Thursday, May 3, 2018

Trump Possibly Insulted by Yet Another Member of His White House Team, as John Kelly May Have Repeatedly Referred To Trump As An ‘Idiot’

Now, I cannot say for sure whether this story is true. Obviously, there is no way for me, personally, to know for sure whether or not White House Chief of Staff John Kelly actually repeatedly referred to his boss, President Donald Trump, as an "idiot."

But would it really be surprising? 

After all, it would be one major truth in a White House filled with untruths. And it would not be the first time that a prominent member of Trump's own team contemptuously dismissed Trump and his lack of intelligence. Remember that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Trump a "fucking moron."

Apparently, not everyone handpicked by Trump to serve on his White House staff in efforts to "Make America Great Again" is impressed with the President's intellectual intellectual ability and acumen, despite Trump's own claims to being a "very stable genius."

Whether or not this proves to be true, I think more than sufficient evidence has already been displayed to put all of Trump's boasting about his own intelligence and ethics into serious questioning. 

Here is the link to the story about John Kelly's alleged reference to Trump as an "idiot," as reported by NBC and the Huffington Post:




John Kelly Has Repeatedly Referred To Trump As An ‘Idiot,’ NBC Reports HuffPost Dominique Mosbergen ,HuffPost•April 30, 2018:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-kelly-repeatedly-referred-trump-223929428.html?.tsrc=fauxdal



Trump Paid Back Michael Cohen's $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels, According to Giuliani

"Most of our faults are more pardonable than the means we use to conceal them." 

- Francois de La Rochefoucauld


Of all the scandals revolving around President Trump, I have found the whole situation with Stormy Daniels and the other women that he had consensual sex with to be the least relevant.

However, it is amazing, the lengths to which Trump and his team have gone to cover up this particular scandal. Much like with the whole Russian collusion thing, which I also do not take as seriously as many people, it seems to me that there is much more of a story in the apparent cover up and impatience to get this all done with, than with the original allegations themselves. If Trump had not been so adamant that there was absolutely, zero collusion between Russia and his campaign, the story most likely would not have escalated as it did.

Now, here again, we have similar efforts at what sure seems like a cover up, and once again also, it seems like the story of the cover up is far more damning than the original story. Okay, so Trump had an affair with a porn actress, and yes, people who would identify as good, Christian folks obviously very conveniently overlooked this to support Trump.

But the extent to which Trump and his team seem willing to go to hide all of this is starting to be a pretty huge story now. As I mentioned with the whole Russia thing, and firing anyone in a position to investigate his conduct, it sure seems that Trump's own actions are the most damning evidence against the man.

Here is the new scoop: Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen, said that he had paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 of his own money to keep her quiet prior to election day in 2016. Cohen has maintained that Trump knew nothing about this payment. This was more or less the accepted official version of events, according to the Trump White House.

But now, Trump's new top lawyer, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has admitted that Trump knew much more than either Cohen or Trump himself previously suggested. On an interview with FOX News, Giuliani said: 

"That was money that was paid by his lawyer. The president reimbursed it over several months." 

Whoa. Why would Trump feel the need to spend money (admittedly, this is a pittance for him) to pay back his lawyer for paying off Stormy Daniels, if there was no case there to begin with? And this flies in the face of the President having no knowledge. Giuliani's main case was that these funds did not translate to an inappropriate use of campaign money. 

Once again, we have official confirmation that Trump lied by members of his own administration. And we have proof of foul play by very prominent members of that administration, including Trump himself. 

But all that said, how much do I believe that Trump will be made to pay for all of this horrible, and possibly criminal, behavior?

Well, let's just put it this way: He has already gotten away with so damn much, so I'll only believe it when I see it.



Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen's $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, Giuliani says "That was money that was paid by his lawyer. The president reimbursed it over several months," Giuliani says in a Fox interview. by Alex Johnson and Dennis Romero / May.02.2018



EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Relentless on Attacking Science "In the Name of Transparency"

Everyone knew the instant that Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, that the next four years here in the United States would be very bad news for anyone who cares about the environment, or more generally, for science overall. 

Sure enough, Donald Trump appointed Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, despite having spent much of his life fighting the EPA, and undermining it's work. Almost right away, Pruitt got busy with his work of trying to dismantle the very organization that he was selected to head. The budget was slashed, although Pruitt himself proved not to be above the temptation of taking a lot of that money for his own personal desires for luxuries.

Whatever happens to Pruitt specifically with those charges, the fact of the matter is that indeed, science and the environment have essentially been under relentless attack at least ever since Trump took office. Any mention of climate change by the National Park Service was banned, it was made easier for waterways to be polluted, and then Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords, making the United States the only nation now out of the accord on the grounds that it does not believe in the science behind climate change.

Truly unbelievable.

We knew Trump would be a disaster for science, though he may have outdone himself with the selaction of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. 

Here is an article by Forbes that elaborates on Pruitt's assault on science:


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt: Delete Decades Of Science In The Name Of 'Transparency' by Trevor Nace , CONTRIBUTOR, APR 24, 2018:



Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Tremendous Costs of Maintaining Expansive U.S. Military Empire is Sucking the Potential for Greatness Out of America

These days, it seems that we as Americans can hardly turn around without seeing another reminder that the nation appears to be in some sort of serious decline. Of course, it is hard not to have reminders, when we went from being arguably the most powerful country and influential nation in history culturally, economically, militarily, and politically, to a country that seems to many around the world kind of like a basket case, unable to resolve many of the same problems that other countries seemed to resolve with relative ease (at least by way of comparison), from affordable, universal healthcare, to failing schools and infrastructure, to gun violence, to accepting science as truth, and so on and so forth, etc., etc..

Nowadays, we have seen numerous nations surpass the United States in terms of standards of living, and particularly in terms of equality, upward mobility, education, infrastructure, healthcare costs, childcare costs, and so on and so forth. Plus, China seems well on it's way to completely overtaking the United States as the world's leading economic power, and the richest nation in the world, which it is projected to be in less than a decade now.

With all of this kind of news, perhaps it is no surprise that the bitterness of why this should be the case has been used as a kind of political football by both sides. For example, Donald Trump kept scoring political points by suggesting that the whole world was laughing at the United States, and that he would change that. Meanwhile, many are seeing that it seems that the whole world is now laughing at what is going on in the United States specifically because Donald Trump is now in the Oval Office, which I suspect is much closer to the truth.

Indeed, there are perhaps many reasons for the decline. Some might say that it is a lack of respect for traditional institutions, or perhaps a lack of faith in God, or a lack of family values. Others might suggest that we have grown too greedy, and that our often excessive obsession with budget cuts had led to an increase in poverty and a widening gap between rich and poor, between the haves and the have nots. 

However, one sure cause of the American decline has been the military bases that are scattered literally around the world.

It is no secret that the budget for America's military industrial complex is unbelievably enormous, to the point that it seems we have created a monster that just sucks up more and more money every year.

This was not an especially unpopular venture for a long time, and we had no prominent voices questioning the wisdom of this until just recently. It seemed that throughout the 1980's and 1990's, Americans actively and without qualms collectively enjoyed their status as the world's leading military power. It was only with the aggressive pursuit of the Iraq invasion - while we were already fighting a war in Afghanistan - that some people began to question it. As the cost of those two wars - in every sense of the word - mounted, while the headlines in the news every day screamed of bad news, then the enthusiasm for these military ventures finally began to wane. Now, by and large, people on both sides of the political divide seem to accuse each other of carelessly desiring some kind of military conflict amounting to war. This was the case with Obama in Libya, and it is now the case with Trump in Syria. It seems that finally, some Americans have woken up to the fact that the carefully constructed myth of American military invincibility and the notion that we can, and thus should, do whatever the hell we want whenever the hell we want to, was at the very least a great and dangerous exaggeration.

Now, some prominent politicians are questioning the wisdom of having military bases scattered literally all around the globe. We have the world's most powerful navy, and there are ships on virtually every ocean and almost every continent. We have 800 military bases in over 70 countries on six different continents. That is far, far more than any other nation in the world has. In fact, the next three leading countries - Britain, France, and Russia - have far less than half of that combined. This would be a good reminder of another fact that I remember hearing not long ago, that the United States spends more on the military than the next ten nations combined.

Those kinds of facts make me wonder just how much of this is actual defense? I remember debating a fan of George W. Bush in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, and he stated point blank, apparently as his checkmate move, that Saddam Hussein had amassed such a huge arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, so clearly he intended to use it. I did not bother debating whether Saddam actually had all of those weapons (which he apparently did not have), but rather reversed the question on him, saying that the United States had an even larger arsenal of weapons, and using his own logic, would not those people who made such a point of building the largest collection of deadly, high tech weapons actually want to see them used? In other words, wouldn't the largest, most powerful military in the world actually want to go to war to see just how powerful they were, and how effective all of those high tech weapons can be, regardless of their official denials of wanting war? He had no answer for that one, but the question remains relevant today, does it not?

When a military has that much of a presence around the world, then clearly it intends to use force at some point or another, does it not? And that begs the question of how Americans fail to see that this might build some serious resentment. After all, even centuries later, Americans still get all worked up when they hear about how the British imposed taxation without representation, and required Americans to accommodate British troops while they were here in the colonies. We fought a war to remove the British threat and threw off the yoke of colonialism, and we fought other major military powers, including two World Wars against Germany and allied nations, and the Cold War against the Soviets. We never failed to recognize how unwanted the military presence of these foreign nations were in other countries, whether in occupied Europe or Asia during World War II, or more recently, the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Yet somehow, we truly believe that other countries, like the Iraqis, are supposed to welcome Americans with open arms? We are actually surprised when they fight back, and when their people, and other people in that region, start to seriously resent us?

This reminds me of something that my father remembers from his childhood in France during the postwar years. Our family home town is Marly-le-Roi, which is approximately 26 kilometers (16 miles, roughly) from Paris. And it was in Marly-le-Roi that there was a large military base there. But for all the stereotypes here among Americans that the French are rude, my father recalls that the American soldiers were actively encouraged not to have anything to do with the local French people. And so despite the presence of this base there, he hardly remembers any serious interaction with the Americans stationed there. How surprising is it, then, that they were not especially missed when France forced the closure of the base in 1966?

While France is a western, and allied, nation, this certainly is not the case in much of the rest of the world. To take one example, certainly throughout the Middle East, there is a lot of resentment towards Americans, particularly the military. They know how the United States strongly and seemingly unconditionally, almost uncritically supports Israel. They know that there have been numerous attacks launched against sovereign nations by American forces, and that for the most part, it is all about profits for major oil corporations. They see the hypocrisy of doing business with Saddam Hussein and supporting his war against Iran in the 1980's contradicted our demonizing him in the 1990's and then leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They see the hypocrisy of supporting the military cause of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's, and then demonizing them in the 1990's, then outright going to war against them ourselves in the 2000's. They see the hypocrisy of us selling weapons of mass destruction to military dictators throughout the region, and then going to war against them whenever they happen to displease us. Americans might buy into the arguments put forth by elected officials about freedom and spreading democracy, but the people of the Middle East clearly do not. The same can be said about much of the rest of the world, too, including Africa, South America, and Asia. Americans were clearly hardly welcomed with open arms in Somalia, or in Vietnam, or in Cambodia. And there is much resentment throughout Latin America about the condescending manner in which they are treated, almost like little brothers, by Americans. This has been much the case ever since the Monroe Doctrine, when Americans outright declared their assumption that this Western Hemisphere was and of right ought to be under the jurisdiction of American (the United States, that is) influence and domination. Military ventures in numerous sovereign nations over the course of many decades, from Cuba to the Dominican Republic to Mexico to Haiti to El Salvador to Nicaragua to Grenada to Panama to Colombia, all attests to this presumption on our part. Is it really surprising, then, that serious resentment has sprung up, whether with the Castros in Cuba, or with Allende in Chile, or with Chavez in Bolivia, or Lula da Silva in Brazil, or Morales in Bolivia? Can we really be surprised that Mexicans view the Trump fixation on building a wall and making Mexico pay for it as a hostile and, frankly, condescending mentality, yet which is supported by tens of millions of Americans? And how can they feel now when, not surprisingly, Trump is calling for a military presence along the previously peaceful border between the two nations? How can any Latin American feel when Trump lumped so many Latin American nations into the category of "shithole nations?"

So, these military bases, and our military presence in general, seems to be undermining America's good name. Also, it is so expensive to maintain, that it is clearly seriously contributing to the bankrupting of America.

Perhaps it is time to seriously begin to examine this, and look into the possibility of scaling down a bit, for our own sake?

Just a thought.


Where in the World Is the U.S. Military? By DAVID VINE July/August 2015:




The Military Doesn't Advertise It, But U.S. Troops Are All Over Africa April 28, 20187:01 AM ET  Greg Myre - 2016 - square GREG MYRE  Facebook Twitter



Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Mark Hamill Suggested That He Did Not Care Anymore About Being in Future Star Wars Movies

Mark Hamill obviously made some news with his surprisingly outspoken opinions on the new Star Wars movie, The Last Jedi, which was released in December.

Without giving anything away to anyone who still has not seen the movie, but intends to, Hamill was quite displeased with many aspects of the older version of Luke Skywalker. He even warned fans not to expect the old Luke Skywalker of their childhood, to kind of brace themselves for a very different version of that character in this movie. 

Indeed, Luke Skywalker was very different. And so was the movie, which tried some new things, and thus was a departure from previous Star Wars movies. There were some interesting ideas and, frankly, some ideas which I do not believe worked all that well (see some earlier blog entries for details on those), but overall, it was an original movie.

However, many aspects of the movie left a bad taste in the mouths of fans, and this was perhaps especially true regarding what happened with two of the original characters from the first trilogy. This was particularly true of the changes seen with the older Luke Skywalker, and one of those who expressed disgust was the man who played Skywalker in both the old movies, as well as in the newest one.

Although he later would retract a bit from his earlier criticisms, much of what he said was nevertheless recorded and can be seen on Youtube video clips, some of which I also posted in earlier blog entries.

Here was a fairly short clip of several of these interviews, in which Hamill expresses his own disappointment and disillusionment with it, which seemed worth sharing here. In one of them, towards the end, Hamill even goes so far as to say "I Don't Care Anymore" when posed with the question of whether he would be in any future Star Wars movies.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, eh?

Anyway, here is the video clip:




Malicorne's 'C'est le Mai'




The month of May is always a pleasure when it comes around. It is just one of those months that feels like what the most desirable weather should feel like. Winter is over, and if it has been a long and rough one, it finally has passed.

Yes, May is nice. With the excessive cold and icy winter conditions well behind, and with the excesses of the summer heat still usually some time ahead yet, May is often as ideal as you can get. Warm days and cool nights, as it should be. Those are the best kinds of days, and thus, it is always a pleasure to see May come around again.

There is a song about the month of May that I have come to appreciate and enjoy, and which has become kind of a tradition to play during this month in particular.  It is called "C'est le mai" and was performed by Malicorne many years ago, although they seem to like to play it still during their reunion shows.

So, I have come to try and play this particular song once May rolls around, as it has now, once again.

It seemed like a good idea to share this here, and so here are some various versions of this song, which to me is a pleasant reminder to appreciate the month of May.