A quick rant about car repairs.

I own a 2010 Mercury Milan. It has been a reliable and decent car the whole time I have owned it. Other than a recall notice for a VERY annoying engine issue and some brake work, I haven't had any problems at all. It's fairly decent but I have to say that it is also incredibly annoying to work on. I had to replace the passenger side headlight today and it was an ordeal!

For some reason the headlight is extremely hard to replace. Instead of coming in from the top like any normal car, there is so much crap in the way you have to come in through the wheel well. And the splash cover is attached by crappy screws that are plastic and fall apart easily unless you have a propitiatory tool. I managed with a screwdriver but I broke one of them. And I am pretty sure my hand touched the bulb which means the lifetime of the light will be shorter meaning I will have to do this all again soon anyways! It took my 25 minutes and it started snowing before I was done!

And it's not like the driver side is that much better. I was able to simply reach in and replace it the last time I had too but that's only because I have normal sized hands and arms. A bigger person would have to do what I did the first time, which is take apart the air filter. Normally that wouldn't be a bad deal since taking apart the air filter is usually the other thing that anyone can do. Not so with my Milan! Taking it apart was easy but the thing is so poorly designed I had to call my Dad for help. I couldn't do it alone, I needed him there to help steady the thing while I moved it into position. It was a two man job!

This is, quite frankly, extremely annoying. Back in the day even the most incompetent person could easily replace a headlight. It's one of the few things that anyone should be able to do but it seems like Ford made this as difficult as it could possibly be. Had they just made the car a couple inches longer, or even rearranged the engine and other parts under the hood it would have been way simpler.

Why do car companies do this? Very simple. They don't want you to spend $10 to $20 bucks and five minutes with a headlight from Wal-Mart. They want you to come in to their service department at a dealership and pay some mechanic $50 an hour to do something that is way too annoying to do yourself. It's a fairly cynical cash grab and though I am loath to say "there should be a law" I think this should be an exception.

Anyways, I know this is pretty far afield from what I usually write about, but hey, it's my blog and I wanted to rant! If nothing else it felt good to do so and perhaps there are other people out there who have had to deal with the same thing!

Amtrak train carrying GOP lawmakers collides with a truck, killing one.

The aftermath of the accident. NBC/AP.

An Amtrak train carrying dozens of GOP lawmakers crashed into a truck on the tracks, killing one person and wounding another. NBC News. The driver of the truck was killed and his passenger was critically injured. Five others went to the hospital. The members of the house and senate were on the way to a retreat in West Virginia, but none of them or their staff were hurt. Several lawmakers assisted first responders with the incident including Senator Jeff Flake and doctor representatives Bill Cassidy and Brad Wenstrup. Representative Rodger Marshall preformed CPR for the conductor of the train but was unable to help the driver of the truck.  

My Comment:

Very scary situation today. Considering this train carried literally hundreds of Republican lawmakers, this could have been a disaster of epic proportions. Thankfully no lawmakers were hurt, despite the tragic death and injuries of a few involved. I don't want to downplay that but after what we have gone through with our lawmakers lately, it's a relief that none of them were hurt.

After all, it wasn't that long ago that the Alexandria terrorist attack happened that critically wounded Rep. Steve Scalise and could have potentially killed many representatives and senators. Also, Rand Paul was critically injured in a dispute with his neighbor that may have been based on politics. I think there is a totally justified fear of losing elected officials and this incident brought them back to the forefront.

There is no evidence that this was anything other than a tragic accident. I think that any intent here is extremely unlikely, but that won't stop conspiracy theorists. I have to admit though that if you were trying to destabilize or damage the United States derailing a train full of lawmakers would be a good way to do it. Still, it seems extremely unlikely that this was an attack.

I do think that this shows why having so many lawmakers in one spot is probably a bad idea. It's probably ok with high security events like the State of the Union but a train is pretty vulnerable. It wouldn't have been too difficult to actually stage an attack on this train. Plus it would have been very easy for this kind of accident to have had way more casualties. Perhaps it would be wise to either split up the method of travel, with some flying and others going on a train, or stagger the train rides.

I do have to say that the members of congress were fairly heroic in this incident. It looks like a lot of them did their best to help out. This probably saved the life of the conductor who was given CPR by Rodger Marshall. That was a fairly heroic action and Marshall deserves credit, along with doctors Cassidy and Wenstrup. Even Jeff Flake, who I generally dislike, helped out and even though I don't like the guy I have to admit his actions here, and during the Steve Scalise shooting, were heroic.

State of the Union

Just an FYI, I plan on live tweeting the State of the Union address. It should be a hugely important speech and I will post my reactions to it on my twitter account, which can be found here. Given how late the speech is going to be, I doubt I will have time to write up a reaction, so feel free to follow along on twitter.

House Intelligence committee votes to release FISA abuse memo.

Andrew McCabe resigned early in advance of the FISA Memo's release. FBI.

The House Intelligence Committee has voted to release a memo about FISA court abuses and has been delivered to Donald Trump. The Hill. The allegations in that memo have been called "worse than Watergate" and will allegedly show bias and illegal actions by the FBI and Justice Department targeting Donald Trump as a candidate and President Elect. It will also likely show that the Steele Dossier was used to spy on Trump and other members of his campaign and family. The vote to release the memo was on party lines and a counter-memo, written by Adam Schiff (D-California), will not be released. Democrats claim that the memo will undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. 

In advance of the memo being released, a major player in the drama, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has resigned early. Reuters. McCabe was on his way out already but the action came as a surprise. It is unclear if he was asked to step down or if he did it of his own volition. It is also unclear why McCabe resigned but it is known that he is one of the targets of Justice Department Inspector General report and may be a player in the FISA Memo scandal as well. 

My Comment:

Looks like the rats are fleeing a sinking ship. My guess is that McCabe saw the writing on the wall and decided to get out as soon as he could. The FISA memo would likely have implicated him in wrongdoing and even if it didn't, the OIG report certainly would have. McCabe probably wants to get out of the public eye and retain counsel. McCabe's wife has some pretty serious ties to Hillary Clinton as well so he's the last person that should have been involved with any of this. 

As for the FISA memo, it could be the start of the biggest political scandal in US history. The idea that the FBI actively helped a presidential campaign while trying to undermine and stop a second one is unprecedented in terms of corruption. Remember, Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace just because he had his men break into DNC headquarters. In this case the Clinton campaign had the FBI do it instead.  

If that's what the FISA memo really is, it will be the end of the careers for dozens of people. Certainly, Hillary Clinton herself will be disgraced and will never run or hold for public office again. And many of the FBI players will likely go to jail. James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Stzork and Lisa Page will likely all end up in prison before this is over and it's possible that even Hillary Clinton herself will go down as well. And that's just from the FISA scandal. Other investigations are brewing under the surface. 

The memo will also likely destroy Robert Mueller's Russia Probe. Though Mueller himself seems clean, many of his staff were involved in the FISA investigation and the Hillary Clinton investigation. They will be shown as biased and using Clinton oppo research to approve spying on a presidential candidate. 

Even worse, the man who ordered the Mueller probe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein may be implicated as well. Remember, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself on the Russia matter.  The New York Times certainly thinks so, but they have been wrong so often on political topics I won't bother linking to them. Still, if it can be shown that the man who ordered the special consul was involved in this scandal the investigation will burn with him. 

There is a legal doctrine called "fruit of the poisonous tree" that essentially states that evidence collected illegally must be excluded at trial. That means if Rosenstein, McCabe Stzork or Page acted illegally that even if there was illegal conduct by anyone on Trump's team their would never be a trial for it. Even though there is another doctrine called "inevitable discovery" where illegally collected material is allowed at trail if the evidence would have been found anyways, it probably wouldn't apply to anyone other than Paul Manafort, who is accused of pretty obvious financial crimes. 

Once the memo is released a whole lot of people are going to have to eat some crow. If the memo makes it clear that the Russian collusion scandal was at best a politically motivated witch hunt, and at worse, a massive betrayal of justice, than it will be a huge embarrassment, not only to the Democratic Party but also to the mass media who have pushed the Russia scandal for years now. If this memo shows that all of that was false than the entire mainstream media will be revealed as a joke. 

It is unclear when this memo will be released. Trump has five days to decide and as of this post it hasn't been released. My guess is that it will be a few days. I have no doubt that Trump will release the memo but I also think that he doesn't want the news to overshadow his State of the Union Address, which will happen tomorrow. I am guessing the release will be on Wednesday, which will give enough time for people to digest the speech. I could be wrong though and the memo will be released right after I finish this post... 

Slow news weekend...

For the second day straight I haven't found anything to write about. The news has been very dead. Internationally nothing much seems to be going on, other than the continued instability in Syria and the new war between the Kurds and Turks. But I don't really have much to say about that other than what I have written already. How many times can I write that the Turks are in the wrong even if the Kurds are too far left politically for my liking?

Domestically it has been quiet as well. There hasn't been any movement on the various scandals and controversies in Washington and I don't feel like writing up any of the various twitter feuds. There just isn't much to write about there.

I haven't even seen any good movies or tv shows lately so I can't even write a review. Nothing new has really interested me lately and I haven't gotten caught up on anything old. I don't write movie/tv reviews very often but when I do it's usually because I can't think of anything else to write about.

The good news is that I should have stuff to write about this weekend. At the very least there will be the President's State of the Union speech. I plan to live tweet the event and I will likely write up a summary as well. At the very least I expect to have something to write about soon.

Was Bernie Sanders blackmailed in the 2016 election?

Senator Bernie Sanders official Senate picture. 

This is not going to be a traditional post. When I originally had the idea for this, I thought it would be a good subject for a "tweetstorm" and not a actual blog post as it is mostly speculation and since it is old news. But I was left with the impression yesterday that Twitter may be throttling posts about Sanders as though I had 16,000 impressions yesterday on Twitter, only a few were for my tweets about Sanders. So a blog post it is. 

I was struck last year when Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton and campaigned with her. Clinton famously coordinated with the media and the DNC to ensure that she won the primaries which violates the rules of the party. Essentially the game was rigged against Sanders from the start. My question was what on earth would motivate someone to back up a person that cheated against you? 

The common theory is that Sanders did so for political reasons. He knew that he would have a difficult time in the senate if he didn't back Clinton because though he isn't a Democrat he still caucuses with them and works with them frequently. He also didn't like Donald Trump and wanted him to lose. For a long time I accepted those answers and, I must note, there isn't anything that disproves these interpretations. Everything that will follow is speculation.

As you may be aware of, Sanders' wife Jane is in some legal trouble. She was the president of Burlington College between 2004 and 2011. During that period she is accused of bank fraud for lying about how big the college's endowment was so they could get a lone to purchase land from the Catholic Archdioceses. That deal fell apart and she resigned, the college fell apart and she is now under FBI investigation. 

It is unclear when that investigation began. The news of the story broke long after the election was finished. What does seem clear is that people knew about the story in 2016 or even 2015. The college went bankrupt then and given how important Sanders was I am guessing oppo researchers knew that she could be charged with bank fraud. Supposedly the source of the complaint was the Vermont RNC, so if the Republicans knew about it surly the Democrats did as well.

So here is my theory. And I want to stress that this is just a theory and I can't prove any of it. But here it goes. What if Bernie Sanders was blackmailed? Everyone knew about the Burlington College story and that there was likely to be a bank fraud investigation. Everyone also knew that if Bernie Sanders had chosen to make a huge fuss of out of the primary rigging or ran as an independent it would have probably cost Hillary Clinton the election. 

What if there was a quid pro quo? The DNC or someone in the Clinton Campaign says "tough business with your wife. Be a shame if the FBI comes after her. But I bet if Clinton wins they could be convinced to back down". Probably not in so many words but Sanders gets the message anyways. He backs down and then does everything in his power to get Clinton to win because he knows if he doesn't his wife is probably going to prison and his political image will be forever tarnished. 

Of course Clinton lost and the FBI investigation continued with Jane Sanders. Clinton wasn't in power so she couldn't order the FBI to back down. Sanders is screwed now and feels betrayed since he lost a lot of credibility and got nothing for it. Perhaps that is what is inspiring him to consider a run in 2020? He may very well want revenge for this scheme. 

Is it true though? We have no way of knowing. And it really is more likely that explanation above, that he wanted Trump to lose and didn't want to anger the Democrats, is correct. Still, it was a thought I had and I wanted it written down somewhere. For what it's worth though there was a email from Robby Mook to John Podesta that got leaked to Wikileaks that said there was some kind of arrangement between Clinton and Sanders where they spoke of "leverage", but that's circumstantial evidence at best. Without any other evidence this will likely just remain speculation on my part. 

Bernie Sanders considering presidential run in 2020.

Senator Bernie Sanders. Politico/Getty. 

Bernie Sanders has gathered a team to discuss running for president in 2020. Politico. His advisers are reportedly telling him that if he runs he would be one of the front runners for 2020. Sanders hasn't made a descion either way but considers beating Donald Trump to be a priority. The field in 2020 is likely to be much more open than the 2016 race where only Sanders and Hillary Clinton were serious candidates, with Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chaffe and Jim Webb being afterthoughts. Sanders is 76 and would be 78 when running in 2020. 

My Comment:

Here we go again. I will say this for Bernie Sanders. I don't like the man or his beliefs but at least he was and is better than Hillary Clinton. That's damning by faint praise, I would have voted for almost anyone over her, but it is something. On the other hand Sanders is one of the few people that was beaten by Hillary Clinton, so what does that say? 

Of course Sanders lost what was a race rigged against him. Hillary Clinton, the DNC and the media all cooperated against him to ensure that Clinton was the candidate, not him. Unfortunately, Sanders just gave up and did not do the right thing when it came to Clinton. Instead of fighting him and the DNC that rigged the race against him, he laid down and died and endorsed Clinton for the Presidency. That act of cowardice cost him a few supporters, many of which went for Trump or voted 3rd party. 

That being said, at least Sanders stands for something. While the Democratic Party has no message other than "anyone we disagree with is Russian and/or racist" Sanders has a populist economic message. Instead of social justice, Sanders stands for economic justice. If he can keep on message and focus on the real and perceived economic injustices instead of just being anti-Trump and avoiding the pitfalls of the social justice warriors, he could be a threat. It's a sad state of affairs where Sanders' far left economic populism could bring the party to the center. 

Sanders also has a lot less baggage than Hillary Clinton had, but it's not true to say that he is scandal free. The man himself is relatively clean, but his wife, Jane Sanders, is under an FBI investigation for fraud. That case is likely to end in a conviction and would certainly make Sanders look bad. Compared to the massive scandals that rocked the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC, and those still yet to be fully revealed, it looks tame in comparison, but he's not a clean candidate. 

Sanders' biggest advantage is the weak field in 2020. Other than Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton herself, there aren't any big names running, and even those three are anything but a sure thing. Most of the other people considering it are no-names that have little chance of winning. And the big three, Biden, Warren and Clinton might not decide to run, with their various scandals likely bogging them down. 

And unlike the last time, I am guessing that the field will  not be as united. Other than Sanders, there were no serious competitors against Clinton so the entire Democratic coalition outside of the economic populists united under her. With Clinton either not running or so tainted that even people that like her understand she doesn't have a chance to win, it's very likely that the primaries will separate into different factions. Other than Elizabeth Warren, Sanders isn't likely to lose too many votes from the economic justice faction, but the various racial, gender and ethnic factions will likely split. That gives Sanders a huge advantage. 

That being said, Sanders would have a major disadvantage with those groups during the general election. The feminists will be furious that another old white male is running, the various ethnic groups won't turn out for Sanders, especially since Trump is making inroads with Blacks and Hispanics, and the Clinton neo-liberals will be pissed that an outsider is taking over the party. None of that bodes well for Sanders. 

And that's ignoring Trump's advantages. If you listen to the news media you wouldn't know those exist but the fact of the matter is that Trump is tough to beat in 2020. Historically incumbent presidents almost always win. The only one that has lost in recent history was George Bush Sr., who faced a credible third party challenger and broke a major campaign promise. Neither of those things are true for Trump. Trump's supporters are generally happy with him and think he is keeping most of his promises. 

Trump also should not be underestimated. He has more support than the opinion polls suggest, which should be obvious to anyone that paid even the least bit of attention in 2016. And even though many people don't like the man himself, his policies are fairly popular. People vote on policy, not character. He also has the effects of the tax law that kicks in next month and will give most people in America a raise and the utterly foolish government shutdown that Sanders supported. 

Trump is also uniquely suited to tackle Bernie Sanders. Trump's in your face debate style is a good counter to the weak backbone of Sanders. Sanders couldn't even handle Clinton, do you really think he will be able to out debate Trump? And Sanders' message of economic populism isn't that different than Trumps. In order to differentiate himself he may have to go in the direction of social justice, which did not help Hillary Clinton win. 

Still, all of this is in the future, and the future for the Democrats is very unclear. With so many scandals bubbling under the surface for the party, there is no guarantee that the party will even exist in 2020. Those scandals, such as the FISA memo, the Clinton e-mail scandal and various other misdeeds by the Obama administration are coming out and when they do it will completely change the political landscape. That new landscape may help Sanders in the end as the establishment lays in ruins, but with things so up in the air it's hard to say how things will play out...   

Mexico's Drug Cartels are now threatening Mexico's oil industry

Soldiers stand guard after a fuel theft ring was broken up. Reuters. 

Mexico's Drug Cartels are now threatening Mexico's oil industry, stealing $1 billion a year in fuel. Reuters. Fuel theft is a large threat to Pemex, Mexico's state oil company, which makes $52 billion a year and accounts for 8% of the Mexican economy and one fifth of government income. The Cartels are interested in oil and fuel theft due to the lower risks involved and have been quite aggressive. Threats, kidnapping and murder of oil workers are common place with oil workers being given the same deal made famous by the cartels, "plata or plomo", "silver or lead". The thefts and threats have left the Mexican oil industry in shambles making much needed investments and improvements impossible and causing refineries to lose millions of dollars. The method of theft, placing taps on fuel lines, alone costs the government millions of dollars to fix. 

My Comment:

Very interesting and disturbing article from Reuters. I have long said that Reuters is one of the few actual news organizations left. Their reporting tends to be excellent and this long form article is a great example. If more news organizations made these kinds of reports, especially on a subject as neglected as the Mexican Drug War, they would go a long way to regaining some of their respect and prestige. 

It is not surprising that the Cartels are expanding to new sources of income. They have always dabbled in other things, such as kidnapping and general corruption, but this is a bit bigger than what they have already tried. Taking so much money out of such a critical part of Mexico's economy is pretty huge. Still, it makes a lot of sense for them to do so, diversity in income is usually a very good idea for anyone. 

Why would they focus on oil, and not something else? I think part of it is due to how hard it is to defend against. It's very hard to defend oil pipelines and fuel trucks as there are not enough guards to go around. And when you are threatening and killing oil employees it's easy to get them to look the other way. It's fairly easy money. It's a very low risk, high reward source of income for them and it's almost surprising that they haven't done this from the start. 

I also think that they may sense that the wind is blowing against the drug business. Donald Trump is obviously very focused on border security and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions is famously focused on the war on drugs. I am guessing they realize that they might have a lot less profits from drugs as the wall goes up and drug enforcement increases. With their main source of income under threat they will try and diversify. 

With the oil industry under threat, Mexico's already fragile economy could collapse. Their economy is already under threat due to America renegotiating NAFTA, deporting illegals and warning against tourism there. Their country is also generally incompetent and corrupt which always hurts the economy. 

I wonder if the cartels are starting to take some inspiration from ISIS. Much like the cartels, ISIS made a ton of money from stealing and producing oil. Though ISIS wasn't able to hold onto their territory, the cartels would have better luck. The whole world was attacking ISIS and destroying their oil trucks. The cartels only have each other and the government to compete with. Though I do believe that stealing oil and fuel isn't something new, just the scale of the operations.  

The drug cartels are a huge threat and I think there is a small chance that they could take over the government of Mexico itself. They are already one of the most profitable groups in the country and it looks like they are trying a hostile takeover of the state run oil company. Their actions against Pemex could cause the company to collapse or even be taken over by the cartels. If that does happen, it could be enough to push the Mexican government over the edge and could even fall under the control of the cartels. If that happens it's a whole new ball game in Mexico. 

A-10 Warthogs return to Afghanistan.

An A-10 deployed to Kandahar Airbase. Reuters. 

A squadron of A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthogs" ground attack planes has been deployed to Afghanistan. Reuters. The A-10's are being redeployed to counter Taliban advances and to strike at their drug operations. The jets have already attacked Taliban targets. The rate of airstrikes in Afghanistan has increased dramatically under President Trump with 2017 seeing 4000 bombs being dropped on the Taliban and ISIS. In addition, MQ-9 Reaper drones have been deployed to beef up surveillance efforts as well. Since the end of US combat operations in 2014, the Taliban has taken over 40% of the country while ISIS has made inroads as well. 

My Comment:

Looks like we are shifting focus from Iraq and Syria towards Afghanistan. This squadron of A-10's was deployed in Turkey and was being used to target ISIS fighters in both countries. As the war dies down in Syria and Iraq and targets become scarce, it makes sense to withdraw the aircraft from Turkey, especially as relationships with Turkey are getting more strained. 

I've been sounding the alarm on Afghanistan for quite some time. The truth of the matter is that we are losing the war. The Taliban has taken over much of the countryside and regularly attack Kabul. ISIS has been making inroads as well and the country is in chaos. The Afghan Army has been taking massive, unsustainable casualties and insider threats are common. 

That fact prompted a change of strategy as soon as Donald Trump got elected. Part of that strategy was targeting the Taliban's opium production. We have destroyed some of their manufacturing capacity but they still have quite a bit of production capacity. Since they use the profits to fund their campaigns, destroying them is helpful.

Can the A-10's help with that? Sure. They are ground attack aircraft and can utterly destroy pretty much anything on the ground except hardened defenses. There isn't much that can withstand an A-10 airstrike and I am sure a drug lab or warehouse isn't among them. 

The A-10's will also excel in their main role, which is combat air support. One on one the Afghan Army and Taliban military are pretty much equal. The Afghan soldiers are better equipped but the Taliban are less corrupt. The addition of airpower helps the Afghans quite a bit and could be enough to turn the tide. 

The A-10's will also back up the Afghan's own native airpower. Afghanistan has been given around 20 A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft. These prop planes are essentially a much weaker version of the A-10's but with their fleet so small and their pilots so inexperienced that they could use the backup. Having more options in the air can help in those situations where everything goes to hell at once. 

As for the A-10's it's good to see these venerable aircraft be used. The Air Force hates the planes for some reason and wants them shut down but I feel as long as we still have them we might as well still use them. They are very powerful and effective aircraft and it will be a sad day when the last one is retried.

I don't think they will be the end all be all for the war in Afghanistan though. Loosening the rules of engagement and targeting the Taliban where it hurts, their opium operations, will do much more than a single squadron of fighters, even if those jets are extremely capable. Afghanistan has been a mess for years and it would be a mistake to think that one squadron could change it around. That being said, it won't hurt things and seeing the A-10's in the air again alone will hurt enemy morale.   

Democrats cave, voting to end government shutdown and sending the bill to be signed by Donald Trump.

The Capitol. New York Times. 

The Democrats have ended the government shutdown and sent a spending bill to Donald Trump, who has signed it. New York Times. The agreement will fund the government until February 8th and will extend funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for six years. The vote passed in the Senate, where the shutdown had originally came from, with a vote with 81-18. Two Republicans voted with the remaining Democrats and one Independent against the funding bill, with John McCain abstaining due to poor health. Chuck Schumer did not get much of a concession in exchange for restarting the government as all he and the Democrats got was an assurance that the Senate would address immigration. Immigration was the main reason why Schumer and the Democrats shut down the government, as they wanted to force legislation granting amnesty for  the so called "Dreamers" allowed in under Obama's DACA program. Supporters of DACA were crushed by Schumer's agreement.

My Comment:

Well that was a complete waste of time. After three days of hand wringing and stupidity, nothing was accomplished at all. All Schumer got out of this was an agreement with Mitch McConnel that they would try to cover immigration. There is no guarantee that Schumer will get anything else and their DACA plans are not going to pass. 

It makes you wonder why Schumer tried to do this in the first place. It never made any sense to link an immigration deal to the budget. The two things have nothing to do with each other and by linking them it really made the Democrats look unhinged. It was a baffling move and one that had zero payoff in the end. 

My guess is that Schumer and the Democrats thought they could control the narrative. They wanted to blame this on President Trump, who has taken a hard line on the issue of immigration. To that end they tried to label the shutdown as the #TrumpShutdown. Though this did trend on Twitter, it trended after the competing #SchumerShutdown and even after that tag was banned from trending, it didn't matter. 

The GOP arguments wrote themselves. It looked to almost everyone that Schumer and the Democrats were trying to put illegal aliens over the citizens of the United States. Fighting so hard for legal status for the DACA illegals while at the same time jeopardizing military pay and shutting down national parks was horrible optics and it was almost impossible for the Democrats to argue otherwise. They were never going to win the meme war on this one and even their allies in the mainstream media were wavering.   

I don't know what the polls were saying about this, as I have seen it go both ways depending on who was paying for the poll, but my guess is that the Democrats more accurate internal polling was showing that they were losing on this issue. Though the incumbent party often loses seats during the midterm elections, there is no hard and fast rule that will happen in 2018. The GOP got a boost recently due to the tax bill and will likely get another one when the various scandals brewing under the surface finally erupt. An unpopular shutdown was going to hurt things even more for 2018 if it had gone on further and I am guessing even the three days that it went for did quite a bit of damage for their chances. 

But even worse is that Schumer backed down right away. This also completely undermined the Democrats and pissed off the immigration wing of the party. As it looks to them, Schumer backed down and got nothing in return. They are calling this the #SchumerSellout and are fairly disgusted with him. It's telling that 16 Democrats voted against the bill. I am guessing that this will demoralize some of the Democratic Party's base and cause some of them to stay home or go 3rd party...

So what was the point of this anyways? I am not sure. It's possible that Schumer just miscalculated. After all, he thought he had the media on his side and though he could bully his narrative into existence. He also might have underestimated the resolve of Donald Trump. He's been somewhat wobbly on immigration, giving mixed signals on DACA, but if Schumer though he could get Trump to back down, he was very wrong. 

I also think that this was at least partially due to the Democrats trying to distract from the FISA memo story and all the other Democratic scandals that are bubbling under the surface. #ReleaseTheMemo was trending and was getting quite a bit of traction. They desperately needed something to distract from that and the shutdown did nicely. 

Overall though, this whole thing was pointless and rather embarrassing for the country. Funding the government is one of the most basic functions of the Senate and failing to do so is just stupid. Doing so made us a laughing stock and made people lose even more faith in our government. The only good thing is that it is finally over. 

The fix is in. FBI "loses" six months of texts from anti-Trump agent on Mueller probe.

Robert Mueller. Getty/The Hill.

The FBI has lost six months worth of texts between the FBI agents fired from the Mueller probe accused of anti-Trump bias. The Hill. Agents Peter Stzork and Lisa Page have already been exposed as anti-Trump via their texts to each other and Stzork was removed from the Mueller probe because of it. The FBI claims that they lost the text messages, which were on FBI issued phones, due to “rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades.” This supposedly resulted in those text messages not being collected. 384 pages of new texts were released that were not from the critical period between December 14th, 2016 and May 17th, 2017. 

My Comment:

Unbelievable. Those texts were critical evidence in possible criminal charges for Stzork and Page. They both seem to be knee deep in the FISA memo drama that is currently engulfing Washington. The loss of those texts could be the difference for a long prison term for those two and freedom. To say this is unacceptable is a massive understatement. It doesn't matter if these texts were genuinely lost or if they were deleted on purpose, the people that are responsible for it deserve to be fired at the very least. 

Do I buy the FBI's excuse? Not really. It seems very unlikely that there would be a period of six months where phones weren't keeping data because of upgrades. I know my phone has kept every text I have sent and I am guessing the FBI phones are even harder to remove. My guess is that these texts were deleted on purpose. 

I mean I guess it is possible that the FBI lost these text messages but that seems extremely unlikely. If that was the case we would have heard about it before now. It would also have effected way more phones than just Stzork and Page. It's unclear if that happened or not, but if it had I think they would have mentioned it. 

If it can be proven that the texts were deleted on purpose it's evidence of a conspiracy within the FBI to protect Stzork and Page. It's pretty clear from their original texts released that they were against Trump and mentioned having an "insurance policy" against him. Obviously, the FBI is supposed to be politically neutral and having these high ranked agents so openly plotting against a presidential candidate is unacceptable.  

Critically the time period where these texts covered were not during the election, but during the transition and Trump's 1st few months in office. Those texts covered the time during the early days of the Mueller probe and could show obvious bias that could completely undermine the legitimacy of the probe. I don't think the Mueller probe has much credibility in the first place but it could make it so that even the most committed Democrat would have to reconsider it. 

Remember, we aren't just talking about anti-Trump bias here. The main theory is that the Clinton campaign used FISA to spy on Donald Trump without a warrant. NSA Director found out what they were doing and put a stop to it but then they transferred their information to Fusion GPS and that info was used to create the Steele Dossier, which was used in turn to get a FISA warrant, to spy on Donald Trump. Stzork and Page were knee deep in that conspiracy and this loss of data may never be recovered and we might never know what they did during the transition period. We might not know how criminal their actions were. And we might not know how far the conspiracy goes. My pet theory is that Donald Trump wasn't the only one that was spied on, with both GOP and non-Clinton Democrats under surveillance. 

This is why it is so important that everything is released as soon as possible. The FISA memo that detailed abuses of the FISA system is still held up in congress. The information in that memo, had it been released already, might have prevented this data from being deleted. As it stands right now, not releasing the memo is allowing people to create counter-narratives and hide crucial evidence. If what is known isn't released soon we may lose critical information. 

I also have to say that I am having flashbacks to Watergate. In that case the actual crime, breaking into the DNC headquarters, was serious enough. But the coverup was the real crime and what exposed the same conspiracy. I am guessing that this deletion of texts may be the same thing for the FISA scandal. 

Turkey launches airstrikes and fires artillery at Kurdish positions in Syria.

Aftermath of an airstrike near Hassa. Washington Post/AFP.

Turkey has launched air and artillery strikes at Kurdish positions in Northern Syria. Washington Post. The attacks targeted Afrin, which is located in the Kurds Northwestern Syrian enclave. The Turks say that they are targeting PKK terrorists, the YPG and ISIS. The United States has backed the YPG and supported creating a 30,000 strong force in the region. None of the various factions in Syria are happy about the attacks including Syria, Russia and the United States. The Syrians have threatened to shoot down Turkish airplanes while the Russians have pulled advisers out of the area. It is believed that the Turks are trying to derail a potential agreement between the United States, Russia, the Syrian government and the Kurds concerning reconciliation with the Syrian government. 

My Comment:

Bad news out of Syria. The Turks are doing their best to make the situation in Syria worse. I have often said that the only way that ISIS could make a comeback in the country is if the various other factions start fighting each other. Having the Turks and Kurds in an all out brawl will create an opening for ISIS and perhaps the former al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra, make a comeback as well. 

The region being targeted is the Kurds Northeastern enclave. This enclave was separated from the main Kurdish areas by Turkey's original offensive that took the area between al-Arimah and Azaz. Turkey did not tolerate an united front of Kurds across their border and now it seems they will not tolerate the Northeastern enclave as well. I'm worried that they, along with their Turkeman rebel allies, could push the Kurds out of the enclave entirely, or at least cripple their powerbase there.

Why do this? The most valid reason is that the Turks fear that the enclave will serve as a base for the PKK communist terror groups. As terror groups PKK is one of the worst in the region, though is obviously overshadowed by ISIS. They are one of the only secular terror groups that I know of that has convinced people to commit suicide bombings. The PKK is a genuine threat and not one that the Turks are likely to tolerate. 

That being said I feel their main problem with the Kurds has always been racism. The Kurds have always had the temerity of having their own culture and beliefs and the Turks won't tolerate that. A united Kurdish statelet in Syria is a threat to Turkish supremacy and they won't have it. The PKK may be terrorists but they are a secondary goal at best. It's really about suppressing the Kurds. 

This is an extremely dangerous game as Turkey is risking pissing off their allies and possibly war as well. The United States is not going to like this at all. We want the Kurds to be in a powerful position so they can counter ISIS and be used as a staging area for US bases. This attack on the Kurds puts that at risk and if the war continues it could endanger US lives as well. We have accomplished a lot in Syria but now the Turks are risking it all for stupid reasons. 

Turkey has never been a good ally for the United States. I've mentioned this a thousand times before, but ISIS was a de-facto ally of Turkey until they turned on them and started to conduct terror attacks in their territory. But Turkey had no problem with ISIS until that happened and didn't see anything wrong with buying ISIS oil and letting recruits travel into Syria via Turkey. America should probably re-evaluate our relationship with Turkey. 

We aren't the only ones that will have a problem with Turkey's actions. The Russians will also be upset. They have been selling weapons to the Kurds and they had some advisers in the area. Thos advisers have been pulled out but they have to be angry that their plans are being disrupted by the Kurds as well. For once we have something in common with the Russians in that the Turks have pissed us both off. 

Most seriously the Syrians themselves may be angered. Though their main forces are tied up in an massive offensive against the last remaining rebel groups in Idlib, they could resist an invasion by the Turks. The Turks obviously outclass the Syrians but they could still cause some damage. If it happens though it would greatly prolong the war and cause the rebel groups to have a second wind. They won't ever be strong enough to win at this point but they could cause the war to continue for years and years. 

It would be a shame if that were to happen as it seems like we might be closing in on a solution to the war. If a reconciliation can happen between the Kurds and Syrian government than the war is basically over. There are still ISIS and rebel holdouts in control of some territory but at least we would ensure that there wouldn't be a second war between the Kurds and Syrians. A federal solution would really be the best thing for everyone in the region besides Turkey. Let's hope that Turkey fails in derailing the plan and that they don't continue this assault. 

There is a memo circulating in congress that details abuses of the FISA program.

There is a memo circulating in congress that details abuse of the FISA program, which is a spying program. The reaction to this memo is... dramatic to say the least.

“It is so alarming the American people have to see this,”- Rep Jim Jordon

“It's troubling. It is shocking," -Rep Mark Meadows

“You think about, ‘is this happening in America or is this the KGB?’ That's how alarming it is,” -Rep Scott Perry.

So what is this all about? We can't know for sure but what we do know is that the FISA program is supposed to be used on foreign targets only, not US citizens. I am guessing that US citizens were targeted and given the fact that every Democrat in congress voted against it, I am guessing it was one citizen in particular. Current President Donald Trump.

There is already a circumstantial case that members of the FBI colluded with the Clinton Campaign and Fusion GPS to spy on the Trump campaign. That would be hugely illegal and a scandal that would rock the country to its foundations. This memo might be the proof we need to finally prove that story to the rest of the country. And it might be the first domino that knocks down quite a few others.

But that can't happen unless we know what is in that memo. I already contacted my congressman and I encourage you to do so as well. Just a reminder though, many people are focusing on contacting Paul Ryan. This is counterproductive because unless you live in his district he won't care. You need to contact your own representative in order to have an impact. It doesn't matter if they are a Democrat or Republican, you deserve to know the truth. Tell them to release the memo!

Look up your member of congress here.

Contacting your senators might be a good idea as well.

I will continue to follow this story closely. There was collusion in the 2016 election, but it wasn't between Donald Trump and the Russians. It was between the Federal Government and the Clinton Campaign and it looks like it will all be coming out soon...

President Donald Trump releases his Fake News Awards.

President Trump. GOP.com.

President Donald Trump released his Fake News Awards today and crashed the GOP website. The link seems to be working now but there was so much interest in the awards, the GOP site was down for quite some time. The post lists eleven stories that the media got wrong this year. Since the website is having connectivity issues, I will list them here:

1. Paul Krugman being completely wrong about the economy crashing after Trump got elected.

2. ABC's Brian Ross's false report on Michael Flynn contacting Russia during the presidential campaign. 

3. CNN's false report that both Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr., had access to a Wikileaks release before the public. 

4. Time magazine claiming that a bust of Martin Luther King was removed (with a picture of Trump standing right next to it).

5. Washington Post reporter Dave Weigal posting a picture claiming that a rally was mostly empty without mentioning the picture was taken before the rally began. 

6. CNN editing a video of Trump and Japanese Prime Minster Shinzo Abe feeding carp to make it look like, well, I am not sure WHAT they were trying to accomplish with that one. 

7. Three CNN reporters resigning over a false report about Anthony Scaramucci meeting with Russians. 

8. Newsweek saying Trump never shook hands with Polish First Lady Agata Kornhauser-Duda (with photographic evidence of him doing so).

9. CNN saying that James Comey would dispute Trump's claim that he told him that he wasn't under investigation. 

10. The New York Times claiming that Trump had hidden a climate report. 

11. The Russia collusion story. 

What's my take on this? It's fairly damning. I am not sure what people were expecting but we got 10 solid examples of times where the news media either got a story wrong or lied on purpose. Those stories certainly qualified as fake news. The Russia collusion story does as well but since that is such a huge and complex topic it't not quite as impressive. 

A lot of people over-hyped these awards. There were rumors flying on social media and 4chan that this was going to be the big happening that would announce the final end of the Democratic Party. Why anyone would believe that is beyond me when it seemed obvious from the start that it was going to be exactly what it was advertised: a list of worst stories this year from the news media. 

My guess is that certain people were deliberately misleading people about what the Fake News Awards were going to be about. I think this was deliberate and enemy action. People wanted to raise expectations so much that no matter what Trump did, it would be a disappointment. 

That being said, I did think that we would be getting a bit more than a blog post. The content was great but I think a presentation would have been better. Having the President or one of his high ranking aides read out this list live on TV or via the internet would have been a lot more fun. More people might have watched as well. 

Still, it is important to get this message out there. When it comes to Donald Trump the media has lost any semblance of credibility. The list released by Trump and the GOP is not anywhere near a full accounting of the medias mistakes and lies. And that list isn't just limited to Trump alone. I still remember how they tried to sell the "hands up don't shoot" narrative during the last days of the Obama presidency. People still rely on the media for them to tell the truth. It's very clear that we can no longer trust them to do so. 

The left is eating each other with the #MeToo movement.

Aziz Ansari. David Shankbone. 

As you are certainly aware, the #MeToo movement which was spawned from the Harvey Weinstein accusations and concerns sexual abuse and harassment continues. So far it has claimed many scalps, including Hollywood celebrities like Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K., politicians like John Conyers and Al Franken and probably cost Roy Moore the Alabama senate race. The main idea was that celebrities, politicians and men in general were treating women horribly. This was undoubtedly true in many cases but some felt that the movement was going too far. Anyone that questioned the narrative was denounced as a rape apologist or misogynist. 

The cracks in the #MeToo movement started with Al Franken and Louis CK. In both cases the accusations were minor and both of the accused were popular with the left. There was some half hearted attempts to defend both but most agreed on the left that despite the minor nature of the incidents in question, they still deserved to lose their jobs and did so. 

Something has changed with the latest accusations though. Comedian Aziz Ansari is the latest person to be called out by #MeToo movement. To recap for those who might not have kept up with the incident, Ansari went on a date with a woman and brought her back to his apartment. She was reluctant but she and Ansari had oral sex with each other and the accuser never said no until after several sex acts were completed and once she did Ansari sent her home. She then posted her story on a feminist website and then the backlash began. I won't link to the website here as I don't want to give them any traffic but if you google Aziz Ansari and babe.net, you will find it. 

An honest reading of the woman's account shows nothing non-consensual happened. It was, fairly obviously, a case of bad, awkward sex. There wasn't anything close to legal or civil charges that could be filed because of this case. He didn't commit any crime and he had no real power over the accuser since she was just a random person, not his employee. The only thing Ansari did that was wrong was that he was kinda creepy and that he didn't live up the very standards he judges others with. 

That's right, Ansari is a very vocal feminist and a supporter of the #MeToo movement. He's a huge liberal and by his own purported beliefs he's an abuser of women. Never mind that he didn't do anything legal or even immoral. It's still evil by their standards. Ansari's only sin here is not living up to the very unrealistic standards he would impose on others. 

But other then those of us amused by this on the right and a few hardcore feminists, Ansari is largely not being held to those standards by the media. In liberal outlets like The Atlantic and the New York Times Ansari's accuser have been bashed publicly. CNN's Ashliegh Banfield bashed the accuser and essentially threatened her. 

I don't disagree with a thing that Ashleigh Banfield said there. But it rings so hollow. Because the very people attacking Aziz Ansari's accuser are the very same people that say we should always "listen and believe" people that accuse others of sexual misconduct. And they are the same people that never question people that have accused GOP politicians like Donald Trump and Roy Moore, despite there being evidence of malfeasance and dishonesty from all of them. To see people that have, until now, said that the worst thing you could do is attack a woman who accuses someone of rape attack a woman who accused someone of rape, is, to say the least, shocking.

And I can't help but to think that the race, religion and politics of Aziz Ansari plays a role in this as well. Ansari was born in America but he is of Indian Muslim descent. He's also a huge liberal and a favorite of the left. Had Ansari been a white guy, or even a black guy, he would have been screwed. Had he not been Muslim, he would also have been fine. But since he's an Indian Muslim he gets the benefit of the doubt. And, of course, he is a liberal darling and if he was a conservative comedian (as if those exist) he would be crucified. 

Awhile ago I gave the left some advice. I said that they didn't know what they were calling up with the #MeToo movement and it was going to be inevitable that they were going to lose some talented and important people to it. To be fair, many of those people deserved to go down for their deplorable behavior. But Aziz Ansari is not one of him. He might be an awkward beta male that has no idea what he is doing, but that isn't a crime. But his career is likely over because he had one bad date. How many people can say that they have never had one bad date? Maybe a few ultra religious people like Mike Pence? How many of us want to follow his rules where he doesn't even enter a room with a woman who isn't his wife? 

I was expecting a backlash eventually. Sooner or later people were going to realize that holding men to the standard that they literally have to be mind readers wasn't going to work. And believing accusers without due process was eventually going to lead bad outcomes for normal people. Aziz Ansari isn't normal but his behavior was common enough. Indeed, other than being rather crude, I can't see anything that he did wrong other than not being able to read someone's mind. Since nobody on earth is a mindreader, these kinds of interactions are going to happen. It's annoying and awkward but it is going to happen.  

To be fair, as disturbing as the extension of the #MeToo movement has been, I still have to be amused by this. Though to be fair I do support actual abusers getting called out, I do have to say it is hilarious to see someone like Ansari go down. He doesn't deserve what he is getting here, but it couldn't happen to someone who deserves it more. He got hoisted by his own petard. And the outright hypocrisy of the left, who are defending an Indian Muslim but at the same time throwing a white woman under the bus only because of that fact, is hilarious.

Still, I hope this means that the left will dial it back a bit. I don't mind when actual abusers are called out but a bad date is just a bad date. We don't need to move towards a society where any incident involving bad sex or even awkwardness is put in the same league as sexual assault. 

I do have to say that if anything else is to be learned from this incident it is this. Communication is key, and not just in sexual matters. Everyone should always make sure that their communication is as clear and concise as possible. If Ansari's accuser had simply spoken up sooner, none of this would have happened... 

Turkish President Erdogan says he will "strangle" US backed force in Syria.

A US special forces fighter near Raqqa, Syria. Reuters. 

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan says he will "strangle" a US backed Kurdish force in Syria. Reuters. The US has planned a 30,000 strong border force to protect Kurdish areas in Syria. Both Syria and Russia have denounced the move, but the strongest condemnation came from Turkey, a US ally. Erdogan called the force a terrorist army who's only purpose is to target Turkey. The Kurds say they need the new force to protect threats from the Turkish and Syrian governments. The US supports the Kurds because they helped them fight ISIS and want to make sure they don't return. 

My Comment:

For a supposed ally, Turkey spends a lot of time threatening us and our interests. They have never been good allies. Indeed, they focus in Syria was never ISIS. It was always the Kurds that they wanted to fight and only went after ISIS after they started to attack inside the borders of Turkey. 

Indeed, before ISIS started targeting them, Turkey was essentially a de facto ally to ISIS. They allowed thousands of ISIS recruits to cross the border into Syria and bought oil from ISIS. As long as ISIS targeted their enemies, the Kurds and Syrians, they didn't care. Once ISIS turned against Turkey, they started fighting them and were able to clean out the border area of both Kurds and ISIS, but it's always important to note that before that, they were on the other side of the war. 

It's not surprising that the Syrians and Russians are upset as well. The Syrians, of course, want their country back. Outside of the Idlib area, the Syrian government has taken back most of their country. There remain some other small areas under rebel control and a few ISIS holdouts remain in the deserts, but the largest remaining territory they haven't recovered is the Kurdish northwest. They are understandably upset about the creation of a force that will likely threaten the recovery of their country. 

The Russians are also upset because they want Syria to be a vassal state and military base. The advantage they gained from propping up the Assad regime, at a high cost in lives and treasure, is nullified if the United States gains another ally and base in the region. Plus their Syrian allies are angry as well. 

So what is our reason for this move? I think part of it is loyalty to the Kurds. They were our best allies throughout the war against ISIS, with only the Iraqi Army coming close. The Kurds earned our support, and if we betray them now it will make it much more difficult to gather allies in future conflicts. There is something to be said for rewarding our proxy armies when the war ends. 

We also need a new ally in the region. Though Iraq is likely to remain in our sphere of influence, the Iranians are increasing their influence there. And our Turkish allies are unreliable at best. We need to counter Russian moves in the region and keeping the Kurds are our friends will accomplish that. 

The Kurds aren't the best allies though. Turkey has a point about the PKK being terrorists. Though the Kurds we support aren't the same they are fellow travelers. Given the far left politics of the PKK and the fact that they are undeniably a terror group, we should keep a close eye on our new Kurdish allies. 

I don't know what the long term solution to the Kurds in the region is. An independent Kurdish state would probably the best outcome, but nobody in the region would like that. The most realistic one is a federal solution where the Kurds have a semi-autonomous state while still under the de-facto control of the Syrians. That is what has happened in Iraq, despite a few hiccups and would likely be the best solution in this case.

 Once again though, the Turks would object. The view the Kurds as a threat to the Turkish identity and don't want to tolerate any free Kurds. They also don't want a potential base for Kurdish radicals to stage attacks out of. As long as that is the case I don't see a decent solution for the Kurds in Syria...

Chelsea Manning running for senate in Maryland...

Chelsea Manning, from her announcement video. ABC/AP.

Chelsea Manning, formally Bradly Manning, the former Army intelligence soldier that leaked information to Wikileaks, is running for Senate in Maryland. ABC News.  Manning was convicted of a felony for the leak and was granted clemency by Barack Obama after coming out as transgender. Manning will run in the primary against incumbent senator Ben Cardin. Neither Manning or Cardin has officially filed the paperwork to run yet. Maryland is considered a safe state for Democrats and Cardin is one of the most liberal members of the Senate. 

yup, we're running for senate 😎🌈💕 #WeGotThis https://t.co/ynFv6w32np

— Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea) January 14, 2018

My Comment:
Well, just when I thought nobody could find a Senate candidate worse than Joe Arpaio, the Democrats may have topped it. Chelsea Manning is quite possibly the worst choice and if she's the candidate it's very possible that a rock solid blue senate seat could flip to the Republicans. 

Manning represents everything wrong with the Democratic Party, at least in the eyes of the right and many of the more rational people on the left. She was convicted of sending secrets to Wikileaks, and though Wikileaks has been reformed in the eyes of many on the right, her leaks didn't really do much to improve the country. People will support leakers but only if they leak stuff that actually improves things. The diplomatic cables and war logs she released only embarrassed the United States.

Quite a few people consider her a traitor and were disgusted that she is free right now. And those people are across the political spectrum. There are many Republicans, Democrats and Independents that agree that what she did was wrong and that she never should have been granted clemency.

There is also the obvious problem of electing a convicted felon who has already proven that she can't be trusted with secrets. If she were to be elected, how could anyone trust her to keep secrets? How do we know that the first thing she does once elected is just leak everything she gets here hands on? Plus, even though our standards of  what is acceptable, do we really want a convicted felon as a Senator? At least Joe Arpaio was pardoned, Manning's conviction is still on the record.

The obvious elephant in the room is the fact that Manning used to be a man. Depending on your views of the matter, she's still a he. Indeed, I'm mostly referring to Manning as a female due to the fact that it's politically dangerous to do otherwise.

I am guessing the fact that Manning is transgender is going to be a mark against her. Even though the Democratic Party is supposedly the party of LGBT rights, there are large numbers of people in the party that aren't exactly happy with that fact, especially among the minority racial members of the party. Though most people are reasonably tolerant of the LGB groups, they aren't really sold on the T portion. Democrats have ran transgender people before, and won, but not in a race as important as this. Alone it might not be an issue, but with Manning's other flaws it should be enough to lose in the primaries.

It also goes to show that the Democratic Party is being pushed way further to the left. It's not like Ben Cardin is a blue dog Democrat or anything. He's a loyal and reliable senator who always toes the party line. But since he's a old white male (well Jewish, but same difference) he has to be purged from the party to make way for a MTF transgender. That's going to do little to help the impression that the Democrats are a party that has no place for white males.

I doubt it will get to that point though. It's very hard to unseat an incumbent and I doubt Manning will get much in the way of mainstream support. Cardin's fairly popular and I doubt the Democrats will want to risk a safe senate seat over a transgender felon.

If they do though, I think that Manning will almost certainly lose. Maryland is a safe blue state, but not that safe. Cardin won with 55% of the vote in 2012, and I am guessing there will be defections if Manning is the candidate. Manning's felony conviction alone will probably cost at least 5% of the vote and I am guessing the fact that she is transgender will lose here another 5 or 10%. Just like the Republicans with Roy Moore and Joe Arpiao, the Democrats too are finding new and creative ways to lose. 

Weekend movie night: Stalingrad.

Stalingrad movie poster. Art Pictures. 

Once again, it's time for yet another movie review. This week, I'm going with an relatively obscure Russian film called Stalingrad, which is of course based on the real life battle in World War II. Not to be confused with the 1993 German film or the 2001 Hollywood film, Enemy at the gates, this is a Russian production released in 2013. I wasn't a huge fan of the film, but I figured I would write it up anyways. There will be spoilers throughout this review. 

Stalingrad isn't the worst movie I have ever seen. It isn't even the worst one based on the Battle of Stalingrad, with Enemy at the Gates being a bit worse. But it's not a good movie. It's not horrible by any means but it has one major problem. 

Everyone remembers Pearl Harbor right? The dramatic war movie that was utterly ruined by a love triangle? Well imagine that up to eleven. Instead of a love triangle this film features a love HEXAGON. That's right, there are five men all pining over the same woman. 

The basic story of Stalingrad is that a group of survivors of an ill fated assault across the Volga all end up in a building together. The five core members of the group, a dashing officer, a naive and virginal artilleryman, a mute former professional singer, a cold sniper and an older officer. They are joined by a 19 year old woman that still lives in the bombed out and destroyed building somewhat inexplicably.  

Strangely enough all of those men fall in love with the 19 year old girl. With the old man it's more of a father daughter relationship and the cold sniper just wants a woman, any woman. But the other three? They fall in love with her right away and you spend the rest of the movie trying to figure out who she is going to hook up with. She's attractive enough but it seems fairly out there that everyone falls in love with this woman over the course of a couple of days. 

This is a war movie and the fact that the last paragraph could fit in a romance drama shows the major flaw of the movie. It's about one of the most bloody and important battles in human history but instead we are focusing on a love Hexagon. 

And it's even worse than that. There is yet ANOTHER love story in Stalingrad! I'm not kidding. There is a major side story where the German officer antagonist falls in love with a Russian woman. Though the relationship does a lot to humanize the Germans in the movie but with so much focus on romance already it just drags on. 

The actual combat is good enough and the special effects are decent. And it really looks like they are fighting in a large city. But the good scenes are so disrupted by the romance that it really isn't worth it. 

The romance isn't the only problem though. I really didn't like the framing device of the movie. The opening and closing scenes are about a Russian rescue worker trying to save some children trapped in the aftermath of, presumably, the 2011 Toho Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan. Now it seems unlikely to me that a Russian rescue team would be saving a bunch of German girls trapped in the ruins of a Japanese city, but that's not the real problem.

The real problem is that the children are trapped and the rescuer comforts them by telling them a story. That story? His mother, the 19 year old, and her living through the battle of Stalingrad! I don't know about you but if I was a scared little kid trapped in a collapsed building, I wouldn't want to hear a war story where hundreds of people die! It's fairly ridiculous if you ask me. 

Funny enough, Stalingrad has been dismissed as Russian propaganda. I don't know if I would go that far though. It's fairly pro-Russia yes, but it's not like they didn't show some of the warts. One man is executed for cowardice and the cold sniper shoots a woman. It's pro-Russian but that's probably going to happen with any war movie. 

Would I recommend Stalingrad? Probably not. There are war movies that are much better. Indeed, though dark and depressing, I would say that the 1993 German film with the same name was a better movie than this one. I'd skip it unless you are a completionist or someone who really wants to see a Russian war movie... 

A few quick thoughts on the Trump immigration comments controversy.

President Donald Trump. 

 I was going to write a long rant on someone's facebook page about the controversy where Trump reportedly called Hati, El Salvador and the nations of Africa "shithole" countries, but I thought it would be better to post it here. This isn't going to be a full post, just a refutation to a wider argument. 

 1. The "shithole" comments are unproven and given the "he said he said" nature of the accusations, we won't know for sure who said what. That being said I don't trust a damn thing coming out of the media's mouth. It's broken down on partisan lines, as always. The only people that have said Trump has said the comments are Democrats or Republican opponents like Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake, and they have reasons to lie. Jeff Flake especially does as he blames the president for why he had to drop out of the Senate Race in Arizona.  Other senators have denied that Trump has made the comment. Without a recording or a non biased witness, which won't exist in Washington, we won't ever know exactly what he said. With such ambiguity over what happened, it is not fair at all to judge Trump for this incident. 

Senators Perdue & Cotton on Trump yesterday: "we do not recall the President saying those comments specifically" pic.twitter.com/nLQb34r6x3

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) January 12, 2018

2. Even if he said it though, it's undoubtedly true that Haiti, El Salvador and most of Africa are, indeed, shitholes. I could post their crime rates, but I don't need to do so because everyone knows its true already. Had you mentioned either of these countries before Trump supposedly said this, you would, at the very least, say that they are failed 3rd world countries with massive crime rates, poor economic production and low education levels/average IQ. My guess is that the vast majority of people do and will continue to accurately say that they are, indeed, shitholes. Saying true things isn't racism and the argument that it is racist is a direct assault on reality itself. The people arguing otherwise are no different than the people that say "we were always at war with Eastasia".

 Well now it's "everything Trump says is racist, despite what he says being true and despite being believed by almost everyone". "Everything my opponent says is evil" is way more evil that just about anything else. By far the most important thing that Trump has done is that it has allowed people to say true things that aren't politically correct. It's an inconvenient fact for people that Haiti and El Salvador are terrible by any measure but it is a fact nonetheless. When we can't say true facts without being accused of being a terrible person, then we are well and truly lost and not worth saving. 

  3. The question of who we let into our country is the most important question of our day. People that accuse others of racism for wanting to make sure what has happened in Europe, where women are now too afraid to go outside at night in fear of migrant rapists and have frequent grenade attacks (Sweden for example), doesn't happen here are, in fact, evil. They are lying about the real risk of bringing these people here and the fact that at least some innocent people will be harmed by doing so. And they are doing it in a way that can cause real social and economic damages to the people that disagree with them. 

 There isn't a defense for that. You can make arguments that we should let in these people for moral reasons, or that by taking the best of the best we mitigate the risk, but if you aren't mentioning the possible downsides you are being dishonest at best. But if your only argument for taking in people from Haiti and El Salvador is that everyone who disagrees is racist than you are an evil person.

 4. These comments were never meant for public consumption, assuming that they exist in the first place. What is said in a private meeting not open to the public should remain so. The fact that this is even a story reveals a huge problem in Washington where everyone leaks to the media at all times, almost always at the expense of the President. Given the track records of those leaks you can easily assume that these comments either didn't happen or are being framed to make Trump look as bad as possible. 

 5. The entire event is trying to distract from the massive negative news stories that are coming out for the Democrats. They understand how devastating the OIG report will be for them and they also know that the FBI/Fusion GPS story is going to dominate for quite some time. If you don't know what I am talking about here, than you shouldn't be talking about politics at all, but don't worry. Everyone will know soon enough. This whole incident is an attempt to reverse that momentum of bad news by getting in a dig at the President before it all comes crashing down. They know they can't stop it so they are throwing out whatever sticks via the media. See yesterdays ridiculous story about Trump and Stormy Daniels. They have been doing it since it was clear that Trump was going to win the GOP nomination and I don't understand why people keep falling for it.