Tag: news

How About A Winnable Nuclear Exchange, America?

W.J. Astore

Sure, we might get our hair mussed …

Like too many people, I sometimes make the mistake of talking about nuclear war, when it’s really annihilation and genocide we’re talking about.

Wars have winners and losers. In nuclear “war,” everyone loses. The planet loses. Life loses and death triumphs on a scale we simply can’t imagine.

Language is so important here. I grew up learning about nuclear exchanges. EXCHANGES! The U.S. military talks of nuclear modernization and “investing” in nukes when the only dividend of this “investment” is mass death.

One of the few honest acronyms is MAD, or mutually assured destruction. Lately, it’s an acronym that’s largely disappeared from American discourse.

More than anything, though, realistic images of a nuclear attack are perhaps the most compelling evidence against building more nukes, as in this powerful and unforgettable scene from Terminator 2:

To me, nothing beats that scene.  That is nuclear “war.”

The U.S. has over 5000 nuclear weapons; the Russians close to 6000. That’s more than enough to destroy the earth and a few other earth-sized planets. Imagine the scene above repeated eleven thousand times on our planet.

The insanity, the immorality of spending another $2 trillion on new nukes … well, it boggles my mind. We’ve become like the mutants in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, worshipping the bomb, acolytes of death and destruction.

If we all don’t end up killing ourselves and the planet in “an exchange,” we’ll likely degenerate into utter barbarism, as depicted in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. And even that grim novel has a life-affirming ending that is most unlikely.

Amazingly, after I wrote the above passages about nuclear “war” and “exchanges,” I came across Admiral TR Buchanan’s recent keynote address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), where he uses the word “exchange” in a remarkably banal (and frightening!) way.

Here’s an excerpt from the transcript (available at https://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Speeches/Article/3976019/project-atom-2024-csis-poni-keynote/) with emphasis added.

BUCHANAN: Yeah, so it’s certainly complex because we go down a lot of different avenues to talk about what is the condition of the United States in a post-nuclear exchange environment. And that is a place that’s a place we’d like to avoid, right? And so when we talk about non-nuclear and nuclear capabilities, we certainly don’t want to have an exchange, right?

I think everybody would agree if we have to have an exchange, then we want to do it in terms that are most acceptable to the United States. So it’s terms that are most acceptable to the United States that puts us in a position to continue to lead the world, right? So we’re largely viewed as the world leader.

And do we lead the world in an area where we’ve considered loss? The answer is no, right? And so it would be to a point where we would maintain sufficient – we’d have to have sufficient capability.

We’d have to have reserve capacity. You wouldn’t expend all of your resources to gain winning, right? Because then you have nothing to deter from at that point.

So very complex problem, of course. And as I think many people understand, nuclear weapons are political weapons. I think Susan Rice said that at one point.

The motto of Admiral Buchanan might be: We had to destroy the world in order to lead it. Buchanan here is less sane than General Buck Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove.

This admiral thinks we might have to have “an exchange” with Russia, and that, if we do, we could do so “in terms that are most acceptable to the United States,” and that even after “an exchange,” the U.S. can still “continue to lead the world.”

Truly this is the banality of evil. I like how even after “the exchange,” we need to have a “reserve capacity” so that we can nuke the world again.

This is madness–sheer madness–but it’s received as probity and sane “strategic” thinking by the national security blob.

This guy was promoted to admiral precisely because he thinks this way. He thinks without thinking. With no humanity.

Well, as General Turgidson says in Dr. Strangelove, we might just get our hair mussed during a nuclear “exchange,” but does it really matter as long as we can kill more of them than us?

Tulsi Gabbard, A Smart Choice as Director of National Intelligence

W.J. Astore

And she surfs too

Former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has been nominated as Director of National Intelligence by President-elect Donald Trump. The so-called intelligence community is up in arms about this. That is a very good thing.

Tulsi Gabbard (Reuters, Jeenah Moon photo)

Here’s what Reuters has to say:

WASHINGTON, Nov 14 (Reuters) – President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Tulsi Gabbard as U.S. intelligence chief has sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, adding to concerns that the sprawling intelligence community will become increasingly politicized.

Trump’s nomination of Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who lacks deep intelligence experience and is seen as soft on Russia and Syria, is among several high-level picks that suggest he may be prioritizing personal allegiance over competence as he assembles his second-term team.

Among the risks, say current and former intelligence officials and independent experts, are that top advisers could feed the incoming Republican president a distorted view of global threats based on what they believe will please him and that foreign allies may be reluctant to share vital information.

Randal Phillips, a former CIA operations directorate official who worked as the agency’s top representative in China, said that with Trump loyalists in top government posts, “this could become the avenue of choice for some really questionable actions” by the leadership of the intelligence community. [Emphasis added.]

As if the intelligence “community” isn’t already politicized! And who sees Gabbard as allegedly “soft” on Russia and Syria? Hillary Clinton? The “queen of warmongers,” as Gabbard memorably described her?

Wow. We might get “some really questionable actions” by the IC (intelligence community). I’m glad we’ve never had any of those before.

Tulsi has a wealth of experience in the military (she remains a lieutenant colonel), she’s a former Congresswoman who’s served on important committees dealing with national security, and she’s tough as nails, having survived ruthless attacks on her character by the neocon Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. She is an excellent choice as Director.

What Tulsi has is integrity. Honesty. Poise. Perhaps even more importantly, she has Trump’s ear and his respect. As Director, she will oversee the preparation of Trump’s daily intelligence briefs. Trump was notorious in his first term in office for not paying much attention to those briefs. He should do better with Tulsi, somebody he trusts, preparing them.

Tulsi won my respect in 2016 when she supported Bernie Sanders and revealed how the Democratic presidential primary process was being fixed for Hillary Clinton. Tulsi has paid a high price for her principled stance, being smeared by Clinton and mainstream media outlets like NBC as a “Russian asset,” maybe even a stooge for Vladimir Putin. Politics is a rough game, but accusing a serving U.S. military officer and Congresswoman of being a “Putin puppet” is truly reckless and defamatory. Good for Tulsi for punching back.

The establishment Democratic party hates Tulsi because she refused to play their game. She refused to bow to the Clintons. Tulsi has also questioned America’s constant warmongering and knows a thing or two about the horrendous costs of war. She even has a normal life as a surfer. She has a connection to nature that I respect.

Her poise, her toughness, her integrity, makes her a superb choice as DNI. The more the intelligence “community” complains about her, the louder certain Democrats scream, the more certain I am that Trump has made a smart decision here.

Recall when Kamala Harris vowed to put a Republican in her cabinet? Well, Trump has made Gabbard his DNI and RFK Jr. will lead Health and Human Services. He’s picked two (former) Democrats for important posts and the Democrats can’t stand it.

On this occasion, with these appointments, I applaud Trump. You go, Tulsi. Ride the wave. Continue to serve our country as you always have.

Trump and the Warmongers

W.J. Astore

More Bombs for Bibi to Kill Babies

Trump and the war hawks. Or war sluts. Or war pigs. I thought about all three of these. Then I thought: Why insult hawks, sluts, or pigs?

Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, seeing enemies everywhere while wearing their red power ties

Donald Trump is forming his cabinet by rounding up the usual warmongers. In 2016, he gathered the generals, men like James Mattis and John Kelly. This time around, he’s tapping people like Marco Rubio. “Little Marco” as Secretary of State, a man who’s rarely met a war he didn’t like. For Secretary of Defense he’s nominated Pete Hegseth, whose main concern seems to be waging a war on “woke” generals. One thing is certain: Rubio and Hegseth won’t challenge the military-industrial complex. They will feed it … and feed it again.

Other nominations include Elise Stefanik, a rabid Zionist, as UN ambassador, along with Mike Huckabee, a pro-Israel evangelical who believes in the “end times,” as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Trump may trump Biden as being more slavishly pro-Israel. “Bombs for Bibi to kill babies” should be their motto.

Kristi Noem, who shot and killed her own dog because she couldn’t train it, will run Homeland Security. (If you work for DHS, it might be a good idea to watch your back, or at least to avoid being alone with Noem at a gravel pit.) Mike Waltz will be the National Security Advisor; here’s how Caitlin Johnstone describes him:

Waltz is a warmongering freak. Journalist Michael Tracey has been filling up his Twitter page since the announcement with examples of Waltz’s insane hawkishness, including his support for letting Ukraine use US weapons to strike deep into Russian territory, criticizing Biden for not escalating aggressively enoughin Ukraine, advocating bombing Iran, opposing the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and naming Iran, North Korea, China, Russia and Venezuela as “on the march” against the United States toward global conflict. The mainstream press are calling Waltz a “China hawk”, but from the look of things he’s a war-horny hawk toward all the official enemies of the United States. 

Once again, Trump isn’t draining the swamp. He’s filling it with warmongers and Zionists who are even more extreme than the warmongers and Zionists of the Biden administration. 

Of course, the fundamental problem is that Republicans want to boost military spending even higher than Biden and Harris have.  Republicans are “all in” on revamping the nuclear triad, for example, which is likely to cost $2 trillion factoring in the usual cost overruns.

It’s possible Trump/Vance will be more likely to pursue diplomacy with Russia; perhaps the war in Ukraine will finally stumble to an end. But the imperial vision remains, aggravated perhaps by a war within to expel “illegal” immigrants, together with a coup within the military against “woke” officers.

That sounds pessimistic.  If I’m being optimistic, perhaps Trump can have a “Nixon goes to China” moment.  Trump can sell virtually anything to his followers. He is also driven by ego.  Maybe there’s a way to drive him toward peace, dangling the carrot of a Nobel Peace Prize for him.  Trump loves accolades, and if he could be influenced to stop throwing all of America’s chips into the Pentagon, that would be a good thing.

But, if personnel is policy, America had better prepare for more war, catastrophically so, even as more bombs are sent to Bibi to kill babies. There’s certainly nothing “woke” about that.

Blame

W.J. Astore

When candidates lose an election, they are primarily responsible 

If Kamala Harris loses this election, can we please not blame Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon, Vladimir Putin, the usual suspects?

If Donald Trump loses this election, can we please not blame immigrants, voting machines, and various alleged forms of ballot- and ballot box tampering? And god knows what else Team Trump comes up with?

When candidates lose elections, they and their campaigns are primarily responsible. Sure, there’s always the possibility of bad breaks, bad luck, even occasional attempts at cheating. (Find me some votes in Georgia!) But usually one candidate and one campaign simply ran a better, smarter, more dynamic race.

For all you Kamala Harris and Donald Trump supporters out there, you should be prepared for your candidate to lose, and, if so, you should want them to lose with grace. No one likes a sore loser.

So, for example, Harris may win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. If that happens, it will be likely due to her tepid campaign messaging and her total support of Israel, which is costing her votes in critical swing states.

If Trump loses, a critical factor will be Republican messaging on “women’s issues,” the biggest one being abortion. Trump’s own inconsistencies and inconstancy will also be a factor. Sure, MAGA loves Trump, but many other Americans see Trump as divisive, bombastic, and unreliable. Trump’s rallies, where he’ll say virtually anything, convinces more than a few Americans that he’s the very opposite of a “very stable genius.”

An excerpt from the New York Times (see below) yesterday explains why Harris may yet lose. Again, it’s not because Stein will steal “her” votes or Putin will brainwash his American comrades; rather, Harris has run a careful, often shallow campaign that simply may not generate enough voter enthusiasm on Nov. 5th.

Hopefully, we’ll know by Wednesday who won, and we’ll also witness the loser bow out with some grace and dignity. A man can dream …

The famous Rudyard Kipling quote featured at Wimbledon

The New York Times on the Harris campaign and its weakness:

Harris has run a strikingly cautious campaign. Game theorists would describe it as a low-variance strategy. She and her aides avoided moves that might have gone very well — and might have gone very poorly.

Can you name her campaign’s central theme, for example? Many of her main messages are vague (“when we fight, we win”), Trump-focused (“in it for himself”) or both (“turn the page”). Asked on television how her presidency would differ from Biden’s, Harris said, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”

She could have taken a different approach. She could have run on the populist, anti-corporate message that is helping Democratic Senate candidates — or gone in the opposite direction and portrayed herself as a business-friendly centrist. She could have picked an issue, like housing, and signaled that it would be her No. 1 priority, much as health care was for Barack Obama. Instead of offering a bold, thematic message, Harris has announced a series of modest policies.

Her low-variance strategy is also evident in her decision not to explain why she reversed her stances on immigration and fracking. Many voters say they want to know more about Harris — who became a candidate only three months ago — and she hasn’t always filled in the blanks.

The strategy is evident with the Middle East, too. She didn’t pick as her running mate the popular Jewish governor of Pennsylvania partly because many Israel critics opposed him. Her campaign also didn’t invite any Palestinians to speak at the Democratic convention, which may hurt her in Michigan. When possible, Harris has avoided conflict.

All these decisions have benefits, to be clear. Making the Middle East more salient is rarely smart in American politics. Explaining why she changed her mind about the border could have made her look weak. Doing more town halls and interviews to explain her views could have exposed one of Harris’s weaknesses: Although she is an excellent debater, she can struggle in less structured settings.

But if Harris loses, her caution will look problematic. 

According to the Times, the basic weakness (and strength) of the Trump campaign is Trump himself. Are enough Americans ready for another four years of MAGA? We’ll know soon enough …

An Election Dominated by Fear

W.J. Astore

It’s “Take America Back” Versus “We’re Not Going Back”

This year’s presidential election is as grim as can be, and that grimness is reflected in the campaign slogans. Trump wants to “Take America back,” the implication being that bad people, I suppose the Democrats, have captured America and ruined it, and that only Trump can fix it. Harris says “We’re not going back,” meaning Trump can’t win again because he’d take America back to a hateful and brutal past.

Not a positive election, is it? How do you like your future, very bad or even worse?

It’s reflected in a story I saw in The Boston Globe this AM. Here’s an excerpt from a report on the swing state of Wisconsin:

Here in this key swing county of a key swing state [Wisconsin] that may well decide the presidency, voters across the political spectrum are gripped by fear over who will win the upcoming election.

Instead of expressing excitement about supporting their candidate — or simply relief that the election will soon be over — more than 50 voters interviewed here three weeks before Election Day repeatedly used words like “anxious,” “apprehensive,” “scared,” “worried,” and “terrified” to describe their feelings about the other party’s candidate winning.

Voters supporting former president Donald Trump said they fear that if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, inflation, crime, and illegal immigration will rise, leading to a fundamental change in American life. And Harris supporters say another four years of Trump would increase division and undermine the country’s democratic institutions.

Two memorable quotes about fear occur to me. One is from Master Po from “Kung Fu” who said, Fear is the only darkness. And then Frank Herbert from “Dune”: Fear is the mind-killer. And of course FDR who told us at the height of the Great Depression that the only thing we had to fear is fear itself.

It’s an incredible disservice to the American people for both candidates to be stoking fear. What cowardice by both the Blue and Red Teams!

That’s yet another reason why I like third parties and why Jill Stein and the Green Party appeal to me. Stein presents a positive vision of the future, a more peaceful one, one in which Americans come together to tackle common problems like climate change, health care, infrastructure, and the like.

I refuse to vote for parties and candidates that stoke fear, that promote darkness and that seek to kill my mind.

Trump supporters at a rally in Wisconsin (Scott Olson/Getty)

Sorry, Democrats and Republicans: I’m not going “back” to you and your fear.

Breaking the Duopoly

W.J. Astore

Vote Blue No Matter Who; Vote Red Until Your Dead; Why?

I don’t meet many people who are happy with the choice of Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump. Kamala, an undistinguished vice president, was anointed by Democratic Party elites. Trump, former president and festering sore loser, remains a profoundly polarizing figure given to deploring “the enemy within.” It’s not an inspiring “choice,” is it?

Fortunately, my state ballot arrived for the November 5th election, giving me four other choices other than Blue versus Red.

The first alternate choice is Green: Jill Stein. I voted for her once before in 2016. She’s a gutsy and principled woman and I agree with most of her platform. She’s got my vote.

The second choice is Libertarian: Chase Oliver. I’ve watched a couple of videos of him. I’m not a Libertarian but I do appreciate and support the party platform and its position on war. To wit:

“As the major parties become more and more war-hungry, libertarians have been sounding the alarm about the unsustainable military empire since its inception. As president, I WILL end wars and bring the troops home”

For too long, our nation has been entangled in endless wars, leaving scars on our veterans and their families. It’s time to pivot to a foreign policy focused on peace. We need to end drone strikes and military interventions, and instead champion free trade and international goodwill. Let’s reclaim our role as the ‘leader of the free world’ by pursuing peace and serving as a beacon of hope.

I just might vote for the Democrats if they had such a clear statement (and true commitment) for peace and against war.

The third choice is Socialism and Liberation: Claudia De la Cruz. To be honest, I’ve heard of her but don’t know much of anything about her. Here’s a quick description from her website:

Claudia De la Cruz and Karina Garcia are running for President and Vice-President as the candidates of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Claudia De la Cruz is a mother, popular educator and theologian born in the South Bronx who has spent her life organizing for justice for working people at home and to end U.S. empire abroad. Karina Garcia is a Chicana organizer, popular educator and mother who has spent her entire adult life fighting for the rights of immigrant workers, women and the whole working class.

Claudia De la Cruz and her VP candidate, Karina Garcia. These two Latina look more mature and “real” to me than Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Contrast this image with Kamala’s “Vogue” photo shoot.

I like their focus on workers’ rights and also ending U.S. imperialism. I’d love to see these two Latina duking it out with a corrupt Congress on workers’ rights while advancing an anti-imperial agenda. Wouldn’t that be something? The possibility of real hope and change in DC. A man can dream …

The fourth and final alternate choice on my ballot is Independent: Shiva Ayyadurai. I’d never heard of him. He was born in India of Indian parents; as he’s not a natural-born citizen of the U.S., he’s constitutionally unqualified to become POTUS.

So, leaving aside Ayyadurai, my state gives me three additional choices to Blue and Red. That’s what a healthy democracy should offer: choice. True choice. Not just a thoroughly corrupted duopoly that ignores the needs of the 99% in its pursuit of money and power.

Before you say it, I know many people believe that voting outside of the Blue and Red hammerlock on power is a waste. Don’t vote for Jill Stein, or Chase Oliver, or Claudia De la Cruz. Don’t you know they can’t win?

Well, they definitely can’t win if no one votes for them. Candidates from alternate parties can only gain power and, maybe, just maybe, eventually “win” (in the year 2525?) if we give them our support and our votes.

Some people seem to think your vote is “wasted” unless you vote for the eventual winner. Or, your vote is “wasted” if you don’t accept that voting for the lesser evil (most often, Kamala) is morally sound and wise because you’re stopping the greater evil (most often, Trump).

But what if I don’t want to vote for lesser or greater evil?

Democracies should offer genuine choice. I realize third-party candidates in 2024 are unlikely in the extreme to win, but the only way to break the duopoly is to step outside of it and vote for candidates like Stein, Oliver, and De la Cruz who offer alternative visions. As more people do this, the duopoly might actually become more responsive to voters like us. Again, a man can dream …

I sincerely believe that no vote is wasted. What is a waste is being so disillusioned as to not vote at all, or to vote unthinkingly or out of fear for someone that you don’t believe in.

Vote for what you believe, America, and let the chips fall where they may.

Addendum: Viggo Mortensen on voting your conscience.

https://x.com/HotSpotHotSpot/status/1846062677489029317

The Grim Death Toll in Gaza

W.J. Astore

Nearly 120K Palestinians May Already Be Dead

Ninety-nine American healthcare workers who volunteered to work in Gaza and who’ve witnessed the effects of the Israeli onslaught there suggest that nearly 120,000 Palestinians are already dead.

That huge number doesn’t surprise me. When you look at the photos from Gaza and the Stalingrad-like devastation, I’d guessed that the “official” death toll of roughly 42,000 was a serious undercount. That number comes from morgue and hospital statistics; it doesn’t account for people buried under the rubble, for missing people, and of course for people who’ve died of “natural” causes due to the disruption of hospital care, of potable water supplies, and so on.

More details are provided in this article at Antiwar.com. Also, you can read the letter written by these 99 healthcare workers, imploring the Biden/Harris administration to stop providing the bombs, missiles, shells, bullets, and other munitions Israel has been using to shred the bodies of so many innocent people in Gaza.

“Never again” was supposed to be the message we learned from the horrific Holocaust against the Jews perpetrated by the Nazis and their fellow travelers. “Never again” applies to the people of Gaza. It applies to people everywhere who are slaughtered simply because of who they are and because another people wants to be rid of them.

This is the leading reason why I can’t support Biden/Harris, now Harris/Walz. I can’t support Trump/Vance. The U.S. political establishment is completely spineless and immoral in its total support of Israel as it applies its own final solution to the Palestinian question. Whether it’s Harris or Trump, the message is “Support Israel” no matter what. And I refuse to sanction that. I refuse to vote for that.

Gaza, much like Stalingrad in World War II, is a desolate and increasingly unlivable moonscape of craters and destruction

Politics in America

W.J. Astore

Stormy Indeed

Recently, a reader contacted me to end his subscription. He said I’m mimicking Sean Hannity and that my readership is increasingly toxic. My blog is “useless” too. So of course I honored his request without acrimony.

In refusing to take sides in the Harris-Trump election, I’ve been accused of being both pro- and anti-Trump, pro- and anti-Harris. Sorry: I try to be pro-truth, pro-justice, and pro-peace. On those terms, I can’t support Harris or Trump for the presidency.

When I say this, Trump and Harris supporters accuse me of false equivalency. Harris isn’t as bad as Trump! Trump is Hitler! Trump isn’t as bad as Harris! She’s a woke monster! And on and on …

This divisiveness, this acrimony, this animosity, is precisely what the powers that be want us to focus on. Personality politics. Red versus Blue. Hating the other side and expending all your energy against “Demoncrats” or “Rethuglicans” or whatever childish insult is currently in vogue. Libtards and Deplorables, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!

Meanwhile, while we stay divided, the rich get richer, growing ever more powerful, as the middle and working classes are hollowed out.

Issues are important to me. Policies and positions that favor the working and middle classes while promoting peace and eliminating militarism. That’s why I’m voting for Jill Stein.

That said, I respect my readers’ choices. Some of you will vote for Harris, some for Trump, some for Stein, and some of you, fed up, may not vote at all. I respect your decisions. And I hope my blog isn’t “useless” in your deliberations and in your wider lives.

As a song from my youth goes (which just popped into my head): “I beg your pardon—I never promised you a rose garden.” If you blog about politics, religion, war, and the like, you’re going to get pushback from readers. Readers will be offended no matter what you write, and a few are even looking to give offense, just for the fun of it (the trolls). Occasionally, I’ll even get down in the mud and wrestle a bit myself. Trolls and pigs shouldn’t have all the fun, right?

Bracing Views will continue to be a site that welcomes Harris supporters, Trump supporters, and those who think both candidates and parties are disasters. It will continue to welcome people of all faiths or no faith. We need sites where we can discuss the most vexing and perplexing issues freely.

Find a peaceful place to sit down and relax. (Author’s photo)

I tell people it’s OK to disagree. Just don’t be disagreeable. Don’t be a jerk about it. Don’t be insulting. Don’t be a troll. Most of the time, it works.

So, I don’t think I’ve turned into Sean Hannity—or Rachel Maddow. (Speaking of Maddow, no one is paying me $30 million yearly to support Harris; Hannity only makes $25 million, the poor bugger.) I don’t think the comment section here is “toxic.” I do think you’ll find people arguing their positions thoughtfully, and forcefully, most of the time, and even when people seem “unhinged” to you, rather than getting angry, I suggest you ask why it is that they believe what they say they believe (unless they’re just being jerks; I get a few of those).

I will continue to look at the American political scene while doing my best to avoid partisanship and acrimony, but it’s sure getting stormy out there, America.

America Is One Warbird with Two Right Wings

W.J. Astore

America is one warbird with two right wings. That’s my expression, though of course I’m borrowing from Gore Vidal, who put it this way:

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.

Gore Vidal (R) from the movie, “Gattaca”

Speaking of bipartisanship, the 2024 presidential election is a fascinating exercise in the mechanics of (impossible) flight, as the two right wings flap vigorously as America spirals downwards.

Let’s look at Trump. Two of his leading surrogates, Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are former Democrats. Tulsi left the party as she was smeared by Hillary Clinton and NBC as a Putin puppet, and RFK Jr. learned the hard way that Democrats were not about to allow any serious challenge to Biden/Harris. They are helping Trump in part because they were betrayed by establishment Democrats.

Let’s look at Harris. She’s embraced Dick and Liz Cheney and their endorsement of her, along with another letter of endorsement signed by more than 100 Republicans associated with national security. Harris has also vowed to put at least one Republican in her Cabinet if she’s elected. The Republicans who’ve supported Harris tend to be those who’ve been sidelined by Trump and MAGA.

Both “wings,” Republican and Democrat, fully support Israel in its genocide against Gaza. Both support more war, though Republicans tend to stress China as the primary threat instead of Democrats, who are fixated on Putin and Russia. Both support trillion dollar Pentagon budgets, though Republicans are more vocal in boosting military spending to even higher levels.

Of course, there are differences on certain domestic issues like abortion, for example. Yet, when it comes to war, foreign policy, and world crises, America the warbird flaps its bipartisan right wings with almost equal vigor, caught in a death spiral of its own making.

Any mention of the vaguest so-called left wing policies, such as reductions in military spending and the pursuit of diplomacy instead of war, is instantly denounced as impractical, foolish, unwise, even as un-American.

And so the warbird flaps on, the best scenario being that it goes nowhere, the worst being a crippling fall from the sky.

Thursday Thoughts

W.J. Astore

A Vote for Harris Is a Vote for Cheney (It makes as much sense as a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump)

+ As if the world wasn’t hazardous enough, we now have to deal with exploding pagers, walkie-talkies, even solar power systems, apparently. Thank you, Israel.

+ Yet another article suggests that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump—and Russia. Maybe a vote for Stein is just a vote for Stein?

+ Yet another letter from more than 100 senior Republicans associated with the national (in)security state is telling me to vote for Kamala Harris for President. Maybe a vote for Harris is really a vote for Republicans and a neocon foreign policy?

+ Strangely, I’ve been accused of “hating” Trump because I dare to criticize him. No, I don’t “hate” Trump. I simply believe he’s not the right person to be president.

+ I got my usual fundraiser letters from Biden and Harris. There’s no vision or platform in these letters. It’s all about saving America from Trump and the end of democracy. There’s also vague talk about a better future. And that’s it. How inspiring!

+ Jill Stein got into trouble recently for being reluctant to dismiss Putin as a “war criminal.” What is a war criminal? Without consulting a legal definition, I’d describe a “war criminal” as someone who pursues aggressive war.  Of course, most leaders claim whatever war they’re pursuing is “defensive.”  They even avoid the term “war,” e.g. Obama’s “overseas contingency operations,” Putin’s “special military operation.”

So, “war criminal” is a bit like pornography, not always easy to define, but you know it when you see it. So, sure, Putin is a war criminal, but so too were LBJ, Nixon, Bush/Cheney, Obama, and Biden. Just look at Biden’s ongoing and fulsome support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Seriously, what the U.S. did in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were war crimes on a massive scale.  The Iraq invasion in 2003 under the false pretense of WMD was a war crime.  Meanwhile, the people who get punished for war crimes are usually low-level corporals and LTs.  It’s never generals and most certainly never presidents.

+ Trump, or TDS if you prefer, has enabled the rehabilitation of war criminals like Bush and Cheney, with establishment Democrats eagerly embracing both these men.

Now beloved by Democrats everywhere

+ A vote for Harris is a vote for Dick Cheney makes more logical sense than a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump. Meanwhile, if you vote for Trump, you’re likely to get Dick Cheney as well, because I don’t believe Trump has the ability to resist the Pompeos, the Boltons, the generals, and the usual suspects he’ll surround himself with.

+ If Harris loses the election in November, it won’t be because of Jill Stein.  Or Russia. Or even Bracing Views.  It will be because not enough people believed in her. But if Harris does lose, I expect the DNC will blame the voters for racism and sexism, Putin for election interference, and Jill Stein for stealing votes from Harris. Naturally, Harris and the DNC will not be to blame. Now, if they win, all credit will flow to Harris and the DNC. It’s nice to be able to run for office where even if you lose, it’s not your fault.

Readers, what’s on your mind this Thursday?

Bonus thought: I feel like political criticism has become a bizarre zero-sum game in America. If I criticize Trump, that means I’m helping Harris. If I criticize Harris, that means I’m helping Trump.

Can’t I criticize both of them? Because I want neither of them to win. That may be unrealistic, I realize, but neither candidate speaks to my principles, beliefs, priorities, and goals.

So then I’m told: It’s the American system. Take it or leave it. And I suppose I’d like to leave it, meaning I’ll vote Green. And then I’m told that’s a vote for Trump! Or I’m told that’s a wasted vote.

So the only “valid” vote is for Harris–or Trump. But each side pretty much hates the other, so how is a vote for either “valid”?

Because both parties take unaccountable dark money, both are corrupted, both don’t answer to the people, both are tools of the plutocrats.

If I want to embrace and defend democracy, why would I vote for either of these parties?

And the usual answer is: Because Harris (or Trump) is the lesser evil. But does voting for evil ever make sense? Shouldn’t Americans be able to vote for the greater good?