Kim The North Korean Keystone Kop

If there were no nuclear weapons involved and no threat of mass casualties, the latest ranting from Kim Jung Un would be funny.  The North Korean leader is clearly demented.  He spends months insulting the USA and President Trump in statement after statement, and when Trump calls him "Rocket Man" and warns him of the consequences of his actions, Kim has his foreign minister state that Trump "declared war" on North Korea.  It's a classic move by a bully; he's upping the ante in an effort to get Trump and the USA to back down.  It's also a strange move because there's no way that the NK's can really threaten the existence of the USA, but the opposite is not true.  During the Obama era, threats like Kim's latest would be met with an apology from Washington.  Maybe we would have even sent aid to the North Koreans.  It must be hard for the North Korean leader to realize that we now have a president who will not back down in the face of threats.

The terrifying thing is that we have to hope that Kim behaves in a rational manner.  He ought to realize that if he move forward towards a military confrontation with the USA, he and his regime (and perhaps his country) will cease to exist.  If Kim doesn't understand this basic truth, we could see an enormous calamity in Korea with massive death and destruction.  Still, President Trump is right to bring matters to a head now.  In two or three years from now, the cost could be much, much higher.

Now It's Hurricane Relief

In the last month, Texas got slammed by Hurricane Harvey, Florida got smashed by Irma and Puerto Rico was devastated by Maria.  That's a series of major crises, any one of which would fully tax the ability of the federal government, especially FEMA, to respond to disaster.  Everyone agrees that the response by the government has been outstanding in Texas and Florida.  There is a difference, however, with regard to Puerto Rico.  The response has been slower on that island.  The reason is twofold.  First, FEMA and the military are already fully occupied responding to Harvey and Irma in Texas and Florida.  We just don't have the resources ready to deal with the third hurricane strike; many supplies were used in the first two response efforts.  Second, and more important, Puerto Rico has been cut off to a great extent.  Trucks could roll into Houston or Florida once highways were cleared.  That let help come in from all different sources and directions.  In Puerto Rico, the only way onto or off of the island is by ship or aircraft.  The airports were damaged and the volume of supplies that can arrive by plane is therefore still limited.  The same is true of the ports to a great extent.  As the docks and the airports are repaired, the flow of aid will increase, but it will still be more constricted than was the case in Florida and Texas.  Even with these obstacles, the amount of aid getting to Puerto Rico is immense.

So what is the media response to all this?  We hearing complaints that Puerto Rico is not getting the attention it deserves because its residents are Hispanic.  That's disgusting and untrue.  So much effort is being put in to help the people of Puerto Rico that it is appalling to blame the initial delay in parts of the response on racism. 

Hard To Imagine

I just watched a video of the fans in Gillette Stadium near Boston booing the Patriots when about 15 of them sat through the national anthem.  Boston fans booing the Patriots is astounding.

Look at the difference.

In Houston, you had a professional athlete who started a charity to bring relief supplies to hurricane victims after Harvey struck.  The original goal was to get $200,000 of relief supplies in to help the needy.  Instead, the response brought well over thirty million bucks from average Americans.  The athlete who led the effort did not seek to stand out or promote himself.  He worked alongside other volunteers for long hours to help those in need.  Other pro athletes joined in the effort as well, but again it was all done under the radar.  These were actual efforts to help people, not symbolic statements or protests that change nothing.

In the NFL this week, you have many athletes refusing to stand for the national anthem.  This is supposed to be a protest against America's failure to provide opportunities to people of color.  The athletes involved could easily have contributed $100,000 each to a fund designed to provide opportunities to minorities.  Everyone would have applauded such a move.  It would be an action for good.  Instead, we got a symbolic protest that helped nobody but disrespected all those who have served this country and all those who love this country.  The response was not cheers (except from the media) but instead the protests brought boos from diehard fans.

Am I the only one who sees this idiotic protest for what it is?  These protesters just want to complain rather than do anything to resolve the very issue about which they protest.

German Update

The exit polls in Germany show a rather poor showing by the CDU/CSU of Angela Merkel although it will still be the biggest party with 32.5% of the vote.  The Socialists are showing 20.2% which is their worst showing in ages, but it leaves them as the number 2 party.  In third place is AfD, (Alternative for Germany) which has 13.5%.  The Free Democrats and the Greens together have about 19.9% of the vote.  That means that Merkel could form a coalition with either the Socialists or with the Free Democrats and Greens. 

My guess is that we will see a coalition among the CDU, Free Democrats and Greens.  The Socialists seem to be dying off as a junior partner in the government.  Also, this set up would keep the AfD from being the main opposition party.

Very Important Elections

Attention in the USA is focused right now on the NFL players, the aftermath of the hurricanes, and the healthcare bill in the senate.  To a lesser extent, there is attention being given to the North Koreans.  It's strange how little American media has mentioned two elections that are happening today and tomorrow which are extremely important stories.

The first vote, of course, is the German national election.  Chancellor Angela Merkel is likely to see her CDU party win the biggest share of the vote although the expectation is that the party won't get enough seats to hold a majority in the parliament.  That may seem like there will be no big changes in Germany, but that is not true.  The real question is with which party or parties the CDU will form a coalition.  Right now, Merkel is in coalition with the Socialists who are the second biggest party.  That could repeat, although depending on the results, the CDU could move back into a coalition with the Free Democrats who are pro-business.  There could also be a coalition with the Green Party whose focus centers on the environment.  These would lead to big changes in all sorts of German policies.  As the strongest country in the European Union, Germany will affect much more than just itself.

The second vote is one that has gotten essentially no coverage in American media.  A referendum is being held in the Kurdish areas of Iraq concerning establishment of an independent Kurdistan.  There are tens of millions of Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran.  They form perhaps the biggest ethnic group in the world without its own state.  The lack of an independent Kurdistan is the result of British and French imperial designs on the Middle East after World War I.  The lines were drawn to satisfy London and Paris and not the locals.  Now, the Kurds are seeking their own state.

Over the recent past, the USA has had few friends in the Middle East who have been as dependable and friendly as the Kurds.  The single biggest force confronting ISIS over the last few years has been the Kurdish militia, called the peshmerga.  Thousands of Kurds have given their lives or been wounded in that battle.  During the Iraq War, the only region of Iraq in which American forces did not have to fight and die was the Kurdish area.  After all this help from the Kurds, the USA owes them a debt of gratitude and we ought to support them in their effort to gain independence.  An independent Kurdistan could be an anchor for peace in the region. 

We will have to see if the Kurds vote in favor of independence as expected.  If they do, let's hope that President Trump recognizes the American debt to these brave people.

It Never Fails; It Was Racist

At a rally for senator Luther Strange on Friday, President Trump called out the NFL players who have been refusing to stand during the playing of The Star Spangled Banner.  It was controversial, and it had led to a furious countercharge by the left.  Predictably, we are now hearing that Trump's statement was "blatantly racist".  I decided to read the article by David Remnick in The New Yorker which centers on that charge to learn why Trump's attack was racist.

Here's the inside story according to Remnick.  Trump, in talking to the crowd at the rally, asked if "people like yourselves" agreed with him.  Even clearer, Trump called an unnamed player who took a knee during the anthem a "son of a bitch".  What could possibly be more racist?  Remnick says that these are not dog whistles heard only by other racists, but that they are explicit racism understandable by all.

The reality, of course, is nothing like what Remnick says.  Calling someone a "son of a bitch" may not be nice, but it is hardly racist.  I think we all know that; I mean all of us, other than Remnick, know that.  And if asking a rhetorical question of a crowd there's nothing wrong with asking about "people like yourselves".  Trump didn't know who was in the crowd other than that they were his supporters.  That's a political grouping, not a racial one.

So why is it that a leftist like Remnick has to go back to phony charges of racism in response to Trump?  The reality is that attacking Trump like that is all they have.  The players in question are beneficiaries of all that America has to offer.  Many make tens of millions of dollars.  They don't take their huge incomes and devote them to helping others.  Instead, they attack and disrespect the country that gives them their success.  That does not resonate, indeed it cannot resonate with the average American be that person white or black or something else.  It's just more phony symbolism without action.  So when Trump refuses to stay silent in the face of the affront, people like Remnick have to find something to say in response.  They go back to the old chestnut of calling opponents racist.

I had thought that with Obama out of the White House, we might return to a day when charges of racism were reserved for people who are actually racist or displaying racist behavior.  Sadly, Remnick shows that not to be the case.

I don't know if it is a good thing that the President criticized the NFL players in this instance.  I do know, however, that the criticism is not remotely racist.  Personally, I think Remnick is a son of a bitch for making the claim (and by the way, that is not meant to be racist.)

Divisive? Really?

It's been rather funny to see the reaction to President Trump's statement that players in professional sports who won't stand for the national anthem should be fired.  These are multi-millionaires who refuse to stand for the anthem because of the supposedly unfair society that surrounds them.  It's hard to feel sorry for them given all the luxury and wealth that the "unfair" society has given them.  Still, they certainly have every right to refuse to stand for The Star Spangled Banner.  But guess what?  Everyone else has the right to react to their "statement".  Free speech doesn't mean no consequences for what you say, and it certainly doesn't mean others cannot disagree.  Free speech is only a limit on the government.  Indeed, were an owner of an NFL team to fire players who refuse to stand for the anthem, it is not a violation of anyone's rights (although it could be a violation of the relevant contracts.)  Remember, by refusing to stand, the players are insulting a great many of the fans who come to NFL games or watch them on TV.  It might make business sense for the owners to get rid of these players.

So what is the response from the NFL?  The commissioner of the league said that the President's remarks were "divisive" and "inappropriate".  The commissioner thinks that everyone has to adopt a practice of non-response to protests of this sort.  Why?  Why do the athletes get to make their point but if anyone else responds, it's divisive.  It's no more divisive than what the athletes are doing.  In fact, the response is probably less divisive because it is only a response.

For many decades, the media and the liberal establishment have always operated under the dogma that left wing protest was unassailable.  If a hundred leftists want to shut down traffic on a main road, we are supposed to accept that and live with it.  On the other hand, the same rules call for a clear response to conservative protests.  When the Tea Party rallies in 2010 denounced runaway spending by the Obama Administration, we were told they were racists.  When the IRS illegallyt targeted those Tea Party groups, we were told nothing was going on.  Now, with Trump in the White House, the liberals are being subjected to a new paradigm under which there are responses to their protests.  These are not violent responses like the crazies at Antifa.  Rather, they are simply clear oral responses clearly opposing what the lefties have to say.  As a result, the heads on the left are exploding as I write this.

None of this is divisive.  All that has happened is that there is a full debate going on once again in the USA.  The monopoly of propriety claimed by the left and its protesters has been blown away by reality.  That's a good thing, not a bad one.