August 6, 2017

My Choice

Being a male may prevent me from being an expert on “women's issues.” However, I have learned a few things from teachers, especially those who are patient. Two that I have in mind are my daughters. They are both in their twenties now, and are both social-political activists, with a particular interest in women's issues. Both are university-educated, and share information with me.

Now, when well done, parenting is a unique educational experience, with both boys and girls. I learned a lot from all four of my children, since they were itty-bitty. And I did my best to encourage their being curious, self-confident, and happy. Of course, I was not perfect, no one ever is. But we made their childhoods an adventure. Those are times I can look back on with real happiness.

Raising teenagers is – at least in my opinion, though others likely agree – distinct from raising pre-teens. There comes at time, somewhere around 16, when boys experience with identity formation resulted in my sons concluding that I was not the smartest, strongest, absolute coolest man who ever walked the earth. On one hand, I missed the earlier times; on the other, I encouraged them (except when they challenged me to box).

My daughters' mother had more difficulty with them as teens, and abandoned them. That was tough, because no matter how good I might be as a parent, teenage girls tend to do better with a stable mother figure. But I did my best, and am pleased that both continued to think of me as both human and someone who has added to society. At her university, the youngest even published an essay that referred to me as her hero. That surely made me happy.

I so wish that my father knew my daughters. But he died, and their other three grandparents have never been part of their lives. Thus, I've been lucky to have extended family that has filled various roles. My aunt and uncle served as “grandparents” to two little girls without grandparents. Another aunt, 88, and uncle, 89, are also wonderful with all my kids. Plus my siblings, my nieces and nephews, and my cousins, etc.

Not a single female relative they know accepted being treated as unequal to males – either in family life, or the larger society. That doesn't mean they didn't face discrimination. So few things have pleased me more than to sit back and listen to my 88 year old aunt tell the family history of strong women. In a book I published years ago, about the Irish immigrant experience in the northeast, I documented how much of the anti-Irish dynamics were due to the equal role of women in traditional Irish society.

My children all share my passion for the environment. In my opinion, it is impossible to fully appreciate nature, if you don't appreciate that male and female are absolutely equal, though not exact. This is part of understanding human nature. It allows us to appreciate the potential benefits and problems of both patriarchal and matriarchal societies. It prevents the perverse attitudes that sex is dirty, and that we should be restrictive in assigning gender roles. It provides opportunity to understand the history of human migration patterns, including environmental and human factors.

All of my kids got to know my mentors, Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman and Rubin “Hurricane” Carter. The boys grew up thinking Paul was their grandfather. All of them knew Rubin as a wise uncle. I say this, because our current society encourages the breakdown of family systems – despite the pious crap about “family values” – and there is a much-needed option of redefining what family means.

As the saying goes, human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights. That shouldn't be debated any more than Black Lives Matter. Or that the Standing Rock Sioux have the right to say no to a pipeline. Or that human beings are not, by definition, “illegal.” We need to translate these truths into our social and political reality.

This is why I have stated on several DU:GD threads that I'm opposed to trying to expand the party by way of welcoming anti-choice politicians.

H2O Man

August 6, 2017

Purity

“He has no idea what he's up against.”
Malcolm Nance on Trump


I really like Malcolm Nance. I've respected him since the first time I heard him speak. But the more I listen to him, the more I like him, which is different – though often overlapping – than respecting someone.

It's interesting: there have been a few discussions about “purity” on DU:GD in recent days. Hopefully, you haven't seen them, and I don't think they are worth looking for if you haven't. But, for those of you who have unfortunately suffered through them, let me make clear I'm not a purist. I certainly haven't lived the purest life …..committed many impure acts, have impure thoughts, and generally have enjoyed them all.

In no sense do I agree with Mr. Nance on every issue. In fact, I disagree with him on some very important ones, primarily related to the environment and environmentalists. I have no idea how pure he has been in his adult life, though I speculate his career has included experiences few of us can imagine. Yet he is a purist, in the sense of his understanding of intelligence. This in no way keeps me from both liking and respecting him. And really, really appreciating the role he is playing in our society today.

This evening, I was watching some films of his recent interviews with non-mainstream media. Unlike Mark Felt, who inhabited the shadows, Mr. Nance is very open to the public. I've been thinking about interviewing him for DU.

Tonight, among other things, after noting that Trump hasn't got a clue about what he's facing, Mr. Nance noted that Trump is exactly the type of would-be “king” the Founding Fathers worked to prevent from accessing power. Thus, he said, Trump is up against the democratic traditions that have been in place since 1783.

He noted that up until now, the public has only heard intelligence, and not evidence. But Mr. Mueller is now working with a talented team, to transform intelligence into evidence for criminal trials. He said that evidence will result in criminal convictions for espionage and RICO violations for a number of people in the White House.

Asked how much longer Trump will be president, he said, “Ten to twelve months ….unless he tries to fire Mueller. If he tries that, six months.”

Peace,
H2O Man

August 4, 2017

Leaks!

Today's press conference by Attorney Genital Elfin Sessions brings the nation's focus to the issue of “leaks.” By attempting to publicly kiss Trump's ass publicly, Sessions has raised the question of if he will now replace Sean Spicer as a soft target on Saturday Night Live. We'll have to wait, of course, because of Sessions's stern lecture on dangerous media leaks.

In the mean time, let's take a brief look at “leaks,” before the weekend reports on Trump's tantrums. There are, of course, several types of leaks: those that endanger individuals, those that endanger national security, and those that are associated with whistle-blowers. Sessions seeks to roll them all into one type, which translates into what is known as an “outright lie.” Clearly, he knows that his boss has a deep affection for purposeful lying.

The vast majority of the leaks pertaining to the Trump-Russian scandal are coming directly from the White House now. From late January until mid-May, the majority came from individual whistle-blowers inside the intelligence community. Why the shift? Let's use one example to illustrate, shall we?

The information that journalists received regarding Donald, Jr.'s meeting with the Russian attorney came from Jared Kushner's legal team. They were aware it would come out anyhow, and so they attempted to deflect responsibility from Jared to Junior. When Junior released a pathetic statement that claimed the meeting was about adoption, it did not hold up any longer than Trump's initial claim as to why he fired James Comey.

Almost immediately, it was leaked that Trump had assisted in creating Junior's lie. The White House denied this with wild abdomen, which indicated that Trump played an even larger role. Leaks from within Trump's team documented that the president actually dictated most of Junior's initial lie. For Trump is, if nothing else, consistent in his pathological lying.

All of this clearly caught the attention of Mr. Mueller's team of investigators. It not only provided definite proof that three of candidate Trump's top people were eager to obtain dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government, but the story fit into Trump's pattern of attempting to obstruct justice. Hence, Mr. Mueller sought a federal grand jury, which has almost unlimited power to obtain documents, as well as to compel testimony, relating to the meeting.

No one from Mr. Mueller's team, or from the grand jury, leaked the news that was reported upon yesterday. That didn't happen. Instead, we can look to Jared's legal team – they who have been contacted by the grand jury – for the identity of the leakers.

This is not to suggest that Mr. Mueller was surprised or upset by the leak. He anticipated it, and knew who would be most likely to leak. This is the tension phase of the investigation, when prosecutors seek to turn up the heat. This White House is notorious for having little groups of little people fighting over turf ….and now they are increasingly prone to turning on one another. Jared, for example, has no qualms about turning on Junior and Manafort – because he believes Trump will surely pardon his reproductive error. And Jared never wants his hands to get dirty.

Now, let's consider the topic of “leaks” within the context of an OP I posted here yesterday evening, titled “A Secret Team.” Historically, the art of leaking was mastered by the intelligence community during WW2. But let's look at two more recent examples – though both date back to before WW2. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was a champion at leaking. His unhealthy obsession with other people's sex lives comes to mind. He used information on politicians, including President Kennedy, to try to maintain his unholy power in Washington.

Hoover was deeply offended by Martin Luther King, Jr.'s love of sex, and often attempted to peddle his smut to journalists and others. When he failed in these attempts to discredit King, he ordered a tape and letter to be sent to King's home, that literally told Martin to kill himself. Hoover himself authored the incoherent letter.

The other example is Richard Helms. He learned the craft of strategic leaking from Allen Dulles. However, during Helms's career, he far surpassed his former supervisor. He learned that leaking was the single most powerful tool he had for “perception management” in both domestic and foreign adventures. Again, Col. Prouty details this in his book, “The Secret Team.”

President Trump is, by far, the most ignorant person ever to serve in the Oval Office. He does not have even a seventh-grader's grasp of American history. (Sad.) But several of the people he has surrounded himself do. These people fit into two groups: the first are the paranoid Bannon-types, who are dimly aware of what is taking place, and who support Trump, and second, those who support the United States ….and who leak.

Prepare for an entertaining weekend.

August 4, 2017

A Secret Team

I thought it might be interesting to say a few words about the news that Mr. Mueller is running a federal grand jury that is looking into the Trump-Russian scandal, including a focus on administration attempts to obstruct justice. Although I am bone-tired, as well as sore from falling backwards onto a downed tree on my lawn last night, I am hoping this attempt is coherent. Or semi-coherent, as the case may be. Please excuse any confusing statements or errors in thinking, for I am old and feeble.

Before addressing the federal grand jury directly, I'd like to suggest forum members read a 1973 book, titled “The Secret Team,” by Fletcher Prouty. At the time, Col. Prouty's book detailed some of the history of the intelligence community's destabilizing and overthrowing foreign governments. At the time, of course, it was of special interest to those who were following the series of crimes known collectively as the Watergate scandal.

However, before the 1974 events that “resolved” Watergate, the book literally disappeared. Copies were even removed from the shelves of public libraries across the country. Luckily, it was re-published in 2011. It is definitely worth reading today.

The “secret team” is those who carry out specific operations for what some call the “shadow government,” or the “machine.” And that's made up of a variety of individuals who are connected to large corporations (including, of course, the military-industrial complex), intelligence agencies, and also found within major universities and the news media.

While the tactics the secret team used in under-developed countries in the 1950s and '60s are somewhat different in appearance to those used in more modern times, they share many common threads. Obviously, advances in technology have also created new opportunities to destabilize a country. Indeed, one of the two primary goals of the Russians who aided the Trump campaign was to stir the pot in the US, to destabilize our constitutional democracy.

Note: I do have some friends and associates who ask me if it is not hypocritical to be outraged by Russia doing to the US what the US has done in other countries? Or who ask if the DNC and campaign documents hacked and released were not true? My answer is simply that I believe in the concepts defined by The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – especially the Bill of Right – and believe they are worth protecting. The Founding Fathers, imperfect as they were, expressed valid concerns about the potential for foreign influence in our system of government.

I'm also pretty keen on that Statue of Liberty that has been discussed in the past 36 hours. My matertnal grandfather helped quarry the stone it sits upon. I love that wonderful poem – which Jesse Jackson quoted at a Democratic National Convention years ago. These things have meaning to me. They illustrate the Power of Ideas.

Now, before addressing the history of the Magna Carta – an associate employed in an east coast law office that is currently opposing the Trump administration recommended a good book on it yesterday, while we were discussing “current events” – let's consider one more tactic of destabilization of “civilized” nations. The idea is to place one or more reliable people in an office that will try to facilitate a bloodless transfer of power shortly before a crisis reaches its climax stage. That person (or persons) are someone the targeted leader tends to trust, at least initially.

If, for example, we were looking at a new chief of staff for a leader, we might expect him to assure someone at risk – say, an attorney general – that he is not going to be fired, and should not resign. This would not be because of any respect for that person, who we might refer to as “Sessions” for this discussion. It's because that chief of staff – let's call him “John Kelly” – is insuring the on-going operation is not derailed by a paranoid president.

A federal investigator-prosecutor might also take steps to make such attempts to derail her/his on-going investigation, by impaneling a federal grand jury. To add a little context, a number of elected representatives in both houses of Congress have discussed creating a legal challenge if Trump attempts to have Mr. Mueller fired. Such an attempt is certainly not beyond Trump. It could create a constitutional crisis that might well need to be settled in the courts.

One of the institutions most respected within the federal legal community is that of the federal grand jury. This is one of the stones that serves as a foundation for our legal system. It is described in Amendment 5. And, of course, it is a concept that dates back to the Magna Carta.

Grand juries consider evidence in serious crimes. They do not look into misdemeanors or violations. Federal grand juries, for example, tend to investigate matters involving organized crime – including those involving government corruption.

One of the easier charges to consider in the Trump-Russian scandal would be any administration attempt to obstruct justice. A federal judge picks the jury (no one “applies” for a seat on the jury). The prosecutor explains the particulars of what is being looked into to the jurors, then calls witnesses. First, she/he will question a witness, then the head juror has the option, then the rest of the jury can. A witness can refuse to answer, based upon the Fifth, but a grand jury can also compel testimony by granting immunity to prosecution. However, a person representing a group (say, a bank) can not refuse to testify or produce documents requested by the grand jury.

A number of legal experts are correctly reporting on television this evening that a federal grand jury does not always return an indictment. While true, this is extremely rare. And it definitely is not going to be the case here.

On the issue of the Trump associates coordinating with the Russians, it seems likely that Mr. Mueller has more than enough to present on both Manafort and Flynn already. The only issue there is which one has enough information of value to be granted a deal to implicate someone higher up. Keep in mind that both are notorious liars, and might not be a compelling witness without other sources (individuals or documents).

Perhaps most encouraging is that the grand jury is investigating the June, 2016 meeting with Russians that involved Don, Jr., Kushner, and Manafort. I can say that the grand jury is not interested in adopting the administration's cover story. However, I can say with confidence that they are mighty interested in the documents that the Russian attorney brought to the meeting. And to document the other communications and meetings that took place after that initial get-together.

We are living in historic times.

August 3, 2017

Now

It appears that Trump's plan to appoint Anthony Scaramucci as his administration's next ambassador to the United States was dropped today, when the president was advised against this by Vladimir Putin. It remains unclear if Trump still plans to name Stephen Miller as the new Statue of Liberty. But it has been confirmed that the president is preparing to tell the World Court to rule that he won the popular vote in 2016 by the largest landslide in human history.

Sad.

What's even sadder is that these three foolish statements are made of the same fabric as almost everything coming out of the White House. What is becoming increasingly more hopeful, however, is that the Democratic Party will have a unique opportunity in 2018 and 2020 to change the essence of Washington, DC, in a significant way …..and that Mr. Mueller's investigation will bear fruit in 2018, as the absolute corruption of the Trump machine is, to quote Richard Nixon, now “crystal clear.”

In part, our party's opportunity is looking better and better as the republican party is splitting at its seams. The “regular” republicans and the rabid republicans seem ready to separate, perhaps even to file for a divorce. The rabid branch will be awarded custody of Donald, while the regular republicans will definitely pay for their previous support of him.

This brings us to the topic of some divides that harmed the Democratic Party in recent years. We have a much wider variety of members than the republicans. For sake of discussion, we can apply the labels, from left to right, of progressives, liberals, moderates, and conservatives. There is, of course, a lot of overlap within these groups – for unlike plastic people and KKK members, Democrats are real people, with a wide range of personal experiences and beliefs.

Add to that the fact that in the 1980s with Jesse Jackson, in 2008 and 2012 with President Obama, and in 2016 with Bernie Sander's campaign, the Democratic Party showed that it can generate the excitement necessary to attract independent voters from the Democratic Left. More, in many other regions of the country, 2018 will show that moderate Democrats will get the votes of moderate (regular) republicans, who are repulsed by Trump et al.

That doesn't mean we can take victory for granted. We are in a hard struggle here. But nothing worthwhile – especially meaningful change – ever comes easily. We've lost far too many elections in Congress, and at that state level, to don rose-colored glasses as we approach 2018. We need a comprehensive fifty state strategy.

Martin Luther King said that we had to change to master change. And in order to change behaviors, as Malcolm X taught, people must change the way that they think. Both of these truths apply – in general – to the sub-groups within the Democratic Party, in the context of how they relate to each other. And that simply requires having an open mind, and recognizing that no one sub-group of Democrats holds “the” correct answer to all issues, or holds the reins of power.

There are sections of the country where progressives candidates can run and win elections. There are sections where liberal candidates can run and win, where moderate candidates are the best bet, and where conservative candidates have the best chance for victory. That is not a great mystery.

More, to obtain a well-functioning Congress, the goal should be to get that type of mixture. For unlike the republican machine, which can only produce two types of candidates – plastic Mr. Stepfords and rabid ankle-bitters – our party can find high-quality candidates capable of representing a wide variety of interests as part of a coordinated team. And that is how representative democracy is supposed to work.

We cannot afford the divisions that allowed Trump to “win” the electoral vote. His brand of nazi populism has the potential to utterly destroy this nation, in large part by fermenting hostile divisions on both the large and small scales. We witness it on the small scale each time we hear or read someone saying that they “refuse to work with so-n-so,” or that someone “isn't a real Democrat” – as if they have both the authority and intellectual capacity to determine such things. No, as Rubin often told me, a closed mind is like a closed room: both tend to be stuffy.

It's too late to prevent Trump's 2016 “victory.” For no dam ever built can hold back waters that have already passed by. But it is high time for people to prepare for the rest of 2017 and 2018. There are numerous options: help get people registered to vote, volunteer at the local party headquarters. Invest time or money in support of a candidate that represents your beliefs and values, even if she/he is not in your district. Write a letter-to-the-editor. Lobby your elected representatives. There's plenty to do, and no one else is going to do it for us. It's entirely up to people like you and me.

Fight the Good Fight!
H2O Man