Trump Administration lays out plan to import drugs from Canada in effort to reduce costs.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. NPR/AP.

The Trump Administration has laid out a plan that would allow the importation of drugs from Canada in an effort to reduce costs. NPR. The plan would legalize pilot projects from various US states that would import cheaper drugs from Canada. It would also allow US manufacturers to sell drugs in America that were originally made for export. The state plans had been around for awhile but needed approval from Health and Human Services before they can be implemented. With the new announcement the plans should be good to go. The plan will probably take some time before it can take effect and may face legal challenges from the pharmaceutical companies. 

My Comment:

I don't have a lot of knowledge on health care so I can't say too much on if this is a good idea or not. It seems like one as opening up competition usually results in lower prices. I'm not really concerned about quality control issues as Canada is fairly responsible. I do wonder if they are going to be able to meet manufacturing needs but given the fact that this deal is probably good for business for them, they have an incentive to do so. Canada's economy is in shambles and I bet they look forward to any chance to export their products. 

It does sound like President Trump and his administration changed their mind about this idea. There may be practical reasons for this. Trump had said he wanted to reduce health care costs but had been mostly unable to get anything passed through congress. By doing this he is at least accomplishing something, even if it won't have the kind of immediate results he wants. At least this way he is doing something to help, even if it is something he previously dismissed. Plus he is keeping a campaign promise as well. 

It does seem like this is something that is going to take a long time to get implemented. Though many states already have programs in place to import drugs, many states do not and those states will have to get something passed in order to attempt this. And given American bureaucracy, I expect the move to take a long time before anyone's drug prices are reduced. Even if the program works, and I believe it will, Trump probably won't get much credit for it before the 2020 election. It will likely take longer than that to set up.

However, my main reason for posting this is because it seems like a shrewd political move. The Democratic candidates at last nights debate spent a huge amount of time whining about the high costs of prescription medication. Bernie Sanders was talking about a sob story of how people went to Canada to buy insulin and the other candidates had similar stories about high medication costs.This action takes quite a bit of wind out of their sails. 

For all their whining about prescription meds, the President actually did something about it. This puts them in a bad position. If they oppose President Trump's move here they are basically saying that opposing Trump is more important than what is shaping up to be their signature issue for the 2020 campaign. If they do support him (which they should, this is a proposal that the Democrats should like), they will be attacked for it just because it's President Trump's idea. It's a huge lose-lose situation for them either way. 

My guess is that the Democrats will act like this idea is bad because it doesn't go far enough. Lowering prices are bad because people shouldn't have to pay for medication at all! That puts them in a safer position but still makes them look like hypocrites for not supporting this move. It's not a very honest position to take but it looks like the only option they have when faced with Trump stealing one of their signature issues. 

2nd Democrat debate reaction.

The candidates at the 2nd Democratic debate (night one). CNN.

As you may know, the Democrats had their 2nd debate last night. I live tweeted it but the debate ran long so I wasn't able to write up a reaction. I will do so now, but I'd like to remind everyone that I do plan on live tweeting the debate again tonight. My twitter account can be found here and my Gab account here. The next debate begins at 7:00 PM tonight on CNN (ugh). 

As a reminder, here are the candidates that participated in last night's debate:

Marianne Williamson
Tim Ryan
Amy Klobuchar
Pete Buttigieg
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Beto O'Rourke
John Hickenlooper
John Delaney
Steve Bullock

First a few words on the moderation and production. Needless to say I was not impressed with CNN. I did think that Jake Tapper was reasonably tough on the candidates but Don Lemon was his usual racist self. Tapper might be a decent journalist if he hopped networks but Lemon is not salvageable. The production of the debate was hugely biased and you could tell that CNN was trying to make the candidates look as good as possible.

They also took FOREVER to get started. The introduction took way too long and the National Anthem wasn't necessary either. All it did is show that Tim Ryan doesn't care about the customs and standards of the Anthem as he didn't put his hand over his heart. Thankfully, none of them knelled but I was expecting it.

As for the debate itself, it seemed to show some very serious cracks in the Democratic coalition. There were some major disagreements in policy and it seemed like a six on two fight between the more moderate candidates and the two most progressive, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Peter Buttgieg wasn't really confronting either side and Marianne Williamson was doing her own thing in the corner.

On policy it was a bad night. There was a huge disagreement on health care and I think the non-progressives won as they rightly pointed out that there was no way that they would pass and no way to pay for single payer/medicare for all if it somehow did. There was also an absolutely pathetic exchange on gun rights where once again the Democratic Party confirmed that they hate the 2nd Amendment. Most confusingly of all though, was the foreign policy section which somehow developed into a discussion on first use of nuclear weapons. How that came up is beyond me but it did give Elizabeth Warren a rare win just in terms in performance as newcomer Steve Bullock didn't seem to know the difference between proliferation and non-proliferation.

Most damaging for the Democrats was that two candidates openly suggested that reparations should be given for blacks due to slavery. This idea is hugely unpopular outside of the radical black community and is largely seen as deeply racist and massively unfair. It's an idea that is election poison and I doubt the DNC was happy that it came up.

Many of the candidates are probably done after this debate. Robert Francis O'Rourke, Tim Ryan, John Hickenlooper, Amy Klobucher and Steve Bullock hardly showed up and made almost no impact. I have to imagine that some, or even all, will drop out after a disappointing debate. As far as I am concerned it would be a blessing to never have to hear from Robert Francis and his insufferable and racist nickname again.

As for the rest, it was a big night for John Delaney. Delaney went from being a nobody to being one of the main speakers. He offered a very different vision from the progressive front-runners and looks to be positioning himself for the moderate vote if/when Joe Biden drops out or is forced out by scandal. I didn't like any of his ideas but at least he seemed to realize that the Democratic Party has been weighed down buy lofty but ultimately unrealistic ideas. He was the only sane man up on stage, but only in comparison to the others.

Marianne Williamson also had an unexpectedly huge night. Though I don't consider her a serious candidate, she had all of the memorable moments and got some huge applause for some of her lines. As easy as it would be to dismiss a woman who talks about "dark psychic forces", I think there might be some real appeal there to some Democratic voters. Her kooky faux-spiritualism and emphasis on feelings over facts will likely play well among upper class white women and her call for reparations could gain her some black votes. She did very well with the time she was given and will likely continue to be a factor in the future.

Peter Buttgieg did the same thing he did in the last debate. Quote scripture, bash President Trump, call for gun control and generally try not to pick fights. On policy I didn't pay too much attention to him, but he's got a less confrontational, more stable presentation that may help him win a few votes.

As for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, I don't know if it was a good night. They were defensive all night and didn't really have any good arguments for their grand plans. When challenged they acted outraged, yelled and screamed and generally were unpleasant but did not really answer any of the criticisms leveled against them.

This didn't surprise me with Warren, as I have always found her to be insufferable, even when I admit that she's at least intelligent. She always struck me as someone who thinks she knows more than she does and gets personally offended by the slightest of criticism, and that was clearly a factor tonight. I just think she's one of the most unlikable people in politics today regardless of her politics.

But I was surprised with Bernie Sanders. Sanders was a decent debater back in the 2016 race and was much more likable back then. I'm not sure if that was just because Hillary Clinton was a black hole of likability or if he changed his style but it really seemed like he was way more angry and unhinged tonight then I have ever seen him. That anger may play well in the primaries but if he is somehow the candidate it will turn off voters.

All that being said, last night's debate was very obviously the "b" squad. Many of the biggest names were not there, including front runners Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and dark horse candidates Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard. I do think that whatever happens in tonight's debate will greatly overshadow this one, just like it did in the 1st round of debates. Either way, I will be live tweeting it again tonight, probably wishing I had a beer or ten to get through it.

Two Somali refugees arrested for trying to join ISIS in Egypt.

Department of Justice. The Hill.

Two Somali refugees have been arrested after trying to board a flight to Egypt and joining the ISIS terror group. The Hill. Ahmed Mahad Mohamed and Abdi Yemani Hussein were arrested after they informed an undercover FBI agent that they wanted to join ISIS. They had bought plane tickets to Egypt and were planning on joining the terror groups Sinai Province. Both men were refugees but Mohamed had secured permanent resident status at the time of his arrest. Both men were also willing to carry out attacks in the United States if their plan to get to Egypt failed. 

Somali refugees arresed in Tucson on way to Egypt. They were in touch with an agent posing as a terrorist. One of them stated, “The best wake up call is Islamic State to get victory or another 9/11.” Get smart people! #MAGA #KAG @foxandfriends

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2019

My Comment:
This is a minor story that became a big one due to the lack of media coverage. Outside of local coverage and conservative media, this story hasn't gotten any play at all. President Trump changed that by tweeting out the above message which at least forced CNN to cover it, but many of the other big media companies have not.

I think the main reason for that is the fact that these men were refugees. The media doesn't want to point out that we gave these men a second chance at life in a country that's much better than Somalia and they repaid that generosity with betrayal to one of our country's greatest enemies.

Plus there is the fact that they just spent several weeks defending a Somali refugee from withering criticism. Ilhan Omar came into America the same way as these two men and to point that out could hurt her popularity, which is something the US media can't abide.

As for the plot itself it seems like another pretty obvious case of potential terrorists not learning to keep their mouths shut. In theory, getting a flight to Egypt should be extremely easy. All you have to do is buy the tickets and get on board.

Joining ISIS itself might be a bit more difficult as I doubt you can just walk up to an ISIS compound and sign up. But trying to talk to people in America about it seems like the perfect way to be caught by the FBI. I am sure that is what happened in this case.

It's fairly fortunate that this is how it played out as it sounds like these two men were prepared to commit terrorism in the United States if their plan to fly to Egypt failed. Though these two seemed pretty damn stupid it doesn't take a smart person to ram people with a truck or set fire to a building. If they hadn't been arrested it's very possible that they could have killed some people. Thankfully that won't happen now.

As for Egypt, let this be a reminder that they still have a major problem with ISIS. It's one of the few countries where ISIS still has major forces, along with Afghanistan and Nigeria. It is not surprising to me that it's now the main place where recruits show up. Afghanistan and Nigeria are both to remote and Syria and Iraq just don't have the organization anymore to take up recruits. In Egypt though, they can still take people in.

Egyptian ISIS is also one of the more dangerous factions of the terror group, responsible for some of the worst attacks. In addition to their many attacks on Egyptian Coptic Christians, they also were responsible for one of the deadliest attacks by ISIS, the downing of Metrojet Flight 9268. They are an extremely dangerous group and one that does not need to get new recruits, even if the quality of the recruits is lacking.

Two US soldiers killed in Afghanistan in an insider attack.

US soldiers in Afghanistan. BBC/EPA

Two US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in an insider attack by an Afghan soldier. BBC. The soldier opened fire on the soldiers in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Only the two Americans were killed and the attacker was injured. The deaths occurred as President Trump has stepped up negotiations with the Taliban and Afghan government to withdraw US troops. There are 14,000 US troops left in Afghanistan. 

My Comment:

This is far from the first insider attack by an Afghan soldier that has killed or wounded US soldiers. Indeed, this is one of the major ways US troops get hurt in Afghanistan as they are no longer in a front line combat role. 

These attacks are hard to defend against. Recruits are screened for loyalty but you can never tell what people think. If a person hates Americans or is working for the Taliban or ISIS it's hard to tell until they attack. US soldiers also have a degree of trust with the Afghan men they are training and it is a huge betrayal for these men to attack US troops. 

It's unclear when we will fully withdraw from Afghanistan. Trump has basically admitted that he's not willing to pay the price to win the war. Trump said he wasn't willing to kill 10 million people to win the war and I don't think even that would be enough to win the war. A military solution is just not viable. 

Negotiation seems to be progressing. Amazing as it is, we are actively talking with the Taliban despite being at war since 2001. Part of this is due to the common threat of ISIS, which has a major stronghold in the Afghan mountains and is attacking all sides of the conflict. It seems very possible that a peace deal could be made and the US could withdraw the rest of the 14,000 troops in Afghanistan. 

The bad news is that the Afghan government is basically losing the war. They haven't been able to beat back the Taliban and if it wasn't for US forces giving them some backbone and the fact that ISIS is attacking both sides, the government would have likely already fallen. Hopefully the war can end soon and the US deaths will finally stop. 

Editor's Note: Democratic Debate #2

As you may know the 2nd Democratic Debates start tomorrow. They will be broadcast on CNN (ugh) and they will be held on July 30th and 31st, 7-9pm. As always I will be live tweeting the debates as they happen. You can follow along on my Twitter account or my Gab account as I will be cross posting on both sites.

The line up for both nights are below:

July 30th order from left to right.

Marianne Williamson
Tim Ryan
Amy Klobuchar
Pete Buttigieg
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Beto O'Rourke
John Hickenlooper
John Delaney
Steve Bullock

July 31st order from left to right.

Michael Bennet
Kirsten Gillibrand
Julián Castro
Cory Booker
Joe Biden
Kamala Harris
Andrew Yang
Tulsi Gabbard
Jay Inslee
Bill de Blasio

Amazingly there are five other candidates still running in the Democratic Primary that did not qualify for the debates.

Seth Moulton
Tom Steyer
Mike Gravel
Joe Sestak
Wayne Messam

For the first night I think the main people to watch are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Peter Butgieg is the only other viable candidate and the rest are a bunch of irrelevants. Marianne Williamson is probably the most interesting of this group for the meme potential but that's about it.

The real fireworks should be on the 31st with frontrunner Joe Biden probably the main target. Kamala Harris and Biden got into it pretty badly the last time around and are likely to do so again. Also of note are the two candidates that are the most popular with the right, Tulsi Gabbard (for her foreign policy) and Andrew Yang (for free money). Gabbard had a good night last time but Yang is going to have to prove that he can actually present his ideas to a wider audience. I also dread this debate due to the insuferable Kristen Gillibrand who will likely screech like a banshee and interrupt everyone. She was by far the most annoying candidate the last time around.

No matter what happens, I expect to probably be able to write up a post summarizing the events the next day, time permitting. If not, I should absolutely be able to live tweet both debates so you can always follow along, assuming you can stomach this clown show.

Boko Haram attacks a funeral and kills 65 people.

Some of the damage done by the attackers. BBC/AFP.

At least 65 people are dead after a Boko Haram attack on a funeral in Nigeria. BBC. Gunmen arrived riding motorcycles and in vans and began shooting people. Some were also killed when the villagers tried to drive off the Boko Haram fighters. The attack appears to be retribution for the killing of 11 Boko Haram fighters two weeks ago. Boko Haram is an ISIS affiliate and was once one of the biggest terror groups active, but have splintered. 

My Comment:

It's not often we hear about Boko Haram anymore. They have had the same fate that core ISIS has had, they have lost much of their territory and don't have the strength they once had. Though this was a terrible attack, it pales in comparison to some of their previous attacks and shows how much the terror group has faded. 

I do have to say that I respect the locals who are fighting back against Boko Haram. They not only killed a group of 11 fighters in a separate skirmish but they also tried to drive off the fighters who attacked this time. It didn't work out but it still shows that people are tired of terror groups like Boko Haram. 

Boko Haram was always the black sheep of ISIS's affiliates, almost literally as ISIS was racist against them, and yet they have lingered on a lot longer than ISIS's core groups in Iraq and Syria. They have been very resilient even though they have lost much of their territory. They made the transition from state to underground terror group much more smoothly. 

This particular attack does show an effective way to attack. Boko Haram used motorcycles and vans as essentially light cavalry. By using them they can conduct lightning attacks and destroy and kill quickly. They can also escape quickly before any effective resistance can be found.   

I do have to note that international terrorism seems to have been reduced very quickly. When compared to the period between 2015 and 2018 terrorism seems to be an afterthought. There are still local attacks like this but the only major terror attack in 2019 was the Sri Lanka attacks. I'm not really aware of any attacks on major western targets in America or Europe, which is a major improvement. 

President Trump is considering declaring Antifa a terrorist organization.

Members of Antifa. The Independent. 

President Trump is considering declaring Antifa a terrorist organization. The Independent. The announcement comes after Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy have passed a condemnation of the group and urged the group be called a terrorist group. President condemned the group on Twitter saying that declaring them a terror group would help the government fight them. Antifa is famous for attacking people and getting into street fights with right wing groups. Most recently they attacked and severely injured journalist Andy Ngo.

Consideration is being given to declaring ANTIFA, the gutless Radical Left Wack Jobs who go around hitting (only non-fighters) people over the heads with baseball bats, a major Organization of Terror (along with MS-13 & others). Would make it easier for police to do their job!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2019

My Comment:
It is unclear if this is going to turn into an official designation or not. It seems likely though, Antifa's behavior has been reprehensible and the local officials in the West Coast cities where Antifa is most strong are either unwilling or unable to deal with them effectively. Having the Federal Government step in could greatly reduce the attacks the conduct.

Antifa has caused a massive amount of harm, both against people and property. It is only through pure luck alone that nobody has been killed by them. They have come very close, using handheld weapons to strike people in the heads. Reporter Andy Ngo could have easily died in the most recent attack.

Antifa also has the support of some very powerful people. The tech companies are totally in the bag for Antifa even when they attack people, to the point where my advertising was almost pulled on this blog because I criticized them for attacking someone and posting the video showing the attack. I ended up having to delete the post in order to keep my blog.

They also have the support of both the Democratic Party and the major mass media companies. Antifa media coverage is totally biased to the point where companies like CNN call them heroes while at the same time calling the Proud Boys racist and fascist, which they are not. There are plenty of criticisms for the Proud Boys, including the fact that they go looking for trouble, but they are not what the media calls them.

I do think it is critical that Antifa is dealt with before the 2020 elections. Though Trump is unlikely to campaign in the blue states where Antifa is most strong, they could still interfere with elections by preventing GOP rallies and maybe even intimidating people at the polling places.

Supreme Court rules President Trump can use military funds to build the border wall with Mexico.

A section of the border wall being fixed in 2018. US government photo via Wikipedia.

The Supreme Court has ruled that President Trump can use military funds to build the border wall with Mexico. Reuters. The 5-4 ruling overturned a California lower court that had blocked the administration from $2.9 billion in funds because congress had not specifically said it was for the border wall. The Supreme Court said that the groups challenging the wall did not have standing to bring the court case. The ruling was expedited as the Trump administration wanted to spend the money before September during this fiscal year. President Trump made the border wall a major campaign promise but has been stymied by both the courts and congress. He celebrated the courts ruling today on Twitter. 

Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2019

My Comment:
This is a huge victory for President Trump. He had been starting to get some criticism on the right, even by some of his supporters, for not getting the wall done. Those voices should be much quieter now as it looks like substantial work on the border wall will begin. People like Ann Coulter will have to eat some crow.

Trump just kept a major campaign promise and one that propelled him to victory in 2016. His chances to win in 2020, already pretty high, have just gone up dramatically. This is a huge slab of red meat for his base, who have been clamoring for better border security for a very long time.

I don't know if the $2.9 billion from the military is going to be enough, but it will be a start. We are also getting $6.7 billion in total with some money coming from the Treasury department as well. That may not be enough to totally close the border but with natural barriers and our existing fencing and walls it will likely help things out. It's enough for hundreds of miles of border fencing and walls to be built.

The courts ruling was somewhat interesting. Basically the Supreme Court said that the groups involved in the original lawsuit had no standing to bring it in the first place. That seems like something that should have been realized by the federal judge that ruled this way in the first place but since that judge was from California, I doubt he cared. Judges are supposed to rule on the way things are, not how they want them to be and I am thinking that the bias was very obvious in this case in the lower courts. 

Construction should take some time. A border wall is a substantial piece of engineering and it's not something that can go up over night. It will take weeks and months of construction before we see any change at the border but once it starts happening we should see less holes in our southern defense.

President Trump has been doing quite a bit to try and stop the migrant crisis at our border. He has pressured both Mexico and Guatemala to keep the illegals in their countries so they can either accept them as asylum seekers or deport them back to their own countries. Mexico has cracked down so much that there are now military units on both sides of the US-Mexico border trying to prevent illegal border crossings. That's a huge improvement over just a few years ago where the southern border was a free for all.

The usual suspects are freaking out about this in the media and on social media. I think they finally figured out that they aren't going to prevent President Trump from building the wall. The anger here is mostly for political reasons, if they don't think the wall will work, why care if it is built? They are just angry because they know that Trump kept a major campaign promise and that his base will love him for this. They know that their chances of unseating President Trump in 2020 are pretty much gone. And with Mueller's horrible performance the other day, impeachment is done too and it's looking pretty clear that President Trump will remain president until 2024.

Trump administration is restarting federal executions, starting with five men, four of which are eligible for death under Joe Biden's crime laws.

President Donald Trump. NBC News.

The Trump administration is restarting federal executions starting with five men, four of which are eligible for death under laws authored by Joe Biden. NBC News. The announcement came two days after Joe Biden said he would no longer support the death penalty. Three of the men are eligible for the death penalty due to the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which was sponsored and voted for by Joe Biden. Biden was also the author of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which one other man was eligible for. Biden's support of the crime laws creates an opening for his 2020 rivals to attack  him. The five men scheduled for execution are detailed below:

"[Daniel Lewis] Lee killed a couple and the woman's 8-year-old daughter, throwing them in a bayou with weights, and was eligible for the federal death penalty because the crime was in furtherance of a racketeering scheme designed to raise money for a white supremacist organization.

In a carjacking, [Lezmond] Mitchell killed a 63-year-old grandmother and later slit the throat of her 9-year-old granddaughter before crushing the girl's skull with rocks.

[Wesley Ira] Purkey kidnapped, raped and murdered a 16-year-old girl before dismembering and burning her body.

[Alfred] Bourgeois beat his 2-year-old daughter to death on a military base.

[Dustin Lee] Honken killed five people, including two young girls, to silence witnesses in a drug trial, and was convicted of murder in the course of operating a continuing criminal enterprise."

All of them are scheduled to die between December and January.

My Comment:
I wonder if this is NBC news giving President Trump more credit than he deserves. No offense to the President but this seems like something he would do regardless of the political implications. Trump has been a supporter of the death penalty for years so it's not like this is surprising.

That being said, he did give a gift to Joe Biden's 2020 opponents. Biden looks like a massive hypocrite right now. He was a long supporter of the death penalty and greatly expanded it's use in the United States when he was a senator. Doing so was popular at the time and may indeed be popular with centrists today but liberals hate it.

I expect in next week's debate Joe Biden is going to be attacked yet again by pretty much everyone on stage. Given how poorly he handled Kamala Harris' and Eric "nukem" Swalwell's attacks on him during the last debate I expect the debate to go very bad for him.

He's also in a terrible position. If he had stuck with his support for the death penalty, he might have gotten a little credit from the right and center for actually sticking up for his beliefs. But he flip-flopped which isn't going to impress anyone. The people that may have supported him for supporting the death penalty will not do so now and the leftist that dislike the death penalty won't forgive him anyways. And the whole controversy might remind voters that Biden really does have more centrist history, which is poison in the Democratic primaries.

As for the criminals themselves, it's pretty clear that these guys are among the worst of the worst. They are all murderers and evil people and I don't think anyone is going to shed a tear for them. One of them was even a white supremacist so he puts the left in another position of hypocrisy if they try and stop his execution.

For me I've always been agnostic on the death penalty. One the one hand, there are many criminals that desperately deserve death and some crimes are so heinous that letting the people that commit them live is an atrocity on it's own.

On the other hand, I have always been concerned about wrongful convictions. Being executed for a crime you did not commit is the worst thing a government can do, short of banning firearms, and I'm not convinced that our current laws are good enough to prevent that.

As a final note, some people on the right are freaking out about this hoping it means that a lot of people are going to be convicted and executed for treason. That seems pretty unlikely to me. Though I am sure there are people that have committed treason I doubt they will face justice for it and even if they did executions are extremely unlikely.

Will Governor Ricardo Rossello of Puerto Rico resign?

Protesters calling for the resignation of Puerto Rico. New York Times.

Governor Ricardo Rossello of Puerto Rico may resign or be impeached in the wake of a major scandal. New York. He was supposed to address the people of the territory this evening but has not done so. Many people were expecting him to resign. The scandal erupted from a series of leaks from private chats that showed crude conversations and pointed to possible wrongdoing. The chats included death threats against the Mayor of San Jaun, calling women whores and making fun of the almost 3000 dead from Hurricane Maria. Also contributing to the mess is the arrest of six people, including two of his aids, for federal corruption charges. The poor response to Hurricane Maria and the terrible financial situation of Puerto Rico. Rossello is a member of the New Progressive Party and is also a Democrat. His actions have lead to massive protests against him. 

My Comment:

I haven't been following this story closely but it is probably one of the biggest political scandals to hit Puerto Rico in recent memory. It seems very clear that in one way or another Rossello is going to be gone very soon. He will likely resign and if he doesn't he will be impeached. There is no way he is going to survive this.

But why is everyone mad at him? I don't think it was just the leaked telegram posts. He was pretty horrible in those posts but politicians are horrible in their private chats all the time. To be sure, joking about killing his political opponents and all the people who died in the Hurricane is probably not going to win him any friends, but if he was in a stronger political position, he would be fine. 

Those leaks certainly didn't help him and may have been the last straw but I think it was the corruption and the horrible response to Hurricane Maria that sunk him. The economy has been terrible as well, but Maria is partially responsible for that as well. 

What did Rossello do wrong with the hurricane response? He downplayed how serious the storm was and didn't want to admit how many people had died. He also completely failed in coordinating with the US government in delivering aid supplies to the people who needed it. 

Most shamefully, the horrible corruption in Puerto Rico meant that much of the supplies were either stolen or left to rot. Only the people with connections were guaranteed help. Rossello knew this but did nothing to stop it and may have even been involved with it. 

Rossello is a political opponent of Donald Trump and has focused much of his time attacking the President instead of actually helping his people. Trump gave it right back to him and he has been vindicated in his criticism of the government of Puerto Rico. 

As for Puerto Rico itself the government has long been a basket-case. I think this scandal is a good example why they need some kind of change. Either they should finally become a state or they should be an independent country, but it's clear that the status quo isn't working. They need a whole new government and they won't get that the way they are now. I'd prefer they go independent but my guess is that the status quo will remain even after Rossello is gone. 

Pot legalization bills introduced in both houses of Congress.

Legal pot in California. AP.

Two bills were introduced in Congress that would legalize and tax pot as well as allowing people convicted under federal marijuana laws to clear their convictions. AP. The legislation was introduced by Kamala Harris in the Senate and Jarrold Nadler in the house. The bills are unlikely to pass but have a better chance of doing so due to Nadler's involvement. 11 states have legalized recreational use of marijuana while two thirds of states have some kind of medical marijuana exception. 

My Comment:

Politically, this is a fairly cynical move by Kamala Harris to try and get the weed legalization people on her side. They have never been a fan of her as she was a long time prosecutor who threw a lot of people in jail and prison for drug crimes. It's very obviously a play for the primaries and I bet most people will see through it. She's a huge hypocrite on this issue and is the last person that should be introducing this legislation.

That being said, I do think that one of the bills is a good idea while the other is a slap in the face to the idea of justice. I have thought for a while that pot should probably legalized, even if I have no desire to use the drug. I do think that marijuana has more negative effects than pot advocates would ever admit but I don't think they are worth banning the drug over. I also think that pot is safer than alcohol and tobacco which are in no danger of being ban. 

What rubs me the wrong way is the 2nd bill which would expunge pot convictions. Very few people that have been convicted of marijuana crimes are minor criminals, outside of Washington DC. DC people tend to be drug users and not dealers who are the vast majority of people convicted under federal laws. These are organized criminals and should not be allowed to have their records expunged or be allowed out of prison. It has nothing to do with whether or not pot should be illegal as what they were doing would have been illegal even if it does get legalized. 

Does the bill have a chance at passing? Possibly. The Republicans do control the Senate but if every Democrat votes in favor of legalization it wouldn't take that many Republicans to vote for it in order for it to pass. I think a surprising number of Republicans would support the legalization bill, but probably not the expunging of criminal records. 

It would then be up to President Trump to sign it. Will he? I think there is a decent chance. Trump's fairly open to pot legalization compared to many GOP politicians and supports medical marijuana. It would also be a huge political coup for him if he did so as he would get a lot of the credit. If it gets to that point I do think he signs it, which will shock many people who haven't been paying attention. Trump has supported making it up to the states to decide if they want legalized marijuana so I wouldn't be surprised if he goes even further. 

All that being said, even if this particular effort fails, I do think that illegal marijuana is on the way out. There will always be drug smuggling but pot usage has been normalized to a major degree and many states and countries have legalized it. That's the kind of trend that can't be ignored and will likely eventually lead to legal pot in the United States. 

Squad member Rashida Tlaib says minimum wage should be $20 an hour...

Rashida Tlaib. The Hill. 

Freshman congresswoman Rashida Tlaib says that a $15 minimum wage does not go far enough and should be raised to $18 to $20 an hour. The Hill. She also criticized the $2.13 wage for tipped employees. Talib addressed criticism of the plan who say prices would go up by saying prices have already gone up.  Congress recently passed a $15 per hour minimum wage but the bill has no chance of being taken up by the Senate or being signed by President Trump.

My Comment:

How out of touch is Rashida Tlaib? These massively increased wages would be absolutely devastating for the lower classes, many of them who would lose their jobs as their employees could no longer afford to keep them on. The people lucky enough to keep their jobs wouldn't be able to buy anything because the price of everything would go up. 

The restaurant industry would be completely destroyed. Even well off places can not go from paying their workers $2.13 (more if they don't make federal minimum wages) to $20 and hour. The consumer would have to pay much higher prices and the lower classes would no longer be able to do something as simple as going out to eat. 

It also does not take into consideration the vast difference between the coastal states and the rest of the country. In a major city like New York or San Francisco, where the costs of living is out of control, having a $15 minimum wage could make sense but in the Midwest? It's a joke. 

Here in Wisconsin you can live a very decent life with a $15 per hour wage. It's almost enough to buy a house on and have a family. $20 an hour is even more ridiculous almost making you wealthy. It would destroy the economy if the minimum wage was that high. 

I would say that the current minimum wage, $7.25 an hour, is a bit low. It's not much of a living with a 40 hour job even in the Midwest where the cost of living is a lot lower. But why more than double it? You would think they would do something more reasonable like $9 or $10 an hour but instead have to go for a massive increase that the economy couldn't handle.  

I do have to say that idiotic things like this is a major reason why people dislike Rashida Tlaib and the other members of the squad. People understand how damaging their policies are and actively dislike what they are trying to do. Is it any wonder why they are so unpopular? 

Mystery solved! Mike Pence canceled his visit to a New Hampshire drug treatment center because an official there was a drug dealer.

Air Force Two. Politico/AP.

Vice President Mike Pence canceled a visit to a New Hampshire drug treatment center because one of the officials there was a drug dealer. Politico. Jeff Hatch worked at the drug treatment center but has plead guilty to transporting more than $100,000 worth of the deadly drug fentanyl from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. Hatch has been a public speaker for years, warning children about the dangers of drug addiction. Hatch plead guilty to using a telephone to commit a crime and was apparently a government witness against other drug dealers. Hatch was immediately fired by the Granite Recovery Center after the story broke. 

My Comment:

This story had set off a spate of speculation and theories when it originally happened. People thought it might have been related to the Epstein scandal, or the accident that sunk a Russian submarine. It was even speculated that there was some kind of plot against Vice President Pence and that his life would have been in danger if he want to New Hampshire. And some even believed that Pence himself would be fired or not allowed to run for VP in 2020.

None of that was true (though I bet some people will wish to believe otherwise). It was a much more mundane case of a criminal scandal that would likely blow up on the Vice President if he had appeared with a convicted drug dealer. It's a fairly big story in itself even without Mike Pence but it's not as big as it had been speculated to be. 

Mike Pence would have been very embarrassed to have pictures of himself out there shaking Jeff Hatch's hand. The media would have had a field day attacking Pence for having his anti-drug event go so wrong. It would have been a minor political scandal for a VP that has largely avoided the spotlight.

The actual crime itself was fairly sickening. Having a person working at a drug treatment center selling drugs is just disgusting. Hatch was supposed to be getting people in New Hampshire clean but was at the same time providing some of the very drugs that cause people to go to addiction clinics in the first place. 

It was especially significant that he was selling fentanyl. Fentanyl is a very addictive and dangerous opiate which is responsible for many deaths from overdoses. It is even deadly to handle and there have been cases were first responders or police officers have been poisoned just from being exposed to the drug. It's one of the worst drugs ever created and is a major contributor to the opiate crisis that has devastated middle America. 

All in all, this story was kind of a bust. That being said, it did accomplish Mike Pence's goal, which was to expose how dangerous and deadly the drug crisis is. It did that in spades and even showed that our drug treatment facilities are vulnerable.  

Dumb news story of the day. Georgia Democrat lawmaker confronted by man she said was racist to her.

Georgia state lawmaker Erica Thomas. The Daily Caller.

Georgia state lawmaker Erica Thomas, who had accused a man of saying that she should "go back to where she came from", was confronted by the man at a news conference. The Daily Caller. The man, Eric Sparkes, steped forward and said he had confronted Thomas at a Publix store but denied saying anything racist. He did admit to calling her a lazy bitch for using the 10 items or less lane with 20 items. Sparkes is a Cuban-American and a life long Democrat and accused Thomas of lying about him to further her career. The two both showed up to be interviewed by local media and were yelling at each other while trying to defend their sides. Thomas later walked back some of her claims saying he may not have used the exact words but did say something to that effect. The story had trended on Twitter and was compared by the left to President Trump's recent comments on Ilhan Omar. 

Today I was verbally assaulted in the grocery store by a white man who told me I was a lazy SOB and to go back to where I came from bc I had to many items in the express lane. My husband wasn’t there to defend me because he is on Active Duty serving the country I came from USA!

— Erica Thomas (@itsericathomas) July 20, 2019

Eric Sparkes absolutely denies claim that he told politician @itsericathomas to “go back where you came from.” He says the argument started over her using the express lane while having too many items. pic.twitter.com/ZikyJc81vf

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) July 21, 2019

My Comment:
This story blew up over the weekend and I haven't really had the time to investigate it until now. I had been vaguely aware of Thomas' original claims and was immediately skeptical. This story blew up this morning and trended as yet another #HateHoax with comparisons immediately being made to the Jussie Smollett situation. 

After taking a closer look at the situation, I have to say that this is even dumber than the Jussie Smollett case. Nobody here looks good. At least the Jussie Smollett case was a deliberate hoax, this was just two people being stupid.

Eric Sparkes just strikes me as a busybody. Even conceding he didn't tell Erica Thomas to go back home, he still picked a fight with her for no reason. He even left the store and was so angry that he decided to walk back in after leaving and confront a nine month pregnant woman directly. He then called her a bitch, which is very rude. He also claimed he's not white even when he obviously is. Plus it looks like he spends most of his time suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Of course Erica Thomas is no angel here either. It looks like she was lying about what was said to her and even if she wasn't making a minor incident at the grocery store into a national news story. Even if Eric Sparkes is an idiot, nobody deserves the outrage mob that the modern social and news media landscape can generate. And, of course, even if Sparkes had said what he had been accused of it would not have been racist! It's very clear that it was Thomas' behavior that angered Sparkes, not her race, but she just assumed the worst, probably because she is racist herself.

Seeing these two go at it at a news conference is got to be one of the more surreal things I have seen in recent history. I don't think I have ever seen that happen before. If you had told me that some lawmakers called someone racist and then that person would show up at her press conference to deny the accusation I would have called you crazy. But it happened.

What is even more crazy to me is that anyone paid attention to this story in the first place. There is no reason that a guy getting into it with a minor state lawmaker to be treated like actual news. Even if he was racist to her, which he wasn't, it's not a real story. It's just something to get people outraged and it seems to have succeeded.

Iran releases video showing them seizing a British oil tanker.

New footage from Iran shows their troops seizing a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. Fox News. Iranian commandos rappelled down from helicopter while the tanker was flanked by Iranian gunboats. The ship, the Stena Impero, was detained along with another UK flagged vessel on Friday. The 2nd ship was released by the Stena Impero remains detained in what Iran is calling a "reciprocal measure" after the UK seized an Iranian ship two weeks ago. Leadership in the UK as well as the United States have condemned the move. 

My Comment:

I don't think this incident is in itself that serious. Ships get detained all the time and it's only the heightened tension between Iran and the west that is making this to be a big deal. Those tensions are extremely high and this will do nothing to calm them down though, but if war did not break down over the shooting down of drones on both sides, it's not going to start over a tanker being seized. Especially considering Iran has actually attacked tankers in the recent past. 

The only complicating factor is the fate of the crew of the Stena Impero. They are essentially hostages right now and there will probably have to be some kind of negotiation to get them released. I don't think Iran would be so bold and so stupid to actually harm them but they are holding them against their will. 

This seemed like a pretty complex operation for the Iranians. They had several smaller gunboats coordinating the mission and an entire team of commandos raided the ship. It looked fairly professionally done from the video I posted above but it's always possible that they edited out any difficulties. It's very obviously a propaganda video. 

It does seem like the entire raid could have been easily defeated by a few guys with AR's or a single deck mounted .50 machine gun. It would have been impossible to land on the ship if there was anyone willing or able to shoot back. Doing so might have caused an even bigger incident though, but I had thought that most of the ships that operated in the region had PMC's for protection due to the threat of piracy. 

It also seems that both the US Navy and the Royal Navy dropped the ball here. They were supposed to be escorting these vessels and keeping the peace in the Strait of Hormuz but seemed to have been unable to prevent this attack. The US Navy is stretched thin due to global commitments and the Royal Navy is a mere shadow of it's former glorious self, but you would have thought they would have had a vessel or two close enough to respond. 

No matter what happens though, Iran remains one of the world's few remaining tinderboxes and it seems likely that Iran is at least considering setting it off. This action would be meaningless in itself but it is significant due to the various other bad actions Iran has been doing in the recent past. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we can avoid a military conflict. 

How the word racism has lost all meaning and is used as a way to silence people.

Ilhan Omar. Official congressional photo. 

As you are most certainly aware, the media and the left has lost their minds this week about President Trump and his fans. He has been extremely critical of Ilhan Omar and the other members of "the squad", a group of freshmen women who are extreme leftists. President Trump suggested Ilhan Omar should go back to her own country, Somalia, and fix it before she lectured America. Trump's fans chanted "send her back" at a recent rally.

The media and the Democrats have called this racist. On the face of it, it makes zero sense at all. It's very clear to me that telling Omar to go back to her home country has nothing to do with her race and everything to do with her actions. Some people may indeed hate her for her skin, but the vast majority of Trump fans love black people who are on our side. People like Ben Carson and Candace Owens are beloved on the right. Omar herself said that she'd be loved if she wore a MAGA hat and that's totally true for the vast majority of Trump supporters. Clearly something else is going on here.

 The true definition of racism is hating people because of the color of their skin. It's a very bad thing because nobody deserves to be punished for things they aren't responsible. Having a bad experience with one person shouldn't prejudice you against a second one. I, of course, hate this kind of racism and everyone should be opposed to it. You should take people one by one, and this is something I do everyday. I work in a very multicultural place and try to treat people as individuals, not as a group. I've dealt with practically every race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and nationality at my job and I let everyone I interact with win me over on their merit, not by their race. 

For a long time this definition of racism has been universally agreed upon by everyone. This is no longer true. For the left the definition of racism has expanded dramatically. There is all kinds of nonsense about privilege and power and it generally is used as a way to ignore criticism from pretty much anyone who isn't a liberal. 

Under the nebulous, poorly defined liberal version of racism, asking someone to leave if they don't like the country is racist, but hating white people just because they are white is not. Under their world view, telling Ilhan Omar to leave is racist but doing to same thing to Asian right wing pundit Michelle Malkin is not. (Be aware that there are some actual racial slurs in the below tweet)

In case you are under the illusion that morally pure libs neeeeeeeever tells non-white women to "go back" to some other country, here's just a small sample of my go-back-to-fill-in-the-blank messages to educate you otherwise. And this is just on Twitter. Enjoy. I do every day! pic.twitter.com/DquAIdWXVw

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) July 15, 2019

Why is saying the same thing to Michelle Malkin and Ilhan Omar racism in one case and not the other under this definition of racism? Very simple, Malkin's a Republican and Omar isn't. There might be some morally consistent people that would have a problem with both, but this post isn't about those people. It's about the people that have a problem with one and not the other.

Something else is going on here and it's pretty clear that it's tribalism. Democrats don't hate Michelle Malkin because she is Asian or a woman, they hate her because she's a Republican. And the same is true for Ilhan Omar and Republicans. It's because of the behavior and beliefs of these two people that they are hated, not the color of their skin. Some people might say racist things about these people but for the vast majority of people, it's the fact that they vote for the opposite party and are pretty consistently attacking their side. 

And I think that's what people don't get about Ilhan Omar and the right. She's done and said things about us and in general that we find absolutely horrible. Even her political plans are things that would cause massive amounts of misery for the middle and lower classes that make up President Trump's base (and the same members of those social and economic classes that are of different races but are less keen on Trump). She's a far left person and supports socialism, an ideology that we have been at war with for 100 years, and she also seems to be prejudiced against Jewish people and the nation of Israel (which may not be racism but is certainly bigotry). Some might be prejudiced against her because she is a Muslim, but in their defense the horrors of the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda are fresh and she hasn't been overly critical of the worst people in her religion. Hating her just because she's a Muslim is bigoted but her political stance on terrorism is a valid criticism of the woman.

Ilhan Omar is basically a big fat symbol of what is wrong with America today when viewed from a right wing perspective. She's been telling everyone who lives in middle America and benefits from the Trump administration that not only are we going to take away all the good things President Trump has done but we are also going to destroy your culture, take away your money and support your two most hated enemies, socialism and radical Islam. And that's not even getting into the fraud accusations or the fact that America let her into this country and she is repaying that act of incredibly generosity with bile and hatred. Is it any wonder why they hate her?

But even the mildest criticism of Omar and her compatriots is met with accusations of racism. Asking her to go back home is about as mild as you can get. Given her behavior and beliefs and how thoroughly they disagree with the right, much worse things could be said.

Of course being called a racist is among the most damaging things that can happen to a person. President Trump is immune because he's the most powerful person on earth, and some higher ranked Republicans and media personalities on the right are mostly safe as well. But for a normal person? It can cost you your job, your friends and even your freedom.

And that's the real goal here. It's not about protecting people from being judged unfairly, by all accounts Ilhan Omar and "the squad' are being judged fairly. Anyone who so openly and blatantly attacks a group of people is going to get a reaction. It's about control. The left has been using racism as a cudgel to batter the right for years now and it's to silence criticism. And when it's not racism, it's homophobia or sexism.

If America is to survive as a country we have to be able to criticize our leadership. You can't shut down free speech even if you find it distasteful. Ilhan Omar and her ilk are extremely controversial even in their own party and are not above criticism, even when crudely stated. It's not wrong to want her to leave. And it's not racist either. 

As far as I am concerned America has very few actual racists. I have met a few in person and seen more online but people that just hate people because they are a different color are rare. And even the few borderline people I have met at least try to treat people as individuals.

But the liberal definition of "racist"? That's more than half the country. It includes every Republican, every white person, every minority and Democrat that's not "woke" enough and everyone who is on board with the left's ideology but makes a momentary mistake. Any one of these people can have a media machine, a protest engine and an outrage mob at their doorsteps on a moments notice.

This is something we have to fight. I agree we should fight real racism and bigotry where ever we find it. But there is no reason for one small group of politically unpopular people, the media and the leadership of the Democratic Party, have all the say in what is racist or not. Telling someone to go home isn't racist, but hating people because of the color of their skin is, no matter what these idiots say. And the time has come that we start sticking up for ourselves.

US Navy shoots down Iranian drone after it came close to a warship.

File photo of the USS Boxer. Reuters.

The US Navy has shot down an Iranian drone after it came close to an amphibious landing ship, the USS Boxer. Reuters. The drone came within 1000 meters of the ship, which was sailing in the Strait of Hormuz, and ignored multiple commands to turn back. Iran said they had no information about losing a drone. The incident comes after last month's destruction of a US drone by Iran, which almost led to airstrikes. Iran has also seized a Panamanian flagged oil tanker after it accused the ship's crew of smuggling Iranian oil. Washington has committed to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open for international trade. 

My Comment:

This may seem like a major incident, but I really don't think it is. After all, it was just a drone that was shot down, not a manned airplane. It's an incident for sure, but not one that likely has much in the way of consequences. 

It's unclear how big this drone was and how it was shot down. The Iranian drones I have seen have been fairly small but who knows how big this one was? And it's unclear how the drone was shot down. It may have been the USS Boxer's anti-missile Phalanx system, but the ship also has anti-air missile batteries. Wikipedia says it may have been electronic warfare, jamming the signal of the drone, which is also a very strong possibility. 

It's very likely that this was a surveillance drone. Iran had in the past used those drones to take some pretty good pictures of US warships. My guess is that this was another of those flights, but the crew of the USS Boxer didn't want to take any chances that it was an attack, so they shot it down. Given the heightened state of tension in the region, such an action was more than justified. Any attack by a drone on a warship like the USS Boxer could have caused quite a bit of damage. 

I don't expect that this will have a big impact. For it's part, Iran is denying the drone ever existed and say they have no information about the incident. That's almost certainly a lie but I think it's one based on face saving more than anything else. They are still trying to milk the downing of a US drone and don't want their people to know that their drones are just as vulnerable. 

Much more concerning is the seizing of a oil tanker that the Iranians say was smuggling oil. The crew of that ship are now hostages and the ship itself is valuable. There may be military attempts to recover both the ship and the crew and that's a lot more dangerous than some silly drone getting shot down. 

Iran is playing a dangerous game here. I know that sanctions are costing them quite a bit but risking a war over these stupid stunts in the Strait of Hormuz is not going to help things. If they were smart they would stop this nonsense and come to the negotiating table with President Trump...

Major arson attack on an anime studio in Kyoto, Japan kills 33 people.

The anime studio burns in Kyoto. Reuters.

A major arson attack on an anime studio in Kyoto Japan is now one of the worst mass killing in Japan in years with 33 deaths. Reuters. A 41 year old man dumped gasoline and shouted "die" at the Kyoto Animation Studios. The resulting blaze cost 33 people their lives. The suspect is in custody and will be charged with murder. 36 additional people were injured, along with the suspect. Though violent crime is rare in Japan, they have had several incidences of mass violence including a mass stabbing two months ago and another in 2016. 

My Comment:

I've got a few things to say about this incident. The first is that I have actually been to Kyoto. My family hosted a foreign exchange student when I was a child and her family was gracious enough to invite my family to Japan. Kyoto was one of the cities I visited. The trip was a long time ago, but I do remember liking the city, so this story is more personal to me than most. 

 As for Japan though, they have had a few of these mass causality attacks lately and throughout their history. Though Japan is a very safe country there are a few people there that do want to commit these kinds of attacks. As of right now the motive is unknown so I won't speculate it but there are always people that want to kill and injure large numbers of people that exist in every society. 

I am fairly worried about the repercussions of this attack. I have always feared that someday people would realize how effective arson would be as a terror weapon and I think this case could possibly popularize it. With a gas can and fire source this man managed to rack up a body count higher than most mass shooters and with much less effort than a bomber. Arson is disturbingly easy and has a good chance of causing a disproportionate amount of casualties compared to other kinds of attacks. 

I think there may very well be copycat attacks, both in Japan and globally. The arson cat is out of the bag so to speak and it's likely various terrorists and psychopaths will learn a major lesson from this attack. And that lesson is that arson can kill just as effectively as a bomb or a bullet. And in many cases it will do a better job... 

That's a message that I had tried to surprise, even if my blog has limited reach. When ever I would argue for gun rights I said that there were ways to kill a large number of people that were more effective and easier than shooting people. Arson was one of the things I was thinking about but now it's a moot point. 

As for the fire itself, it isn't too surprising that so many people died. Fire can spread incredibly quickly and smoke can disorient people pretty badly. If the attack occurred near the entrance there may not have been a good way to escape from the smoke and flames. Even with modern fire alarms and sprinkler systems, which I am assuming this building had, a fire can spread quickly enough that people can't escape it. 

Hopefully the good guys can learn some lessons from this attack as well. In addition to the obvious, such as making sure the fire alarms and sprinklers work, I think security should recognize that arson is a major threat. I don't know if this animation studio had security or not, my guess is no as it is Japan and there is little crime, but in copycat attacks it would be wise to treat a man trying to start a fire the same as someone trying to shoot a gun or set off a bomb. Stop them at all costs... 

Which candidates made the 2nd Democratic Debate?

Candidates on night two of the 1st Democratic debate. NPR/Getty.

20 candidates have made the 2nd Democratic debate. I will list them in a second but there are quite a few that did not make the cut, most notably billionaire Tom Steyer. The cut was determined on both polling and how much money has been raised. With Steyer just entering the race, it makes sense he hasn't done much of either. Gun confiscation candidate Eric Swalwell has already dropped out of the race. 

Here is the list of candidates, in alphabetical order, and a short comment by me for each one:

Senator Michael Bennett of Colorado: Pretty much an unknown to me and I am honestly not sure if he was actually in the last debate. Either way, I don't expect him to make much of an impact. 

Former VP Joe Biden: The frontrunner. He had an awful debate performance last time and Kamala Harris had him against the ropes. He's still clinging onto his lead but that's mostly inertia at this point and another horrible debate performance will likely knock him out of frontrunner status. His performance will be the thing to watch at the next debate.

Senator Corey Booker from New Jersey: Booker had an ok debate last time but hasn't really stood out from the crowd. Kamala Harris pretty much has the same platform as Booker but had a very good last debate and is higher on the oppression ladder than he is. He's going to have more trouble standing out unless he has an amazing debate.

Governor Steve Bullock of Montana: Another non-factor that is unique as being a blue governor in a very red state. Expect him to be mostly ignored. 

Mayor Pete Buttgieg of South Bend Indiana: Buttgieg had a semi-decent debate where he acted like an adult while everyone else was acting like a clown. He's a media darling and is well spoken but I don't see him having an amazing debate. 

Julian Castro, former Obama secretary: Castro had one of the most insane moments of the last debate where he advocated for abortion rights for transgender men, confusing millions of people. I'm hoping he has another gaffe like that for purely entertainment reasons, but I don't think he's a serious candidate. 

Bill de Blasio, New York City Mayor: How de Blassio made the cut is beyond me, he's not getting any polling support at all. I also expect de Blassio, if he makes any impact at all, it will be because he abandoned New York when it had a major blackout to campaign. Otherwise I expect him to be a non-factor. 

Former representative John Delaney: Delaney didn't make much of an impact but tried to make himself to be a more reasonable alternative to the other candidates Still, very unlikely to be a major player.

Representative Tulsi Gabbard: Gabbard's a foreign policy wonk that runs populist on that position at least, which makes her seem reasonable (in comparison) for people like me. That being said, the Democratic Party hates her for that and she got very little attention in the 1st debate. I expect her to do fine in her area of expertise but to be ignored otherwise. 

Senator Kristen Gillibrand from New York: She was awful in the 1st debate always interrupting people and even getting shrill at some points. I consider her one of the most unlikable people in the debate and I fully expect her to be the most annoying person yet again. 

Senator Kamala Harris from California: She got the biggest boost in the polls from the last debate and is a dark horse candidate for the nominee. She pretty much destroyed Joe Biden and appeals to the woke side of the Democratic Party. She will be looking to take out Joe Biden again this debate and I expect her to do so.

Former governor John Hickenlooper: Always forget he is running and he made zero impact on the first debate. His only saving grace is being opposed to socialism and with "The Squad" feuding with President Trump, it will be interesting if he sticks with that. 

Governor Jay Inslee of Washington: The global warming candidate, I don't see him as anything other than an issue candidate like Eric Swalwell was. He's there to get attention for his pet cause and little else.

Senator Amy Klobocher: The other shrill female candidate who isn't quite as annoying as Kristen Gillibrand. Expect her to say something about hunting while at the same time trying to ban guns. 

Former Representivie Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke: My least favorite candidate just because of his insufferable nickname and very punchable face, O'Rourke's campaign is on life support. He was a media darling for a bit but his campaign collapsed as other candidates sucked the air out of it. He needs a miracle to continue his campaign as I have seen polls where he was at 0% support. It's a minor miracle that he even made it to this debate in the first place. 

Representative Tim Ryan from Ohio: Another no name candidate that even the NPR report I cited got lazy with. I don't expect much of anything from him

Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont: Sanders has faded into the background a little bit, especially compared to last election. There are a couple of reasons for that. First is the fact that many of his supporters abandoned him for good after he endorsed Hillary Clinton, of all people, in the last election even after it came out that both her and the DNC colluded with the media against him. Second, he lost his platform as pretty much every candidate moved far left this election cycle compared to last. He was the only far left candidate in 2016 but almost everyone has a similar platform, diluting his support.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts: Warren is a technocrat who likes to bloviate about complex plans that makes peoples eyes glaze over. She's pretty good at talking but she doesn't really evoke an emotional response. Expect her to talk at length about her various plans, but not to win the debate. 

Mariane Williamson: The most odd-ball candidate in the race, I have heard of people donating to her just for the entertainment value. She's a new age spiritualist and author and you can really tell. I don't think she has a real chance of winning the debate, or the nomination for that matter, but I do expect more than a few soundbites.

Andrew Yang: The Universal Basic Income candidate, Yang wants to give everyone $1000 a month. Out of all the candidates his platform is the most interesting, if not realistic at all. Unfortunately for Yang, his performance was terrible. He even managed to flub the easy question about his core issue. He barely spoke with the least time talking out of all candidates. His defenders say that his mic was cut but either way, after what I saw of him in the last debate I can't see him doing much better. He will still survive due to the obvious appeal of free money, but without more charisma I can't see him winning.

That's all who made the cut and who knows if someone will drop out between now and the 30th. No matter what happens I hope I will be able to live tweet the debate. I always enjoy doing that even if it does increase my blood pressure... 

India may replace their Russian built air-to-air missiles after being outgunned by Pakistan in their skirmish this February.

An Indian Air Force SU30. NDTV.

India may replace their Russian built R-77 missiles after they were outgunned by Pakistani AIM-120's during their skirmish in February of 2019. NDTV. In the Indian account of the skirmish, 8 of their fighters faced off with 24 Pakistani fighters. The Pakistani fighters fired the AIM-120's but the two Indian SU-30's were unable to return fire due to the inferior range of the R-77. India is looking to replace the missile with Israel's Derby missile, which is already in use with their indigenous Tejas fighter. They are also looking to replace the shorter range R-73 with the European ASRAAM missile. India is also developing their own air-to-air missile, the Astra, but that missile will not be ready for ten years.

My Comment:

An update to a previous story from earlier this year. Back then I had wondered why India had failed in comparison to the Pakistani fighters, who got at least one kill on an Indian MIG-21. It seems as though the reason my have been that their most advanced fighters weren't able to mix it up. 

To be certain, I don't know if I agree with the events described in the NDTV post. It's an Indian perspective so they are trying to make it seem like the Pakistani's used American F-16's and AIM-120's but that hasn't been established with certainty. 

However, I do think it is as good as explanation as any as to why the Indians didn't use their SU-30's effectively in the battle. Them being outgunned is as good as an explanation as any. Being able to see the enemy and not being able to engage them has got to be frustrating and that sounds like that is what happened last February. 

I do think that India needs to step up their military innovations. Their weapons are out of date and Pakistan generally has a better military, even though they are outnumbered. The fact that they were using old Russian tech instead of more modern designs is a bad sign if they have any more skirmishes. Buying Israeli and European technology is a good step but it's long overdue and also probably not enough on there own. 

As for India and Pakistan relations it seems to have calmed down quite a bit. Much has been made of the fact that a major election in India was about to happen when the skirmishes occurred and after the election things have calmed down. I don't know if those two things are related or not but I do know that both countries were playing a dangerous game. However, if India does manage to upgrade their weapons, it's very possible the next air skirmish won't be so one sided.