More Valentine responses; "Well said as always. You are a beacon. I don't always agree, and sometimes
I think you go over the edge. But I am proud of your determination to continue
to speak out and admire the icredible work it takes to produce and aggregate
all the information you share. You were my first valentine and always role model.
Love, D---
And
Another comment regarding my own memo from a dear friend and fellow memo reader: "This is a super piece of literature. Appreciate how you nailed each point. And how did you fine time to write all down and put it into context so quickly? Terrific. F------"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This outstanding and very insightful op ed goes into greater depth and serves, I believe, as an interesting follow up to the one I sent this morning. You decide. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Russians being killed in Syria and Putin is reluctant to inform. (See 2 below.)
Many years ago, and I have referred to it from time to time, Norman Podhoretz wrote a book entitled: "W W 4. He thought the Cold War was our 3rd WW. The book describes the basis for the coming war which will be rooted in The Middle East.
I have had his son, John, speak for me here in Savannah. John is the Editor of Commentary. Norman has retired and I tried to get him to come speak but I could not afford his fee.I wish Norman would write more because he is one of the keenest observers of the world scene I know.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Olympics is not about politics, though the "pathetics" in the mass media would like it to be in order to create a false narrative that will sell more papers etc.
It is about ruthless, but clever, propaganda that "Fat Boy" knows will be served like a syrupy waffle to Americans who easily waffle when they are fed garbage.
When the dolts in the mass media get sucked in by a regime, that is one of the worst in history, they prove, once again, how pathetic they really have become. It is one thing to be free but another to be responsible. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Terrorism in Africa. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I always believed playing in dirt was healthy. (See 5 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The knee jerk reaction to everything Trump proposes does not allow the potential for his creative thinking to penetrate and is simply another "pathetic" effort on the part of the mass media to denigrate everything Trump does and says.
Trump, unlike most politicians, often thinks outside the box and has some creative ideas that need to be debated and explored.
He also has some nutty ideas that should be rejected like, in my opinion, a military parade.
The mass media, however , is always prepared to throw baby Trump out with the bath water.(See 6 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Many government agencies and departments need fixing after years of cronyism and outright illegal activities have been allowed to become the norm.
Rep. Nunes has done America a great service and that is why the left has demonized him because he is exposing their hypocrisy and the fact that "The Russian Collusion Game" seems to have been one they birthed. (See 7 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Why the Center-Left Became Immoderate
In polarized times, those without a clear guiding ideology become the most vicious partisans.
By Shadi Hamid
Democracy dies when one side loses respect for electoral outcomes and comes to consider the other illegitimate. Recent U.S. presidents, at least since Bill Clinton, have faced a degree of implacable opposition from the further reaches of the opposing party. But of late the problem seems to have intensified—and disrespect for democratic outcomes has become particularly acute on the center-left.
That may sound odd. We generally assume the political “middle” to be more reasonable and rational—and less partisan. Ideologues are the ones less amenable to compromise. But although centrists are by definition skeptical of ideology, that does not make them any less prone to partisanship.
In polarized times, political competition comes to resemble tribal warfare. Everyone is under pressure to close ranks and boost morale. Lacking an animating vision beyond expert-led incrementalism, center-left politicians and pundits have few options to rally the Democratic base other than by attacking adversaries and heightening partisan divides. The other option—laying out an alternative that differs from what Hillary Clinton or even President Obama offered—requires ideological conviction.
That would explain why Rep. Adam Schiff —previously “known as a milquetoast moderate,” according to the New Yorker—has emerged as one of the most outspoken figures in the Russian collusion investigation. Before being appointed to succeed Mrs. Clinton in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand was an upstate New York representative who belonged to the Blue Dog Coalition. Her 2013 New Yorker profile was titled “Strong Vanilla”—and she now boasts the upper chamber’s most anti- Trump voting record.
Many Democrats are unwilling to accept that Mrs. Clinton actually lost to Donald Trump. Those who find her standard center-left technocratic worldview congenial are disinclined to accept ideological explanations, so they look for scapegoats: Russia, James Comey, even the voters who supported Donald Trump. Mrs. Clinton herself pre-emptively offered the last explanation in September 2016, when she consigned half of Trump supporters to “the basket of deplorables”—“they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.” As 2020 approaches, Democrats run the risk of repeating that mistake, taking for granted, as Mrs. Clinton did, that Mr. Trump’s unique flaws will be sufficient to ensure his defeat.
Contrast the centrists with leftist standard-bearers like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. They’re no fans of Mr. Trump, but they haven’t been at the forefront of calls for impeachment or intensifying the Russia investigation. Instead, they have focused their efforts on broadening the Democratic Party’s base with a more inclusive populism that takes seriously the systemic causes of inequality. Both have resisted the urge to write off Mr. Trump’s supporters, and Mr. Sanders in particular has made outreach to Republicans a major part of his postelection message. Mr. Sanders seems instinctively uncomfortable with identity politics, a Democratic preference that makes it harder to reach out to Trump voters since identities are more fixed than interests or ideas.
The mainstream media generally share a center-left worldview. Most reporters aren’t Marxists or even Sandernistas, and anti-Trump alarmism—what some scholars have called “tyrannophobia”—has become a consistent theme. The idea of a Trump dictatorship may be compelling, but that doesn’t make it right, particularly when it distorts how one perceives actual tyranny. Consider the weekend’s fawning Olympic coverage of Kim Yo Jong, sister of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. “Despite Mike Pence’s sabotage, North Korea’s ‘charm offensive’ appears to be working,” reads a Sunday tweet from ThinkProgress—an affiliate of the Center for American Progress, founded by Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager.
People want something to believe in, but in the absence of a strong ideological sensibility among Democrats, partisanship and alarmism offer ready recourse. Having an enemy is a powerful motivator, and hating Mr. Trump is entertaining to boot. Politics might otherwise return to boring discussions on how to improve health care or education, why we need more experts, or why facts are important.
The relationship between partisanship and ideology may be changing in unexpected ways. Yesterday’s centrists have become some of today’s most intense partisans. There’s nothing wrong with partisanship per se, but it’s a problem when the parties view each other as enemies and existential threats. Centrism may seem an obvious solution, but too little ideology can be as dangerous as too much.
Does this mean we need more ideologues? The word sounds like an insult, connoting inflexibility and narrow-mindedness. But politicians who are committed to a set of ideas also tend to have less to prove. They don’t need to play to the base; they can lead the base. Congress—and the country—could use more of them.
Mr. Hamid is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of “Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
|
| Russian fighters were among those killed when US-led coalition forces clashed with pro-government forces in Syria this month, former associates of the dead said on Monday. A US official has said more than 100 fighters aligned with Syrian President Bashar Assad died when coalition and local coalition-backed forces thwarted a large attack overnight on February 7. Russia's Defense Ministry, which supports Assad's forces in the Syrian civil war, said at the time that pro-government militias involved in the incident had been carrying out reconnaissance and no Russian servicemen had been in the area. But at least two Russian men fighting informally with pro-government forces were killed in the incident in Deir al-Zor province, their associates told Reuters on Monday. One of the dead was named as Vladimir Loginov, a Cossack from Russia's Kaliningrad exclave. Maxim Buga, a leader of the Cossack community there, said Loginov had been killed around February 7 along with "dozens" of other Russian fighters. The other man killed was named as Kirill Ananiev, described as a radical Russian nationalist. Alexander Averin, a spokesman for the nationalist party he was linked to, told Reuters Ananiev had been killed in shelling in the same fighting on February 7. Reuters was unable to independently confirm either man's death. Grigory Yavlinsky, a veteran liberal politician who is running for president in elections next month, called on President Vladimir Putin to disclose how many Russians had been killed in Syria and in what circumstances. "If there was large-scale loss of life of Russian citizens, the relevant officials, including the commander-in-chief of our armed forces (Putin), are obliged to tell the country about it and decide who carries responsibility for this," Yavlinsky said in a statement released by his Yabloko party. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3)The New York Post
What’s wrong with the Olympics isn’t limited to the rapturous reception accorded to Kim Yo-jong in Pyeongchang, South Korea.
As Bethany Mandel pointed out here, it’s a disgrace that the sister of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un was fawned over by the international press and favorably compared to Vice President Mike Pence because he refused to play along with that evil regime’s charm offensive. It’s appalling that many are so willing to embrace those responsible for countless murders and torture just to take a swipe at President Trump.
But the heart of the problem isn’t the obsession with Trump or even the North Koreans’ clever use of the Olympics to soften the image of what is arguably the worst tyranny on the planet. The real problem is that the Olympics always lend themselves to bad actors and foolish notions about the majesty of sports and international cooperation. The Olympics are the United Nations of sports — high-minded principles and feel-good sentiments exploited by hypocrites to the detriment of the cause of freedom.
The Olympics are great for athletes and for a network like NBC that ponied up billions for the rights to cover them. They’re sports for casual fans, and they make great television. More than that, the games thrive because of notions about sports transcending conflicts that are essential to the Olympic myth.
The reason the North Korean gambit worked so well is because these fables have always been a load of baloney.
The worst example was the 1936 Berlin Olympics hosted by the Nazis. Olympic mythology tells us that African-American track superstar Jesse Owens embarrassed Adolf Hitler with his victories over Aryan athletes.
But the Berlin Games were an enormous propaganda success for the Nazi regime that helped reinforce the notion that appeasing Hitler was the best option for the West. The Olympics normalized the Nazis, and they’re doing the same now as pundits gush over the cute but robotic North Korean cheerleaders who are actually an apt metaphor for totalitarianism.
Since the 1936 Games, other dictatorships have exploited the Olympics, though not always with the same success. That was as true for the ill-fated Tito regime in Yugoslavia at the 1984 Sarajevo Games as it was for Communist China’s brilliant 2008 spectacle in Beijing that demonstrated that concerns over its oppression in Tibet and human-rights violations at home were not as important as a good sports show.
And it also lay behind the Olympics’ decision to treat the murder of Israeli athletes in Munich in 1972 as not important enough to put the rest of the show on hold.
Those who tell us not to mix sports with politics dismiss such concerns. But the problem with the Olympics is that these flag-waving and torch-lighting shows are inherently political and always vulnerable to exploitation.
Nationalism is healthy when directed toward celebrating a country’s achievements. But in this context, it is as often misused as not.
Even when the good guys win, such as the “Miracle on Ice” in 1980, when an upstart Team USA beat a fabled Soviet ice-hockey team, we forgot it was just one squad of athletes beating another, not a blow struck for freedom. That game did nothing to free those ground down by Communism, including the players exploited and abused by the Soviet system.
Sports provide wonderful entertainment that many of us love. But the notion that they can transcend the cause of freedom is dead wrong. Our desire to have nothing interfere with our fun causes us to ignore more important issues, like the need to treat the members of the North Korean regime and other rogues as the criminals they are.
That’s why mixing sports, nationalism and vague concepts of international cooperation almost always leads to sorry displays like the cheers for Kim Yo-jong. We love the games, but incidents like this should remind us they sometimes do more harm than good.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
Targeted Terror: The Suicide Bombers of al-Shabaab
Al-Shabaab, an Islamist terrorist group that has been plaguing Somalia since 2006, was named the most deadly terror group in Africa in 2017 by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED). One tactic that al-Shabaab uses in its reign of terror is suicide bombing. Despite recognition of the seriousness of the threat that al-Shabaab’s suicide bombers pose, very little is known about how, when, and why al-Shabaab elects to employ the tactic of suicide bombings. This report answers these questions.
By analyzing a unique dataset compiled by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point that tracks all instances of al-Shabaab suicide bombings between the group’s first suicide attack on September 18, 2006, to the end of our data collection in October 2017, the authors offer the most comprehensive account to date on the emergence, evolution, and efficacy on al-Shabaab’s suicide bombers. They find that al-Shabaab has deployed at least 216 suicide attackers who carried out a total of 155 suicide bombing attacks, killing at least 595 and as many as 2,218 people. Their data indicates that al-Shabaab’s suicide attacks are highly targeted, aimed at degrading the Somali state and members of the international community (United Nations, African Union, or African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM)) that are combating it. Unlike certain other terrorist groups, al-Shabaab’s suicide attacks tend to attempt to avoid targeting non-combatant civilians, and thus do not seem to be undertaken simply to engender shock and awe. Their data also reveals information about just who serves as al-Shabaab’s suicide bombers; where they target; al-Shabaab’s suicide bombing delivery tendencies; and timing trends along months and days of the week. In conclusion, they offer suggestions about how to combat the group’s suicide bombing efforts in the future.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)Scientists Unearth Hope for New Antibiotics
Researchers identified new compounds by sifting through genetic material from soil samples
By Robert Lee Hotz
Researchers at Rockefeller University in New York reported the discovery of the new antibiotics, called malacidins, on Monday in the journal Nature Microbiology.
It is the latest in a series of promising antibiotics found through innovative genetic sequencing techniques that allow researchers to screen thousands of soil bacteria that previously could not be grown or studied in the laboratory. To identify the new compounds, the Rockefeller researchers sifted through genetic material culled from 1,500 soil samples.
“We extract DNA directly out of soil samples,” said biochemist Sean Brady at Rockefeller’s Laboratory for Genetically Encoded Small Molecules, a senior author on the new study. “We put it into a bug we can grow easily in the laboratory and see if it can make new molecules—the basis of new antibiotics.”
The new compounds appear to interfere with the ability of infectious bacteria to build cell walls—a function so basic to cellular life that it seems unlikely that the microbes could evolve a way to resist it. In lab tests, bacteria were exposed to the experimental antibiotics for 21 days without developing resistance, the scientists said.
So far, the new compounds also appear safe and effective in mice, but there are no plans yet to submit it for human testing. “It is early days for these compounds,” Dr. Brady said.
The discovery of antibiotics in the early 20th century transformed modern medicine, but many of them gradually became ineffective as bacteria evolved defenses, often by acquiring protective genes from other more-resistant micro-organisms.
In the U.S. alone, at least two million illnesses and 23,000 deaths can be attributed each year to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. World-wide, deaths due to untreatable infections are predicted to rise 10-fold by 2050.
About 48 experimental antibiotics are undergoing clinical trials. Few of them, though, are aimed at the most intractable drug-resistant infections and, if past history is any guide, most are unlikely to be approved for patient use, several public-health experts said.
“Only a fraction of those will make it,” said Kathy Talkington, director of the Antibiotic Resistance Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts in Washington, D.C. “Generating new antibiotics and new therapies will take a while.”
In the quest for new antibiotics, researchers like Dr. Brady and others are deploying advanced genomics, synthetic-biology tools, and a variety of other innovative ways to explore a vast natural reservoir of bacteria notoriously difficult to isolate and study—the so-called “dark matter” of microbiology.
In May, researchers led by chemist Dale Boger at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego created a more-potent version of vancomycin—considered an antibiotic of last resort for the most intractable infections. In a soil sample from Italy, researchers at Rutgers University last June unearthed a powerful new antibiotic called pseudouridimycin. Neither, though, is ready for clinical trials.
At Northeastern University in Boston, microbiologist Slava Epstein and his colleagues have screened thousands of bacteria strains using a portable device he invented called the iChip that allows bio-prospectors to isolate and grow finicky micro-organisms.
In 2016, they discovered an antibiotic called teixobactin. It too is years away from clinical trials.
“I did not understand how long it takes to develop an antibiotic, even when things go well,” he said.
To broaden their search for new therapeutic compounds, Dr. Brady and his Rockefeller colleagues set up an online citizen science project called “Drugs from Dirt” that solicits soil donations from around the world. The sandy soil that yielded the new malacidin antibiotics was shipped by relatives from the southwestern U.S.
“I think my parents sent it to me,” said Dr. Brady.
Write to Robert Lee Hotz at sciencejournal@wsj.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6) Trump’s Big Public Works Dig
Permitting and other reforms are a major policy breakthrough
The White House on Monday unveiled its plan to raise $1.5 trillion in capital for public works. This will cause sticker shock among Republicans, but the President’s innovative regulatory reforms deserve debate and may even garner some Democratic support.
President Trump is proposing to spend $200 billion in federal funds to leverage $1.3 trillion in state, local and private investment in public works. This bid is probably dead on arrival since Republicans have little appetite for more spending after blowing the budget sequestration caps last week.
Many bridges and airports need a face-lift, though claims of crumbling roads are overwrought and often politically motivated. One problem is that public works like other discretionary programs are being squeezed by entitlements, which constitute nearly two-thirds of federal spending. But even while politicians in Washington gripe that we—always the royal “we”—don’t spend enough on public works, they consistently prioritize otherdiscretionary programs.
Consider: Of the $787 billion stimulus in 2009, only about $60 billion financed public works. Most was spent on safety-net programs and other progressive causes. More Hurricane Sandy recovery money went to “community development” than repairing train tunnels.
Many projects that do receive federal funding aren’t national priorities, such as California’s bullet train. That’s because the government typically awards “competitive” grants to politically favored projects rather than those that would produce the biggest economic benefits. The Obama Administration rigged cost-benefit analysis to reward projects that would promote public housing and reduce carbon emissions.
Mr. Trump’s plan includes $100 billion in “incentives” to spur state and private investment; $50 billion for rural projects; $30 billion in revolving federal credit and capital funds; and $20 billion for “bold and innovative projects” that may not attract private investment “because of the project’s unique characteristics.” By any other name, this is a national infrastructure bank synonymous with cronyism.
State and local governments have shown they’re willing to finance worthwhile projects. According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, more than half of states have raised gas taxes over the past five years to pay for public works. Many innovative projects have no trouble attracting private investment. Consider the Cadiz pipeline, which aims to move 16.3 billion gallons of groundwater each year from the Mojave Desert to Southern California. Or the new desalination plant in Carlsbad, Calif.
Mr. Trump and Congress should instead focus new federal funding on national or regional priorities such as improving port security and repairing the Hudson River train tunnels, which would benefit most of the Northeast. Congress could also shift from categorical and competitive grants to block grants that give governors flexibility. This would also make state and local politicians more accountable for their spending. Let California Gov. Jerry Brown choose between spending billions more on his bullet train in the Central Valley or improving commuter rail in the Bay Area.
The real earth-moving parts of Mr. Trump’s plan are the regulatory reforms, some of which will need to be fleshed out. The President wants to establish “one agency, one decision” for environmental reviews that would avoid regulatory hop-scotch. Good idea. Mr. Trump also suggests reducing environmental reviews to two years that can now drag out for a decade. Even many Democrats would like to expedite their favorite projects that have been grounded due to the discovery of a tiger salamander or other endangered species.
Another idea with merit is delegating environmental review and permitting decisions to states. California has been assigned these responsibilities under agreements with the Federal Highway Administration, as have Texas, Florida and Ohio. According to Gov. Brown, California has reduced the approval process from the “notice of intent to final environmental impact statement” on highway projects on average by 10 years.
Tucked into the plan is modest flexibility on Buy America requirements and Davis-Bacon, which requires contractors on federal projects to pay workers prevailing wages set by unions. These raise construction costs. While this flexibility is commendable, Mr. Trump’s plan will also require tens of thousands of more workers. The Associated General Contractors of America reported last month that 78% of contractors had a hard time hiring. Apprenticeships can make up some of the shortage, but the government will need to increase H-2B visas to avoid delays or exorbitant project costs.
Democrats are ripping the President’s plan, and no doubt many think they can get more money if they win control of Congress in November. But they shouldn’t be so sure. President Trump deserves credit for opening a debate in Congress about why merely spending more on public works won’t help the public.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7)How Not to Fix the FBI
A second special prosecutor would undermine the good work of Congress
Rep. Devin Nunes has rendered the public an extraordinary service. Almost single-handedly, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has pried loose from an obstructionist Justice Department documents revealing how the Federal Bureau of Investigation used Clinton campaign research to justify a warrant to spy on Carter Page, a onetime Trump campaign associate. So why are Republicans now threatening to undermine all this good work by calling for a special counsel?
In the past few days, the calls for a special counsel to look into the FBI and Justice Department have grown louder. Sens. Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham want one. So do Reps. Bob Goodlatte, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan and others. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is thinking about it. Meanwhile, President Trump’s deputy press secretary has told reporters that the president’s lawyers want one too.
It’s a tempting proposition. Republicans are plagued by a special counsel whose mere existence calls into question the legitimacy of the last election. Why shouldn’t they inflict the same menace on Mr. Trump’s opponents? The answer is that a special counsel is not only unnecessary but counterproductive.
Right now, two big questions hang over our public life: how the Russians interfered in the 2016 presidential elections, and whether the Justice Department and FBI let Hillary Clinton off the hook in the investigation into her private email server even as they politicized counterintelligence operations to undermine team Trump.
Republicans who think a special counsel is the right way to pursue answers ought to take a hard look at the Robert Mueller investigation. Mr. Mueller has indicted a few folks since being named special counsel last May. But he’s produced scant evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and no one knows what he’s really found because it’s all secret.
What makes anyone think a new special counsel would be any different? Once appointed, the curtain would drop. Congress would be asked to stand down, on the grounds that it must not do anything that might interfere with a criminal investigation.
This prosecutorial approach turns the Constitution on its head. In our system of self-government, the American people, acting through their elected representatives, are given oversight of what their politicians and government have been up to. For the most part, accountability is meant to come via the ballot box—not a grand jury.
A better way forward would be for Mr. Sessions to appoint a U.S. attorney to investigate abuses of power within the Justice Department and FBI. Rather than destroying these organizations, the goal of the investigation would be to restore their credibility by identifying any abuses of power and removing the responsible individuals. Although the threat of a grand jury would likely be necessary to concentrate the minds of certain officials who might not be inclined to cooperate, the goal would be to hold individuals accountable, not to tar whole institutions.
Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, says that such an investigation would require the unequivocal support of three principal players: President Trump, Attorney General Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Each would have to show a commitment that has so far been lacking.
Mr. Trump would need to overcome his administration’s reluctance to use its declassification powers to make public crucial material. Mr. Sessions would have to provide the designated U.S. attorney not only with support but clear parameters and a time frame to ensure the effort did not drag on and on. Mr. Wray, for his part, would have to show cooperation that doesn’t require the threat of a congressional contempt citation.
The man or woman appointed to lead the investigation, Mr. McCarthy says, “has to be someone who is looking to hold people accountable while preserving Justice and the FBI as the essential institutions they are, and who is looking to have this wrapped up in short order, not an empire builder à la Mueller.”
Mr. McCarthy believes that although there are other possible investigators, it would be best to use FBI agents. Of course, these agents would have to lack any connection to the subjects of their investigation, and they would need a guarantee that their careers would not suffer. But using FBI agents to root out the bad apples, says Mr. McCarthy, could elicit more cooperation from a bureau that might otherwise see itself as under siege from people who wanted the institution destroyed.
If handled properly, such an investigation could bring many benefits. The public would get a full accounting of the dossier saga. Those responsible for any abuses would be removed. And the American people would see that our system of government is capable of identifying abuse and correcting it—without resorting to the constitutional aberration known as the special counsel.
Write to mcgurn@wsj.com.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
