1.  


    (Hyperlinks aren't working so links are footnoted).

    It was James Carville who famously uttered the words, "It's the economy, stupid!"`1  And, in fact, there's a pretty common belief that, all other issues that sway voters aside, our pocketbooks are what drives our votes.

    It probably doesn't much matter whether the president really has that much influence on how the economy is going. After all, economic fluctuations are global. When we are dealing with inflation and high interest rates, so is much of the rest of the world. If we are in a recession or, worse, a depression, we are generally not alone. But that doesn't matter to voters who are frustrated by the cost of gasoline. Or eggs. Or bread.

    Well, if it's the economy, stupid, then President Biden ought to be sitting pretty going into this election. After all, the Dow's just hit new heights.2 Whether he deserves it or not, he's taken credit for it. That should win him votes. A lot of votes. Right?

    But there are other factors at play here. As mentioned above, the cost of consumer goods. Something to which the American public is adjusting. The Commerce Department reported this week that spending has been down.3  A sign of uncertainty despite the successes on Wall Street.

    The latest Fox News poll4  shows that the economy is a top concern of voters. A "deal breaker." So if the argument that the economy is thriving isn't resonating, that's got to be a concern for the Biden reelection team.

    Maybe the most prudent thing to do is to analyze the economic plans of both President Biden and former President Trump. I, for one, am not qualified to do so. But fortunately for us, Business Insider has taken a stab at it.5

    1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid#:~:text=%22The%20economy%2C%20stupid%22%20is,election%20against%20incumbent%20George%20H.%20W

    2 https://www.npr.org/2024/05/16/1251789724/dow-jones-40000-rally-stocks-inflation-economy-recession-ai

    3 https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/economy/us-retail-sales-april/index.html

    4 https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-abortion-economy-border-security-top-deal-breakers

    5 https://www.businessinsider.com/what-us-economy-would-look-like-with-trump-biden-presidency-2024-5



    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment


  2.  




    The gauntlet's just been dropped and picked up and already people are anticipating the two expected debates between the current president and the former president who wishes to unseat him. It's speculative, of course, but the question on everyone's mind is: who stands to win and who stands to win and who stands to lose when President Biden and former President Trump face off?

    This will be their first time meeting since the last time they debated because, as you will recall, Trump boycotted Biden's inauguration. And there's a lot of drama already because we all sense that this is going to be personal. These two men don't like one another. And have little respect for each other.

    We can't predict, of course, who  will win the debates. But there will be winners. I'm referring to news organizations. Since there's essentially no race for either party's nomination, this will provide the kind of drama we in the news business thrive on during presidential elections. And, of course, the TV pundits can't wait for their opportunity to analyze the performances of each candidate.

    There will, of course, be risks for both sides. This will be the first time Trump will debate this election cycle because he sat out Republican primary debates. Trump will also be a bit out of his element and that presents a certain risk. There will be no audience for him to play to. And his microphone will be muted when it's Biden's turn to talk. Biden's will be muted, too, when it's Trump's turn. But it was Trump who, during the debates four years ago, kept interrupting Biden. Both of these are conditions the president demanded this go around.

    The main risk Biden faces is how he comes off. Will he appear slower to the verbal punch than he did in 2020? According to reporters who have spoken with them, members of Trump's team are hoping, of course, that the answer to that question is "yes."

    The last time these two men met, Trump was the incumbent and Biden jabbed away at his record. This time, of course, the roles have flipped. Does this favor Trump? The role of challenger seemed to work advantageously for Biden during the 2020 debates.

    One side note: Where does RFK Jr. fit into all of this? He is accusing Biden and Trump of colluding to exclude him. If true, that would be exciting news. We'd actually have Biden and Trump agreeing on something. Stop the presses!

    But the fact is that as he stands now,  based on criteria established by CNN, Kennedy lacks the polling numbers to qualify for the first debate. So his latest conspiracy theory, even if true, is moot.








    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  3.  




    It's sort of like January 6. We all know what happened that day. But depending on our perspective, we may, or we may not, blame former President Trump for the insurrection/riot/disturbance/protest that took place.

    We've all seen and heard Trump's bombastic commentary directed at the judiciary. And we've seen documentation of an increase in threats against judges.

    There are those who would argue there's no cause and effect here. And that Trump is simply exercising his First Amendment rights to be critical of the judiciary.

    But there are others who believe his words serve as a dog whistle to some of his more ardent supporters. Who interpret his rhetoric as a directive, of sorts, to threaten judges.

    Most of his comments have been directed, of course, at the Manhattan judge overseeing his hush money trial. And it's that judge who's received the brunt of the threats. But he's not the only one. 

    Other judges who have received threats have been those overseeing the January 6 cases. So many threats have been flung at them that one judge is calling the volume of intimidating messages "unprecedented."  

    Some judges are relatively stoic about such things. They believe threats are just a byproduct of the job these days. But it's gotten so bad that the American Bar Association is calling on judges who are targeted to speak out.

    The problem is severe enough for Congress to take note. A bipartisan bill has been introduced in the Senate designed to protect state court judges from escalating threats. According to the National Center for State Courts, the number of annual threats against jurists in this nation now numbers in the thousands.





    Posted by
    1

    View comments

  4.  



    It's now evident that the anti-Israeli campus demonstrations were well organized, probably well funded and that some of the protests outside the Democratic Convention in Chicago are likely to be organized by some of the same elements behind the campus disruptions. Clearly, the Democratic Party is cognoscente of this and wants to minimize any major disturbances that may divert focus from the convention itself. But it appears the party is concerned that it may not get the kind of preventative support it expects from City Hall, because Chicago's new mayor seems sympathetic to those challenging the system.

    Their concerns are apparently not without basis. Homeland Security says there have been a plethora of threats against both the Democratic Convention and the Republican Convention in nearby Milwaukee. Going so far as to describe conditions as a ''tinderbox." 

    To deal with this, the Dems want to limit protests during the convention. Of course, it's a time-honored tradition for people representing a wide-range of ideas to descend on political convention venues to exercise their First Amendment rights and air their grievances before the gathered cameras and microphones. Many groups expected to protest are pushing back on the idea of limiting their access. Already, more than 70 organizations have joined a coalition which calls itself "March on the DNC."

    Meanwhile the Secret Service and other federal agencies are coordinating training with local police departments and are establishing a security plan that covers a host of contingencies. This training and planning is ongoing, with or without the tacit support of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson.

    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  5.  House Republicans take the first step

    House Republicans this morning moved forward toward the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.


    A House panel voted to advance articles of impeachment against him. They charge that he has failed to secure the southern border. The articles charge Mayorkas with a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law.”


    Go ahead, I don't care

    For his part, the secretary seems nonplussed. Prior to the vote he fired off a letter to committee chair Mark Green, proclaiming that  what he terms, "false allegations" don't "rattle" him. In the letter he notes that he has testified before the committee seven times and stands ready to testify again.


    Who is responsible for the border crisis?

    In the minds of many, perhaps most, Americans, there's no question that the border is not secure. What Democrats and Republicans can't agree on is, is who is to blame.

    Republicans, of course, blame the administration. Democrats increasingly say, the failures are owned by the Republicans for not passing a comprehensive border/Ukraine/Israel appropriations bill. Arguing you can't expect the administration to button up the border without proper funding.

    Fueling all this is that it's an election year. So we have to toss in the allegation that former President Trump is pressuring Republicans to not pass a bill until after November so Biden takes full responsibility for a porous border when voters cast their ballots.

    Until now, Trump, who promised before he became president to build a big beautiful wall along the border, has been the champion of border security and President Biden has taken the heat for the number of migrants streaming across. But of late, the president has attempted to position himself as the guy trying to halt the flow. Saying, if given the authority, he'll shut down the border.


    So now what?

    Now the full House has to be convinced that Mayorkas' actions fit the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeachments are political processes. That means it's up to the members to interpret that question based on their own understandings of the facts.  

    Only one presidential Cabinet member has ever been impeached in U.S. history. You can read about President Grant's Secretary of War William Belknap's impeachment trial in 1876 here.



    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  6.  How the term 'you all' is a dead giveaway


    On Monday I had a conversation with a U.S. born Muslim woman about the situation in the Middle East. Something we have been able to discuss in the past with respect for one another's positions.

    During the conversation, and repeated in a subsequent text message, she used the term "you all." At first I wondered, what does she mean by "you all." But then I got it.

    She is unable to express her criticism of Israeli policy without attacking Jewish people.


    Any government, including mine and Israel, is subject to critique, of course. If one disagrees with Israel's prosecution of the war against Hamas, that person is not necessarily exposing themselves as a Jew hater.

    But when she says "you all" and she is directing the comment toward me, an American Jew who has no say or influence over Israeli policy, then she is revealing her bias.


    This is her text message verbatim:

    U all are already convicted of genocide in Gaza and can't even fight a 2% minority of hummus let alone all of you obsessed with fighting Iran just to make Iran destabilized and make it like Iraq an Afghanistan

    She is, of course, incorrect in her assertion that Israel was convicted of genocide. And I'm sure she meant Hamas, not hummus (probably a comical error created by iPhone's "incorrect" feature). But why would she say "U all...?" 


    The ADL's Center on Extremism says incidents of antisemitism skyrocketed following the Hamas terrorist attack: 

    As the deadly assaults on Israel continue, extremists, antisemites and conspiracy theorists are flocking to online spaces to cheer for Hamas,  threaten further violence against Israel and Jewish people worldwide and float absurd, often anti-Semitic conspiracies about the “real” perpetrators or cause of the terror attacks.

    And that was written before Israel's retaliation.


    Real life consequences


    Surging public expressions of Jew hatred has real life consequences. The ADL reports an unprecedented rise in antisemitism since October 7. And it's not just happening in the United States. It's happening all around the world. 


    The problem is particularly pervasive on college campuses, where 73 percent of Jewish students say they have witnessed or been targeted by Jew hatred. 


    'No one makes anyone act in an anti-Semitic way'


    How do we quantify whether these Jew haters have always been anti-Semites or if their hostility is newly developed as a result of Israel's response to the October 7 attacks?

    David Feldman, the director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at the University of London may have the answer to that question. Feldman, in an interview with the New Yorker said, "no one makes anyone act in an anti-Semitic way."

    If one is to subscribe to Feldman's perspective, we are talking about people who were Jew haters before the Israeli declaration of war. Israel's response, then, is just an excuse to come out of the woodwork.


    Responding to antisemitism


    All this brings us to the question of how to deal with someone who espouses antisemitism.

    The American Jewish Committee says it's our responsibility, all of ours, to call out antisemitism whenever it occurs. That's a good strategy on two fronts. It alerts people to the growing problem so those not attuned to it can become more aware. And it can serve as a check to a person who may say something that is anti-Semitic but may not realize it.

    For example, many of those who are protesting and are chanting "from the river to the sea" have no idea what that means.

    Dov Waxman, director of the Y&S Nazarian Center for Israel Studies at UCLA put it this way in an interview with NPR's All Things Considered. "We need to kind of point this out, without shaming that person, without responding to them as if they're an anti-Semite," he said.


    That seems like a fine strategy when dealing with someone who is simply unaware. But what if the person is inherently anti-Semitic and is using the current conflict to express her views? How will using logic fundimentally change her?

    I fear trying to get through to such a person is a waste of effort. We can only hope to counter these kinds of lies with the truth. Not to win the haters over. But to that mitigate their efforts to indoctrinate well intentioned and concerned people with their hateful rhetoric.








     


    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment




  7. We all know that Iran is behind scores of terrorist attacks in the Middle East.


    Iranian-backed terrorists attacked Israel on October 7.


    Iranian-backed terrorists have been attacking shipping in the Red Sea.


    Iranian-backed terrorists have been attacking Israel from Lebanon.


    And Iranian-backed terrorists have been attacking U.S. Army bases - the latest - in Jordan - where three of our servicemembers are dead and dozens more are wounded from a drone strike.

    The U.S. military has been responding quickly to attacks and President Biden is promising a military response to the latest attack in Jordan (although Iran is denying it had anything to do with it). 

    But now, some Republicans on Capitol Hill are suggesting that the United States attack Iran directly. Perhaps the strongest suggestion comes from Texas Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, who writes  on an X post "Target Tehran."

    Of course, there are those who are concerned that a direct conflict with Iran could lead to a regional conflict impeding the shipment of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and putting  U.S. troops in the Middle East in even greater jeopardy.  Some even fear it could be a precursor to World War III. However there are those who feel that not standing up to Iran could lead to another world war. 


    There are also those in Congress, from both sides of the aisle, who are criticizing the White House for authorizing retaliatory attacks without congressional approval.

    One thing's for certain. The region's become quite the powder keg. And it's not just about the Israeli-Hamas war.

    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  8.  

    1 Comment

    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  9.  My friend Avi Perry wrote this piece for Israel National News.

    What do you think?



    Yes, they are ‘civilians’, but they are neither innocent nor uninvolved

    When encountering Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, surveys show an 80%+ likelihood that they are terrorists, supporters, or sympathizers.Op-ed.

    Dr. Avi Perry
    HamasGazansDr. Avi Perry
      Dr. Avi Perry
      Dr. Avi PerryCourtesy

      The international community, encompassing the global media, social media, political figures, and even supporters of Israel, tends to criticize the Jewish state's defensive war for causing harm and casualties among "innocent" civilians in Gaza, rather than holding Hamas accountable. There is often a disregard for the reality that eliminating Hamas involves unavoidable collateral damage, given their use of civilians, hospitals, schools, private homes, mosques, and other civilian infrastructure for military purposes.

      However, there is more. Contrary to the narrative portraying these civilians as innocent victims, a survey by the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) among Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the 'West Bank' reveals widespread support for terrorism, rejection of peace, and ingratitude towards supporting countries. “…the results indicate that an overwhelming percentage of Palestinian Arabs support the October 7 massacre (75%), reject coexistence with Israel (85.9%), are committed to the restoration of 'historical Palestine' as a final resolution (71.1%), and support the creation of a Palestinian state 'from the river to the sea' (74.7%) as the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…”

      This challenges the notion of the majority of these civilians being truly innocent. Consequently, when encountering Palestinian Arabs in these regions, there is a significant likelihood—over 80%—that they are either terrorists, active supporters, or sympathizers, contributing to negative perceptions and suspicions.

      Regrettably, this majority, exceeding 80%, tarnished the reputation of the remainder. When faced with individuals from these areas, there is a natural inclination to harbor fear, suspicion, and generalizations, as there is a high probability—more than 80%—that these sentiments are accurate. While some may label it as Islamophobia, it differs from antisemitism, which stems from bigotry. Islamophobia is grounded in fear and suspicion, and equating the two is nothing but a display of profound ignorance.

      Unfortunately, these characterizations extend to women and children as well. Alarmingly, children are indoctrinated from an early age to dehumanize and harbor hatred and hostility toward Jewish individuals, making them likely to grow into terrorists, terrorist supporters, or sympathizers. They cannot be deemed innocent in this context.

      In fact, children were filmed beating with sticks a young hostage who was crying for his mother. Hordes of violent, looting civilians invaded Israel in the wake of the Hamas breach of the border on October 7 and others cheered, spit at and cursed hostages who were paraded through the streets, even violatng dead bodies..Civilians, including a doctor and UNRWA teacher, harbored hostages under inhumane conditions and when hostages were freed under the temporary pause in fighting, lined the streets to jeer at them.

      Additionally, Hamas strategically employs the Gazan population as human shields, anticipating that if civilians are harmed, Israel will be blamed by the international community. This tactic, coupled with Israel's commitment to trying to avoid civilian casualties, creates a challenging situation in dealing with Hamas effectively while attempting to avoid civilian casualties.

      But notwithstanding the unintentional killing of Gazan civilians forced on the IDF by the Hamas’ human shield strategy, we can still draw glaring parallels to historical conflicts, such as World War II, where American forces intentionally targeted and killed many thousands of German civilians, as seen in the destruction of cities like Dresden. This strategy aimed to demoralize the enemy and expedite the path to victory. The use of atomic bombs on Japan also targeted civilians and ultimately led to the transformation of both Germany and Japan into allies of the United States.

      Despite these actions causing intentional and significant civilian casualties, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman were not viewed as war criminals; instead, they were considered great leaders. The Nazis, along with many Germans and Japanese civilians, were perceived as being brainwashed by propaganda during WWII. Once the U.S. achieved their unconditional surrender, the subsequent baby boom generation enjoyed a period of prosperity.

      Eradicating evil comes at a high cost, requiring a choice between bad and worse. In the current context, Israel faces a similar dilemma, and opting for a worse choice that leaves Hamas in power will result in more significant consequences for present and future generations.

      Dr. Avi Perry, talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks,"and "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, as well as a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. He may be reached through his web site www.aviperry.org

      Posted by
      1

      View comments

    •  By now you’ve probably seen the latest video. If not, here it is:

      Twitter avatar for @cristjdiazcristianjesus @cristjdiaz
      @AsianPatDixon @censoreddottv @HeWasntJogging Look at all the bleeps stand around and do NOTHING. This animal deserves to be in a cage the rest of her pathetic life. Image

      May 18th 2021

      289 Retweets

      Notice as one woman savagely beats another in a Georgia pizza shop, people are quick to pull out their cameras and videotape the shocking attack. But no one moves in to stop the assault.

      It’s not, of course, the first time.

      We seem to be conditioning ourselves as a society to value our videos going viral over everything else. How else to explain people taking to YouTube to do stupid things on camera that get them injured or even killed?

      Several years ago a pedestrian was hit by a car on a Detroit freeway. Other drivers stopped but they didn’t jump out of their cars with their smart phones in hand with the intention of helping the injured person. State police say just one person, a nurse, gave the victim first aid. And she had to implored the others to stop using their phones to videotape long enough to phone 911.

      In 2019 police on New York’s Long Island reported that a group of teens witnessed a 16-year-old getting beaten in a parking lot. But instead of calling for help, they videotaped his death.

      In 2015 in Beaverton Oregon a group of people stood around videotaping a woman trapped inside a burning car. A teenager who saw that none of them were helping the woman rushed up and pulled her through a window. Fortunately the woman lived. But how could the others not help?

      Smartphone cameras are getting better and better and I include myself as among those who have used mine to take and publish photographs. But we’re sadly becoming a narcissistic society where many people publish their lives online. Gracing social media with selfies and photos of the latest meal or drink they’ve ordered or prepared. This self-involved attitude extends to the need to be recognized for the videos we take and post. And this compulsion sometimes overrides another human trait - to be compassionate and to come to the aid of our fellow human beings.

      I don’t pretend to be an expert in psychology or neuroscience. But I don’t think we need to be experts to observe that our brains can adapt to technology and the instant gratification one gets from going viral. It could be becoming a desire that overrides compassion, which Dr. Emma Seppala, a psychologist and science director of Stanford University’s Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education called “our first instinct” in a 2013 Psychology Today article. But can that first instinct change?

      Some scientists think the answer to that question is ‘‘yes.” In 2017, a pair of biology professors published a paper in the journal Science in which they conclude that instincts evolve from learning. Which raises the question; are we training ourselves to be instinctively less compassionate?

      Clearly all this deserves greater study and public discourse. Not just because of the impact on individuals who suffer a “going viral syndrome.” But because of its implications on society as a whole.

      Posted by
      0

      Add a comment

    Popular Posts
    Popular Posts
    About Me
    About Me
    Labels
    Labels
    Blog Archive
    Blog Archive
    Loading
    All photos copyright by Gary Baumgarten, all rights reserved.. Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger. Report Abuse.