Democrats are talking about how their party has to make changes based on the reasons they believe they lost in this year's election (popular vote notwithstanding), but what's interesting to me is that while this is basically what was said about the Republicans in 2008 and 2012, the Democrats need realize that the GOP DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL! What changed was was what the voters wanted, but while the GOP leadership was grudgingly willing to let the favorite candidate be the nominee, the DNC seems to have launched a mild smear campaign against Bernie Sanders that even seems to have gotten the attention of Julian Assange, the CRIMINAL that I remember being loved by Democrats when he was exposing the follies of the Bush administration. That probably didn't cost Sanders the nomination, by itself, but not only did Sanders last far longer than almost any top party official expected, he probably would have fared even better had the rules governing how the party awards delegates state-to-state been different - an issue that pushed Sanders supporters to yell insults at Clinton rallies and send threats to the Clinton camp and to DNC headquarters about alleged unfair party practices (a hilarious irony given the Democrats are supposed to be THE party of "fairness").
Based on what I've seen and heard, I think Trump's electorate victory is attributable to at least two or three things: The first, is probably lower-than-expected (or slower-than-expected) voter turnout on election day, particularly in terms of minorities and other reliably Democrat voters in the places they needed to turn up. The other is that I think the Democrats were so focused on the Trump Show and how the Republicans were so allegedly out-of-control in their swerve to the far-right that they all but totally ignored how much of their own party was doing the exact same thing in terms of swerving to the far-left AND being almost as dissatisfied with the government as their anti-government Republican counterparts.
Relative to that second reason is the fact that despite having most of the mainstream press on TV and in print in blatant opposition to Trump, Hillary was just not a good candidate. While Hillary had a lot of knowledge and displayed it spectacularly in debates, voters tend to have very short memories and respond with their hearts more than their heads. When she said she was happy to take on Trump and defend her record, most of it (that I can recall) had to do with her work in the legal field in support of children and so forth in the seventies and eighties. That was a stupid thing to rely upon because a BIG piece of the Democrat vote was expected to come from millennials that weren't even born back then! Unlike Trump, whose normal, day-to-day status was one of conflict with almost everyone, she seems never to have been able to shake her personal controversies by making people believe strongly enough that she understood them and their frustrations to get out there and vote for her, anyway. If you think they did because she won the popular vote, then it comes down to saying that the race to an electoral victory is more about geography, speed, and/or timing than the sheer quantity of votes. But even that's not a good excuse because there was a near-record amount of early voting going on prior to November 8. Why were more not for Hillary Clinton?
Frankly, I think it comes down to the reason that I remain a Republican despite some major problems in the party and its proposed policies, which is that while the Democrat platform is almost wholly predicated upon voter DEPENDENCE upon government, requiring an almost blind trust, the Republican platform is all about voter INDEPENDENCE and what voter's can do for themselves far better than the government, which Republicans use mostly for defense purposes. Even if you strongly disagree with that element of the Republican platform and believe it to be naive, at best, the notion or even the pretense of independence has been potent and central to the American experience and "experiment" since at least the days of the Boston Tea Party. I don't think the Democrats are going to fare much better politically or be more successful pushing their agenda unless they act like they have more trust in the Americans that vote for them AND make those Americans more of a priority than, say, illegal immigrants or whether or not a few words offend people halfway around the world.
The Carrier deal is a great example. While I don't think Trump will be able to always act as the President to make deals like this to supposedly save specific jobs - a deal whose specifics and ultimate consequences are still fairly unknown - it's still a brilliantly grand gesture that will probably make not only Republicans, but also some Democrats in Congress more willing to cooperate because they want to be on the side of voters that love Trump for keeping a specific promise before ever even being inaugurated! In terms of image manipulation, it's something that should have been done by Democrats and is actually a move which is more in line with the Democrat message of protecting the working-class FROM large, outsourcing corporations.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Trump's Election Called A "White-Lash" By Van Jones, CNN Commentator & Former Obama Administration Official
I heard Van Jones' "white-lash" comment on election night when he said it live on the air. In some respects, I don't doubt that there is truth to that statement or to these in this video, nor have I changed my mind about disliking Trump on-the-whole, but as Limbaugh said this afternoon, when blacks, Hispanics, gays, or any minority group INCLUDING women (who aren't even minorities in the numerical sense) vote based on THEIR self-interests, it is celebrated and applauded. When whites even appear to do the same thing, it's condemned as racist, sexist, bigoted, and representative of an alleged desire for segregation, isolationism, and so-called "traditional" values meant to oppress and abuse women. When those groups say or stand up for something that scares or offends whites and/or Christian conservatives, the latter's reaction(s) are attributed to ignorance and bigotry, laughed and joked about when people like Obama hold power by almost ALL of the sarcastic pricks on late night television and cable programs like The Daily Show and Colbert, etc. When something scares THEM, though, it suddenly becomes the responsibility of not just white, but SPECIFICALLY male, straight, and Christian Americans to "hear the fear" and pain and shoulder the responsibility of having to understand and help heal divides. And while statements like the ones made by a Muslim guest on CNN today about words having consequences may be true, what about actions?
Beyond some hearings and some bad press, what were the consequences for what was basically confirmed to be Hillary Clinton's dangerous negligence, at the very least, in handling confidential and classified information while using her private E-mail server as Secretary of State? Where were the consequences when Former Secretary Clinton and/or members of her staff LIED about what really motivated the protests in Benghazi that left Americans dead, then callously and arrogantly asked a panel of government representatives why the reason even mattered? What were the consequences when Clinton called "half" of Trump's supporters people that should be put in a "basket of deplorables?" I would love to see what would happen if Sean Hannity were asked why so many white cops seem to shoot black, unarmed suspects, and he replied by asking why it maters. The difference between those scenarios is one of degrees and proximity to everyday life.
I don't condone the way Trump worded a lot of his viewpoints during the campaign, but wanting to enforce immigration law and expect other nations to respect our borders is NOT racist towards Hispanics or Muslims or anyone else. There would be instant, harsh, and maybe legal and military condemnation from other countries if 2,000 or more white people suddenly moved to some small nation in Africa, for example, and started demanding that the culture and the economy there adapt to THEM and not the other way around. Yet that's exactly what is expected of America when it comes to illegals from Mexico or refugees from Syria despite the FACT that America has a system in place for immigrants, which I believe helps everyone by teaching them about the country and its people and ENABLING them to demand, as integrated citizens, fair wages and government protection paid for by tax payers like them, as legal citizens. Where is the same sort of outcry from Van Jones over the consequences of Obama's disastrous ultimatum over Syrias chemical weapons that was never followed-up, thus allowing a major power like Russia to not only protect Assad's murderous dictatorship, but now help him bomb his own people and towns like Aleppo almost out of existence?
To me, the fundamental roadblock on the path to more social progress is the inability or refusal to understand that while we're all created equal and that equality in the form of equal rights can be bestowed by government, true tolerance has to be earned or achieved through education, experience, and the kind of HONEST discourse that is currently impossible to have between whites - mainly male Christians and conservatives - and the other races and creeds in America because as soon as something is said that just makes a minority group uncomfortable, anything else said by the white and/or majority group is usually dismissed as either dishonest or bigoted. Last night, Don Lemon confronted a guest about this issue, hypothetically asking what the difference is between what Trump says and basic honesty as to one's perhaps politically incorrect or even bigoted perspectives. The guest's answer was, "civility." If that's true, though, then it's incumbent upon EVERYONE - regardless of race, creed, heritage or history - to not only practice that civility, but come to some kind of consensus as to what that specifically means in terms of wording that is both acceptable AND honest.
I realize that non-white and non-Christian minority groups have had some traumatic history and experiences here in America, but if things like marriage or any other forms of equality are truly to matter and have staying power, that history needs to be set aside - not forgotten, mind you, but also not used to negatively generalize, accuse, provoke, and/or to guilt people and government into giving them what they want.
Beyond some hearings and some bad press, what were the consequences for what was basically confirmed to be Hillary Clinton's dangerous negligence, at the very least, in handling confidential and classified information while using her private E-mail server as Secretary of State? Where were the consequences when Former Secretary Clinton and/or members of her staff LIED about what really motivated the protests in Benghazi that left Americans dead, then callously and arrogantly asked a panel of government representatives why the reason even mattered? What were the consequences when Clinton called "half" of Trump's supporters people that should be put in a "basket of deplorables?" I would love to see what would happen if Sean Hannity were asked why so many white cops seem to shoot black, unarmed suspects, and he replied by asking why it maters. The difference between those scenarios is one of degrees and proximity to everyday life.
I don't condone the way Trump worded a lot of his viewpoints during the campaign, but wanting to enforce immigration law and expect other nations to respect our borders is NOT racist towards Hispanics or Muslims or anyone else. There would be instant, harsh, and maybe legal and military condemnation from other countries if 2,000 or more white people suddenly moved to some small nation in Africa, for example, and started demanding that the culture and the economy there adapt to THEM and not the other way around. Yet that's exactly what is expected of America when it comes to illegals from Mexico or refugees from Syria despite the FACT that America has a system in place for immigrants, which I believe helps everyone by teaching them about the country and its people and ENABLING them to demand, as integrated citizens, fair wages and government protection paid for by tax payers like them, as legal citizens. Where is the same sort of outcry from Van Jones over the consequences of Obama's disastrous ultimatum over Syrias chemical weapons that was never followed-up, thus allowing a major power like Russia to not only protect Assad's murderous dictatorship, but now help him bomb his own people and towns like Aleppo almost out of existence?
To me, the fundamental roadblock on the path to more social progress is the inability or refusal to understand that while we're all created equal and that equality in the form of equal rights can be bestowed by government, true tolerance has to be earned or achieved through education, experience, and the kind of HONEST discourse that is currently impossible to have between whites - mainly male Christians and conservatives - and the other races and creeds in America because as soon as something is said that just makes a minority group uncomfortable, anything else said by the white and/or majority group is usually dismissed as either dishonest or bigoted. Last night, Don Lemon confronted a guest about this issue, hypothetically asking what the difference is between what Trump says and basic honesty as to one's perhaps politically incorrect or even bigoted perspectives. The guest's answer was, "civility." If that's true, though, then it's incumbent upon EVERYONE - regardless of race, creed, heritage or history - to not only practice that civility, but come to some kind of consensus as to what that specifically means in terms of wording that is both acceptable AND honest.
I realize that non-white and non-Christian minority groups have had some traumatic history and experiences here in America, but if things like marriage or any other forms of equality are truly to matter and have staying power, that history needs to be set aside - not forgotten, mind you, but also not used to negatively generalize, accuse, provoke, and/or to guilt people and government into giving them what they want.
Friday, October 14, 2016
I'm Voting For Clinton BECAUSE I Am A Republican!
Forgive me for once again "going long," as they say in football, but I feel it important and necessary to explain why I am strongly considering a vote for Hillary Clinton - not in spite of being a Republican, but BECAUSE I am a Republican. I don't totally agree with everything and am genuinely frightened by what I see as the left's defeatist and historically deaf notion that the social and economic injustices of the private sector can be ended by further consolidating money and power within a federal government which claims to protect freedom while macro-managing as much of society as its escalating tax rates and intrusive information-gathering tools will allow. However, I see Donald Trump as the kind of candidate that will likely self-destruct and take the party and maybe the country with them. To me, he embodies every negative stereotype used to describe us for decades.
I believe that this is what happens when we become so rigidly partisan that we no longer respect basic public service. Both parties are somewhat divided nowadays, but with so many choices and chances to show just how diverse and politically thoughtful we can be, more Republicans than in any other primary season "went low" and fell prey to the very divisiveness they identified in the Obama administration's alleged class warfare and identity politics. They allowed themselves to be put on the defensive and politically alienated to the point of desperation and paranoia, now mistaking needed flexibility and compromise for political duality and betrayal. In tone, it is not unlike the way post World War 1 Russia AND Germany viewed and treated the governments of its czar and chancellor, respectively. At least they had better reasons, yet look how that turned out.
Even if news networks' obsession with Trump's indiscretions makes it easier to distract with accusations of media bias, two or more wrongs do not make a right. The relevance of Friday's video and ensuing accusations stems from Trump's lack of experience and legislative record, leaving only his character and largely hollow, cliche'd and unrealistic platform with which to judge his candidacy. This week's revelations confirm what many have seen and suspected since last year, when Trump even insulted and demeaned Megyn Kelly, an anchor at the politically sympathetic Fox News Network. That he makes light of such horrendous behavior (after a disingenuous apology) and now denies DOING just what he claimed suggests a man trapped in his own arrogance and delusion, offering nothing but fuel for his supporters' unreasoning hatred. Of all people, surely GOP Christians like myself see that a vote for Trump represents a serious lack of faith which, as a friend recently pointed out, is akin to worshiping an idol because it promises lower taxes, easier gun ownership, and religious liberty.
Even more consequential is Trump's internecine warfare, which uses words like "elite" and "establishment" to demean and accuse much-needed, would-be Republican allies like Speaker Paul Ryan, John McCain, etc. Whether due to ignorance or indifference to the way America's government was designed to operate, his accusations of inefficiency and being "bought" by "special interests" BECAUSE of elected officials' legislative experience are hypocritical so long as Trump is focused on not only saving, but expanding the coal and GOP-friendly oil industry. Furthermore, many of the Republican representatives that Trump supporters demonize began as the same kind of businessmen and political "outsiders" that Trump is now, swept into office to keep President Obama from doing his job, forcing him to resort to the executive orders for which he is criticized.
If elected, Donald Trump could find himself issuing some executive orders if Democrats retake the House and/or Senate and Republican lawmakers refuse to work with him. Republicans need to realize that he is sabotaging his own potential presidency before it begins by antagonizing and threatening the re-election chances of other Republicans in the House and Senate, without whom Trump will not be able to make all of his "great deals," let alone build walls or make anyone's tax rate as low as the absurd 15% he promises. Pardon the flowery pompousness, but I think that if it elects Donald Trump President, the party of Lincoln and Reagan will officially reject the principled optimism and personal compassion that made both presidents shine in dark times. If it were to unfold as many predict, a Trump Presidency could hurt or cripple the GOP for a generation... or even destroy it. Trump's loss, however, would hopefully stimulate much-needed reform within the party. That is why I see my choice as one that favors my party.
I believe that this is what happens when we become so rigidly partisan that we no longer respect basic public service. Both parties are somewhat divided nowadays, but with so many choices and chances to show just how diverse and politically thoughtful we can be, more Republicans than in any other primary season "went low" and fell prey to the very divisiveness they identified in the Obama administration's alleged class warfare and identity politics. They allowed themselves to be put on the defensive and politically alienated to the point of desperation and paranoia, now mistaking needed flexibility and compromise for political duality and betrayal. In tone, it is not unlike the way post World War 1 Russia AND Germany viewed and treated the governments of its czar and chancellor, respectively. At least they had better reasons, yet look how that turned out.
Even if news networks' obsession with Trump's indiscretions makes it easier to distract with accusations of media bias, two or more wrongs do not make a right. The relevance of Friday's video and ensuing accusations stems from Trump's lack of experience and legislative record, leaving only his character and largely hollow, cliche'd and unrealistic platform with which to judge his candidacy. This week's revelations confirm what many have seen and suspected since last year, when Trump even insulted and demeaned Megyn Kelly, an anchor at the politically sympathetic Fox News Network. That he makes light of such horrendous behavior (after a disingenuous apology) and now denies DOING just what he claimed suggests a man trapped in his own arrogance and delusion, offering nothing but fuel for his supporters' unreasoning hatred. Of all people, surely GOP Christians like myself see that a vote for Trump represents a serious lack of faith which, as a friend recently pointed out, is akin to worshiping an idol because it promises lower taxes, easier gun ownership, and religious liberty.
Even more consequential is Trump's internecine warfare, which uses words like "elite" and "establishment" to demean and accuse much-needed, would-be Republican allies like Speaker Paul Ryan, John McCain, etc. Whether due to ignorance or indifference to the way America's government was designed to operate, his accusations of inefficiency and being "bought" by "special interests" BECAUSE of elected officials' legislative experience are hypocritical so long as Trump is focused on not only saving, but expanding the coal and GOP-friendly oil industry. Furthermore, many of the Republican representatives that Trump supporters demonize began as the same kind of businessmen and political "outsiders" that Trump is now, swept into office to keep President Obama from doing his job, forcing him to resort to the executive orders for which he is criticized.
If elected, Donald Trump could find himself issuing some executive orders if Democrats retake the House and/or Senate and Republican lawmakers refuse to work with him. Republicans need to realize that he is sabotaging his own potential presidency before it begins by antagonizing and threatening the re-election chances of other Republicans in the House and Senate, without whom Trump will not be able to make all of his "great deals," let alone build walls or make anyone's tax rate as low as the absurd 15% he promises. Pardon the flowery pompousness, but I think that if it elects Donald Trump President, the party of Lincoln and Reagan will officially reject the principled optimism and personal compassion that made both presidents shine in dark times. If it were to unfold as many predict, a Trump Presidency could hurt or cripple the GOP for a generation... or even destroy it. Trump's loss, however, would hopefully stimulate much-needed reform within the party. That is why I see my choice as one that favors my party.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Jon Stewart's Ridiculous and Offensive Reaction to Donald Trump and the RNC
"There is no real America... You don't own respect for police and firefighters."
That was basically comedian and former Daily Show host Jon Stewart's reaction to Donald Trump's speech Thursday night (July 21, 2016) and to pretty much the entire Republican National Convention when he temporarily took over hosting duties on television from Stephen Colbert. Regardless of my distaste for him as a candidate, otherwise, this is almost enough to make me want to vote for Trump out of pure spite.
First, if there is no America, then why is anyone trying to be its president - including Hillary? Why are we even voting or planning to vote, and by extension, why do we even care so much about what is said by what are otherwise strangers that most of us will never meet, let alone know, and who would probably have little or no interest in meeting or knowing us if they did know we existed (as individuals)?
Neither side seems willing to take enough responsibility for their roles in this problem to make me believe that any amount of protesting, public sentiment, or government "recommendations" is going to change anything any time soon. As I've been saying for years, these kinds of "problems" have become far more valuable than any would-be or effective "solution" in terms of the kind of attention they generate and the kind of power people can get for themselves by just appearing to take them on.
Honestly, how many of us would even know who the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson is if not for his crusade against racism? Even if he is a real reverend, that doesn't mean he has to also be a career-activist, let alone one that has made as much money as Jackson has. And don't ANYONE - liberal or conservative - tell me that it isn't at least a little fun to argue a political point or to feel like you have some insight to share, whether personally relevant to you and your everyday life or not?
Right now, even if there are out-and-out racists in law enforcement (and statistically, there have to be), I think the problem on an institutional level is more reactionary than it is based in a lot of personal or deeply-rooted prejudice spurred-on by someone's skin color or even cultural differences. Instead, I think that reaction is to long-standing statistics and on-the-job experience with regards to how violent so many black and other minority communities tend to be relative to others - and not just in big cities anymore - combined with what appears to be the relative lack of black and Hispanic representation in a lot of police departments which, nevertheless, is probably due to the distrust that minority communities have had of American cops going back decades. The fact remains that you can't just grab a black or Hispanic or any other person or youth off the sidewalk and force them to join an institution they might distrust and dislike.
I'd be the last person to say that hypocrisy isn't relevant, but accusations of hypocrisy are really all Stewart has with which to fight back. Granted, it's hard to use substance to fight back against rhetoric like Trump's, which really has little or no substance to it in terms of HOW he'd do anything, but if the only message of the whole speech or even the whole convention was that Trump is or is claiming to be someone that would, as president, overtly and without apology make America and its LEGAL citizens an actual top priority, then why is that bad? If you're hired to run a business and deal with that business' employees, do you think and act first on what is best for THE BUSINESS and THE BUSINESS' EMPLOYEES, or do you spend a lot of time worrying more about how what you do affects the competition from the standpoint of in any way protecting that competition and/or its feelings... or people that are not qualified for the jobs or are not being hired? Yeah, a president has to deal with other nations, and right now, the idea that Trump could make all these great deals with China or even many of America's allies when there are some countries already claiming to ban Trump from crossing their borders altogether is insanity. Still, you don't have to be isolationist or in any way bigoted to say to yourself, your citizens and the world, "I am here to guard and respect our alliances and our deals, but my first responsibility is to those within my country's sovereign borders. Therefore, while we are not out to screw you over, neither is it our responsibility to level the playing field for you when and if it does not also benefit us."
Even if it's ludicrous to believe that Trump or anyone could go out and deport thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants in the near future, let alone quickly, the idea that they should be allowed to stay and to work and, on top of that, be granted temporary citizenship rights via amnesty just because they had sympathetic reasons for being here, have families, and aren't otherwise known as "criminals" is absurd. As long as we have immigration laws, these people became criminals the moment they crossed the border! The left says, "How dare you! These people are building your roads and your houses and doing jobs you won't!" Really? Because I see WHITE construction workers on the road and in convenience stores all the time, and how do you know what someone won't do if you don't ask? There are women with young children and otherwise decent families that are currently in prison because they committed crimes and/or hurt people - in many instances because they felt they had to - but whether they did or not, most of them are not about to have their sentences overturned out of sympathy. If nothing else, think of it this way:
If someone broke into your home and stole food and supplies, would you not report it? Would you not rather someone in need have the decency to ASK you and to respect your rights than to just break-in, take what they want, and run away in attempts to avoid any real contact or interaction with you? Good or bad, a lot of these illegal immigrants don't even plan to stay indefinitely, so amnesty as I understand it would basically just be giving them something they never wanted and, based on what I heard, TAX what little money they could earn and reduce the options available to the less-skilled among them because employers would have to report their work and pay legal wages!
It's one thing to say that Donald Trump lacks the experience and temperament to be an effective President, let alone one able to accomplish what he claims he will. It's another to insult ANY candidate's platform, their patriotism, or their enthusiasm by making the ridiculous assertion that they don't own patriotism or America and, worse, say or even insinuate that America does't even exist. Frankly, I'm not even sure what Stewart means by that... unless, of course, he's one that thinks it belongs to the Native Americans, many of whom are believed to have IMMIGRATED to North America by crossing the Bering Strait. But when has that ever made any difference?
Sunday, May 22, 2016
STAR TREK - AXENAR: Why I'm Bothered by Dropped Copyright Lawsuit Over Fan Film
I want to preface by saying that I'm not totally against fan films. As I wrote on my personal homepage (click on "Fan Attic" Link), I believe that studios with similarly iconic and lucrative franchises are going to have to settle on a better and more effective way of protecting their intellectual property rights without alienating so many of the fans, who in this case are probably right to feel some sense of collective ownership. According to AXENAR's web page, CBS is, in fact, in the process of drawing up "guidelines" for future fan films right now. (AXENAR Homepage - JJ Abrams Announces That Paramount To Drop Lawsuit) Still, something about this feels way off. Granted, the timing on Paramount's part was suspicious given they HAVE been extremely lenient and tolerant up to now, which just happens to coincide with both STAR TREK BEYOND's release and the franchise's 50th anniversary, but not only did it have the makings of a legitimate case, but this wasn't AXENAR's only problem.
All told, Producer Alec Peters and his team actually raised about a million dollars or more on both Kickstarter AND IndieGoGo, which is relevant given that part of what dictates enforcement of copyright law is how similar the infringing production, in this case, resembles the works of the owner(s). Since it is based on money and the ability of the owners to compete in the market as is their legal right, the closer the production gets to the production value of the owners' productions, the more likely it is seen as being competitive. In December, Variety quoted Peters as using the usual defense that he and his team were never going to actually sell the film for profit, but in his crowdfunding campaign, he did go so far as to suggest that AXENAR heralded or was part of some sort of system in which fans could get the content they wanted so long as they paid for it. To me, that sounds like the collective purchasing of a product rather than donations in exchange for separate and smaller gifts. As someone that has supposedly worked for CBS (which owns Trek's TV legacy and was also in on the lawsuit), he should have known better. Being labeled as "competitive" doesn't require that the fans turn a profit or even sell a single copy, either. All it means is that the fan production is of a quality so indistinguishable or even superior to those of the owners that it could conceivably convince audiences to stay away from the "legitimate" works while they can get the fan productions for free. (The WRAP - "Why Star Trek Fan Film Producers Should Have Seen CBS/Paramount's Lawsuit Coming") While I'm sure that sounds incredibly greedy given how much money has been made on TREK already, I think if more people actually owned businesses and had to be responsible for the kind of money that studios like Paramount put into movies and shows like this, they might be a little more sympathetic and even grateful that when it comes to STAR TREK, at least, this was a rare if not isolated case of Paramount putting its proverbial foot down.
Besides that, Peters' money management also came into question, precipitating the pre-lawsuit departure of at least one important member of the cast: Franchise veteran Tony Todd ("Tony Todd Exits AXENAR"), who is also famous for the CANDYMAN movies and has provided (one of) the voice(s) for the villain Zoom in the soon-to-be-ending 2nd season of THE FLASH. As I recall, one or more other cast members left, too, but I don't have the links to confirm it. While Todd may still return, the official reason for Todd's departure is said to be salary. For those sympathetic to Peters, bear in mind that Todd had already participated in the short film "PRELUDE TO AXENAR," so if Peters is as professional as he claims to be in the crowdfunding campaigns, why didn't he anticipate what would seem to be an easily foreseeable issue and negotiate earlier?
The bottom line is that whether intentionally or otherwise, I don't think we're being told the whole story here - even given that the "whole story" hasn't yet concluded. The AXENAR site says that both sides' lawyers are still working on resolving this mess, but the request that Paramount drop the lawsuit is reported to have first come from Justin Lin, who directed the upcoming STAR TREK BEYOND. Apparently, Executive Producer JJ Abrams backed him up and the lawsuit is no more, but is this really a victory for AXENAR? Peters didn't get the lawsuit dropped, himself, and given the lawsuit is about six months old already and the money was raised about a year ago, is this really the greenlight for AXENAR that it appears to be? Frankly, I think this is a PR stunt with more to it than we're being told. Paramount was only asking for $150,000 in damages per copyrighted element, of which there were only a few listed in the original suit. That's a lot of money to most readers of this site, but with someone like Abrams backing him up, I wouldn't be surprised if Lin and Abrams paid Paramount off so they could be seen as having the fans' back in time for the new film. After all, Abrams isn't exactly the most popular man among hardcore STAR TREK fans given his lucrative, yet still flashy and rather shallow film reboot in 2009. Also, STAR TREK BEYOND is said to have added a cast member at the last minute for "additional photography" earlier this year. That sort of thing doesn't generally portend a really good movie in the minds of most of today's audiences, and even though the most recent trailer makes the film look quite good, the initial teaser released around the same time as the lawsuit's announcement had some fans groaning in disappointment. Even if Abrams and Lin are sincere in what they're doing and the lawyers are still working out the terms, that doesn't mean that money hasn't changed or will not change hands on behalf of Peters and the AXENAR team.
No matter who you are, I think you can agree that we live in some pretty paranoid times - especially in America. Some of that paranoia might have been pretty well-earned, particularly in the area of government and politics. Unfortunately, I think some of the same anti-establishment and quasi-bolshevik attitudes driving voters on both sides in the upcoming Presidential election are also driving people like Alec Peters and the fans that have supported him despite what SHOULD be seen as a clear and intentional breach of copyright law. One can argue over the extent to which it is a breach and even whether or not it's worthwhile for Paramount and/or CBS to take action, but I think the fact remains. Not that he was the first or will be the last, but Peters has broken the law. Also, the idea that he and his team will never personally benefit from their production does not hold-up considering the project's built-in appeal and thus its visibility in the general media. Not all benefits need to be monetary - not even the most valuable. Even if they make the film and never sell a single copy, I can't imagine that participants haven't at least considered what this might do for existing or future careers in the industry by showing off their handiwork.
To be honest, I have mixed feelings about this. While I do hope CBS and hopefully Paramount, as well, can come up with those guidelines for future fan productions, I'm not sure I want Peters to win the day and complete his movie. Call me old-fashioned or narrow-minded, but it seems to me that someone of Peters' age, experience, and skill could do a lot better than to launch even the best of fan films. STAR TREK is all about the future... the new... so if his intention is to really honor STAR TREK and all that it stands for, I think he should have put that time and energy into something original that contains a nod to STAR TREK's influence without actually being STAR TREK. Sure, it would have been more a LOT more difficult. Good luck raising over a million bucks in donations for an independent film with material that nobody has ever heard of before. Then again, that's kind of my point here. If nothing else, STAR TREK already has numerous fan films to honor its legacy, so to speak - maybe more than any other commercial or franchise property of its kind. Regardless of fan appeal, it does not actually need something like AXENAR. In my eyes, this whole AXENAR business actually threatens to cheapen STAR TREK and both its legacy and that of its creator Gene Roddenberry.
After all, one of anything is rare and potentially valuable, but copy after copy by everyone in town renders it less so.
All told, Producer Alec Peters and his team actually raised about a million dollars or more on both Kickstarter AND IndieGoGo, which is relevant given that part of what dictates enforcement of copyright law is how similar the infringing production, in this case, resembles the works of the owner(s). Since it is based on money and the ability of the owners to compete in the market as is their legal right, the closer the production gets to the production value of the owners' productions, the more likely it is seen as being competitive. In December, Variety quoted Peters as using the usual defense that he and his team were never going to actually sell the film for profit, but in his crowdfunding campaign, he did go so far as to suggest that AXENAR heralded or was part of some sort of system in which fans could get the content they wanted so long as they paid for it. To me, that sounds like the collective purchasing of a product rather than donations in exchange for separate and smaller gifts. As someone that has supposedly worked for CBS (which owns Trek's TV legacy and was also in on the lawsuit), he should have known better. Being labeled as "competitive" doesn't require that the fans turn a profit or even sell a single copy, either. All it means is that the fan production is of a quality so indistinguishable or even superior to those of the owners that it could conceivably convince audiences to stay away from the "legitimate" works while they can get the fan productions for free. (The WRAP - "Why Star Trek Fan Film Producers Should Have Seen CBS/Paramount's Lawsuit Coming") While I'm sure that sounds incredibly greedy given how much money has been made on TREK already, I think if more people actually owned businesses and had to be responsible for the kind of money that studios like Paramount put into movies and shows like this, they might be a little more sympathetic and even grateful that when it comes to STAR TREK, at least, this was a rare if not isolated case of Paramount putting its proverbial foot down.
Besides that, Peters' money management also came into question, precipitating the pre-lawsuit departure of at least one important member of the cast: Franchise veteran Tony Todd ("Tony Todd Exits AXENAR"), who is also famous for the CANDYMAN movies and has provided (one of) the voice(s) for the villain Zoom in the soon-to-be-ending 2nd season of THE FLASH. As I recall, one or more other cast members left, too, but I don't have the links to confirm it. While Todd may still return, the official reason for Todd's departure is said to be salary. For those sympathetic to Peters, bear in mind that Todd had already participated in the short film "PRELUDE TO AXENAR," so if Peters is as professional as he claims to be in the crowdfunding campaigns, why didn't he anticipate what would seem to be an easily foreseeable issue and negotiate earlier?
The bottom line is that whether intentionally or otherwise, I don't think we're being told the whole story here - even given that the "whole story" hasn't yet concluded. The AXENAR site says that both sides' lawyers are still working on resolving this mess, but the request that Paramount drop the lawsuit is reported to have first come from Justin Lin, who directed the upcoming STAR TREK BEYOND. Apparently, Executive Producer JJ Abrams backed him up and the lawsuit is no more, but is this really a victory for AXENAR? Peters didn't get the lawsuit dropped, himself, and given the lawsuit is about six months old already and the money was raised about a year ago, is this really the greenlight for AXENAR that it appears to be? Frankly, I think this is a PR stunt with more to it than we're being told. Paramount was only asking for $150,000 in damages per copyrighted element, of which there were only a few listed in the original suit. That's a lot of money to most readers of this site, but with someone like Abrams backing him up, I wouldn't be surprised if Lin and Abrams paid Paramount off so they could be seen as having the fans' back in time for the new film. After all, Abrams isn't exactly the most popular man among hardcore STAR TREK fans given his lucrative, yet still flashy and rather shallow film reboot in 2009. Also, STAR TREK BEYOND is said to have added a cast member at the last minute for "additional photography" earlier this year. That sort of thing doesn't generally portend a really good movie in the minds of most of today's audiences, and even though the most recent trailer makes the film look quite good, the initial teaser released around the same time as the lawsuit's announcement had some fans groaning in disappointment. Even if Abrams and Lin are sincere in what they're doing and the lawyers are still working out the terms, that doesn't mean that money hasn't changed or will not change hands on behalf of Peters and the AXENAR team.
No matter who you are, I think you can agree that we live in some pretty paranoid times - especially in America. Some of that paranoia might have been pretty well-earned, particularly in the area of government and politics. Unfortunately, I think some of the same anti-establishment and quasi-bolshevik attitudes driving voters on both sides in the upcoming Presidential election are also driving people like Alec Peters and the fans that have supported him despite what SHOULD be seen as a clear and intentional breach of copyright law. One can argue over the extent to which it is a breach and even whether or not it's worthwhile for Paramount and/or CBS to take action, but I think the fact remains. Not that he was the first or will be the last, but Peters has broken the law. Also, the idea that he and his team will never personally benefit from their production does not hold-up considering the project's built-in appeal and thus its visibility in the general media. Not all benefits need to be monetary - not even the most valuable. Even if they make the film and never sell a single copy, I can't imagine that participants haven't at least considered what this might do for existing or future careers in the industry by showing off their handiwork.
To be honest, I have mixed feelings about this. While I do hope CBS and hopefully Paramount, as well, can come up with those guidelines for future fan productions, I'm not sure I want Peters to win the day and complete his movie. Call me old-fashioned or narrow-minded, but it seems to me that someone of Peters' age, experience, and skill could do a lot better than to launch even the best of fan films. STAR TREK is all about the future... the new... so if his intention is to really honor STAR TREK and all that it stands for, I think he should have put that time and energy into something original that contains a nod to STAR TREK's influence without actually being STAR TREK. Sure, it would have been more a LOT more difficult. Good luck raising over a million bucks in donations for an independent film with material that nobody has ever heard of before. Then again, that's kind of my point here. If nothing else, STAR TREK already has numerous fan films to honor its legacy, so to speak - maybe more than any other commercial or franchise property of its kind. Regardless of fan appeal, it does not actually need something like AXENAR. In my eyes, this whole AXENAR business actually threatens to cheapen STAR TREK and both its legacy and that of its creator Gene Roddenberry.
After all, one of anything is rare and potentially valuable, but copy after copy by everyone in town renders it less so.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Why The NY Times' Article on Trump & Women Is As Disgraceful As It Is Probably Futile
I'm sick over the apparent nomination and possible election of Donald Trump to the presidency, but today's New York Times article about Trump's treatment of women is a travesty that VALIDATES people's notion about most of the American media being owned and controlled by liberals.
Even if everything in the article is fact, Trump is no Johnny-come-lately. His marriages and divorces are public knowledge, his spat with Fox's Megyn Kelly made headlines for weeks, and his generally aggressive behavior should be no surprise to anyone by now whether they are for or against him. Besides the fact that the GOP's usual objection to abortion and contraception has long since given it a bad name with many female voters, one candidate's history of alleged indiscretions with women should hardly be newsworthy. That Trump is being singled out in this way belies the fact that Bill Clinton, Gary Condit and other Democrats have had similar if not worse histories with women while in office - including John F. Kennedy, whose affairs are notorious now, and even Franklin Roosevelt, who had rendezvous with a number of women while married, including another cousin. Many such indiscretions on the part of those like Clinton and Kennedy, however, have even been turned into endearments of a sort and construed by many Democrats nowadays as nothing more than the political witch-hunting of Christian conservatives... this in spite of the fact that Clinton's impeachment was over the charge of perjury, not his sexual indiscretions, and an instance of perjury to which Clinton all but outright admitted on live television.
That said, none of it would be very noteworthy except that after news of the Washington Post getting ready to put no fewer than 20 reporters to work dissecting Trump's life, this seems to be just one example of the way in which at least two major newpapers now have taken it upon themselves to topple Trump. Candidates get slammed in papers all the time, but this is in the Politics section and includes quotes from a number of interviews, thus making it something more than just some pundit's daily or weekly commentary. Were it about an actual crime Trump had committed, it would be justifiable, as it would be if the New York Times were a more overtly bias publication like Salon or The Weekly Standard. Yet neither the publication nor its article is either of those things. The article isn't even directly relevant to matters of policy because not only has Trump been vague up to now about most of the specifics of his intended policies (except his defense of Planned Parenthood, for which even pro-abortion liberals seem loathe to give him any credit), he hasn't been elected to ANY political office and has thus had no opportunity to influence or initiate any public policy, good or bad. In short, the New York Times and Washington Post appear to be dedicated to the probably futile, yet still excessively libelous treatment of a candidate with a historically high level of support among GOP voters - including, I would think, at least a few of their own readers. Regardless of one's opinions of Trump, these national publications should be better than this, and since Democrats seem to be so obsessed with private sector accountability to the federal government, that government should condemn the very notion of the New York Times publishing articles like this and of the Washington Post even being rumored to be going to such lengths to slam a candidate chosen by "the people." Instead, President Obama is using occasions like a recent commencement speech to more or less do the same thing, albeit without mentioning Trump by name. It cannot even be justified as aid to another Democrat's campaign because I don't think he directly mentioned either Hillary or Bernie... then or on any other occasion that I am aware of.
If the political left, in particular, is serious about taking down Trump, they should know by now that the best way to do that is to shut-up, quit giving this billionaire FREE PUBLICITY, and unite behind one of their own candidates so that he or she will have a better chance of defeating Trump in the November election! If they don't, the not only does the country face a probable Trump presidency, but the Democrats could face the same kind of long-term division in their own ranks that currently threatens to send the GOP on the same path as their Whig predecessors.
Even if everything in the article is fact, Trump is no Johnny-come-lately. His marriages and divorces are public knowledge, his spat with Fox's Megyn Kelly made headlines for weeks, and his generally aggressive behavior should be no surprise to anyone by now whether they are for or against him. Besides the fact that the GOP's usual objection to abortion and contraception has long since given it a bad name with many female voters, one candidate's history of alleged indiscretions with women should hardly be newsworthy. That Trump is being singled out in this way belies the fact that Bill Clinton, Gary Condit and other Democrats have had similar if not worse histories with women while in office - including John F. Kennedy, whose affairs are notorious now, and even Franklin Roosevelt, who had rendezvous with a number of women while married, including another cousin. Many such indiscretions on the part of those like Clinton and Kennedy, however, have even been turned into endearments of a sort and construed by many Democrats nowadays as nothing more than the political witch-hunting of Christian conservatives... this in spite of the fact that Clinton's impeachment was over the charge of perjury, not his sexual indiscretions, and an instance of perjury to which Clinton all but outright admitted on live television.
That said, none of it would be very noteworthy except that after news of the Washington Post getting ready to put no fewer than 20 reporters to work dissecting Trump's life, this seems to be just one example of the way in which at least two major newpapers now have taken it upon themselves to topple Trump. Candidates get slammed in papers all the time, but this is in the Politics section and includes quotes from a number of interviews, thus making it something more than just some pundit's daily or weekly commentary. Were it about an actual crime Trump had committed, it would be justifiable, as it would be if the New York Times were a more overtly bias publication like Salon or The Weekly Standard. Yet neither the publication nor its article is either of those things. The article isn't even directly relevant to matters of policy because not only has Trump been vague up to now about most of the specifics of his intended policies (except his defense of Planned Parenthood, for which even pro-abortion liberals seem loathe to give him any credit), he hasn't been elected to ANY political office and has thus had no opportunity to influence or initiate any public policy, good or bad. In short, the New York Times and Washington Post appear to be dedicated to the probably futile, yet still excessively libelous treatment of a candidate with a historically high level of support among GOP voters - including, I would think, at least a few of their own readers. Regardless of one's opinions of Trump, these national publications should be better than this, and since Democrats seem to be so obsessed with private sector accountability to the federal government, that government should condemn the very notion of the New York Times publishing articles like this and of the Washington Post even being rumored to be going to such lengths to slam a candidate chosen by "the people." Instead, President Obama is using occasions like a recent commencement speech to more or less do the same thing, albeit without mentioning Trump by name. It cannot even be justified as aid to another Democrat's campaign because I don't think he directly mentioned either Hillary or Bernie... then or on any other occasion that I am aware of.
If the political left, in particular, is serious about taking down Trump, they should know by now that the best way to do that is to shut-up, quit giving this billionaire FREE PUBLICITY, and unite behind one of their own candidates so that he or she will have a better chance of defeating Trump in the November election! If they don't, the not only does the country face a probable Trump presidency, but the Democrats could face the same kind of long-term division in their own ranks that currently threatens to send the GOP on the same path as their Whig predecessors.
Friday, March 25, 2016
After Brussels, There's Only ONE Logical Next Step In Combating Islamic Terrorism
The following AP article about the recent attack in Brussels appeared on the AP today (3/25/2016): http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2016/US-official-says-at-least-2-American-citizens-killed-in-attack-on-Brussels/id-2418968748694088b3195918603a481b. Here are some things that have been said.
"'We will not be deterred,' Kerry said. 'We will come back with greater resolve - with greater strength - and we will not rest until we have eliminated your nihilistic beliefs and cowardice from the face of the Earth.'" ...says the man that helped the current administration orchestrate a deal granting Iran around $150 million to advance a nuclear "energy" program on the grounds that they don't weaponize it. And the reason Iran can be trusted is... well, I'm still waiting on that.
Then there's this, from another part of the article: "...even when alerted to the presence of suspected radicals in their municipalities, they lacked the power to do anything about it." I don't know why people refuse to see or accept that the ONLY other thing that the U.S. and other nations can do to even potentially be more effective at preventing these kinds of attacks and fighting these terrorists outside of the Middle East amounts to more overt and intensive racial and cultural profiling. Sure, people cite rule of law, the need for evidence, due process, etc., but what it comes down to is, in this case, a misguided desire to protect nations' consciences even if it means not protecting its citizens. If nothing else, Brussels had already been on high alert and been warned about one of the attackers. If they're unable or unwilling to ACT on that warning, then what good is the warning? And as far as the laws go, the article suggests that Brussels' laws are on the verge of being changed already and, in America, our laws are DESIGNED to come, go, change and be changed based on the needs of the citizenry.
Since the early 1970's, at least, when serial killers and rapists, in particular, were being interviewed in American prisons, the GOAL of the FBI, in particular, was to establish PROFILES for these offenders which they could use to identify, if not predict and catch future offenders. Even though those statistics seem to be changing, a profile for the average serial killer in America based on statistics and, by extension, these interviews, said and probably still says that not only do most serial rapists and killers hone in on their own ethnic groups, but tend to be WHITE MALES between their mid 20's and early 40's with a middle or lower-middle class income and either live with a single parent (usually a mother - not saying this because of PSYCHO) or alone. This... profile... these statistics have been so heavily relied upon that I saw a story once about a case in Ohio, in 2002, I think, in which a number of white brunettes, all teachers of a certain age, were being murdered in or around a neighborhood and that TWO were murdered only because the police would not act on tips about an African American suspect, an alleged peeping tom, I think, because that did not conform to the statistics and profile of the "average" serial killer.
These kinds of measures do not represent some MINORITY REPORT scenario. Nobody is talking about arresting anyone based on probability. It's about KNOWING that something has happened, that it is likely to happen again, and who the perpetrator(s) is (are) so that he, she, or they can be apprehended and lives can be spared. What's more, when Kerry starts talking about eliminating their "nihilistic beliefs and cowardice," exactly what is he referring to if not Islam or, at the very least, certain versions of Islam (there are several)? I'm not in favor of even trying to eliminate Islam altogether (assuming it could actually be done - which I don't think it can), but once you've used this kind of rhetoric - and if you want people to see actual credibility in its use - the kind of racial and cultural profiling that would be employed to any extent in trying to prevent future attacks is almost like child's play. I mean, as a so-called "progressive" liberal, does Kerry even hear himself when he uses words like "eliminate?" Right now, the administration is employing a form of profiling in reverse when it does things like criticizing and even suing Arizona and its governor for stances and policies regarding immigration and the treatment of illegal immigrants from Mexico - trying, as I recall, to keep cops from asking HIspanics for their ID when pulled over, or trying to strike down the requirement for voters to show legal ID when voting because poor and non-whites are supposedly more likely to either forget to bring it or to not have it, at all. To me, THAT is profiling, but for different reasons - and not only is it profiling, but it's doing so in a very insulting manner. I'm not going to say that Donald Trump or even most of today's Republicans offer significantly better alternatives, but clearly, the political left that dominates President Obama's Democrat Party nowadays has little or no genuine faith in or respect for the very people they go out of their way to serve.
To end on an even more personal note, when business owners are being fined as criminals for refusing to host or perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples on PRIVATE PROPERTY as part of a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS, I could really care less if a few Arabs and Muslims are offended at the prospect of further profiling to prevent damage done by the "bad apples" in their community which, again, probably hurt them, too. To be clear, I don't recommend or condone people that, say, offer wedding services and then refuse them to gays - like a couple I saw a story about yesterday morning on the 700 Club - because one of the main reasons Jesus was so despised by the Jewish religious establishment of his time was because he associated with the "unclean." The very fact that Jesus did NOT discriminate against "sinners" is a big reason why so many wanted him crucified in the first place. He had lunch with tax collectors, who - in that day - were often corrupt in the pocketing of money collected for the Roman Empire, and one of his most ardent followers was Mary Magdalene, a reformed prostitute! On principle, however, it makes absolutely no sense to take any more or all racial and cultural profiling off the table as a potential and potentially effective tool for law enforcement under the circumstances when government and law enforcement are already doing similar things with other people - whether it's nearly bankrupting people like the couple on the 700 Club by fining them because they won't host gay weddings (they were entrapped by a lesbian on the phone that hung up on them before calling the cops) or allowing the IRS to specifically investigate and/or audit conservative, right-wing people and groups during Obama's time in office.
Just as it makes no sense to refuse the presence of more ground troops to aggressively and potentially more effectively fight ISIS where it really lives and from where it is based, there is nothing to be gained by playing hot potato with what should or should not be done in the fight against terror over principles of morality which are, to some extent, already being broken or betrayed in other respects. And as a white Christian, myself, I must say that if we see a string of serious killings and crimes against blacks or gays in an area dominated by religious conservatives, I would NOT be against law enforcement being open about it and admitting that the most logical place to begin the investigation is in the lives of white Christians and their churches in said community - if only because someone would almost certainly be suspicious if not aware of potential suspects.
Monday, March 21, 2016
RE: Re-Established U.S. Relationship With Cuba - Good or Bad?
I would imagine that a lot of people with my kind of political inclinations are against what the Obama administration is doing to re-establish some kind of a civil relationship with Cuba. I, however, am not entirely against it. Obama is right when he says that U.S. policy has neither forced nor encouraged significant change in Cuba's Communist regime, and as a reasonably firm believer in the potential of capitalism, I fail to understand why ardent capitalists like Republican Congressmen and Senators would not at least want to try to expand international trade in this manner. Clearly, a number of big companies and their presumably "conservative" CEO's are chomping at the bit. If the goal is to sort of shame the Communist regime out of existence, if at all possible, then I, too, believe that the only potentially viable means of doing that is via a democratic and "capitalist" presence in Cuba (for lack of better terms). However large or small, that at least has the potential to not only show Cubans the benefits of democracy and of a regulated form of capitalism, but make them more acutely aware of what they miss and what they've given up in exchange for the "free" healthcare and education which probably comes with a number of logistical problems (which can probably only get worse without this alliance) and a healthy serving of propaganda to go with the reading, writing, and arithmetic.
What concerns me is what may or may not be motivating Cuba in the first place. From the standpoint of somehow encouraging change in Cuban policy, I see nothing to indicate an honestly cooperative or receptive attitude on the part of Raul Castro. Also, this scenario lacks the leverage that the U.S. had over the USSR of not only being able to guarantee mutual destruction via the nukes, but of clearly being the only one able to afford that leverage without forcing quite as many citizens to pay the price in the way of rampant poverty and blatant human rights violations. I frankly feel that this is a means to an end for the Cuban government, and that end is NOT a transition away from Communism or even a more honestly civil relationship with the United States. I suspect that it is a sly means of preserving and perhaps even strengthening Cuba's Communist system. I would imagine they see capitalism and democracy as a sort of big and incredibly stingy bear in the woods. If you can manage to get close to the bear without angering it, the bear might share a lot of honey, but doing so is extremely difficult and if you can't manage it, the bear is going to sit on you and make life miserable. Such was the case under Batista, when "trade" with Cuba took the form of blatant exploitation and corruption, much of which was perpetrated by U.S. based organized crime families that owned and operated hotels and casinos in Cuba. Literally everyone benefited... except for the Cubans. So I'm not at all convinced that Cuba's motivations are similar to Obama's or to that of anyone in the United States in any way, shape, or form. For them, I think this is a modified form of Lenin's strategic retreat - a brief period of cooperation that is going to strengthen the Cuban economy just enough to maybe placate some dissidents and, given Castro's regime is demanding to own 50% of pretty much any new business in the country (or so I've heard), generate enough wealth for the Cuban government to stay in power and, in its opinion, have even more resources with which to keep its own promises.
Even so, I think Congress should give this a chance - if only because any total and abrupt rejection of this course on which Obama has already set both nations (for better or worse) might only increase Cuba's ire towards the U.S. and conceivably convince it to team up with a nation like China, Russia, Iran, or even North Korea to actually BECOME a threat and also have the excuse of U.S. betrayal as justification. In so doing, however, I do think Congress needs to make it clear to Obama and then to Hillary or any other Democrat that might succeed Obama in the Oval office that they will not tolerate a situation in which Cuba is basically rewarded with wealth without having to do more than allow wireless Internet service, shared ownership of U.S. businesses in Cuba, and release four or five dissidents every time Cuba gets a cookie. This kind of thing is why people started saying, "Only Nixon could go to China" - because a Democrat would be seen as pandering to the nation's leftist policies. While I understand WHY Obama is doing what he is, I think he runs the risk of being dangerously presumptuous when it comes to more or less guaranteeing an eventual normalization of relations with the Cuban government and its people. We've gotten along just fine without doing business with Cuba for half of a century, so if this fails, then the U.S. has potentially far more to lose. Now, more than ever, the U.S. cannot afford to be so naive as to accept the morality of it all as the only reason anyone really needs to attempt something like this - and if you don't believe me, I suggest finding and re-watching the Q&A with Obama and Raul Castro that just ended a little while ago.
What concerns me is what may or may not be motivating Cuba in the first place. From the standpoint of somehow encouraging change in Cuban policy, I see nothing to indicate an honestly cooperative or receptive attitude on the part of Raul Castro. Also, this scenario lacks the leverage that the U.S. had over the USSR of not only being able to guarantee mutual destruction via the nukes, but of clearly being the only one able to afford that leverage without forcing quite as many citizens to pay the price in the way of rampant poverty and blatant human rights violations. I frankly feel that this is a means to an end for the Cuban government, and that end is NOT a transition away from Communism or even a more honestly civil relationship with the United States. I suspect that it is a sly means of preserving and perhaps even strengthening Cuba's Communist system. I would imagine they see capitalism and democracy as a sort of big and incredibly stingy bear in the woods. If you can manage to get close to the bear without angering it, the bear might share a lot of honey, but doing so is extremely difficult and if you can't manage it, the bear is going to sit on you and make life miserable. Such was the case under Batista, when "trade" with Cuba took the form of blatant exploitation and corruption, much of which was perpetrated by U.S. based organized crime families that owned and operated hotels and casinos in Cuba. Literally everyone benefited... except for the Cubans. So I'm not at all convinced that Cuba's motivations are similar to Obama's or to that of anyone in the United States in any way, shape, or form. For them, I think this is a modified form of Lenin's strategic retreat - a brief period of cooperation that is going to strengthen the Cuban economy just enough to maybe placate some dissidents and, given Castro's regime is demanding to own 50% of pretty much any new business in the country (or so I've heard), generate enough wealth for the Cuban government to stay in power and, in its opinion, have even more resources with which to keep its own promises.
Even so, I think Congress should give this a chance - if only because any total and abrupt rejection of this course on which Obama has already set both nations (for better or worse) might only increase Cuba's ire towards the U.S. and conceivably convince it to team up with a nation like China, Russia, Iran, or even North Korea to actually BECOME a threat and also have the excuse of U.S. betrayal as justification. In so doing, however, I do think Congress needs to make it clear to Obama and then to Hillary or any other Democrat that might succeed Obama in the Oval office that they will not tolerate a situation in which Cuba is basically rewarded with wealth without having to do more than allow wireless Internet service, shared ownership of U.S. businesses in Cuba, and release four or five dissidents every time Cuba gets a cookie. This kind of thing is why people started saying, "Only Nixon could go to China" - because a Democrat would be seen as pandering to the nation's leftist policies. While I understand WHY Obama is doing what he is, I think he runs the risk of being dangerously presumptuous when it comes to more or less guaranteeing an eventual normalization of relations with the Cuban government and its people. We've gotten along just fine without doing business with Cuba for half of a century, so if this fails, then the U.S. has potentially far more to lose. Now, more than ever, the U.S. cannot afford to be so naive as to accept the morality of it all as the only reason anyone really needs to attempt something like this - and if you don't believe me, I suggest finding and re-watching the Q&A with Obama and Raul Castro that just ended a little while ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)