tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41077056480710374722024-03-18T21:02:58.663-05:00Politics War and CultureA blog about Politics, Warfare, Culture and how they interact. I comment on current events and post occasional essays. Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.comBlogger3623125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-40208895376437121752024-03-18T21:02:00.000-05:002024-03-18T21:02:02.143-05:00Russia will create a "buffer zone" in Ukraine as a war goal. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/03/720/405/Russia-Election.jpg?ve=1&tl=1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="405" data-original-width="720" height="180" src="https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/03/720/405/Russia-Election.jpg?ve=1&tl=1" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Fox News/AP.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-create-buffer-zone-ukraine-deter-ukrainian-attacks"><br /></a></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-create-buffer-zone-ukraine-deter-ukrainian-attacks">Russia's President Vladimir Putin says that they will create a buffer zone in Ukraine to prevent attacks on the Russian homeland.</a> Fox News. Putin said the buffer zone is needed to prevent Ukrainian strikes and cross border raids. Such strikes have increased in pace as Ukraine has suffered defeats on the battlefield. They have launched drone strikes on targets inside of Russia and have attempted to raid across the border. Putin has been vague on his goals on Ukraine but has said that establishing a buffer zone is a war goal now. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't know if this is new information or information that the media is just reporting now. I had known for awhile that Putin wanted a buffer zone in Ukraine but I have no idea where I had heard it. Probably on social media? But it's not surprising. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Russia's war goals are pretty obvious, as they think that Ukraine represents a major threat to them and could be used to launch attacks against Russia itself. Given the events of the last few weeks, I think it's pretty obvious that they are correct. Given that the Ukrainians keep getting long range weapons, I think the Russians would have to push Ukraine back away from the borders of Russia. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">They would have a long way to go. In order to prevent the kinds of border strikes and cross border raids that the Ukrainians are doing the Russians would have to take the entire border region with Ukraine, up to the Dnieper river. And now they probably have to go past it, as both Kiev and Odessa would be able to threaten the border, with Odessa being a threat to Crimea. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Can they do it? Yes, but it will probably take some time, unless Ukraine collapses quickly. Though Russia is on the offensive, they are hampered by mud season, which makes large scale offensives difficult at best, impossible at worst. That means that Russia will probably be limited to the smaller scale probing attacks that are showing quite a bit of success, but not the major breakthrough that would threaten these larger cities and take back some of the territory they lost in 2022. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I do think it's bizarre that the western media acts like Putin's motives are hard to read. It's obvious he views Ukraine as a military threat and is especially sensitive to the threat posed by right wing groups in the country. Given Russia's history with the Nazis, that is not surprising at all. Putin also doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO and does not want it to be able to threaten to restart the war as well. Taking the buffer zone area would help in those goals as well, given the economic importance of the region. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Finally, I probably should mention that Putin easily won Russia's elections. That is not surprising, though not for the reason that the media claims. They claim that Russia's elections are fixed, but I don't find them any worse than America's. Plus, given Putin's popularity and polling saying most Russians are in favor of the war against Ukraine, it would have been shocking if he didn't get the win at the ratio he did... </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-29707895033904136532024-03-17T21:16:00.001-05:002024-03-17T21:16:15.620-05:00Media takes Donald Trump's words out of context. The bloodbath hoax explained. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2363261/trump-ohio-speech.webp?w=790&f=9b5a3d72ffe23cda41495d859b7ef336" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="527" data-original-width="790" height="213" src="https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2363261/trump-ohio-speech.webp?w=790&f=9b5a3d72ffe23cda41495d859b7ef336" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Donald Trump at the Dayton Ohio rally. Newsweek/Getty.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-maga-buckeye-ohio-bloodbath-january-6-speech-jd-vance-marjorie-taylor-greene-1880078">The Trump campaign and Republicans are blasting the media after they falsely claimed that America would have a bloodbath if he didn't win in 2024. </a>Newsweek. Trump was making the comments at a rally in Ohio. In context, Trump was referring to the auto industry. Trump said that he was going to put an 100% tariff on foreign cars but said if he didn't win it would be a bloodbath for the country, and then continued to talk about cars. But media headlines have removed that context. Republicans, including Senator J.D. Vance who was at the rally, have blasted the reports. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">We are witnessing the invention of the "bloodbath" hoax in real-time<br /><br />Unfortunately for them, we have đ<br /><br />Media narrative: Full context: <a href="https://t.co/jaYDvtGomn">pic.twitter.com/jaYDvtGomn</a></p>â End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1769245792831701070?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 17, 2024</a></blockquote><p>If you can't or won't watch the above video, here is the entire quote in context:</p><p><i> If you're listening, President Xiâand you and I are friendsâbut he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now you're going to not hire Americans and you're going to sell the cars to us, no. We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected, now if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the wholeâthat's gonna be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars. They're building massive factories."</i></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></p><p>This is not the first time the media has completely lied about what Donald Trump has said. After all, Joe Biden based his whole campaign on the Charlottesville hoax, aka the "fine people" hoax. In that case they deliberately lied saying that Trump had called White Nationalists "fine people" when in fact he was condemning them and pointing out there were good people on both sides of the issue of confederate statues controversy (which is dramatically more credit then I would give the iconoclasts that destroy artwork). </p><p>The difference now is this got debunked in real time on X and other social media. There isn't a post pushing the hoax on X right now that doesn't have dozens of comments condemning the articles put out by the media and showing the actual context. X has also added community notes to many of these articles, providing much needed context. And Elon Musk himself has checked in on the controversy. </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">This headline is deceptive, as he was referring to the auto industry. Shame on NBC.</p>â Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1769334696549257298?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 17, 2024</a></blockquote><p>It's also clear that bloodbath is a pretty common term. Indeed, there are a lot of videos out there showing how often the media uses the term. It's not a serious term, in none of those cases was the media saying that there was actual violence, just like Trump obviously wasn't talking about real violence in his speech in Ohio. </p><p> </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">The media is so offended by the term âBloodbathâ that they use it all the time.<br /><br /> <a href="https://t.co/nKkE1TR9HA">pic.twitter.com/nKkE1TR9HA</a></p>â Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) <a href="https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1769475951119724710?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 17, 2024</a></blockquote><p>So why would the media lie like this when it's so easily debunked? Well it's because they know that they won't get challenged about it outside of social media. There are still millions of people that get their news from broadcast and network news and those folks will have no idea that this is an obvious lie. They won't ever get the context to the speech and they will have no idea of the truth. </p><p>That alone explains why Trump was so hated despite the fact that he was a pretty decent president. You would never know it if you only got your news from the media. And they lie so blatantly but how are people supposed to know without an X account, or an account on another alternate social media site? </p><p>Of course the media isn't the only villain here, the Biden campaign is also doubling down on this lie. They put out there own statement condemning Trump's misattributed words and they have absolutely no shame in doing it. Why would they? Their entire 2020 campaign was based on the "fine people" hoax so why not try it again in 2024? </p><p>If there is any good news about this is that at least people who are on social media are able to see through this nonsense. It's possible that it will percolate out beyond that, which is a huge change from 2020 when it was pretty much impossible to see anything critical of the Biden administration percolate out to the greater population. </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-69281566268376395042024-03-14T19:40:00.000-05:002024-03-14T19:40:18.260-05:00French President Emmanuel Macron doubles down on sending troops to Ukraine... <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.politico.eu/cdn-cgi/image/width=1024,quality=80,onerror=redirect,format=auto/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/14/GettyImages-1241347820-scaled.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="214" src="https://www.politico.eu/cdn-cgi/image/width=1024,quality=80,onerror=redirect,format=auto/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/14/GettyImages-1241347820-scaled.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">French President Emmanuel Macron. Politico/Getty.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/im-right-about-not-being-specific-macron-says-doubling-down-on-strategic-ambiguity/">French President Emmanuel Macron has doubled down on the idea of sending troops to Ukraine.</a> Politico. The statement occurred during a TV interview where he was asked to explain comments he had made saying he would rule out sending combat troops to the war zone. Macron argued that Ukraine must win the war and it was an existential threat for Europe. Macron argued that everything was on the table with the only exception being France being in the lead of any offensive against Russia. Macron's comments are controversial to say the least, with many of his NATO partners disagreeing with the idea of sending troops to Ukraine. Most of France is against him as well, with 68% of French people surveyed said Macron's words about sending troops a wrong. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Macron's statement was worse than Politico is reporting as he also said there is no point in negotiating with Russia, despite the fact that a negotiation is the only way this war ends without Ukraine losing. Indeed, the entire speech seems utterly unhinged. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">From what I understand is that the basic plan is that NATO troops would be deployed to the border with Belarus in the and Odessa on the southern coast. Doing so would free up border Ukraine units and would perhaps reconstruct their reserves. It would also supposedly deter the Russians from again opening up a 2nd front on the Belarus border and would keep Belarus from joining the war in the late stages of the war. And they want to keep Odessa because it's the only port that Ukraine has. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">France would likely not be able to accomplish these goals by themselves. They have a small army compared even to Ukraine and though their units are good, they are not large enough to secure the entire border with Belarus. They would need support from other NATO countries and there is zero evidence that most of the alliance would go along with it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I also think that it would be insanely optimistic that Russia wouldn't target NATO troops in Ukraine. I think they would and it's pretty obvious that they would. Though Macron says this war is existential, he doesn't actually mean it. Putin and Russia as a whole absolutely know it is for their part and if that means blowing up French troops then that is what will happen. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">France also doesn't have the logistics to actually accomplish this mission in Ukraine. The supply lines aren't really secure due to Polish farmers blockading the roads into Ukraine, meaning they would either have to resolve that situation somehow, which has already completely vexed NATO, or they would have to ship everything through Odessa and that would invite a naval clash with the Russian Black Sea Fleet, a clash they probably wouldn't win, despite Russia's depleted fleet. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There is also the question of what the French would be fighting with. All of NATO has depleted their weapons stocks and it's not like France is going to go into a full war mobilization. Even if they do it would take a very long time to get French military production up to full speed and they still wouldn't even be able to match, let alone beat Russia's massive weapons production. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I generally think that this is just a bunch of nonsense from Macron. He's trying to distract against domestic issues and is desperately trying to save face in a very misguided adventure in Ukraine. He's far behind in the polls right now and will likely lose the next election. He wants to drum up support for his unpopular Ukraine policy and by doubling down he is hoping to get some more of the 68% of the French against his comments.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What is bizarre about these statements is that he is making them now. Everyone knows that even with western support Ukraine will lose the war. The real question is how long it will take. I think even if NATO sent troops it wouldn't matter. Russia has the advantage in troops, ammo and technology and is in a war footing. NATO has no advantages and the Ukrainian Army is on the verge of breaking... </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-51912362305061492532024-03-13T21:42:00.002-05:002024-03-13T21:47:43.350-05:00Does Donald Trump have a chance in 2024? <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6KVs5lqvpR5a7oo8hp7k-pOg8rdrrEIpWE9DAUzZT25SYQdinTx9MxWgndxozfBJqGqNeHS2ZL80TY03X948bFf21h1odVsJJ5sr4R4u209KWxBCQbZ8E2gHjG4pz-0oHFyJErkFj5xvyFyuNZvBgiDsdGKbZQUfEDBuuaHhWcPRXzLOpAYneTDC9NP0/s600/Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6KVs5lqvpR5a7oo8hp7k-pOg8rdrrEIpWE9DAUzZT25SYQdinTx9MxWgndxozfBJqGqNeHS2ZL80TY03X948bFf21h1odVsJJ5sr4R4u209KWxBCQbZ8E2gHjG4pz-0oHFyJErkFj5xvyFyuNZvBgiDsdGKbZQUfEDBuuaHhWcPRXzLOpAYneTDC9NP0/s320/Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg" width="256" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Donald Trump. </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">As you are probably aware, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have won their respective primary campaign races and we are looking at a rematch of the 2020 race. This was not at all surprising as the race essentially had two incumbents. Biden may be the one in the White House but there was no question that Trump still controls the Republican Party. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">With the rematch confirmed, the obvious question is if Trump can win the White House in 2024. Trump essentially won in 2020 but was denied the White House due to voter fraud. He absolutely should have been President but will 2020 happen again?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I think there is a strong argument that this election will be different. The threat of voter fraud is still obviously still around, but I don't believe that it will be the deciding factor like it was in 2020. Indeed, I believe there was massive fraud in 2016 but since that race was a lot less close in the swing states, it was impossible to find the votes Hillary Clinton needed to win. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Plus, the Republican Party seems to be taking things a lot more seriously this time around. They are using some of the same tactics, like ballot harvesting, to make this more equitable. And some of the worst abuses have been corrected or countered. There is also the fact that the Democrats don't have the excuse of the Coronavirus pandemic to change laws at the last minute where there was almost zero time to counter or adjust to the new situation. The GOP had four years and I think they have done something. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Another factor is that Joe Biden was more of an unknown factor back in 2020. Biden was a non-entity as a VP and a Senator and people mostly voted for him because they didn't think he was Trump. But now we know how absolutely abysmal Biden has been, it's enough to make Trump look really good in comparison. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This is reflected in the polls that mostly show Trump ahead of Biden, especially in the crucial swing states that handed Biden the election in 2020. Trump is ahead in all of the major swing states in most polls I have seen and there is even a chance that non-traditional swing states could be in play as well. Biden just isn't anywhere near as popular as he once was. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Biden has also angered many of his own party with his failures. The Gaza issue alone has thousands of his voters turned off. Many of those folks won't forgive him and I think the Democrats have lost many Muslim Americans forever. And more than a few people are angry and various other failures Biden has had. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I also have seen polling that traditional groups that usually go for Democrats, like young people, minorities and even college educated men are running away from the Party. The Democrats are not in a position to lose any part of their coalition but many minorities are sick of their actions. It was a historical accident due to the civil rights movement that conservative blacks, Hispanics and Asians were on the same side as the Democrats and that appears to be going away. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There is also the elephant in the room that is the fact that there is an actual third party candidate running, along with a few minor candidates. RFK Jr. is a legit candidate that is taking about 10% to 15% of the vote, and Cornel West and Jill Stein are in the mix as well. And there are rumbles that the No Labels group will be running a candidate as well. Of these only RFK Jr. takes votes from Trump, the rest take from Biden and even RFK Jr's support mostly come from former Democrats. </div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">Another factor is that the legal crusade against Trump has absolutely turned people off from Biden and gained support for Trump. None of the legal cases against him are on solid ground and the lawsuits against him happened in obvious kangaroo courts. Everyone knows what is happening to him could happen to any of us and the only real way to protest against it is to vote. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A lot could change between now and November. Indeed, it's a real question if the election itself, let alone the Trump vs Biden matchup, will even happen given how much could happen. Biden could mishandle the Ukraine conflict so badly that we all end up getting nuked.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But without something crazy like that happening, I do think that Trump has a good chance of winning. Could Biden turn it around? Possibly, but I honestly don't know how. It would really have to be something amazing at this point or vote fraud at the level where it becomes extremely obvious for Biden to win as thing stand right now. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-19171193545366645782024-03-12T20:59:00.003-05:002024-03-12T20:59:55.385-05:00RFK Jr is considering Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura as running mates. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-560w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2024-03/240312-aaron-rodgers-jesse-ventura-2-up-split-3x2-ac-628p-065390.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="373" data-original-width="560" height="213" src="https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-560w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2024-03/240312-aaron-rodgers-jesse-ventura-2-up-split-3x2-ac-628p-065390.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Aaron Rodgers (right) and Jesse Ventura. NBC News/Getty.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-considering-aaron-rodgers-jesse-ventura-possible-running-mates-rcna143090">Robert F. Kennedy Jr is said to be considering New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and former Minnesota Governor, actor and wrestler Jesse Ventura as possible vice presidential candidates.</a> NBC News. Both men were mentioned by his campaign along with other unknown candidates on a "short list". Neither men commented on the story when asked. Ventura was a former Reform Party governor but was only for one term. Rodgers was the Quarterback for the Green Bay Packers and won a Super Bowl before being traded to the New York Jets where he sat out most of the 2023 season due to injuries. Rodgers and RFK Jr bonded over opposition to vaccine mandates and he has endorsed RFK Jr. for president. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">These are... odd choices for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to pick. Jesse Ventura isn't a household name anymore. He hasn't really been in the news since he was Governor and no longer really seems to act. People in Minnesota remember him, and anyone that liked Wrestling in the 80's or the movie Predator, but other than that is he really that relevant? I think RFK Jr. is more famous them him. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Ventura and RFK Jr. do have similar beliefs though. Ventura was a centrist with the reform party and I think he is skeptical of vaccines like RFK Jr. is. I would think that they are on similar wavelengths. Further more, he has political experience and has his term as governor as an argument to vote for him. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But my problem is that he just isn't relevant anymore. This is the first time I have thought of Ventura in years. He's just not a known figure in politics anymore. Indeed, he barely counts as a celebrity. I really don't think that anyone who wouldn't already be on board with RFK Jr. is going to be convinced because a one term governor that used to be a wrestler and actor is on the ticket. I don't think he's going to hurt RFK Jr. either, but regardless, it's an odd pick. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />Speaking of odd picks, the Aaron Rodgers one is a lot stranger. Rodgers is known for only a couple of things. First of all, he's a great QB, one that had great success in Green Bay. Second, he's kind of a prima donna that got into trouble with the powers that be over his stance on vaccines. Given that RFK Jr. is mostly known for vaccine skepticism, it's not totally out of left field, but it's an odd choice. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Indeed, other than him being a vaccine skeptic and being upset with the Democratic Party due to their criticism of that fact, I have no idea what Rodgers political beliefs even are. My guess would be some kind of centrist but if you asked me what he thinks on the economy, foreign policy or gun rights, I would have no idea. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">He also doesn't have any political experience whatsoever. I guess being a QB shows that he could be a decent leader, but that's about it. But he doesn't have any experience with politics and I can see him getting into trouble very quickly. To be fair, just because he has no experience means that he will be bad as a Vice President, but it is an argument against him. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It also brings up the question of practicality. How is Aaron Rodgers going to run for Vice President if he is an active quarterback for the New York Jets? Though there are questions about Rodgers and his injury, as far as I am aware he will be the starter for the Jets in 2024. I don't see how he could possibly campaign for RFK Jr while being a QB, which means that he would probably either have to retire or refuse to run. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Does Rodgers bring anything to the campaign at all? I think so. He's a well-spoken man and it's unquestionable that he would get a few votes in Wisconsin and perhaps New York if he ever actually plays for them. But he's also controversial and a lot of people hate him for football and non-football reasons. I don't see him as a serious candidate and if RFK Jr. does pick him I would be surprised. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Indeed, I would be surprised if either of these men ended up as RFK Jr's pick. The only reason I take it seriously at all is because the campaign mentioned it. But they also mentioned that there were other people under consideration and I think that it's more likely that a third person will be picked over Aaron Rodgers and Jesse Ventura. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-31823463987845614642024-03-11T21:12:00.003-05:002024-03-11T21:12:29.715-05:00US Navy and other partners defeat largest drone attack yet from Yemeni Houthi rebels in the Red Sea<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/2I8Boj7c_ElkZWctVySGAA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTI0MDA7aD0xMzUwO2NmPXdlYnA-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/fox_news_text_979/ce66f650f8e4cdcbaa724674f900cc36" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/2I8Boj7c_ElkZWctVySGAA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTI0MDA7aD0xMzUwO2NmPXdlYnA-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/fox_news_text_979/ce66f650f8e4cdcbaa724674f900cc36" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Mockup drones and missiles in Sana'a Yemen. Fox News.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-coalition-forces-defeat-houthis-170133904.html">The US Navy and other coalition partners defeated a major mass drone attack from Houthi rebels in the Red Sea.</a> Fox News. At least 28 drones were shot down in one of the largest attacks since the war began. The attack was on Saturday and lasted two and a half hours. The attack was one of the first after last week's attack on shipping <a href="https://politicswarandculture.blogspot.com/2024/03/houthi-missile-attack-on-ship-in-gulf.html">killed three people on a freighter. </a>No reports of damage on US Navy or allied ships, or civilian ships, were made. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This was a fairly significant attack on US vessels in the Red Sea, though the DOD is being rather coy on the exact details, probably for security reasons. No mention of which ships were involved, which of our allies were involved or whether or not the US Navy ships were the targets or if it was the freighters being targeted again. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Regardless, it appears to have been a failure. 28 drones used and no damaged reported is not a good look for the Houthis. Their entire attack force was either shot down or failed to hit the target, which is a failure in my books. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">About the only thing this accomplished is further depleting the Navy's stock of defensive weapons. Given how intense the fighting has been in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden I would not be surprised if some of the Destroyers deployed there are getting low on weapons. Eventually they are going to run out and when that happens they will be vulnerable to these drones. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I do think that the Houthis were smart to do this kind of attack. If they had been a little more coordinated in their attack and concentrated on one target they might have had a success. If all 28 drones were arriving at exactly the same time and attacked from different directions they could have damaged or even destroyed whatever ship they were targeting. Unfortunately for them they apparently didn't coordinate that well. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Regardless, they are learning and I think it's only a matter of time until another freighter gets wrecked or a US Navy ship gets destroyed. The Navy has to be right every single time but the Houthis only need to get lucky once and it's very possible that could happen. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What is clear is that our airstrikes are doing almost nothing to prevent these drone attacks. The Biden administration has failed in their policy, but like I said, there wasn't much they could do. This is modern warfare and the truth is that it's very hard to disrupt drone and missile attacks with only airstrikes. Short of having troops on the ground I don't see how we could stop these attacks. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-33602414053329924712024-03-10T21:25:00.001-05:002024-03-10T21:25:22.654-05:00The situation in Haiti is so bad that the US embassy is being evacuated. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/02CE/production/_132881700_mediaitem132881699.jpg.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/02CE/production/_132881700_mediaitem132881699.jpg.webp" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Haitian police officers. BBC/Reuters. </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-68528839">The US Embassy in Haiti is evacuating non-essential staff as the situation falls further into chaos.</a> BBC. The Capitol of Port-au-Prince has mostly fallen to gangs with ports being shut down and prisoners released. The gangs want the Prime Minister, Ariel Henry, to be removed but it is unclear what else they want. Henry had left for Africa to try and secure foreign police to fight back against the gangs but was unable to return after the gangs shut down the port. He was also unable to enter the Dominican Republic, which shares the island with Haiti, due to the country refusing him. Henry is unpopular and has been in power since the previous president Jovenel Moise, was assassinated. The head of the gangs, Jimmy "Barbecue" ChĂ©rizier, threatened civil war and even genocide if Henry does not step down. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The BBC article is downplaying how bad things are in Haiti, probably out of embarrassment. During the Trump presidency, Trump famously said that we were taking immigrants from "shithole" countries like Haiti, so it must be hard for the BBC to admit that Haiti is indeed falling into chaos. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But as bad as things are in the BBC article, things are even worse in reality. I've heard reports of corpses being left on the streets to be eaten by dogs. The morgue workers are so afraid of the gangs that they won't even pick up the corpses killed by the gangs. And there are even credible reports of cannibalism, done as an intimidation tactic from the gangs. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Things are going to get much worse. Haiti is dependent on foreign aid to survive and now the aid organizations are pulling out. And even if they still want to help, with the ports and airports closed there is no way to do so. If even the Prime Minster can't get into the country, what hope do aid workers have? And even if they could get in they would be at extreme risk from the gangs, who would probably steal their aid anyways. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't think things would be better if Ariel Henry were to step down. I don't think he's a legitimate leader, given the way he came into power after the assassination of the previous President. The fact that no elections have happened since the death of Moise means that he legitimately shouldn't be in power. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But even if Henry isn't legitimate, that does not excuse the actions of the Haitian gangs. It's clear they want Henry out of the way so they can take over the country and run it as a dictatorship. And they are being as horrible as they can to pull it off. Most of the people affected by this aren't guilty of being anything other than being defenseless civilians and I think the threats of genocide are legitimate. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">With that being said, I don't think we should be accepting people from Haiti as refugees. I am afraid that they could bring the violence we are seeing in Haiti here in America. Given that Haiti has never had a functioning government and the level of violence we are seeing in the country now, it would be nuts to bring these people here. But given who is in charge of the United States right now I would not be surprised if we see a bunch of Haitian illegals crossing over our unsecured southern border... </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-87234015033186907872024-03-07T21:20:00.004-06:002024-03-07T21:20:31.158-06:00New York Governor Kathy Hochul deploys National Guard to New York City subways with mixed reception. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/FA42/production/_132866046_gettyimages-2059246986.jpg.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/FA42/production/_132866046_gettyimages-2059246986.jpg.webp" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Two National Guard members standing guard. BBC/AFP.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68508331">New York Governor Kathy Hochul has controversially deployed the National Guard to the New York City subway system. </a>BBC. The deployment is to deter the crime wave that is happening in the subway system, though the soldiers will monitor the entrances to the subway system. Crime has gone up in New York so far this year by 13% and there have been many high profile crimes on the subways in particular. Reception to the deployment has been mixed, with some supporting the deployment as an effort to deal with the crime problem. Others are concerned about civil rights violations or think that the deployment is a cynical attempt to bury the crime issue during an election year. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm not a fan of this deployment for many reasons, but I will say that civil rights violations of people of color is not one of them. From the videos I have seen the checks are truly random and don't seem to be targeting anyone that would actually be likely to committ a crime. It's not a little old Asian woman that's going to push someone in front of a moving subway train. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I also don't think that it will accomplish anything. The attacks that are happening inside the subway trains, not at the entrance to the subway. Checking random bags isn't going to stop a homeless person from attacking anyone. There isn't really anything that checking bags will do other than possibly detect weapons and drugs, and even then it's unlikely that those folks would be attacking anyone anyways. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm also pretty uncomfortable with the military being used for police functions. There are a lot of reasons why this is a bad idea, but the most obvious is that the military is designed to kill the enemy, not enforce the law. Soldiers don't have the right mindset for this kind of mission. Though I think that the New York National Guard won't turn into jackbooted thugs just because they are being asked to check bags, it's still not something I am comfortable with. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Also, what happens if a crime does happen in front of them? Do they have arrest power? Can they use lethal force? And if they do are they going to be prosecuted for it like they did to Daniel Penny? There are a lot of unanswered questions here and I don't know if anyone has the answers to them. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But what really gets me is that none of those questions would be unanswered if the Governor had just sent police to do this instead of the National Guard. Though some were deployed as well, it could have been just police and then there wouldn't be any issue at all. Nobody would have objected except the far left anti-police faction. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In order to do that though Hochul would have to admit that the right has a point about the function of police and the fact that nobody is actually being discriminated against. That's a political impossibility in today's environment. It's all just a joke and a political ploy. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-39652532011701197542024-03-06T21:03:00.000-06:002024-03-06T21:03:18.650-06:00Houthi missile attack on ship in the Gulf of Aden leaves three people dead. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/03A7/production/_132853900_mediaitem132853899.jpg.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/03A7/production/_132853900_mediaitem132853899.jpg.webp" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The True Confidence showing damage. BBC/Centcom. </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68490695">A Houthi missile attack on a ship in the Gulf of Aden has left three people dead and four injured. </a>BBC. The deaths are the first ones in a series of attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The Houthis are trying to blockade the area to support Hamas in their war against Israel. The Barbados flagged freighter True Confidence was hit by a the missile and set on fire. The ship has been abandoned and set adrift. It was carrying a cargo of steel and trucks from China to Saudi Arabia. Airstrikes were launched by the United States in response to the attack but the strikes appear to have had limited effects. The Houthis have been successful at attacking shipping and have managed to sink a ship, the Rubymar. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Sooner or later the Houthis were going to kill someone in their campaign the shut down shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. They have had close calls already and even managed to sink a ship. But now one of their missiles struck home and three people are dead. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It does look like the True Confidence was hit at the aft of the ship, near the bridge. It also looks like the missile strike also set the ship on fire, which was probably why it was abandoned. I would not be surprised if the ship sinks, like the Rubymar did, though it might take some time to do so. If the fire is uncontrolled though, it might be quicker. Supposedly they are doing salvage but I don't know if they are going to be able to save the ship. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As expected the United States launched air strikes in response to this attack. Those airstrikes do not appear to be doing much as the pace of attacks from the Houthis has not decreased at all. Indeed, they are not running out of missiles, drones and other weapons. Plus, these are mobile weapons system that are hard to track and easy to launch. Our airstrikes are not hitting targets that are worth hitting for the most part. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Indeed, I have said for awhile that Biden had no good options in Yemen. It would be extremely hard to stop these strikes without troops on the ground. Doing so would be starting a brand new war in the Middle East and would be extremely unpopular. And doing so has no guarantee of success. The Houthis are incredible fighters that managed to fight Saudi Arabia, a much more advanced and powerful nation armed with modern US equipment, to a standstill. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But the status quo isn't working either. Our operations to stop these attacks and defend against them are not working. Our naval vessels have so far managed to survive but they have not managed to protect the ships that are being attacked. Indeed, with this latest attack it is easy to argue that our mission there has been a major failure. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I think this attack will further limit shipping through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. Insurance rates are going to go through the roof to the point it will be more profitable to take the extra long journey around the Cape of Good hope. That trip takes a lot longer, four weeks if I recall correctly, but shipping companies are not going to be willing to risk missile attacks after people have died. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As for the Houthis, it shows how much naval warfare has changed. I mentioned this <a href="https://politicswarandculture.blogspot.com/2024/03/ukraine-says-that-they-destroyed.html">the other day </a>with my post on the Black Sea war between Russia and Ukraine. Though the Houthis are better armed and led than most people realize, they are armed by Iran and are the de facto government of Yemen, they have still shown that a small, well armed country can counter the Navy of the most powerful country in the world. Just like Ukraine showed that a country with no real navy can stand against the most powerful Navy in the region just because they have missiles and drones. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-58458062412481017712024-03-06T07:56:00.004-06:002024-03-06T07:56:55.596-06:00Nikki Haley to drop out of 2024 presidential race leaving Donald Trump the presumptive nominee. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/079e9a15-25b0-4ad3-b013-b9d9b7bd89a5/nikki-haley-gty-lv-240123-2_1706059177652_hpMain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/079e9a15-25b0-4ad3-b013-b9d9b7bd89a5/nikki-haley-gty-lv-240123-2_1706059177652_hpMain.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Nikki Haley. ABC News/Bloomberg/Getty.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nikki-haley-ends-presidential-campaign-major-trump-rival/story?id=106568226">Nikki Haley is expected to drop out of the 2024 presidential race leaving Donald Trump the presumptive nominee. </a>ABC News. Haley was one of the first to throw her name into the race and will be the last major candidate to leave after an embarrassing Super Tuesday where she only one one state, the liberal stronghold of Vermont. Haley did outlast other major candidates, most notably Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, but was ultimately unable to gain much momentum, with the only other race she won being Washington DC. Haley isn't expected to endorse Trump despite saying she would support the eventual nominee. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's been obvious since at least New Hampshire that Nikki Haley had zero chance of being the candidate, at least through non-extraordinary or tragic means. It was an open question as to why she was still in the race, especially both before and after her extremely embarrassing defeat in South Carolina. But she continued through Super Tuesday and just embarrassed herself further. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Haley was not a good fit for the current Republican Party. Indeed, she was a good example of the old guard Republicans that were largely kicked out of the party after Trump took over. Going up against the man himself was a good indication of that, as far as the majority of Republicans are convinced Trump's the head of the party and going after him is an act of disloyalty. This is also why Ron DeSantis was so loathed for much of the electorate. Since she was getting funding from the anti-Trump remnants of the GOP funding machine it was clear where her loyalties lay. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But I thought it was mostly a matter of policy. Haley was either squishy or actively opposed to much of the Republican base's desires on what they want in 2024. She wasn't going to do much for the border, she wasn't interested in reigning in the excesses of the woke left, she wasn't at all concerned with keeping America out of foreign wars and she simply did not have any views that really coincided with what the people wanted out of their candidate. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It was the foreign policy that turned me off, along with many others. Haley cared more about Ukraine's borders than the United States and was one of the biggest Ukraine warhawks running in this cycle. And that was at a time when most of the party had turned on the Ukraine war. I have always been against it, even before the war erupted, but the rest of the party either views it as Biden's mistake, or a lost cause that we shouldn't throw good money after bad over. But Haley was so upset that people were opposed to her on this issue she proposed getting rid of anonymity on the internet, something even a legit tyrant like Joe Biden hadn't even suggested. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It was that point where I resolved to never vote for Nikki Haley, even after she walked it back. To vote for someone that would screw over her own party so badly, after all internet anonymity is about the only thing that kept the GOP alive the past three years, was so beyond the pale that I couldn't pull the trigger for her. She is still better than Biden, if only slightly, but only because she wasn't senile and isn't a sex offender. But her foreign policy was indistinguishable and she crossed some lines that even Biden wouldn't cross. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Most of the Republican Party felt the same way as Haley never really had much support. Much of her support was imaginary since many of the early races, and most notably Vermont, were open primary states which meant that Democrats could vote in Republican races. And with the Democratic Primary being de facto uncontested and many people not wanting to vote for Biden regardless, many of them did. Indeed, I saw that in one of the exit polls, from Virginia I think, said that 3/4ths of her voters didn't plan on voting for her during the general election. I'd guess the only reason she got about 10 to 20 percent of the vote was because of these Democratic cross-over voters. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Haley did have a few genuine supporters, but they were not very numerous. They mostly consisted of warhawks, neocons, people that just hated Trump for whatever reason, a few centrists and, of course, upper class business Republicans. None of those groups are critical and I am guessing most of them will fall in line in November.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> I don't buy the media narrative that Haley's support was dangerous to Trump in the general election. First of all, Biden is absolutely hated and I think most people would have voted for anyone just to get rid of him. Indeed, as much as I dislike Haley I'd have been less upset if she won over Joe Biden, though I would be certainly voting third party in that scenario. I'd even give Hillary Clinton or Chris Christie a fair shake over Joe Biden. Second is the aforementioned crossover Democrats that never actually supported her in the first place. They were never going to vote for the Republican candidate regardless. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Finally, I think most of her actual supporters will end up voting for Trump anyways. They may not like the guy but better him than Biden. Plus they realize that if they want any say on Trump's 2nd term, they have to play nice. I'm inclined to tell them to hit the curb, but I do acknowledge we have a common enemy in Joe Biden and we need all the help we can get. If the vast majority of DeSantis shills have managed to get back onto the Trump train, the Haley voters will as well. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As for Haley, I think this is the end of her political career. The Republican base wants nothing to do with her, that much is clear. Perhaps she could run as a congresswoman or governor somewhere but I don't see her ever having a chance to be President again, even if she runs in the wide open 2028 field. People aren't going to forget how badly she was defeated and how baffling it was for her to continue to run even after it was clear America didn't want her. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-13846903805336824082024-03-05T21:10:00.002-06:002024-03-05T21:10:23.611-06:00Ukraine says that they destroyed a Russian patrol ship in the Black Sea, showing how much naval warfare has changed. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/8H2mXduT_wHuaQePqEj6pA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTE5NTI7aD0xMDk4O2NmPXdlYnA-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/bbc_us_articles_995/a1d2aba2619c79399356175bdc7effb0" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/8H2mXduT_wHuaQePqEj6pA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTE5NTI7aD0xMDk4O2NmPXdlYnA-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/bbc_us_articles_995/a1d2aba2619c79399356175bdc7effb0" width="320" /></a></div><div style="font-size: x-small; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Screencap showing the attack on the </span><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Sergei Kotov. BBC. </span></span></div><div style="font-size: x-small; text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-war-russian-black-sea-101405258.html">Ukraine says that they have destroyed a Russian patrol ship, the Sergei Kotov, in the Black Sea.</a> BBC. The ship took multiple hits from drones. The Kremlin has not confirmed the loss of the ship, but many pro-Russia bloggers have confirmed the loss of the ship. Though Ukraine has been on the backfoot in the ground war, Ukraine has had several successes with the naval war in the Black Sea with several ships, including the flagship Moskva. Video was released by Ukraine showing the attack against the patrol ship. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Ukrainian sea drones hit and sank a Russian Black Sea Fleet patrol ship off occupied Crimea in an overnight attack, according to the Ukrainian military <a href="https://t.co/rfFrGQlndH">https://t.co/rfFrGQlndH</a> <a href="https://t.co/F8AuJao8gt">pic.twitter.com/F8AuJao8gt</a></p>â Reuters (@Reuters) <a href="https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1765069765750534473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2024</a></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></p><p>In the big picture this incident is a fairly minor one. The Sergei Kotov was a small patrol ship, not a major vessel and its destruction will not change the fact that Ukraine is losing the war. But since the incident touches on a subject I want to talk about anyways, it's worth covering. </p><p>Naval warfare has changed. The Black Sea has proven that. The Red Sea has proven that. And we will have to adjust what we are doing with our navies to prepare for the next war. It's clear that American Naval dominance is over and we should expect extreme naval losses in littoral combat in our next war. </p><p>It's pretty clear that though Ukraine is unable to win on the ground, they are doing a much better job in the Black Sea theater despite an almost total lack of naval forces. Indeed, Russia's Black Sea fleet has taken heavy casualties, including their flagship and and a few other major naval vessels. And they have not been able to enforce a blockade on Ukraine, allowing Ukrainian grain to make it out of the country. </p><p>This strike proves why. Though it is unclear if this attack was conducted with underwater, above water or aerial drones due to the lack of quality video, it does show how modern ships are vulnerable to modern weapon systems. Indeed, the Kotov is part of a ship class that is supposed to defend against these kinds of attacks.</p><p>In Yemen the Houthis have been able to largely shut down travel in the Red Sea. Though they have only sunk one ship, they have damaged many others and the threat of further attacks have mostly shut down shipping through the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Indeed, it's the only victory the pro-Hamas side has made in the war between Hamas and Israel. </p><p>It shows that the US Navy could be in trouble in a major war. Though our major ships should be safe as long as they are far out to sea, our destroyers and littoral warfare ships could fall prey to the same tactics that sank the Kotov in the Black Sea and the Rubymar in the Red Sea. Drones and missiles have absolutely changed the calculus when it comes to naval warfare. </p><p>I am sure that countermeasures will eventually be made against these kinds of drone strikes but for now we are in a serious crisis when it comes to naval warfare. For now the Russians seem to have curtailed their Black Sea operations but that's not a long term solution for them. Either way, we need to learn from both conflicts to better protect our forces. </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-16552632235370695262024-03-04T21:25:00.001-06:002024-03-04T21:25:49.986-06:00Doritos faces their own Bud Light moment by hiring a transgender brand ambassador in Spain... <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2357148/doritos.webp?w=790&f=923019c9e883c321fec15261c6189411" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="496" data-original-width="790" height="201" src="https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2357148/doritos.webp?w=790&f=923019c9e883c321fec15261c6189411" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Doritos. Newsweek. </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/doritos-spain-faces-backlash-transgender-brand-ambassadors-resurfaced-tweets-1875763"><br /></a></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/doritos-spain-faces-backlash-transgender-brand-ambassadors-resurfaced-tweets-1875763">Doritos is facing their own Bud Light moment by hiring a transgender brand ambassador in Spain with a disturbing social media history. </a>Newsweek. Doritos hired Samantha Hudson, a male to female transgender YouTuber and social media star as a brand ambassador in Spain but it was discovered that they had made some disturbing social media posts involving a desire to molest a 12 year old girl. The tweet happened in 2015 and Hudson said it was a joke. Another tweet had Hudson denigrate female victims of sexual assault. The backlash against Hudson has begun on social media with Pepsi Cola, which owns Doritos, not commenting yet. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">This is who Doritos just partnered with to be their brand ambassador in Spain. <br /><br />You know what to do.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottDoritos?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BoycottDoritos</a>. <br />Make it trend. <a href="https://t.co/kXIlPS2fjB">pic.twitter.com/kXIlPS2fjB</a></p>â End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1764787501183459385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></p><p>Well, it's time to see if the Bud Light fiasco is a one off or if the right actually has the power to consistently punish woke companies that do bizarre things like this. The Bud Light boycott was stunningly successful and the brand is mostly destroyed. It cost them $1 billion and people still won't drink Bud Light. </p><p>This case appears to be way worse than Dylan Mulvaney. Mulvaney was a bizarre and uncanny brand spokesperson for a brand that was a red state favorite. As bad as he was, he only looked like a pedophile. Hudson seems to be a lot more extreme. Unlike Mulvaney, who was disliked because of his bizarre appearance and actions, Hudson said some things that aren't appropriate at all. </p><p>Samantha Hudson's x account is pretty disturbing alone, ignoring the comments he made. Indeed, the banner picture on it is pretty blatantly unsafe for work and borderline pornographic. The <a href="https://twitter.com/badbixsamantha">link</a> is here but be aware, it's disturbing. </p><p>But it's not Hudson's appearance or actions that are going to cause the backlash here. It's the comments he made about a 12 year old girl. He pretty explicitly said that he wanted to molest one. Was it a joke? Who knows? It's possible that it was just a tasteless joke but a joke like that isn't going to fly in today's environment. Especially coming from someone that looks as ridiculous as Hudson does. More disturbing is the possibility that it wasn't a joke. </p><p>I think that if a boycott movement happens here it would be justified. I have no idea why Doritos would do this given that tweet. I mean, it would have been a bad idea to hire a transgender spokesperson after the Bud Light boycott, but did they not do a simple search on Hudson's account? And if they did, did they not think that this would create a backlash? </p><p>My guess is that the Spanish branch went off the reservation and did this on their own without running it by anyone in the United States who would have told them that this was a bad idea. Indeed, they should have expected this to not remain only in Spain. The world is global now and you can't just run an add in one market and not expect it to go viral if it is controversial or notable. </p><p>Will this incident take off like the Bud Light boycott? Perhaps. The problem today is that the news is dominated by the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Donald Trump's ballot access. Indeed, the only reason I wrote about this instead of that story is because it broke so early and everyone else had already written about it. That is going to draw away a lot of attention away from this compared to a normal day. </p><p>On the other hand, the Dylan Mulvaney situation took a few days to percolate to the normies as well. Indeed, this story is already viral on X and now a generally mainstream outlet like Newsweek is covering it's possible that the story will reach a wider audience.</p><p>I also think that Doritos is as vulnerable to a boycott as Bud Light was. Bud Light was able to be boycotted because there wasn't a huge difference between it and other competing brands like Coors or Miller Light, or even Modelo. Doritos is similar, there are plenty of other chip brands out there. Most of them are owned by Pepsi itself, but even then, Doritos as a brand could be as dead as Bud Light is if people are outraged enough. </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-73159602183547944912024-03-03T21:31:00.002-06:002024-03-03T21:31:13.744-06:00The media is starting to acknowledge that Joe Biden is in trouble. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/282ff5d/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3936x2632+0+0/resize/630x421!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F97%2Fad%2F06d035bf4049b950342417e86371%2Fbiden-23013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="630" height="214" src="https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/282ff5d/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3936x2632+0+0/resize/630x421!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F97%2Fad%2F06d035bf4049b950342417e86371%2Fbiden-23013.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Joe Biden. Politico/AP.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/03/biden-polling-2024-campaign-00144625">Joe Biden is behind Donald Trump in many recent polls. </a>Politico. Four recent national polls show Trump leading Biden and deep dissatisfaction with the incumbent. Biden's advanced age is a factor as most voters say that his age is a problem, with a plurality saying that he isn't capable of doing the job. Though Trump is also old, most voters say he is capable of being president. The economy is also a factor as most people in the polls say that the economy is bad, despite the White House pushing "Bidenomics" and high stock market numbers. Voters also say that the economy was better under Donald Trump, despite the economic effects of the pandemic. But it was the immigration crisis was cited the most problematic issue for Biden as most people see it as a crisis. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I generally agree with the reasons cited by Politico as to why Biden is doing so poorly in recent polling. Clearly his age is an issue as he's an 81 year old man that looks 110. And his mind is obviously gone, even compared to the start of his term, let alone his career as a Senator and VP. And I don't think he's going to survive the next five year if he is president or not. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And the economy is absolutely deadly for Biden. People don't care if some billionaire's hedge fund account is doing well. They know that they can't afford to the grocery store without breaking the bank and even McDonalds is getting to the point where people can't really afford it anymore. Inflation is an absolute killer when there isn't a corresponding increase of wages. And people know that things were better under Donald Trump. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">People also remember that illegal immigration was, if not a solved issue, dramatically better under Trump. Border crossings were dramatically down compared to now. Biden removed the executive orders that were dealing with the problem and stopped construction of the border wall. Though he has tried to blame Republicans for not accepting his border bill which would only make the problem worse, it's clear that he's going to get the blame. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But I think there are other issues as well. Ukraine is a big one since it's clear that our military adventure there will go as well as the one in Afghanistan, which Biden also lost. Biden has also put Ukraine in front of pretty much other issue in America, with immigration only being the most obvious example. Nothing is being done on our border but we are sending billions to Ukraine so they can attempt to defend their border. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Of course the war in Gaza is upsetting people as well. Biden is trying to play both sides of the conflict and neither side is happy with that. His far left supporters hate Israel and hate that he is supporting them, while everyone else is upset that he is giving the anti-Israel people the time of day. To be fair, there is no pleasing everyone but it's an issue that might cause a lot of Democrats to stay home in 2024. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Polls aren't everything of course and a lot can happen between now and November. And there is still the elephant in the room that is election security. But it seems clear that Donald Trump should beat Joe Biden in the 2024 election... </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-35413631702083673102024-02-29T21:13:00.001-06:002024-02-29T21:13:28.217-06:00Donald Trump and Joe Biden both go to the border with Mexico. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/republican-presidential-candidate-former-77428014.jpg?resize=1024,683&quality=75&strip=all" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="214" src="https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/republican-presidential-candidate-former-77428014.jpg?resize=1024,683&quality=75&strip=all" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Donald Trump shakes hands with National Guard members. New York Post/AP.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://nypost.com/2024/02/29/us-news/trump-slams-biden-invasion-of-border-while-president-tells-gop-to-show-spine-in-dueling-texas-visits/">Donald Trump and Joe Biden both went to the border with Mexico in dueling events.</a> New York Post. Trump gave a speech at Eagle Pass, Texas with Governor Greg Abbott, where Abbott has deployed the National Guard and razor wire to deter illegal immigration. Trump said it was "like a war" and called on Biden to mention Laken Riley, a nursing student murdered by an illegal immigrant that was released before he could be deported. Trump said he would reinstate his border restrictions, including Title 42 and the remain in Mexico policy. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/president-joe-biden-talks-u-77426001.jpg?resize=1024,683&quality=75&strip=all" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="214" src="https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/president-joe-biden-talks-u-77426001.jpg?resize=1024,683&quality=75&strip=all" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Joe Biden meets with US Border Patrol agents. New York Post/AP</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Joe Biden held his event at Brownsville Texas and called on Trump to work with him to pass the Senate's immigration bill which he claims would solve the issue. He also called for new resources for the Border Patrol and the Asylum system but did not announce any executive actions. Biden was asked about Laken Riley but did not respond to the question. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The fact that both leading Presidential candidates showed up at the border today shows that the issue is likely to be the defining one for the 2024 election. It is always possible that something else could come up, after all, November is a long ways away yet and the world is a mess right now, but immigration looks to be even more important than it was in 2016. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This does, of course, favor Donald Trump. Trump rode a wave of disgust on this issue to win in 2016 and he could absolutely do so again. Indeed, if Trump had focused on the border during his 2020 run, the Biden administration probably wouldn't have even happened. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In 2020 I think Trump was a victim of his own success. Trump's border wall, remain in Mexico policy and Title 42 largely solved the issue of border crossers. We still had problems with illegal immigration, but those were mostly to do with people that were already here or were visa overstays. People of course remember this and can easily compare the rate of immigration in 2020 to what it is now and think that things were obviously better under Trump than Biden. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As for Laken Riley, I haven't followed the story closely. I know the bare details of the case but I am far from an expert on it. It does reinforce something I have been saying for the last couple of weeks though. All crimes committed by illegal immigrants are preventable ones. Had her attacker been deported, like he should have been as he was a criminal who was in the country illegally, Riley would still be alive today. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Biden does deserve criticism for her death. If we had a functional immigration system this would not have happened. Biden's immigration policy is his own fault and I don't buy his claims that he needs the Senate bill to do anything about the border. If he had simply left Trump's policies in place none of this would have been happening. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But the first thing Biden did when he took the oath of office was repeal Trump's border policies. That's on him and him alone. He owns everything that happened because of that and it will absolutely hurt him in 2024. I don't think people will buy that it's Republicans fault for not passing a border bill that wouldn't help things in the first place. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Regardless, I do think that this will be a major thing that turns out people to vote for Donald Trump. People are sick of illegal immigrants committing crimes, taking jobs and increasing the price of rent and they absolutely remember that this issue was mostly solved under Donald Trump. And Biden isn't going to be able to convince people that he cares about the issue unless he actually takes steps to deal with it beyond whining about Congress. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-6385205255703475142024-02-28T21:02:00.002-06:002024-02-28T21:02:28.088-06:00Mitch McConnell to step down as Senate Minority leader. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Mitch_McConnell_2016_official_photo_(1).jpg/800px-Mitch_McConnell_2016_official_photo_(1).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="581" height="320" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Mitch_McConnell_2016_official_photo_(1).jpg/800px-Mitch_McConnell_2016_official_photo_(1).jpg" width="232" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Mitch McConnell. Official portrait.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68428697">Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is going to step down this November.</a> BBC. The embattled leader had run afoul with the Trump wing of the party after the two had a falling out over the 2020 election. McConnell had been key is getting Republicans elected and had many accomplishments including many judicial appointments. But his willingness to sell out Republican priorities, including immigration, foreign policy and the 2020 election put him at odds with much of the party. McConnell did not mention why he was resigning his position, and it is not thought to be related to medical scares he has had after a concussion. McConnell said he intended to continue his service as a senator until 2027 when his term ends, just not as a leader. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I've got mixed feelings about this. Mitch McConnell did have some legitimate accomplishments as Senate Majority Leader, which he was for 20 years. Indeed, the fact that he managed to get so many judicial appointments during Trump's 1st term is a great accomplishment and one that will help Republicans for at least a generation. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But it was clear it was time for McConnell to go. His age alone was a huge concern. Indeed, last year he had a "Biden" moment of his own where he <a href="https://politicswarandculture.blogspot.com/2023/07/our-political-leadership-is-too-old.html">froze up for an uncomfortably long time.</a> That may have been due to his advanced age or a concussion he had earlier in the year, but it was clear that he was not the same man he once was. There's a very strong argument that the Republicans need fresh leadership but it's very serious that so much of America's leadership is so old. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Even ignoring the issue of his age, it was clear that McConnell was totally out of touch with his electorate. The fact that he didn't contest an obviously crooked and unfair 2020 election was damning. He absolutely could have fought if he had chosen to do so, but he did not and as far as I am concerned that's when his career ended. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But it wasn't just the election that Republicans were furious with him about. He also was all too ready to betray his base to work with Democrats. When people talk of the "uniparty" McConnell was the best example. He was far too willing to give Democrats everything they want while getting nothing in return. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">His stupid immigration deal was a good example of that. Instead of simply deporting illegal immigrants, McConnell was willing to sell out his base by allowing a major amnesty and not closing the border. Thankfully the house laughed the supposed compromise right out of their chambers and it will never come up for a vote. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">McConnell was also bad on foreign policy. Indeed, anyone that supports the war in Ukraine at this point should be kicked out of the party. Doing so is just baffling since it's very clear that Russia has won the war and nothing short of nuclear weapons could stop that now. Republicans are no longer a war party and McConnell was one of the last examples of being a warhawk in the party. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Finally, I think it's also clear that the timing of McConnell's resignation isn't a mistake. He's doing it in November. Why? Because if he does so no new senators elected in 2024 will be able to vote on new leadership. He wants one of his hand picked successors to be the new Senate leader and if the Republicans pick up a lot of new MAGA senators in 2024, which they should, they won't be able to vote. It's just another action that shows that McConnell is not on the same side as his party... </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The good news is that the neocon wing of the Republican Party is dead. The party has moved in a more paleocon/libertarian/populist direction and neocons like McConnell are almost gone. He's the biggest name they have left and he just announced that he is done. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-58045660115931184042024-02-27T21:06:00.004-06:002024-02-27T21:06:58.317-06:00NATO allies reject French President Macron's suggestion that sending troops to Ukraine is on the table. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/17D59/production/_132752679_gettyimages-2033874851.jpg.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/17D59/production/_132752679_gettyimages-2033874851.jpg.webp" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">A howitzer firing in Ukraine. BBC/Getty.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68417223"><br /></a></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68417223">NATO allies have rejected a call from French President Macron's suggestion that sending troops to Ukraine is on the table.</a> BBC. Macron said that "nothing should be rejected" when it comes to Ukraine, including sending troops to Ukraine. Many NATO leaders rejected the idea with the leadership of the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Poland and Czechia clarifying that they were not considering sending troops. Russia said any such deployment would lead to a direct conflict. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><br /></u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">This was one of the most bizarre and stupid things a world leader has ever said. Sending combat or even support troops to Ukraine would be seen as an act of war and would probably world to a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. The implication would be that there would be a third world war and a direct nuclear exchange. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's no wonder that the rest of NATO rejected this suggestion. I would hope that the leadership of NATO is less insane than Macron apparently is. Even the bigger warhawks were saying that this was a terrible idea. It's pretty rare that there is disagreement in NATO at all, let alone at this level.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So was this a serious suggestion from France? I doubt it. Macron was apparently speaking off the cuff and may not have realized the implications of what he was saying. He also said that France wasn't going to be the one to deploy troops, just that other countries might. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Of course it's an open secret that NATO troops are fighting in Ukraine as "volunteers", aka, mercenaries. Indeed, I have seen more than one video of captured "Ukrainian troops" speaking with American or English accents and we all know that Poland has sent many "volunteers" to the fight in Ukraine. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Ukraine also hires a lot of more traditional mercenaries, mostly from South and Central America. Those folks are treated much the way Moscow treated the Wagner Group, as disposable cannon fodder. This is, of course, illegal but Russia has largely decided to look the other way. And it's not like the US led international community would punish Ukraine for this. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But the other foreign troops? I think they are mostly in non-combat roles. Ukraine was given a lot of advanced technology that they really didn't know how to operate. The foreign troops are almost certainly operating and maintaining these weapons, such as air defenses and tanks. There are probably a few troops fighting in front line units but they are the minority. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Of course neither side would admit to this. To do so would give Russia a valid casus belli to attack NATO and it would be one they could not ignore. Neither side really seems to want an actual war between NATO and Russia, even though they are in a de facto one already. And it's not the first time this has happened, Russia and China sent advisors to Vietnam and Russia even flew jets against US forces in the Korean War. Much like Israel's unofficial stance on nuclear weapons which they clearly have, NATO troops participating in the Ukraine war will remain a polite fiction. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-32384719554125312232024-02-26T21:14:00.002-06:002024-02-26T21:14:49.760-06:00Donald Trump Jr. sent letter with threats and white powder. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2023-11/231102-donald-trump-jr-court-mjf-1115-e7a597.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="214" src="https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1240w,f_auto,q_auto:best/rockcms/2023-11/231102-donald-trump-jr-court-mjf-1115-e7a597.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Donald Trump Jr. NBC News/AP.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trump-jr-receives-death-threat-white-powder-envelope-florida-ho-rcna140603">Donald Trump Jr. was sent a letter with death threats and a white powder, leading to a response from a hazmat team.</a> NBC News. Tests were made on the powder and it was not believed to be a deadly substance. Trump Jr. opened the letter himself. He says this is the 2nd time this has happened to him. Threats and attacks on political figures have become more common with attacks against Republican candidates being fairly common this election cycle. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Donald Trump Jr was sent this letter containing white powder. <br /><br />The left is doing what the regime propagandists and Biden regime is telling them to. <a href="https://t.co/muelL4USE3">pic.twitter.com/muelL4USE3</a></p>â Cernovich (@Cernovich) <a href="https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1762279886465782263?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 27, 2024</a></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></p><p>Thankfully, this incident appears to have been a minor one. Thankfully the powder appears to have been harmless and Trump Jr. was not injured. Though this case appears to have been harmless, it's very possible that this could have been Ricin or some other chemical or biological threat. They haven't determined what the attacker used but it was certainly scary. </p><p>What does surprise me is that Donald Trump Jr. opens his own mail. He's a rich and successful businessman, you would think he would have someone do that for him? Not that the incident would be any less serious if he did have someone open it for him. </p><p>Looking at the note I would suspect that the person that sent this was mentally ill. The note did not make any sense at all, even though the threats were pretty clear. Whoever wrote it apparently thinks that the Soviet Union exists, which seems to imply that they are pretty deep into far left conspiracy thinking. But the letter was hardly coherent. </p><p>It honestly reminded me a bit of the deranged ravings of <span style="white-space: normal;">James Hodgkinson, the man who attacked the Congressional Baseball game back in 2017. He expressed a massive amount of hatred for right wing people just like this did against Trump and his family. It just seems like a person that has had their entire life devolved into raving about politics. </span></p><p>I do think that these kinds of attacks are getting more common. There have been a lot of these powder hoaxes against both parties since the Obama years, and some of them have involved legit toxic substances. The attackers usually get caught and prosecuted but not always and I do worry that one of these times someone will actually get hurt. I'm old enough to remember the anthrax attacks back in 2001 and there isn't any reason that couldn't happen again. </p><p>Still, this incident was more of a scare than an actual attack. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, but I do think that if this person sends anymore letters it won't be dangerous. But I do worry that with as crazy as things are this year that a real attack could indeed happen... </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-51256537347333903162024-02-25T21:12:00.001-06:002024-02-25T21:12:10.051-06:00US Airman self-immolates in front of Israeli embassy. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://assets3.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2024/02/25/fa14d2be-3dc9-469a-a34a-66c77b2ce102/thumbnail/620x414/0fa6501970be7b85de14237ab0cd69c2/gettyimages-2031353123.jpg?v=26439302e0bbe3219b6ef78d2fd37ce0" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="620" height="214" src="https://assets3.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2024/02/25/fa14d2be-3dc9-469a-a34a-66c77b2ce102/thumbnail/620x414/0fa6501970be7b85de14237ab0cd69c2/gettyimages-2031353123.jpg?v=26439302e0bbe3219b6ef78d2fd37ce0" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Police at the site of the immolation. CBS News/Getty.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-embassy-air-force-member-sets-himself-on-fire/">An US Airman has self-immolated in front of the Israeli embassy.</a> CBS News. The airman, dressed in his uniform, set up a camera and broadcast the incident on Twitch, a streaming platform. He said that he wouldn't be complicit in "genocide" and screamed "free Palestine" as he was burning. The video was removed from Twitch. The man is now in critical condition and is being treated for burns.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p></p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">⥠A US soldier in his uniform set himself on fire outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington to protest against Israel's war in Gaza. <a href="https://t.co/JSxiCqwSpu">pic.twitter.com/JSxiCqwSpu</a></p>â War Watch (@WarWatchs) <a href="https://twitter.com/WarWatchs/status/1761856009314664887?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2024</a></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></p><p>Self-immolation has a long history in protest and most of the time it goes ignored. I can only think of two cases of where it actually worked. The most famous is the case of ThĂch QuáșŁng Äức, a monk that burned himself to death to protest the government of South Vietnam in 1963. The image of his death was probably one of the best photographs ever taken and was even used as an album cover for a Rage Against the Machine album. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_self-immolation.jpg/1024px-Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_self-immolation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="509" data-original-width="800" height="204" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_self-immolation.jpg/1024px-Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_self-immolation.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Malcom Browne/AP.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The other one that hand an impact was the death of Tarek El-Tayeb Mohamed Bouazizi, a normal man who had had it with the government of Tunisia harassing him and his business. His death inspired both a revolution in Tunisia but was also used as inspiration for the Arab Spring. In retrospect his death caused thousands of deaths and indirectly caused civil wars, terrorism and widespread misery, even if Tunisia ended up better off. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But those are the only two men that have been notable in terms of self-immolation. Wikipedia has a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations">list of self-immolations</a> and it's depressingly long and if it wasn't for the page I would have never heard of any of them. In the vast majority of cases self-immolation just results in a dead or severely wounded for life protester. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I am guessing that will be the case here. A man lighting himself on fire is not going to change anyone's mind about the war between Israel and Hamas. Indeed, the sides are so entrenched I don't think there is much that could change anyone's minds. And the pro-Hamas people are pretty fickle, they might support this man for a little while but they will very quickly move on. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What gets me is that if this guy survives he's going to be scared or even disabled for life. His wounds will probably never fully heal and he will look terrible, assuming he even survives. And for what? A false belief that Hamas isn't getting what it deserves? I mean, I can understand being upset about US foreign policy. But I sure haven't burned myself because I am upset with sending money to Ukraine. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I would also say that the difference between the Vietnam and Tunisia cases is that people were deeply upset about other actions the government was doing. The people that latched onto the deaths of these two men were inspired because their lives were being negatively affected the same way they were. Plus, the Vietnam photo was memetic. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That's not the case here. The Israel-Hamas war is just the outrage of the day and the media cycle will move on. Indeed, the focus of the media has switched back to Ukraine, Israel isn't the lead story anymore. And there wasn't an iconic image here compared to the one in Vietnam. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Much of the commentary about this has been highly critical as well. Many are making fun of the guy for trying to kill himself over Israel, of all things. Indeed, many people think this is a solution, not a problem, given how annoying pro-Hamas people have been since the war broke out... I'm not exactly sure how those folks are reacting to this incident but I am guessing it will be mostly met with indifference. </div><p><br /></p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-4210729313430247432024-02-24T21:30:00.003-06:002024-02-24T21:30:50.042-06:00Donald Trump blows out Nikki Haley in her home state of South Carolina. <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/c0e74cb/2147483647/strip/true/crop/5451x3634+0+0/resize/1440x960!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F2a%2F0c%2F0d69c583335d8619045c83b1d4cb%2Fb348c9f199fe4a11bce82a246406804c" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/c0e74cb/2147483647/strip/true/crop/5451x3634+0+0/resize/1440x960!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F2a%2F0c%2F0d69c583335d8619045c83b1d4cb%2Fb348c9f199fe4a11bce82a246406804c" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Donald Trump speaks at his victory party. AP. </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-nikki-haley-south-carolina-primary-republicans-13237d287ce770e0a45e9bccee78e8ee">Donald Trump has blown out Nikki Haley in her home state of South Carolina</a>. AP. Trump has now won every contest in the 2024 primary race, including Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, the US Virgin Islands and South Carolina. Despite the loss Haley says she will continue the race until Super Tuesday, which is March 5th. The Associated Press called the race almost immediately after polls closed. Though Haley hasn't dropped out, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are treating each other like they are the nominees. Haley's path to nomination appears even narrower now. The next major race is next Tuesday in Michigan, where Trump is expected to win as well. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As of this writing, with 84% of polls counted, Trump is leading Haley 60% to 39.4% and will take almost all of the State's delegates, with Haley only getting 3 of 50. This is a better performance for Haley than I was expecting but also close to what the polling was saying. Either way, it's an utter humiliation for a candidate to the point where <a href="https://politicswarandculture.blogspot.com/2024/02/why-is-nikki-haley-still-in-race.html">I don't understand why she is running anymore. </a> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Indeed, it's not like things get any easier for Haley after South Carolina. In Michigan, the last poll had Trump at 80% support, thought that was probably an outlier. But in many of the Super Tuesday states, Trump does get 80% of support or better and I don't know if Haley can win a single one of those states. Maybe California if there are a ton of Democrats that cross over? Maybe Utah, which has never been a super popular Trump state? Even then, one or two states isn't going to do it and it seems very unlikely that Haley will even do that. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I already speculated as to what Haley is even doing at this point so I won't belabor the point. But I have to think she is humiliated by these results. She not only lost her home state, she did so in a landslide, and that's with Democrats crossing over to vote for her as South Carolina is an open primary state. This is the kind of defeat that ends political careers, but Haley is apparently still ready for more. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As for Donald Trump, I think it's safe to say baring something terrible or unprecedented happening, he's the 2024 Republican nominee, for better or worse. Voters clearly want him to have a 2nd term and it's also clear that the neocon wing of the party, which Haley is part of, will not be able to win with him still in control of the party. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I will say that I think it was Haley's neocon tendencies that killed her in South Carolina. AP exit polls said that 6 of 10 Republicans want to cut off funding for Ukraine, and nobody has been a bigger Ukraine backer than Haley has been. Given that she lost the race by about the same percentage I think that's very relevant. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">2024 appears very likely to be a rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Unlike a lot of people, I am expecting Biden to be the candidate in November. He arrogantly believes that he is the best shot the Democrats have at beating Trump and he is also running to keep his son out of prison. And it's pretty clear that Trump has the nomination locked up. I am guessing most of the legal nonsense he is locked up in will simply go away after Super Tuesday, unless Democrats really double down and try to keep him off the ballot or otherwise deal with him. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Who will win in 2024? In a sane world it should be a landslide for Trump, Biden has been a terrible president and the polls mostly indicate Trump's in a decent lead. But I fear nothing has been done to secure elections after the 2020 and 2022 debacles. I think Democrats will try and cheat in 2024 as well, but election fraud can only take you so far and I am hoping that the race isn't so close as it was in 2024. </div><div style="text-align: center;"> </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-28530781945029685792024-02-23T21:24:00.001-06:002024-02-23T21:24:40.063-06:00Trump says he supports in vitro fertilization (IVF) after Alabama's Supreme Court ruled embryos are people. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/5be3981/2147483647/strip/true/crop/4304x2869+0+0/resize/1440x960!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F2b%2Fd7%2F698d4cc1d103d91cf02b9ad7e866%2F6bd73da69f5d43758fe0dfbe7a7c659d" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/5be3981/2147483647/strip/true/crop/4304x2869+0+0/resize/1440x960!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F2b%2Fd7%2F698d4cc1d103d91cf02b9ad7e866%2F6bd73da69f5d43758fe0dfbe7a7c659d" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Donald Trump in South Carolina. AP. </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><br /><a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-ivf-abortion-alabama-republicans-8215336740a5963b57bbd970b47bb3a7">Donald Trump says he supports in vitro fertilization after a controversial ruling from Alabama's Supreme Court that put the practice into doubt.</a> AP. Trump made the comments after the court ruled that fertilized embryos are people, which could be interpreted as making IFV illegal. Several clinics in the state have stopped the practice as a result. Trump said that Republicans support people having families and wants to make it easier, not more difficult, to have children. The issue deepens the debate about abortion, which could be a loser for Republicans in 2024. Though many people oppose at-will abortion, most agree there should be exceptions and few believe IFV should be banned. Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr. said that both he and his father had known people that had conceived children via the treatment. <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Uxr_5wf18ts" width="320" youtube-src-id="Uxr_5wf18ts"></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This was a good move by the Trump campaign and Republicans in general. Very few people support a ban on IVF, at least that is my reckoning. It's actually very hard to find an opinion poll that asked the question, though that could just be the absolute uselessness of modern search engines (I tried to get raw data but all I found on both Google and Bing were links to news articles about the Alabama SCOTUS ruling, which is beyond useless). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">My guess is that people that actually support banning IVF are in the single digits in terms of percentage. The procedure is not uncommon and many people know folks that have had their children this way. I can't say even among pro-life people have I ever met someone who wants the procedure banned. It strikes me as a hugely fringe position, one that almost nobody supports. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">But I will say that I am uncomfortable with the procedure for non-abortion and non-religious reasons. First of all I worry that it could cause genetic problems down the line if people with genes that would otherwise render them infertile are allowed to reproduce this way and it could lead to even more infertile people. This objection does not seem to be discussed at all so I don't know how big of a concern it actually is. I wouldn't support a ban just based on this question, but I would like it answered if possible. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I also think it encourages people to wait too long to have children. Most of the people that are using IVF are not genetically infertile, they just waited too long to have kids. People should be having children in their 20's and 30's, not their 40's and 50's, and IVF encourages that since it remains an option. Again, that's not to say that I would support a ban on it for a reason, but I do think there are some arguments against IVF that aren't based on objections to abortion or based on religion. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Regardless, I do think that most people are wishing for a compromise on the issue of when life actually begins. It's a philosophical question but I don't think people are comfortable with either extreme. Though very few people support post-birth abortion, they also don't really support the idea that an embryo is a person either. As someone who views the entire argument as academic, I don't have strong opinions either way, but it is frustrating for everyone in the middle that the only options that people are allowed to consider are the extremes. I think all but the most pro-life and pro-choice people would support a compromise where abortion remains legal in the 1st trimester but after that is illegal except for the big three exceptions, rape, incest, and to protect the mother's life. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Politically, this issue is absolutely a loser for Republicans. Banning IVF is not something most Republicans support, let alone independent voters. If Republicans had gone all-in on the Alabama Supreme Court ruling it would have absolutely hurt them in 2024. But if they are able to fix this via the Alabama legislature, and I think they will be able to, then the issue should be moot. The fact that Trump made this statement is proof how badly this idea polls and rest of the Republican Party will likely fall in line behind him, as Nikki Haley (ugh) already has.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As for Trump, his own opinions on this issue seem to be in the middle. He did, of course, support the justices that overturned Roe v Wade, but he also seems to get that the extreme pro-life position is not a political winner. He has in the past been critical of states that banned abortions completely without the big three exceptions and now he has come out in favor of IVF. There might be a few pro-life people that will be upset with that but I would say that would be foolish given that Trump gave pro-life people their biggest victory in history. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Finally, I do think we should be encouraging people to have children. Though unlimited growth isn't possible we are in a major decline of fertility and if it wasn't for immigration, legal or otherwise, the United States would be losing population by 2030 because young people simply aren't having kids anymore. This is a very bad thing as losing population when you have a massive welfare burden and a huge elderly population of Baby Boomers no longer in the workforce is the recipe for economic collapse. </div><br /><div><br /></div>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-43696398363765458422024-02-22T21:39:00.001-06:002024-02-22T21:39:56.964-06:00US estimates that Ukraine will be out of ammo by the end of March. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/5308739d-f0e4-40ac-81f1-29677b01ac90/ukrainian-soldiers-gty-1-thg-240222_1708610642646_hpMain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/5308739d-f0e4-40ac-81f1-29677b01ac90/ukrainian-soldiers-gty-1-thg-240222_1708610642646_hpMain.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Ukrainian</span></span><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> artillery. ABC News/AFP/Getty.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-estimates-ukraine-military-shortages-grow-catastrophic-late/story?id=107169502">The United States has estimated that Ukraine will be out of ammo by the end of March. </a>ABC News. The US officials quoted said that the Russians won the battle of Avdiivka due to a lack of weaponry. The United States has sent $44 billion in military aid but further aid is hung up in Congress. Anti-air weaponry is a major problem as it has allowed Russia to use their airpower against Ukrainian front lines, including devastating strikes with guided bombs. Ukraine is also largely out of the weapons they had been using against Russia, including rockets for the HIMARS launchers. It is unlikely that new funding for Ukraine will be secured in Congress due to disagreements with the war in general and conflict over funding for closing the US border. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><br /></u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">First of all, I have to point out how ludicrously biased the ABC News report was against Russia. They unironically quoted Ukrainian estimates of Russian combat casualties and that's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way that Russia has lost 2200 tanks and 315,000 casualties. Those numbers are absurd, even if Russia has faced heavy casualties in the war. And Russia has obviously had some major victories since last May, they were able to completely blunt the Ukrainian offensive to the point where they barely breeched the first line of defense. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But even with the bias, the article does speak to something true. Ukraine is basically out of ammo and that means that they are in very deep trouble. They are right that Ukraine is not going to be able to do much if Russia achieves air dominance. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I would argue that Russia already has. Ukraine's air force is a joke now and they are essentially out of air defenses. Russia is now able to use their KAB-500SE glide bombs to utterly destroy enemy fortifications. And that is a pattern that is going to continue as I am guessing most of Ukraine's remaining air defenses are going to be arrayed around Kiev. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I don't think Ukraine is going to get any help either. I have said for awhile that both the Republicans and Democrats know that the gig is up in Ukraine. Both sides will blame each other for the failure to make a deal, Republicans will say it was because Democrats didn't want the border closed and Democrats will say they didn't care if Ukraine lost and both sides kind of have a point. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I could be wrong and some kind of grand bargain will be made, but I think it's a moot point. The real issue is that even a major funding bill getting passed it's too late. The bill will be to produce more weapons, not send Ukraine stuff that has already been made. It would take years to produce the weapons Ukraine would need to fight off Russia. New funding will do almost nothing. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And, of course, the ABC News article ignored the elephant in the room. All the weapons in the world are meaningless if you don't have the soldiers to use them. Ukraine does not. They have been so desperate for people they have been sending women, the disabled and the wounded to the front lines. And most soldiers are far too old to actually be soldiers now. Ukraine doesn't have any young people to begin with but Ukraine isn't even drafting them, they are just picking men in their 30's, 40's and even 50's. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There is a major mobilization coming where they are supposedly going to draft 500,000 people. That will be pretty useless too since those people will not get the training they need to actually fight. From what I understand Ukrainian soldiers only get a few weeks of training and then are thrust onto the front lines. They obviously don't last long there as they don't have the skills they need to survive. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Either way, it seems clear that the media can no longer deny what has been obvious from the start. Ukraine has no chance to win this war and we are only throwing good money after bad. Indeed, I think the whole issue might be moot as it seems like Russia is advancing all over the front lines. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-13261970293450108482024-02-21T20:55:00.000-06:002024-02-21T20:55:28.103-06:00News media admits that Russia has regained the initiative in the Ukraine War. <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/yNkARTLXr0P5tx9GFNLRIw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MTtjZj13ZWJw/https://media.zenfs.com/en/reuters.com/6f413ac3306e7f55588930752c8ad415" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="534" data-original-width="800" height="214" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/yNkARTLXr0P5tx9GFNLRIw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MTtjZj13ZWJw/https://media.zenfs.com/en/reuters.com/6f413ac3306e7f55588930752c8ad415" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Ukraine drone operators practicing with their drones. Reuters.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-outnumbered-outgunned-ground-down-070807747.html">Ukraine is outnumbered and outgunned by Russia and is being ground down.</a> Reuters. Russia had a major victory in taking the long contested city of Avdiivka, a battle where the Russians outnumbered the Ukrainians 7 to 1. Ukrainians soldiers complain about a lack of weapons and troops, and how much pressure Russia is putting on the front lines. Ukraine does have a good supply of drones, but even those are outnumbered by the drones on the Russian side. But now both sides are using anti-drone electronic warfare as well. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There were quite a few of these kinds of articles today all with similar themes. Ukrainian soldiers complaining of a lack of supplies. An admission that there are attacks all over the front lines. And finally recognizing the scale of Russia's victory in Avdiivka. It's obviously a trend and it shows that Russia is on the assault. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I'm on record saying that Russia was always going to win the war in Ukraine. It was obvious given the scale of Russia's military, manpower and production compared to Ukraine's that they had every advantage. They were always going to win short of NATO joining the war directly and even then it wouldn't be a sure thing. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That isn't to say that Russia hasn't faced setbacks. Ukraine is doing pretty well on the naval side of the battle and Russia had several major setbacks where they lost a lot of the territory they took early in the war. Much of that is because Russia tried to do the war on the cheap during the early days of the war and did not commit much of their forces. That has obviously changed and it's clear that Russia is all in on the war. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Russia's mistakes were a lot more affordable to them then it was for Ukraine. Unlike Ukraine, Russia was smart to trade territory for the lives of their soldiers. Ukraine did the opposite, fighting to almost the last man in Soledar, Bakhmut and Avdiivka. And they launched an extremely ill advised summer offensive that not only failed in its goals, it lost a huge amount of equipment and lives. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The situation is a lot more dire than the media is admitting though. Ukraine has largely run out of troops and they don't really have much in the way of reserves. Russia is attacking on basically all fronts. They are attacking in five major areas, Avdiivka, Marinka, Robotyne, Kremmina, and Bakhmut. Ukraine does not have the reserves to cover all of those fronts. And Russia is strong enough that if Ukraine does move forces to plug these holes, they will face new attacks on new fronts. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's too the point where I would not be surprised if we see a major collapse of the Ukrainian Army. Not a full collapse, perhaps, but I would not be surprised if the territorial stalemate the war has been stuck in changes. If the front line units break or surrender we could see Russia regain much of the territory they lost. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-73400543580792032902024-02-20T21:17:00.000-06:002024-02-20T21:17:07.016-06:00Why is Nikki Haley still in the race? <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Nikki_Haley_by_Gage_Skidmore_5.jpg/800px-Nikki_Haley_by_Gage_Skidmore_5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="607" height="320" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Nikki_Haley_by_Gage_Skidmore_5.jpg/800px-Nikki_Haley_by_Gage_Skidmore_5.jpg" width="243" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Nikki Haley. Gage Skidmore. </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/20/haley-trump-2024-message-00142233">Nikki Haley vows to continue her 2024 Presidential race despite a looming race in her home state of South Carolina that polling says she will lose by 30 points.</a> Politico. Haley says she will continue the race until the "American people close the door". GOP leadership is calling for Haley to drop out after blowout losses in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, with an embarrassing loss expected in South Carolina on Saturday. Haley has been more critical of Trump lately despite being "proud" of the work she did during his administration. Haley has continued to campaign in states voting on Super Tuesday and even has an event planned in Washington State, which is after Super Tuesday. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's a slow news day so I thought I would write about the most baffling story in politics today, which is Nikki Haley's presidential campaign. In a sane world Haley would know that her political ambitions are done. She isn't going to win her race against Donald Trump even if Donald Trump drops dead. I know I wouldn't vote for her and if she is the 2024 candidate I would probably vote third party.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Why? Because she's a relic of a party that is long dead. She's a neocon, a warmonger and an example of everything that went wrong with the Republican Party. I have zero interest in voting for someone that has an identical foreign policy as Joe Biden. Gun to my head, I'd vote for her over Biden, but only because Biden is senile, corrupt and probably a sex offender. But that's it. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So why is Haley still running? I guess it's possible she's just in denial and thinks the polling is off by double digit points. That would make zero sense but perhaps Haley is just really dumb. That's possible, I never found her to be that intelligent. People certainly can believe some strange things, and perhaps Haley genuinely believes she will beat Donald Trump in a fair race. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's possible that this is just a graft. There are a lot of fools that are giving Nikki Haley money to run and the RINO wing of the Republican Party along with Democrats that support Haley, have deep pockets. She could also be auditioning for CNN or other anti-Trump outlets for a 2nd Trump term. There is always a demand on those programs for a supposed Republican that only attacks people on her side. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I do think we can rule out the idea that Nikki Haley was running for Trump's VP slot. She burned her bridges with Trump when she stayed in the race past New Hampshire. Trump and DeSantis have not exactly made up after he dropped out, but I think there is absolutely zero chance of her getting the nod now. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The most likely reason is that Haley thinks that Trump won't be around as a candidate for some reason. To be fair, Trump is fairly old and there is always a chance he could get sick or die from natural causes. Trump is also in legal jeopardy but if Haley thinks that is a path for her she's nuts. Every time the kangaroo courts go after Trump his popularity increases. And I think it's very unlikely that Trump will go on trial, let alone be convicted, before November. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What really worries me is the possibility that Haley <i>knows </i>something will happen to Trump. I hesitate to even mention the possibility, but it wouldn't be the first time a popular presidential candidate didn't make it to the election... If something does happen to Trump I would not vote for Haley because I wouldn't be convinced that she wasn't part of the reason it happened. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Regardless, this is almost certainly the end of Nikki Haley's career as an elected official. Three quarters of the party think she is a traitor and they aren't going to forgive her in not backing Trump when the entire political system is trying to destroy him. Loyalty is an important thing in political parties and it's a reason why the Democrats are more effective at getting their policies passed for the most part. They don't constantly defect to the other side and the Republicans are just sick of Republicans like that. </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-40943726243623763762024-02-19T21:19:00.001-06:002024-02-19T21:19:07.171-06:00Houthi war update: US forces attacked by underwater drone, British flagged cargo ship abandoned after missile strike. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/b757275b-8592-4529-b97d-7e3c0311f0d5/Houthi-militants-1-gty-jm-240219_1708363881448_hpMain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/b757275b-8592-4529-b97d-7e3c0311f0d5/Houthi-militants-1-gty-jm-240219_1708363881448_hpMain.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">File photo of Houthis in Yemen. ABC News/Anadolu/Getty.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/International/unmanned-houthi-submarines-pose-new-threat-us-warships/story?id=107343473">US forces have come under attack by sea borne drones both above and below the water.</a> ABC News. The Houthis used an unmanned underwater vessel (UAV) along with a more traditional drone boat along with a missile strike. The drones and missile was intercepted but it does show how advanced the Houthi rebels are getting. Iran is suspected to have provided the drones to the Houthis. The drones are a legitimate threat as they can overwhelm defenses of a ship if they are used in a swarm. The Houthis are probably changing tactics as their aerial drones and missiles have not been successful in destroying a US ship.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68337027">Also near Yemen a Belize flagged and British registered cargo ship was abandoned after it was hit by a Houthi missile.</a> BBC. The Rubymar was hit by two missiles and began taking on water. The crew was evacuated but the ship has been abandoned due to damage and the fact that it was carrying dangerous fertilizer as cargo. The attack is the most successful one conducted by the Houthis since the war began. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Yemen isn't getting the headlines it once did, largely because the Ukraine war has again made headlines, but the war there is actually heating up. There have been many strikes from the Houthis and the response has been air strikes from the United States. So far those strikes appear to not have accomplished their goals as the Houthis are launching even more attacks. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The use of an underwater drone is a major escalation. Had the drone not been destroyed it could have damaged or destroyed whatever US ship was being targeted (none of the articles I have read mentioned which Navy ship was attacked, perhaps for intelligence reasons). It shows just how advanced the Houthis are now, these weapons are fairly advanced. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And both underwater and surface drone vessels are a real threat. As critical as I have been of the Ukraine armed forces, their use of drones have largely shut down Russia's Naval operations in the Black Sea. They have damaged and destroyed several vessels, so the threat in the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea is absolutely real. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I do think it's just a matter of time before an US Navy ship is damaged or destroyed by the Houthis. If the Houthis concentrate their drones they could potentially overwhelm the defenses of a ship. Indeed, that might be why they didn't mention the ship, it's possible it exhausted its defenses and could be vulnerable to follow up attacks. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As for the ship attacked, it seems pretty likely that it will be sunk. Some outlets are claiming it sank already but it's unclear if that actually happened. But given the ship was taking on water when it was abandoned there is a very good chance it will be lost. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Regardless, this was a very successful attack. The ship was hit by missiles and took a lot of damage. Other ships have been hit but this is the first one that will likely be lost. It's a major escalation in the war and will make it a lot more likely that further shipping will avoid the Red Sea. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I also don't think that any response will be successful. Previous airstrikes appear to have done little to nothing in preventing these attacks. Indeed, it seems like things are actually escalating. I also don't think anything could prevent these attacks short of putting boots on the ground or intercepting all of the weapons shipments that Iran is sending Yemen. Either of those would be a major escalation and could risk a wider regional war. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I have to say it does seem like Yemen is winning this war. They are shutting down travel through the Red Sea and could be on the verge of actually damaging or destroying a US ship. And they are damaging both the economies of Israel and Egypt which is putting political pressure on both countries to abandon the war in Gaza. They are also defying the West in fairly convincing fashion as well. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">And the US has no good options. Shutting down the war in Gaza is a political impossibility even if that was what the Biden administration wants. And we can't really stop these attacks, short of invading Yemen or a full blockade. And doing what we are doing now? It's not working... </div><p></p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4107705648071037472.post-22948558073524917402024-02-18T21:03:00.002-06:002024-02-18T21:03:40.436-06:00Truckers refusing loads in New York City after kangaroo court ruling against Donald Trump. <p style="text-align: center;"> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/02/720/405/ac1a38e9-2-UP-split-thumb.jpg?ve=1&tl=1" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="405" data-original-width="720" height="180" src="https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/02/720/405/ac1a38e9-2-UP-split-thumb.jpg?ve=1&tl=1" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Truckers for Trump "Chicago Ray" next to Donald Trump. Fox News/X@Chicago1Ray</span><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/truckers-trump-will-boycott-driving-new-york-city-after-355m-fraud-ruling">Some truckers are saying that they will no longer haul loads to New York City after Trump was fined an absurd $350 million last week. </a>Fox News. Trump was barred from operating his business for three years and fined $350 million for supposed fraud in a show trial. In response some truckers are saying they will boycott the city. Truckers said that the ruling against Trump is essentially election interference. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>My Comment:</u></span></p><p style="text-align: left;">I haven't mentioned the fraud trial against Donald Trump since not only was it a kangaroo court where it would have been impossible for Donald Trump to win. The ruling was insane and made a mockery of justice. Only in New York City can a man be found liable for fraud with now actual victim. </p><p style="text-align: left;">I also think that the city of New York should be punished for this travesty. They voted for this nonsense and they should suffer the consequences. I would not be upset at all if their economy crashed because of this. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But will these truckers actually accomplish much? It really depends. There are millions of truckers in this country and if they all refused to haul loads to New York City it would cripple the city. Logistics makes the world go around and truckers actually have a lot of power. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Just look at what happened in Canada when the protest movement there cut off the capitol and managed to blockade highways. That was the end of the modern Coronavirus restriction movement, and despite the Orwellian reaction by the Canadian government the Canadian Trucker's convoy was a success. </p><p style="text-align: left;">But will this work in this case? Probably not. If these tuckers were blockading New York City they might accomplish something. As it stands right now all they are doing is refusing loads and there is no actual punishment for New York City. In theory if enough truckers do that then New York will face shortages and higher prices but will enough truckers go along with it? </p><p style="text-align: left;"> My guess is no. There are a lot of conservative truckers out there, but most of them are middle aged or older. I work with truckers every day and I think there are a lot of old white guys out there that would go with this. Maybe even some of the old school black drivers. But I also know that there are a lot of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants working in trucking today. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Indeed, there are lot of drivers out there that completely refuse to drive to California due to various draconian restrictions that California has imposed on trucking. But my company sends loads to California every day, using companies that hire Indian and Hispanic immigrants. These folks don't care about Trump, many of them barely speak English, and they aren't going to have a problem delivering to New York City. </p><p style="text-align: left;">So will this have any impact at all? It's possible. Like I said, there are still a lot of old school drivers that are angry about this ruling. But there are a ton of immigrants and even leftist drivers that can pick up the slack. And they might not always have a real choice about it. Though truckers can refuse loads even if they aren't owner operators, they could possibly be fired for it. </p>Jeff Hhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11267332988921214710noreply@blogger.com0