The Imperial Presidency

In our ongoing communal efforts to understand the 2016 election cycle, we need to bear in mind the recent history of the republic.  That is, we're becoming less of a republic over time and the end state seems as though it's going to be more authoritarian than not.  The slope is slippery, and is sliming toward a result that few would desire. 

Welcome to chapter 1,568,956 in the drama:  "what the hell is up with this Trump thing?"  You could put 'Cruz' in that frame as well.  Ted Cruz is as anti-American and backward a candidate as any Know Nothing candidate in the 19th century.  But somehow, perhaps because he's a sitting Senator (who other Senators despise), Cruz has adopted a 'mainstream' mantle.  Good for him.

But what the hell is up with the current roster has a lot to do with the past couple of presidents.  That is, the aggrandisement of presidential power.  When Trump makes his outlandish, childlike promises of executive action, many if not most of the actions he proposes are not within a president's power to accomplish.  Wall building, Muslim shunning, face punching, mass incarcerations, and torture are not things that an American president are allowed to do.

But because Americans have become numbed to presidential overreach, it seems plausible to the lowest-common-denominator Trump voter.  The progenitor of most of this was W.  Allowing the reptile-brained Neocons to use his administration like their own live-ammo Punch-and-Judy show, W. brought the Imperial Executive to a new low.  Instead of using the authority of the office to push through reforms that would actually help Americans, he used it to usher in a dark age of endless war. 

The idea od Americans torturing human beings was anathema to the republic for most of our history.  At the end of WW II, we prosecuted and, when we got convictions, executed war criminals in Japan and Germany for doing what was equal to or possibly less than the torture we supported under W.  In doing so, the voices of reason and democracy in the US were stifled.  The political vision of the W. presidency was to perpetuate their own power, no matter what.

And when Obama came to office, he was handed a vast national security apparatus that had become normalized to everyday Americans.  When it was revealed that the telecoms were providing W. with live telecom and internet information for millions of Americans and others, it was a big enough deal to force the W. people get the then-quiescent Congress to pass a law sanctioning and retroactively pardoning the behaviour. 

Eight years later, we all simply live with the fact that the NSA owns our data.  In the new age of global cell phones and a truly World Wide Web, major governments have taken the data.  Nixon was a piker to bug a couple of offices and phones.  He had nothing on the Obama administration. 

Presented with a global data-gathering program that was illegal, secret, and somehow mundane, Obama doubled-down on it.  Instead of reintroducing the rule of law which had excited so many voters in 2008, Obama decided to continue the programs, while increasing the illegal drone-murder program that was  also in place. 

The fundamental fact of America as a republic is that laws are above all people.  Nixon's "it's not illegal if the president does it' turned into a rallying cry for the rule of law.  The Watergate hearings were a proud moment in American history because they publically asserted that he president was bound by the law of the land, and when he broke the law, Congress was there to do something about it.

But that\same Congressional authority turned into a joke when Newt's boys impeached Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky affair.  Like every other part of governance, the rule of law was turned into a tawdry political weapon to disgrace a president the right didn't like, rather than a tool assert fundamental rules of American justice to the highest officeholder in the country. 

It didn't help that Obama was forced to use executive authority to get anything done in his last term as president.  The most disgraceful congress in American history not only passed the fewest laws in history, they made their institution into a perpetual dark comedy act by their scorch-earth, knee-jerk opposition to anything Obama tried to do.  They forced him to use executive authority extensively, and furthered the advancement of authoritarian rule. 

Because if the only way to get anything done in the US government is for a strong president to go below, above, and around the law, we might as well elect a guy who want to do just that.  Why go for a conciliator like Obama tried to be when that has proven to be useless? 

As it stands today, only a strong executive can succeed against a no-compromise legislature.  If only a dictator will do, we may as well elect the guy who wants the job.

Real Conservatism

I read an editorial from the Denver Post which was helpful in understanding what makes up 'conservative ideology' in America.  It's something we keep hearing about, but we never quite get to what it is, really. 

There's a popular meme in the Interwebs:  "conservatism can never fail - it can only be failed/"  This is a version of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.  That is, the definition of a Scotsman or conservative is fluid and changes based on the result it's being compared to.  Thus, W. was a true conservative until he was revealed as a rock-stupid failure who wrecked everything he touched.  Then - no, he wasn't a real conservative. 

Since that definition is constantly in a fruitless pursuit of a policy success to claim, it continues to morph into different shapes to try and appeal to the base of the base who are looking for a label to vote for.  Cruz is not 'true conservative' because he's such an asshole he couldn't buy a friend if he ran an open bar at rehab.  Never mind his beliefs that run in lockstep with the 1850's 'good old days' antebellum crowd. 

And Drumpf (Trump) is no 'true conservative' because he's popular with the low education crowd and knows how to wield the fascio.  He doesn't tow the line on policy, but that hasn't been a problem with other candidates before.  The problem with Drumpf is that he's off the leash.  Essentially, he can't be a 'true conservative' because the true ones follow orders. 

But the Denver Post (shoutout to my Bro for life and Homie Jesse Pearlman in the thin air city) offered an editorial by Krista Kafer which tries to explain the differences between the conservatism which she cherishes and the Drumpfism,which she does not, in "Kafer:  a conservative against Trumpism."

But before getting into the real distinctions, she proves her conservative bona fides and perhaps hints at a certain Drumpf-curiousness with this opening bit of misogyny:

Would she sleep with him for $1 million? "Sure."
How about $50?
"Of course not," she snapped. "What do think I am?"
"We've established that," he said, "Now we're just haggling."
The principle is the same at any price. 

That's how the estimable Ms. Kafer chooses to broach the topic of Drumpf voting.  We get it Krista.  Conservatism is not a girl's club - we'll be sure to include it on your list.

Helpfully, she does include a list of what she considers the conservative beliefs that she supports.  Finally - a checklist to see if someone is really a true believer!  Let's review:

I generally vote a straight Republican ticket because the GOP promotes the principles of limited government, constitutional constraint, rule of law, federalism, personal responsibility, a vibrant civil society, and free enterprise, and it embraces the basic human rights of life, personal property, self-protection, free speech, and conscience.

So, Let's recap so we get this straight.

Principles of limited government.  Great!  Except not.  'Limited government' means limits on some part of government, and no limits on others.  Bombs and weapons - no limit.  In fact, Repubs are known for approving weapons and military stuff that only the manufacturer wants (to sell).  Tax cuts to Wall Street, billionaires, and corporations - no limit.  Let the schmucks pay for government if they want so much of it.  Regulations - no way!  If we can't pollute, frack, and generally despoil the planet, what's it good for?  And why have a bunch of consumer protection laws?  That just raises expectations that you're not going to get ripped off?  Hello!  This is America!  You're gonna get ripped off! 

Constitutional constraint.  Yes, Citizens United and lots of other laws are out there protecting our most important fellow Americans:  corporations.  The Constitution was written by the Adams Corp and T. Jefferson, LLB in order to form a more perfect consumer culture.  But is wasn't put there to enforce any individual liberty.  Don't bring your Gay Agenda (tm) or your abortion rights to the Constitutional Convention, sister.  The Constitution is there to tell you what goes in your personal life, not what laws are enforced on innocent multinationals who are just out there trying to make a buck (or a billion).

Rule of law, which includes laws like 'Wall Street is not responsible for any money shenanigans' and also 'it's not okay to camp out on Wall Street.'  In fact, rule of law is important to understand in the context of the life savings you don't have any more.  That's your fault.  And all that financial reform garbage is just for suckers who aren't on the inside cleaning up - you know, the 350,000,000 or so on the wrong side of the financial industry.  But true conservatives don't want to hear any of this "Black Lives Matter" crap either.  If they did, where are their Congressional lobbyists? 

Federalism as in:  keep your smarty-pants DOJ fascists out of out states.  If god had wanted Alabama to have equal rights, he'd have put the Voting Rights Act in the Bible.  Clearly, each state has the right to limit civic participation to Reliable voters, and exclude the 'others' [wink]  Drumpf isn't a true conservative because he leaves out the [wink] part altogether.  Without the [wink], we'd have to put up with a new bunch of smelly Freedom Riders. 

Personal responsibility meaning if your kid is starving and full of cholera or one of those rickets-measles type things, why aren't you taking personal responsibility over it?  Why does society have to pay because you made the ill-considered decision to reproduce?  And where's that kid's personal responsibility?  Getting sick like that.  He should have bought himself a nice jacket if his parents couldn't afford one, then he wouldn't need government penicillin.  Why look for a hand-out after the factory closes when there's lots of nice tall grass to eat if you only had the gumption to cut it.  We sent that old job of yours to Mumbai because it was wore out and we needed to get someone to do it for a quarter of the cost.  Bootstraps! 

And the rest of it - words like property, conscience, free speech.  All twisted around the concept of a nation by the people, for the over-class.  Conservatives hate the right to privacy, but invent the right to "self-protection."  What the hell is that?  Should we all drive around in Armoured Personnel Carriers for "self-protection?"  That's not a right - it's a delusion. 

The entire façade of conservatism is built on the notion that there is some sort of ideal racially and culturally pure white affluent America.  It never existed and never will exist.  The terms that Krista uses are twisted (federalism as racism, conscience as discrimination, etc.), and can be re-twisted as required.  When you start out with a series of words which mean a whole bunch of things unrelated to that real English word, you are able to re-twist that definition to suit any occasion.  No Real Scotsman would do that.

It reminds me of the Star Trek:  The Next Generation episode "Darmok."  In that episode, the Enterprise encounters an alien ship whose captain and crew speak plain language, but all their statements are references to cultural and historical situations.  Without understanding their (alien) culture and history, you can't understand them.

The same with true conservatives.  They use terms like 'free speech' which pretty much every American supports, but when they say it they mean 'unlimited financial contributions to politicians from corporations.'  How are you supposed to know that unless it's translated for you?  But they also say:  'don't trust the Left or the Media' who are the only sources to tell you what's really intended by the true conservatives.  So their message stays untranslated.  "Private Property?"  Sure I believe in Private Property.  Oh - so you believe that privately owned factories shouldn't be regulated, and that private business should be allowed to discriminate against gays or literates.  What?  No! 

And so, Drumpf has been defined out of the Repub party based on them not wanting to serve people like him on their property.  Of course, once he wins the nomination, they'll be able to redefine their terms to include him at the center, until he inevitably fails.  And then he'll join the club:  no true conservative...

Everything That's Wrong

Fox News (please don't stop reading because those are the first two words) is really a mechanism to provide Freudian psychotherapy to the United States.  With Fox, the most fearful, unloved, meanest, greediest, and least satiable parts of the nation are exposed.  It is the quintessential 'Id' that cries out for a balancing Ego and Superego. 

Unfortunately, the therapist stops short of addressing these sociopathic urges and instead celebrates them.  It's a bit like going to confession with some heavy sins and having the Priest respond:  "Cool!  Then what'd ya do?"

Today's lesson comes from one Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland.  Apparently a veteran of the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations in some unreported capacity (one hopes it was janitorial based on her 'analysis').  KT has done a public service by exposing all of the truly baseless and damaging lies that the Right uses to frighten and control their base viewers (average age - 68 - get off their lawns) and to energize (meaning scare the already very scared) the rightists of the country. 

It's really their playbook in one brief article.  KT is host of her own Fox Show called "DEFCON 3" - DEFCON 3!  Breathe KT!  It's going to BE OKAY!  Bad men aren't going to get you in your sleep OR MAYBE THEY WILL! 

Her missive on this occasion is called:  Yes, America, it's war. Here's how we can stop losing and start winning.  Don't you love how it's framed just like "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus?"  Heartwarming and irritating, in not quite equal measures. 

Obviously, there are militant radicals who have performed terrorist atrocities in many countries.  They have murdered hundreds of innocents, from 17 in California to up to 200 in other attacks, such as Paris, and 34 recently in Brussels.  These are tragic losses, but in order to make policy we must understand scale.  The problem has to be addressed as it is - a small bloodthirsty enemy - not what it is not - a threat to the existence or general welfare of any Western country.

KT tells us:  "According to the head of Europol, 5,000 Europeans have traveled to Syria and Iraq to train and fight with ISIS, and they’ve since returned to Europe. They are sleeper agents setting up sleeper cells.  A guerrilla army has invaded Europe."

Umm.  740 million people live in Europe.  That's one terrorist for every 148,000 Europeans.  Do you think ISIS assigns the 148,000 to each terrorist by name, or do they just block off a territory, like salesmen? 

The proportionality is completely shot.  I wrote the other day that part of the success of the Brussels attack was that they hit an airport and a train station, forcing a nation of 11 million to come to a complete halt.  It's a frightening result - as was their intent - but to what other end?  The loss of 34 people is not a significant wound to a country of 11 million or a region of 740 million - no matter how individually horrific it is for the bereaved families.  The real impact is shutting down Belgium and having every major airport and train station on the planet double their security budget - again.

KT then tries to do the math:  "Not all the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims [as of 2010 - probably lots more in the past 6 years] are extremists or terrorists. Not by a long shot. But even if just 10 percent of 1 percent are radicalized, that’s a staggering 1.6 million people bent on destroying Western civilization and the values we hold dear.

Yes, KT, you are correct.  That "not all" was quite an admission. If Muslims were anywhere near as bad as you're making them out to be, there would be at least 1.6 million of them.  There's be one on every street corner - as you seem to fear.  But there's not, not even close.  Even the core ISIS army only says they have 200,000 fighters - and "intelligence estimates" put them closer to 31,000. 

Add that to the scary 5,000 guerrillas that KT worries about, and you have, well, what?   Less than a tenth of 10% of one percent of Muslims?  This is:  "the most virulent, lethal, apocalyptic death cult in history?"  Really? 

Here's the difference between a very scared little fascist like KT and reality.  KT wants to do away with 'political correctness' (aka civilization) and institute more policies for the police state, surveillance, and launch all kinds of munitions  toward 0,000001% of mostly brown people who share a religion and wish you no harm (I probably left out some 0's there).

The danger to her, aside from the monster under her bed, is trying to beat these guys. "...If we are to defeat radical Islam, it will be only with a multifaceted, comprehensive strategy that calls on all the aspects of the national power of ourselves and our allies – like we summoned to defeat the Nazis in World War II or the Communists in the Cold War." [emphasis added]

And that's where the fear turns up to 11.  The Nazi's?  The Soviets? 

The reality is that the Nazi's had 18 million well-trained troops equipped with some of the most lethal weapons of the day.  They held most of Europe at one point, and were allied with the Imperial Japan - which at one point ruled most of Asia.  The Soviet Red Army boasted 35-50 million soldiers and a nuclear arsenal deliverable by a modern Nuclear Triad (look it up, Donald).  They were allied to or actively oppressing more than half the world at any given moment. 

If all the ISIS forces were to make an overnight surprise invasion of Brooklyn (we'd have to give them a ride), they'd be decimated by the NYPD.  Even if KT's 1.6 million bad Muslims were anything more than a fever dream, the NATO militaries are likely at a peacetime (relative peacetime) 50 million or so, with all the advanced weapon systems that ISIS could never acquire.

Terrorism is real and needs to be fought - but ISIS is not Nazi Germany.  Hell, it's not the Ottoman Empire.  It's not Jordan.  It's a tiny but especially nasty bunch or extremists taking advantage of a failed state in Iraq that we Americans caused to fail. 

If we follow KT's prescribed steps, the US will be at a full war footing - except the "thousands of American ground forces" who will not be asked to participate.  Which is for political reasons, obviously, because if ISIS was 1% as bad as KT says it is, we'd be forced to commit troops.

She says we should use our communications capabilities to yell FREEDOM at a bunch of people hiding from our advanced explosives.  We'll shut down their banking and commerce because we can do that even though we've been trying to do that and can't do that. 

Hilariously, we "...may have to hold our noses and partner with countries we do not always approve of."  Oh we may have to do that, huh?  We've been in bed with so many despots and scumbags for so many decades, I think any new 'partners' would have to hold their noses.  This woman worked in the Nixon administration?

The more we ratchet up the fear to DEFCON 3!  the more we become the clowns and cowards that KT wants us to be.  And she seems like one of the true believers who can't see past the Fox curtain to where the snake oil is being brewed.  She seems to really think that this is an existential threat.

Are we 'losing?'  What does losing look like?  We're fighting an enemy who has literally no chance of destroying our country or - at a macro level - even harming us.  What, exactly, are we losing? 

But there is one, and only one way to lose.  If we go full "Bush 9/11" and do it to ourselves.  If we allow ourselves to join KT and the huddled, fear-shocked Foxers under their desks and beg big strong Donald (or ugly little Ted) to take care of the bad people for us.  Take our civil right and our privacy, bomb and murder people, in our name, who are kind of near somebody who looks sort of mean and lives in Somalia or Yemen or something - doesn't matter.  We lose if we expend the real freedoms we have left quivering in front of the Mouse that Roared. 

But an America like that would not be an America worth defending.  But don't worry - that's just the 'Id' talking.  We don't have to listen.

Tragedy in Brussels - and the US

Multiple terrorists struck Brussels today, killing at least 30 people.  It was a particularly chilling event, because the few details we have at this point show a very well organized attack with outstanding tradecraft. 

What does that mean?  First, they were able to secure effective bombs and weapons in the heart of Europe - not easy to do.  Second, they were able to get to where they wanted to be within the train station and airport to create the maximum fear.  That's not the same as maximum damage - there are other ways they could have caused more outright harm. 

But what they did was excessively public, leaving scores of wounded and hundreds of witnesses.  That's key - their goal is to create fear.  Murder is just a tool to induce mass fear.  So enough  people shot enough phone video to get their message out instantly on social media.  The social media response gains them immediate public terror.  It's also a recruiting tool for them. 

Third, their targets were perfect.  Even for the 'cooler heads' among response leaders, if an airport and a train  station are hit, you don't have a choice - you must shut down all transportation.  What a coup for them to shut the place down. 

And in the same day, they're getting their biggest win of all:  Western overreaction.  While President Obama's response (from Havana!) has been measured, as has Hillary's and Bernie's, the Republican Ship of Fools has seen the rocky shoals and gone 'full speed ahead' into them.

Trump started with assurances that he would break every rule of decency and civilization and institute a full-on, no-holds-barred program of outright torture.  This wold be in order to stop, well.  I guess once you do that, you really become the problem.  A USA that bars people on purely religious grounds, tracks and surveils its own citizens on the same grounds, mercilessly and routinely tortures and kills terror suspects and runs American concentration camps - well, that's not much of a country to root for.  I guess Cape Breton really will fill up fast. 

Concentration camps?  Nobody's talking about that, are they?  Well - how do you think 11 million Hispanics get 'rounded up?'  They're not going to put them in individual taxi's and drive them out.  They'll have to group them together before sending them off.  That's the "concentration." part.  And where do you think all the Muslim refugees, immigrants, and even visitors will be held?  They'll be 'concentrated' as well.  I can't wait to see who gets concentrated after that.  Gays?  Jews?

So the Trump dystopia is looking particularly bleak today.  The success of the terror attack will get the right-wing coward vote out in droves. 

Cruz has what is possibly a worse response.  I know.  Hard to imagine. 

Here's Ted:  "We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized."  But how do they get "radicalized?"  Maybe by having their neighborhoods patrolled by heavily armed police who treat them like terrorists? 

People - particularly young men who suffer higher unemployment and are less engaged with communities - are recruited to become extremists because the extremists are the only ones who seem to care about them.  They are fed a cause and are made part of a group.  They are made to feel important, maybe for the first time in their lives. 

The real answer is the we have to engage with Muslim communities to bring them closer to us, not to isolate them like lepers.  The more we send armed paramilitary police to walk around with AR-15's giving every brown kid the stink-eye, the more we help ISIS. 

The terrorists pulled off what seems to be a significant win for their odious cause today.  But their real gains will come with every Trump/Cruz idiocy, every racist Archie Bunker tirade they indulge in. 

We need to learn how to do security and vigilance right, without stomping civil liberties and making 50 hour of recruitment video for ISIS every time they pull off a mass murder.  If we can ever figure that out, they will no longer have an incentive to commit atrocities in the first place.

Insanity

Insanity, in Einstein's famous equation, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  By that measure, the 2016 Republican field is the most insane in history.  Today's case:  Ted Cruz.

Immigrant-hating son of a Cuban immigrant, Cruz is a walking, hateful, noise-making contradiction.  Rather than embody that Christian 'love-thy-neighbor' and 'treat the poor good' nonsense that's in the, you know, Bible, Cruz prefers his own brand of tough love:  all tough, no love.

As President Obama begins his historic visit to Cuba, Cruz is working himself up to a Gollum-like fit.  According to the Chicago Tribune:  "Ted Cruz, the son of a Cuban refugee, claims that “Obama has chosen to legitimize the corrupt and oppressive Castro regime with his presence on the island,” sending political prisoners the cruel message that “you’re alone with your tormentors.” Writing in Politico, he insists that freedom “cannot happen by enriching and empowering the dictatorship.”

I love how talking to people you don't agree with always "empowers" them to the Rightistas.  Any negotiation is a sign of weakness, but 'carpet-bombing' a bunch of people you don't know is somehow strong.  Umm, no.  If someone kicks you in the shin, the strong person talks to them.  The weak, fearful one gets a baseball bat.  Ted Cruz gets the Air Force. 

And if you're a political prisoner in Cuba, what could your response to the Obama visit be other than "thank goodness something is going to change."  Because for all the blustering and five Republican presidential terms since Reagan, nothing has changed.  The embargo does nothing but impoverish both Cubans and Americans - economically and politically.  Not to mention the families divided for decades. 

Look:  after the fall of Saigon, it took 30 years before Bill Clinton lifted the embargo on Vietnam.  The result has been steady social and economic progress in a country the US bombed nearly flat for 10 years.  The embargo wasn't helping the US, it's allies, or the people of Vietnam.  So good. 

The point is, when you've been trying something for decades (50+ years) without any success (or prospect of success) you try something different.  Cuba was a Cold War pawn for many years, and nearly midwifed the end of the world in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.  Since the fall of the USSR, Cuba has lost it's communist sponsor.  It's not part of any ideological conflict - the capitalists won (G-d help us). 

But Cruz and his ilk want to keep us frozen in that moment for all of eternity.  Why?  Ignorance.  Fear.  Plus, the same reason the US Rightists do anything - raw political power. 

Rather than honor his father's intrepid foray into the US, Cruz sees all the delightfully right-wing Cubans in Florida.  The Cuban population there is large and it actively votes.  And it hates the Castro regime that they fled from in 1959.  Or that their parents or grandparents or great-grands or great-great... fled from.  You get the idea.  No politician for any office will get their votes without showing proper hate for Castro's Cuba. 

Fortunately, Obama doesn't need any more votes. 

The other sticking point that will have to be faced at some point is the Cuban land claims.  But there has to be a normalization process in effect before that bridge can ever be crossed. 

No matter what their lived experience has been, Rightists never learn.  They never change.  We spent eight years of top 1% tax cuts, and the economy blew up.  The solution?  More tax cuts for the wealthy.  We invaded and bombed most of the Middle East for a decade.  The solution?  More war in the Middle East.  There is no failure that the American Right will not perpetuate.  They believe that the things that help the wealthy and impress the rabble (like big explosions and promises to take rights away from, well, everybody but white men) will continue to get their bagmen elected. 

Well, Mr. Trump begs to differ (in the most obnoxious, racist, mean, narrow, dumb, short-fingered, and thuggish way possible).

Genocode, Finally

At last, the Obama administration is using the G-word to describe ISIS:  genocide.  secretary of State John Kerry announced:  “My purpose here today is to assert in my judgment, Daesh [ISIS] is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control including Yazidis, Christians and Shiite Muslims.”  That's a start.  But what does it mean? 

Not much, unfortunately.  The official US government declaration does not mean they have to do anything.  Which seems strange.  Genocide, no matter how you define it, is a pretty serious charge.  It's more than 'mass murder' (like killing 150 dudes you can't name).  It's a systematic ongoing organized effort by a government to kill a distinct group of human beings. 

So, okay, they're doing that.  And we don't have to do anything about it.  Huh. 

One would think that the country with the most powerful military on the planet, the US would be in a position to stop it.  Yes, the US is not the world's police, but if you saw a guy walk into a day-care with a chainsaw, you'd like to think you'd do something about it.  Especially if you'd been the one to start the chainsaw.

Which is where we get back to reason # 103,568,159 why you don't just invade other countries because daddy loved Jeb better.  When the criminal conspiracy known as the "Bush administration" lied to the American people (among many others) to get a war going in Iraq, they not only wound up killing hundreds of thousands of people and burning trillions of dollars from the US Treasury.  They also broke America's ability to have a fighting spirit.

Which is not a bad thing - the US has been perpetually at war with someone for pretty much the entire existence of the nation.  From the Pirates of the Barbary Coast (remember them?  The Marines sure do) to the various Mexican and Caribbean incursions to the Philippines to, well, pretty much everywhere today.  The US is likely the most aggressive and warlike nation in history, regardless of how much Americans see themselves as peaceful democrats. 

Wars blow hot and cold.  Right now, we're in a warmer period because there is no appetite for a hot war.  So we're just sending a historic number of special forces troops on a historic number of commando missions in a historically large number of places.  We're actively bombing several countries. But we're not sending a large number of ground troops to occupy foreign ground. 

Because when we do that, we reach into American's homes and take their kids out to kill and die.  Not that special forces are not somebody's kids, but there are far fewer of them (because they're elite) and they are usually highly motivated and career-oriented.  They signed up for that stuff on purpose. 

So here we are in 2016.  Our Iraq moment led to our ISIS moment (a lot like the mom who taught her 4-yeatr-old to use and gun and then got shot by him).  By creating a failed Iraqi state, we created ISIS, which is now committing genocide according to us. 

I'm not saying the answer is to invade Syria and Iraq (again) to stop ISIS.  What I'm saying is that because we fought a needless war we are unable to fight the war we may need to fight.  Other than the bloodthirsty Republican presidential candidates (in and out of the race), no body wants to send 100,000 American (or Canadian) kids to take Middle Eastern ground.  Nobody. 

But what if ISIS is killing by the thousands?  I haven't seen any reports of mass killings - as in, in the thousands, not the dozens.  Which makes you wonder about the 'genocide' label.  Still, the public atrocities really do speak for themselves. 

But what if they are ?  Like the US in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam war, we are weary of a 'bad' war and unable to fight a good one.  So when the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia moved it's urban population to the rice fields and started murdering thousands (eventually millions), were we going to send 500,000 soldiers back to Southeast Asia?  Like hell we were. 

But Cambodia would not have been a failed state if not for the Vietnam war.  In that case, there was China to consider (who would not have been fond of US troops on their border).  In the case of ISIS, there is the failed Syrian state with a Russian sponsor.  And too many factions to count. 

Nothing about the crisis is simple, except one thing:  genocide.  If it's really happening, that's a pretty basic thing to understand.  Can the world do more than bomb?  Certainly.  But after the 13 years of war since the "coalition" invaded Iraq, there is not way we are sending ground troops there. 

One would think that since the Rwandan genocide - where the world stood by idly - we may have learned a thing or two.  Don't we have a United Nations?  Can't we get together as a species and decide that when genocide starts, the rest of us get together to stop it?  Do we have to be Yazdi to care that they're murdering Yazdi's? 

But now it's out of the question.  Nobody's putting together a 'coalition of the willing' to stop a war.  I guess we only do that to start one.  Shame on us. 

Candidates By the Numbers

By many often hilarious (and many more frightening ones), the Republican presidential field is the weakest, worst informed, most venal, least likeable, and most delusional group of candidates since the UK's Looney Party of 1968.  Even after having shaken off the Huckabee-Fiorina-Santorum-Gilmore (YES Jim Gilmore was there!  So say 2,000 primary voters somewhere) no-hope glad-to-be-on-stage brigade, they still sported a pretty sad lot.  The "Christ am I still in this thing?" candidacy of Jeb! was euthanized solemnly by family members.  Ben "Sleepy" Carson quit the race at some point but nobody noticed until much later. 

For the remaining acts - I'm not going to add to the circus surrounding the Drumpf candidacy.  Yet. 

The Ted Cruz experience seems to be hitting it off with the least informed and most judgemental - you know, the "Republican Base."  Not so the Marco Rubio show (a sentence which all rhymes, making this blog post actual art).  Marco's "nice guy who will steal your money, give it to Wall Street, oppress the oppressed, and bomb brown people indiscriminately" seems to be a bad sale next to the "nasty and obnoxious guy who will steal your money, give it to Wall Street, oppress the oppressed, and bomb brown people indiscriminately" approach taken by Cruz and Drumpf (please watch the video linked above if you haven't already).

Oh, yes - and Kasich.  The 'moderate.'  Who is for the Gold Standard.  And against Unions.  and all abortions in all circumstances.  And wants to cut taxes on the rich.  Ignore global warming.  And revoke Obamacare.  You know, the 'moderate' who will take a Bush-like chainsaw to any evidence of social progress.

So, now that that's covered, here's my question:  how many Americans are better qualified to be President of the United States than any of those Bozos?

Three are about 240,000,000 adult Americans.  Let's say 150,000,000 are over age 35 (required to be president).  Out of those, roughly half live in states where the teach the crazy (Texas, Alabama, Alaska, etc.).  So that's 75 million in low tooth count states, and the rest on the coasts (including Great Lake coasts). 

What does it take to be better presidential material than this cohort?  I think a few points should cover it:

Reality-Based:  I think first a president must accept that facts exist.  Science exists.  As grown-ups, we all have things we'd like to believe but just ain't so.  It would be nice to be able to convince myself that climate change was a hoax and the human race wasn't committing suicide for the enrichment of less than 0.001 of the world population.  But he science is there.  Bummer.  And when your country is attacked and harmed by a tiny coalition of murderous zealots (Al Qaeda - at about 1,000 members at the time of 9/11) you don't declare open bloody warfare on a billion of their co-religionists. 

Also, the snake-oil of 'Supply Side" economics that call for deep tax cuts on the rich has been disproven conclusively the best way it could be:  we tried it.  Eight years of Reagan and four of H.W. Bush - historic deficits.  Eight years of Clinton taxation - budget  surplus.  Eight years of W. Bush - crushing near-depression.  Eight years of Obama - record economic recovery. 

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.  The president has to get experts and listen to them.  Not get "experts" and get them to agree to crazy shit. 

Leadership:  which is not whooping up your zombie crowd.  It's leading the people in a positive, inclusive direction.  The two major parties have been able to cooperate to some degree until the W. Bush disaster.  He ruled from one side, waving the bloody shirt at every opportunity.  And weak Democrats couldn't slow him down.  Enter Obama - where weak Democrats could muster the gumption to support him. 

The new Bush Republicans of the last 16 years stand for themselves alone.  Bush crushed all dissent.  The anti-Obama Congress dissented to their fullest power.  16 years of one party absolutism.  It's not Leadership, it's the opposite.  It's the exercise of raw power over reason.  It's favouring your wealthy donors at the expense of all others.  It's how you get into a debacle like Iraq. 

Horsepower:  Does the candidate have the basic IQ, personality, knowledge, life experiences, and behavioral capabilities to do the job?  I don't think any of the Republican candidates have this.  They are uniformly dumb, selfish, and unlikable.  When Drumpf talk about a 'deal,' what he's really saying is 'how to screw the other guy.'  That's not statesmanship, that's used car dealership. 

Isn't there a Republican who can meet these requirements? I doubt it - if there were, that person wouldn't be welcome in the party. 

So by my own arbitrary math, 20 million adults in the backward-belt are likely to be better candidates, and 50 million in the grownup parts of the US.  So - and I really believe this - I think there are at least 70 million Americans who would be better presidential candidates, and if elected would be better presidents, than any Republican currently running. 

How did we get here?  Democracy isn't supposed to work like this.