Hillary Clinton announced her income (co-income as she is married) today. I guess that I really do not understand what middle class or struggling really means. Since last year Hillary announced her family was really struggling to make end meet. Guess what, they aren't broke. And hey, they only paid 31% taxes (which personally, I believe is too high even for people I detest).
For my two cents, these people--the Clintons--are not really different from most of the Republican candidates and serious Democratic challengers. What I am saying is, you are all rich, have little in common with the common man, and need to stop trying to tell us that you are like us. We are not stupid and can count dollars like the rest of the world. We have mortgages to pay, student loan debt to pay, etc. just like you Hillary. And hey, we don't try to act like we are still poor or middle class, because we really are--it is not an act.
Here I am reading the headlines again at 11:30 pm (Eastern) and I come across this one in the AP wire service regarding Planned Parenthood. A judge in the most liberal court in the U.S. has blocked the positing of recordings (oral or video) related to Planned Parenthood. Really, is anyone surprised?
For my two cents, at almost midnight, get a grip court. Planned Parenthood should be named, "No Parents and No Kids". Remember, these are the people whose founder says that parenthood should be prohibited to the feeble-minded. You, Ninth Circuit Court are the most overturned court in judicial history, maybe you should stop and think (maybe you are incapable of thinking) about what you just allowed.
News flash, on occasion I do try to eat somewhat healthy. To go with my wine of choice this evening I made an endame salad.
Endame (20 oz), corn (16 oz), black beans (15 oz), chickpeas (15 oz), onions (1 large onion), 1 jar (15- 16 oz) in water roasted red peppers (take out of jar and dice them), ground cumin, hickory smoked sea salt, minced garlic, and fresh cracked black pepper (spices to taste) are the ingredients. Either buy frozen or freeze corn cut off the cob. Use shelled endame (soy beans). It does not matter if the black beans and chickpeas are frozen or canned (if frozen, thaw them out). Saute the corn for about 2 minutes in a non-stick or cast iron pan over medium high heat (I work with a gas stove in stainless steel or my steel wok). Then add the onion and stir until onion is translucent, add in the endame, black beans, chickpeas, roasted peppers, and spices and stir for about 5 minutes until everything is warm. Eat it then, or let it cool in refrigerator for a few hours. I freeze about half of what I make as this is a fairly dense salad. Can also be used as dip (chips and salsa style). Goes really well with chilled cabernet blanc or pinot gris (pinot grigio). I have even had it with Cabernet Sauvignon, but for most people recommend it with the chilled white.
The Turks claim to enter the fight against Daesh, the Turks really wanted to attack Kurds. I am no fan of socialist governance and ideology, much less potentially communist ideology. I am a supporter of rights of self-determination. For me personally the Kurdish question as related to Turkey is a quandary. The Kurdish PKK is at best socialist in ideological underpinning, and at worst communist. I do, however, support the Kurdish right to have a self-determined voice in governance in the countries where they exist (Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey are the primary locations of Kurds with a small population location in Armenia). As a dedicated proponent of self-determination, I even support the idea of a Kurdish state and country (albeit I would greatly prefer to see the creation of such a country by peaceful means rather than violence--sometimes violence is the politically expedient means of creating such an entity).
In 2013 the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) entered into a ceasefire with the Turkish government. Last week the Turkish government determined that it would strike both Daesh and the PKK labeling both as terrorist organizations. But the statement by Prime Minister Davutoglu first mentions Kurds then leftists (whoever these are), then Daesh:
"Turkey cannot stand by as Kurdish, leftist, and Islamic State militants target Turkey."
In the last week Turkey has arrested over 1000 suspected members of the PKK, leftist groups, and Daesh. The prime leftist group appears to the People's Democratic Party (HDP), which is pro-Kurdish and in June crossed the threshold limits to enter the Turkish Parliament for the first time.
To be fair to Turkey, the PKK has recently claimed responsibility for attacks on and killings of Turkish police. This information does beg the question of who broke the ceasefire. But why the sudden Turkish activity?
For my two cents the answer is fear and intransigence in the Turkish government. The Syrian arm of the PKK (the YPG--not sure of the meaning of this acronym) has been successful against Daesh and last month took a border town (on the Syrian side of the Syrian-Turkish border)--Tel Abyad--from Daesh, which effectively joined two Kurdish enclaves putting them closer to linking up with the Kurdish controlled Afrin enclave in the Aleppo region. Turkey fears the rise of the Kurds--probably because the Turks know they have long mistreated the Kurds. Turkey's government, regardless of leadership and form of governance, is also one of the great examples of culturally intransigent government on the face of the earth. We are talking about the government/population that still refuses to admit that they engaged in genocidal activity against the Armenian Christian population of Turkey from 1914-1918. I am not surprised, therefore, by the actions of the Turkish government, just disappointed.
I believe in the proper use of language in a technical sense. I abhor people calling a magazine for a firearm a clip. I also abhor calling an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) a drone. Drones are preprogrammed for a one way flight, most often drones are used for target practice by the military for testing anti-aircraft systems and missile defense systems. UAVs are controlled by a human being on the ground, if pre-programmed, the program can be interrupted by a human controller. Regardless of whether you call them UAVs or drones, the growth of civilian use of UAVs can be disturbing.
Recently a man shot down a UAV that was, according to the man in question, hovering over his backyard. The man is now being charged with wanton endangerment and criminal mischief for shooting down the UAV with a shotgun. The man claims he shot directly into the air over his own backyard. However, the municipality where he lives does not allow discharge of firearms within its borders.
For my two cents, I agree with both the actions of the man and the magistrate. The magistrate enforced the laws of the municipality, which an individual is legally required to follow in the applicable location and situation. The citizen has a right to privacy in/on his own property. Legally the right to privacy determined by the courts of the U.S. applies to the right of individuals to privacy against the government and its agents. We do have the right to privacy against civilians as well--through the use of curtains in windows, fences around our property, etc. The man in question had a six foot privacy fence around his property, if a person climbed on the fence to see inside his property or over the fence onto his property they could be held guilty of trespassing. The user of the UAV did not physically enter the property of the individual, but with a camera on the UAV can (did) film what was happening in the man's backyard (in this case the man's teenage daughters were sunbathing).
Does the man have a right to privacy against individuals other than the government? If you complain about your neighbor being nude inside their own home, the magistrate will normally tell you to quit looking in their home. The magistrate will also ask you nicely to close your curtains, but because you are in your own home, you are violating no laws by walking around nude. Also, the individual who complained violated no laws by looking through the windows of your house as they passed by unless they were on your property illegally (trespassing). Can your property be trespassed on via airspace is the question? Also for my two cents, the answer to this question is yes--particularly if as a landowner you have taken steps to create privacy (erecting fences, cultivating borders of high shrubs, etc.). The only question to me is how to legally deal with such an invasion of privacy. Also, too bad that more municipalities are not offering bounties on UAVs (drones, if you must).
In case it escaped the notice of most of you, I am very libertarian in respect to civil liberties. You can assume (without the consequences of normal assumption) that I wish government was much less involved in our daily lives--upto and including the magistrate. Magisterial authority is needed, as in certain cases crimes against humanity, against a community, are perpetrated. While I may not agree with all items that fall under magisterial authority, magisterial authority does and ought to exist.
Recently two great examples of failure to respect magisterial authority have occurred. One involved the arrest of a woman in Texas (who subsequently, as supported by the reports of the official autopsy available to the public, committed suicide in her jail cell). The other arrest involved the 19 year-old who created a gun firing drone and then made video of it in action for the world to watch. Both of these arrests stem from an individual disputing magisterial authority in the wrong manner. She was stopped for a minor traffic infraction and became verbally abusive and uncooperative with the officer involved. He was arrested on warrant because he refused to answer a questions about his presence in the area of a burglary.
In the case of the woman in Texas. The office does have the right to ask you to get out of your vehicle. This particular officer possibly exceeded his authority in ordering the lady to put out her cigarette in her own vehicle. The officer might have been too ardent in his telling her to get out or he would "light her up" (referencing using a electric shock device to subdue her). What would probably have happened if she had not run off at the mouth at the officer--he would have informed her of the violation, written a ticket or a warning, and both would have moved on to the rest of their day.
In the case of the young man in Connecticut, he was stopped by an officer seeking to determine why he was present where a burglary had been reported. The young man was correct that he did not have to answer any questions asked by the police unless he was properly informed of his rights. However, the young man attempted to drive off without addressing the officers, a watch sergeant told the officers present to let him go and get a warrant to bring him in for questioning. The warrant was issued and the young man was requested to simply come to the station on his own. The young man came to the station and for all appearance (hidden cameras on his person, hidden cell phones on his person, camera in his hand during the confrontation) came prepared to make a scene. Instead of stating he would answer questions or not (with or without the presence of an attorney) the young man created a situation where police used physical force.
For my two cents, most instances where police are involved should not involve the police. However, laws exist and we have hired the magistrate to enforce the laws. Cooperation--not self-incrimination, not accepting undue abuse of authority--simply acting with self-respect, dignity, and recognizing the magistrate is a human doing their job--in most instances--would go a long way to avoiding the ugliness we have recently witnessed.
Really, no matter who the supreme leader (Ayatollah) is in Iran does not matter. Survival for theocratic organizations depends upon having a common enemy around which to bind the population, every bit as much as radical ideological governments (have we forgotten the former USSR). Why then should anyone be surprised when Ali Khamenei says that Iran will continue to defy U.S. policy?
For my own two cents, the current administration of the U.S. mistakenly believed that dealing with the Ayatollah would change the Ayatollah. Oh wait, the current administration seems to think that the government of Iran is somehow separate from the religious rulers of Iran because Iran has elections and the Ayatollah does not have a political title. Or if the current administration did not think the government and the religion were separate, then the current administration is populated by the ignorant--which I really do not think is the case, even when I disagree with their behaviors and ideas. Quit acting shocked John Kerry. You knew that negotiating with the government of Iran was a no win situation, that ultimately the U.S. would have to offer the compromise and that whatever policy was agreed upon would be thwarted at every possible point by the Ayatollah. Very disturbing indeed Mr. Kerry, very disturbing that you act surprised.
The multimillion dollar question today is whether or not the deal reached between the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany with Iran is good or bad. As with all such questions the answer is always it depends, or compared to what. For countries that stand to benefit from oil/petroleum related trade with Iran the deal is good. For countries that could stand to benefit from potential lifting of arms trade embargoes related to Iran the deal is good. For countries that are not considered to be "the great Satan" by those who really run the Iran the deal is good.
For my two cents, the deal is meh? First, I am not really worried about whether such a deal is good for Israel, good for Saudi Arabia, good for (insert the name of any country here), other than whether or not being good/bad for that country is somehow a net bad for the population of the U.S. Does this deal endanger Israel--maybe, and how does endangering Israel represent a net bad for the population of the U.S.? Does this deal endanger Saudi Arabia--maybe, and see my previous sentence. Does France trading with Iran endanger the U.S. population and hamper our economic development? Does Russia trading with Iran endanger the U.S. population?
If the Russians and Chinese start engaging in arms trade with Iran, so what? Supposedly we are not talking about a nuclear arms trade, but conventional systems. Unless we believe we will need to invade Iran soon, how does Iran having current weapons systems endanger the U.S. population? According to what I have read, whether the arms embargo will be lifted remains to be determined.
Second, and most importantly, I am not certain that the world became more or less dangerous regardless of whether or not this deal is accepted by all parties. I remain unconvinced that this deal will truly slow/reduce/end Iranian plans to develop nuclear weapons. I also remain unconvinced that a nuclear armed Iran is any greater as a threat to the U.S. population than say a nuclear armed Pakistan, a nuclear armed China, a nuclear armed Russia, etc. "Great Satan" comments aside, do we really believe that the Iranian government/leadership would really be any more willing to use nuclear weapons against any population? Maybe I am just an eternal optimist here, but even the former Soviets did not think using the nuclear arsenal was a good idea.
To me a more interesting question is the idea of the U.S. House of Representatives taking a 60 day period to look the deal over and say yes or no. Seems to me if this deal represents a binding treaty, then the U.S. Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to ratify the treaty or not ratify the treaty, and the President of the U.S. has no say regarding the ratification process. If this is not a treaty and the House says no to the agreement, if this is not done as the passage of a law saying no--which requires both the House and Senate to pass it--then how can the president of the U.S. veto the House decision, particularly since the law already exists giving the House the 60 day review period to say yes or no to this agreement? I need to review the passed law that gives the House the review period in greater detail, because as I write this post, I honestly do not know the answer to this last question.
I blogged about this question briefly last fall when Gary Kasparov did an interview where he laid out an argument that Putin was playing poker while the rest of the world plays chess. Now it seems that at least a few high ranking (potentially) people in the U.S. defense arena think that Putin is the biggest threat to U.S. security. In confirmation hearings the current choice of Obama to be Secretary of the Air Force (Deborah James) called Putin the biggest threat. Also, the man tabbed to be the next Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Joe Dunford) called Russia (led by Putin) the biggest threat to U.S. security.
For my two cents, I tend to agree, sort of, kinda, maybe. I'm waffling here and I know it (my students will point to rule 20 of my picky rules of writing). I generally detest waffling, it generally shows weakness of character, and hedging does not stop one from being wrong, nor increase your possibility of being right. But I am waffling for a reason.
I know, I know, we have this great war on terror and radical Islamic groups are a threat to everyone everywhere. Is terrorism, particularly radical islamic led terrorism a threat? Absolutely terrorism is a threat, but how many people are actually at risk in the U.S. and how many U.S. citizens abroad are at risk because of terrorism? What amount of U.S. citizen's economic activity is at risk because of terrorism? We could say all of us and all of our economic activity are at risk, so we should narrow this criteria. Rather than simply at risk (heck I am at risk of death today because I am human, so risk is a risky proposition as a social criterion), what about likelihood of loss of life or likelihood of economic loss? When we check those criteria, terrorism is not a big deal--simply put it really does not cause us, as U.S. citizens that much loss of economic activity nor cause likelihood of injury or death on a great scale. (For my friends and family who have friends and family still serving in the U.S. military you must remember that the total U.S. military force is less than 1% of the entire U.S. population).
I am well aware of Putin's threat to Ukraine and parts of eastern Europe. Face it, under Putin Russia stole Crimea. But is this a real threat to the security of the citizens of the U.S. and our economic activity? Is a real threat to the livelihood of our allies in Europe a real threat to the security of the U.S.? This question is one worth our investigation. I make no claims to being an expert on the subject of alliances. I understand them mostly to be useful deterrent tools that generally tend to be short-lived and serve as pathways of confusion if the world is multipolar or lacking a singular hegemonic state. But, if maintaining alliances is fundamental to ordering of global security then a threat to our largest and most lengthy security alliance is a very important threat.
But, I hesitate to say Putin of Islamic led terrorism is the bigger threat because I study security issues in other areas of the world than Europe and the Middle East/North Africa. We have had cyber attacks from China and North Korea, and the Chinese are causing security concern to allies and friends and others (not sure what to call Vietnam these days) in East Asia and Southeast Asia. Cyber attacks can make it difficult to engage in economic activity (ask the NYSE). Cyber attacks can disrupt the use of military hardware that is highly network and globally integrated. So, I am personally not sure which is more threatening to me these days--Putin, Islamic Terrorism, Cyber Attacks, China, or North Korea.
Are our threats even more clearly known to us today? Even if we "know" Putin is behind something, even if we "know" the North Koreans orchestrated a cyber attack, even if we "know" that terrorism is a threat, what do we really know? What type of security forces do we need to protect our lives and our interests? Great times to be involved in the study of national security.
I read an article today stating that Cuba has become the first to eliminate mother to fetus transfer of syphilis and HIV. Less than 50 cases in 100,000 represents elimination to the World Health Organization, and this has been achieved in Cuba. Congratulations to the Cuban health care industry.
Before we get all misty eyed about the greatness of universal health coverage and socialized/Marxist control of medical care, we should take time to note a few facts. One, Cuba has a total population of about 11 million (New York City has about 8.5 million by comparison, and the U.S. as a whole has over 325 million documented residents). Two, Cuba had 9.9 births per 1000 residents last year (compare with 13.42 per 1000 residents in the U.S. last year). My point here is that the scale of the operation matters. Taking care of 4 versus taking care of 1200 is a much more manageable situation.
So, for my two cents, this achievement--and it is an achievement--is not one that is easily replicable in most developed industrial states. Nor is this achievement replicable for highly populous states. The achievement is remarkable and laudable, even happening in Cuba.
