Mueller disappoints Dems

The Mueller report finds no evidence of collusion, and I can't say I'm surprised.  Here's what I wrote back in July of 2017 regarding the notorious "Tr*mp Tower meeting":

As I've previously observed, Russia never needed any help from Tr*mp and Co. to interfere in the American election — but certainly had no qualms about compromising individuals who might become part of a future Tr*mp Administration.  Given the high levels of both cupidity and incompetence on the Tr*mp team, the Russians didn't have to try too hard.

This doesn't mean Putin lacks kompromat on Our President — and I don't mean the "piss tape."  The Republican base has shown itself totally willing to ignore Tr*mp's sexual peccadillos, and paying hookers to pee on a bed isn't even a crime.  Money laundering, on the other hand, is a crime, and developers of high-end real estate are especially well-situated to participate.  Ongoing investigations of Deutche Bank just might turn up evidence that does some real damage to our Grifter in Chief — albeit most Americans can't comprehend financial crimes much more complex than bank robbery.

In the meanwhile, Our President can chalk up a victory — a victory that will make it far more difficult for Democrats to use future investigatory revelations to their political advantage.  The disappointing fact is that  Tr*mp never was a "foreign agent" — he's just one more corrupt businessman willing to make a quick buck.

College Admissions Q & A

Q.  Was anybody even remotely surprised by the recent college admissions scandal?

 A.   You must be kidding me.

Q.  Why would a coach at an important school want to take a bribe?

A.  Jealousy, pure and simple.  Resentment of the salary pulled down by the football coach.

Q.  If the kids were chronic "underachievers" even with all the private tutoring and fancy private schooling their wealthy parents must have given them, how did their parents expect them to graduate from a top-tier school?

A.  They were paying full tuition — of course they were going to graduate.  It's much harder to get into a top school than it is to graduate from it.

Red-baiting returns!

Anybody who came of age during the Cold War will remember "red-baiting" — the practice of tarring liberals and their ideas with the brush of "communism."  Needless to say, "communism" and "socialism" were used interchangeably; so even a popular socialist program like Medicare (1966) was attacked as a threat to "democracy" by "the red menace."

Red-baiting died down somewhat with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but if you're too young to remember it at its worst, don't worry — because it's back, and likely to play a major role in the 2020 election cycle.  It was the central thrust of the President's recent speech to CPAC, and most of his party already is on-board.

n truth, totalitarian communism has more in common with monopolistic capitalism than with democratic socialism.  In one, a tiny elite controls the government, which controls business and industry.  In the other, a tiny elite controls business and industry, which controls the government.  The Soviets needed more democracy; the United States needs more socialism.

The new red-baiting may be a good sign: an indicator that socialist ideas have become thinkable again.  The “Green New Deal,” “Medicare for All,” and free higher education are mainstream ideas today, and steadily growing more popular.  There is reason to hope that red-baiting will be far less effective in today’s politics than it was in the past.

Ilhan Omar

Let's get one thing straight: criticism of Israel is not the equivalent of antisemitism, and criticism of AIPAC is even less so.  It has been years since the American Israel Public Affairs Committee could be said to lobby on behalf of the State of Israel.  Today, it lobbies on behalf of Israel's Likud Party and, more specifically, on behalf of Bibi Netanyahu.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby!”
It's true that AIPAC itself makes no political contributions: it merely "suggests" that favored candidates for office enjoy the largess of wealthy Jewish (and Evangelical) supporters – and those supporters write substantial checks to favored candidates and their superPACs.  (I can't help thinking that part of the problem with Omar's remark was that "Benjamin" sounds like a Jewish name.)  Pelosi forced an apology for that one, even though much of the uproar was motivated by prejudice against Muslims.

"Allegiance to a foreign country"
Dual loyalty is a "Jewish stereotype" that, frankly, I'd never heard of before.  I do remember people questioning whether John F. Kennedy would be more loyal to the Constitution or the Pope, but somehow I missed the part about Jews and Israel.  (Granted, my Hebrew school taught more Zionism than Hebrew, so I guess it's plausible.)  Notwithstanding all that, "allegiance" was a very poor choice of words.

Congressional support for Israel, not limited to Jewish members, is more a conditioned response than a true allegiance.  The US has supported Israel since 1948, usually with ample justification; but Netanyahu's Israel has become a different country.  The Palestinian "territories" are governed like the bantustans of apartheid South Africa, and Bibi is forming political alliances with open racists — not just the closeted ones.  This is happening with the encouragement and support of American conservatives, not all of whom are Jews.

The rebuke of Ilhan Omar seems to be intended as a warning to other young, progressive Democrats who might have the temerity to suggest American support for Israel might become a little more conditional.  I hope they don't knuckle under: it really is time for a change.

Cohen

I listened to the Michael Cohen's testimony on and off, and caught the highlight reels later on.  You'll have heard much of the endless commentary.  What I don't understand is why nobody, Cohen included, is not mentioning the most obvious reason to believe him: if he's caught lying to Congress again, they'll throw the book at him.

In his heart of hearts, I'm sure he's still a sleazebag – but he's in no position to misbehave.  It would be very surprising if the Southern District of New York didn't have a laundry list of charges they still could bring; they had a reason to ask for a longer sentence than the one recommended by Mueller.

Cohen's performance was impressive   He seemed a lot more intelligent than he was back when he still was a Tr*mp mouthpiece., butI guess that's easier to do when you don't have to do riffs on the lies of an idiot.  Now he'll have three years of otherwise unproductive time to work on his book.  Maybe I'll read it.

Extra brief briefs

• National Emergency: He lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but this weekend he's golfing at Mar a Lago again.
• The Green New Deal: Market forces will not address climate change, so radical action is required.  More to come.
• Blackface: If you can't recall any stupid, insensitive things you did when you still were in your twenties, you're still in your twenties. Northam should not resign.
• Amazon: The company plans to add 5000 jobs at its New York headquarters – most likely more – with no bribery required.  Other cities and states should take note.
• Brexit:  The question nobody seems to be asking is cui bono – which powerful individuals and corporations in the UK will profit from a "hard" Brexit?
• Ilhan Omar: Antisemitism?  What she forgot to mention was that AIPAC doesn't represent Jews, or even Israel; it represents Likud.
• Howard Schultz:  Just what we need! Another messianic billionaire!

Venezuela

Venezuela is a mess — and in a list of countries that could benefit from a coup d'état, Venezuela would be pretty close to the top.  That said, it should be their coup d'état, not ours.

The Venezuelan economy was not destroyed by socialism: it was destroyed by incompetence. Venezuela's oil fields were nationalized in 1976, but by the late 1980s they once again had fallen under the control of foreign multinational oil companies, with profits going primarily to big oil and Venezuelan plutocrats.  Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, on a promise of returning oil profits to the people — and he did.  There were massive improvements in education, health care, and other social goods.  The main beneficiaries were the poor.

That's when the incompetence kicked in.  Valuing loyalty over expertise (sound familiar?), Chavez replaced virtually everybody who knew anything about running an oil company with a political supporter.  As time went on, maintenance was neglected, equipment wasn't replaced, corruption flourished, and production fell steadily.  Persistent US economic sanctions (the oil companies were really pissed!) didn't help at all.

The Bush Administration organized a coup attempt in 2002, which accomplished nothing but alienating most of Latin America — even though the Bush team at least tried to be sneaky about it.  When Chavez died and Nicolás Maduro took over, oil revenues continued to fall, and so did the fortunes of the Venezuelan people.  Maduro seems to have no goal other than to stay in power.

Juan Guidó recently claimed the presidency following an encouraging phone call from Mike Pence; and John Bolton cheerily applauded the impending privatization of Venezuelan oil.  Guidó comes from a far-right political party that represents only a fraction of Maduro's opposition, but a lot of Venezuelans seem willing to take what they can get, provided it's not Maduro.  Even many of the poor are deserting the Chavezistas in the face of economic catastrophe.  The oil barons are licking their lips.

If Guidó does come to power, at least Venezuelans will get an influx of sorely needed economic aid.  Hopefully, he can do it without the American invasion Our President says is "on the table."  Maduro is right when he says it could turn into another Vietnam: numerous past US interventions in Latin America have left us few real friends south of the border. Of course, Tr*mp might invade just to distract attention from the Mueller investigation.

We'll have to wait and see — probably not for long.