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!!

 

Why Conspiracies Fester

COVID 19 is FAKE! Trump won in 2020! Vaccines don't work!

Literally millions of people honestly believe these and other such things. It is generally assumed that they are nuts. I don't think so. 

These people are situating their belief systems in such a way as to adjust to the aspect of lying that has become the staple of Western political life. 

Put another way, they have been lied to so often by so many, that the truth is no longer clear to them, and anything that seems to break through the assumed lies to an "alternate reality" often seems accurate, especially if it accords with their religious beliefs, economic status, and views on race.

Three time-honoured examples of...

The Lies That Launched An Age of Conspiracy!

Let's Wag the Dog!! - The Second Gulf of Tonkin Incident.  

The USA launched its intervention in Vietnam after North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked two American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam on two separate occasions. Except that the second attack never happened. 

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that was placed before Congress to launch the war said this..

“Naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace..."

Former Secretary of State, Robert McNamara, admitted in 2003 that the second attack that was relied upon to justify the war never occurred.

Filthy Bill Rides Again! - Bill Clinton. 

The man is a pig, plain and simple. Long before we discovered that he had been on the Lolita Express thirty times (i.e. Jeffrey Epstein's aircraft which ferried teen girls to be exploited on his rape island), Bill famously claimed this, under oath...

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky..."

Except that he did. Because of this lie and other actions, he was impeached by the House of Representatives and disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas.

Watch Bill's lie here...he is the master...you almost believe him even now!

Bill Clinton Lie - I DID NOT HAVE Sexual Relations with that Woman (Lewinsky) - YouTube

When he was finally cornered like a rat...

(32) When Clinton admitted to the Lewinsky affair - YouTube

Blow Up Trust Real Good!...The Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In 2003, then President George W Bush justified an invasion of Iraq on Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. The only problem with this was that he didn't actually have any. The Americans and their allies spent years looking for weapons that were not there.  

Did they lie? Most people assume they did, and that the USA wanted to get at Iraq and used this excuse to do so. Certainly, the UN did not think there were any weapons there, having done hundreds of inspections before the war turning up exactly nothing. There is no question the American Government knew this when they claimed - falsely - that weapons would be found.

Public Discourse...

Along with these lies there has emerged a new standard in public political commentary as news outlets moved from reporting the news to commenting on it. The effect of this has been multiplied many times by the advent of social media, which operates absent almost any sense of responsibility regarding political and other such comment.

There is BIG money in spreading conspiracies, and tapping into the new staple of Western political life, which is The Big Lie. Maybe this isn't evil, just normal?

We used to live in the shadows of Giants...Lincoln, Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr.  Today we cower after having sunk into a new post-reason Dark Age made more sinister by the lights of a perverted information technology.

But wait!  There is more!

One final note on the method of conspiracy theorists.

The method of conspiracy is to assume a fantastical reality, then go looking for the evidence to prove it. The scientific and historical method does the opposite, where one seeks to engage in a search for evidence first, and then reach conclusions reflecting wherever the search has taken you afterward, with no preconditions. The first and illegitimate method is only possible in the Information Age, where all manner of evidence is available to anyone to abuse as they see fit. 

Has unlimited access to information made us the most dishonest generation ever?

 

He Still Thinks He Can Win! Maybe He Can...

 Why won't Trump just admit defeat?

More than six months after the vote, there is no cogent evidence of wide-spread fraud in the 2020 US Presidential election. The results were assessed and confirmed everywhere across the country. No litigation succeeded in overturning any part of the vote anywhere. The constitutional process has played itself out. Joe Biden is legitimately the President of the United States.

No previous candidate has ever done what Trump is doing. By continuing to mobilize his party and supporters against the election result, he is testing American democracy, and he may be setting up a situation that could explode into even more violence at some point in the future.

So why is he doing this? 

There are two reasons.

The first related to Trump's psychology. Trump's worst fear is to ever be seen as a "loser". The fact that he actually lost an election is unacceptable to him to the very core of his being. He is never a loser in his mind, even to the extent that he has to cheat (golf) or lie (elections and many other things) to avoid the approbation that comes with losing. The man has a screw loose. He lost the election...he is a loser.

The second reason is related and has to do with the fact that he is a criminal. At the very least, it is illegal in the USA to use campaign contributions to pay ladies you have slept with to keep their mouths shut about it. There is no question he instructed his lawyer - Cohen - to do just that. At some point, charges will follow and he will be convicted. The prospect of heading to prison would no doubt be too much for Trump to bear...only losers go to the slammer.

This matters because the President of the United States cannot be charged with a crime while he is president. If Trump had won the election, he would be untouchable for four more years, which would have given him time to figure a way out of his various criminal messes...perhaps stepping aside as long as his successor pardoned him for any and all federal crimes that he may have ever committed.

And so, Trump is keeping alive the idea that he did not lose the 2020 election as a criminal defense for when he is charged with at least the charges noted above, and likely many more. When he is charged with any crime, his defense will be that he is actually properly the President of the United States, and that no charges may be brought against him. 

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.

Of course, if such a move were supported by Republican states, this could lead to talk of civil war. Given the violence of his supporters, one would think that tens of thousands would take to the streets, armed and ready to support him.

While the country would verge on catastrophe in this scenario, Trump would still be a winner.

And isn't that all that really matters?

Democratic Reform in Canada

We will soon head into another federal election. Democratic Reform will again be a significant issue.

The Government of Canada launched a democratic reform initiative in 2015 that went nowhere because politicians did not see how they could benefit from it.  Because they gain power from our democratic system of government, they cannot be trusted to reform it.

Why not take this issue out of the hands of politicians, and just let the people decide the base elements of democratic reform in a referendum?

What follows are some possible reforms that may be worth considering, and why they may be worthwhile.  It is suggested that if Canadians voted 55% or more in favour of any of these (a clear majority as we don't want a Brexit situation concerning something this important!), then the government should undertake to propose the necessary changes to our democratic laws to Parliament make them so.

1. Term Limits: No one should be able to sit as a Member of Parliament for longer than the life of three consecutive Parliaments, or a maximum of 12 years. 

- Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so a bit of power will corrupt a bit. Not all politicians are corrupt, in fact most are not. Nonetheless, a few bad apples are a few too many. The longer they stay, the greater the chances that they will abuse their position. Let politicians take a break after 12 years and get a small pension. Let them run again after they take one mandate off. If they choose to just retire, there are plenty of other qualified people who can replace them. Of course, because the Prime Minister is a Member of Parliament, this means that no PM can serve longer than 12 consecutive years.

2. Recall: Constituents should be able to recall their Member of Parliament and force a by-election, subject to strict criteria, such as 60% of electors in a riding signing a petition demanding a recall by-election within a 90 period. 

- It is ridiculous that MPs cannot be fired by the people they represent between elections. A recall by-election should be difficult to launch, but if an MP's behaviour warrants his or her firing, this option should be available to constituents.

3. Mandatory Voting: Every citizen should be required to vote in a federal election, with a small fine being levied against those who do not do so. 

- It works in Australia! Taking 30 minutes every four years to show up to vote is not too much to ask in a democracy. If voters do not like the candidates, they are free to spoil their ballots, but it is important that everyone be included in an election to add to the integrity of every Parliament’s mandate. If added to Internet voting, this is a "no-brainer".

4. Ranked Voting/Preferential Ballot (Alternative is a Run-Off Vote): Voters should be able to rank their preferences on a ballot, by indicating their first, second and third choices for their Member of Parliament. Rounds of votes should be counted until someone receives more than 50% of the votes. The candidate who receives the greatest amount of support over 50% will win the seat. 

As an alternative, there could be a run-off election after the main vote. If no one no one got more than 50% of the vote, there would be a run-off between the top two candidates, to make sure the winner can show they received more than 50% of the vote.

Note - The supporters of proportional representation argue that with the first-past-the-post system the winner of a riding is usually elected by only a plurality - that “their vote did not count”.  Actually, all votes are counted, and these people are really complaining that the person they preferred as their representative didn’t win with a level of support that is enough to leave no question in anyone’s mind as to their mandate to represent the riding.  To deal with this, ask that voters rank their top three preferences, and count rounds of votes until the winner shows the greatest level of support over 50%. This will allow the winner to be able to show that they did, in fact, get the over 50% of the vote. It also opens a world of possibility to parties that usually get a significant percentage of the vote, but which cannot convince more than a handful of constituents in a given riding to support their candidate. If they work to become everyone’s second choice, they could actually govern one day.  Having a run-off between the top two candidates a few weeks after the main vote where no one got over 50% would do the same thing.

5. No More than 75,000 Constituents per Riding: Make sure that Members of Parliament represent no more than 75,000 people, which would increase the size of the present House of Commons to about 470 members. 

- This will dramatically increase the size of the House of Commons, but in so doing, it will also dilute the control that political parties have over their members, freeing them up to more often vote their conscience as informed by the will of their constituents. It does this by making it more remote that a given MP will ever become a minister of the Crown; the desire for which is the primary reason that MPs are loyal to their parties.  

6. National Referenda: Citizens should be able to trigger a referendum on any issue, subject to strict criteria, such as 50% of national electors signing a petition within a 90 day period demanding the same. 

- Citizens should be able to launch national referenda on issues of the day. It should be hard to do this, limiting the number of referenda that may go ahead, but the option should be available so that whether or not referenda are launched is not entirely subject to the interests of political parties.

7. Senate Reform: The Senate should be elected, with elections being organized by whatever method suits the provinces and territories that they represent, with the Primer Minister nominating the winners as future senators. However, an elected Senate should continue with its traditional "sober second thought" role so as to not become a legislative competitor to the House of Commons. 

- It is time for an elected Senate in Canada. Our constitutional framework requires that the Senate only perform a “sober second thought” role, and that the lead legislature still be the House of Commons. Nonetheless, as long as this basic role does not change, there is no reason why the Senate cannot be elected - there are elected Senators right now.

8. Restore Public Financing of Political Parties: The yearly stipend that political parties used to receive should be restored, but with the caveat that citizens should be able to direct their stipend to whatever political party they prefer, perhaps through the use of a box on their yearly income tax form. 

- It may make sense to restore the yearly public stipend to political parties, perhaps at a rate of $2.00 per voter. It its previous incarnation, the yearly stipend was awarded based on the results of the previous election, so that parties like the Greens would get, say 4% of all available funds because the got 4% of the popular vote in the previous election. This could not be changed between elections no matter what the political party in question did in the years after the election in question. If voters could direct these funds between elections on their tax forms, they would have an ability to reward those parties that performed well, and punish those that didn’t by directing their stipend to whatever party suited their fancy and withholding it from others, between elections.      

Again, these potential changes could be put to the population in a national referendum on democratic reform. As noted, whatever they say "yes" to with 55% + support should be implemented as soon as possible. A national referendum could be said to be required so that reform of our democracy is not subject to the interests of political parties which work within the system, but should never be rulers of that same system; their conflict of interest is crystal clear. 

The potential Referendum Questions follow.

1. Should Members of Parliament be limited to serving or no more than 12 consecutive years?

2. Should constituents be able to recall their Members of Parliament?

3. Should voting be mandatory?

4. Should citizens elect their representatives through the use of a preferential or ranked ballot? (Alternative - Should citizens elect their representatives through the use of a run-off election after the main vote, where if no one got more than 50% of the vote, then there would be a run-off election between the top two candidates, to make sure the winner can show they received more than 50% of the vote?) 

5. Should Members of Parliament represent no more than an average of 75,000 constituents?

6. Should citizens have the ability to trigger national referenda?

7. Should Senators be elected?

8. Should the yearly stipend to political parties be restored with the caveat that citizens should be able to direct the payments between elections?