point in the history of the United States of America where the Left has largely been ascendant for the last few generations, but the Right is now able to strike back.

Other countries had thirty-years wars and hundred-years wars over differences concerning royal successions and religious beliefs. The results laid those countries low for decades. And so, we may see something similar in the near future of America. 

Time for WW3?

Do I mention the hitherto unmentionable? 

It is now obvious that NATO would crush Russia in a conventional war. Their air force would be gone in a week. Their navy would be gone in a day. Their army would be overwhelmed shortly after that. 

Is it Gulf of Tonkin time? 

Does NATO get Finland and Sweden on side, let the Ukrainians weaken the Russians even more, then just roll over their borders?

You have to know some military industrial complex think-tank types in the USA are thinking exactly this...

Cue the war-justifying propaganda...

Banzai!

The Jan 6th Hearings

I've been watching the hearings into the January 6th incident as much as I can. 

The impression that I have so far is that this has been exceptionally well researched, with the evidence presented literally destroying any claim by Donald Trump that he won the 2020 presidential election. 

More than that, it is becoming clearer by the day that he and his minions orchestrated an attempt to at least thwart a constitutional process in that country related to the certification of the presidential election in 2020.

The depth of the outright lies perpetrated by Trump's crew is breathtaking. Until these hearings, I had thought that some of them were just extremely deluded about the election result, as they had not had an opportunity to see the actual evidence that the election was conducted without wide-spread fraud. This is not true. 

Trump et al had access to much of the evidence showing no fraud before and while they perpetrated their lies. They were advised by official after official - almost all Republicans, by the way, and many of them actually appointed by Trump himself - that there was no basis to their delusions about the outcome of the election, with those officials presenting mountains of contrary evidence to them.  

These people were not misled; they did the misleading, and they are still at it.

Rather than support reality, Trump et al chose to manipulate some of the evidence they were presented with to create the illusion of misdeeds. 

For sample, they selectively released a 90 second video of the election count in Fulton County asserting that doctored ballots were pulled out of suitcases and run through the counting machines again and again creating 18,000 fake votes for Biden. This is absolutely untrue, as is made crystal clear by the entire video, which Trump el al had access to before perpetrating these outrageous falsehoods. 

This situation was debunked as early as Dec 4, 2020...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq1QvLdznyo

That video is 100% supported by the facts as they are coming out at the hearings...there is literally no evidence to support the Trumpian position, which is now clearly a concocted series of outright falsehoods.

Anyone interested in the Jan 6th riots should watch these hearings. There is none of the usual BS that one sees when the Democrats and Republicans go at each other to score political points. It is the best example of how things like this should be done that I have seen in years, where even CNN's reporting is slightly digestible.

And on that, why had Fox News initially not shown the hearings? What was Tucker Carlson afraid of?  Is it that Fox News needs to keep their viewers ignorant of reality in order to succeed in moving their agenda ahead? 

If the answer is yes, what, pre tell, is the Fox News agenda? What the committee is hearing and presenting is a slew of actual facts...why was Fox News afraid of facts?

The hearings have not really resonated with the American public yet, but they may be just one tweetable revelation away from blowing this situation wide open. Stay tuned.

 

PDAC, 2022...Toronto Observations!

I went to the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention again this year. It was a success. I met friends and family and enjoyed great company with great people. I was able to find a few Gold exploration companies drilling right beside old Gold mines. 

I also walked about looking at the state of affairs in Toronto. Observations follow.

Revolution...Deleted.

The PDAC attracts a wide range of protests. The most prolific form of protest is the poster. 

Here is a poster of a type that was plastered on walls and pillars all around the convention when I arrived on opening day.

Power to the PEOPLE!!! Fight the Power! 

Or...maybe not. Right behind the people fighting the Man and putting up these posters was this guy...

Notice the line of posters on the pillars in the background. No Brownshirts here, just a guy with a scraper. Have the forces of reaction ever looked so plain?  

Bye, Bye Pot Boom

Pot was legalized shortly after Trudeau came to power in 2015. What followed was the Wild West of expansion of pot retailers, to the extent that even in Ottawa there are now more than 100 pot stores.  

The era of expansion that has seen thousands of independent pot shops pop up everywhere has almost ended. The era of mass bankruptcy and consolidation is about to start. 

Here is a dead pot shop...the first one I have seen to date.

Here is what will soon be a brand new entrant into an already saturated market...

There is only so much pot that any society can smoke! Hopefully up next, an audit of who got what pot retail licences and when, how are they related to people in power, and were there any shenanigans in the granting of those licences?  What did the Premier do for a living in high school?

Dougies!

Please see the temporary residences (a.k.a. "Dougies") of some failed stock brokers on lower University Avenue here...

I lived in Toronto for a total of nine years. I don't recall semi-permanent tent homes festooning lower University Avenue at any time. I think this didn't happen because the cops would very aggressively move people along had they tried to set up such structures way back when (the 80's and 90's). It is illegal to live where these tents are set up. Why are these people not moved along?  

Sorry, but I'm such a heartless bastard!

A question for the bleeding hearts. If someone thinks these people should be allowed to live wherever they want, in whatever structure they want, would those people also be OK if the poor set up tent structures right across the street from they live?  Likely not.

Point - The do-gooders who support things like this mostly don't live downtown. They support stuff like this downtown so that it will stay downtown, far from where they live, which is not downtown.  

I have way more time for people who want to enforce the law and get rid of these types of structures, while looking for proper housing for these people, than I do for the chatting classes whose real motivation is hypocritical self-interest, expressed as "shame and blame" directed at anyone who disagrees with them. 

Bitcoin's Real Market!

Who The F*^k really uses Bitcoin? 

Here is the type of place that advertises Bitcoin for actual acquisition, and presumably for future use. Note the "Bitcoin" sign at the top.

This place is similar to other corner stores in Ottawa that offer Bitcoin for sale, usually located in residential areas populated by people on welfare and the working poor.  

The people who buy Bitcoin...and, sorry Mr. Poilievre, these are the only people who actually use Bitcoin as currency...are drug dealing pieces of shit that launder drug cash through conversion to Bitcoin. These are also the people who are directly responsible for this...

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/

Hmmm...just shy of 27,000 overdose deaths in Canada in five years...about one death every hour and a half, for five years. Maybe we should be making it harder for the pieces of shit who are dealing mass death by at least limiting their convenience store-based money laundering opportunities? Is this hard?

 

Western Hypocrisy On War Crimes

The West is claiming the morale high ground because Russia has been caught murdering civilians in its war in Ukraine. That the Russians have done this seems incontrovertible. See here...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/world/dead-civilians-bucha-ukraine.html

One wonders when Fox News will start claiming that the Ukrainian Government did this as part of a false flag initiative, but that is another story.

To make an allegation of one state having committed war crimes, one would think that the accuser should come to the conversation with clean hands. 

Consider this...

The USA launched lots and lots of missiles at civilians via drone strikes, especially under President Obama...

https://theweek.com/articles/458341/are-drone-strikes-really-war-crimes

The USA claims that it is not involved in any wars in the countries where it killed people and that it was defending its interests, a.k.a. killing terrorists. Regardless of this, the basic rule in international law is rather simple...states can't just kill people in other countries because they think they have an interest in doing so. When you pare down their arguments in favour of this death by drone program, the idea that the USA can kill anyone, anywhere is basically what the USA claimed when it killed at least hundreds of civilians in countries where there were no declared wars afoot. 

If anyone can show me any law that states that countries have the right to kill civilians with no judicial process whatsoever - based only on what the state says was a threat - and that so called "collateral damage" from these strikes is similarly acceptable, I'd love to see it. Such a law does not exist.

Consider this...

Regardless of how interested a state may be in obtaining information from people like terrorists, no state is allowed to torture people.

https://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/home-mainmenu-289/6775-what-is-waterboarding-its-a-war-crime-former-president-bush'

Waterboarding is torture, plain and simple. The USA engaged in an entire program of waterboarding at Gitmo under President Bush. There is no question that this is illegal, and in the context of a war on terror, it is a war crime. Consider as well that these "illegal combatants" have been held in prison for years now without due process. They are declared to not be soldiers, so the laws of war protecting soldiers do not apply. While some of these people have been subjected to some legal process through military tribunals, they are also declared to be combatants, so criminal law protections available to civilians are also declared to mostly not apply. The USA has defined these people into a Kafkaesque legal limbo that allows them to flout all known legal protections to that they can continue to hold them, essentially forever. 

Consider this...

Vive la France! But like the Russians bombing civilians in Ukraine, the French also cannot drop bombs on civilians whenever it sees an interest in doing so, as doing this is a war crime.

https://www.passblue.com/2021/02/08/un-probe-details-atrocities-in-mali-and-civilian-deaths-from-french-airstrikes/

The war on terror is difficult as the terrorists often mix with general populations, so killing them is hard. That is not an excuse for massacring civilians, but a challenge to the West to find a way to take these people out without undo civilian casualties. Too often, the West misses the mark. Killing civilians, even as collateral damage, undercuts whatever moral authority the West would claim vis a vis Russia.

Consider this...

https://dissidentvoice.org/2014/01/us-nato-war-crimes-against-libya/

The West got rid of Kaddafi. In doing so, they committed a range of different war crimes. From bombing civilians to mistreating prisoners, the intervention in Libya was a war-crimes ridden mess. The mess continues today.

Finally, consider this...

https://crackdownchronicles.com/war-crimes/canadas-arms-exports-to-saudi-arabia-violate-intl-law-report/#:~:text=War%20Crimes%20Canada%E2%80%99s%20arms%20sales%20to%20Saudi%20Arabia,Amnesty%20International%20Canada%20and%20Project%20Ploughshares%2C%20said%20Wednesday.

Making money off arms sales, with sales to countries that the seller knows is committing war crimes, its a time-honoured Western tradition. There is no question that Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen is replete with extensive war crimes on both sides. No country adding fuel to that fire by way of arms exports to the combatants has clean hands. When Canada complains about Russian war crimes in Ukraine, will it apologize for the use of its weapons against civilians in Yemen, and then stop supplying those weapons? Likely not.

The West is right to point out Russian war crimes. And to be fair, the aspect of Russian soldiers purposely targeting civilians does have a characteristic that is arguably worse than the crimes committed by the West, which may be summed up as killing innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

But the West pointing out Russia's crimes while having committed a litany of such crimes in the past twenty years reduces the impact of its condemnation, and arms its opponents to highlight the West's hypocrisy on this issue.  This is potential manna from heaven for Russian propagandists and Fox News Fodder...over to you, Mr. Carlson.

In the end, countries either believe that committing war crimes is wrong, or they don't; they either do it, or they don't.  The West seemingly thinks that committing such crimes is regrettable, but optional - an unfortunate necessity in pursuit of a higher national self-defence based purpose, entirely dependent on the West's interests and the particular circumstances of each anti-terrorist/national security operation.

Would the Russians say the same thing?

 

Possible Ukraine Settlement

The Russians are stalled and are focusing on fully occupying the Donets and Luhansk regions. In short, rather than conquer the entire country, they seem to be settling for capturing Eastern Ukraine. 

The Russians will not win, and the whole world has a stake in this matter being settled as soon as possible so as to avoid an escalation to a wider war.

A settlement of this conflict could see the following:

1. All hostilities will cease immediately. Humanitarian aid will be allowed into regions occupied by the Russians. Russia will immediately return all Ukrainian citizens who may have been forcibly removed to Russia.

2. Ukraine and Russia will exchange all prisoners of war.

3. Russia will evacuate all areas of Ukraine outside of Crimea or the Donets and Luhansk regions within a week of the agreement.

4. There will be UN-supervised referenda in Crimea and the Donets and Luhansk regions within three months to ascertain whether residents want to stay within Ukraine or join Russia. Ukraine and Russia will cooperate with and facilitate these referenda. Neither country will seek to move residents into these regions in order to influence the outcomes of the referenda.

5. Russia will evacuate either Crimea or the Donets and Luhansk regions within one week should the  referenda that indicate that the residents in the regions would prefer to remain part of Ukraine.

6. Russia and Ukraine will go to arbitration to settle on compensation for Ukraine should either Crimea of the Donets and Luhansk regions opt join Russia. The arbitrators will be chosen by the UN Security Council, absent Russia.

7. Ukraine will guarantee that it will not seek to join NATO.

8. Russia will guarantee that it will not interfere in Ukraine internal affairs, and that Ukraine will be free to pursue any economic or political arrangements with other nations.

9. Ukraine and Russia will convene a joint dispute settling body to facilitate settlement of future disputes. 

This would be an agreement between Ukraine and Russia. Other nations would be free to maintain whatever relationship with the two countries that they prefer, including keeping sanctions against Russia or aid to Ukraine.

Channeling My Inner Trump!

 In May of 2021, I wrote this blog...

"In terms of specific tactics, if he can stay out of jail until the 2022 mid-term elections, and should the Republicans retake the House of Representatives and the Senate, he could coerce his lackeys in the Republican Party to put through a motion recognizing him as the true President of the United States, and repudiating the election of Joe Biden. Trump then would be able to go to any court and say that, because it is at least possible that he could be restored as the President of the United States, any charges should at least be stayed."

Please see here...

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/8182703650793673539/2096835209158165873

Yesterday, we learned that Trump had asked this of one of his lackeys, Mo Brooks, to do this should Mr. Brooks be elected to Congress in November, 2022..

....'“rescind the 2020 elections, immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House, immediately put President Trump back in the White House, and hold a new special election for the presidency.”

Please see here...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mo-brooks-trump-rescinds-endorsement-alabama-senate-1325520/

I was wrong in my blog in assuming that this entire episode would be about Trump trying to avoid criminal sanction. In fact, it is worse than that. As with what happened on January 6, 2021, Trump is bent on sedition to return to power. The United States of America has never faced a challenge like this.

To his credit, Mr. Brooks has refused to accede to Trump's demand. He will stand behind his oath to uphold the constitution, fully understanding that what has been asked of him breaches the highest law in the land. 

Will other Republicans do the same? 

We will find out how loyal these people are after the 2022 congressional elections, as Trump is almost certain to ask all Republicans in Congress to overturn the 2022 presidential election as soon as they take their seats in that august institution.

Do We Want WW3? What Are We Doing!?

Here are a few psychological studies of Putin. 

https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Waller_AriasKing_Putin_July2021_Optimize.pdf

https://worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/putin-psychology/particle-5

http://www.immelman.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Putin-poster.jpg

Summary - Latent homosexual, possible pedophile, posing as someone he is not and never was, in denial and desperate to not be found out, who thinks the world will never really accept him...sees in Russia's expansion and restoration of its greatness his own Napoleonic personal restoration, and Kiev in particular as key as having some relation to his mother,...primary traits are sadism, narcissism, obsessive/compulsive = he's nuts.

Thoughts...

Will Putin's inner sense that he will never be accepted by his own country spur him on to risk them all..."...love me or I'll nuke everything?"...similar to what Hitler did to Germany at the end of WW2? 

He derives joy from the idea that one person could decide the fate of thousands of others....what fate could he potentially have in store, and who are "the others"? 

He viciously attacks any opponents seeing all as threats. Would he see a defeat in Ukraine as a threat to his essential being that had to be thwarted/avoided with the maximum effort available to him...i.e. nukes? 

Is he desperate to avoid defeat and removal from office in order to avoid being "found out", whether that means as a homosexual, or just a wimp?  What would he do to avoid this, which could follow a defeat in Ukraine?

Is his sadism and narcissism such that he cannot identify at all with the suffering he is imposing on others, and he would not see how serious even nuclear weapons may be? He has mentioned using them three times in a week, and has put Russia on a high nuclear alert.

If the question is agreeing to keep Ukraine out of NATO, versus the risk that he will use nukes, maybe we declare that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO; challenge the Russians to leave; then resort to the long game of waiting/encouraging Putin to either die, retire, or be removed?

Was Ukraine going to be allowed into NATO any time soon anyway? What are the West's actual interests here?  

Putin likely wants way more, but getting him to agree to a cease-fire and starting talking about Ukraine not joining NATO would be a defeat for him, and a victory for our primary goal here, which is to make sure he does not go nuclear even if the risk is very low. 

Why are we facilitating a war that could kill tens of thousands of Ukrainians and possibly end everything for everyone?  

Is it appeasement to recognize that your opponent is nuts and could blow up the entire world, so maybe a short-term accommodation to wait him out is in order? 

Hitler didn't have nukes...

Is This How It Ends?

The invasion is not going to plan. 

Putin is up against the wall, and he is nuts and increasingly desperate. 

What is going on in the Kremlin? 

Is a battle going on there that will decide whether or not humanity continues to exist?  

Is the fate of the world in the hands of a few generals and advisors and hangers-on who are trying to figure out how to sneak a handgun into a meeting with him, or doctors who are trying to figure out how to slip him some poison, a la Stalin. or a girlfriend who is planning to plunge a knife into his heart?  

Is the CIA activating assassination plans?

I do not think any human would survive a nuclear holocaust.

If Putin goes nuclear, the only intelligent life in the universe will be snuffed out.

We have never been closer to complete annihilation. The nuclear clock should be at 11:59:58...

Is this how it ends? 

Curtains For Putin?

I was dead wrong. Biden did not make a secret deal with Putin to keep Ukraine out of NATO. The Russians invaded yesterday. 

Let's take a walk through time...we may want to try to understand what is going on through a search for historic precedents.

Focusing on Russian history, we may want to start with the expansion of Russia from a Grand Duchy to an Empire over a period of about 700 years, and see this invasion as a modern version of this imperial imperative.

We could also interpret the invasion from a more recent perspective, and see this as the third of three national suppressions including Hungary in 1956, and Czechoslovakia in 1968, where the Russians felt compelled to reign in their vassal states by taking military action.

Reference to more recent events would conjure up memories of the Georgian-Russian War from 2008, and the occupation and annexation of Crimea in 2014, when the Russians took advantage of a distracted and/or disinterested world to take back territory. 

Finally, there is the Russian suppression and reincorporation of Chechnya into Russia in 1999-2000.  Chechnya had gained its de facto independence following a war with Russia in 1994-96. The later war to bring them back into Russia killed up to 50,000 people. 

There are many ways to interpret what has happened here - economic imperatives; a drive to restore Great Power Status; the need to deflect from internal troubles. I think that the historic precedents are key to understanding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Those precedents speak to a centuries-long and relentless determination on the part of the Russian leadership - of every ideological stripe - to control the peoples on their borders. There appears to be no question that Putin sees the world the same way, considering Ukraine to be nothing more than a break-away part of Russia which he is determined to return to the fold. He has as much as said so.

How will this turn out?  

Well, no one knows, but it is certain that the days of empire are over, at least those empires established by force of arms and maintained through the use of soldiers and not financiers. Putin's perspective is at least three decades out of date, and his perspective is certain to have many detractors, including people in his own country.

Regarding those people, the war may be taking place now in order for Putin to deflect from the obvious failure of Putin's government to bring to the Russians the type of economic and social success that is being enjoyed by many of their former vassal states. By way of comparison, the Russians have almost five times the population of their former vassal Poland, but barely twice the GDP of that country. As noted in a previous post, Russia should be the wealthiest country on Earth. They are nowhere close to this. Does Putin see writing on the wall?

Other countries that tried the path of war to defect from economic stagnation and internal troubles include Argentina that launched the Falkland's War in 1980, and the Austrian Empire which gleefully vaulted into WW1 in 1914. Both countries saw the end of the respective regimes as a result of their involvement in those wars.

We know what Ukrainians and the West think about this new war. It may be that we should be paying closer attention to the Russians themselves. Behind the propaganda, a storm may be brewing.

Putin and Biden - Let's Make a Secret Deal

I suspect that there will be no invasion of Ukraine. 

Why?  

Putin has demanded that Ukraine never be allowed to join NATO.  I think that the Americans will agree. In particular, I think Biden will promise Putin that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, and he will also ask that Putin keep this promise secret. This approach is consist with Biden's emerging foreign policy philosophy - The Biden Doctrine - of matching America's commitments to America's interests. The USA has no observable interest in defending Ukraine from Russia. NATO's expansion is probably over.

The precedent for this may be the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the crisis was resolved, in part, when the Americans undertook to withdraw missiles from Turkey in return for the USSR withdrawing missiles from Cuba. In order to not look like they had appeased the Soviets, the Americans asked that their promise be kept secret.  They removed their missiles six months after the Soviets removed missiles from Cuba.

For an awesome series on the Cuban Missile Crisis, please see here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEXjoBe5ZdI&list=PLrG5J-K5AYAWbzTXiTzPEFQHLoozkqchz

On the Biden Doctrine, Biden faced a mass of criticism for pulling out of Afghanistan last year. Is anyone now complaining that the USA is no longer spending its money and shedding American blood in Afghanistan?  

Nope.

Putin Has A Point

 Here is a map of Russia and Ukraine...

If Ukraine joined NATO, Russia would face a hostile alliance with a bridgehead jutting right into the heart of their country. NATO says it is peaceful, but Russia sees NATO as a threat. Including Ukraine in the alliance would be adding one country too many. Doing this would be almost guaranteed to spark a violent reaction from Russia. No one has an interest in this, especially the Ukrainians, as it is in their country that any violent reaction would likely be focused.

At the start of WW1, Russia had the fourth largest economy on Earth. One horrible world war; one horrible civil war; a second more horrible world war; seventy years of Communism; forty years of Cold War; and a botched return to normalcy after the Cold War later, and the combined GDP of NATO is about thirty times that of Russia. No country on Earth exhibits more failed promise than the one that Putin leads. That country deserves our condolences, not our apprehension.

Russia will only become a real threat if it is truly provoked. We need to make sure to not provoke it.

And Ukraine? Would being militarily neutral, but free to join any economic and political collectives it prefers really be an awful a situation? It works well for Finland.

The West needs to look in the mirror, and realize that this time, we may be the bully.

Cruzing for a "Terrorist" Bruising

Ted Cruz has claimed that the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 was a "terrorist" act.  According to one journalist from CNN, he has claimed this at least 17 times.

Last week he claimed it again, and Tucker Carlson from Fox "News" took him to task for it. Under pressure from Carlson, Cruz backtracked his comments and claimed that he was "sloppy" and "dumb" in using the term "terrorist". In spite of his pathetic groveling. Carlson would have none of it. See here...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/08/ted-cruz-capitol-attack-tucker-carlson-interview

It is worth noting that Carlson claimed in the interview that “You called this a ‘terror attack’ when by no definition was it a terror attack,”...  Carlson has been spreading relentless lies about that day, including a documentary that claimed that the attack was a "false flag" incident that was orchestrated by the deep state, that is, by US security services. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/04/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlsons-conspiracy-theory-about-fbi-and-ja/

Get it?  The attack never happened, but if it did, it was encouraged and orchestrated by the government!

By "no definition" a terrorist act? Here is a general definition of the word "terrorist"...

..."a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." (see below for source)

On January 6, 2021, Trump supporters used violence and intimidation to try to coerce US lawmakers to stop the political act of certification of the 2021 presidential election. In short, "people" used "violence and intimidation" against "civilians" for "political aims". 

This isn't hard.  The events of January 6, 2021 were, by definition, "terrorist" in nature. 

What is scary is that Carlson is leading a massive propaganda campaign to foster denial of this basic reality. Many, many people believe him.

What is scarier is that Cruz has presidential ambitions. How would an utterly spineless weasel like this stand up to a guy like Putin? How do the citizens of Texas keep electing this man?

This is what it is like living in the shadows of weasels.

Source - https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+terorist&rlz=1C1CHZN_enCA915CA920&oq=definition+of+terorist&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i10i433j0i10l7j46i10.6944j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

USA...Civil Strife, Not Civil War

Will the USA dismember into civil war? It already did that once, and many prognosticators are predicting that it may do so again sometime soon.

The USA will not move to civil war for the following reasons.

1. Been There, Done That. The USA already had a civil war, and the results were not happy.  That memory is still relatively fresh...no one will not want a repeat.

2. The Rule of Law is Alive and Well in America. Those who would rise up against the state will be stopped and prosecuted. The attempt to stop a constitutional process in aid of a hopeless attempt to hold on to power by Trump on Jan 6, 2021 has resulted in 700 charges, and counting. Almost no one on either side of the aisle questions jury trials.

3. The Military is Loyal. Any attempt to overthrow a democratically-elected government in the USA would be met by the United States Army whose officer corps is loyal. Such an uprising has no chance of success.

4. Politics Still Mostly Works. The political system in the USA looks incredibly messy at the moment. That is completely normal. Congress can still come together and make deals in the national interest, and that is all that ultimately matters. 

5. The USA is Dealing with Race. George Floyd changed the USA. The result will be less racism, more national harmony and better policing in coming years. While there is a political divide, there actually is a counter movement toward increased racial harmony which matters much more. The USA will emerge more, not less unified in ten years.

6. Biden is Finally Starting to Lead. When the President of the United States assumes the bully pulpit, the result often has a dramatic effect on the psyche of that country. Biden has come out swinging against the anti-democratic leanings of Trump et al...he will succeed in pushing them back as he has the high ground, and they don't.

7. The Hate is Balanced by Liberty. The Dems and GOP may hate each other, but they mostly do not question the right of the other to be "idiots". The essence of any civil war is the belief that other side has no right to think what they think and to hold whatever political opinions that want to hold. This is mostly not the case in the USA, where the vast majority of people respect the right of others to have their own opinions, even if they are considered to be wrong.

8. Noise Does Not Equal Civil War. The many irresponsible commentators and agitators on both sides of the aisle castigate each other verbally and spread lies, but no one is seriously suggesting that they "take out" their opponents. The propaganda on both sides is mostly infantile and meant to entertain...no one will fight for a sound bite. Hmmm...is it "Propatainment"?

9. No Regular Fist Fights Yet! The two sides have hardly even started fighting yet! Encounters are often heated, but it is VERY rare for the two sides of the American divide to go at each other physically...the cops always get on the way. 

10. The Democratic Process Works. America has free and fair elections. Messy, yes, but they are legitimate. The ballot box is still where the political contests of that country play themselves out. Almost no one questions this.

There are other points that I could make. There may be significant strife in the USA in coming years, but there will be no civil war.

Peace in our time!!