Vanity Fair thinks Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Texas is Kennedyesque.
Really? Does Vanity Fair really think O’Rourke abandoned a young woman, trapped in his car, to drown in a Texas creek? Does the magazine really think O’Rourke nakedly lied about a Supreme Court Justice nominee to smear him during a confirmation hearing?
That’s an interesting connection for the magazine to draw.
The Saturday Wall Street Journal had a piece that worried about President Donald Trump’s decision to add more tariffs to People’s Republic of China’s goods just prior to another round of trade talks with the PRC.
[T]he decision’s timing risks deepening the already bitter trade fight by starting another tit-for-tat round of tariffs.
And
The tariffs are bound to complicate—if not derail—talks with top Chinese officials, which are currently scheduled in Washington for Sept 27 and Sept 28, say people familiar with the plans.
Another interpretation, carefully ignored by the authors, is that in any conflict, it’s necessary to keep pressure on the opposing side while negotiations occur. The battlefield shapes the talks, and the talks shape the battlefield–the battlefield encompasses both the talks and the conflict.
On whose side is the current Pope? What is his purpose, his goal?
First, the Pope condones covering up—even delaying a “conference” for chit-chat about the abuse for as long as possible—massive child abuse by Catholicism’s priests and bishops.
Now we have the Pope saying the Catholic Church—the Vatican—doesn’t even need to be the authority that selects the Church’s bishops.
…Catholic concession in a far-reaching deal between Rome and the Vatican announced Friday. The Vatican has agreed to recognize as legitimate seven Chinese priests who had been excommunicated by Rome for accepting their bishop hats without Vatican approval. Two bishops who had remained faithful to Rome will retire to make room for bishops more to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s liking.
What’s going on in the Catholic Church?
Deutsche Welle reported on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s visit last Friday with People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang in the PRC. A couple of things jumped out at me that are separate from the emphasis the article put on the visit and the aid the PRC has promised Maduro. Maduro tweeted
We began our state visit to the People’s Republic of China, paying tribute to its founder, the Great Helmsman, Mao Tse Tung. His example and revolutionary struggle marked the twentieth century.
That was in connection with this:
At the start of his state visit, Maduro bowed three times to honor Chairman Mao in Tiananmen Square.
Xi happily went along with that. He is, indeed, bringing back Mao’s policies and ruling techniques.
That’s the title of Friday’s Wall Street Journal Letters column. One letter argues that point in particular. The letter writer is mostly wrong, but his is right on one matter.
Who does he think will fill in behind us if we retreat? It won’t be our friends; that should be clear.
On the other hand, he argued
The USSR no longer exists and China has emerged as our chief rival. The only thing that has remained constant is America’s footing the greater part of the bill for military defense, while nations we protect continue to grow rich at our expense.
The nations of the world that we are supposed to protect are going their own way, while we continue to spend and spend in the name of preserving an alliance that is no longer even necessary.
The USSR no longer exists, but Russia does, and it’s as much a threat to us and to those it’s in our national interest to support and protect as is the People’s Republic of China. Many of the nations we are protecting are going their own way, it’s true enough: too many of the western European members of NATO don’t feel the need to contribute to NATO’s costs or equipment and manpower suites for their own mutual defense. However, other members, and many eastern European nations who aren’t NATO members (but are ex-Soviet occupied nations), do feel the threat and are willing to contribute to their mutual defense.
The letter writer also is right on this: we should consider reducing our effort and spending regarding those western European nations that don’t care.
We then should redirect those resources to working with the other nations who do care. If that takes a (major) revamp of NATO or a new mutual defense arrangement that’s centered on those other nations, then so be it.