Aug 29^th

If Ronald Reagan was ‘The great Communicator” then Donald Trump will be remembered as “The Great Exaggerator.” He is, after all, a salesman and he has admitted in his book, ”The Art of the Deal,” that if you need to paint an exaggerated picture to entice the client, well, so be it. The result is that almost every word that comes out of Trump’s mouth is an exaggeration designed to diminish his opponents or enhance his own appeal.

A few days ago he was working over Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, two of his very favorite whipping boys. He was talking about the mentoring relationship Bush had with Rubio and how Rubio had responded by challenging Jeb for the nomination. Oh, but now they are friends again, he said, “I saw them hugging and kissing…” I saw that meeting because it was televised and his description was pure hokum.

He also overdoes the, “nobody else permits birthright citizenship.” He claims that, “Mexico doesn’t do it. Other places don’t do it….We’re the only place, just about, that is stupid enough to do it,” It is being phased out in many countries that once had it, but Mexico does in fact still have it; in somewhat different form but it is essentially the same thing. Then there is the awful danger he claims he faced when he went to Laredo, Texas, to confer with border guards about the porous border.  When the border guards union told them inviting Trump was a no-no because the union was officially politically neutral, Trump claimed the guards were not allowed to tell him the real story.

He told his pilot not to fly too close to the border because of the danger, (Could he have known about the remarkable Mexican air defense missile system?) and made much of the presumed risk he was taking by going to the border. (The Washington Post pointed out that he was statistically safer in Laredo than in New York City.) Trump said, “People are saying ‘It’s so dangerous Mr. Trump’ but I have to do it.” He also said that he “Would proceed with the visit despite of the grave danger.” What bravery, what spunk; you wouldn’t believe that this was the same guy who got multiple student deferments to avoid serving in Vet Nam.

You recall the press conference where Jorge Ramos was “escorted” from the room for asking questions when he was not called on? The man doing the escorting was a very large fellow with a near bald haircut. Later when Trump was asked about this interesting example of media control, Trump said repeatedly that Ramos was “screaming” questions at him and that he was “ranting and raving like a mad man.” He was doing no such thing. He raised his voice so that he could be heard because he, unlike Trump, had no microphone. Of course Trump must claim that Ramos was screaming and raving to provide more justification for ejecting him. Then Trump was asked about the near seven foot tall man who escorted Ramos from the hall. Trump pleaded ignorance but the same guy is always close to Trump and scanning the crowds. I guess he’s just a fan.

Aug 28^th

Yes I know, two days in a row on gun control can try your patience, but bear with me here. Last night, quite predictably, Bill O’Reilly began snorting about how the liberals would use the shooting of two journalists in Virginia to push for more of that unconstitutional gun control. He claimed that gun control didn’t work and cited Washington D.C. and Chicago as examples. These cities have strict gun control laws and still have very high murder rates. According to O’Reilly that demonstrates that gun control doesn’t work. Of course it doesn’t work if you have one set of restrictive gun laws for a city and much less restrictive gun laws for the state, or nearby state.

If you live in Chicago and want a gun just hop on some public transportation to Gary, Indiana, buy your gun, stick it in your coat pocket and head home. There will be no police stopping and searching people coming into Chicago; it’s easy. The same thing is true for Washington D.C., only more so; there you have just a few miles to get into Virginia where gun restrictions are among the most lax in the country. The killing of the two journalists on camera was in Virginia; the Virginia Tech massacre was in 2007 where the lax gun laws allowed the murder of 32 students and the wounding of 19 others.  Washington D.C.s strict gun laws existing next to Virginia’s lax ones are useless. O’Reilly’s examples of gun control not working persuade no one except those already persuaded not to look closely at the reasonableness of any of O’Reilly’s utterances.

National gun control does work. Australia had a substantial number of guns in the hands of civilians. Australians weren’t as much into gun hugging as Americans are but they did have an affectionate relationship with firearms.  In 1996 a mass killing occurred in Tasmania, an Island of the Australian coast, when Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded 70 others uses semi-automatic weapons. That caused the Australian government to ban all semi-automatic weapons. Individuals owning such weapons were compensated for the fair value of the guns they turned in. Six hundred and fifty thousand guns were removed. Many people were not happy and the Premier felt it necessary to wear a bullet proof vest when addressing some protesters. The result, however, was a drop of 57 percent in suicides and 43 percent in murders. (Non-gun suicides did not rise to compensate for the drop in gun suicides.) O’Reilly doesn’t talk much about the Australian experiment.

The killer of the two journalists in Virginia, we are told by Fox News anchors, had bought the gun he used quite legally and therefore, they claimed, nothing could be done. After all he did pass a background check; he was not under psychiatric care, so it was just one of those unfortunate things. Well, not really. If you want to kill some people and you live in Virginia (and in many other states) once you pass the background check, give or take ten minutes, you pay your money, pick up your gun and you’re off to slaughter whomever you please. (If you buy your gun from the guy down the street you don’t even need a background check.) I’ll bet a month-long waiting period to pick up the gun would help diffuse some hotheads. Unfortunately, the NRA probably wouldn’t approve of that.

 

 

Aug 27^th

What do we do about all the gun deaths in this country? The Republicans suggest we do as little as possible. Any hint of changing the rules controlling the availability of guns will get knowing smirks from the Fox News cognoscenti. They are right of course, because the NRA and their lobbyists have had a lock on this for years. For example, just this year, the Congress has renewed the prohibition for the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to investigate the causes of gun deaths in the United States. This leads to some very peculiar outcomes: I assume that deaths by stabbing, or cutting with a knife, can be investigated by the CDC. Suicides by gun are off limits but people who kill themselves by other means can be studied by the CDC. Perhaps we have stepped through the looking glass.

There are a lot of guns available in this country but although estimates are that about 300 million guns are in the hands of civilians most families do not own a gun. Getting accurate statistics is a problem because if you ask a householder who is concerned about crime if he owns a gun he might be reluctant to admit that he doesn’t. Still, the data are that only about a third of households have a gun. Twenty percent of households own 85 percent of the guns. Keep in mind that in Michigan there is no registry of rifles as there is of handguns. (Other states may differ; MA requires a permit to purchase a rifle.)

Some people believe carrying a concealed weapon makes them safer. Suppose you are walking down a street and a man comes toward you. When he is ten feet away he pulls out a hand gun and points it at your chest while asking for your wallet. Now you can either throw your wallet on the ground or retrieve your concealed carry pistol and defend yourself. The thief will be watching your hands and if you try for your weapon you’ll have to be fast enough to retrieve it, point it at the thief before the thief can move his trigger finger a quarter of an inch. Concealed carry usually just gives the carrier a false sense of confidence. When Congresswoman Gifford was shot in Arizona a man with a concealed carry permit nearly shot the wrong man because a rescuer had just taken the gun from the killer and the permit holder, seeing the gun in the rescuers hand, nearly shot the rescuer. (Arizona requires no training at all to get a concealed weapon carry permit.)

The NRA, for reasons not very clear, is opposing background checks on handgun purchasers at gun shows. If you want to buy a handgun and leave no record just go to a gun show where there are unlicensed gun sellers, or you can just buy the gun from the guy down the street. This “gun show loophole” allows anyone, convicted felon or psychopath, to get a weapon and kill someone twenty minutes later. This is like having a plywood gate in a twenty-ton bank vault door.

The NRA employs 35 lobbyists; about half of them have previously held government jobs. They are paid to persuade legislators to kowtow to the NRA’s position on issues concerning guns and ammunition. Until we eliminate government by unelected lobbyists we’ll have this problem.

Aug 26^th

Trump is still busy burning bridges… while he’s standing on some of them. He has renewed his feud with Roger Aisles of Fox News because he continues to attack Roger’s favorite female anchor Megyn Kelly. This feud might help both of them because it will draw viewers, but if Trump wants the support of the conservative poohbahs this petulant continued attack on Megyn Kelly was not a smart move.

Look at his recent positions: He seems to be telling the Republican establishment that he isn’t one of them, and they’re responding exactly as you would expect them to. Consider taxes: The Republican position on this is clear, but Trump has recently said this about rich hedge fund managers and their tax burden, “I have hedge fund guys that are making lots of money that aren’t paying anything.” Then, “The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder… they don’t build anything they just shift paper around and get lucky.”   This is a Republican candidate for President saying this; it sounds like Bernie Sanders.

Then we have him cozying up to the Latino community (“I have lots of Latinos working for me, thousands of them; they love me.”) Last night he had his body guard remove Jose Ramos, an important Latino reporter, from his press conference. OK,  Ramos did speak out of turn and was belligerent, but the image will be of a near seven foot tall bouncer shoving a much smaller Jose Ramos out of the hall. That Ramos was invited back in won’t get as much play in the Latino community.

His exaggerated comments about Latino immigrants have irritated such conservative stalwarts as Mona Charen. Mona’s column today is titled, “Taking our country back: From whom?” She begins by agreeing that the United States is “very much in decline.” She then accuses the usual suspects, all liberals of course, but not illegal immigration. Then she spends about 80 percent of her column pointing out that most of Trump’s concerns about immigrants are not at all warranted. The number of illegal immigrants dropped from 1.6 million in 2000, to 400 thousand this past year. Mexico’s birth rate has dropped from 7.3 children per woman to 2.4 children per woman today. She claims that the birthrate gets below 2 children per woman immigration will stop. She also refutes Trump’s claims about the criminality of immigrants:  Among men, 18 to 39, who constitute the vast majority of the prison population, the native born 3.5 percent incarceration rate is five times the rate for foreign born. She finishes by describing Trump’s plans for a wall and for deportation of illegals claiming that, “A candidate for student council from a third rate high school could derive a more serious solution than those,” and claims that “Trump is on the ultimate ego trip.”

Trump is not completely without right wing support; Ann Coulter finds his views very attractive. She has said that if Trump can carry out his stop immigrants plan he can personally perform abortions in the White House for all she cares. I doubt that Ann Coulter represents many mainstream conservatives. As I said in an earlier post this year, for the first time in many years she wasn’t invited to speak at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Committee.

What does it all mean? First, consider that Trump is no dummy and that he knows he is alienating an important Republican Party base…and he doesn’t care. I can think of only one reason that he doesn’t care; he plans eventually to run as an independent. Not yet of course, because he has more to gain by staying for the debates where he can continue to lacerate his Republican opponents. Eventually we’ll see if I’m right; meantime, doesn’t Trump remind you a bit of Il Duce, the early, posturing, Benito Mussolini?

 

Aug 25^th

Thomas Sowell’s column today is titled “Random thoughts on the passing scene.” The entire column consists of unrestrained nastiness. Sowell begins with an outright lie: he says of the agreement with Iran that, “We are supposed to pretend that there is something there, when there is nothing there that will stop, or even slow down, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.” That comment is ample evidence that Sowell has not bothered to read the agreement, or if he has read it he doesn’t understand it, or if he understands it he is lying about it.

What about the high level Israeli’s who support this agreement? Here is a partial list: Shlomo Gaza, Chief of Intelligence, Major General; Carmi Gillon, Director of Israel Security Agency; Ami Ayalon, Vice Admiral, Director of Israel Security Agency; Itamar Yaar, Colonel, Deputy Israeli National Security Council; Arie Pellman, Israeli Security Agency official. Sowell must think that he understands this agreement much better than these, and other, Israeli officials who support this agreement are trained in such matters and who are charged with protecting their country.

Then Sowell comments, “Do the people demanding that the police have more “training” ever say that the hoodlums should have had more training by their parents…” Yes indeed, what about that hoodlum Henry Louis Gates, Harvard Professor, arrested on the porch of his own home after showing the arresting officer his driver’s license which had his home address clearly printed on it? Surely his mother should have told him about the risks of living in a white neighborhood. Most black youngsters are told by their parents about how to deal with police so that they aren’t killed. There are many more disgusting examples but none that would bother Sowell.

“The majority of record breaking tax money collected by the federal government today is simply transferred by politicians from people who are not likely to vote for them to people who are likely to vote for them,” Why would a poor man unable to feed his family vote for a someone who pledges to cut his food stamps, reduce his rent subsidy and eliminate his family’s Medicaid? Then we have another group of voters not mentioned by Sowell; they will vote for the Congressman who refuses to raise the social security tax base, will sign Grover Norquist’s no tax pledge and instead borrow the money to pay for our wars.

Sowell tells us. “…how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values…” “Import” means to bring in; Europe did not bring these people in, the people came in very much of their own accord because any European country was safer than their home country. Some, but certainly not all, may “despise democratic values” but far more are alienated because they are relegated to outsider status. Once again Sowell throws a simplistic analysis at a complex problem.

Thomas Sowell bemoans the fact that there are so many Republican candidates “splitting the vote as to guarantee that the nomination could go to some mushy moderate.” Let’s hope that doesn’t happen because the further to the right the Republican candidate stands, the more assured of victory the Democratic candidate will be.

 

Aug 24^th

Yesterday, Sunday August 23^rd, a letter by Richard Fidler to the editor of the Traverse City, Record Eagle (R-E), was published. Mr. Fidler has published two books dealing with the history of Traverse City; now he has expanded his interests to the appropriateness of using atomic weapons to end World War 2.  (I would have sent this to the R-E except they, just today, published a letter from me so now I must wait six weeks to send another letter.)  

Mr. Fidler makes some statements about Japanese military capabilities in the terminal stages of the war that are, at best, debatable. He writes, “In 1945 Japan essentially had no army, navy or air force. It had no ammunition for weapons. The narrative about the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Americans was made up out of whole cloth.” In April of 1945, the year Mr. Fidler claims that Japan had essentially no army and no air force, we invaded Okinawa. In a little over three months we needed an army of 282 thousand men, which suffered 23 percent causalities, to subdue the island. In addition the Japanese “no air force” consisting of kamikaze planes sank 26 of our ships.

Then Fidler tells us that, “Truman authorized dropping the bombs to end the war quickly so the Russians wouldn’t be able to intervene.” But the Russians did intervene, declaring war on August 9^th the day we dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki.

I believe that Fidler does not appreciate the Bushido-like code which governed the conduct of most Japanese military during the war.  Surrender meant severe loss of face, essentially a ritual death, very few books have been written by former Japanese POWs. Indeed it was common for the Japanese government when given the names of prisoners so as to inform their families, to deny that they could have surrendered.

There was also a substantial difference in the treatment of military and civilian POWs by the Japanese. This may have been due to the Japanese believing that their military prisoners had disgraced themselves by surrendering. My wife’s uncle, a petroleum engineer working for Royal Dutch Shell was interred by the Japanese and was treated relatively well. He was able to receive packages from his relatives and from his company. Military POWs did not have that luxury.

I was in the USAAF in the summer of 1945 and if Japan had not surrendered I would have been on one of those ships hoping to avoid the kamikazes. I also have a friend who was a Marine fighting on Okinawa; neither of us believes that Uncle Harry made a mistake dropping those bombs… it all depends on your perspective.

Aug 23^rd

The recent rants against immigrants have a long and dishonorable history in this country. It certainly isn’t a recent development and it isn’t confined to rabble rousers. My ancestors were Pennsylvania Dutch. They emigrated from Germany in the 1780s. The “Dutch” was a corruption of Deutsch, or German. Mostly farmers, they arrived here speaking little or no English and they stayed largely to themselves. They settled in Pennsylvania, primarily in Lancaster County and counties nearby. In spite of the fact that Pennsylvania was sparsely settled and farms only existed after the farmer had spent weeks with an ax and a team felling trees and pulling stumps, my ancestors were not universally welcomed in this new land.

One of our founding fathers expressed considerable hostility toward these emigrants. Here are some quotes from Ben Franklin about these immigrants:

Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the   English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as   to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our   Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion. Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…, and even our Government will become precarious.

Note, particularly, that Franklin complains of these settlers’ stupidity and of their “complexion.” In fact, in other complaints, he focuses heavily on complexion; he assures us that only the English and some Nordic people are sufficiently light skinned to be desirable immigrants.



That was about 1780 so let’s move ahead 100+ years and look at an article in the Atlantic magazine about immigrants published about 1890:

The question to-day is not of preventing the wards of our almshouses, our insane asylums, and our jails from being stuffed to repletion by new arrivals from Europe; but of protecting the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, and the quality of American citizenship from degradation through the tumultuous access of vast throngs of ignorant and brutalized peasantry from the countries of eastern and southern Europe.

That’s a small portion of the article but it’s enough to give you the flavor of the times. Just substitute Latin America for Europe and you have exactly the pitch of today’s conservative’s views on immigration. Curiously, Franklin’s obsession with skin color is echoed and amplified today by Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter has written at least ten best sellers all of which excoriate liberals. Her latest book, “Adios America,” takes the position that the country is becoming Latinized. She laments the arrival of “swarthy skinned males.” Swarthy skinned is the identical phrase used by Franklin 240 years ago to describe my ancestors. Coulter has lost favor with the right perhaps because she is simply too vicious. The last meeting of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Congress) did not give her an invitation to speak; it was her first rejection in many years.