For me, Kamala Harris had two of the most notable moments in the Democrats' second debate last night:
#1. There was a lot of shouting and talking out of turn by several of the debaters, the worst one at it (in my opinion) being Kirsten Gillibrand. On the verge of bedlam, with three or four people all talking over each other at once, Harris finally penetrated the din and said: "Hey, guys, you know what? America doesn't want to witness a food fight; they want to know how we're going to put food on their table." It showed her ability to take charge of chaos and calm things down in a way that did not offend anyone -- others smiled, Biden even mimed applause.
#2. But she also prevailed in a very substantive moment, when she took on Joe Biden on the racial question. She began by saying she did not think he was racist. But he was of a time when he supported policies that, from our current perspective, do not put him in a good light. At the very least, he is insensitive to the systemic racism that surrounded him in the past -- as so many good people of his age were and are.
Harris used her personal story of getting bused to school, as a second-grader, as means of desegregation (in a positive way, she seemed to mean). She said it was very painful to her now to have Biden express his support for segregationists, even if he himself was not, although she did refer to his having "opposed busing."
Biden became very defensive, talking rapidly trying to explain his position (saying he opposed federal busing laws) and blaming the busing decision on her local school district. Overall, he looked angry, weak, ineffective, and . . . yes, old. Finally, he stopped almost mid-sentence and said, "My time is up."
Ostensibly, he meant his allotted time to speak had expired. But no one else all evening voluntarily stopped in mid-explanation because the time was up. It was impossible not to think of the double meaning of that statement: MY TIME IS UP, as in: I'm from a different era; my time has past.
Frankly, as much as one can love affable old Joe, he's right. His time is up. Not only that exchange. He looked old, he sounded old. There were also calls from Erik Swalwell and others to "pass the torch" to a new generation. It was not a good night for Joe Biden.
Ralph
Friday, June 28, 2019
Jared Kushner's economic plan to bring Middle East Peace is not going over well.
President Donald Trump gave his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, gargantuan and wide-ranging tasks of government reform, including among many others: Middle East Peace.
Jared is now coming up with his peace plan, based on economic development, which he is presenting at a conference in Bahrain. Palestinians will not even attend, saying it is dead-on-arrival because they have been insulted rather than consulted. It does not address their real problems of confined borders and complete control by the Israelis, and it fails even to mention a two-state solution. Jared is too close personally to Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israelis to be an honest broker; rather he seeks to impose the plan on the Palestinians.
Totally gone seems to be any pathway to a two state system, which has long been the core of any peace plan. So, needless to say, selling the plan is not going well. Jen Kirby, writing for Vox.com has this to say:
Calling it the "deal of the century," Kushner's plan centers on economic development for the Palestinians. According to Kirby, "The plan is billed as 'a vision to empower the Palestinian people to build a prosperous and vibrant Palestinian society,' and the administration claims it has 'the potential to facilitate more than $50 billion in new investment over ten years.'
"But critics have slammed the proposal, likening it to a 'real estate brochure' -- complete with glossy promotional photos from Palestinian aid programs that the Trump administration has cut.
"For one the plan lacks any details about a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's by design: Kushner decided to put out the economic half of the plan first before releasing the political half sometime later this year, saying that releasing the economic piece was 'less controversial.'
"But without that second political half, the economic proposal is essentially meaningless. It's hard to imagine anyone investing billions of dollars in big infrastructure and transportation projects for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza while the Israeli government continues to annex more and more territory in the former and regularly bombs the latter.
"And it gets worse. . . .
"Palestinian leaders have boycotted any and all involvement with the Trump administration's peace efforts in protest of the administration's decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and cut funding for the United Nations agency that supports Palestinian refugees. And since the Palestinians decided to skip the conference, the administration evidently decided not to invite the Israeli government either. . . .
"Despite these setbacks, Kushner seems undeterred. In an interview with Al Jazeera, he said the conference was already a success [because of the number of countries from the region that are coming -- actually sending mid-level representatives. . . . But]
". . . without any official government representatives for either the Palestinians or the Israelis in attendance, it's unclear what exactly all those other people are going to talk about. . . .
"Kushner admitted that any economic plan wouldn't succeed 'without an enduring and fair political solution to the conflict, one that guarantees Israel's security and respects the dignity of the Palestinian people.' But, he reminded the audience, 'today is not about the political issues' and said he would address them at the 'right time.'
"Instead, Kushner asked attendees to imagine a 'bustling commercial tourist center in Gaza and the West Bank,' a place where international business could 'come together and thrive' . . . .
". . . Kushner's address and the Bahrain conference more broadly will probably do little to convince the Palestinians that the Trump administration plan will really offer a 'different lens' from which to look at the conflict.
"Kushner's decision not to engage with the politics deliberately divorces it from the very issues that make resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so difficult. For example, as Kushner discussed bustling tourism in the West Bank, he failed to mention the Israeli occupation of it. . . .
". . . without major stakeholders, it's unclear what this conference will achieve A former State Department official suggested to the Guardian that the attendees who came did so for cynical reasons, including to 'curry favor' with the Trump administration.
"It's also not clear when Kushner will debut the political piece of his peace plan. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to form a coalition government despite his election victory, leading to new elections in September. It seems unlikely that the administration will make public any plan until Israel resolves its leadership crisis.
"That puts the big reveal sometime in the fall. But that's also when the US presidential elections will heat up, making it risky for the Trump administration to expend any political capital on a plan that already seems dead on arrival."
Jared is now coming up with his peace plan, based on economic development, which he is presenting at a conference in Bahrain. Palestinians will not even attend, saying it is dead-on-arrival because they have been insulted rather than consulted. It does not address their real problems of confined borders and complete control by the Israelis, and it fails even to mention a two-state solution. Jared is too close personally to Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israelis to be an honest broker; rather he seeks to impose the plan on the Palestinians.
Totally gone seems to be any pathway to a two state system, which has long been the core of any peace plan. So, needless to say, selling the plan is not going well. Jen Kirby, writing for Vox.com has this to say:
* * * * *
Calling it the "deal of the century," Kushner's plan centers on economic development for the Palestinians. According to Kirby, "The plan is billed as 'a vision to empower the Palestinian people to build a prosperous and vibrant Palestinian society,' and the administration claims it has 'the potential to facilitate more than $50 billion in new investment over ten years.'
"But critics have slammed the proposal, likening it to a 'real estate brochure' -- complete with glossy promotional photos from Palestinian aid programs that the Trump administration has cut.
"For one the plan lacks any details about a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That's by design: Kushner decided to put out the economic half of the plan first before releasing the political half sometime later this year, saying that releasing the economic piece was 'less controversial.'
"But without that second political half, the economic proposal is essentially meaningless. It's hard to imagine anyone investing billions of dollars in big infrastructure and transportation projects for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza while the Israeli government continues to annex more and more territory in the former and regularly bombs the latter.
"And it gets worse. . . .
"Palestinian leaders have boycotted any and all involvement with the Trump administration's peace efforts in protest of the administration's decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem and cut funding for the United Nations agency that supports Palestinian refugees. And since the Palestinians decided to skip the conference, the administration evidently decided not to invite the Israeli government either. . . .
"Despite these setbacks, Kushner seems undeterred. In an interview with Al Jazeera, he said the conference was already a success [because of the number of countries from the region that are coming -- actually sending mid-level representatives. . . . But]
". . . without any official government representatives for either the Palestinians or the Israelis in attendance, it's unclear what exactly all those other people are going to talk about. . . .
"Kushner admitted that any economic plan wouldn't succeed 'without an enduring and fair political solution to the conflict, one that guarantees Israel's security and respects the dignity of the Palestinian people.' But, he reminded the audience, 'today is not about the political issues' and said he would address them at the 'right time.'
"Instead, Kushner asked attendees to imagine a 'bustling commercial tourist center in Gaza and the West Bank,' a place where international business could 'come together and thrive' . . . .
". . . Kushner's address and the Bahrain conference more broadly will probably do little to convince the Palestinians that the Trump administration plan will really offer a 'different lens' from which to look at the conflict.
"Kushner's decision not to engage with the politics deliberately divorces it from the very issues that make resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so difficult. For example, as Kushner discussed bustling tourism in the West Bank, he failed to mention the Israeli occupation of it. . . .
". . . without major stakeholders, it's unclear what this conference will achieve A former State Department official suggested to the Guardian that the attendees who came did so for cynical reasons, including to 'curry favor' with the Trump administration.
"It's also not clear when Kushner will debut the political piece of his peace plan. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to form a coalition government despite his election victory, leading to new elections in September. It seems unlikely that the administration will make public any plan until Israel resolves its leadership crisis.
"That puts the big reveal sometime in the fall. But that's also when the US presidential elections will heat up, making it risky for the Trump administration to expend any political capital on a plan that already seems dead on arrival."
* * * * *
Obviously, no seriously knowledgeable, non-partisan Middle East experts were consulted -- or at least their advice was not heeded. This has all the earmarks of Trump-Kushner-Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson thinking. It's all about the money and power. Obviously the Palestinians were not consulted or listened to: "insulted, not consulted" seems to be the apt phrase.
If we elect a Democratic president in 2020, perhaps we can scrap this plan and start over. If Trump gets re-elected, Middle East Peace will be one of the minor problems we will have.
Ralph
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Donald the accused rapist
In discussing the release of the "Access Hollywood" tape back during the 2016 campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump told his side-kick Billy Bush that "When you're a star they let you do it. I just start kissing them. Grab 'em by the p--sy. They'll let you do anything when you're a star."
We've long-since learned not to trust anything Trump says, so this could just be his untrue braggadocio. On the other hand, now at least a 16th woman has come forward to corroborate Donald Trump's boorish (and worse) behavior toward women.
E. Jean Carroll, noted magazine writer and advice columnist, has included in her forthcoming book What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, a disturbing encounter with Donald Trump in the mid-1990's. An excerpt from the book describing the incident has just been published in New York Magazine.
Carroll says she ran into Trump while shopping at Bergdorf Goodman Department store and that they recognized each other and spoke. Trump then asked her help in picking out a gift for a woman. She suggested a handbag or a hat, but Trump was more interested in looking at lingerie, Carroll says. They joked about trying it on, and then Trump led her into a dressing room where no one else was around.
Although up to that point it had been playful, once inside the dressing room, she says Trump "lunged at" her, pushed her against the wall and began kissing her. Then he became more aggressively sexual, pulling down her tights and forcing himself on her, eventually pushing his penis at least part-way into her. "It was a fight," and he hurt her, she says. She fought him off as best she could and finally got out and away from him.
She further states that she told two different friends about the incident at the time, but did not bring charges against him. It was typical, in that era, not to bring charges of sexual assault against powerful and famous men -- because they, the women, would often suffer more public shaming and character destruction than the men. The past five years has been proof of that, Harvey Weinstein being a prime example.
Several commentators have pointed out that, although this would be beyond the statute of limitations for most charges, there is no time limitation on charges of rape. According to Carroll's account, this was rape.
Journalistic experts have also said that reputable publishers and periodicals like New York Magazine are scrupulous in their vetting of stories like this, which means they have checked it out as much as possible for authenticity. The two contemporaneous confidantes she told, who have corroborated that she told them the same story shortly after it happened, lend credence to the story as true.
Donald Trump's response has been typical for him: Deny, deny, deny and then denigrate the accuser. First, he said he didn't even know this woman; had never me her. After a news photo of her and her husband with Donald and Ivana Trump appeared, he changed to this:
"She's not my type." Does that mean that, if she were your "type," what you did would have been all right, Donald? Is that what you're saying? In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Ms. Carroll's response, sardonically, was "I'm so glad I'm not his type."
Then, if "not my type" weren't enough (which it wasn't) Trump added on: "It didn't happen. It never happened."
Trump has absolutely no credibility in any area. Why should his "didn't happen" be any good as a defense? So we have: "don't know her" (disproven by the photo); "not my type" (a ridiculous non-defense); "didn't happen" (sure it did).
So, there's a pretty good chance that Donald J. Trump, in addition to all the other ways he is unfit for the job of President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States -- is a rapist.
Ralph
We've long-since learned not to trust anything Trump says, so this could just be his untrue braggadocio. On the other hand, now at least a 16th woman has come forward to corroborate Donald Trump's boorish (and worse) behavior toward women.
E. Jean Carroll, noted magazine writer and advice columnist, has included in her forthcoming book What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, a disturbing encounter with Donald Trump in the mid-1990's. An excerpt from the book describing the incident has just been published in New York Magazine.
Carroll says she ran into Trump while shopping at Bergdorf Goodman Department store and that they recognized each other and spoke. Trump then asked her help in picking out a gift for a woman. She suggested a handbag or a hat, but Trump was more interested in looking at lingerie, Carroll says. They joked about trying it on, and then Trump led her into a dressing room where no one else was around.
Although up to that point it had been playful, once inside the dressing room, she says Trump "lunged at" her, pushed her against the wall and began kissing her. Then he became more aggressively sexual, pulling down her tights and forcing himself on her, eventually pushing his penis at least part-way into her. "It was a fight," and he hurt her, she says. She fought him off as best she could and finally got out and away from him.
She further states that she told two different friends about the incident at the time, but did not bring charges against him. It was typical, in that era, not to bring charges of sexual assault against powerful and famous men -- because they, the women, would often suffer more public shaming and character destruction than the men. The past five years has been proof of that, Harvey Weinstein being a prime example.
Several commentators have pointed out that, although this would be beyond the statute of limitations for most charges, there is no time limitation on charges of rape. According to Carroll's account, this was rape.
Journalistic experts have also said that reputable publishers and periodicals like New York Magazine are scrupulous in their vetting of stories like this, which means they have checked it out as much as possible for authenticity. The two contemporaneous confidantes she told, who have corroborated that she told them the same story shortly after it happened, lend credence to the story as true.
Donald Trump's response has been typical for him: Deny, deny, deny and then denigrate the accuser. First, he said he didn't even know this woman; had never me her. After a news photo of her and her husband with Donald and Ivana Trump appeared, he changed to this:
"She's not my type." Does that mean that, if she were your "type," what you did would have been all right, Donald? Is that what you're saying? In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Ms. Carroll's response, sardonically, was "I'm so glad I'm not his type."
Then, if "not my type" weren't enough (which it wasn't) Trump added on: "It didn't happen. It never happened."
Trump has absolutely no credibility in any area. Why should his "didn't happen" be any good as a defense? So we have: "don't know her" (disproven by the photo); "not my type" (a ridiculous non-defense); "didn't happen" (sure it did).
So, there's a pretty good chance that Donald J. Trump, in addition to all the other ways he is unfit for the job of President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States -- is a rapist.
Ralph
Monday, June 24, 2019
The picture says it all -- in trying to be the Anti-Obama, Trump has failed as president
Trump and Obama in the Oval Office during the transition.
photo by Olivier Douliery
This, including quotes, is based on an NBC News article by Dan De Luce, Shelby Hanssen, and Owen Hayes, concerning the current Iran situation under President Trump.
* * * * *
"To supporters of the Iran nuclear deal, it's no surprise that President Donald Trump is now facing a potential war with Iran. Long before Trump was elected, advocates of the nuclear agreement — including then-President Barack Obama, French President Emmanuel Macron and others — had argued that abandoning the accord carried grave risks that could lead to an armed conflict."'So let's not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war — maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon," Obama said in a speech in 2015 defending the deal before a congressional vote.
"Trump as a candidate vowed to dump what he called 'the worst deal ever' and he made good on his promise in 2018. A year later, Trump is openly discussing the pros and cons of bombing Iran.
"On Friday, the president said in a tweet that he had ordered and then called off military strikes against Iran after Tehran shot down a U.S. surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz.
"In his 2015 speech, Obama said that without an agreement limiting Iran's nuclear program in return for sanctions relief, any U.S. administration would be left with only one option to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon — 'another war in the Middle East.' . . . .
"'Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities?' Obama said.
At the time, Republican opponents of the 2015 nuclear agreement, known as the JCPOA, dismissed the idea that the alternative to the deal was waging war on Iran. Macron and other European leaders repeatedly urged Trump not to abandon the agreement, and voiced concern that the collapse of the accord carried dangers for an already volatile region.
"At the U.N. General Assembly in 2017, the French president warned that jettisoning the deal 'without anything to replace it would be a grave mistake.' And he added that the agreement was 'essential to peace, at a time when the risk of an infernal spiral cannot be ruled out.'
"Macron issued a more dire warning a year later as Trump was poised to abandon the agreement. 'That would mean opening Pandora's box, it could mean war,' Macron told the German magazine Der Spiegel. But he added, 'I don't believe that Donald Trump wants war.'
"U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in May 2018 that the nuclear agreement was an 'important diplomatic victory' and that discarding it without presenting an alternative would place the Middle East 'in a very dangerous position.' German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that a decision by Trump to withdraw from the nuclear deal might lead to the collapse of the agreement and possibly trigger a regional war, Axios reported last year.
"After Trump announced his decision on May 8, 2018, to withdraw the United States from the nuclear accord, Obama repeated his warning about the consequences of doing so. 'Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East.' Obama said . . . .
". . . . [Hillary] Clinton said Trump's approach to the issue was reckless. . . .The former head of U.S. Central Command, U.S. Army Gen. Joseph Votel, told senators at a hearing in March 2018 that . . . it was not clear how that would be addressed if Washington pulled out. . . ."
"'The JCPOA addresses one of the principle threats that we deal with from Iran, so if the JCPOA goes away, then we will have to have another way to deal with their nuclear weapons program,' Votel said."
"It's widely known that Trump is obsessed with undoing President Obama's accomplishments in office, as well as trying to undermine him in any way possible -- from questioning his birthplace to trying to destroy Obamacare and the international accords.
"Yet it remains true: whatever Trump has been able to tear down, he has also been unable to put anything better in its place. USMCA as a replacement for NAFTA (North America Free Trade Act) is little more than a name change, for example. Changes Trump and Republicans have brought about in Obamacare have made it worse, more likely to fail, not better. Immigration? Even the economic gains are in line with changes that began under Obama.
"As to foreign policy and our standing as world leader, Trump's obsession with being the Anti-Obama has been a disaster. Destroying the Iran agreement is perhaps the most dangerous -- which, characteristically, Trump is trying to use to promote himself as a decisive leader and the essential commander-in-chief as we go into the re-election campaign. It is so very much the opposite. He proves every day that he is not fit for the job. "
He has no concept of the history of their present government, which is the result of a revolution which came into power as a result of our assisting in the overthrow of the democratically elected socialist government back in the 1970s. Our leaders at the time couldn't tolerate the idea of a socialist in control of all that oil -- so we helped overturn that government and install the autocratic Shah, who was later overthrown in another revolution that put the religious clerics and the military in power.
So, when the Iranian people chant "Death to America" in the streets, we at least should pause for a moment to think about what we have done to their country and their government through the years and what responsibility we bear -- instead of strutting around with cocky self-assurance that we are always in the right.
But Donald Trump is incapable of doing anything but strut and boast and attack. It is said that he is thoroughly enjoying the power he exerted, first, in approving the airstrike -- and then in bucking his generals in aborting it. So now, he's strutting and boasting that he is the compassionate one because he decided not to kill 150 people.
Compassionate people do not have to boast about being compassionate, Donald.
Ralph
"As to foreign policy and our standing as world leader, Trump's obsession with being the Anti-Obama has been a disaster. Destroying the Iran agreement is perhaps the most dangerous -- which, characteristically, Trump is trying to use to promote himself as a decisive leader and the essential commander-in-chief as we go into the re-election campaign. It is so very much the opposite. He proves every day that he is not fit for the job. "
* * * * *
He has no concept of the history of their present government, which is the result of a revolution which came into power as a result of our assisting in the overthrow of the democratically elected socialist government back in the 1970s. Our leaders at the time couldn't tolerate the idea of a socialist in control of all that oil -- so we helped overturn that government and install the autocratic Shah, who was later overthrown in another revolution that put the religious clerics and the military in power.
So, when the Iranian people chant "Death to America" in the streets, we at least should pause for a moment to think about what we have done to their country and their government through the years and what responsibility we bear -- instead of strutting around with cocky self-assurance that we are always in the right.
But Donald Trump is incapable of doing anything but strut and boast and attack. It is said that he is thoroughly enjoying the power he exerted, first, in approving the airstrike -- and then in bucking his generals in aborting it. So now, he's strutting and boasting that he is the compassionate one because he decided not to kill 150 people.
Compassionate people do not have to boast about being compassionate, Donald.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
