BBC Censors Speech

No Trump Derangement syndrome here.

I've got to pass this on since it's something which needs to get publicity:

The BBC has decided to censor the opening lecture of a series they invited Rutger Bregman to deliver.  They removed the sentence in which he describes Donald Trump as “the most openly corrupt president in American history.” This line was taken out of a lecture they commissioned, reviewed through the full editorial process, and recorded four weeks ago in front of 500 people in the BBC Radio Theatre. He was told the decision came from the highest levels within the BBC.

This has happened against his wishes, and he's deeply troubled by it. Not because people can’t disagree with his words, but because self-censorship driven by fear (Trump is threatening to sue the BBC) should concern all of us.

This needs to get out there for a lot of reasons. 

I used to like to think that Auntie was trustworthy, but she ain't.

Russell is right!

I couldn't agree more with what Russell is saying here: 

One thing is for sure – the Democrats more interested in bringing him down than understanding what led to his rise.

Toss in addressing the issues surrounding this mess brought to us by the duopoly.

Why I am on the "outs" with most of the "Gun Violence Prevention Organisations"

Actually, I should say most "legacy" advocacy groups since the issue is less whether I agree with their position on the issue and more that I disagree with their becoming partisan (and it's more than just GVP groups that are guilty of doing this). The partisan aspect not only has caused the groups to support and reinforce a system which is toxic: it has caused these groups to stray from addressing the issues they SHOULD be addressing. That makes these groups totally ineffective and counterproductive.

I'm finally getting to this since I have been receiving a lot of "Trump  is bad" campaigns instead of something relating to the issues in question. First off, I never suffered from Trump Derangement Syndrome the way a lot of people on the left have. Trump isn't the problem: he's very much a symptom of a terminal illness which is US politics.

And one which most of the groups trying to get people to act viscerally have contributed to way more than they should.

"Gun Violence Prevention" isn't on the top of my list. On the other hand, a lot of groups on which it should be a priority are ignoring it, or just making the situation worse. I would agree that people shouldn't have "assault rifles" under most circumstances, but that changes a lot when people are in Cloud Cuckoo Land about the nature of the "peaceful protests" and saying "defund the police".

Patricia and Mark McCloskey should not be laughed at or prosecuted, but should have been given compassion. Especially since I think they represent a good portion of urbanites who are feeling under siege. You don't have an apartment building a few blocks away from where you live burn and not feel a twinge of concern. Saying "defund the police" is total insanity.

The problem is that society is  polarised and the advocacy groups aren't helping things if they join the fray. They should be trying to figure out how to make progress, not make the situation worse. We should be talking to each other, not entrenching ourselves in untenable positions. I'm supporting the non-partisan, not the partisan.

More historical ignorance

People in the US really love the idealised version of themselves and their history. Problem is that the real deal is not as nice as what they want to believe.

Let's take the Presidential Election of 1800, which I mentioned in a previous post. While probably not as bad as current events, things were pretty bad. The founders didn't always get along and this was one where Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were in a rough and tumble battle.

It also demonstrated that the founders DIDN'T get it right with their concept of what the US would be. The electoral college was already proving problematic (and was the subject of an early amendment). 

The founders also didn't believe that republics would divide into factions, but there was pretty extreme partisanship in the 1800 Election.

Adams didn't attend Jefferson's inauguration.

And let's not forget that Aaron Burr came really close to being President, but became vice president instead. In case you missed that part of US history:

During his last year as vice president, Burr engaged in the duel in which he fatally shot Hamilton, his political rival. Although dueling was illegal, Burr was never tried, and all charges against him eventually were dropped. Nevertheless, Hamilton's death ended Burr's political career.

Burr traveled west to the American frontier, seeking new economic and political opportunities. His secretive activities led to his 1807 arrest in Alabama on charges of treason. He was brought to trial more than once for what became known as the Burr conspiracy, but was acquitted each time.

Alas Burr wasn't made president by the Electoral College.

But maybe that was a good thing.  Especially since Hamilton became a money making Broadway Musical.

And the bad news is: You can't blame Donald Trump for what is wrong in the US anymore.

Of course, the people with Trump Derangement Syndrome probably will continue to do so long after he has passed from the scene.

Seriously, I wasn't sure which would be worse: Trump winning the same way he did in 2016 by taking the electoral college, but not the popular vote. Or Joe Biden winning and then having to deal with all his shit.

It looks like option two is the one on the cards. With an addition of Horrible Harris to make the package even more fun to swallow.

The real problem is that the "Democrats" spent the past four years blaming everything and everybody, but the people responsible for making Donald Trump president in the first place.

The "Democrats" themselves.

Toss in that the system is pretty much a mess to begin with.

I walked away in 2016 with the Demexit and will not go back, but the system has to catch up with those of us who know it is broken. The electoral system is in serious need of reform and trying to pass the blame on the other guy won't help the situation.

Can Trump really win again in 2020?

 Yes, I am still of the opinion that Trump will win again in 2020 and that any other outcome is wishful thinking.

Trump supporters are (1) still fairly solidly behind him, (2) not very vocal in their support, and (3) going to be more inclined toward him that a Biden-Harris ticket. Let's toss in that most voters have pretty much already decided who they will vote for and will not switch.

Biden supporters are the case in point. Trump derangement syndrome has literally set in. How to tell if you have it: would you be vaccinated if Donald Trump announced there was a vaccine for corona virus? 

Remember that any approved vaccine would have to pass FDA regs.

Biden is unscrutinised and even when scrutinised things like #metoo and "Believe all women" goes down the shitcan when it's Tara Reade. And never mind all the videos out there. Same goes for the allegations of bribery from Ukraine and China.

"But Trump..."

On the other hand, can the allegations that Trump "mishandled" the pandemic lockdown play that well with voters who are having to actually deal with the lockdowns? I have the luxury of their being an inconvenience, but this is a hardship for a lot of people.

The proper course of action would indeed be things like medicare for all, universal basic income, job security, and other "socialist" programmes. Toss in contact tracing and a lot of other things which people in the US would balk at.

Despite what Fox and Sky News Australia say, Biden is in no way willing to do the necessary steps to truly handle Covid-19. I would also guess that Harris wouldn't either. It seems to be one of the qualfications for being a Democratic nominee that you have a public and private position. Biden has made it clear that nothing will change if he is elected, but there will be lots of committees and investigations. 

I'm not sure how persuasive Biden and Harris are to the people who will really decide the election: the actual undecided voters. On the other hand, both Biden's and Harris's campaigns were considered dead until the "super Thursday" miracle. Then what was previously left for dead was declared the hope for the US.

The prognoses are still not good, but we can't criticise the chosen ones or we are somehow "helping Trump win".

Wouldn't running a couple of the shittiest candidates imaginable (even shittier than Hillary Clinton) count as "helping Trump win". "Trump bad" only works with the sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome and not uncommitted voters.

Or voters who want to hear real policies and agendas instead of what one would expect someone who has been in the US legislature to spew out.

Given the possible outcomes. 

1. Trump wins and the Dems really sit back and do some serious self-examination. Although, deep in my heart I know the Dems will blame everyone and everything except for the fact they chose to run an unpopular candidate.
2. Biden wins and the self-satisfied "Democrats" feel vindicated in shoving shit candidates down the people's throats. The ultimate outcome is that something far worse than Trump becomes president.

A Trump win is the better choice since real reform can only come from having to make compromises and changes to the system. The "lesser evil" system is how we got into this mess. Case in point, the Presidential Debates, which at one time were run by a non-partisan body, the league of women voters, but are now run by the "Commission on Presidential Debates", a partisan body.

 The two party system sure as fuck isn't how we will get out of the current mess in US poltics. And it would have made a lot more sense to work on electoral reform the past four years than chase imaginary Russians.

Face masks, symbolism, and Covid-19

Someone said that Trump Derangement Syndrome would be exemplified if Trump came up with a cure for SARS-CoV2. People with it wouldn't take the cure because "Trump".

Likewise, people laughed at Trump's suggestion that they wear a scarf for protection against the coronavirus. The same people now wear scarves, or face masks.



OK, masks really aren't that effective at protecting you from SARS-Cov2. The virus is small enough it can travel through the pores of pretty much anything except something like an N95 mask. Toss in that it needs to be worn properly to offer any protection: cover the face, not touched, and cleaned every day.

Most of the masks being sold come with disclaimers that they are not medical-grade. Sellers can't make medical or health claim that the masks offer protection unless they are medical grade.

Lots of debate about the utility of wearing masks among the science crowd. And watch the video before making fun of people who aren't wearing masks. WHO said that they aren't helpful. CDC "recommends" them. It reminds me of this interaction from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

BARMAN: You really think the world's going to end?
(Ford nods yes) Shouldn't we lie down or put a bag over our heads or something?
FORD: If you want.
BARMAN: Will it help?
FORD: Not really.

The reality is that there isn't a vaccine, and there probably won't be one out there anytime soon. There has been research on a coronavirus vaccine since the 2002-04 SARS outbreak. The optimistic timeframe is that there will be a vaccine available in another 12-18 months. There is also talk about "Social Distancing" lasting until the end of 2022.

And a cure. Just say "hydroxychloroquine", the medicine Trump has a fixation on. But it's a good example of the search for a "cure". It is indeed a drug that has gotten a lot of scrutiny in the medical world. Like the other cures out there, there is a lot of disagreement about its efficacy for treating SARS-CoV2. In other words, there also isn't a cure out there either.

The upshot of all this is that unless you are indoors, the masks are superfluous. Indoors, the masks are helpful, but don't kid yourself about getting protection from one. The symbolism is that you are doing something. I feel the same way Ford does about all this. But I don't have a Sub-Etha Sens-O-Matic to hitch a ride with.

So, I go with the flow since I have the luxury to do so. But I understand the frustrations of those who don't. You have my sympathy.

"Creepy Joe" Biden's basement campaign

I didn't think the Democrats could come up with a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton.

And then they made Joe Biden the "presumptive nominee".

Hillary needed to be roped off to keep her away from the public. Joe Biden needs to be stuck in a basement to keep him from the public.

Biden's campaign knows this is a good strategy. Their basic campaign strategy is to have Biden "stay alive" and hope Trump Derangement Syndrome delivers him the presidency. That's because even Biden will tell you to examine his record and if you don't like what you see, then you should vote for the other guy!

Biden does best as Max Headroom, the virtual candidate who spouts nonsense. He has to do interviews with friendly media. Even Rachel Maddow was pleading for Biden to show himself a while back. Covid-19 provides the perfect reason for being in the basement. Or so it would seem.

There are better reasons why Joe Biden is Hidin' Biden, and Covid-19 isn't one of them. The record of misconduct with women which is a reverse Brett Kavanaugh (Blasey Ford was the first women to complain about Kavanaugh. Tara Reade is one of many women who have complained about Biden.). The Dems will try and sweep this under the carpet, but it only makes the #metoo a hollow slogan if they run Biden.

Biden being the "presumptive nominee" stinks given that his record is out there for examination. Nathan J. Robinson's Democrats, You Do NOT Want To Nominate Joe Biden is out there in more than enough forms to not be ignored.



There is more than enough material out there on why making Biden the nominee was a mistake. The basement campaign may seem like the answer, but running something that has been stuck away in an attic or basement really isn't the answer.

Anyway, don't blame anybody or anything other than the Democratic establishment if the result is another four years of Donald Trump.

Why Tara Reade's allegations against Joe Biden matter: even if you want to wish them away.

Joe Biden should not be the "presumptive" nominee, let alone the actual nominee. He has run at least two previous campaigns which he lost (1988 and 2008). His campaign was considered dead until Barack Obama made a few phone calls which resulted in the opposition pulling out. Sanders ended up putting his campaign in limbo, although some die hards plan on voting for him if they can in upcoming primaries.

But Biden's ascendency has made it even more obvious that the primary process is a sham. An otherwise dead candidacy has become the "presumptive nominee" while someone who ran a couple of the most popular campaigns ever is shut out of the process. Not that this should come as a surprise for anyone who is a true progressive since the Democratic Party has long held a disdain for anyone who is truly progressive.

Saying that Biden is like FDR is a total joke since the candidate politically most like FDR, Sanders, was shut out of the race. FDR had to fight to get what little of his New Deal agenda he could past the establishment Democrats of the 1930s and 1940s. But all that is not as salient as to WHY Biden should not be the nominee.

There are loads of reasons Biden should not be the nominee, and Tara Reade is only one of many examples of Biden's issues with "unwanted attention" to women. It is not nothing anyone familiar with Biden didn't know: as this clip from John Stewart's Daily Show from 24 February 2015 shows.

It's one thing to try and write off Tara Reade, but Reade is in no way the first unlike Christine Blasey Ford, Brett Kavanaugh's accuser. These accusations against Biden are nothing new. If anything, they are so prevalent that wilful ignorance by Biden supporters makes their #metoo hypocrisy nauseating.

Although, one can accept Biden's being as bad, if not worse than Trump, yet also be willing to vote for Biden by showing their Trump Derangment Syndrome. The simple explanation is that "Trump is bad" works for them.

Not that there aren't alternatives. Sticking by Biden is where the hypocrisy is most annoying given his history with this issue.

I Demexited in 2016. Although, I registered Democrat again to vote for Sanders in the hope that might make a difference (so much for your argument for "Closed Primaries"). True, registering as a Democrat was a waste. I will again vote Green this year since it gets harder and harder to vote for a duopoly candidate.

But don't blame those of us who are willing to vote Third Party if your candidate loses. The writing is on the wall for Joe Biden. It has been since the failed effort at impeachment made it clear that Biden was as corrupt as Trump (still crickets from Burisma in regard to my job application). Biden is a loser. Biden is even more of a loser in light of the current situation with Covid 19 (I felt a need to be more specific since Biden is a loser in general).

And don't blame anybody but yourselves when Trump is reelected.

The real question about ending the Covid-19 Lockdowns.

The issue is really more like can we afford to wait until there is a vaccine or treatment. Especially if the time we need to wait is until the end of 2022.

The optimistic predictions on a vaccine are that it won't be available until 12-18 months. But that's optimistic since there has been research into a coronavirus vaccine since the 2002-04 SARS outbreak. I'm not going to get into issues surrounding developing a vaccine since that is way more than a blog post.

Likewise treatments aren't out there. While Trump can take a hit for his musing: he is expressing the frustrations anyone with any familiarity of this feel now.

Herd immunity is controversial since some people feel it relates to immunisation. The real issue is getting enough people infected with the virus to render it "harmless". That raises the issue that quite a few people who are infected could be asymptomatic (I've heard it could be 50-90%). Toss in that 80% of those we do know have been infected don't require hospitalisation to get better according to the WHO.

The whole reason behind "flattening the curve" is to make sure that the health system isn't overburdened. But that also raises issues.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 43,000 healthcare jobs were lost in March 2020, and the job losses in healthcare have increased as shutdowns persist through the pandemic. The HealthLandscape and American Academy of Family Physicians issued a report estimating by June 2020, 60,000 family medical practices will close or scale back, affecting 800,000 workers. Source

That means the US health care system LOST personnel as the pandemic was gearing up. Add in the hypocrisy of Andrew Cuomo who was wrecking New York's health care system until he decided to become the media darling for how he is handling the problem.

The Anti-lockdown protestors would be better served by pointing out they were  being prevented from working. Even more useful would have been for them to ask those "health care" counterprotestors why they weren't working or resting if they are so overworked. Knowing that the health system made cutbacks during the "crisis" is much better ammunition than 5.56.

So, we need good and accurate information as the debate rages as to how and when the lockdown should end. But saying "who would you kill?" isn't really valid since people will die in this pandemic. The question is at this point is timing since there isn't the vaccine, treatment, or immunity out there.

Also, lockdowns prevent addressing the real issues which are being raised by the pandemic. That's ironic since the pandemic is putting them into the spotlight. But it's easier to call the protestors "covidiots" and dismiss them than it is to have a conversation.

And now is the time for conversation and cooperation.

Covid-19 is "no worse than the flu"

What a politically charged statement these days,

Saying that Covid-19 (AKA SARS-CoV-2) is like the flu can be horribly misinterpreted by people who aren't aware that influenza can cause 24,000 – 62,000 deaths per season. Likewise, the common cold (rhinovirus) can lead to complications particularly in people who have a weak immune system.

Common human coronaviruses, including types 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1, usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory tract illnesses, like the common cold. Most people get infected with one or more of these viruses at some point in their lives. This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with coronavirus disease 2019 (formerly referred to as 2019 Novel Coronavirus).

The thing is that influenza and colds are so "ordinary" and treatable that most people don't really consider that there can be serious consequences if those diseases aren't treated. On the other hand, some people like to trot out the 1918-20 "Spanish Influenza" as an example of how bad a pandemic can be.

The Spanish influenza is caused by the H1N1 virus, and you might see where I am going with this. The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. To recap if you missed the first episode:

Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older. The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic. While the 1918 H1N1 virus has been synthesized and evaluated, the properties that made it so devastating are not well understood. With no vaccine to protect against influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as isolation, quarantine, good personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limitations of public gatherings, which were applied unevenly.

The surprise to the story is that you may have had this horrible disease. That's because:

In June 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the new strain of swine-origin H1N1 as a pandemic. This novel virus spread worldwide and had caused 18,500 laboratory-confirmed deaths with an estimated 151,700 to 575,400 deaths total by August of 2010. On 10 August 2010, the World Health Organization declared the H1N1 influenza pandemic over, saying worldwide flu activity had returned to typical seasonal patterns.

There are a few reasons why the 2009 outbreak differed from the 1918-20 one. First off, there was a vaccine available. Secondly, there are the treatments mentioned above: antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections.

One of issues with Covid-19 is that the docs don't have an accepted treatment, which is where the hydroxychloroquine "controversy" comes in. Well, hydroxychloroquine is controversial because Trump used it as an example. Otherwise, there has been a fair amount of experimentation with it, but there are mixed results. I would add that they are also testing massive doses of vitamin C and nicotine patches for Covid-19! See also this link.

Also, there are lots of Coronaviruses. The common human coronaviruses, including types 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1, usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory tract illnesses, like the common cold. Most people get infected with one or more of these viruses at some point in their lives. This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with coronavirus disease 2019 (formerly referred to as 2019 Novel Coronavirus).

I would add that SARS and MERS are also caused by Coronaviruses. One of the issues in addressing Covid-19 was trying to figure out how virulent it actually is. My uneducated opinion is that the Docs don't really know since there hasn't been extensive testing. The testing out there says that there might be no symptoms in most people infected with the disease. Covid-19 might also be a disease of the immune system instead of a primarily respiratory disease.

COVID-19 is, in many ways, proving to be a disease of uncertainty. According to a new study from Italy, some 43 percent of people with the virus have no symptoms. Among those who do develop symptoms, it is common to feel sick in uncomfortable but familiar ways—congestion, fever, aches, and general malaise. Many people start to feel a little bit better. Then, for many, comes a dramatic tipping point. “Some people really fall off the cliff, and we don’t have good predictors of who it’s going to happen to,” Stephen Thomas, the chair of infectious diseases at Upstate University Hospital, told me. Those people will become short of breath, their heart racing and mind detached from reality. They experience organ failure and spend weeks in the ICU, if they survive at all.

The problem is that there are a lot of problems with the US reaction to this. One of which is that there isn't really the ability for the Feds to control how the states handle this. The states have reacted from how California and Washington made their strict lockdowns to downright lackadaisical. And neither party has really done the right thing.


 The problem is that the end to all the "lock down" may not be until there is a vaccine, which could be WAY OFF in the future.

When Covid-19 spread across the world, some countries reacted with alarm and thorough preparations, given their previous experiences with MERS or SARS. In these countries, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam, containment of the novel coronavirus became the imperative, regardless of cost. However, other countries chose to treat it as if it was a bad flu strain that would be unstoppable and spread across the population until some kind of immunity was reached. The responses depended on how seriously the governments took the threat. Or how prepared they were to handle the threat and the effort properly addressing would take.

My point is that the flu, or even the common cold, can be deadly if not properly treated. Some places were not properly prepared to address the crisis despite having had "Pandemic Threat assessments".

Now is not the time to blame or shame, but to act decisively. The real winner will be the person who can show leadership in addressing this and take the actions necessary to minimise the suffering.

Vote Blue No Matter WTF?

Seriously? The Democrats haven't learned squat since 2016. That's due to the fact that they have been blaming everybody but themselves for that election. Toss in that they have been trying to distract people from their mistakes.

Except that is backfiring BIGTIME.

I wouldn't have known or cared about Hunter Biden if the Dumbocrats had that lie, but No they have to involve Donald Trump. The whole shebang looks like a Mexican finger pointing standoff of who is more corrupt in regard to Ukraine.

But we need to get a little history of the situation.

The US want to control Ukraine in order to establish US managed pipeline routes relating to the geopolitical competition over oil and natural gas. The US also wants to advance the US controlled NATO alliance to surround all of Russia's European borders. The Obama administration and the State Department (which Hillary Clinton had built up from 2009 to 2013) assisted in the undemocratic coup in Ukraine which was led by neo-Nazi white supremacists in 2014. This Nationalist group violently took over Ukraine. The Nationalists attempted to make it illegal in Ukraine to speak Russian, a minority who are still a major force in running the Ukraine government.

In Crimea, where the vast majority of residents are Russian, the Crimeans, fearing the Nationalist regime that had just taken over Kiev, quickly voted to rejoin Russia and by agreement with no military action at all, Crimea legally rejoined Russia. There was no supposed ‘invasion’ of Crimea. It did not happen.

Likewise, the people in the Donbass region of Eastern Ukraine were also concerned with the Nationalist ethnic cleansing. An election was held, but because a similar annexation of Donbas into Russia would spoil western plans to dominate pipeline routes and control Russia’s border, the fascist government in Kiev immediately moved with its military, to by force squash the vote and stop Donbas from leaving. This resulted in a 2014-2015 civil war in Donbas, in which Russia lent military support to Donbas (but no formal troops) and the US lent mirroring military support to Kiev.

Putin, if anything, is there preventing a possible genocide. Additionally, the Aid being given to the Ukrainian forces is questionable given that it could result in a genocide.

But TRUMP.

This is an excellent example of Trump Derangement Syndrome since very few people are discussing why we are giving aid which could result in a genocide in the first place.

Let's toss in that Hunter Biden's employment with Burisma was also being called into question under the Obama Administration. On the other hand, no one is questioning the propriety of his employment during these hearings.

The problem here is that both Biden and Trump are slimy. Biden has already said not to vote for him if you dislike fracking.

I'm not the only person to point out that Biden is the male version of Hillary Clinton.

The problem is that the Democratic Party's credibility will be shot from the failed attempt to impeach Trump. They can't pull of a repeat of what they did to Sanders in 2016 without totally alienating his supporters.

Maybe there will be a few who are total masochists or idiots, but one of my takeaways from 2016 was that my vote didn't count. The other was that the problems were internal which means the US needs election reform more than they need the circle jerks to remove Trump.

The bottom line is that all the problems which led to Trump's becoming president are still firmly in place. I see the Democrats ready to make the same errors because they are too arrogant to fix their problems.

No, you have to earn my vote, which is why I left the Democratic Party before the DNC in Philadelphia. Don't count on me voting Blue. Or Red.

I don't vote for evil: lesser or otherwise.

That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

This is worth watching for why impeachment will backfire and the Dems will lose if Sanders isn't their candidate:
https://therealnews.com/stories/trump-impeachment-misguided-move

• Some of this came from https://steemit.com/impeach/@ericbrooks/why-are-both-republicans-and-democrats-lying-about-russia
• To see many of these details in a 2015 report by internationally respected war correspondent John Pilger, search the word 'Ukraine' at: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/27/why-the-rise-of-fascism-is-again-the-issue
• Robert Parry's 2015 report confirming the details showing that there was no 'invasion' of Crimea, go to: http://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/22/crimeans-keep-saying-no-to-ukraine
• CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern's report on the Ukraine crisis at: http://consortiumnews.com/2016/03/18/behind-the-crimearussia-reunion
•  Finally, to see a graph showing that almost all of the deaths of the civil war in Donbas occurred from 2014 to 2015, and that full war has not been active in the region for four years, go to: http://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-from-conflict-and-terrorism?tab=chart&time=1990..2017&country=UKR

All the News that's fit to print?

Or "The US media is as liberal as the large corporations that own them."

Part of propaganda is to stir up the emotions.

And no country does it better than the good old USA!

Unfortunately, my reaction when I saw all the gushing on about the Kurds was to think: "When the fuck has the US ever really cared about the Kurds?"

That wasn't the response that the US Media was hoping to elicit from me. I was supposed to be upset about what was going on in Syria.

Well, in another way than it is a mistake that has come back to bite the US in the ass.

Trump talks about fake news, which the US Main Stream Media likes to pretend it isn't. But there is a definite bias there.

FAIR.org has a fantastic piece on how most of the reporting on the situation in Syria misrepresents the facts.

You might want to compare NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's comments to Erdogan to Trump's letter.

Not sure what to say about Trump's handling of the situation, but I will say he is the perfect distraction for what is really going on right now. It's really easy to blame Trump for a situation which should never been allowed to have happen.

What's the alternative?

I hear a lot of people criticising Trump for the Syria thing, but I don't see any alternative solutions being offered. The problem is that this was a time bomb where the US was acting with NATO ally Turkey in Syria.

The Kurds were good for being proxy troops for the US, but they were a problematic ally. First off, the Turks (and US) lists them as being terrorists. Secondly, the Kurds' loyalty was to themselves and their goal of a nation. That was a goal that the US could never honestly promise. And while the Kurds will happily fight anyone: they won't do it for someone else unless the someone else is going to protect them.

That leads to problem one: the Kurds will shift loyalties to who ever will protect them. They were fighting with Assad early in the conflict. The US lured them away, but the Kurds made it clear that they would switch back to Assad if the US stopped protecting them. The problem is that the military isn't the body that makes the decision: the politicians are. The military isn't supposed to question: it's supposed to obey.

And the military can't make too many friends in a place where there are rapidly changing allegiances such as the Syrian Civil War. Learn a lesson from the Kurds, your loyalty is to yourself first.

The Kurds were an American ally against ISIS, not Turkey. The United States made no commitment to protect the Kurds against the Turkish army, much less assist them in maintaining a degree of independence in northern Syria that I know about. The United States was entitled to pursue its own interests in the region without some form of formal agreement. Neither Trump nor Obama defined those interests in a way that would justify a deepening military engagement in Syria. 

Leaving the few soldiers in the Kurdish zone endangers American lives. The Generals who felt strongly could have disobeyed orders if they felt such a strong tie to the Kurds, but then the blame would fall on them for endangering their troops in a Turkish invasion.

Next problem: the NATO Treaty.  The Treaty is a formal agreement, unlike whatever was between the US and Kurds. The existence of a Treaty ruled out a military response of any sort. A no-fly zone would be a no-no. Nothing says betrayal like shooting down an Ally's airplane.

On the other hand, Congress could declare war on Turkey if they feel as strongly as they purport to, but they won't.

The only real options are economic or diplomatic. The only real difference between what I would have done and what Trump did would have been to get international action to prevent the Turkish invasion. I also would have begun working on an exit strategy earlier. The Turkish invasion of Syria was not something which was in any way a surprise, yet no one did anything to prevent the problem.

The big problem is that there is a lot of bluster here. Congress is blustering. The Generals are blustering. The Turks are blustering. Trump is Blustering.

It's easy to play the blame game, but this was a disaster waiting to happen.  Too many people failed to act to prevent the problem.

At this point, the US should take a deep breath and look at how it got into yet another mess.

See also:

• Trump’s Ending of Wars Could Derail the Democrats

If Barack Obama made a really stupid decision about US troop deployment: wouldn't we hear about it?

Something that Senator Lindsay Graham would describe as “the dumbest idea in the world.”

What I am describing is something that would put the US into conflict with a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member.

Something which should have had congressional approval before being implemented. Something along the lines of funding an organisation which the US State Department lists as being a terrorist organisation.

Yet, that is exactly the situation that happened in Syria. After all the person who was president when the American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War was Barack Obama.

There are a lot of things which stink to me about the US coverage of this event. The main one is the sudden sympathy for the Kurds.

But even more bothering is that Donald Trump is being blamed for something which sits squarely on Barack Obama's shoulders.

Yet even people who would have attacked Barack Obama are criticising Trump for this situation.

Trump was right? or who really committed treason?

Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution (Article III, Section iii):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Prosecutions under this section are rare since it requires the act to take place during war time.

I'm no fan of Donald Trump.

On the other hand, whose administration decided to arm a group on the US State Department's list of Terrorist organisations. An action that would eventually lead to conflict with a NATO treaty ally?

Of course, you can't just blame Obama since congress knew, but did nothing about it. In a previously posted video, Lindsay Graham asks about the Kurds being listed as terrorists. Sen. Graham was among the harshest critics of Trump’s decision this week. Graham was once sympathetic to Turkish concerns and called the partnership with the Syrian Kurds “the dumbest idea in the world” in an April 2016 Senate hearing, given the PKK connection (clip mentioned above).

The question is who in the US was in charge on September 22, 2014 when the US began its involvement in Syria!

See also:

• The US played down Turkey’s concerns about Syrian Kurdish forces. That couldn’t last.

Syria, Trump Derangement Syndrome, and the Media

I have to admit to being baffled by the current reaction to Trump's decision to remove 50-250 soldiers from the Kurdish held area of Syria. Probably because I am somewhat aware of the situation, which means I see this as nothing new.

I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but the way the current Turkish invasion has been portrayed seriously makes me question the bias of US media. There has been absolutely NO discussion of some serious background points that put an entirely different spin to this story.

Part of me wanted to subtitle this "I love it when Barack Obama gets us involved in pointless military exercises." US involvement in the Syrian Civil War began back on 22 September 2014 during the Obama administration.

YPJ girl soldiers: shouldn't they be in school?

It seems that the Trump detractors have been too willing to think that the "abandonment" of the Kurd was somehow "sudden" when anyone familiar with this will tell you that it is amazing it hasn't happened yet. The Kurds in Syria are tied to the Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK (Kurdish: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan). This group is considered a terrorist group by the United States, European Union, and NATO: to name a few. The YPG/YPJ's use of child soldiers should be embarrassing as fuck to people who are trying to make Syria's Kurds somehow "allies" of the west. The Kurds are no saints, but you wouldn't guess that from the current attention they are getting lately.

Andrew McCarthy gets to the crux of the matter:

The Kurds have been our allies against ISIS, but it is not for us that they have fought. They fight ISIS for themselves, with our help. They are seeking an autonomous zone and, ultimately, statehood. The editorial fails to note that the Kurds we have backed, led by the YPG (People’s Protection Units), are the Syrian branch of the PKK (the Kurdistan Worker’s Party) in Turkey. The PKK is a militant separatist organization with Marxist-Leninist roots. Although such informed observers as Michael Rubin contend that the PKK has “evolved,” it remains a formally designated foreign terrorist organization under U.S. law. While our government materially supports the PKK’s confederates, ordinary Americans have been prosecuted for materially supporting the PKK.

The fact is that:

"The Kurdish militias weren’t Washington’s first choice. U.S. attempts to train secular, anti-Assad, Syrian Arab forces to fight on its behalf cost hundreds of millions of dollars but produced just 5-50 fighters. The U.S. was forced to change tack and support Syrian Kurdish militias. The largest and most powerful of these were the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which were later called the “Syrian Democratic Forces” in the hopes of easing Turkish hostility and endearing the new fighting force to the predominantly Arab territories it began to conquer with U.S. air support."

What bothers me most about all this is the sudden concern for the Kurds, a group which has been fucked over for some time in the geopolitical struggles of this region. The Kurds say that they "have no friends, but the mountains." On the other hand, all the anti-Trump forces have developed a deep love for  these "strong allies of the US."

Another thing which is conspicuous in all this is the fact that Turkey and The Kurds have had an armed conflict going on since at least 1978. There have been two other Turkish "invasions" of Syria (2016 and 2018) prior to the latest. A Northern Syria Buffer Zone was created by agreement between Turkey, The Kurds, and the US. Turkey felt the Kurds were in breach of that agreement, which is the reason for the current mess.

An even more important point which is missing is that Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, as is the United States.  NATO, as a treaty adopted by the United States is part of US law (US Constitution Article VI, ii)! The Turks as co-signators of the treaty are our allies, not the Kurds.

As far as I know there is no formal agreement between the US and Kurds making them "allies" of any sort. In fact, the Kurds have fought with the Assad Regime and their Russian Allies during the Northern Aleppo offensive of 2016. The Kurds will fight with whoever promises to protect them at the moment. They aren't strong allies of anybody but themselves.

The Kurds can fuck back in the same manner as they have been fucked with in the political events of the region which makes it amusing when people try to make them out as "strong allies".  Anyone who says that appears to be ignorant about the Kurdish people. The Kurds will find that all this concern will vanish like writing in the sand after the next news cycle.

Scott Ritter, the man who was "the loudest and most credible skeptic of the Bush administration’s contention that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction" writes:

That Turkey, an American NATO ally, is waging war against the SDF (which the Turks label as YPG/PKK—more on that later), while at the same time targeting ISIS, the archenemy of the all these Kurdish groups, underscores the complexity of the regional politics at play in northern Syria today. Deciphering this alphabet soup goes a long way towards explaining why the Turkish actions are justified and why President Trump will ultimately be vindicated for pulling the troops out.  

The reality of the situation is as Scott puts it:

The American embrace of the SDF was always a temporary solution to the problem of ISIS. The United States never has supported a greater Kurdish nation. And while there’s been much lip service to the idea of using the SDF as a vehicle to destabilize the government of Bashar al-Assad, regime change has never been seriously pursued by the United States in Syria.

The most important point is raised by Andrew McCarthy:

 Our intervention in Syria has never been authorized by Congress. Those of us who opposed intervention maintained that congressional authorization was necessary because there was no imminent threat to our nation. Contrary to the editorial’s suggestion, having U.S. forces “deter further genocidal bloodshed in northern Syria” is not a mission for which Americans support committing our men and women in uniform. Such bloodlettings are the Muslim Middle East’s default condition, so the missions would never end.

A congressional debate should have been mandatory before we jumped into a multi-layered war, featuring anti-American actors and shifting loyalties on both sides. In fact, so complex is the situation that President Obama’s initial goal was to oust Syria’s Assad regime; only later came the pivot to fighting terrorists, which helped Assad. That is Syria: Opposing one set of America’s enemies only empowers another. More clear than what intervention would accomplish was the likelihood of becoming enmeshed, inadvertently or otherwise, in vicious conflicts of which we wanted no part — such as the notorious and longstanding conflict between Turks and Kurds.

There are a lot of different players in the Syrian Civil War. It was a dangerous game for the US to have entered. Although, it wasn't really just the US that was involved here: Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve comprised soldiers from at least Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. There were more troops on the ground than the 50-250 US soldiers.

I find the media's story troubling because I see narrative in the US media which is highly partisan and interventionist. I see a concern which is based not on reality, but on a media image which couldn't be further from the fact.

But it sure is convenient for making Trump look bad.

See also:

• In supporting the Kurds in Syria, US has been playing fast and loose with the law
• A decade of policymaking failures is to blame for new Syria crisis
• The US has backed 21 of the 28 'crazy' militias leading Turkey's brutal invasion of northern Syria | The Grayzone
• Trump’s Betrayal of the Kurds Is Terrible, But the Answer Is Not Endless War 
• Why the Syria's Kurdish Militia Can't Do What Washington Wants 
• The U.S. played down Turkey’s concerns about Syrian Kurdish forces. That couldn’t last. 
•  A French Officer Speaks the Truth about the War in Syria
• Khury Petersen-Smith on Turkey & the Kurds
• State Department Maintains Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) Designation of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) 
• Explained: Why Turkey wants a military assault on Syrian Kurds
• Syrian Kurds say YPG no different than Daesh
• Why the Syrian Kurds Aren’t Necessarily Our Friends
• The Only Thing That Can Save the Kurds Is Themselves
• Eight Times the U.S. has Betrayed the Kurds
• Turkey and the Kurds: It’s More Complicated Than You Think  
• The War for Post-U.S. Syria Has Begun
• Trump says he’s ending the US role in Syria. That’s not true. 
• Trump is right to take troops out of Syria. Now they must leave Iraq and Afghanistan 
• What is the Situation in North-eastern Syria?
•  Who will rule the north?The Kurds are creating a state of their own in northern Syria
• The Kurds Once Again Face American Abandonment
• Dispatch: Anger on Turkish border as conflict reveals contradiction at the heart of Western Syria policy
• VOA: Coalition says 'Good Progress' in North Syria Buffer Zone
•  US withdrawal in Syria is only a small number of special operators, says Trump administration
• Wikipedia: Northern Syria Buffer Zone 
• Wikipedia: Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present)
• In Pictures: Turkey's military operation in northeast Syria

Beware involvement in the current crisis in Syria

I think this is more embarrassing for Trump's detractors than Trump. TDS is a dangerous thing!

More on the Kurds

Not sure how accurate this is, but it definitely changes the debate if true.

But it does demonstrate that Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected the debate!

How can so-called progressives not support a withdrawal from this territory if the Kurds used child soldiers?

Trump Derangement Syndrome is REAL!

OK, I'm going to preface this by saying I'm no fan of Donald Trump.

On the other hand, you may know people who start frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of the "Cheeto" if they are left of centre.

There is a right wing manifestation as well which thrives on making the aforementioned people cringe. The ones on the right will support Trump because it makes the left leaners act in the manner depicted.

For the Left, Trump can do nothing right and is up to no good. It is their hope he will somehow be impeached, which isn't very likely.

Ted Rall hit the nail on the head with his definition:

“Trump Derangement Syndrome” is when you have so much anger and rage at President Trump that you are willing to do anything, no matter how stupid or reckless or dangerous, to try to get him out of office by hook or by crook. Lately I’ve been hearing Democrats say that they’re hoping that the economy head south, as if they didn’t live in the economy themselves. Others want him to attack Iran so that people angry at the war don’t vote for him for reelection. This is crazy talk

The recent incident with Turkey announcing it would be making bombing raids in Syria to push back the Kurds demonstrates how this all works.

I would put that most people who were upset by this know next to nothing about the Kurds: a stateless people who mostly live in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. They also don't know that Turkey has been participating in airstrikes against ISIL alongside the U.S.-led coalition, but also actively supporting the Syrian opposition and occupying large swaths of northwestern Syria while engaging in significant ground combat with ISIL, the SDF, and the Syrian government since August 2016.

SDF if you didn't know is The Syrian Democratic Forces which is composed primarily of Kurdish, Arab, and Assyrian/Syriac militias, as well as some smaller Armenian, Turkmen and Chechen forces.

Since most people don't know about the situation here is a brief run down of it:

The Kurds are an ethnic group of about 40 million people centered at the intersection of Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. Many naturally want their own state. The four countries in which they live naturally do not want that to happen.

On the one hand, the Kurds are a perfect tool for U.S. foreign policy. We can arm the Kurds in whichever of these countries is currently our enemy, whether to make trouble for that country’s government or to accomplish various other objectives. On the other hand, we don’t want the Kurds we’re utilizing to ever get too powerful. If that happened, the other Kurds — i.e., the ones living just across the border in whichever of these countries are currently our allies — might get ideas about freedom and independence.

It seems that this is another instance of the Kurds being used for political gain. In this case, an attempt at internal US political gain by putting Trump into a no win situation.

Ahval, a trilingual independent online news site on Turkey, reported on 1 October that:

"U.S. and Turkish officials last month (September) agreed to work together to create a buffer zone free of fighters from the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which Ankara views as an existential threat due to its presumed links to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The PKK is an armed group that has been at war in Turkey for over three decades and has been designated as a terrorist organisation by Ankara, the EU and the United States."
"However, Ankara has been critical of the lack of progress made with the envisaged zone, threatening to put its own operation plan into effect if Turkish troops do not control a “safe zone” within a few weeks.
Turkey will also continue with operations in northern Iraq “until all terrorists are eliminated from the area,’’ the council said.
Turkey on Aug. 23, launched Operation Claw-3 in northern Iraq targeting PKK militants.
Monday’s statement by the council also said that Turkey would continue its activities in the eastern Mediterranean."

Al-Jazeera also contradicted the narrative seen in the Western Press about Trump giving a green light to this. Let's toss in that this was not a total withdrawal of US troops from Syria:

In a statement, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said, "The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial "Caliphate," will no longer be in the immediate area."

The New York Times reported Monday that about 100 to 150 American forces would withdraw from northern Syria but not completely from the country. Newsweek confirmed the Times reporting but the National Security Council official said the number was closer to 230 service members, among them U.S. Special Forces and reconnaissance units.

While Trump's action caused a stir,  it may end up actually creating peace in this part of the world: which is why this is a prime example of Trump Derangement Syndrome. People are upset that Trump could possibly bring peace to the Middle East.

Sure, he may have blundered his way into it, but he would have done brought peace to the Middle East.

Which people suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome would hate. Yes they would hate peace if Trump managed to achieve it!

Anyway, this story appears to have lived its short life cycle especially if it is yet another tactic that backfires on Trump's detractors. The bottom line is that this is a prime example of Trump Derangement Syndrome because people started reacting without all the facts. It seemed that emotion triumphed over reason in this instance.

See also:

• Syrian Kurds say YPG no different than Daesh
• Trump says he’s ending the US role in Syria. That’s not true.