Tag Archives: politics

Jews for Nazism?

Posted on by
Reply

One Jew, anyway. The Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Maine, Graham Platner, sports—has done for 18 or so years—a Nazi symbol tattooed onto his chest: a copy of the skull and crossbones as used by the SS Totenkopf (more formally, the SS-Totenkopfverbände and not to be confused with the 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf), which operated the Nazis’ concentration and Jew extermination camps.

That’s all jake with Vermont’s “Independent” Senator Bernie Sanders (he enthusiastically caucuses with the Progressive-Democratic Party Senators).

…what he did was, he has expressed his darkness on the internet, probably not a brilliant thing to do, all right, and he said things that are stupid, things that were hurtful. He has apologized for it.

Sanders proceeded to profess his continued support for this fellow Party candidate.

Platner wore that despicable symbol of Jew hatred for the 18 years, but he apologized for it. That makes it all better. Never mind that he still wears it, albeit “disguised” with another tattoo overlaid on it.

Never mind, either, that tattoos can be removed with laser treatment.

A Jewish Senator supporting Nazism because Party. A Jewish Senator excusing Nazism in any guise.

Imagine that.

New Sanctions and some Thoughts

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has implemented new sanctions on Russia in response to the barbarian’s continued intransigence in its invasion of Ukraine—blacklisting Russia’s two biggest oil producers and a plethora of their subsidiaries. As The Wall Street Journal notes, how much the sanctions will impact Russia depends on three major factors:

  • how well they are enforced
  • the reaction of major markets in India and China
  • whether Moscow can circumvent the measures

Regarding the first, that depends on Europe, India, and the People’s Republic of China. In the short term, Europe will give a strong indication of how serious those nations are in supporting Ukraine and how serious they are in beefing up their defense establishments and industries so as to be able to face down the confrontation with Russia that will follow as the night does the day if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine. Carrots can be offered those nations, and a primary one would be tariff relief in exchange for strictly enforcing the sanctions. There even are ready to hand alternative sources for oil and natural gas to supply their current and buildup energy needs.

Tariff relief and improved mutual investment agreements, along with those readily available alternative oil and gas sources, would go a long way to weaning India off Russian oil.

Another carrot is essentially self-referential. By taking themselves completely off Russian energy, they would be proofing themselves against Russian economic blackmail.

The Indian markets can be drawn off Russian energy with tariff relief and mutual investment agreements centered on other matters important to India, Europe, and the US.

The PRC, though, is going to buy Russian oil and gas regardless. The two nations already have an economic arrangement in place that allows the PRC to develop Siberian hydrocarbon resources in return for first pick on the output of that development. When those distributing pipelines are built from Siberia into the PRC, the latter will get the former’s oil and gas functionally at no cost.

There’s more to this, though than just the blacklists. What’s also needed is better enforcement and strengthening of the existing bars against technology transfers and against equipment and maintenance supply transfers that are needed to develop wells and to maintain delivery pipelines to refineries, to (re)build and maintain refineries, and to build and maintain refined output pipelines delivering to end users.

The third factor centers on the black market, the Russian shadow fleet of oil tankers serving that black market, and the buyers’ shadow fleet of tankers as ships meeting the Russian ships for at-sea transfers. This is, perhaps, the most straightforward factor to handle, if the most difficult for the politically timid national managers. The shadow fleet ships could be—have been in the main—easily identified and seized, their cargo transferred to the seizing nation for its use (not resale) and the ships sent to the breakers for recouping the scrap metal and such other items as might be useful. Those shadow fleet ships whose captains resist seizure should simply have their ships sunk on the spot, without wasting much time arguing the matter: “Prepare to be boarded.” “No.” Sink the ship.

All of that is straightforward, only that first factor of widespread enforcement will take some political maneuverings among the relevant nations.

“Stable Climate”

Posted on by
Reply

Alex Flint and Kalee Kreider, posing as pro-climate adapters rather than as climate mitigators, want us to move toward adapting to our changing climate rather than attempting to mitigate our climate’s changes. That would seem to be a step in the right direction.

However.

Around the world, people are giving priority to higher living standards, economic security, and access to affordable energy above a stable climate.

This is a false dichotomy, leading to their false premise. In truth, we do have a stable climate—stable over human-level time frames—and we have it in conjunction with the potential for higher living standards, economic security, and access to affordable energy. These are not mutually exclusive.

For one thing, the plain fact is that our climate is stable over generations of humans, and that flows from the equally plain geologic fact that our climate is warming predictably, if noisily over thousands- to multi-million year cycles.

Since the end of the last glaciation, some 11,000 years ago, our climate has varied over narrow temperature ranges from the warming period that roughly coincides with the rise of human civilization and persisted into the period of the Roman empire to the Little Ice Age that ran from the early 14th century into the early 19th century. That variability, too, leaves us today still a couple degrees cooler than the geologic warming rate of our planet.

The other thing is that geologic warming rate. Our climate has been warming since the earth formed and stabilized as a solid body because our sun has been warming since it coalesced gravitationally and lit off its core fusion furnace. That warming is governed cyclically by our planet’s not quite circular orbit around the sun, which moves us closer and farther from the sun—not by much but by measurable temperature effects—on a cycle that harmonizes with our planet’s rotational axis precession, a cycle that points our norther hemisphere toward our sun in some seasons and away from our sun in the six months later seasons, a precession that points our northern hemisphere toward the sun in summer, roughly 6,500 years later has our northern hemisphere pointing away from the sun in summer, then after another 6,500 years points it back toward the sun in summer again for a complete cycle of about 13,000 years. That precessional cycle harmonizes with our orbit’s behavior over some hundreds of thousands of years.

Around that lockstep cycling, our climate varies noisily from the presence of an atmosphere that maintains a more stable temperature across days and months—and centuries—while being intermittently impacted by volcanism and meteor strikes. The outcome of those orbital and rotational mechanics and the interactions of volcanism and meteor strikes has produced the geological record of epochs much warmer and colder than today with life being lush in the warm periods, along with epochs of atmospheric CO2 being much higher and much lower than today, with life being lush in both higher and lower CO2 epochs—life has been lush when it was warmer independently of CO2 concentrations with no correlation between the CO2 epochs and the warmer and cooler epochs.

Mitigation always has been a scam to draw Federal funding for pet research projects.

Even though this op-ed’s excuse for shifting to adaptation comes from that false premise, it’s still a welcome step toward economic prosperity and sanity.

Sometimes….

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline laid out the concern and the potential for misunderstanding:

Attacks in Caribbean, aid cuts for Colombia and pressure on Venezuela blur lines between counternarcotics and regime change

When illegal narcotics are a nation’s major, if not primary, product, and that nation’s primary source of income is smuggling and peddling illegal narcotics, and especially if that nation’s illegal narcotics are killing so many of our children and young adults, then regime change becomes a necessary tool of counternarcotic operations.

The US does poorly at nation-building, which must follow—by someone—regime change. We were successful with Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII, but our record is very weak since then. Still, sometimes regime change is necessary, and this one, should it come to pass, will need the follow-on very carefully monitored—and guided, if the wrong builders show up.

No, Congress Can’t Do That

Posted on by
2

William Galston, in his last week’s Tuesday op-ed, expressed concern about the growing power (as opposed to authority) of American Presidents, and he proposed a solution.

[I]t [is] be up to Congress to write legal language defining clearly the limits of presidential power.

Even were the President to sign off on such legislation (or Congress to override his veto), anything more than a tweak to a Congressionally-enacted statute (viz., the Electoral Count Act tweak to which Galston referred) would be blatantly unconstitutional. (The ECA may itself be unconstitutional given how vague our Constitution is on the role and authorities of Electors and the sitting Vice President in counting Elector votes for President.)

Galston’s solution, which accrues power (as opposed to authority) to Congress, is every bit as dangerous (aside from its unconstitutionality) as accruing power to the Presidency. Galston’s move ignores the fact that not only did we rebel against a monarchical chief executive, we also wrote our Constitution to prevent the concept of Congressional (Parliamentary) Superiority from taking hold in our republican nation.

Our Constitution is quite clear on the matter, both in text and in that text’s construction of a Federal government whose powers (as well as authorities) are divided equally among the three branches of Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. These are three branches equal in their powers and authorities. Congress cannot take it on itself to limit the power, or authority, of a rival branch.

If Congress is serious about reining in what it views as an overweening Executive, if it is not simply bleating virtuously in attempts to gain political points, it will propose the Constitutional amendment that tightens the reins and then convince the American citizens of at least 38 States to ratify its amendment.