Turn Veterans Day into Peace Day

 

Turn Veterans Day into Peace Day

 

Started 105 years ago November 11, Armistice Day was established in the UK to commemorate the armistice that ended WWI a year earlier. In 1926 Congress added it to the US to “perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations…a day dedicated to the cause of world peace.” The US war party, working through Congress, changed it to Veterans Day in 1954, the same year they put ‘under god’ in the Pledge. ’1954 was a bad year indeed.

Since then, it has largely become a commercial for promoting American militarism and perpetual war round the world which today sees over 160,000 soldiers deployed in 150 countries. To a country bent on perpetual war worldwide, ‘Armistice’ is a word that dares not speak its name in America.

America provoked, enabled and prolonged the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine killing hundreds of thousands, turning Ukraine into a failed state with no chance of victory. Not satisfied with that bloodbath, the US is funneling tens of billions in weapons to complete Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza, which has killed many thousands, leaving 2.3 million Palestinians with little food, water, medicine, electricity or hope.

We regularly bomb innocents in a number of countries. While every decent function of government loses funding, the annual increase in our $850 billion plus military budget alone is larger than most countries spend on their entire military. Intelligence and ancillary items swell our national security budget to $1.2 trillion. Whew.  

All vets but the dwindling, near centenarians of WWII, fought in undeclared wars which slaughtered millions while doing nothing to promote peace…and they know it. After 70 years it’s time for another name change. How about Peace Day, to honor the peacemakers like Dr. Martin Luther King and a true American war hero , Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who spent seven years in prison for outing American war crimes in Iraq? 

As John Lennon famously sang, ‘Give peace a chance.’

How will Trump respond to major crises in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran?

 

How will Trump respond to major crises in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran?

When Donald Trump is inaugurated January 20, he'll inherit 2 bloody, intractable foreign crises. The US proxy war in Ukraine will be approaching its third year with no peaceful settlement in sight.

The genocide in Gaza, the worst in this century, will be in its 16th month. That genocide has drawn in Palestinian support from Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and their chief backer Iran. This makes a major regional war involving other Middle East countries as well as the US and Russia a real possibility.

Unlike Joe Biden, who always promotes belligerent US foreign policy in every conflict, Donald Trump is a mixed bag when it comes to US adventurism abroad. He’s never been in sync with the US national security establishment when it comes to expanding NATO and prosecuting Biden’s proxy war against Russia currently destroying Ukraine.

Indeed, he’s signaled he’ll push to end it without committing to prevent Russian acquisition of Donbas, adjacent oblasts and Crimea. It would be politically difficult for Trump to reverse course and continue Biden’s delusional squandering endless billions in weapons for a lost cause. Of course nothing is certain due to his mercurial policy style and temperament. But at least Trump offers a glimmer of hope that the US will force a settlement ending the greatest threat to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis 62 years ago.

Trump’s slant on the Middle East is another matter entirely. He’s been more outspoken than Biden on supporting Israeli genocide in Gaza, demanding that Israel “finish the job.” He nearly blundered into war with Iran during his presidency and shows no sign of pivoting from aggressive confrontation with Iran in his second turn at Commander in Chief.

His first foreign policy pick reinforces that concern. He’s tabbed fervent Iran hawk Brian Hook to begin staffing the Trump State Department. Hook served as U.S. Special Representative for Iran and advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during the last two years of Trump’s presidency. This saw the US assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and expansion of crushing sanctions intended to spur regime change in Iran. That led to fear of a US provoked war with Iran, but did nothing to change out the Iranian regime.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump “plans to drastically increase sanctions on Iran and throttle its oil sales as part of an aggressive strategy” in his second term.

Trump’s 2018 withdrawal of the US from Obama’s 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement, backfired spectacularly, spurring Iran to greater nuclear enrichment in case they decide to become a nuclear power to counter US and Israeli aggression. As president Trump repeatedly proved himself incompetent when confronting imaginary enemies. He’s apparently learned nothing about diplomacy and conflict resolution during his 4 year banishment from power.

We barely avoided war with Iran during Trump’s administration. His Iran policy 2.0 will almost certainly bring more conflict with a power that is no pushover if a US Iran war breaks out. It’s even possible Trump’s plan to quickly withdraw from the Ukraine war is designed to keep US military resources available and focused on his primary bête noir Iran.

2025, like 2024, is not shaping up to be a peaceful year based on early Trump presidential transition signals.

Hold on folks. Once again it’s going to be a bumpy foreign policy ride in 2025.

Trib election editorial ‘Donald Trump’s win was a stunning repudiation of the chattering classes’ disconnected from election reality

 

Trib election editorial ‘Donald Trump’s win was a stunning repudiation of the chattering classes’ disconnected from election reality

 

 

The Trib’s analysis is problematical on several levels.

 

 

The title term ‘chattering class’ is a Republican meme designed to smear deeply passionate progressive advocates for a more supportive, inclusive and democratic society. It feeds into the Republican agenda to portray supporters of lower and middle class advancement as out of touch elites. Calling assistant deans, network anchors, public health officials and newspaper journalists ‘liberal elites’ is an ad homonym insult not worthy of seeing print. 

 

 

The Trib’s characterization of Harris’ agenda to uplift society is false. I heard dozens of her speeches which laid out in concrete terms to her economic plan to grow middle and loser class wealth with tax incentives to purchase their first home and restrict tax increases to the wealthy. Trump’s plan which most economists blasted due to billionaire tax cuts goosing the deficit and massive tariffs costing working families thousands, would balloon the deficit possibly more than the $7 billion increase Trump achieved in his first term.

 

 

Democratic leaders, faced with a difficult choice once Biden dropped out just 107 days from election, made a sterling choice. Harris, an insider to the presidency for three and a half years at Biden’s side, was eminently more qualified than any other choice. She rewarded her selection with a passionate, spirited and common sense campaign that shamed Republicans for choosing a convicted felon, who tried to overturn his 2020 defeat using mob action that injured over 150 police protecting American democracy. Yet, the Trib mentions none of that in its rush to degrade Harris’s principled campaign.

 

 

Harris did not “abandon the working class, especially men, by deeming so much of what they felt was unacceptable.” Speaking honestly and intelligently, did not get herself “on the wrong side of the numbers game.” It was Trump, who got on the right side of the numbers game with abusive, profane and disgraceful rhetoric never before heard in a presidential campaign. It was so offensive one not enamored of it needed a shower afterwards.

 

 

The Trib Editorial Board might benefit from reviewing an hour comparing Harris’s eloquent speeches to the incoherent ramblings of Trump impersonating an overserved blowhard in a bar.

Then offer a revision on the election connected to reality.

‘Faithless electors’, another sign of dysfunctional US electoral system

 

‘Faithless electors’, another sign of dysfunctional US electoral system

They didn’t teach us about faithless electors in grammar school seventy years ago, but they should have.

Since then I learned that I’m not really voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledee when I mark my ballot. I’m voting for Mr. or Ms. Nobody, a party functionary who promises to vote for my pick at the 50 state Electoral College elections roughly 5 weeks later.

Good system right?

Not exactly. No power in the Constitution, which set up the Electoral College to prevent direct democracy and to entice slave states to ratify the Constitution, requires those Nobodys to vote for my pick. And while 29 states and DC have laws requiring electors to vote for the state winner, they have never prevented a single faithless elector from voting for the state loser, or Donald Duck for that matter.

This convoluted system is not just an imaginary annoyance. It has occurred 157 tomes since Samuel Miles became Faithless Elector No 1 in 1796. Sam voted for Tom Jefferson instead of state winner Johnny Adams. Why? Because he could.

The last time this happened was just 8 years ago when 2 electors bailed on The Donald and 5 deserted Hillary.

What’s the big deal one might argue since the 7 faithless electors did not change the 2016 election? In a close Electoral College vote it could take just a few faithless electors to change the presidential winner. Just a single faithless elector could prevent either candidate winning, throwing the presidential election into the House of Representatives when the new Congress is sworn in late January. Good grief.

They’re still not teaching America’s future voters about faithless electors in civics classes today, if they even teach civics anymore. Maybe that’s a good thing after all. It might be too much craziness about America’s electoral process for the little tykes to process. Let them enjoy their electoral innocence for a while before discovering how dysfunctional the self-proclaimed ‘world’s greatest democracy’ really is.

After election, will progressives recognize and oppose US genocide in Gaza?

 

After election, will progressives acknowledge and oppose US genocide in Gaza?

 

During the current US election cycle, many progressives have recoiled from addressing the 13 month long US enabled Israeli genocide in Gaza.

 

They are singularly focused on pushing Kamala Harris to victory, saving democracy from the unhinged authoritarian Trump. As a result they’ve banished the word much less the reality of the genocide which the US enables.

 

That is deplorable. Every day dozens, hundreds, possibly a thousand Palestinian civilians die in the worst genocide this century. All financed, publicly supported and weaponized by their beloved Biden/Harris administration.

 

When the genocide in Gaza is brought up for discussion, too many progressives are ‘hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.’

 

When asked to push back against US weaponizing, publicly supporting, financing the genocide, progressives come up with the darnedest excuses

 

‘There is no genocide in Gaza, just a defensive war against Hamas.’

‘Don’t dare say anything that will jeopardize Harris’ chances.’

 

‘The destruction in Gaza will be much worse under Trump.’

 

‘The United States has no influence on the government of Israel.’

 

‘President Biden and Vice President Harris are working night and day to achieve ceasefire in Gaza.’

 

‘People have been fighting each other there for thousands of years and nothing will change that.’

 

Maybe these otherwise fine progressives will open their eyes and souls to ongoing destruction of Gaza once the election ends and decide to resist it passionately.

 

Alas, with both candidates locked in ironclad support for sending endless billions for Israel to ‘finish the job’, they just might shrug and continue ignoring the most greatest moral dilemma of their lifetime