How the Clinton-Trump Race Got Close – by Paul Krugman – The New York Times

“Monday’s presidential debate was a blowout, surely the most one-sided confrontation in American political history. Hillary Clinton was knowledgeable, unflappable and — dare we say it? — likable. Donald Trump was ignorant, thin-skinned and boorish.Yet on the eve of the debate, polls showed a close race. How was that possible?

After all, the candidates we saw Monday night were the same people they’ve been all along. Mrs. Clinton’s grace and even humor under pressure were fully apparent during last year’s Benghazi hearing. Mr. Trump’s whiny braggadocio has been obvious every time he opens his mouth without reading from a teleprompter.So how could someone like Mr. Trump have been in striking position for the White House? (He may still be there, since we have yet to see what effect the debate had on the polls.)

Part of the answer is that a lot more Americans than we’d like to imagine are white nationalists at heart. Indeed, implicit appeals to racial hostility have long been at the core of Republican strategy; Mr. Trump became the G.O.P. nominee by saying outright what his opponents tried to convey with dog whistles.”

Source: How the Clinton-Trump Race Got Close – The New York Times

Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State – The New York Times

 

“President Vladimir Putin is fast turning Russia into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international law. Yet, his behavior in Ukraine and Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common human decency.

This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands concluded that the surface-to-air missile system that shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. Meanwhile, in Syria, Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some 500,000 Syrian lives.”

Source: Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State – The New York Times

 

David Lindsay

Hamden, CT (NYT Comment)

The Europeans should care about the destruction of Syria more than we do. It is time for NATO to take out or ground the Syrian air force, and establish a no fly zone, over Aleppo and the north, over which they fight to the death the Russian air forces that are bombing civilian targets. As we learned in WW II, war is sometimes the only remedy against the atrocities of fascism. NATO was formed, to protect Europe and contain Russia. Russia’s current atrocities will not stop without containment.

Russia’s Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May Be Working – The New York Times

by Max Fisher.

“The effects of Russia’s bombing campaign in the Syrian city of Aleppo — destroying hospitals and schools, choking off basic supplies, and killing aid workers and hundreds of civilians over just days — raise a question: What could possibly motivate such brutality?Observers attribute Russia’s bombing to recklessness, cruelty or Moscow’s desperate thrashing in what the White House has called a “quagmire.”

But many analysts take a different view: Russia and its Syrian government allies, they say, could be massacring Aleppo’s civilians as part of a calculated strategy, aimed beyond this one city.The strategy, more about politics than advancing the battle lines, appears to be designed to pressure rebels to ally themselves with extremists, eroding the rebels’ legitimacy; give Russia veto power over any high-level diplomacy; and exhaust Syrian civilians who might otherwise support the opposition.”

Source: Russia’s Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May Be Working – The New York Times

Trump? How Could We? – by Tom Friedman – The New York Times

 

“My reaction to the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate can be summarized with one word: “How?”How in the world do we put a man in the Oval Office who thinks NATO is a shopping mall where the tenants aren’t paying enough rent to the U.S. landlord?

NATO is not a shopping mall; it is a strategic alliance that won the Cold War, keeps Europe a stable trading partner for U.S. companies and prevents every European country — particularly Germany — from getting their own nukes to counterbalance Russia, by sheltering them all under America’s nuclear umbrella.

How do we put in the Oval Office a man who does not know enough “beef” about key policies to finish a two-minute answer on any issue without the hamburger helper of bluster, insults and repetition?How do we put in the Oval Office a man who suggests that the recent spate of cyberattacks — which any senior U.S. intelligence official will tell you came without question from Russia — might not have come from Russia but could have been done by “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds”?

How do we put in the Oval Office a man who boasts that he tries to pay zero federal taxes but then complains that our airports and roads are falling apart and there is not enough money for our veterans?

How do we put in the Oval Office a man who claims he was against the Iraq war, because he said he privately told that to his pal Sean Hannity of Fox News — even though he publicly supported the war when it began. Trump is so obsessed with proving his infallibility that he missed scoring an easy debate point for himself by saying, “Yes, I supported the Iraq war as a citizen, but Hillary voted for it as a senator when she had access to the intelligence and her job was to make the right judgment.” ”

Source: Trump? How Could We? – The New York Times

I found this comment afterwards at the NYT, and responded to it.

Kevin Rothstein

is a trusted commenter Somewhere East of the GWB 14 hours ago

 

Friedman criticizing Hillary on the Iraq vote: priceless.

• 490 Recommended

 

David Lindsay

Hamden, CT (comments at NYT)

Yes, and — I remember when both Tom Friedman, and I supported the drum call by George W Bush to invade Iraq, to take out all those weapons of mass destruction. Then I read in the NYT an op-ed by a French diplomat, who wrote, You Americans are crazy ignoramuses, to think you can invade Iraq, and take out Saddam Hussein, for what ever reason. You will unleash a decades long civil war between the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. The civil war will be a nightmare.  I thought, Ouch, I’ve never heard of the Sunnis, the Shiites, or the Kurds. No one is discussing them, during our discussions about invasion. Sounds to me like Vietnam all over again. All chest-beating, and no homework. I immediately withdrew my support of going to war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. A week later, more famously, so did Tom Friedman. I thought, perhaps simplistically, Ha, Tom Friedman must have read the advice from the French diplomat too.

The Age of Reaction – by David Brooks – The New York Times

“In the normal telling, history is driven by visionaries and revolutionaries. If you studied history in school you probably plowed through book after book about this revolution or that one — the American Revolution or the French, the industrial revolution or the information one. In the normal telling of the past, events are driven by revolutionaries, and the few reactionaries who stand in the way get run over.

But really, history is often a volley between revolutionaries (who take control in some periods) and reactionaries (who drive events in others). Today, as the Columbia political theorist Mark Lilla points out in his compelling new book, “The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction,” reactionaries are in the saddle.

Reactionaries, whether angry white Trumpians, European nationalists, radical Islamists or left-wing anti-globalists, are loud, self-confident and on the march.”

Source: The Age of Reaction – The New York Times

Thank you David Brooks for a challenging piece of writing. You have a masterly way of skating around and making sense. I am struck by an unexpected similarity between the right wing bible thumping reactionaries behind Trump, and my own crowd of depressed, but ardent, environmentalists. We have are own fear of apocalypse, or ending of life as we know it. It is not from too many people of color, but, of just too many damned people. We are looking at population growth going from 2 to 7.5 billion in just a hundred years, and the destruction of 50% or 85% of the current species on the planet in the next 100 years. We are the meteor, we are the Anthropocene. So we environmentalists have an apocalyptic view, just like our Trump supporting brethren.

Want to Make Ethical Purchases? Stop Buying Illegal Drugs -By MARIO BERLANGA – The New York Times

“Many of my friends and classmates here in the United States care about making the world a better place, and they try to make purchases that reflect their values. Some have become vegetarians to save animals or fight climate change. Others buy cruelty-free cosmetics, fair-trade coffee or conflict-free diamonds.

Yet I’ve noticed at parties and festivals that some of these same people pop Ecstasy or snort cocaine. They think this drug use is a victimless crime. It’s not. Follow the supply chain and you’ll find a trail of horrific violence.In Mexico, the official death toll from the past decade’s drug trade stands at over 185,000, with many of the dead innocent bystanders. And these tallies don’t include the thousands of people who have disappeared, including four members of my family who were kidnapped and never seen again. We were deprived of our loved ones without explanation, without even their bodies to cry over.

I was born and raised in a midsize town in northern Mexico. As a child, I biked and skated in the streets. But these days, kids aren’t allowed to play outside. Everyone has a heartbreaking story of how the drug trade has damaged his life.”

Source: Want to Make Ethical Purchases? Stop Buying Illegal Drugs – The New York Times

As I’ve said before, if we legalized all addictive drugs, just like we legalized alcohol after prohibition failed, the extraodinary profits from an illegal trade would disappear, and so would the armies of armed thugs to protect the illegal markets.

An Ugly Campaign, Condensed Into One Debate – The New York Times

Inconvenient News Worldwide

We watched the debate, and Hillary impressed us greatly, as expected. Donald turned our stomach, as expected.

I decided after reading the editorial below, not to post it. I had posted the NYT editorials endorsing Hillary, and condemning Donald, yesterday on blog 1, Inconvenient News.  Then I read this comment, which I had to post:

Yuri Asian

Bay Area4 hours ago

“This was just surreal.

If self-medicating works the proof it can be found in Trump’s deflated fans who proclaim his victory.

My mom — almost 100 now — is Chinese from a generation taught to defer to men and view unfavorably women who achieve prominence. In her mind and from her culture there’s a natural order and women aren’t part of it. That’s despite her degree from St. John’s University in Shanghai, regarded as the “Harvard of China.” Despite being a single immigrant woman, raising two sons while…

View original post 364 more words

An Ugly Campaign, Condensed Into One Debate – The New York Times

 

Kathleen and I  watched the debate, and Hillary impressed us greatly, as expected. Donald turned our stomach, as expected.

I decided after reading the editorial below, not to post it. I had posted the NYT editorials endorsing Hillary, and condemning Donald, yesterday on blog 1, Inconvenient News.  Then I read this comment, which I had to post:

Yuri Asian

Bay Area 4 hours ago

“This was just surreal.

If self-medicating works the proof it can be found in Trump’s deflated fans who proclaim his victory.

My mom — almost 100 now — is Chinese from a generation taught to defer to men and view unfavorably women who achieve prominence. In her mind and from her culture there’s a natural order and women aren’t part of it. That’s despite her degree from St. John’s University in Shanghai, regarded as the “Harvard of China.” Despite being a single immigrant woman, raising two sons while employed as a translator and journalist at Chinese publications where she was the only woman.

By virtue of his gender alone Trump would win my mom’s support. I watched tonight with her. She smiled when Trump talked and knitted her brow when Hillary spoke. Five minutes in, when Trump grew obnoxious, my mother began to look irritated and soon contemptuous. “What kind of man is he? He is insults his parents with his behavior. He humiliates them with such low class manners.”

Hillary? Maybe it was her lucky (for Chinese) red pantsuit but “This is an educated woman from a good family. You can see that in the proper way she speaks and her bravery to speak forcefully to that man. I feel sorry for that man’s wife but she must be a stupid girl to have married him.”

Trump had my mom by default. In 90 minutes he broke 100 years of deeply ingrained male bias. At her age she uses an absentee ballot. After the “debate” she went looking for it. She had seen and heard enough.”

• 1083 Recommended

 

THE EDITORAL

“Debate” is an iffy word for an exercise in which candidates are prompted by moderators to dole out their stump speeches bit by bit under hot lights while a clock counts the seconds and every quip and jab and stumble is used to keep score and proclaim a “winner.”But when just one candidate is serious and the other is a vacuous bully, the term loses all meaning.Monday night’s confrontation between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was a spectacle, for sure: the sheer reality-TV hugeness of it, the Super Bowl audience of tens of millions. “Debate of the Century,” said The Drudge Report. “America on the Brink,” said The Huffington Post. For once, the hype may have been about right, given the tightness of the polls and the nearness of the election.There was a fundamental asymmetry to the exercise, because of the awful truth that one of the participants had nothing truthful to offer. But seeing them on the same stage distilled exactly who they have been throughout this campaign.”

Source: An Ugly Campaign, Condensed Into One Debate – The New York Times

Here is a comment I particularly liked:

Sleater

is a trusted commenter New York 8 hours ago

“Clinton: polished, knowledgeable, calm, unflappable. She was funny at times, never nasty, and without ever breaking a sweat hoisted Donald Trump on his petard using this horrible record.

Trump: rattled, interrupting (51 times he interrupted Clinton), screaming, rambling, stringing together words as if that would endow them with sense. He even nuttily suggested China invade North Korea!

His presence on stage raises the serious question, what were Republican voters thinking? Out of all those primary candidates, some with real experience and smarts (John Kasich, for example), THIS is who you nominate? This person who seemed to have escaped from a child care facility?

And remind me again, what was Lester Holt’s role? Oh, that’s right. MODERATOR. He seemed barely capable of getting a word in edgewise over Trump.

Like her or not, Hillary Clinton shows that she’s ready to be president. Donald Trump looked like he was ready to find the quickest exit out of that room and this race.”

• 648 Recommended

I added a reply:

Sleater, I love your comment, thank you.
I must be getting hawkish in my old age, but I thought asking China to invade North Korea was Trump’s only good idea. I read once, that China controls North Korea’s fresh water supplies. While this might not be true, China has a lot of power over the small country that hangs from it like a small branch. If China just joined in with severe sanctions, they could probably close down North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Sun Tsu once wrote, thousands of years ago, in China, the easiest way to fight an army, is not to fight them, but to take out their leadership, and watch them disintegrate.

Progressive Family Values – by Paul Krugman – The New York Times

“Here’s what happens every election cycle: pundits demand that politicians offer the country new ideas. Then, if and when a candidate actually does propose innovative policies, the news media pays little attention, chasing scandals or, all too often, fake scandals instead. Remember the extensive coverage last month, when Hillary Clinton laid out an ambitious mental health agenda? Neither do I. For that matter, even the demand for new ideas is highly questionable, since there are plenty of good old ideas that haven’t been put into effect. Most advanced countries implemented some form of guaranteed health coverage decades if not generations ago. Does this mean that we should dismiss Obamacare as no big deal, since it’s just implementing a tired old agenda? The 20 million Americans who gained health coverage would beg to differ.”

Source: Progressive Family Values – The New York Times

Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President – The New York Times

“When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican “rapists” flooding across the Southern border.

From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.

Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.”

Source: Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President – The New York Times