THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN NEW YORK

There was zero chance that Donald Trump could possibly get a fair trial in Manhattan, which not only is out of touch with the rest of the country, but the rest of the city as well, never mind the state.  Zero chance he could be treated fairly by a Manhattan jury, which voted over 80% for Biden and where there is not a single Republican elected official left. Top that off with radical prosecutors who campaigned on getting Trump as one of their main objectives. Add to that a vicious partisan judge seething with hatred for the man. It almost doesn’t matter what the charges and rulings are because of these conditions. They cannot be taken seriously by anyone, even those who intensely dislike Trump, if they have any decency, honesty and scruples left. This is a political victory they can enjoy but may learn to regret as they further de-legitimize the “justice” system in this country, which is only going to lead to black chasm that will eventually envelope them as well. 

Each of the cases are ridiculous and blatantly political. They would never have happened if he wasn’t President Trump and running for office. The charges are so far-fetched and the dollar amounts so outrageous, whether it be a supposed rape and libel from decades ago suddenly turning up, or more seriously, a clear attempt to not just “get” the man, but to completely destroy him,  his business  and his family, and further to even prevent them from doing business where they are based.  On top of that this thieving judicial system is further going to appoint their political lackeys to “monitor” the Trumps and force them to pay for it. It is blatant persecution, especially when no one complained, no one was defrauded, and all were paid back, and the very statute invoked actually applies to consumer, not business fraud anyway. There was no fraud, but none of that would matter to a partisan Manhattan jury. 

I have lived here all my life and am sickened by the serious decline of New York due to rotten, corrupt officials and legislative bodies. It didn’t have to be this way, and mind you much of this has been brought about by “progressive reformers,” with a consistently dismal record of accomplishment, and worse, thoughtless destruction. I can say without a doubt that the old-line Democrat machine bosses, whatever their faults, did a hell of a lot better job at running things than these fools. They were practical people who could care less about ideology, but they got things done. That is also where Trump’s talents lie; cutting to the chase and getting things done. This was evidenced by projects he undertook that city officials said were impossible and would take years to complete. He said he could get it done in six months and he did. 

He never did anything harmful to New York and in fact did a lot to make it better, something that is now conveniently forgotten by the very same scoundrels that used to sing his praises or take his money. But it’s not just Trump. This rotten, corrupt system is an offense and burden for many others, and will be even more so in the future, barring radical change, as the population hemorrhage accelerates. 

Apart from the alleged legal aspects, the amounts charged, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, are so over the top their intention is obvious. But the city has also changed; where some would look down on a place like Mississippi for exorbitant payouts, those are trivial alongside of preposterous, grossly excessive rewards that regularly pour out now from New York courts. The worst of them are often at the expense of the city itself, so that anyone with a lawsuit against the city basically has hit the jackpot. Lawyers love New York and big law firms are one of the few thriving institutions left in the city.. This is the same rotten system that has deliberately foisted harm on numerous residents by continuously releasing criminals back into the population, with no regard for law-abiding citizens. 

As it stands now, none of these purloined decisions, and the system that enabled them, have any legitimacy left. 

One way or another these blatant injustices may be reversed, but that alone is not enough. The perpetrators  of this travesty, who have so badly damaged any remaining semblance of a justice system, must be pursued and punished for their misdeeds. Only then may they learn that the pendulum swings back and forth. and when they are sanctioned they will better understand the consequences of their misdeeds. 

DISHONEST MEDIA ON THE USA, RUSSIA, AND EVERYTHING ELSE

There was a great deal of hissy hysterics across the western world with regard to Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. However, you don’t have to be.a fan of either man in order to find some real value in what was presented if you look at it objectively. Would there have been such n outcry if ,say, Barbara Walters had done the interview?  It doesn’t matter how salient the questions were, friendly or hostile, probing or softball, or any other “performance” criteria that stupid media are focused on. For what we very clearly saw was a fairly deep, unfiltered glimpse into the mind of an adversary, How much was truthful and how much misleading, self-serving, or completely false ought to be secondary to what was revealed in spite of those things. 

We got a pretty clear idea of what Putin’s thinking is on a wide range of topics, what his feelings are, and what motivates him. That is far more enlightening than any misleading statements he might have made, or how some claims might be factually incorrect, or merely disputable. Anyone observing this with an open mind would have learned a great deal about where he is coming from, and even if you consider him an outright enemy, it is clearly valuable information to possess. His history lesson was shaded by a sentimental and prejudicial perspective, as would be the same from another side, but overall it was not historically incorrect. 

When it comes to the west and NATO he revealed a good deal of resentment and hurt due to what he sees as rejection from the west, and his viewpoint does deserve some consideration based upon the way things evolved that could have turned out differently. When he says that Russia and Yeltsin were seeking to join the west and were rebuffed there is enough truth to it to question some of perceptions and policies instituted in our name. Clearly policy makers discounted the very real differences between the Soviet Union and Russia, the latter of which they wanted to contain and reduce as though it were still run by aggressive communists (rather than committed anti-communists). When he points to NATO expansion despite assurances that wouldn’t happen, he is historically correct, but would clearly have been acceptable if Russia had been allowed to become part of it along with all the rest. This does not negate Russian duplicity regarding other matters regarding Ukraine, etc.or breaking agreements,  but there is enough historical reality here to be considered thoughtfully, and free of our own biases and ideological sentiments. *

But the ideological propagandists that control the media don’t want you to be able to make your own judgement, because they “know better” and believe  you are too stupid or gullible enough to make a sound judgement on your own. However, their dishonesty is only verified by the fact that they don’t even want you to hear anything they don’t like or that might be contrary to their worldview. They want to suppress information rather than allowing its free flow, which is absolutely contrary to everything we stand for in the west. 

In current reading it is easy to find numerous instances of this malignant perspective. In The New Republic, (which used to be a thoughtful, serious publication I used to subscribe to until they descended into progressive leftism) they are still writing about ways to get rid of Fox News, to literally shut them down because they don’t like its content. It is telling that people who used to feign open-mindedness cannot abide even one outlet that has different viewpoint than the media cartel, and are apoplectic because of its dominant audience statistics. Then you have the current issue of The Atlantic, that once made at least some effort at fairness, devoting an entire issue to nothing besides anti-Trump articles that are more revealing of their own paranoia and ideological limitations than anything meaningful we don’t already know. 

But at the pinnacle of the toxic garbage heap is the New York Times, due to the extent to which  it still dominates the media cartel. Yesterday they ran a really juvenile article purporting to show how the Republican party is “racist,” based upon a handful of fairly innocuous comments, so beneath journalistic standards it is only comprehensible when you do a careful reading of at least half of all articles in the Times every day. They constantly and consistently view everything through race-based ideological blinders even when the topic has little or nothing to do with race. This in turn leads to defining people in identity boxes that are then ideologically interpreted to portray individuals and populations that simply don’t exist in the real world. I’m not even going to bother with all the factual errors and conceits in this case, if only because the practice is so continuously widespread in the Times. 

For a broader view on this topic and its implications see  Russia, the West and the World following this. 

AN EVENTFUL DAY IN WASHINGTON

Two events of this day in Washington will resonate for years to come. One was unexpectedly reassuring  for anyone concerned about the state of our political institutions. The other was, unfortunately, depressing and potentially disastrous.

Listening to the Supreme Court justices question the man trying to defend Colorado’s (and for that matter other states) arbitrary removal of a presidential candidate from the ballot was informative, even enlightening and inspiring. All of the justices asked cogent questions, and postulated “what-ifs” were this kind of action was to be allowed. Needless to say other states could then go their own way on balloting as well. 

They all were clearly being detached and objective in their statements, and devoid of any political or ideological blinders. I was pleasantly surprised to see both the liberal and conservative justices mostly consonant in their queries, and treating the subject at hand as a matter of law and justice without regard to the particular political context. It certainly reassuring to see this level of professionalism in our justice system, at least at the highest level. There is clearly a lot more to be done to restore confidence in lower levels where power has been abused, or inconsistently applied. 

Attempts to alter or restructure the court because some people are upset about a particular decision, is ill-advised. You don’t upend the overall constitutional design because a case didn’t go your way. Now, more than ever, we can see the value of the wisdom of our founders in making these lifetime appointments. That is the only way to assure that personal interests or beliefs are set aside when external pressure manifests itself, because the justices cannot be easily threatened with a ruined career. That is what enables them to step back and see things from a broader, long-term standpoint.

This is clear in the way the court deliberates. They necessarily must see things from the position of how it effects the overall process, rather than the particulars of a case. For the pendulum often swings from one side to another. Even though a particular case outcome may be perceived to be detrimental to a particular heated stance, the justices know that things can change over time, so that the roles of the disputants can be completely reversed over time. 

Consider where this particular case positions each side. There is a clear ideological anomaly. The Democrats are essentially arguing for state’s rights vis a vis the federal government, which they usually oppose,  while Republicans are arguing for federal primacy in this instance, which is inconsistent with their usual position. Only the Supreme Court can be detached enough to see this in a broader, constitutional context. The court took a major step today in demonstrating how the system should work, and though a decision is still pending, the overall sentiment of the justices is fairly clear.

The other item, the report of the Special Counsel on President Biden’s handling of classified documents, is far more disturbing. It is not the particulars of the documents that is troubling, but rather the devastating conclusions regarding his mental health and competency.  It was only further compounded by his blustering press conference this evening. My own sense is that his handlers couldn’t control him this time because of how angry he was, so he ignored their advice and decided to storm out to the podium. But rather than setting the record straight the way he thought he would, his dismal performance  only made things worse by confirming the efficacy of the observations made in the report. 

It isn’t necessary to deliberate how precarious he has made things, not just for the USA, but for the entire world. It is compounded by the fact that we really don’t know who is running the country now, or perhaps even for much of his term. What he did do was enable what effectively has been a radical coup over the Democratic Party, with disastrous policy consequences that have seriously alienated a solid majority of the country. This is all on the leadership of that party for failing to address this problem, and especially on his selfish handlers, for hiding the truth and propping him up in order to maintain their own grip on power. 

There were already ample conditions based on his action or inaction in maintaining the territorial integrity of the country, but the votes aren’t there for impeachment. However, they should at least see this crisis as an opportunity to now deal with a very serious problem. If they instead go about attacking the prosecutor, (who was appointed by his own justice department) in an effort to delegitimize his report, or attempt to ride it out, relying on a pliable media to make it disappear, it won’t work. They will not only seriously erode their own prospects, but also make them culpable in this disaster. 

Even if you loathe Donald Trump, who by no means is empowered by these conditions, that is not the real choice that has to be made. Indeed it is conceivable, if not likely, that neither man will be on the ballot by November. The problem is more fundamental, and apolitical. We have a President who clearly lacks the cognitive competence to remain in office. We see him further deteriorating before our eyes, as does the entire world, including a number of powerful bad actors. They would be foolish not to seize the opportunity afforded them by a dysfunctional government, and worse, if they do act, we are not in a position to do a damn thing about it. We may further stumble into a war that no one wants, and which we are simply not prepared for. If this situation is not ameliorated soon, there are surely darker days ahead. 

ADDENDUM:

 The likelihood of different presidential candidates in November is increasing. If Biden stetps down and the Supreme Court refuses to consider Trump's immunity claim it all may change.

AIR TRAVEL MISERY

 I’ve just gotten back from Aruba, after several days, for the seventh time, because the weather is always perfect there. But as with airline tripS these days, getting to and from any destination is consistently awful. What really infuriated me this time is that I am TSA pre-cleared, paid more for better seats, had lounge access and whatever other insulating perk there are, and still wound up basically enduring  the same lousy experience as everyone else anyway. 

Years ago it used to be pleasant and simple. For example one time I was late for a flight to Chicago on American Airlines, but was able to easily walk over to United Airlines and catch another flight with the same ticket and no fuss. You could go up to a counter anywhere and still get a ticket for an imminently departing flight. There was a lot more comfort and space without any extra charges. There was a time when you could even go to the top of the Pan Am building in New York City and take a New York Airways helicopter flight straight to the airport. Those days are long gone now,  compounded by the massive security apparatus now in place. 

 After countless billions poured into the ridiculously named “Homeland Security” department, It would be one thing if all of the convoluted processes involved actually improved anything, but they clearly don’t. I’m not talking about the non-existent border here, but  just basic safe and convenient travel. This really struck home when I opened my luggage at my hotel and found a box-cutter I’d forgotten about in my carry-on luggage. That should have been readily spotted with all the machinery and personnel deployed, but it wasn’t. Given that was the instrument of of choice for the 9/11 monsters and how much they were able to get away with, I am left wondering if anything works right anymore. What is the point of having to arrive hours before your flight, stand on line to pass through a series of security checkpoints, if in the end it  still can simply be  breached anyway? 

As with so many other aspects of our lives, we have surrendered a significant amount of our personal liberty over the years based upon false promises. Of course we need security, but how about some smart security, with better equipment, that doesn’t require an army of personnel controlling everyone? Security is important, but it is only one consideration among many that could so easily improve this process. Most other businesses strive to maintain good customer satisfaction. Not here. How little attempt has been made to increase comfort and convenience. 

It’s as though passengers are just an afterthought, a given, and without any other real options. Arranging seating to maximize the number of people that can be squeezed into uncomfortable seats shows no consideration for human beings at all. Of course, if you don’t like that you can shell out more money for basically the same seat with just a few more inches of legroom. Worse, how about significant differences in price for passengers purchasing the same seats? 

It’s past time to put together something that could evaluate the system from the standpoint of people first. I’m still astonished at what I thought the future of aviation was going to look like fifty years ago. It should have been indescribably better, but instead it is sadly far worse than we could possibly have imagined.