United States to sign historic deal with the Taliban, beginning the process of ending the war.

Civilians release pigeons and balloons to celebrate a reduction of violence in Jalalabad. ABC News/AFP.

The United States will sign a historic deal with the Taliban, beginning the process to end the war there. ABC News. The announcement came from President Trump and comes after a week long cease fire that was a success. The agreement would eventually lead to the end of the war but it is dependent on cooperation from both the Taliban and the Afghan government. That cooperation will also require the Taliban to not work with al-Qaeda and ISIS. If the agreement succeeds it could end the 18 year old war. 

My Comment:

Normally this would be a huge story but Coronavirus is dominating the news. With the bickering over the virus reaching epic proportions the media isn't going to make a story that is positive for President Trump go viral. One of the reasons I started this blog is to cover stories the mainstream media isn't covering that well and this is certainly the case here. 

Ending the war in Afghanistan would be a massive win for President Trump and America. The war has lasted 18 years for little reason. We accomplished our goal there, the destruction of al-Qaeda, years ago and now they don't really exist as a terror group. Indeed, the only terror group active in Afghanistan is ISIS and they are on the backfoot as well, since both the Afghan government and the Taliban are fighting them. 

It is beyond time for us to pull out. 2,440 US soldiers have died in Afghanistan and we have spent billions of dollars there. And we never even came close to winning the war in Afghanistan. Had we made it our sole focus after 9/11 and deployed thousands of troops we might have been able to win militarily but after the Iraq War, Afghanistan was on the back burner. We could technically win now if we were to unleash the full might of our military but nobody wants that, including President Trump. 

Will it work? I am not sure. The Taliban has torpedoed these talks before by launching attacks, but in this case the week long cease fire seemed to have worked. They also have to be sick of the fighting and would benefit from peace. Plus the Afghan government would be very happy to have the fighting stop. 

But we do have to remember that the Taliban are Islamic fundamentalists and have betrayed us in the past. They have both religious and secular reasons to continue the war. Most importantly they might not want to give up the fight now when they are winning. If they keep the war going they might get better terms and could even win the war outright. 

That being said, I think the war probably will end. Everyone wants it and even if the talks don't work out I think that it will sooner rather than later. President Trump would love to be able to keep his campaign promises and pull out. He's going to do whatever he can to end the war. 

At least 29 Turkish soldiers have been killed in an airstrike in Syria.

Turkish soldiers and armor in Syria. BBC/AFP.

At least 29 Turkish soldiers have been killed in an airstrike in Syria, in a major escalation. BBC. Other sources say at least 34 Turks were killed in the airstrike, which was launched by the regime. The Turks say they will be retaliating against all available Syrian targets. The skirmishes are in violation of a 2018 cease fire which was brokered by Russia. Both sides blame the other for violating the government. The Syrian regime is trying to take back the last province, Idlib, that is still under control of rebels (and terror groups like al-Nusra). The strikes and the Turkish reaction to it is growing fears of a possible war or conflict between Turkey and Russia. 

My Comment:

The article wasn't clear if this attack was launched by the Russians or the Syrian regime. My guess is that it was the Syrians as they have wanted to take back this area for a long time and they are furious that the Turks are trying to prevent that. 

I would say that it's a pretty major escalation by both sides. So far the regime and the Turks have avoided attacking each other directly but now they are targeting each other openly. It's very possible that they could get into a shooting war.

This is, of course, bad for everyone involved. The Turks are already overextended in the Syrian adventure, plus they have launched another military operation in Libya which will make them even less able to respond. Plus, the worst case scenario is that they could get into a fight with Russia. Not only would they lose that war, they could not expect any help from their NATO allies as it's very clear that they provoked any war that happens. As far as NATO is concerned any war that results from their invasion of Syria is on them.

For Syria, they have to deal with yet another front on their war. After almost 9 years of war they could be losing their best chance to finally end the war and defeat the rebels once and for all. They are sick and tired of the war and want it to end but the Turks are in their way. 

For the Russians they probably don't want a war with Turkey either. They have tired to broker a cease fire but both the Turks and Syrians have little reason to listen to them. The Turks want their buffer zone and to destroy the Kurds and the Syrians want their borders back. Russia might be drawn into a war they don't want.

The rest of the world doesn't need any of this. There are more refugees to deal with and yet another crisis in a world that is having some serious problems (see yesterday's posts about Coronavirus and the locust plague). A major war between Turkey and Syria or even Turkey and Russia will just make all the world's problems worse. 

However, it's always possible that cooler heads will prevail. None of the sides gain from conflict other than the rebels themselves, who are getting a last second reprieve. It's very possible that Russia will be able to pressure both the Syrians and Turks to back off. Let us all hope that they are able to do so. 

The locust plague in Africa continues to spread.

Locusts flying in Kenya. AP.

The plague of locusts is continuing to spread in Africa, reaching as far as central Africa. AP. For the first time since 1944 locusts have been spotted in Congo. Congo is already dealing with insurgency and outbreaks of measles and Ebola. The plague originated in Somalia and has spread to Kenya and Uganda. They have also been spotted in Tanzania, Djibouti, Eritrea and South Sudan.  Locusts can eat massive amounts of crops and fodder for animals, which could cripple Africa's food production. With such massive swarms spreading it is feared that the size of the swarms could grow exponentially. 

My Comment:

Just a quick update. It's pretty clear that the locust swarm isn't going away and is in fact getting worse. With these insects spreading everywhere and laying eggs it sounds like they will be able to grow these swarms quite a bit. The AP article said a 500% increase in the size of the swarm which is unbelievable since the swarm already has billions of insects. 

This is, of course, horrible news for Africa. They already have a lot of problems with feeding people. If they lose a large number of crops and food for animals it's possible we will see a large starvation event. 

And of course Africa has other stability problems. Many of these countries have insurgencies and civil wars, with Congo, Somalia and South Sudan being very big examples. Congo has even worse problems as they also have an Ebola outbreak (which is no longer in the news but seems to still be happening) and a measles outbreak (which never really made the news in the first place).

Even worse is that the Coronavirus outbreak could make things much worse. Not only could Africa become infected, the aid that the continent would be dependent on might not arrive. If the rest of the world is dealing with Coronavirus their will be little will or ability to help Africa with their locust problem. Even if the virus doesn't spread there, it's still going to make this problem much worse than it would have otherwise. 

I have also heard that Pakistan is having similar problems with locusts as well. Though Pakistan is better prepared for it than Africa is, it's still not a good thing for them. Pakistan isn't exactly a well run country on it's own and has some of the same problems that Africa has as well. We might have yet another country having food issues at a very sensitive time in the world... 

Finally, I do have to say that 2020 has been almost biblical in nature. Plagues of locusts, new viruses general chaos, what is next, every firstborn son getting killed? There is the old superstition that bad things come in three, leaving the obvious question, what comes next? 

President Trump assigns Vice President Mike Pence to handle Coronavirus response.

President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. NBC News/Reuters.

President Donald Trump has assigned Vice President Mike Pence to handle the Coronavirus response. NBC News. In a press conference held today, where the President announced the decision he praised the efforts to prevent the spread of the virus to America. He also said that America was very well prepared for the virus and downplayed concerns that the country wasn't ready. Both Trump and Pence said the chance of the virus becoming widespread in America is still low but warned both local officials and American citizens to be prepared. Fear of the virus is widespread and is believed to have caused a slump at the stock market. 

My Comment:

Seems like President Trump is trying to downplay things while at the same time trying to let people know that they should be prepared. He has to draw a fine line as if he causes a panic he could crash the stock market and cause chaos but if he downplays too much he could cause people to not be prepared. 

It's a fine line to walk and I think he did the best he could but I think he probably was too much on the downplay side. I think that there is a good chance that the virus makes it to America and becomes widespread. That's probably a ways off but I think it will happen. I think that Trump and Pence are right, at least in the short term, that the danger is low but unless the new countries with the virus, South Korea, Iran and Italy, get their act together, I'm pretty sure long term we will see the virus here. 

That being said, I do think that the government's response to the Coronavirus has been adequate. I do think that President Trump deserves credit for shutting down travel from China. This is something that a Democrat would not have done as they would have seen it as "racist" even though doing so probably, at the very least, bought us some critical time. 

The conservative response to the Coronavirus in the past few days has been somewhat shocking to me. People like Rush Limbaugh have gone way too far on the downplay side. Limbaugh and others have been attacking a CDC spokesman for saying the virus will likely come here. This attack is stupid because President Trump has praised the official in question (who is Rod Rosenstein's sister), and the CDC official is probably right. 

That being said, I do think that the left is unfairly attacking President Trump for his response. For too many people the idea that the virus is serious and that the media is unfairly attacking the President are mutually exclusive, while I think both things are obviously true. The media is lying about the budget where cuts were proposed but not actually implemented and they would love to see the economy crash. 

As for Mike Pence, I think he's a decent choice to run things. The Vice President doesn't usually have that much to do so giving him this job makes sense. Pence is pretty savvy as well so I think he will do a good job. 

Is the Coronavirus a "black swan" event for President Trump's reelection plans?

A doctor treating Coronavirus patients. Politico. 

The Coronavirus and the economic impact of the outbreak could be a "black swan" event that could damage President Trump's reelection campaign. Politico. The stock market tumbled today after reports surfaced over the weekend of major new outbreaks of the virus in Italy, Iran and South Korea. The virus, if it continues to spread, could cause major economic damage which is a bad thing for President Trump who is basing his reelection campaign on the economic success of his first three years in office. There is also concern if an outbreak happens in the United States, which is very possible, the Trump administration could be blamed for it. 

My Comment:

I'm fairly worried about this myself. I had said in the past that President Trump should sail to reelection baring some kind of disaster but the Coronavirus outbreak could be that disaster. It's one of those economic events that people really couldn't have predicted. 

However, it really depends on how bad things get. If the virus does get contained, which is possible, the economy should bounce back rather quickly. America has been insulated from the worst damage from the virus and it could even benefit the American economy as companies decide that getting all their supplies from China is a dangerous proposition. Though things look bad right now it's very possible that the virus does get contained or mutates to a less dangerous form. 

If there is a major outbreak globally than the economic damage could be extreme. The problems we are already seeing with supply chains and production could get worse. This will be true even if it doesn't spread to America, or we only have limited cases. One of the main flaws of globalism is that damage done to one economy effect the entire world, and if China's economy takes forever to recover, or Europe and the rest of Asia start seeing the same kind of problems, we might not be able to limit the damage to our economy as well. 

Of course if this damage tanks the US economy it could damage the President's reelection bid. Right now it's hard to argue against the economic success that President Trump has had. His tax cut helped normal Americans and there are help wanted signs pretty much everywhere. A major economic recession caused by the Coronavirus could ruin the argument against President Trump.

However, I think that the Politico article overestimates the economic argument for President Trump. When I voted for him back in 2016, the economy wasn't a major concern. I voted for him based on foreign policy, which has been a success. I was also angry about the actions of the Democrats and, if anything, they have gone even more insane. President Trump has also been controversy proof for his fans and he's fairly charismatic and funny. 

And his opponents are controversial to say the least. The front-runner is a geriatric old socilaist who is deeply unpopular with the GOP and independents. He's also facing a nanny state anti-gun former mayor who is trying to buy the election, a senile old man, a totally unlikable woman and a small town mayor. Even if President Trump botches the virus outbreak, his competition probably isn't going to be able to capitalize it due to their own fatal flaws. 

But the worst case scenario makes the whole thing pointless. If the outbreak becomes widespread and the country goes on lockdown, will we even have an election? Given the advanced age of most of the frontrunners (President Trump, Bernie Sanders, Michael Bloomberg, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren are all over 70), couldn't they succumb to the virus as well? Without more information about how dangerous this situation actually is we are limited to speculation, but if the virus infects millions of people all bets are off. 

Regardless though, my money would still be on President Trump. Though the Coronavirus is a major curve-ball, even if it does get bad the power of incumbency is a major factor that is extremely difficult to overcome. People don't like switching horses in the middle of a race so my guess is that President Trump gets a second term. 

Coronavirus outbreak spreads into South Korea, Iran and Italy.

A police officer and pedestrians wear facemasks in Tehran, Iran. NPR/AP.

Despite ongoing efforts to contain the disease in China, major outbreaks of the Coronavirus are occurring in South Korea, Italy and Iran. NPR. In South Korea they have had 602 cases and 6 deaths, which has lead to the government declaring the national threat to the highest level. This will allow the country to enforce lockdowns and restrict travel. The outbreak there is centered on the Shincheonji Church of Jesus, where many of the cases originated after an infected person attended services. 

Over the weekend in Italy, 152 cases were found with three deaths. This is a major escalation as before Friday Italy only had three cases. 11 towns and cities have gone into lockdown with many events and activities canceled. Italy is the first country outside of Asia to have a large number of transmissions in the wild, with most other countries which have cases due to people returning from China. 

In Iran, 43 cases were found with 8 deaths, most of which occurred in Qom. Officials are handing out facemasks and hand sanitizer. The Iranian government is shutting down events along with cultural and religious centers. Surrounding countries, including Turkey and Pakistan, have closed their borders with Iran. 

My Comment:

Bad news indeed. It seems likely now that the Coronavirus isn't going to be contained. There are now major outbreaks in these three countries which will likely get much worse. And if they can happen in Iran, South Korea and Italy, they can happen anywhere. Governments are closing the borders with these countries but given the long incubation time for the virus it may already be too late. 

South Korea wasn't too surprising as the country is near China and people regularly travel between the two countries for business. Given the conditions there are similar to China and they have a high population density it's no surprise that the virus is spreading there. They will also likely have the same kind of trouble containing the virus as China has, even though they seem to be adapting the same methods to fight the virus.

Iran is a bit more of a shock as I haven't heard how the virus got their in the first place. Obviously someone traveled from China but the details are scarce. Pretty much every country in the region has closed their borders with Iran, probably because they have little faith in the Islamic Republic to contain the virus. Given how fragile the country is, the Coronavirus might be the thing that pushes the country over the edge as people are already protesting the response to the virus. 

Italy is a major development and it's very concerning how quickly the virus spread. In just a weekend they have had triple digit infections and three deaths. I think it also puts to rest the conspiracy theory that Coronavirus only effects Asians as presumably most, if not all, the infected are white. Given Italy's central location and the ease of travel in the EU, I would not be surprised if new outbreaks are seen soon in Europe. 

Of course China is the main problem and it seems like there are less infections. However, it does seem as though China has changed the way they count cases and I don't trust the numbers coming out of China in the first place. Indeed, one of the positive things from these new outbreaks is that we will finally be able to tell how dangerous this virus is because I trust Italy and South Korea to give the world and accurate accounting of what is going on in their countries. 

The economic effects of all these lockdowns is going to be severe. Already companies that are dependent on Chinese goods and supplies are starting to have production problems. With the virus spreading to new countries that problem is going to get a lot worse. This will greatly disrupt the world economy and could even lead to a rescission. 

With cases popping up in new countries I think its probably time to start preparing for the virus. As Italy shows, it's very possible that your country can go from little to no cases to more than a hundred in just a couple of days. I think that it is a matter of when this will happen in your country and not if. With our global economy and world travel it's only a matter of time now. 

So what should you do to prepare? My advice would be to stock up on supplies with food and medicine being a major priority. With lockdowns being the main strategy to fight the virus, you might not be able to get those things on your own and you don't want to be dependent on the government. And if you are lucky enough to live in a country where you can own a firearm, now would be the time to get one, or make sure to stock up on ammo if you already have one. 

That being said, I don't think this will be "collapse of civilization" bad. After all, the Spanish Flu was way worse. 27% of the worlds population got infected and 50 to 100 million people died. I'm not expecting the Coronavirus to reach either of those numbers but even if it did it's important to note that the Spanish Flu was not a civilization ender. Things mostly continued the way they were even though many millions of people died. I think that's the worst case scenario here and even that is unlikely. 

And it's also important to note that for most people Coronavirus caused mild illness. Some cases are more severe but the mortality rate is mostly connected to age and general health. It's mostly the elderly and the already sick that are dying from this disease with few younger people dying. That's little comfort for anyone who's older or sick but it does give hope for the average person.

I do think this will have a major impact on the United States and not just in the terms of the economy. This is an election year and I think the virus could have a pretty huge impact on the outcome of the election. If the virus starts spreading, President Trump could be blamed for it and it could be the kind of "black swan" event that could cost him a 2nd term. Of course the other candidates would be effected by travel bans and I don't know how people would be able to vote if they are in lockdown. And given the advanced age of the candidates and how often they meet with large numbers of people it's possible that the candidates themselves could succumb to the disease. 

Compared to other stories happening right now, I haven't been writing extensively on the Coronavirus. Part of that is due to the large numbers of big stories going on right now, but I do think I have been neglecting it. Given how widespread the outbreak is now and that it has spread far beyond the borders of China, expect more posts about the Coronavirus as we get more news about the disease. 

Bernie Sanders says he has been told that Russia is trying to get him elected.

Senator Bernie Sanders. Gage Skidmore.

Bernie Sanders has said that he has been told that Russia is trying to help his campaign. Fox News. Sanders confirmed that Russia may be trying to help his campaign but disavowed those efforts. Sanders was briefed by the US government who informed him of the issue. Sanders says that the news came out today in order to hurt his chances in the Nevada Caucus. The new report follows continued allegations that Russia was also trying to get President Trump reelected. Russia for their part laughed off the accusations saying that the reports were false and paranoid. 

My Comment:

Isn't it funny how everyone the Democratic Party leadership hates gets accused of working with Russia? It's like it's the only playbook they have left, if someone is beating you accuse them of working with the Russians. They did it with President Trump and now they are doing it to Bernie Sanders as well. 

Not that Sanders is innocent here at all. He went along with the attacks against President Trump throughout the past few years even when it was clear that Russia had no real effect on the outcome of the election. And during this week's debate he answered a question about some of his supporters being jackasses by saying that it was probably the Russians. As far as I am concerned he deserves this. 

The fact of the matter is that every country with an interest in our elections, which is almost all of them, tries to interfere in one way or the other. It's apparently not a problem when China, the UK or Israel does so but when Russia does it? It's the biggest deal in the world. 

I also think it's telling that nobody is saying how the Russians are supposedly helping Bernie Sanders (and President Trump). Did they launch a new twitter account that's saying the exact same things that everyone else in the Sanders and Trump campaigns is (like the @TEN_GOP account did)? Are they buying facebook ads? Are they organizing another rally for Michael Moore?

None of these things that Russia supposedly did in the 2016 election effected the outcome and I doubt anything they are doing now will effect the outcome again. Their actions in 2016 amounted to pretty much nothing and I doubt anything they will do in 2020 will accomplish anything either. 

I also have to wonder why Russia would want to support Sanders and Trump in the first place. For Trump it's almost nonsensical given how poor relations with Russia are right now and the fact that we killed a whole lot of Russian soldiers, excuse me, "mercenaries" in Syria. Trump might have been more acceptable than Hillary Clinton was but if Putin wanted Trump to win he probably regrets it now. 

As for Sanders the only thing I can think of is that it's so obvious that Sanders would wreck the economy that they want him elected. He's also kind of dovish compared to the other Democrats but even that seems kind of dumb. 

It should be clear that I'm extremely skeptical of these reports. It's no secret that the intelligence community doesn't like Trump or Sanders and I wouldn't put it past them to make this crap up to hurt both candidates politically. If that's the case then I don't think it matters as I doubt even one Trump or Sanders supporter is going to stop supporting them because of this accusation. 

But even if these reports are true, I don't think they are a big deal. As I stated before pretty much every country with the power to do so tries to interfere with our elections and it wasn't until President Trump got elected that anyone had a problem with it. Indeed, it's only when candidates the media and the Demcoratic Party doesn't like that anyone cares. 

Quick reaction to the latest Democrat Debate

The night's big loser, Michael Bloomberg. Public domain via Wikipedia. 

As you may know the Democratic Debate was last night in Las Vegas and you also may know that I watched the whole thing. I haven't been writing reactions to these debates as they have both been fairly boring and not all that interesting to write about other than via twitter. But I think last night was way different and given the major effect on the race it could have I think it's worth a post. 

Unlike past debates, where the candidates mostly focused on their plans and focused on policy, this debate was essentially personal attack after personal attack. I don't think any of the candidates came out unscathed and a couple of times I thought it might even come to blows. It really was that crazy.

Michael Bloomberg is probably done. He was totally unprepared for this debate and came under withering attack on his racial problems, such as stop and frisk and redlining, his wealth and how he used to be a Republican. He didn't even have a very good excuse for not releasing his taxes, which is something the Democrats have been demanding from Donald Trump for years now. Everyone hit him very hard on these issues and there wasn't a candidate on stage last night that didn't attack him. 

But it was Elizabeth Warren's attack on him that landed the most damage. She pointed out that Bloomberg had several non-disclosure agreements regarding sexual harassment and called on him to release those people from those agreements so they could say their side of it. Bloomberg was pretty speechless at this point and had no real answer for her, saying that the agreements were entered into "consensually" and that some women might have had problems with his "jokes". 

This should have been an easy question to handle for Bloomberg as he knew or should have known that it was coming but he couldn't figure out what to say. At best he's looking like he has something to hide and I am sure that his history will now be looked into further. At worst he looks like a sexual harasser or even worse. I mean, Bloomberg is a nasty guy who has a long history of saying stupid things that get him into trouble but he should have been able to either brush this off, call Warren's bluff or attack her back on one of her many issues. He wasn't able to so not only did Warren's attacks land, he also looked weak. And remember, this is the party of #metoo, and they aren't going to be happy with a possible abuser as a candidate. 

I think it goes to show that you might be able to buy your way onto a debate stage but you can't buy yourself the skill and knowledge to actually know how to debate. The other candidates wiped the floor with him, Warren's attacks were far from the only ones that landed, which is shocking for someone who had a major career in politics. 

But it's important to note that the other candidates had a bad night as well. Amy Klobucher and Pete Buttgieg pretty much destroyed each other with Buttgieg making Klobucher look stupid while at the same time looking like a bully for attacking her on not being able to remember the President of Mexico's name. Neither of them did well and it might have been enough to knock Klobucher out of the race. 

Bernie Sanders too did not do that great. Though he won most of his fights, he still came off like someone who had something to hide with him refusing to release his health records, which is extremely relevant for a 78 year old man who recently had a heart attack. 

Most of all though, in Bloomberg's only good moment, he called out Sanders in a way that nobody outside of President Trump has been able to do. Bloomberg called Sanders a communist to his face and I think the attack landed. The far left audience in Las Vegas, who even protested Joe Biden, didn't like it but Independents and Republicans agree that socialism isn't the answer and isn't all that different than communism. Sanders tried to play it off but I think Pete Buttgieg had a point when he said that Democrats might not be thrilled to have to pick between the far left Sanders and the extreme center left, maybe even right, Bloomberg. 

Joe Biden was at the debate too and though he was more feisty than usual it was still the same ol' Joe Biden. Though he didn't call anyone a dog faced pony solider, he was his usual rambling and incoherent self only this time he was yelling. His only saving grace was that with everyone picking on each other, fewer attacks were launched his way.

The media is generally crowning Warren the winner of the debate but I don't know if she comes out looking so good here either. Though Warren was very effective in hitting her opponents, to the point she may have landed a kill shot on Bloomberg, she did come off as unlikable, which is always her biggest flaw. She did have a more human moment where she defended Amy Klobucher from Pete Buttgieg's rather silly attack on her forgetting the President of Mexcio's name (I actually give her a lot of credit here because she said exactly what I was thinking), but otherwise she came off as shrill and irritating. Still, nobody touched her all night and she certainly harmed Bloomberg so if there is a winner of this debate not named Donald Trump, it's probably her. 

The most revealing question was the one at the end where the candidate were asked if a candidate who won a plurality of delegates, but not a majority, should automatically win the candidacy. Sanders, who will likely win the plurality but not the majority said that they should while the rest of the candidates said that the process should be followed. 

That process involves a 2nd round of voting where the much hated super-delegates will vote, likely robbing Bernie Sanders of a 2nd nomination. One of the other candidates will likely be the benefactor there and if that happens the Milwaukee convention should be a disaster of epic proportions. I'm kind of upset that any unrest and violence that could result from this will happen in my home state but it really looks like there will be a contested convention this time around... 

Editor's Note: Dem Debate information.

Michael Bloomberg's headshot. Public domain via Wikipedia. 

Once again there is another Democratic Debate and once again I am going to force myself to watch it. The debate begins at 8:00 PM central time and will be broadcast on NBC and MSNBC. It will be set in Las Vegas, Nevada ahead of the caucus there. As always I plan to live tweet for most of the debate and if you want to follow along you can do so on my Twitter and Gab accounts. 

This is going to be a hard debate for me to watch as one of my most hated political figures in recent history, Michael Bloomberg has essentially bought his way onto the debate stage, despite the fact that he isn't even on the ballot in Nevada. I despise the face of the modern gun control movement so I won't even pretend to be objective when it comes to Bloomberg. Bloomberg barely managed to qualify but did so at the last minute due to a poll that I consider highly suspicious. 

However, five other candidates will be on the stage tonight as well. They include the following:

Bernie Sanders

Joe Biden

Pete Buttgieg

Elizabeth Warren

Amy Klobucher

Notably, Tom Steyer, the other billionaire competing in the race, did not qualify for the debate. 

I don't want to make any predictions about how this debate will turn out but I sincerely hope that all the candidates gang up on Michael Bloomberg. It's a rare point of agreement I have with the far left in that Bloomberg has no right to be on that stage tonight. 

I do think that it will be an important debate. Biden, Warren and Klobucher desperately need to regain some kind of momentum and need to do well to at least place in the Nevada Caucus. Buttgieg and Sanders will need to keep up the momentum they both gained from Iowa and New Hampshire and everyone needs to keep an eye out for Michael Bloomberg, who is a total wild card at this point. 

It should be an interesting night and I will have a lot to say about it. Consider joining me via Twitter or Gab as, despite my distaste for the candidates, I tend to have fun having my say on social media. 

Skirmish breaks out in Ukraine during peace deal push.

File photo of Ukrainian troops fighting from 2015. BBC/AFP.

A skirmish has broken out between the forces of Ukraine and the rebels. BBC. Ukraine claims that one of their soldiers died and four more were wounded while claiming to kill four rebels and wounding six more. The rebels claim that the Ukrainian forces tried to pass into their territory and walked into a minefield. There was heavy shelling on both sides. The incident occurred near Zolote which is in the northern part of rebel territory. The incident might derail progress in ending the war that began in 2014. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has met with Vladimir Putin and progress has been made with a major prisoner exchange.

My Comment:

It's hard to tell if this exchange was on purpose or not. From my viewpoint it kind of looks like a patrol of Ukranian soldiers got lost, wandered into a minefield and then started a skirmish after they blew up some mines. That caused an artillery exchange and several deaths. 

However, it's very possible that this was a deliberate escalation from one or both sides. I don't really trust the reporting from either the Ukrainian government or the rebels as both sides have long had a shaky relationship with the truth and it's very possible that both sides are lying. 

I don't think it would make any sense for either side to start the fighting up again though. Both sides seem to want to end the war and it sounds like both sides would get something out of the deal. The rebels would get more autonomy and wouldn't face any more anti-Russian language laws while the Ukrainians get better relations with Russia and an end to the war. 

It's possible that this was a rogue operation from a local commander on the ground on either side. Though peace is a goal for many, there are those that will feel that too much blood has been spilled for the war to end in anything but total victory. It's possible that one of these commanders on the ground started this skirmish on their own in an effort to derail the peace process. 

Still, I doubt that this skirmish means much in the end. The conflict in Ukraine has been at a stalemate for years now and neither side has the ability to beat the other. Both sides recognize that the war should end and I think they are working hard to do so. 

I personally think that the war should have ended a long time ago. I always thought it was one of the dumber ones we have seen in recent history. The Ukrainian government went out of their war to provoke the people of the region and Russia itself. This led to violence and a major war that pretty much accomplished nothing. 

Virginia "assault weapon" and magazine ban fails in committee.

The flags of America and the state of Virginia. The Hill/Getty.

Virginia's proposed "assault weapon" and magazine ban has failed in committee and any vote on it is postponed until 2021. The Hill. Three Democrats on the Judaical Committee joined all the Republicans to vote down the measure in a 10-5 vote. The bill would have banned the sale of so called "assault weapons" but came under criticism for many reasons, not the least of which that the bill was so ill defined that many weapons would be considered assault weapons even if they wouldn't by the normal definition of the term. The push for new gun laws from Democrats and Governor Ralph Northam has been hugely unpopular for most of the state leading to a massive protest and more than 100 counties, towns and cities to declare themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries. However, other unpopular laws, such as red flag laws and limiting handgun purchases to one a month, have passed. 

My Comment:

It's important to note that the Virginia Senate may consider this law again in 2021. A lot can happen in a year so this bill isn't entirely dead. But at the very least it won't be put into law this year and it's likely that the three Democrats that voted against it will do so again. Given that the next state senate election is in 2023, it's not likely that there will be many or any changes to the makeup of the senate between now and 2021

This is a victory for gun rights in Virginia but not a major one. Though defeating any assault weapon or magazine ban was a major goal of the gun rights movement it's not like other bills didn't pass. The Democrats still almost got everything they wanted and this victory just barely prevented it. Keep in mind that the Democrats got their stupid red flag law along with a ban on buying more than one handgun, universal background checks and a couple of other anti-gun laws.

I have always maintained that the red flag law was as important as the assault weapon law due to the huge potential of abuse. I fear that it will be used to punish gun owners who speak out against Ralph Northam, either about their gun rights or just in general. Losing that battle and then winning on the assault weapon ban means this is a mixed victory at best. 

However, I do want to say that none of this would have happened if it wasn't for the massive response from the people of Virginia. They showed up in droves to protest these new gun laws and I think that may have been in the mind of the three Democrats that voted this bill down. They knew that if they didn't they would, at the very least, be voted out with prejudice. 

I think it goes to show that peaceful protest can still be effective in changing legislators minds. At least some Democrats can listen to reason when faced with overwhelming negative public feedback. These Senators knew their constituents would have been apoplectic so they tabled the bill, at least for now. 

I do have to say that fears that Virginia would erupt into a civil war seem to be unfounded for now. In the end the Democrats realized that they had overstepped their bounds without anyone having to resort to violence. If a civil war does come, and it seems less likely now, it won't be in the immediate future. 

Finally, I think the Virginia situation should be a lesson for gun rights groups in other states. The 2nd Amendment sanctuary movement was successful in shutting this law down for now resulting in a major defeat for the gun control movement, even if the long term future is more uncertain. I think if other states propose the same kind of nonsense that gun owners should take a play out of the Virginia playbook and declare sanctuaries and protest at the capital. Nothing else seems to have worked to fight these stupid laws so it's worth trying at the state and federal level if new gun laws come down the pipeline. 

Michael Bloomberg may consider having Hillary Clinton as his running mate...

Hillary Clinton promoting a book. CNBC/Getty.

Michael Bloomberg may consider having Hillary Clinton as his running mate. MSNBC. Matt Drudge reports that internal polling for the Bloomberg campaign suggests that the pairing is popular and also claims that Bloomberg would change his residence to Colorado or Florida as two candidates from New York State might not be constitutionally allowed. Bloomberg's campaign didn't confirm the rumor and neither did Hillary Clinton's spokespeople. Clinton has denied wanting to run in the past, even in the VP role but she has been outspoken since losing in 2016, often criticizing President Trump and apparent Democrat frontrunner Bernie Sanders. 

My Comment:

Talk about a nightmare scenario. I despise Hillary Clinton. Not anywhere near as much as I despise Michael Bloomberg, but the two of them working together? That's downright terrifying. Combining Clinton's asinine and dangerous foreign policy with Bloomberg's war on guns? I don't see how America survives even a single term of that presidency.

Is it true though? Matt Drudge is many things, not all of them good, but he has broken big stories before. He was the one that broke the Monica Lewinsky affair of course. I think he probably is right that this is a thing that could be happening. 

What's the gain for Bloomberg? Having Clinton on the ticket helps with his neo-liberal credentials and may even bring some women on board that are excited for a female VP. Clinton's got name recognition and there are plenty of people that voted for her that still like her. I also think it would help with the critics of Bloomberg that say he's still basically a Republican (these people are delusional by the way) as bringing on what has essentially been the leader of the party during the last election cycle would blunt that criticism. 

For Clinton though? I think more than anything else she would love to be one heartbeat away from being President. If this somehow happens I would hope that Bloomberg has an insurance policy in case he "mysteriously" has a heart attack or something. 

Plus Clinton wants revenge. Not just on President Trump, who humiliated her in 2016, but against Bernie Sanders as well. She does not want Sanders to take control of her party (and I do think she views the party as hers personally) and she hates that Sanders had the gall to criticize her in the 2016 primary cycle, as mild and as toothless as that criticism was. 

Is it really a smart move though? I can't think of anything that would alienate Bernie Sanders supporters more. They already hate Bloomberg for being a billionaire that's buying his way to the top of the polls and hate his policies. Plus the Sanders crowd always believed, correctly in my opinion, that Clinton stole the nomination from Sanders. If this ends up being the 2020 ticket I can't see many Bernie Sanders supporters turning out for it and I fully expect there to be violence at the Milwaukee convention. 

I also can't think of a move that would motivate turnout for Republicans more. Hillary Clinton has always been one of the most hated politicians for Republicans and to see her run again would get people out to the polls. The Republicans are already fairly fired up due to impeachment and the fact that President Trump is very popular among his base. 

Still, I do fear this ticket, and not only because of how bad a Bloomberg/Clinton presidency would be. Though this ticket would obviously alienate the Sanders wing of the party, it could be that the ticket would no longer need them. Bloomberg's making a play for the center, which the Democrats have consistently ignored since 2015. Doing so might peel off independents from President Trump, which could be enough to cause him to lose. 

All that being said, all of this is speculation. I don't think Bloomberg even gets close to being the candidate in 2020. Sanders has most of the momentum and it looks like Pete Buttgeig is taking over the "allegedly moderate" lane as well. Plus there is the corpse of Joe Biden's campaign that will probably stick around for a while longer, sucking up delegates and votes from Bloomberg, who hasn't gotten anything in the early states at all. And even if Bloomberg does become the candidate, I still say that it's way more likely he loses than wins, if for no other reason than the massive powers of incumbency and a good economy. 

Anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti found guilty in scheme to extort Nike.

Michael Avenatti. ABC News/Reuters.

A jury has found Michael Avenatti guilty on federal charges of extortion, wire fraud and transmitting an interstate threat. ABC News. Avenatti soared to notability after representing Stormy Daniels and attacking President Trump. However, he was arrested for attempting to extort Nike, threatening to release information harmful to them about their relationship with the NBA and college basketball. He demanded $1.5 million for his client, Gary Franklin, who ran a youth basketball league that Nike stopped sponsoring. This amount was dwarfed by the $22 million that he demanded for himself. Avenatti faces up to 42 years in prison for this case alone but also has two other pending trials. The first one is for defrauding Stormy Daniels who claims that he took $300,000 from her book deal while the second one is for defrauding multiple clients in Los Angeles.

My Comment:

Remember a while back before he got arrested that Avenatti was considered a possible candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential race? Seems like a lifetime ago. It's clear that even with the sorry state of the 2020 candidates, Avenatti isn't even going to be an afterthought since he's likely to be in prison soon. 

Avenatti is mostly a media creation and it seems to have gone to his head. He tried to play the Gloria Allred role where he took high profile cases and got very rich in the process. Plus he was savoring his role as anti-Trump political pundit on CNN and other news networks. His plan was to become a media mogul and eventual transfer that success into a presidential run and he almost accomplished that. 

I don't think the media ever really vetted Avenatti and just went along with him because they desperately thought the Stormy Daniels story was going to hurt President Trump. It didn't and if anything it made him more popular because it made the President sound like a lady killer. Plus everyone already knew that Donald Trump was a scoundrel when it came to women and everyone had already forgiven him for it. 

But it should have been clear that he was a scummy guy. When the lawyer becomes more famous than the client, and I think Avenatti qualified, you know that his main interest isn't serving his client. I thought that right away and it seems that Stormy Daniels would agree with me. 

However, it's also clear that Avenatti was a criminal. He defrauded his clients out of their money and did not do much to help them. Daniels got little more than publicity from Avenatti and his other clients got even less. 

Had he stuck to defrauding clients he might have been ok but then he decided to take on Nike. Nike, for their part, didn't play along and immediately went to the police after Avenatti threatened them. They figured that whatever costs the damaging info about them was it was worth it to not pay someone who was blackmailing them. I've been very critical of Nike in the past and still am, but I think they handled this situation very well.  

The most shocking thing about this is how greedy Avenatti is. It's clear that his client was an afterthought in the Nike case as he only demanded $1.5 million for him, but $22 million for himself. Even if his client had a case, and I really am not sure, it's clear it was never really about the client but all about Avenatti becoming richer. 

I do have to say that it was satisfying to see Avenatti go down. I took a personal dislike to him immediately in a way that had nothing to do with what he was doing or his politics. He just screamed "scumbag lawyer" to me from the start. My hope is the judge throws the book at him in this case and he gets convicted in the other two trials as well. 

US Military preparring for a Coronavirus pandemic.

Animated gif showing the spread of the Coronavirus. Wikipedia user Metropolitan. 

The United States military is preparing for a Coronavirus pandemic. Military Times. Defense Secretary Mark Esper ordered Northern Command to implement the Department of Defense Global Campaign plan for Pandemic Influenza and Infectious Diseases 3551-13. The plan being put into place will allow the military to respond to the disease if it becomes widespread. The Marines plan involves “response, isolation, quarantine, restriction of movement and community based intervention”. In addition the military will detain anyone who had traveled to China, either in their houses or in isolated housing if they live in a barracks with other people. 

My Comment:

I'm kind of surprised that it took this long for them to do this. After all, it's been clear from the start that the Coronavirus outbreak is more serious than the Chinese have let on. You would have thought that this plan would have been put into action awhile ago but I guess not. 

I obviously think this is justified. The Coronavirus spreads pretty easily and there is a decent chance that it could start spreading here in the United States. As far as I am aware that hasn't happened yet as all the cases appear to be from travelers, but that doesn't mean that will be true in the future. And if it does happen we need to be prepared. 

It's unclear what exactly these plans are. The description is pretty vague and it could mean a lot of things. It does seem clear that the military is very prepared to quarantine their own troops if they get sick and will do so as a precaution if they have traveled to China. But beyond that it's unclear what they will be able to do. 

What I don't think will happen is the kind of restrictions on civil liberties we are seeing in China. The American people don't handle that kind of travel restriction well and most likely wouldn't put up with it. People would violate the order on purpose just on principle alone. And the posse comitatus act prevents US troops used in this kind of role. 

But that doesn't mean that the military won't have a role domestically. They will be used to distribute supplies, run hospitals and possibly assist in engineering projects. I don't see them doing too much else other than trying to protect their own people.

Is this a real threat though? It depends. It's obviously a threat to China, but is it a threat to America? I think if it does get here and start spreading in it's current form it's going to cause severe problems. A lot of people would get sick and a few will even die. Given the fact that the virus seems to have a long incubation period and might be able to spread without symptoms, it's possible that the steps we have taken, including the travel ban, might not be enough to stop it from getting here. 

But there are a few things to keep in mind. First of all, the virus may mutate to a less deadly form. This seems likely and has happened to many viruses as the ones that kill people quickly tend to not spread as well. That's one of the reasons why Ebola didn't spread well. 

Second, the virus may not spread as well in spring when the temperatures get warmer and people are outside more. President Trump thinks this might be the case and there is some evidence that this could be the case but it's not something we can depend on. 

Finally, there's a decent chance that the virus might not even make it to America in the first place. If America keeps up the travel ban and doesn't allow people from infected countries come here it could prevent an outbreak here completely, even if it does spread to other countries.

I would also say that America is more prepared for an outbreak than China is. We do have a disadvantage in the fact that our medicine and other supplies are made overseas, but our population is fairly spread out compared to China. We don't rely on public transport as much and outside of a few of our biggest cities the conditions for spreading the virus are not anywhere near as good. An outbreak would be terrible but I don't think we would have the problems that China is having right now. 

Billions of locusts infest East Africa threatening to do millions of dollars in damage.

Map showing the spread of the locusts. Washington Post.

Billions of locusts are infesting East Africa potentially causing millions of dollars in damage and potentially causing a famine. Washington Post. The swarm crossed the gulf of Aden and the Red Sea from Yemen and have now infested Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. The swarm is being fueled by unusually wet weather. The swarm could eat crops which would cause food insecurity for a region that already has problems feeding their population. Part of the problem is the political situation in both Yemen and Somalia where conflict and war prevent control efforts. Kenya and Ethiopia have been attempting to use pesticides to control the swarm but only have a few planes to do so. 

My Comment:

Locust swarms are pretty common in the region but what is different this time is how big these swarms are. The Desert Locus usually comes around this time of year due to the start of rains but the rain has been especially bad this year. 

The media is blaming global warming but they blame everything on global warming. It really has more to do with the conditions of the Indian ocean, which is similar to the el-Nino in the Pacific. It is causing all the rain in the Horn of Africa and the drought and wildfires in Australia. These things happened before global warming was a thing and will continue to do so in the future. 

This could be a major problem though. The swarm is already huge and could greatly damage the crops for Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. These countries already have problems feeding their people and if all their crops get eaten then they could have a famine on their hands. 

But even more concerning is that if this swarm isn't brought under control it could spread to the rest of Africa. The rest of Africa certainly has their own problems with food security and cannot handle a huge swarm of insects eating everything in sight. 

The efforts to control this swarm don't seem to be working. Part of that is due to the limited resources in the region. Combined, Kenya and Ethiopia only have 8 planes to spray these bugs with insecticides. And both Somalia and Yemen have next to no resources to fight these locusts due to the awful security situation in both countries. When your country is a war zone with jihadists running around and people are already starving there isn't much you can do to fight locusts.  

The timing of this situation isn't great either. Though the Coronavirus has mostly been contained to China for the time being, it may soon spread to Africa. If it does and they entire continent has to deal with a locust swarm at the same time it could be a nightmare scenario that devastates the economy and kills millions. 

That's the worst case scenario though. I am hoping that it doesn't happen and I am guessing that the locust plague will be contained to the horn of Africa. And who knows, maybe Coronavirus won't even make it to Africa? But if I was living there right now I'd be more than a little concerned. 

Andrew Yang drops out of the 2020 Democratic Primary race.

Andrew Yang at a campaign event. Politico/Getty.

Andrew Yang is dropping out of the 2020 Democratic Primary race after a poor showing in Iowa and a likely bad finish in New Hampshire. Politico. Yang ran a viral campaign that promises universal basic income which would provide every American with $1000 a month. However, the campaign did very poorly once actual voting happened with a 1% finish in Iowa and a poor showing in early returns from New Hampshire. Yang said he didn't want to drag things out even though he was proud of what his campaign accomplished. 

My Comment:

I suspected that Yang was on the verge of dropping out last week when he fired much of his staff. I said back then that was a sure sign that his campaign was on the way out. A 1% finish is not going to translate into success even if he had done better in New Hampshire, which the early exit polling did not bear out. Continuing now would just be wasting his donor's money. 

I do think that Yang deserves some credit. His campaign was pretty effective at non-traditional campaigning and he got his message out pretty well. He had a lot of viral support on websites like Twitter and 4chan and his UBI proposal was at the very least unique. I think Yang should be praised for at least popularizing a new idea that is different than the status quo. 

But why did his campaign not succeed? I think part of it was the demographics of his supporters. Yang had most of his support from extremely online types. But the two early states did not have a lot of online tech-bros that Yang got most of his support from. The people that like Yang just don't live in Iowa or New Hampshire. 

Some of it might of been astroturf as well. Yang was pretty good at getting people to post on places like 4chan and making it seem like he was super popular but a lot of that support evaporated as the money started to run out. I think a lot of his support was ironic at best. 

I also think that Yang's debate performance was fair at best. He had some pretty bad debates, most notably the first one where he flubbed an easy question about his UBI proposal. He got better as he went along but I never thought he was aggressive enough. 

Of course the DNC and the debate moderators did not help Yang at all. He consistently had the least time to speak in any of the debates and just wasn't given the kind of support and media coverage the other candidates were. Though they weren't out and out biased as they are against the Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard campaigns, they never treated Yang like a serious candidate. 

Either way though, I think it's time for the Democratic field to narrow. We still have a lot of people running that don't have much of a chance. I know Gabbard is running for moral reasons but anyone who isn't Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttgieg should probably drop out. And that includes people like Amy Klobucher and Michael Bloomberg who are still polling ok but have no realistic chance. Like Yang I think anyone outside of the top four are just wasting their donor's money, or in Bloomberg's case, his own money. 

Jussie Smollett charged with felonies for staging a fake hate crime.

Former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett. Reuters. 

Former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett was charged with six counts of disorderly conduct for staging a fake hate crime. Reuters. Smollett stands accused of hiring two Nigerian men to fake an attack on him while in Chicago. Smollett then went to the police claiming two white men in "MAGA" hats had attacked him with a noose and poured bleach on him. Smollett was charged before but the charges were dropped by the prosecutor, which spawned bipartisan outrage. Chicago's mayor, Rahm Emaneul assigned a special prosecutor to the case who has been investigating it for a year before these charges were filed. For his part Smollett still claims he was attacked. The charges against Smollett are felonies. 

My Comment:

The Jussie Smollett case and the dismissal of it was one of the few things that where both the right and the left in America agreed on. All but a few conspiracy theory supporters of Smollett agreed that the man needed to be thrown in prison for what he did. Almost everyone was disgusted by what he did.

For the Republicans, they were angry that Smollett defamed them. He claimed that he was attacked by racist and homophobic Trump supporters and tried to paint all Trump supporters with the same brush. This didn't happen and what he did could have resulted in reprisal attacks or even someone innocent going to jail or prison. 

For the Democrats, they were furious that Smollett had lied to them and more than a little angry that he made his defenders look ridiculous. They also felt that Smollett made it more difficult for actual victims of bias crimes to come forward. 

Smollett's story never made any sense at all. He claimed that during the middle of a blizzard/cold snap at 3:00 am, that two white Trump supporters, in the middle of Chicago no less, just happened to find him, recognized him and then attacked him? And they just happened to have rope and bleach with them as well? Even before the story fell apart it didn't pass the smell test.

After it was pretty conclusively proven that Smollett made the whole thing up people were expecting that he would go to jail. After all, he lied about a hate crime, wasted an already overworked police department's time and slandered an entire group of people. What he did was criminal in nature and he deserved to go to prison for it. 

But what happened? Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx dismissed the case. It's generally thought she was pressured to do so politically, but almost everyone around her was outraged by this. Even Chicago's Mayor, the famously liberal Rahm Emanuel was disgusted by this and thankfully did the right thing in sending in a special prosecutor.

Foxx may pay a political price for her role in this case as she is facing a difficult primary. Her primary opponents are already playing up the case and her role in it as reasons why she shouldn't be reelected. Some of her die hard supporters are trying to defend her, but my sincere hope is that she loses the primary election and is sent packing. 

As for Smollett himself, I do hope he is convicted at trial. It's clear to me that he's guilty of what he stands accused of and a jury should see the same thing. But you never can tell with juries and it's possible that there will be an activist on the jury that will go for jury nullification. I hope that doesn't happen and that Smollett at least serves some time in prison. 

The Coronavirus and Swine Fever are causing a major increase in prices for food and goods in China.

File photo of Chinese pigs. CNBC/Getty.

The Coronavirus and African Swine Fever are causing a major increase of prices for food and goods in China. CNBC. Pork prices have increased by 116% since this time last year with food prices 20% higher than they were last year as well. During the same period consumer inflation has increased by 5.4% while Reuters predicted a 4.9% rise of consumer prices. The rise in pork prices is due to the African Swine Fever, which killed a large number of Chinese pigs. Pork is very popular in China. The Coronavirus is also contributing to the price rise as it has disputed supply lines and resulted in hording. 

My Comment:

China is having an awful time of it. Both the Coronavirus and African Swine Fever would be major challenges but to deal with both at the same time is difficult. It's crippling the Chinese economy and may even make it difficult to feed the people of China. 

China's economic activity has basically been shut down. Millions of people are in quarantine and not able to work, but all of those people still need to eat and purchase necessities. None of these people are getting paid either, making purchasing supplies pretty hard. I don't know if China has the same problem of people living paycheck to paycheck but even if they don't people will run out of money fairly quickly, especially with higher prices. 

The Swine Fever is a huge deal too and was even before the Coronavirus outbreak. China loves pork and it's one of their major foodstuffs. With pork prices increasing it makes it hard to feed people what they want to eat under normal circumstances. But with the Coronavirus too? It might mean that they won't have enough food period. Plus the slaughter houses might have to be shut down as well, further complicating things

The good news is that the Coronavirus seems to mostly be an urban problem. The smaller towns and cities haven't been as effected as the big cities. That's probably due to the fact that the crowded conditions of the big cities allow the virus to spread. And it may also have something to do with the high levels of pollution in these major cities as well. But the point is that these non-urban areas are where most of the food is produced. 

This economic disruption could be a boon to American companies. We already are sending quite a bit of pork to China and the country has dropped many of their tariffs. Another side benefit is that this incident is demonstrating the problem of sourcing all your supplies from one country. If that country starts having problems you are going to have to scramble to get a new supplier. This may mean that American and other countries could choose to buy American products. 

Of course, the economic damage could get even worse if the Coronavirus isn't brought under control. Despite the quarantine China hasn't gotten the virus under control and it is still spreading at a rapid pace. With the death toll now over 1000 and more than 40,000 confirmed cases, it's clear that this problem isn't anywhere near being done. 

I think it's very possible that this situation could bring down the Chinese government. The people of China believe in something called the mandate of heaven and not being able to fight the Coronavirus and a tanking economy could finally convince the people of China that the communist government no longer has it. With Hong Kong already having a major protest movement it's possible that we could see some kind of revolution in China. 

As for the outbreak itself, it seems to be spreading outside of China now, which means that the rest of the world could have some of the same economic disruptions. The good news is that African Swine Fever isn't going to effect the rest of the world. But a whole lot of people could get sick, miss work or even die if this outbreak isn't brought under control.  

Florida man arrested after plowing his car into a Trump campaign voter registration tent.

Mugshot of  Gregory William Loel Timm, who is accused of the attack. Police handout/NBC News.

A man in Florida has been arrested after a vehicle ramming attack on a Trump campaign voter registration tent in Jacksonville. NBC News. The attacker has been identified as Gregory William Loel Timm, a 27 year old male. He was charged with two counts of assault on someone 65 years or older, one count of criminal mischief and driving on a suspended license. The victims in the case said that the man rammed into the tent and then flipped them off and drove off. Nobody was injured in the attack. GOP officials across the country condemned the attack while so has the local Democratic Party. 

Today in Jacksonville, Florida six Trump Campaign volunteers were intentionally targeted while registering voters. pic.twitter.com/0wzaCYh5ut

— Duval County GOP (@DuvalGOP) February 8, 2020

Law Enforcement has been notified. Be careful tough guys who you play with! https://t.co/1Pq0hOrzy2

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2020

 My Comment:
This incident happened yesterday but media coverage didn't really seem to begin until today. My guess is that they were waiting for more information about the attacker who hadn't been identified right away.

Though nobody was hurt in this attack it wasn't from lack of trying. It would have been very easy to hurt someone in this kind of incident, either from being hit by the vehicle directly or by trying to get out of the way. It was luck that nobody was hurt or killed.

The charges seem appropriate. The assault charges are felonies which are enhanced due to the age of the victims. The mischief charge could be an misdemeanor or felony, but since that is based on the value of the property destroyed it's likely going to be a misdemeanor. Still, I don't think they could prove attempted murder and nobody actually got hurt. But if he is convicted of all charges he should be in prison for some time.

This attack seems politically motivated but it doesn't seem planned. My guess is that this guy just saw a voter registration booth and lost his mind. It seems like a more spur of the moment thing that didn't have a level of planning as there would be much more effective ways to attack than this. All in all it was fairly pathetic.

However, I do think this counts as politically motivated violence and maybe even terrorism. This attack would not have happened if it wasn't for the attackers hatred of President Trump and his supporters and his goal was to prevent people from registering to vote. That passes the smell test for me.

But I think it pretty clearly backfired. This attack has outraged Republicans everywhere and probably steeled their resolve to vote in November. The Democrats got majorly embarrassed (and I do give the local branch credit for denouncing this attack) and everyone thinks this guy is an idiot.

Is more violence coming? I am not sure. Tensions are pretty high but I don't see them being as high between Democrats and Republicans as it was in 2016. People on the left still dislike President Trump but he hasn't turned out to be as bad as they made him out to be. Though there has been some violence in the first couple of years of Trump's presidency, they have faded into the background. Time will tell if that continues. 

However, I do expect there to be some violence between the various factions of the left. If the Democratic Party succeeds in their plans to keep Sanders from being the nominee, again, I think there is potential for violence. The Milwaukee convention could be a mess if the Sanders supporters don't get what they want...