Don’t, Boris with the Details

Boris Johnson assumed the role of UK Prime Minister with well under 150,000 people voting – only members of his Conservative Party. He is a Brexit hardliner, quite willing to let the UK leave the European Union, scheduled for October 31^st, without a deal. A particularly scary Halloween. Despite dire warnings of severe expected shortages, chaos at the Irish border and economic contraction from very neutral economic observers, even his own governmental bureaucrats. He has been repeatedly rebuffed by the EU in his efforts to push his soon-to-be-ex EU partners back to the negotiating table.

Efforts from leftist Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party to prevent a “no deal Brexit” have foundered, but Johnson – a Trump favorite – is taking no chances. The less time Parliament has to consider reduced terms than a pure break from the EU, the better, if Johnson has his way. There is a unique and somewhat obscure British constitutional construct that allows the Queen of England to suspend a Parliamentary session. So, guess what Mr. Johnson just orchestrated: “Three Conservative members of the Queen's Privy Council took the request to suspend Parliament to the monarch's Scottish residence in Balmoral on Wednesday morning [8/28] on behalf of the prime minister.

“It has now been approved, allowing the government to suspend Parliament no earlier than Monday 9 September and no later than Thursday 12 September, until Monday 14 October.” BBC.com, August 28^th. Johnson glowed as he announced that the Queen herself would address the nation in mid-October, suggesting that she was in full support of his agenda. The British pound sterling, which had traded at $1.66 as recently as 2013, well before the Brexit initiative, plunged to $1.22 at the announcement. Global markets, already on edge because of the global impact of Donald Trump’s trade war with China, felt the cold shudder of recession send chills down their collective back.

“The decision to [suspend Parliament] now is highly controversial because opponents say it would stop MPs being able to play their full democratic part in the Brexit process… Parliament is normally suspended - or prorogued - for a short period before a new session begins. It is done by the Queen, on the advice of the prime minister… Parliamentary sessions normally last a year, but the current one has been going on for more than two years - ever since the June 2017 election… When Parliament is prorogued, no debates and votes are held - and most laws that haven't completed their passage through Parliament die a death…

“‘As far as the markets are concerned, there's a fair bit of bad news already baked in to the pound,’ according to David Cheetham, an analyst at currency trader XTB Online Trading…. Discussing the prime minister's decision to suspend parliament, Mr Cheetham said: ‘This seems like a pre-emptive strike from [Mr Johnson] against those seeking to block a no-deal Brexit and once more it seems that the opposition are in danger of fluffing a big opportunity to have an impact.

“‘If the government is successful in this, then a no-deal Brexit wouldn't be taken off the table until the 11th hour at the earliest and this keeps a significant downside risk to the pound in play.’…

“Boris Johnson said a Queen's Speech would take place after the suspension, on 14 October, to outline his ‘very exciting agenda’... But it means MPs are unlikely to have time to pass laws to stop a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.” BBC.com. Could Labour force a “no confidence” vote, forcing a parliamentary election, potentially bringing down the Conservative majority? Technically, yes, but time is rapidly running out. Pundits are suggesting that, at least between now and October 31^st, that choice is not likely. “Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said MPs must come together to stop the plan next week, or ‘today will go down in history as a dark one indeed for UK democracy’.” BBC.com.

Self-proclaimed economic expert, Donald Trump – the same man who had led the United States into a consumer-unfriendly trade war with China and created the greatest peacetime deficit in our history with his failed-to-generate-benefits-except-to-the-rich tax cut – tweeted in support of Boris Johnson’s efforts saying it "would be very hard" for Mr Corbyn to seek a no-confidence vote against the PM, "especially in light of the fact that Boris is exactly what the UK has been looking for." Really? 150 thousand voters, maybe, but the entire UK? The world needs Donald Trump to define global economic policies in his own image almost as much as it needs a new outbreak of the bubonic plague.

            I’m Peter Dekom, and when arrogant leaders, unschooled in global economics, take charge, the results of such arrogance are seldom what their followers expect will happen.

The 20% Conundrum

Protestors the world over, from cities all across Brazil to those gathered outside the G& meeting in Biarritz, France, have raised the alarm bell over the new laissez faire policies in Brazil where destroying forests to allow for agricultural expansion has redefined Amazonia. 20% of the earth’s source of refreshed oxygen emanates from the Amazon. The new government in Brazil has castigated international outrage at the exploding use of slash and burn fires to expand agricultural uses as none of anyone’s business except Brazil’s.

“[Deforestation] rates have increased sharply since May, a few months after [Brazil’s anti-environmental, right-wing President Jair] Bolsonaro took office. So far, more than 2,000 square miles of forest have fallen this year.

“Bolsonaro has railed against protections for indigenous land and promised to boost the country’s economy. He has also weakened the government’s capacity for oversight and indicated he would not go after farmers, loggers and miners who seize and clear forest… Some say his words have been enough to trigger a burst of deforestation. (Government representatives did not respond to requests for comment.)…

“Flames are spreading across the Amazon rainforest this summer, spewing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each day. But scientists say that’s not their biggest concern. They’re far more worried about what the fires represent: a dramatic increase in illegal deforestation that could deprive the world of a critical buffer against climate change.

“More than a soccer field’s worth of Amazon forest is falling every minute, according to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, known as INPE. Preliminary estimates from satellite data revealed that deforestation in June rose almost 90% compared with the same month last year, and by 280% in July… The Amazon is a key component of Earth’s climate system. It holds about a quarter as much carbon as the entire atmosphere and single-handedly absorbs about 5% of all the CO2 we emit each year.

“But if such rapid deforestation continues, it will foil efforts to keep global temperatures in check. Scientists fear parts of the Amazon could pass a critical threshold and transform from a lush rainforest into a dry, woody grassland. And that could bring catastrophic consequences not only for people in South America, but also for everyone around the world.

“‘We might be very, very close to the tipping point,’ said Carlos Nobre , a climate scientist at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil. And if we cross it, he said, ‘it’s irreversible.’… The trend is particularly alarming because it comes after more than a decade of progress toward preserving the world’s largest rainforest. Many blame the anti-environmental rhetoric of Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s new far-right president, and fear that it will put global climate efforts in jeopardy.

“Left to nature, the Amazon rarely burns. But INPE has counted more than 25,000 blazes in the Amazon in August alone. The smoke grew so thick it cast the city of Sao Paulo, which lies more than 1,000 miles away, into daytime darkness.

“The fires have sparked an international outcry. But they came as no surprise to those who keep a close watch on the Amazon. Satellite images in May, June and July showed an uptick in deforestation. It was only a matter of time before the flames followed, said Doug Morton , chief of the Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center… ‘This is the expected one-two punch,’ he said.

“Instead of axes and machetes, people now use bulldozers and giant tractors with chains to pull down the Amazon’s towering trees. A few months later, they torch the trunks. It’s the only realistic way to remove such huge amounts of biomass, Morton said. ‘It’s slash and burn, 21st century.’

“‘Thousands of acres at a time are being cleared for large-scale agriculture, he added. The land is primarily used as pasture for cattle — one of Brazil’s major exports — or for crops such as soybeans… This marks a troubling reversal in the fight to end deforestation, long a linchpin of global climate policy.

“In 2004, the Brazilian government began cracking down on forest destruction by designating more protected areas and reserves for indigenous people. Violators were fined or arrested and forest loss declined 75% by 2012… What’s more, the country’s agricultural production continued to increase, demonstrating that development and conservation could go hand in hand, said Nobre, who has been studying the Amazon for more than 35 years… ‘It was a big success,’ he said. ‘Everybody was happy.’… However, deforestation rates have increased sharply since May, a few months after Bolsonaro took office. So far, more than 2,000 square miles of forest have fallen this year.” Los Angeles Times, August 26^th.

But even the Trump-inspired Bolsonaro took notice of the growing unrest on the streets of his own biggest cities (above right – protests in Sao Paulo), and began efforts to extinguish the very fires his policies have encouraged. The protests were getting so large that even Bolsonaro feared his political future hinged on a more moderate environmental tone. The military combined with international forces have begun to contain the fires. While so much damage has already been done that the net negative impact on global climate change may have triggered the point of no return, nations out of step with global priorities to make the earth livable and sustainable by containing global warming are finding themselves increasing isolated and shunned. Like Donald Trump and the United States.

“U.S. President Donald Trump skipped a discussion on climate with other world leaders at the Group of Seven summit in France, leaving an empty chair as global power brokers debated how to help the fire-ravaged Amazon and reduce carbon emissions.” Associated Press, August 26^th.

            I’m Peter Dekom, and that the G7 did not even put a joint communique on the agenda because of outlier Donald Trump tells you what those economic powers think of the United States these days.

Home but Not Exactly Alone

Looking at the above map, it’s pretty easy to figure out that “young people” tend to live with their parents longer when they live in cities and states where housing is most expensive. “Kids” in big cities cherish living closer to work, having the latest smart phone way more than owning a car. Cars take parking spaces, cost lots in maintenance and insurance, fuel prices are high and even buying a car is a luxury that is easily replaced by mass transit embellished with Uber and Lyft.

For younger workers, or even slightly older workers building sweat equity in start-ups, rent in hot urban work centers is often prohibitive and long commutes are career killers, so convenience even at with the mutual inconvenience on all sides is the easy button. Does that mean that the old house rules from the teenage years still apply? Sex? Bringing a lover home with you in your parents’ house? Weed? Alcohol? How about single parents who are dating? Awkward! Some prefer sardine-stacked apartments with lots of roommates instead.

California has some of the most expensive cities in the country. San Francisco. Silicon Valley. Los Angeles. Orange County. San Diego. Ouch. “Statewide, roughly 37% of Californians age 18 to 34 live with their parents, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

“In [Mission Viejo, a wealthy suburb in south Orange County, a] pricey part of Southern California, where the average home is valued at well over $700,000, about 55% of young adults shack up with mom and/or dad… ‘[My wife and I] had an apartment here for two years,’ said [said Jacob Ostheimer, a married 24-year old who lives with his mother and stepfather]. ‘But I was spending like 30 grand a year in rent, and I could have had that in my savings right now.’

“Despite a booming economy and sizzling job market, millennial, and now Generation Z, Californians are as likely to live at home as young Californians were a decade ago during the depths of the Great Recession.

“‘This has, I think, surprised many of us, including myself,’ said Richard Fry, a senior researcher with the Pew Research Center, who says he expected multi-generational living arrangements to decline as the economy recovered… ‘Clearly in certain areas rents have gone up and the cost of living independently has increased.’

“Here's everything you need to know about the roughly 3.6 million Californians living with mom and dad into their 20's and early 30's. Yes, including the sex stuff… California is not the only state with a high rate of young adults living with mom and dad. The living arrangement is equally common in high-cost states such as New York and Massachusetts. In New Jersey, an astonishing 46% of 18- to 34-year olds stay with at least one of their parents, according to Census Bureau data.

“Looking at where in California young adults are living with their parents explains a lot about the reasons why. Somewhat counterintuitively, expensive urban cores in places such as San Diego and San Francisco actually have relatively low rates of young adults living at home, owing to the large numbers of twenty-somethings who shack up with roommates to defray housing costs…

“Not all of them are so young. About 1 of every 4 Californians between 25 and 34 live with their parents — around 1.5 million people, according to a CalMatters analysis of Census Bureau data.” LAist.com, August 27^th.

But it’s not all 20/30-somethings working at hot jobs in expensive urban centers. Some Z’s move back to their lower income family homes to help add essential earning power to impoverished minorities. “Stay-at-homers are more likely to be male than female, are more likely to be a person of color than white, and are more likely to live in an immigrant household than their counterparts who have flown the coop…

“Beyond the financial benefits of living at home, cultural differences in the stigmas attached to staying with parents — and feelings of obligation to family — also contribute to the trend. Nearly half of California Latinos between 18 and 34 live at home… ‘[Hispanics] tend to have higher levels of what we call familism — high regard for family, obligations to family, closeness to family members,’ said [Jessica Hardie, professor of sociology at Hunter College, CUNY], who researches young adult living arrangements.” Laist.com.

In the end, these trends represent dramatic shifts that have occurred over the past two decades. Upward mobility is all but dead, polarization and income inequality defined our entire society (even as to home ownership), marriages are being postponed and student loans now top $1.4 trillion, way more than our aggregate credit card debt. Welcome to America, land of opportunists.

              I’m Peter Dekom, and as our President brags about how wonderful our economy is, it’s clear he is basing his claim on average statistics, which always soar when those at the top make so much more than the rest of us.

Shut It Down!

The free press, especially the vociferous critics often referred to as the Fifth Estate, have taken on a socio-cultural role in the United States: particularly watching and criticizing elected officials, making them accountable. With Donald Trump declaring what our Founding Fathers declared sacred – freedom of the press – to empower the “enemy of the people” (MSM – mainstream media like CNN and MSNBC) and to demand restraints on limits on his journalist and comedic critics, the very bedrock of our democracy is being eroded daily. No other developed democracy anywhere is crying for restraints on press freedom. 

The challenge in this maelstrom of “fake news,” with a significant flow of that emanating from the President himself, is how to separate truly damaging “fake news,” stuff that motivates extremists to their extreme and often deadly behavior, from our First Amendment value of truly free speech, even if the content is wildly unpopular or deeply provocative. In India, fake and photoshopped photographs of unknown origin, alleging that Muslim kidnapper-murderers were on the loose, went viral on the popular WhatsApp (a Facebook messaging app). Parents kept their children indoors, not letting them go out to play. Vigilantes responded with violence.

“In recent months, about two dozen people across India have been lynched — beaten to death — by mobs driven to violence by what they've read on social media… Fake news is blamed for misleading voters and possibly influencing elections in the West. But in India, it's killing people.” NPR.org, 7/18/18. In societies where communications technologies are relatively new, social media – “I’ve seen the photographs!” – does not meet with the relative skepticism that more developed countries express. But even in developed countries, fake news or trends making promoters of anti-democratic violence ubiquitous and socially acceptable foment danger and death.

With “fine people” on both sides, Donald Trump’s 2017 expression of support for torch-bearing white supremacists in Charlottesville where one counter protester was murdered, has spawned a number of violent, racially driven incidents since. Hate crimes have spiked since Trump’s seeming support for white nationalism. But at least the media has not ceased its criticism even as social media seems unable to grapple with their power to spread dangerous lies. Russia took and continues to take total advantage of the open and viral flow of fake news in our election cycles.

Until recently, the only feedback we got on Russia’s massive social media effort to deploy fake news and voter manipulation during the 2016 U.S. presidential election has been Donald Trump’s denial of any impact. Since then, however, several major universities, using high-speed computers and sophisticated software analytics, have been able to trace Russia’s increased Web-based interference to parallel polling that tracked the candidates during the campaign. The most recent study, from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, “demonstrates that Trump's gains in popularity during the 2016 campaign correlated closely with high levels of social media activity by the Russian trolls and bots of the Internet Research Agency, a key weapon in the Russian attack.

“‘Our results show that the weeks when Russian trolls were accumulating likes and retweets on Twitter, that activity reliably foreshadowed gains for Trump in the opinion polls,’ wrote Damian Ruck, the study's lead researcher, in an article explaining his findings… The study found that every 25,000 re-tweets by accounts connected to the IRA predicted a 1 percent increase in opinion polls for Trump.

“In an interview with NBC News, Ruck said the research suggests that Russian trolls helped shift U.S public opinion in Trump's favor. As to whether it affected the outcome of the election: ‘The answer is that we still don't know, but we can't rule it out.’” NBCNews.com, July 1^st. Hard to believe that a steep rise in popularity did not generate more votes; it was only Trump who received the polling boost. And remember, three key electoral states – Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania – were Trump’s margin of victory… representing a mere 75,000 total popular votes.

But what’s the alternative? The “this is how Asia does it” response is to shut down the entire Internet within individual national borders. “From 2016 through 2018, the digital rights advocacy group Access Now documented 371 instances worldwide in which authorities restricted internet service or mobile apps, with more than half the cases occurring in 2018.

“The vast majority of shutdowns — 310 — occurred in Asia, home to emerging economies with large numbers of new internet users and where the free flow of information often poses a direct challenge to authoritarian governments.

“China remains the model for internet censorship and surveillance, but India, which bills itself as the world’s largest democracy, has been the quickest to cut off internet service… According to one local watchdog , India already has imposed 56 internet suspensions this year, often in the disputed northern territory of Kashmir , where security forces have used harsh tactics to quell a long-running separatist movement...

“This year, social media were temporarily blocked in Sri Lanka after the deadly Easter bombings and in Indonesia during unrest after April’s presidential election. Sudan’s military rulers last month attempted to quash massive demonstrations by blacking out almost all internet and phone service, and sending paramilitary groups to violently break up protests.

“In Myanmar, where the overwhelming majority of people access the internet on their phones, the nine townships where cellular data service was interrupted had a combined population of about 1 million people in 2014, when the country’s last census was conducted. No one knows for sure how many live there now. Huge numbers of civilians fled Rakhine after the army launched a devastating crackdown against Rohingya Muslim civilians beginning in 2017.

“Tens of thousands more have left their homes in recent months to escape a new round of violence — this time between the army and a Rakhine Buddhist militant group known as the Arakan Army. The group, which backed government forces against the Rohingya but is now demanding greater autonomy for the country’s poorest state, reportedly recruits civilians and is believed to number several thousand fighters…

“Protecting public security is the main reason cited by governments to justify clamping down on the internet, said Mai Truong, a research director at the New York-based advocacy group Freedom House… Another is to stem the flow of misinformation, particularly during periods of social or political unrest. (Several East Asian countries have also passed or are considering laws that criminalize social media posts that governments find false or damaging.)

“‘This trend is growing in part because governments are learning from each other,’ Truong said. ‘When one government shuts down the internet with little consequence, it lowers the opportunity cost for other governments to follow suit when the desire arises.’

“But experts say there are real costs to such shutdowns, even if they only last a short time… A 2016 study by the Brookings Institution calculated that 81 temporary shutdowns over 12 months caused at least $2.4 billion in lost economic activity. More recently, a study funded by Facebook found that disrupting internet access for one day in a country with medium-level connectivity produces a loss of 1% of the country’s daily economic output… ‘Network shutdowns likely do more harm than good, cutting citizens off from the ability to communicate critical information with one another and seek services in times of need,’ Truong said.” Shashank Bengali writing for the July 1^st Los Angeles Times. 

Is having social-media-employee censors, poring over everything from exceptionally graphic animal cruelty postings to outright incitements to kill racial minorities, the answer? Who trusts them? But who trusts government censors either? Can a true democracy sustain in this onslaught of self-appointed political manipulators with autocratic disruption as their goal? Is it worse when the malevolent “fake news” creator-in-chief is the President himself?

              I’m Peter Dekom, and American democracy has been taken to the emergency room for triage with the prognosis anything but certain.

First It Was Mental Illness, Now It’s Video Games

There isn’t the slightest doubt that who pulls the trigger is the killer. But likewise, there isn’t the slightest doubt that pulling the trigger on a semi-automatic assault rifle is designed to kill a lot more people. Add to this horror is the difference between a bullet fired from an ordinary pistol, which rides straight, to one fired from a military-grade assault rifle designed to rotate sideways to tear flesh and body parts, literally exploding inside the intended victim. In war, completely taking out your opponent, even with a less than centered shot, is essential. Why civilians need that capacity has never been explained in a way that makes the slightest sense.

Eschewing the words “domestic terrorism” and never blaming gun-makers and permissive gun laws as causes, even Donald Trump’s mild embracing of “background checks” is all about finding those who are mentally ill, even though most mentally ill persons are hardly violent. Political adherents, those who embrace Nazi-like extermination of “inferiors,” who are zealots but hardly fit any traditional mental illness paradigm, have little to fear in this nascent background-check effort. Note that GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is unwilling to call Congress back in session to deal with this issue, instead hoping that by the time Congress resumes its normal post-summer-break in September, the zeal for any gun reform will have passed.

The willingness to blame anything but the genuine causes of mass killings is a GOP axiom. Their complete distortion of the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment has become basic doctrine. It is only the growing resentment of mass gun killings that is impacting traditional GOP-strongholds in suburban America. So some minor concessions, touted as GOP leadership by red state officials, will probably pass for “serious reform,” but – wink, wink – we know better.

But hey, it must be the pervasive use of violent, shoot-em-up video games that is the real cause. That’s what Donald Trump said, and that view as become red state gospel. “In the wake of the El Paso shooting on Aug. 3 that left 22 dead and dozens injured, a familiar trope has reemerged: Often, when a young man is the shooter, people try to blame the tragedy on violent video games and other forms of media.

“This time around, Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick placed some of the blame on a video game industry that ‘teaches young people to kill.’ House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, went on to condemn video games that ‘dehumanize individuals’ as a ‘problem for future generations.’ And President Trump pointed to society’s ‘glorification of violence,’ including ‘gruesome and grisly video games.’

“These are the same connections a Florida lawmaker made after the Parkland shooting in February 2018, suggesting that the gunman in that case ‘was prepared to pick off students like it’s a video game.’” Christopher Ferguson writing for the August 10^th FastCompany.com. Yup, dehumanization is bad, particularly for those damned “rapists and murderers” wanting to cross our southern border. Who is the biggest single gun seller in the country?

Even as Walmart employees objected to that major retailer’s commitment to gun sales, Walmart simply fell back on that meaningless trope. “Walmart Inc. is removing displays of violent video games and movies in its stores after two deadly shootings at its locations in Texas and Mississippi in recent weeks.

“Walmart Chief Executive Doug McMillon this week said that the company will be ‘thoughtful and deliberate in our responses’ to the shootings, which left 22 people dead in El Paso and killed two employees at a store in Southaven, Miss.

“The company has no plans to stop selling guns or ammunition, spokesman Randy Hargrove said in an interview Sunday, the day after the El Paso shooting… A man armed with a rifle was arrested Thursday [8/8] at a Walmart in Springfield, Mo.

“Supporters of stricter gun laws have said that Walmart — as one of the nation’s biggest sellers of guns and ammunition, with more than 4,700 stores — could do more to stem the flow of firearms in the United States. This week, a worker at Walmart’s San Bruno, Calif.-based e-commerce division organized protests against the company’s policy.” Los Angeles Times, August 10^th. There’s just this catch: there is absolutely no evidence that there is any linkage between such mass killings and videogames. None. Zero.

“As far back as 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that research did not find a clear connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior. Criminologists who study mass shootings specifically refer to those sorts of connections as a ‘myth.’ And in 2017, the Media Psychology and Technology division of the American Psychological Association released a statement [Christopher Ferguson] helped craft, suggesting reporters and policymakers cease linking mass shootings to violent media, given the lack of evidence for a link…

“Any claims that there is consistent evidence that violent video games encourage aggression are simply false… Spikes in violent video games’ popularity are well known to correlate with substantial declines in youth violence—not increases. These correlations are very strong, stronger than most seen in behavioral research. More recent research suggests that the releases of highly popular violent video games are associated with immediate declines in violent crime, hinting that the releases may cause the drop-off.” Ferguson. Assault weapons. Lax guns laws. A pervasive rural value of gun ownership that simply does not work in large cities. The National Rifle Association. The Republican Party. We know. We really do know. How many more must die because this country does not deal with obvious very well?

              I’m Peter Dekom, and does anyone seriously believe that our musket-toting forefathers, relying on a voluntary militia to fight the Revolutionary War, would condone the ownership of lean, mean, killing machine/semiautomatic assault weapons among civilians under the Second Amendment?

Terrorists or Freedom Protestors

One country’s terrorists are another’s freedom fighters. We use that “t” word with abandon to describe those who are willing to riot, fight or politically/physically resist for a cause with which we disagree. The notion of a willingness to inflict unrestricted violence, often even against innocents (“collateral damage”), for a cause is at the core of the word. Instilling “fear” in the hearts and minds of the general population is part of the “get their attention” demand for change. It can be a relatively mild destructive act – like seizing crates of tea and throwing them into Boston Harbor – or it can be the horrific destruction we witnessed on 9/11/01 as the Twin Towers fell to suicide attackers flying large purloined aircraft into those buildings.

Even though the FBI testified before Congress of the explosive growth of domestic extremists willing to engage in ultra-violent acts against the United States – clearly creating more death and destruction in this country today than any outsider Islamist attacks. The groups are overwhelmingly comprised of “white nationalists,” labeled clearly by the FBI as “domestic terrorists.” White supremacists. Anti-Jewish. Anti-Black. Anti-Brown. Anti-Asian. Anti-Immigrant. They often carry torches when marching, are particularly fond of large-capacity semi-automatic assault rifles and are bound together in a maze of conspiracy theories on the dark web.

Far and away, they unabashedly support Donald Trump, who is acutely aware that without the vote of white nationalists, there is no way for him to be reelected in 2020. Well-armed with weapons never designed for civilian use, they chant and rave, rally and cheer, at the president who never blames their political movement – he never uses the term “domestic terrorism” no matter how heinous the assault. It’s always about the mentally ill, video games and movies, notwithstanding that the research into causation has already proven those assumptions false.

If Donald Trump does not himself believe in superior and inferior races – and while it may not be popular to say so, we really cannot know without a deep psychological inquiry – he is at least politically attuned to know that without the support of those who believe passionately in the superiority of the white race (not generically “Caucasians,” which would include many darker-skinned peoples), his core constituency would diminish considerably. He believes that if he can embrace economy-driven voters (taking credit for an income-inequality-boosting effort) with those in his base, if he can label his opponents with the “s” word (“socialism”), he can cruise to victory in 2020. He may be correct. Time will tell. His supporters can never be linked with “domestic terrorism.” He will slip his support of racists under the radar and deny that he harbors racist feelings.

To understand how that “terrorism” word is applied, it is useful to look at the developments in another part of the world: Hong Kong. When China’s President Xi Jinping ascended to the leadership position in 2012, he vowed to reinforce state rule, becoming the most rigid and authoritarian PRC leader since Mao Zedong. Although the 1997 treaty between the U.K. and China released Hong Kong into a “one nation, two systems” agreement under PRC control until 2047, when the former Crown Colony would be absorbed under the current one-system government, that British legal system is a thorn in China’s side.

In June, when the local, PRC-approved government was about to adopt a rule that would allow the extradition of criminally charged individuals arrested for activities in Hong Kong to be tried in China itself, all hell broke loose as the above picture will attest. Protests, violent confrontations with local police, windows breaking, cars trashed, streets blocked, bonfires, police with tear gas and rubber bullets, massive arrests and thousands and thousands of demonstrators erupted across Hong Kong.

Beijing was enraged but equally aware that global public opinion favored the Hong Kong locals. HK Chief Executive Carrie Lam backed off the extradition proposal, but local residents seemed to have awakened to the hard fact that Beijing was intent on bringing the former British colony to heel, long before the 50 years expired. Local Hong Kong residents were startled both by the audacity of the Chinese leadership in even suggesting greater PRC control, which had long been seeping into the former UK colony, but what life under direct Chinese rule would likely look like.

Even when Lam withdrew the extradition proposal, the disturbances continued. Beijing wrestled with sending in regular Chinese forces to crush this rebellion… versus what the rest of the world, which China was courting as a replacement for American hegemony, would think. After protestors shut down the airport, the situation became untenable… and seemingly unsolvable. China was stuck. To China, outside agitators (encouraged by the U.S.) were pressuring locals to rebel against China and engage in local terrorist actions. The locals feared the true PRC governmental system.

“A day after protesters shut down the international airport here, the Hong Kong government’s top official said that the Chinese territory was falling into chaos and that her ‘utmost responsibility’ was to return ‘law and order… It would take a very long time to restore Hong Kong,’ Chief Executive Carrie Lam said Tuesday [8/13] in a televised news conference, at one point appearing to choke up. ‘Look at the city, our home — do we really want to push it into the abyss?’

“There was little sign that calm would return any time soon. Monday [8/12] brought new levels of disarray, with thousands of demonstrators occupying the terminals in a peaceful sit-in… ‘Reclaim Hong Kong! Revolution of our times!’ the protesters chanted as travelers carrying backpacks or pushing suitcases tried to figure out where to go… It was the fourth straight day that they had filled the Hong Kong International Airport — and the first that they succeeded in bringing operations to a halt to draw attention to their 10-week-old movement.

“The government canceled all 180 flights that were scheduled to depart after 4 p.m., a move that was announced just as a spokesman for the Beijing government said protesters showed ‘signs of terrorism.’… ‘These violent, illegal actions must be met with a determined legal crackdown, with no softening of hands or any sign of mercy,’ said Yang Guang of Beijing’s highest government office for Hong Kong affairs. ‘Hong Kong has arrived at a critical point.’” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2019. That Beijing has begun to refer to “signs of terrorism” tells you all you need to know about their ultimate willingness to respond with force. It is the beginning of their justification.

In the United States, there are a lot of people who believe that a race war here is both inevitable and necessary. An extension of our Civil War which, after the Emancipation Proclamation continuing through the civil rights movement and to this very day, clearly left a lot of issues unresolved. As the United States is becoming a majority of minorities, as urban diversity defines our contemporary reality, it is equally clear that a surprising number of Americans want to go back to an era when whites ruled and other racial and ethnic minorities “knew their place.” The cry that mass shootings in the name of white supremacy seems to take on the mantle that if our Confederate War combatants could fight for white supremacy, they clearly were not mentally ill, just willing to fight and die for their political views. So, say the new generation of white nationalists, are we!

With well over 15 million military-grade assault weapons in civilian hands, with a president who finds white supremacists as including some “fine people” and refuses to label militant actions, mass killings, by such individuals and groups as “domestic terrorism,” it is clear that he has opened a path, a legitimization, to racial and ethnic strife… that could easily lead this nation into an all-out civil war. Again.

            I’m Peter Dekom, and exactly who would be the winners if the United States unraveled with legitimized white nationalist violence against minorities and immigrants?

Is Donald Trump Israel’s Worst Nightmare?

If Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s connections to Donald Trump are stronger than ever, you’d think US-Israeli relations are at their peak. After all, look at how Trump’s unflagging support may have tipped the scales in favor of Bibi’s hanging on to political power by the slimmest of margins in the last election (ooops, not enough that another election is on the horizon). Without much of a benefit to anyone, since the border region is fairly settled anyway, wasn’t Trump’s acknowledgment that the former Syrian Golan Heights were Israeli territory forever a coup for Bibi? OK, it was a gesture that everyone knew would be a slap in the face to the Arab world, but face slapping is a Trump trademark.

That Donald Trump officially moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem – one of the very few nations accepting the legitimacy of that move – pretty much negating international opinion that this accumulation of deeply significant holy sites for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike required that Jerusalem remain an open city, free from divisive political labels suggesting otherwise. Trump’s cutting off aid to seriously impoverished moderate Palestinians was a nice touch too, even reinforcing Netanyahu’s unequivocal statement that Israel was a state built around Jewish supremacy, where Arabs were and always would be second-class citizens. The Trump affirmation that the long-held global and U.S. support of a two-state solution was off the table decimated what little remaining credibility the United States retained to function as a regional mediator, a function Trump has effectively ceded to Russia.

Then Jared Kushner’s unfunded Peace through Prosperity plan was leaked. It would keep Palestinians within Israeli jurisdiction while slowly raising and investing somewhere between $50 billion and $68 billion into Palestine over a decade. The entire “sell your soul and your freedom” notion of the profoundly ill-conceived peace plan was laughed into oblivion, dead on arrival. It quietly disappeared, evidence of another failed “ignore the experienced professionals and shoot from the hip” Trump foray into the vagaries of foreign policy he simply cannot understand.

Trump’s blistering attacks on the “Squad” – four recently-elected liberal freshmen congress-people, women of ethnicity including two Muslims (Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib) – escalated as Trump suggested that Bibi deny them the ability to travel to Israel (one of the congresswomen – Tlaib – was intending to visit her Palestinian grandmother). Netanyahu instantly complied, backing off slightly when he conditioned Tlaib’s travel on a binding commitment not to support policies that were against Israeli interests. The trip was cancelled.

Israel is already one of the most isolated countries in the world, constantly losing votes before the United Nations General Assembly by massively lopsided numbers and evading Security Council censure only by reason of exercise of America’s veto power. In today’s world, Israel is wrongly viewed as rogue state, a pariah, where even North Korea’s brutal regime has more global acceptance.

Let’s face facts. Israel has been one of America’s most consistent allies, a trustworthy Middle Eastern power with deep and long-standing ties to the United States, both by reason of the resonance of America’s Jewish population and the fact that many Israelis have personal ties to the United States. They are a source of information and stability, an engineering powerhouse with a litany of amazing patents that have become mainstays of daily existence. Democrats and Republicans have sequentially reinforced that special relationship, which, while strained on occasion, has endured since the founding of that nation in 1948.

The evangelical community has embraced a strong Jewish state for other reasons: the biblical promise of the Second Coming of Christ is predicated on a war of total destruction, Armageddon, is based on Israel’s being strong enough to fight that final battle. Dead Jews. Enraptured Christians. End of days.

Scholar-journalist Thomas Friedman, explains that Trump may have poisonously politicized U.S. relations with Israel, intertwining direct American interference (by Trump personally) in Israeli elections and slanted by Trump’s naked catering to his evangelical base’s mantra of “make Israel strong so that Armageddon is inevitable.” Writing an Op-Ed for the August 17^th New York Times, Friedman writes: “I am going to say this as simply and clearly as I can: If you’re an American Jew and you’re planning on voting for Donald Trump because you think he is pro-Israel, you’re a damn fool.

“Oh, don’t get me wrong. Trump has said and done many things that are in the interests of the current Israeli government — and have been widely appreciated by the Israeli public. To deny that would be to deny the obvious. But here’s what’s also obvious. Trump’s way of — and motivation for — expressing his affection for Israel is guided by his political desire to improve his re-election chances by depicting the entire Republican Party as pro-Israel and the entire Democratic Party as anti-Israel.

“As a result, Trump — with the knowing help of Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu — is doing something no American president and Israeli prime minister have done before: They’re making support for Israel a wedge issue in American politics… Few things are more dangerous to Israel’s long-term interests than its becoming a partisan matter in America, which is Israel’s vital political, military and economic backer in the world.

“As Dore Gold, the right-wing former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and once a very close adviser to Netanyahu, warned in a dialogue at the Hudson Institute on Nov. 27, 2018: ‘You reach out to Democrats, and you reach out to Republicans. And you don’t get caught playing partisan politics in the United States.’

“Trump’s campaign to tar the entire Democratic Party with some of the hostile views toward Israel of a few of its newly elected congresswomen — and Netanyahu’s careless willingness to concede to Trump’s demand and bar two of them, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, from visiting Israel and the West Bank — is part of a process that will do huge, long-term damage to Israel’s interests and support in America.”

We have lost boatloads of credibility as a global influencer under Trump’s helm, are viewed as a supporter of brutal autocrats like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin and seem blind to the plight of Palestinians, second class “citizens” in lands where generation after generation of their forebears lived. Trump has made Israel a “Republican” issue… telling Israelis and his evangelical base that Democrats are an unforgivable enemy. If Israel views Democrats as their foe, exactly what happens when Democrats win in future elections. Who wins with that policy?

            I’m Peter Dekom, and in a raw desire to maintain a chokehold on his evangelical constituency, Donald Trump is willing to place our nation’s long-standing friendship with Israel in dire jeopardy.