Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Trump rattles seaborne saber at North Korea, but his fleet was in wrong ocean headed the wrong way


The USS Carl Vinson, a US nuclear powered aircraft carrier, is seen in Hong Kong waters on December 27, 2011.   The USS Carl Vinson, which was commissioned in 1982, is in Hong Kong for a three day visit.  AFP PHOTO / AARON TAM (Photo credit should read aaron tam/AFP/Getty Images)
Where in the world is ... our 100,000 ton 1,000' long aircraft carrier?
Great powers never bluff. They just lie outright about the location, direction, and intent of entire carrier groups. As the New York Times reports, a few ships are not where the Trump White House said they were.
As worries deepened last week about whether North Korea would conduct a missile test, the White House declared that ordering an American aircraft carrier into the Sea of Japan would send a powerful deterrent signal and give President Trump more options in responding to the North’s provocative behavior.
Because nothing comforts people and soothes international tension like reporting that you’re bringing in a fleet of warships. However, in this case, there’s an issue other than bringing in some ships to show the flag.
The problem was, the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the four other warships in its strike force were at that very moment sailing in the opposite direction, to take part in joint exercises with the Australian Navy in the Indian Ocean, 3,500 miles southwest of the Korean Peninsula.
They … lied about where the ships were, where they were going, and what they were doing? Didn’t they think that someone might notice when a 100,000 ton ship that’s better than 1,000 feet long and carrying a crew of 5,000 didn’t show up?

Actually, it appears that the Trump regime wasn’t so much lying about the ships. They just screwed up—in pretty much every way you can think of.
White House officials said on Tuesday they were relying on guidance from the Defense Department. Officials there describe a glitch-ridden sequence of events, from a premature announcement of the deployment by the military’s Pacific Command to an erroneous explanation by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis — all of which perpetuated the false narrative that an American armada was racing toward the waters off North Korea.
Well then. Wouldn’t it have been hilarious if Trump had ordered some action confident that the Vinson and her companions were on hand to support his play? And how much better can it get in the “Showing North Korea we’re really serious this time” category than threatening them with ships that were sailing in the other direction?

Next up: Trump orders Navy to stop taking pictures so no one will know when he’s wrong.

Your reminder for the day: This is not normal.

Who Among Us Can Say that We Have Not Misplaced an Aircraft Carrier?

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images)
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
   
PART 2: The newest scene in our national tragicomedy.



K, somebody needs to explain how these things happen. From the NYT:
The problem was, the carrier, the Carl Vinson, and the four other warships in its strike force were at that very moment sailing in the opposite direction, to take part in joint exercises with the Australian Navy in the Indian Ocean, 3,500 miles southwest of the Korean Peninsula. White House officials said on Tuesday they were relying on guidance from the Defense Department. Officials there described a glitch-ridden sequence of events, from a premature announcement of the deployment by the military's Pacific Command to an erroneous explanation by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis — all of which perpetuated the false narrative that an American armada was racing toward the waters off North Korea. By the time the White House was asked about the Carl Vinson on April 11, its imminent arrival had been emblazoned on front pages across East Asia, fanning fears that Mr. Trump was considering a pre-emptive military strike on North Korea. It was portrayed as further evidence of the president's muscular style two days after he ordered a missile strike on Syria while he and President Xi Jinping of China were finishing dessert during a meeting in Florida.
Let us catch our breath for a minute and take stock.

These people misplaced an entire carrier attack group and then tried to bluff their way past it in a way guaranteed to make a crazy guy with a bad haircut and a huge army nervous.

Thank god my running mate advised us not to get too crazy about this.

This episode does not seem to be a lie as much as it seems to be a further demonstration of the clusterf*ckish management style there at Camp Runamuck. At this point, my faith in what the administration says is such that I believe that, when the missiles flew into Syria, the president* and Xi actually were splitting a Twinkie and a bottle of YooHoo.

A beautiful Twinkie.

And the best bottle of YooHoo you ever saw.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

O’Reilly out at Fox as harassment claims pile up



Is anybody surprised that the nation's news source for bigots and rednecks has been sexually harassing women for years?




By EMILY STEEL and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
New York Times

 Bill O’Reilly has been forced out of his position as a prime-time host on Fox News, the company said on Wednesday, after the disclosure of settlements involving sexual harassment allegations against him. His abrupt and embarrassing ouster ends his two-decade reign as one of the most popular and influential commentators in television.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News, said in a statement.

Mr. O’Reilly will be succeeded in the 8 p.m. Eastern slot by Tucker Carlson, who moved to the channel’s prime-time lineup only in January. “The Five,” an ensemble political round table, will shift to 9 p.m. from the afternoon.

Mr. O’Reilly is departing two and a half weeks after an investigation by The New York Times revealed how Fox News and 21st Century Fox had repeatedly stood by him even as sexual harassment allegations against him mounted. The Times found that the company and Mr. O’Reilly had reached settlements with five women who had complained about sexual harassment or other inappropriate behavior by him. The agreements totaled about $13 million. 

Since then, more than 50 advertisers had abandoned his show, and women’s rights groups had called for his ouster. Inside the company, women expressed outrage and questioned whether top executives were serious about maintaining a culture based on “trust and respect,” as they had promised last summer when another sexual harassment scandal forced the ouster of Roger E. Ailes as chairman of Fox News.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Is Trump Actually in Charge? Or Is It Way Way Worse Than We Feared?

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images/AFP)

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images/AFP)

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

16 April 17
 

I haven't felt this shaky about the world in half a century.

have resisted the temptation to speculate on the mental state of our president* because I've always been leery of long-distance psychiatric diagnoses, and because I am not Charles Krauthammer, who regularly has used his professional credentials to define any politics to the left of a drillbit as some sort of cognitive deficiency.

However, the events of the last week have required me to rethink this policy.

Years ago, Fletcher Knebel wrote a novel called Night At Camp David about a president who'd gone mad. The evidence for that was that the bughouse president was lost in grandiose delusions about his place in the world. Knebel, you may recall, also was the co-author of the rather more famous Seven Days in May, which concerned a military plot to take over the government. Lately, I've come to see these two books as being parts of the same whole, like the Lord of the Rings saga, or Dune.

 I have come to the conclusion that the president* has slipped his gears and that his control over the military—and over foreign policy—is as tenuous as his hold on rationality is. I have not felt this shaky about the state of the world since October of 1962.

For example, there's his interview with Maria Bartiomo of the Fox Business Channel.

(This is the one that will go down in history as The Wonderful Chocolate Cake Interview, and that's scary enough.) The FBC is the safest possible media venue for this president*. The FBC makes the Fox News Channel look like Nick, Jr. Bartiromo certainly wasn't out to ambush the president*. He managed to ambush himself and to do so in such a way as to appear to be groping his way toward plain English in a truly unnerving way. For example:

TRUMP: Well, I'm going to let you figure that one out. But it's so obvious. When you look at Susan Rice and what's going on, and so many people are coming up to me and apologizing now. They're saying you know, you were right when you said that. Perhaps I didn't know how right I was, because nobody knew the extent of it. (INAUDIBLE)...
BARTIROMO: When you sent that...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: — what they did...
BARTIROMO: — was that what you were referring to, the Susan Rice?
TRUMP: Oh, sure. We're talking about surveillance. It was wiretapped in quotes. "The New York Times" said the word wiretapped in the headline of the first edition. Then they took it out of there fast when they realized. But I put wiretapped in quotes, meaning, because, look, wiretapping is an old-fashioned... (CROSSTALK) there are too many wires anymore, right? You don't have a lot of wires. Look at this room. This room used to have a lot of wires. Now it doesn't have so many wires.

Leave aside the obvious untruths—about the surveillance and Susan Rice and what he tweeted and (probably) all those great people who are congratulating him for being so right about everything. Look just at the language. He is talking in circles, gingerly stepping toward the familiar like a man crossing a frozen river on ice he doesn't trust. "Wires," he says, over and over again. I don't think that's because he doesn't know what he's talking about. I think that's because "wires" is a word he can remember.

And then there's this:

TRUMP: — and you see these beautiful kids that are dead in their father's arms, or you see kids gasping for life and you know they're — it's over. It's over for them. They're hosing them down, hundreds of them. When you see that, I immediately called General Mattis. I said, what can we do? And they came back with a number of different alternatives. And we hit them very hard. Now, are we going to get involved with Syria? No. But if I see them using gas and using things that — I mean even some of the worst tyrants in the world didn't use the kind of gases that they used. And some of the gases are unbelievably potent. So when I saw that, I said we have to do something.

Again, the language never strays far from what he's said before, even as the policy may or may not be reversing itself.

Which brings us to the second part of the Knebel Paradox. It's becoming very clear that the president* has farmed out his responsibilities as commander-in-chief—and most of his foreign policy—to the generals and ex-generals with whom he has surrounded himself. Here he is talking about using a carrier group to poke at the North Koreans.

TRUMP: And in the meantime, they get ready and like you've never seen — look, they're still fighting. Mosul was supposed to last for a week and now they've been fighting it for many months and so many more people died. I don't want to talk about it. We are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you.And we have the best military people on Earth. And I will say this. He is doing the wrong thing. He is doing the wrong thing.
BARTIROMO: Do you...
TRUMP: He's making a big mistake.
BARTIROMO: — do you think he's mentally fit?
TRUMP: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know him. But he's doing the wrong thing. I have a very, very good meeting with President Xi of China. I really liked him. We had a great chemistry, I think. I mean at least I had a great chemistry — maybe he didn't like me, but I think he liked me.

He is talking as if to children. I think he's talking to himself.

Things got worse the other day, when the U.S. dropped the mightiest non-nuclear weapon it has on a bunch of rocks and caves in Afghanistan. The president* explained this event by stating categorically that the generals are in charge. From Military Times:

"What I do is I authorize my military," in response to a press question about the use of a massive bomb in an assault on Islamic State group positions in Afghanistan. "We have the greatest military in the world, and they've done the job, as usual. We have given them total authorization, and that's what they're doing. Frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately. If you look at what's happened over the last eight weeks and compare that really to what has happened over the last eight years, you'll see there is a tremendous difference."

Those are not the words you want to hear from the guy on whom—theoretically, at least—the national command authority rests. Those are the words of a guy who's terrified of the awesome responsibilities of his job because he knows he's not up to them, and I think he's not up to them because he knows something's wrong with him.

And, come to think of it, "my" military is pretty frightening, too.

There now are several crisis points in the world that are hanging by a thread. At the same time, the civilian control of the military also is hanging by a thread, because nobody's sure whether or not the commander-in-chief can keep himself together.

(This column, in which the author assures us that the president* is being "saved" by the military minds around him, is meant to be reassuring, but damned well isn't.)

At the end of Fletcher Knebel's novels, the bughouse president resigns and the coup is foiled. In real life, who knows if it ends that way. I don't want a president* who knows he's not up to the job and I don't want a military establishment that thinks it knows what to do about it. That way, we all go crazy.

Monday, April 17, 2017

Of all developed countries, America self-invests the least because of tax cuts for the 1 percent


Cars rest on the collapsed portion of I-35W Mississippi River bridge after the August 1, 2007 collapse.

As tax day (April 18) approaches, it’s interesting to consider the lie that America is “overtaxed.”

The average developed country reinvests 34 percent of its gross domestic product back into the country and its people.

As of 2014, America only invests 26 percent, which puts it ahead of Korea, Chile, Mexico, and exactly zero other developed countries.
What does this do?

To help illustrate, here’s the breakdown by country of taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 from the Tax Policy Center: 


Taxes as a share of gross domestic product in 2014.
Taxes as a percentage of GDP. 
Economist Simon Johnson breaks down what this means: 

The U.S. government doesn’t take in much tax revenue—at least 10 percentage points of GDP less than comparable developed economies—and it also doesn’t spend much except on the military, Social Security and Medicare. Other parts of government spending can be frozen or even slashed, but it just won’t make that much difference. That means older Americans are going to get squeezed, while our ability to defend ourselves goes into decline. Just because there’s a bipartisan consensus on an idea, such as tax cuts, doesn’t mean it makes sense. Today’s tax cutters have set us up for tomorrow’s fiscal crisis and real damage to U.S. national security.
What this means is that we’re already not investing much in our country, with the exception of defense. If we cut the few programs we have, we will have less money for infrastructure and economic development.

One example of this is that Trump’s most recent budget proposal includes cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and programs that help small businesses in rural areas. Brian Depew, the director of a nonprofit that helps small businesses get loans in Lyons, Nebraska, said:

The higher of a percentage of population in your county that voted for Donald Trump, the more screwed you are by his budget.
Another example is that the Trump budget proposes cutting job training programs.

All of this we likely be billed as “balancing the budget.” However, because of huge increases in the military budget, discretionary spending will actually increase from $521.7 billion to $574 billion.

If spending increases we’ll simply run bigger deficits, with or without tax cuts for the rich. If we cut taxes for the rich even more, we’ll run even greater deficits. In Trump’s most recent plan, the richest 1 percent will enjoy 47 percent of the benefits of the proposed changes.

What this means is that we’re still not investing in our country and our people, and we’re going to run bigger deficits so that our very wealthiest can pay even less. 

David Akadjian is the author of  The Little Book of Revolution: A Distributive Strategy for Democracy (now available as an ebook).

Sunday, April 16, 2017

Bill Maher goes after Open Carry "ammosexuals"


Last night, Bill Maher tore into the "ammosexuals" who want to open carry everywhere.

And finally, New Rule: The only time you should take a gun into a Sonic restaurant is when you're robbing it.  (audience cheering and applause)

Yes, lately firearms enthusiasts have been taking their guns out to public places for playdates with other gun owners and their guns.  And in the process, frightening lots of properly adjusted people in places like Sonic, and Chili's, and Chipotle, and Jack in the Box, proving once again that America's gun laws are worthless and sad.  And that its dining options aren't much better.  (audience laughter)

Now, the other thing that the open carry movement is proving is something I've believed for a long time — that no matter how crazy gun culture gets in America, never think it can't get crazier.  I mean, what possible reason could a person have for bringing a semi-automatic weapon into Home Depot?  You're there to buy a toilet seat.  I doubt you will meet armed resistance.  (audience laughter and applause)

You know, guns are legal.  OK, we get it.  It doesn't mean you have to scare the bejesus out of everybody.  Chill out, Josey Wales, this isn't the Wild West anymore!  Clint Eastwood is directing Jersey Boys now.  (audience laughter and applause)

Look at this guy at Chipotle.
Now, you might not be able to see him because he's wearing a camouflage hat.  (hysterical audience laughter)
But trust me, there is a man standing there.  And I'm sure that he would say he's just exercising his rights.  And by the looks of him, that's the only thing he's exercising.  (audience laughter)
But what does he or any of these patriots imagine is going through the minds of sane people when they see this??  "Oh my, it looks like Vladimir Putin has annexed Chipotle.  That's alarming."  (audience laughter)
When eight nitwits walked into Chili's last month armed to the teeth — or at least where their teeth would be if they had any (audience laughter and applause) — a concerned mother asked, "What are you doing here?"
To which one of them said, "Representin' our Second Amendment rights.  We lose them if we don't use them."  Well, no, Cletus.  (audience laughter)
Actually, you don't.  They're Constitutional rights.  You can't lose them.  Perhaps you're thinking of frequent flyer miles.  (audience laughter)
And you know, that's the thing about gun culture.  There's not a lot of culture.  It's mostly about the guns.  And the problem isn't just that they're so legal in America.  It's that they're so beloved.  Guns aren't just a tool of last resort.  They're awesome.  That's why people stroke them.  And name them, and take pictures with them.  You guys aren't just firearm enthusiasts — you're ammosexuals.

(audience laughter and applause)
And before you try and deny you have some sort of unnatural romantic relationship with your gun, consider this.  You're taking it out to dinner!  (hysterical audience laughter)
Because it completes you.  Get a room.
You know, I love Tiffany lamps, but if I couldn't bear to leave the house without carrying one, they would lock me up!  It's no secret I favor marijuana rights, but I don't go to the Olive Garden and blow bong hits into people's faces!  (wild audience laughter and applause)  Anymore.  (hysterical audience laughter)
Here's a crazy idea.  Try going out without your gun.  I know there may be some separation anxiety, but just think how exciting it will be when you get home and there she is.  (hysterical audience laughter)  Oiled up and just wearing a holster.  (audience laughter)
Now the silver lining in all this is these heavily armed flash mobs that have been alarming people in restaurants lately have managed to do what thousands of progressive legislators could not.  They got guns banned.  (audience cheering and applause)
 Yeah, one by one, all these restaurants said nope, sorry, you can no longer take a gun into Chipotle, or Chili's, or Applebee's, or Wendy's, or Jack in the Box.  From now on, if you want to die in one of these places, you're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way, by eating their food!  (audience laughter and applause)

Saturday, April 15, 2017

'Concrete Evidence of Collusion Between Trump Team and Russia' Handed to Official Investigation

Donald Trump. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
By Chalotta England, Independent
 
New evidence comes as sources reveal British spy agency GCHQ played pivotal role in uncovering interactions between US President and Russian operatives
he official investigation into relations between Donald Trump and Russia now has "specific, concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion", it has been reported.

New evidence proves discussions took place “between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material,” a source allegedly told the Guardian.

The developments come as it has emerged that Britain’s spy agencies were among the first to alert their American counterparts to contact between members of Mr Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives.

British and other European intelligence agencies first intercepted suspicious “interactions” between people associated with the US President and Russian officials in 2015 as part of routine surveillance of Russia, intelligence sources have confirmed to a number of different publications.

Spy agencies, including GCHQ, were not deliberately targeting members of the Trump team but rather recorded communications through “incidental collection,” CNN reports.

This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of information under the "Five Eyes“ agreement, which calls for open sharing of certain types of information among member nations the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Over several months, different agencies targeting the same people began to see a pattern in communications between the Republican's inner circle and Russian operatives. For six months, until summer 2016, these interactions were repeatedly flagged to intelligence officials in the US, who sources have said were slow to act.

“It looks like the [US] agencies were asleep,” a source told the Guardian. “They [the European agencies] were saying: ‘There are contacts going on between people close to Mr Trump and people we believe are Russian intelligence agents. You should be wary of this.’

“The message was: ‘Watch out. There’s something not right here.’”

GCHQ's involvement in the investigation is controversial, with Mr Trump's press secretary, Sean Spicer, having previously accused the "British spying agency" of bugging Trump Tower on behalf of Barack Obama. Mr Spicer cited an unsubstantiated report on Fox News, from which the television station later distanced itself.

At the time GCHQ diverged from its usual policy of refraining from commenting to the media, describing the allegations as "nonsense".

“They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored,” a spokesperson for the agency said.

But both US and UK intelligence sources now acknowledge that GCHQ played an early and important role in kickstarting the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016.

One source told the Guardian the British eavesdropping agency was the “principal whistleblower”.

A GCHQ spokesperson declined to comment on the revelations, saying: “It is longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters”.