Positive News

From the New York Times:  "According to research by the University of California, Irvine, the California Institute of Technology, and the Carnegie Institution for Science, 80% of the United States's power needs can be met by solar and wind."

Maybe not this year, because we do not have the collection and distribution systems in place, but we have the technology now to make it happen.

Florida governor signs gun control bill

As reported by the Associated Press on Friday, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida has signed the gun control bill passed by the legislature.

Although the bill does not ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons, as many people wished it had, it does several positive things:

1.  It raises the minimum age from 18 to 21 to buy a rifle.
2.  Extends an existing three-day waiting period for handgun purchases to include long guns.
3.  Bans the sale of bump stocks that allow guns to mimic fully automatic firing.
4.  Creates a "guardian" program that enables teachers and other school employees to carry handguns in schools.

Student activists calls this bill "baby steps;"  but, although it is far less than what they wanted, they do recognize that it represents a significant step forward -- not only for the legislature but also for Gov. Scott, who broke with the NRA to support stronger measures.

Predictably, the National Rifle Association (i.e., the lobby for the gun industry) is not happy.  In fact, the NRA immediately filed a federal lawsuit, saying that the law violates the Second Amendment in raising the age to buy guns.

Baby steps are real steps -- and they grow up into bigger steps.

Ralph

BREAKING NEWS on North Korea

Thursday afternoon, the South Korean national security adviser, who has recently met with Kim Jong Un, delivered a letter from Kim to President Trump.

It was an invitation to Mr. Trump for the two of them to meet to discuss the denuclearization of North Korea.    Trump has agreed to the meeting, which is said to be planned to take place "by May."

This in itself seems quite out of the ordinary way of doing things.   Usually something as significant as this would be the culmination of a series of preliminary meetings, with shows of good faith from each side to build trust, leading to higher and higher levels of officials -- before the heads of state would meet to finalize an agreement.

On the other hand, it is exactly the unorthodox style that characterizes Trump.

The big question, beyond the obvious one of whether Kim Jong Un is serious about getting rid of his nuclear capacity, is what's up with this seeming complete change in Kim from belligerent to conciliatory.

I can't help but wonder.   There have been articles in the media in the past couple of days about the state of Kim's health, citing speculation that he may be quite ill.   One can only wonder at this point, but is he perhaps wanting to put his country on a sound footing with the rest of the world -- both economically and with recognition as a respectable peer -- while he still can?

The cynical view would be that those health reports might be part of North Korea's propaganda plot to build up an expectation to draw the U.S. in to negotiations -- and then walk away, leaving us looking gullible?    I wonder if it's too late to get our chief expert on North Korea in the State Department to change his mind about leaving?    At least to be a consultant to the White House negotiators as they plan their next moves.

Ralph

Chelsea Clinton on Donald Trump

Chelsea Clinton was a guest on Stephen Colbert's late night show a few nights ago.  She's very articulate and has learned well from her parents how to be cautious when speaking to the public about opposition leaders.

But Colbert pushed her a little bit -- asking if she and Ivanka Trump have kept up their friendship.    Chelsea said they had not spoken in quite a while, and she mentioned that Ivanka is now going along with some administration policies that she, Chelsea, disagrees with.

Then, with a little more probing from Colbert, she said this about the president and how the White House is functioning:

"The President thrives on anxiety and insults. . . .  Unfortunately, this administration is a collision of cruelty and incompetence."

And, with implied reference to his recent announcement on tariffs and the departure of his chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, as well as how foreign policy issues in general are being decided, Chelsea said:

"It's very sad that we . . . have a president who has such callous disregard for thoughtful, coherent, expert advice on foreign policy."

*   *   *

And on everything else too, I would add.   If he replaces Gary Cohn with Peter Navarro, who is apparently the economist who had Trump's ear on tariffs, then it will be disaster.   An expert on Chris Hayes' show said he had been unable, despite trying over some time, to find in all of academia one single other economist who agreed with Navarro on economic policy.

Ralph

"Finally, Trump did something Repubs can't stomach" -- and how it came about.

The title is from the following op-ed column by notable political writer for the Washington Post, Dana Milbank.

*   *   *   *   *

"What would it take for Republicans to turn against Donald Trump?  Now, finally, we know.

"For nearly three years, Republican lawmakers have stood with Trump, offering only isolated protest, through all manner of outrage.   Disparaging Mexican immigrants.   Videotaped boasts about sexually assaulting women.   Alleging that his predecessor put a wiretap on him.   Falsely claiming massive voter fraud.  Racism directed at a federal judge.   The firing of James B. Comey.  Talk of women bleeding.  A payoff to a porn actress over an alleged affair.  A defense of white supremacists in Charlottesville.   Support for Senate candidate Roy Moore despite allegations of child molestation.  The guilty pleas of Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Rick Gates and the indictment of Paul Manafort.  The botched travel ban and bungled repeal of Obamacare.   Insulting Britain and other allies.  Attacks on the FBI and judiciary and attempts to fire the attorney general.  Talk of African 'shithole' countries.  Questions about his mental stability.  The lethargic hurricane response in Puerto Rico.  The stream of staff firings and resignations and personal and ethical scandals, most recently Tuesday's finding that Kellyanne Conway twice violated the Hatch Act.

"Republican lawmakers were, by and large, okay with all that.  But now Trump has gone too far.   He has proposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum.  And the Republican Party is in an all-out revolt.

"House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) fielded four questions at a news conference Tuesday morning and answered the same way four times:  with a warning about the 'unintended consequences' of Trump's proposed tariffs.

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) spoke Tuesday afternoon of 'a high level of concern' and fear that 'this could metastasize into a larger trade war.'  The No. 2 Senate Republican, John Cornyn (Tex.), warned about 'jeopardizing the economy.'

"Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), usually a Trump cheerleader, warned that it would be a 'real mistake.'  Sen. Mark Rubio (Fla.) suggested a 'scapel not a sledgehammer.'  Rep. Kevin Yoder (Kan.), at a hearing Tuesday, warned Treasury Scretary Steven Mnuchin that 'retaliatory measures are already occurring.' . . . 

"Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) went to the Senate floor to warn that 'tariffs are big taxes' and said a company in Tennessee suspended a planned expansion because of the tariff threat.  He read into the record a Wall Street Journal editorial calling the tariffs Trump's 'biggest policy blunder.'

"The Republican criticism ppoured forth, from Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Rand Paul (Ky.), from Reps. David Young (Iowa), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), and even from new Fed Chairman Jerome H. Powell.

"And it isn't just criticism.  GOP lawmakers are considering action, even though options are limited:  attempting to block the tariffs with veto-proof legislation or as part of a must-pass bill, or denying Trump fast-track trade negotiating authority when it comes up for renewal.   Republicans have nudged Trump in their direction before, on taxes and immigration.   But never before has there been a full-scale rebellion.

"The conventional analysis is that Republican lawmakers bend to Trump because he has the support of the party's base.   But that calculus does not apply here.  The base is with Trump -- a Pew Research Center poll last year found only 36% of Republicans have a positive view of trade agreements -- but lawmakers are defying him anyway.

"This, then, the extent to which the congressional GOP, despite Trump's populist talk, has been a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America under Trump.  Republicans are with Trump most of the time (that is, when he is cutting regulations and taxes on corporations and the wealthy) but against him on the rare occasions he is opposed by industry, or at least all industry that doesn't make steel and aluminum.

"These lawmakers know where their bread is buttered, and they must keep corporate contributors happy.   Perhaps they also recognize that the economy is in a precarious state.   Trump himself called it a bubble, and that bubble has been pumped up further with debt-financed tax cuts and spending stimulus.  A trade war, or even a trade skirmish, could be most deflating.

"This is why Republican lawmakers look the other way when presented with Trump's alleged sexual misconduct, racial provocations, conflicts of interest, cowboy diplomacy and assaults on the rule of law.   But slapping a tariff on foreign metals?   That crosses the line."

*     *     *     *     *

That, my friends, is an analysis of this from a strictly content perspective.   I know less about the ins and outs of finance and trade than about process of governing, so I tend to look at how this came about.  And it is a frightening spectacle of governing by whim and rage and retaliation.

Reports from this leaky White House are that Trump was enraged -- in fact, one even said that he "came unglued" -- and was mad enough to start a war.   What he apparently settled on was these tariffs, which his Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (who falls asleep in meetings) and his inept deputy had been pushing.    His chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, argued vehemently against it.   But Trump would not listen to him, because he wanted action.

So, without any plan formulated, nothing written down, not even any firm numbers -- Trump held that press conference, at the end of which he blurted out that he was going to impose these trade tariffs.   Only when a reporter asked him, on the way out the door as the press was dismissed, what the numbers were did he mention the 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum.   As Rachel Maddow speculated, it sounded like he just sort of picked them out of the air.

That's how (un)formulated this "plan" was.

And so, chief economic adviser Gary Cohn told the president that he would be resigning.   Cohn, a former President and COO of Goldman Sachs, a registered Democrat, highly respected in the financial world, had taken the White House position to get one thing done:   tax reform.   He had done that.   He tried to talk sense into the president on the tariffs;  but, if his advice carried no weight, then there was no reason for him to stay.

Now we have one less adult in the White House inner circle.   Who knows who his replacement will be?

That's not even my greatest concern.   Rumors have intensified that National Security Adviser Gen. H. R. McMaster is also on the way out (another of the adults).  But the worst news of all is that John Bolton has been seen entering and leaving the White House in recent days, fueling speculation that he will be McMaster's replacement.   Bolton is a notorious, hard-line war hawk.   Exactly what Trump does NOT need.   He's far more blunderbuss than diplomat.

As one commentor put it, "If it's true, we're all dead."

Ralph

North Korea willing to suspend nuclear tests and begin talks with U.S.

The New York Times, Reuter's News Service, and other media outlets report that the North Korea is willing to hold talks with the United States on denuclearization and that it will suspend its nuclear tests while those talks are under way.   This is the message the South Koreans brought back from direct meetings in the North with its leader Kim Jong Un.

Further, the two Koreas are building on their rapprochement during the recent Olympic Games and have scheduled a summit meeting between the two in a border village next month.

According to the head of the South Korean delegation:   "North Korea made clear its willingness to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and the fact that there is no reason for it to have a nuclear program if military threats against the North are resolved and its regime is secure."   He added:  "There are no other specific demands from North Korea in returning to dialogue.   They only said they wanted to be treated like a serious dialogue partner."

In the past, Kim has reacted as though the routinely scheduled U.S.-South Korean military exercises were preparation for an invasion of his country.   But this time his tone was different.   Having been told that it is not feasible at this late date to cancel the drills planned for April, Kim indicated that he understood and implied that, if the exercises are of a similar scale seen in previous years, he would accept it for this year.

If Kim follows through with these concessions, this is a major break through.   The Pentagon says that they are "cautiously optimistic."   President Trump tweeted, "We'll see what happens."  In a statement released later, he called it "possible progress" and elaborated:   "For the first time in many years, a serious effort is being made by all parties concerned.   The World is watching and waiting!   May be false hope, but the U.S. is ready to go hard in either direction."

Kim Jong Un has been telling us for years that his nuclear program is defensive, and that he has developed it because he feels threatened with invasion from the South, backed by the United States.   Both sides have contributed to escalation of tensions from time to time, and this was particularly problematic during Trump's first year in office.

To refresh our memories:   U.S. troops fought alongside South Koreans troops against the North from 1950 to 1953 -- a civil war on the Korean peninsula that ended in a truce, not a peace treaty.   And we still have 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, with a demilitarized zone dividing the two nations.

I think "cautious optimism" is the correct stance to take.   We should move forward toward talks with all reasonable counter-concessions;  but the "cautious" part comes from history of promises from the North not kept.

However, we also must look to our own provocative behavior toward the North and be sensitive to their existential fears.   We must not overlook other threats from North Korea to world peace, such as the assertions by us and our allies that they have been suppliers of nuclear material, military arms, as well as chemical and possibly biological weapons, to other terrorist nations.   I am not up to date on the proofs of these charges, but they should not be naively ignored by our negotiators.

As the New York Times writers emphasized:  "[This] sets in motion a challenging phase that will call on the United State to exercise diplomatic muscles aftere a long stretch in which the White House relied on economic pressure, backed by threats of military force, to deal with the North."

One major problem we will have is that we have no depth of diplomatic representation with expertise on Korea in our diminished State Department in the Trump administration.    Joe Yun, our chief professional negotiator on North Korea has just announced his resignation, and the position of ambassador to South Korea remains unfilled.   Much will depend on South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who seems to be the motivating force and bridge between the U.S. and N.K.

But let's also be optimistic, along with cautious.   If we could take Kim at his word, and he really does seek to be recognized on the world stage as a peer -- without being a threat to peace -- then this would indeed be a landmark achievement.

Ralph

RAND Corp. reviews gun violence studies

Vox.com published an article by German Lopez describing a huge review done by the RAND Corporation of the available gun research studies.   Only limited conclusions can be drawn, but they point in one direction.   

Gun control can save lives.

"For decades, the federal government, with the support of the National Rifle Association, has made it very difficult to answer a question at the heart of American public health and safety.   Does gun control work?

"The answer is hugely important given that guns killed nearly 39,000 Americans in 2016 alone.   But after research on gun violence in the 1990's found that firearms do not-- contrary to NRA talking points -- make people safer, the group [the NRA] backed a federal funding freeze on gun policy research."

[This refers to the Dickey amendment, passed by Congress in 1996, which forbids the CDC from spending any federal funds to research the effects of gun violence.  See ShrinkWrap13, March 2, 2018.]

"But studies have gone on -- just without federal funding.  And on Friday, a nonpartisan think tank, the RAND Corporation, released the results so far of its Gun Policy in America initiative, a two-year dive into the research on gun violence and the laws trying to curtail it.

"RAND's extensive report does not make any sweeping declarations about gun policy.  It does, however, make clear that gun control research is very limited, calling on Congress to lift the NRA-backed funding freeze.  It argues that the freeze has, by making it difficult to conduct better studies, led to a confusing empirical environment, where it's easy for groups on both sides of the debate to cite shoddy work that supports their prior beliefs.

"'The studies that have been done often reach opposite conclusions to each other,' Andrew Morral, the head of RAND's gun policy initiative, told me.  The lack of thorough research, he added, 'creates this kind of fact-free environment in which people can cherry-pick any study that happens to support what their priors are on the effects of the law.'

"Morral's team spent two years reviewing US-based studies published over the past several decades, pulling out the most rigorous to try to find some 'incontrovertible truths,.'   RAND concluded that, first and foremost, far more research is necessary.  'Many of the matters that people disagree on when they disagree on gun policy have not been rigorously studied in ways that produce reasonably unambiguous results.' Morral said.

"But there were some things that could be gleaned from the available evidence.   While RAND as a nonpartisan group avoided any sweeping policy conclusions in its analysis, its review does seem to point in a direction, based on my own reading:  More permissive gun policies lead to more gun deaths, while more restrictive policies lead to fewer gun deaths.  Coupled with other evidence in this area, that supports the idea that more guns lead to more gun deaths.

"Given that America is dealing with an immediate gun violence problem, as mass shootings and deaths pile up, the report is worth taking seriously.   At the very least, there's enough evidence to suggest that the federal government should stop refusing to fund research on policies that really could work to save thousands of lives every year."

The extensive RAND report is available here:

https://www.rand.org/news/press/2018/03/02.html

Though limited in comprehensiveness due to the federal prohibited research funding, this is an important preliminary report.   It's #1 conclusion is that far more extensive research is badly needed.    What we have is being misused to cause further confusion. 

The #2 conclusion is that the data from the more rigorous of these studies do point in one direction:   more guns result in more gun deaths.   Some specific regulations, like more effective background checks, do have at least some modest effects in reducing gun deaths.

But much, much more research and study must be done.   It approaches criminal intent for politicians to continue to refuse to allow funding for serious, comprehensive research on gun safety.

Simply curtailing all the unnecessary travel expenses of President Trump's cabinet secretaries -- plus the president's own frequent multi-million dollar weekend trips to his golf courses -- could go a long way to making up the necessary funding.

Ralph

The rise of authoritarianism -- and Trump's enthusiastic support of it

The New York Times' conservative op-ed columnist, Bret Stephens, raises an interesting question about the nations that support the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad.   What unites North Korea, Russia, Iran, and China, he asks?

North Korea tried to supply Syria with a nuclear reactor, but Israel destroyed it in 2007;  there have also been suspicions that N.K. is supplying Assad with chemical weapons.   Russia obviously is giving them air power and air cover.  China has designs on cashing in when it comes time to rebuild this war-destroyed country, as they have done throughout much of Africa and Middle East countries.   And then there's Iran, which has supplied Assad with his most effective ground troops through their support of Hezbollah.

But what do these four countries have in common that links them?, Stephens asks.  "Why should a Shiite theocrat, a Russian kleptocrat, a Korean gourmand, and Chinese son of heaven unite so openly to rescue a foul and feeble Baathist dictatorship?

"The question isn't asked often enough," Stephens writes.  "None of them share a border, a language, a religion, or a political ideology with Assad.   And each has paid a price for meddling. . . . 

"Then again, there are interests that go beyond lives and money.   Some of these are relatively narrow.  Iran wants to maintain the so-called Shiite crescent.  Russia hopes to use its position in Syria to bargain for concessions over Ukraine.   China wants to rebuild Syria when it's all over.  North Korea is just sinister.

"But there is also the collective interest of Dictatorship, Inc."

Stephens then discusses the rise of dictatorships worldwide, and especially in these countries.   China's Communist Party has just voted to eliminate term limits on its president, so Xi Jinping can now potentially serve for life.   Russia has an upcoming election that no one expects to be open and fairly democratic.   Critics and opponents to Putin have a bad habit of turning up dead or in prison.   North Korea has no pretense of democracy, and the Iranian theocrats are the supreme power in Iran.

Besides these, Stephens mentions two fundamental interests these countries have in keeping Assad in power.

1.  "To see a popular rebellion fail spectacularly."    This is fundamental to Dictatorrship, Inc.  -- to show their people that resistance is futile.

2,  "To underscore America's unreliability as a credible ally and serious enforcer of global norms."

Stephens says:  "Whatever their differences, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China are all revisionist powers.  What they want to revise, or erase, is Pax Americana.  In Syria, they had an ally, a cause, and a probable outcome.  America, by contrast, only had the bonfire of its ambivalence.  The result, beyond the humanitarian catastrophe, has been a reputational catastrophe, as the U.S. demonstrated that it would not back its local allies, or seriously enforce norms against the use of chemical weapons, or devise and implement a strategy compatible with our stated policy. . . . 

"We could do something to reverse our reputation for unreliability . . . . [but] That requires an administration capable of devising, coordinating and executing a consistent military and diplomatic strategy.   We don't have one.

"It requires a president who understands the benefits of Pax Americana, doesn't think of foreign policy as a series of gimmes, is capable of rallying allies in a common cause, and understands that our liberal values are the great prerequisite for our global leadership.   We don't have one.

"Above all, it requires a belief in what used to be called the free world:   of its shared moral principles, broad interests, and long-term aspirations.  We don't have that either."

*   *   *

More than those lacks, we have a president who admires strong-men dictators, like Putin, Xi, Erdogan, el SiSi, Duterte, and the emerging autocrats in Hungary and Poland.   And pay attention to Trump's response to the news out of China that President Xi can now have an unlimited number of terms.   Here's what President Trump said about that:

"He's now president for life, president for life.    And he's great.    And look, he was able to do that.   I think it's great.  Maybe we'll have to give that a shot someday," Trump said, as his supporters cheered.

Ralph

And now something entirely different . . .

My first thought was that we need a break from the non-stop chaos news coming from the White House, so I was not going to post anything today.    And then I ran across this sweet, positive story and decided to share it.

Station WISN in Milwaukee reported it, with the title:

"First graders practice literacy by reading to shelter dogs."

"There are some things you'd expect to hear when walking through an animal shelter, like the sound of so many dogs vying for attention.  But over in Bungalow 8A at the Animal Foundation in Las Vegas, a small voice seems to lower the anxiety level. 

"Six-year-old Jade Sandoval is reading a book called 'The Stray Dog' to a pitbull named Sky.  Jade is there with about 80 other first graders practicing their reading skills to an audience that never judges: adoptable dogs looking for a new home. . . . 

"It's the third year kids have come to the shelter to read to dogs, and there's no question the kids aren't the only ones to benefit. The dogs also learn socialization, making them more adoptable.

"And as the day wears on, the dogs do settle in. Maybe it's the tone of voice, but chances are it's just the innocence of 6-year-olds just learning to read, and finding a furry someone more than willing to listen."

*     *     *     *     *

Happy day of rest to all.   Undoubtedly the chaos will begin again on Monday.   Maybe these kids should go to the White House and read to the president . . .   I mean, if it can calm the chaos in an animal shelter, maybe . . . 

Ralph