Current events are forcing everyone into a deep state of soul-searching. Some Iranians were angry after Trump’s drone strike, mourning the death of a leader they somehow admired. They didn’t blame Americans, except that they did. Once the Iranian government admitted to shooting down the passenger jet from Ukraine, Iranians en masse took to the streets, protesting the current government.
As Symphony explained last week, some leaders have yet to “grow up” more than others. Those with more growing up to go tend to invite resentment from those they lead. Iran was no exception. Authoritarianism led to the mistake with the passenger jet, but it also allowed certain leaders to rise in the first place, one whom was killed by a drone strike approved by President Trump.
In America, the doomed impeachment articles from the House were so evidently unpopular that their true purpose went on parade: a parade. Yes, it was only ever for show. So, when House Democrats were forced to give the Republican Senate what they did not want, they continued the show for their supporters’ own entertainment.
But, the show isn’t done yet. Irritation and aggravation will only rise higher and higher as the nation sees what’s really going on. That could be said for both Iranians and Americans.
Happy New Year! Free speech is threatened most when it is laid down freely. It is threatened more when public companies are allowed to threaten it. Prior to Hong Kong protests, the term “self-censorship” was tossed around like a fourth-grade sponge ball on a PhysEd parachute. Today, if Facebook doesn’t want someone’s name mentioned—even though the people not allowed to mention the name aren’t involved—then Facebook users won’t mention the name for fear of losing their connection to friends and family.
That is the usual blackmail, right?—friends and family?
Pacific Daily Times will not report the name of an ousted whistleblower unless it either becomes old news and is needed for discussion or there is litigation involving the whistleblower. But, that’s as far as things go. Should enough time pass or the whistleblower file private or civil action over being mentioned—or a disenfranchised social media user were to file private or civil action over being censored or banned—then the name becomes fair game for the Times. For the Times, it’s about being niche and newsworthy rather than alarmist and chasing the most recent fad. We want a name attached to a story that is unusual from what others will report.
But, Facebook, YouTube, and others in mainline media seem to have more in the game than just keeping things relevant and interesting. Banning users and removing content for naming a name already named seems to indicate that they are protecting the whistleblower because they support what the whistleblower did. That stacks up the best, anyway.
At the Times, others being banned for repeating the named name is far more interesting than the name itself. Banning or censoring users for mentioning an ousted whistleblower on publicly listed social media platforms is atrocious. We are headed for public utilitization of social media. The same could be argued for food, drug, and grocery giants, but that’s another editorial for another week.
This raises another question. What is a “whistleblower” anyway? Generally, the term is vernacular, referring to someone who sees foul play and “blows a whistle”. The problem is that whistleblowers wear special clothes to identify themselves, wave flags with bright colors, and make loud noises to draw the attention of an entire stadium. But, ever since Trump threatened an inbred political swamp in one of the most white-collar corrupt graft cities in the world, the term “whistleblower” seems to have been reassigned the definition “accuser in hiding who has a right to accuse without proof, then keep hiding”.
This “whistleblower” isn’t the actual whistleblower but a spectator in the stands. By the standard definition, the real whistleblowers were the Federal agents who acted upon the claims. Misapplying the term “whistleblower” to this anonymous, baseless coward of an accuser has only served to lionize the housecat.
The Trump trials are exposing what is broken about our political culture. Politicians don’t know how to talk to people. They can schmooze and beat around the bush. They can use a thousand hours and a hundred thousand words to do nothing in a way that appears like hard work. But, they don’t know how to talk to people so that something actually happens.
To a business man, the phrase “I need your help” is a polite way of making a request easier to turn down. In politics, asking for “help” is code for bribery. The two aren’t at all related. When Trump told the Ukrainian president he wanted “help”, he was being polite. But, the swamp in Washington mistook Trump for speaking their evil language of bribery. In psychosemantics, the term is “projection”.
Trump’s impeachment is purely along party lines. Statistics and figures agree. If you’re a Democrat, you think his call to Ukraine was wrong. If you’re a Republican, you think his call to Ukraine was somewhere between necessary and excusable. Any exceptions are marginal. This is pure party politics, which means that we can’t debate the ethics of Trump’s phone call among fellow Americans with any more success than we can debate guns, abortion, and redistribution of wealth. Now, impeaching the incumbent president for whatever lame reason we can contrive has been added as one more topic in a party-politics worldview.
Most rules that Democratic politicians object to are rules that the same Democrats created to use against Republicans just a few years prior. This new precedent won’t be any exception. It might even come in handy one day, one way or another.
Trump’s popularity is soaring. The impeachment this week helped the popular president even more—well, if an “impeachment” that the House speaker chooses not to transfer to the Senate is an actual impeachment. In the words of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the House doesn’t demonstrate much leverage by not, “sending us something we do not want.” Not sending the Senate something the Senate does not want has made Trump even more “popularer”.
Whether Democratic or Republican, everyone should think the House is an embarrassment to the country. Even Putin thinks the House is laughable. Smart Democratic voters won’t want their politicians barking up trees, starting fights that help the other team. But, there is a danger—power corrupts and supermajority corrupts “superly”. Democrats are handing the nation a supermajority Republican party by 2022, when the third round of Senate elections for Trump’s tenure take place. That is when our freedom will be at more risk than it has ever been; when good people no longer have accountability they are no longer good.
Fortunately, while many Democratic voters don’t value the Constitution that started the trend of ending slavery for the first time in human history, at least they know the power of gridlock. Democrats like checks and balances when they don’t have power. That might be enough to save freedom.
China is desperately grasping for straws. While German parliament is planning to ban Huawei against the will of their head of state, Chancellor Merkel, a Chinese ambassador sends a message that “there will be consequences”—when diplomatic channels go to the head of state, not parliament. The Chinese ambassador is like a dog barking up a tree; German parliament doesn’t care what the Chinese ambassador says. But, in China different branches of government don’t matter because that’s just a “silly Western thing”. So, the Chinese don’t know how German government works because the Chinese presume that Germans lie as much as the Chinese do.
Moreover, the Chinese Communists have overlooked one blaring flaw—if Huawei isn’t controlled by China’s government, that would make it the only entity in China not subject to passive-aggressive threats under pain of organ harvesting. Moreover, if Huawei were the independent company China’s government claims it is, China’s government wouldn’t be so defensive of Huawei being banned from Germany.
China has many weaknesses, self-contradicting diplomacy being the least. Its labor force is shrinking. Its economy is much more dependent on exports than America’s. Its tech sector is even more dependent on importing American-made components. Tit-for-tat tariffs don’t favor China in that regard. The Chinese don’t spend as much on their military as America does, regardless of the hype from State-run Chinese news outlets. And, it doesn’t own a very big piece of the pie when it comes to US Treasury bonds—the greatest liquidation threat China could make there is to offer a temporary discount price to willing investors. The cost would be China forfeiting any leverage it had by owning such a small part of America’s debt, while America’s economy might skip two beats at most, then nevermore.
Then, we have the anti-Trump camp. Many economists who haven’t a clue where wealth comes from despise America’s president. Everything needs to pay for itself, otherwise it will die in a suicide cult of bankruptcy. Maybe NATO shouldn’t be in Germany, maybe it should, but the answer—one way or the other—will only surface if NATO requires Germany to pay for its own national defense. Bowing down to China may have made a few American companies rich—regardless of making a few million Americans poor—but it was never going to last long. Even though China took American money and started bullying their neighbors, those who profited from those greedy companies in particular are angry. But, most Americans aren’t fooled anymore.
Trump played his cards well, and he’s still got plenty of chips left to ante up for many rounds to come. That isn’t good news if you’re a member of the Chinese Communist Party, hoping to help the party dominate America.
Revelations about the Russianewsgategate scandal are beyond damning. Why would Comey and friends consciously fabricate a lie, just to scare the president for not meeting with the Intelligence community every day? Generally, the public thinks that they think that their attempted assault against the president would succeed, so they would never have to answer for what they did. Like a failed revolt against Caesar, now they must pay. They didn’t think they would get caught, they outreached, then they got caught. That’s what the public is generally led to believe.
However, given the levels of flagrant sloppiness, it is difficult to say that getting caught resulted from a mere miscalculation. More likely, they simply didn’t think that far ahead because, if they had, they would have prepared contingencies. They had no contingencies and they left a highway of breadcrumbs.
What explains this?—Psychopath?—Ruling class corruption?—Drowning in their own swamp? A simple miscalculation or a belief that they would get away with it doesn’t suffice. Somewhere, the Washington elite have gone off the deep end.
The impeachment campaign against Trump is a self-imploding, self-destructing, backfiring bombshell. The Democrats harm themselves with their impeachment proceedings so fast that news can’t even keep up with the damage. Their resolve to bring their own demise goes beyond conspiracy—it’s self-absorbed madness. No matter how much they can see how much they make themselves lose, they only turn up the temperature and lose more.
The moral of the story is that we should expect even more blunders as the swamp drains and the monsters who thrived there writhe in their last hours of miserable existence. Of course, that could last a few decades before it’s all done with.