Talking Dirty

The Decline of Decency——————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Most of the furor over this year’s White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner has died down by now but it shouldn’t have. The event should be forever remembered as a low point in public behavior, particularly on the part of the journalists and guests who laughed and applauded rather than walking out in protest of the smut that was served up as entertainment by comedienne Michelle Wolf. Why would the WHCA even bother to hire a comedienne with so many clowns already available in the audience? They could have, for example, had them stage a mock press conference with all those incurably liberal Trump haters asking their usual asinine and repetitious questions which is comical enough.

 

The event should also be remembered as the final WHCA dinner. And if they continue to be held, no self-respecting Republicans should lower themselves to attend. I don’t usually approve of boycotts but why would any decent person want to sit through an evening of dirty jokes?

 

In addition to being foul-mouthed, abusive and possessed of an unpleasant, squeaky voice, Ms. Wolf was not even remotely funny. Her performance was about as pathetic as Alec Baldwin’s monotonous and boring act on Saturday Night Live trying to imitate Donald Trump by extending his lower lip in a bizarre manner. Saturday Night Live has also ceased to be funny or entertaining with its endless criticism of the president.

 

What irritates me most is the arrogance of so many celebrities, including minor ones like Wolf, who seem to assume that any audience they face will agree with their views and biases. I don’t mind so much that they are biased. Most of us are. It’s that they seem to assume that you share theirs and that even if you don’t, you will respond with applause. They’d consider themselves poorly-used if they were booed or heckled.

 

There have been the usual apologies for this behavior from the usual sources. Freedom of speech has been invoked and, of course, entertainers and celebrities have a right to their opinions. But do they have a right to inflict them on those they are supposed to be entertaining? Ms. Wolf at one point compared the president’s daughter to an empty box of tampons. It was noted that Donald Trump was also known to have made some nasty remarks about women. That doesn’t excuse her. This isn’t contest to see who can be the most vulgar. We all knew that Mr. Trump was no choir boy. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him because of his temperament and crude, sometimes vulgar speech. He deserves the criticisms but not the comparisons to Ms. Wolf because she set a new low.

 

In America, it seems to be a race to the bottom in terms of decent behavior and discourse. But there’s no need to race. We’re already there. As Clark Griswold said to his wife in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, back when comedians were actually funny, “Worse? How can things get any worse? Look around, Ellen. We’re at the threshold of Hell!”

It won’t get any better, either, until we develop the courage to just stand up and walk out, change channels or otherwise communicate to the offenders, “What makes you assume that I’m just going to sit here and listen to this garbage?”

May 29, 2018

 

Dealing With Dictators

Dealing With Despots and Dictators—————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Despite his abundant faults, President Donald Trump deserves some credit for at least attempting to keep his campaign promises. He was critical of his predecessor for famously drawing a “red line” in 2013, warning Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad not to cross it by using chemical weapons and then failing to stop him when he did. So when Assad again used chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, Mr. Trump acted promptly, this time joined by allies France and the United Kingdom. On national TV, the president then declared “mission accomplished”. But that would depend upon how one defines the mission.

 

The targets were limited to some, but not all, of Assad’s chemical weapons storage and research and development facilities. Great restraint apparently was exercised to avoid other collateral damage. If that was the extent of the mission, then perhaps the mission was too narrowly defined. The strike provided great practice for the naval missileers and an opportunity to demonstrate US, UK and French military cooperation, but it will probably do little to change the course of things in Syria. Mr. Assad will go right on killing and maiming his people with conventional weapons and Russia and Iran will continue to consolidate their power and influence in the region while Mr. Trump talks about pulling our remaining forces out.

 

The civilized world recoiled in horror at the images of innocent civilians, including children, foaming at the mouth and suffering from Assad’s poisons. But far more innocent Syrian civilians are killed by his conventional weapons, including barrel bombs filled with nails and metal fragments, specifically design to inflict maximum pain and suffering. In fact, of the over 400,000 Syrians killed in Syria’s bloody civil war, all but about 2,000 were killed by “conventional” weapons. They are all equally dead. Trump is right in branding anyone who would do this to his own people, and those like Vladimir Putin and Iran’s mullahs who support him, as animals, although animals should be offended by the comparison.

 

But should there be a broader mission in Syria and do we have a role there? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. It’s too late to prevent Russia from establishing military presence and influence in the region but Iran’s substantial and growing presence in Syria poses a real risk to our ally, Israel, which shares a border with Syria. Israel’s destruction is a sworn goal of Iran’s leaders. An American withdrawal from the region would leave Israel feeling abandoned and vulnerable, likely provoking a conflict into which we would inevitably be drawn.

 

We cannot abandon allies who rely upon us to assist in their defense, especially when we have pledged to do so, or we will lose credibility and trust, hastening our decline as the world’s preeminent power. Included among those allies are Japan and South Korea, both of whom we are obligated to defend if attacked. Mr. Trump would do well to keep this in mind when and if the summit with Kim Jong Un takes place. Some reports say that the meeting will deal only with removing the threat that Kim’s nuclear weapons pose to the United States. That’s not enough. Japan and South Korea are within range of Kim’s missiles. We have tens of thousands of troops stationed there as well as bases, ships and military families there as well as treaty obligations to these allies.

 

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in meetings with President Trump, has asked for assurances that Japan’s safety from the threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons will be a condition of any agreement with Kim. Mr. Trump should provide that assurance.

May 23, 2018

The Mueller Investigation

Digging Deep for Dirt————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                In May of last year, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed former FBI director Robert S. Mueller as special counsel to oversee an investigation into possible collusion on the part of the Trump presidential campaign with Russian agents to influence the election. Such appointments are normally made when reliable evidence exists that a particular crime has been committed. As far as the public is aware, no such evidence has been produced that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Ironically, there is ample evidence that the Clinton campaign paid to obtain a dossier allegedly containing negative information on Mr. Trump compiled from Russian sources. Why no demand for a special counsel to look into that?

 

After nearly a year of investigating at considerable expense to the taxpayer, Mr. Mueller has produced nothing showing that collusion exists. But special investigations like this take on a life of their own and Mr. Mueller is not confining his probing into matters of Russian collusion. His investigators apparently are digging for any kind of dirt that they can use against the president and so the investigation can descend to dumpster diving. It just won’t do to come up with nothing but a colossal waste of time and money and a distraction from more important matters.

 

So Mr. Mueller referred to the U.S Attorney in Manhattan the matter of those widely-reported accounts that the president’s personal lawyer paid a porn star hush money for silence about an alleged affair she had with Mr. Trump in 2006 on the premise that the payment may have amounted to an illegal use of campaign funds. This was not the original purpose of Mr. Mueller’s appointment but hey, he’s got to come with something, doesn’t he? He must find something to satisfy the anti-Trumpsters.  Trouble is, nothing will ever satisfy them, short of impeachment.

 

Will the focus now turn to the sex life of the president, even before he was a candidate? Do Mr. Trump’s critics even want to go there, given the sordid details of the sex life of Bill Clinton, not only as a candidate, but as a governor and a sitting president, including a sordid episode with a White House intern in the Oval Office which brought disgrace upon the presidency? For that matter, should we examine the personal sex lives of other former president?

Donald Trump does not enjoy a high favorability rating among women for good and well-deserved reasons and just about everyone knows why. But we knew all that about him before he was a candidate and he was nominated and elected anyway.  We knew a lot about Mr. Clinton’s sexual affairs, also, but enough voters didn’t seem to care much.  It’s a sorry reflection on what voters have come to tolerate in a president but it’s hardly worth an investigation to find out what we already know.

 

Based on Mueller’s referral, the U.S Attorney obtained a warrant for the FBI to raid the offices and apartment of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, reportedly looking for evidence of bank fraud or illegal campaign finance violations. This is, on the face of it, a serious breach of the attorney-client relationship and is justifiable only on the basis of solid evidence that a crime has been committed and evidence is in danger of being destroyed before it can be obtained by less draconian measures. Mueller’s investigators meanwhile can, presumably, use any information obtained in the raid.

 

This is a giant overreach by the long arm of the Justice Department. Every U. S. citizen is entitled to know that personal information shared with his or her attorney is protected. What’s next? Will the FBI be interrogating priests, demanding to know what a suspect may have revealed in confession?

May 8, 2918

 

Immigrant Nation

A Nation Divided Over Immigration————————–

            a commentary

            by J. F. Kelly, Jr.

            America is among the world’s richest nations in terms of living standards and we are urged to show compassion toward those in need. But the record shows that we are pretty good at that already in terms of foreign aid and disaster relief. Let’s not forget that we came to the aid of Europe and much of the rest of the world in two world wars at a considerable cost of our blood and treasure and helped rebuild Europe and Asia following WWII. We have, in fact, spent more of both on protecting the borders of other nations than we have on our own.

 

            We are a nation of immigrants who populated our young country as it expanded westward. They built our roads, bridges, dams, railroads, cities and seaports and cleared the land to create farms that would feed us and others. And for the most part, they came here legally. They weren’t always warmly welcomed because they were different but they worked hard at assimilating and were accepted because they were needed. Our immigration policy in those days was based on the nation’s needs not those of the immigrants, or family unification, diversity or the need to rescue people from poverty, abusive governments, wars or criminal gangs. Today we are deeply divided over what immigration policy should be. Many describe it as broken. By broken, they usually mean that it should make it easier for everyone to migrate. But it should be obvious that we cannot accommodate all the world’s downtrodden who wish to live in the United States because most of them do. There must, therefore, be rules in the form of laws and they must be enforced and based on the needs of the country, not the needs of the 95% of the world’s population that isn’t fortunate enough to be American citizens.

 

            So we do have laws and we do have borders. The problem is that the laws are not always enforced and it is the southern border that is broken by those who choose to violate our laws. A nation must have borders or it may eventually cease to be a nation and it has a right to protect them, by force if necessary. Our citizens have a right to demand secure borders and to insist that those who violate them in defiance of our federal laws be treated as criminals, not as victims of discrimination. It is said that charity should begin at home and we have plenty of American citizens in need of it. Many live in poverty. Many are homeless.  Many are in need of medical care they cannot afford. How about a little compassion first for our own downtrodden?

 

            Donald Trump was elected president in large part on a promise to end illegal immigration and to build a wall on the southern border. Critics and opponents of the wall say that walls don’t work and are offensive to our neighbors to the south. But there is ample evidence that they do work to reduce the number of illegal crossings and make it easier and safer for Border Patrol agents to do their job. And if they are offensive to our neighbors to the south why do so many of the affluent among them surround their homes with walls and live in gated and guarded communities? Every property owner knows that walls and fences help make good neighbors. Trump’s funding for the promised wall has been thwarted by opponents in congress so he has indicated that he will utilize National Guard forces to help secure the border until the wall is built and the Border Patrol can effectively do its job. Other presidents have used National Guard troops at the border before including Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Opponents will wail that the use of the military to enforce border security is a violation of the Posse Comitatis Act which prohibits the use of federal troops in law enforcement matters. But border security is not your typical law enforcement matter. Nearly every nation on earth has used troops to defend or secure its borders. And National Guard forces, unless nationalized, serve under the respective state governors and may not be considered federal troops.

 

            The Posse Comitatis Act is a relic of the aftermath of the Civil War which was enacted to prevent Union troops from policing the former Confederate states to avoid the appearance of a military occupation and to promote national healing after a devastating war. If the law is used today to prevent troops from securing an international border then, to borrow some words from Benjamin Disraeli, the law is an ass and should be repealed.

May 2, 2018