Jun 18, 2019
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Egypt
seen from Malaysia
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Morocco
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Maldives
seen from Malaysia
Steely brinksmanship: China’s iron ore power play jolts Australia
Though they still haven’t been officially confirmed, reports that China’s state-owned buyer told steelmakers to stop purchasing iron ore from Australian mining giant BHP have rattled both markets and Canberra. At first glance, this looks like a simple dispute over price. But step back, and a picture begins to emerge of something possibly far more deliberate. If true, this ban represents a…
BRINKSMANSHIP for what?
To be honest though the ridicolusly dangerous and misguided brinksmanship that Biden, the Tories and sadly Von Starmerführer have been playing for the last few years is only to make weapons profitable again. Having a cold war stance means more national budgets can go into munitions and arms. They can increase their own security and tie the hands of their own citizens with tales of fear.Sadly…
New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller
New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/social-concerns/finding-common-ground/
Finding Common Ground
(Because of the events of last week, I feel this blog bears repeating.) Few would argue against the notion that under Donald Trump’s Presidency, American democracy has been tested at all levels of government. How far that testing has gone is a cause for concern for many. Recently, Chuck Schumer, Minority leader in the U. S. Senate, fired a salvo across the bow of the U. S. Supreme Court, threatening Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch about their upcoming votes that might overturn abortion rights in an upcoming Louisiana case. “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Chief Justice Roberts responded with a warning of his own. “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” Meanwhile, the outgoing President, Donald Trump, a man who has shown contempt for the courts, stirs the pot with his tweets over with Schemer’s outburst. If abortion were the sole issue at stake, the country might survive the bloodletting, but other issues, like gun control, First Amendment rights, and religious freedom are also at stake. People on the political far left and right are accusing one another of redefining the Constitution. To find a middle ground is difficult because so little trust exists between factions. A form of brinkmanship has settled among us like poison gas. The threats, the defiance, the acts of violence along the political spectrum begin to sound less like demands to right a wrong and more like the crazed cacophony of a society longing for extinction. Witness the Christian singer who, despite the pandemic, defends his open-air concerts as an expression of his religious rights. His model is obvious. Trump’s assault on the peaceful transfer of power gives the singer license to pervert the norms of religious freedom. Finding common ground with those of bad faith takes more than a stretch. As of yet, I have no idea how to accomplish it. Still, those of good faith, despite a difference of opinion, must try. To that end, I decided to read Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s words about conservatism in his speech of November 12, 2020, to the Federalist Society. Let me admit I have no law degree but read his comments as a citizen to whom the law applies—someone who, through representative government has a voice in determining what is a reasonable and unreasonable law. That voice has belonged to every citizen since the tea party rebellion in 1773 when our forbearers raised the cry, No taxation without representation. Alito began his speech by explaining the role of a conservative judge: “to conserve our Constitution and the rule of law.” I suspect a liberal judge like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would reply Alito had defined the role of every judge. If so, then I had found common ground. Nor did I imagine Ginsberg would object to Alito’s description of current conditions in the country. That “…tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply” I also agree. Intolerance has put the rule of law under pressure. Alito added the current pandemic had exacerbated the difficulty. “We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive, and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.” Here, I disagree. Age takes its privilege for I lived through the deprivations of World War 11, a duration of 7 years. By contrast, the pandemic of the past several months only requires that we wear masks, wash our hands, and practice social distancing. Nonetheless, Alito was correct in his next observation that in a time of crisis, power flows to the executive branch of government. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held the nation in his palm when I was growing up. Fortunately for the country, he was an honest broker with good intentions. He resisted the temptation to promulgate excessive emergency regulations that drew power to himself at the expense of our fundamental freedoms. To describe the appropriate use of executive power, Alito discussed a 1905 Supreme Court ruling concerning a Cambridge, Massachusetts ordinance. It required citizens to submit to vaccinations during a smallpox outbreak. Alito argued the high court’s decision to uphold the ordinance was correct because it “targeted a problem of a limited scope.” I admit his conclusion puzzled me. How size affected individual rights or the notion of equal treatment under the law was unclear. Nor did his discussion of other cases further illuminate. For lack of time and space, I touch upon only one of his examples to illustrate my confusion. Like the smallpox case, it addressed individual rights versus the rights of a community. A gay couple brought a complaint before the court against a baker who’d refused an order for their wedding cake. He cited his religious objection to homosexuality as his reason. Offended, the couple sued the man and in court their attorney argued religious freedom was no defense because it could be used to “justify all kinds of discrimination throughout, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust …” Alito conceded to his audience that the attorney had a point. Claims of religious freedom could be used to serve bigotry. But in the baker’s case, the judge saw “no evidence that anybody has been harmed.” Cakes were readily available elsewhere in the community. I gasped at Alito’s conclusion, however. Did he fail to see that availability wasn’t the issue? At stake was the question of equal treatment in the public square. A business open to the public must serve all customers alike. No person should suffer the indignity of being turned out of an establishment on the off-chance the proprietor held views contrary to those of the customer. Yet Alito thought so well of his argument that he circled back to insist the injured party in the case was the […]
New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller
New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/social-concerns/finding-common-ground/
Finding Common Ground
Few would argue against the notion that under Donald Trump’s Presidency, American democracy has been tested at all levels of government. How far that testing has gone is a cause for concern for many. Recently, Chuck Schumer, Minority leader in the U. S. Senate, fired a salvo across the bow of the U. S. Supreme Court, threatening Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch about their upcoming votes that might overturn abortion rights in an upcoming Louisiana case. “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Chief Justice Roberts responded with a warning of his own. “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” Meanwhile, the outgoing President, Donald Trump, a man who has shown contempt for the courts, stirs the pot with his tweets over with Schemer’s outburst. If abortion were the sole issue at stake, the country might survive the bloodletting, but other issues, like gun control, First Amendment rights, and religious freedom are also at stake. People on the political far left and right are accusing one another of redefining the Constitution. To find a middle ground is difficult because so little trust exists between factions. A form of brinkmanship has settled among us like poison gas. The threats, the defiance, the acts of violence along the political spectrum begin to sound less like demands to right a wrong and more like the crazed cacophony of a society longing for extinction. Witness the Christian singer who, despite the pandemic, defends his open-air concerts as an expression of his religious rights. His model is obvious. Trump’s assault on the peaceful transfer of power gives the singer license to pervert the norms of religious freedom. Finding common ground with those of bad faith takes more than a stretch. As of yet, I have no idea how to accomplish it. Still, those of good faith, despite a difference of opinion, must try. To that end, I decided to read Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s words about conservatism in his speech of November 12, 2020, to the Federalist Society. Let me admit I have no law degree but read his comments as a citizen to whom the law applies—someone who, through representative government has a voice in determining what is a reasonable and unreasonable law. That voice has belonged to every citizen since the tea party rebellion in 1773 when our forbearers raised the cry, No taxation without representation. Alito began his speech by explaining the role of a conservative judge: “to conserve our Constitution and the rule of law.” I suspect a liberal judge like Ruth Bader Ginsberg would reply Alito had defined the role of every judge. If so, then I had found common ground. Nor did I imagine Ginsberg would object to Alito’s description of current conditions in the country. That “…tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply” I also agree. Intolerance has put the rule of law under pressure. Alito added the current pandemic had exacerbated the difficulty. “We have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive, and prolonged as those experienced for most of 2020.” Here, I disagree. Age takes its privilege for I lived through the deprivations of World War 11, a duration of 7 years. By contrast, the pandemic of the past several months only requires that we wear masks, wash our hands, and practice social distancing. Nonetheless, Alito was correct in his next observation that in a time of crisis, power flows to the executive branch of government. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held the nation in his palm when I was growing up. Fortunately for the country, he was an honest broker with good intentions. He resisted the temptation to promulgate excessive emergency regulations that drew power to himself at the expense of our fundamental freedoms. To describe the appropriate use of executive power, Alito discussed a 1905 Supreme Court ruling concerning a Cambridge, Massachusetts ordinance. It required citizens to submit to vaccinations during a smallpox outbreak. Alito argued the high court’s decision to uphold the ordinance was correct because it “targeted a problem of a limited scope.” I admit his conclusion puzzled me. How size affected individual rights or the notion of equal treatment under the law was unclear. Nor did his discussion of other cases further illuminate. For lack of time and space, I touch upon only one of his examples to illustrate my confusion. Like the smallpox case, it addressed individual rights versus the rights of a community. A gay couple brought a complaint before the court against a baker who’d refused an order for their wedding cake. He cited his religious objection to homosexuality as his reason. Offended, the couple sued the man and in court their attorney argued religious freedom was no defense because it could be used to “justify all kinds of discrimination throughout, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust …” Alito conceded to his audience that the attorney had a point. Claims of religious freedom could be used to serve bigotry. But in the baker’s case, the judge saw “no evidence that anybody has been harmed.” Cakes were readily available elsewhere in the community. I gasped at Alito’s conclusion, however. Did he fail to see that availability wasn’t the issue? At stake was the question of equal treatment in the public square. A business open to the public must serve all customers alike. No person should suffer the indignity of being turned out of an establishment on the off-chance the proprietor held views contrary to those of the customer. Yet Alito thought so well of his argument that he circled back to insist the injured party in the case was the baker. “The question was [sic] face is whether our society will be inclusive […]
Mexico crisis shows the limits of Trump's brinksmanship
New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/mexico-crisis-shows-the-limits-of-trumps-brinksmanship/
Mexico crisis shows the limits of Trump's brinksmanship
President Donald Trump’s negotiating style with a host of adversaries, real or perceived, is becoming eerily familiar in Washington. | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
white house
The president’s negotiating style has settled into a familiar — and increasingly ineffective — pattern.
You might say it’s The Art of the Deal.
First, spark a crisis by threatening harsh consequences if hazy, unspecified demands aren’t met.
Story Continued Below
Then, torque up the suspense as an artificial deadline approaches, while nervous observers warn of the dire consequences of going over the cliff.
And finally, cut a vague, imperfect or constitutionally questionable deal at the last minute, claiming victory and savaging the critics.
This is the pattern, well-worn by now, of President Donald Trump’s negotiations with a host of adversaries, real or perceived — and it’s getting eerily familiar in Washington.
This past week, Trump’s threat was to impose a series of escalating tariffs on Mexican goods entering the United States, and his demand was that Mexico curb a surge of migrants coming largely from Central America.
But it might as well have been the government shutdown — the result of Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion to fund his border wall — his on-again-off-again negotiations with Kim Jong-Un, or, next up, the president’s trade feud with China.
In the case of Mexico, Trump didn’t get all he wanted. Mexican negotiators, for instance, would not agree to changes that would make it easier for the United States to turn down asylum seekers from Central America, though they did assent to allowing some of them to stay in Mexico while their claims are heard in the U.S.
They also agreed to send 6,000 additional troops to their southern border with Guatemala, and got the U.S. to back off threats to impose a 5 percent tariff on all exports that was set to go into effect on Monday.
Those are actions, however, that Mexico has already undertaken, notes Shannon K. O’Neil, senior fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, who warned against the tariffs in an op-ed this week. “So it’s doubling down on what they were doing,” O’Neil told POLITICO, adding that it’s doubtful Mexico has the capacity to meaningfully stem the tide of migrants.
The ambiguity of the deal offers just enough for the president to claim victory, however. The U.S.-Mexico joint declaration issued Friday evening by the State Department contains no firm metrics to gauge the success — or failure — of the agreement, instead stating that Mexico “will take unprecedented steps” aimed at curbing migrant flow into the U.S. and “decisive action” to stop human smuggling. It does indicate, however, that the countries will continue discussions over the next three months and may announce additional measures.
That was enough for Trump, who tweeted on Saturday morning that “the reviews and reporting on our Border Immigration Agreement with Mexico have been good” and warned people away from the “false reporting (surprise!) by the Fake and Corrupt News Media.”
“Mexico will try very hard, and if they do that, this will be a very successful agreement for both the United States and Mexico!” Trumpsaid.
The eight-day episode, however, cracked open fissures among Republicans, with business groups and GOP senators angrily lobbying the White House to convince the president to back down.
“Existing tariffs and the threat of new tariffs are already slowing manufacturing jobs in America, so it is our hope that the two nations are on a continued path of long-term certainty and stability,” John Bozzella, the president and CEO of Global Automakers, a trade association that represents the U.S. outposts of several international motor vehicle manufacturers,said in a statement.
Cory Gardner, the Colorado Republican who is considered one of the most vulnerable senators of the 2020 election cycle, slammed the prospect of tariffs in a letter to his GOP colleagues on Friday, arguing that they “would negate all the economic benefits of tax reform.”
The brouhaha also exposed the diminishing effectiveness of the president’s negotiating style, if only because of its growing predictability, which is signaling to those across the table that neither he — nor his threats — can be taken seriously.
It was eerily reminiscent of the president’s threat in late March to close the U.S. southern border if Mexico didn’t stop the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into the United States — only to back down six days later and issue Mexico a “one-year warning” instead.
Trump then said he would first impose tariffs before closing the border. “The only thing, frankly, better and less drastic than closing the border is tariff the cars coming in, and I will do it,” he said. “I don’t play games.”
The proof, ultimately, of a bargain with Mexico that Trump said “everyone is very excited about” will come months from now, when, according to the joint declaration, the U.S. and Mexico will take “further actions” if it the current agreement does not have the expected results.
O’Neil, of the Council on Foreign Relations, predicts the president will again be disappointed, because Mexico simply lacks the resources to stem the migrant flow.
“Even if they have the political will, they don’t have the capacity,” she said. “So what happens three months from now? You’ve delayed but you haven’t necessarily ended this threat of tariffs.”
Read More
The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
I hope dude doesn't think he has a mandate!👿😤 he should be grateful for those diebold 'patches' that may have been placed to insure 'victory'. Just like the #electoralcollegeappointee, this guy isnt MY governor and i hope Stacy Abrams finds 50k votes or even 20k