Memo to:  Xi Jinping: Part I

[Sometimes, life’s realities intrude upon life’s avocations, and such has been the case for us in recent weeks; what follows is the majority of a hypothetical memo that I had intended to finish before U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met this week.  (I wrote both leaders an email asking that they postpone their summit so I could finish this post, but they each declined.  😉)  I will post the remainder at some point in the future, but you’ll undoubtedly get the gist – and, will, like Mr. Xi, no matter what you think of the substance, also be grateful for the break.  😊]

Memo to:  Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”)

From:  Really Low Section Level Civil Servant Zhāng Sān (Chinese equivalent of “John Doe”)

Great One, if this memo has reached you, it means that it has passed through many hands, from my Section Leader up through his Area Leader, and ultimately to a Politburo member who arranged for it to reach your enlightened gaze.  If my name is still on it, it means that all of these highly-esteemed Comrades find merit in what I offer, but want to be sure that I am the one who is shot if you are offended by my suggestions.  (In deciding my fate, hopefully your most Merciful and Understanding Benevolence will take into account my youthful exuberance and that I sleep with my copy of Xi Jinping Thought under my pillow every night.)     

This week, you will be participating in a Summit Meeting with Donald Trump, the President of the United States.  It takes no acuity to observe that America is currently exhausted, in chaos, riven by acrimony.  Hon. Trump has become increasingly unpopular over his first year and a half in office – somewhat surprisingly, not because of his moral turpitude, his obvious self-aggrandizement in a country that claims to eschew royalty, or his 2021 assault on the American democracy — but because of his mishandling of the American economy and his more recent grossly misguided foray against our ally, Iran.  Even so, inexplicably, approximately a third of Americans still support him.  It can be predicted that the toxically polarizing divisions now existing in the American electorate will not recede when he departs, because free speech has allowed partisan broadcasters espousing views from both sides of the American political spectrum, motivated by profit, to continue to stir animosity and discord.  America is facing the pressures of an aging population while inexplicably forfeiting its appeal to immigrants – a geopolitical advantage we wish we had.  America is deeply in debt, propped up by American, China and other international U.S. bond holders because America has been perceived as the safest place to invest.  This will change.  We can help it change.

I would pose that Hon. Trump’s undeniably erratic behavior has presented the PRC with an unprecedented opportunity to set a new world order over the remaining two and a half years of the Hon. Trump’s term.  I set forth here what I see, from my very lowly position, may be the avenues for spreading the China Dream throughout the regions of the world.  The regions are listed in terms of immediacy. 

The Middle East.  It is clear, given Hon. Trump’s mental degradation, brief attention span and the unpopularity of his Iran incursion, that he is looking for a way to extricate America from the quagmire he has created.  Hon. Trump has created a mess.  He appears to be a puppet of the Israelis, and gives every indication that he will walk away from the conflict with the region must more unstable than it was before he launched is war.  If he does so, we have two advantages:  the Iranians will listen to us – and no other nation — if we wish them to tamp down hostilities; and America’s heretofore allies in the region will be irate at the manner in which Hon. Trump has abandoned them to greater Iranian terrorism and economic risk than they faced before the war.  Credible reporting indicates that Hon. Trump’s apparent half-heartedness in pursing his initiative has already significantly impaired America’s relationships with its allies in the region.  America and Hon. Trump have lost face in the region because the Iranian regime has withstood America’s assertion of its military power and as a consequence of Hon. Trump’s inconsistent messages and unfulfilled threats.  Hon. Trump’s obvious unwillingness to deploy ground troops – presumably because the inevitable resulting American casualties in an unpopular war will decimate whatever political support he still has – has shown him to be a paper tiger.  China, because of its influence with Iran, can replace America as the arbiter of stability in the Middle East.  In the meantime, China should continue whatever covert assistance to Iran it is now providing to enable Iran to continue its struggle.  During the upcoming summit, Your Uniqueness might consider demanding that America immediately begin to let oil tankers bound for China proceed through the Strait of Hormuz, and, if insufficient American concessions are not forthcoming, threaten to embargo American produce (disproportionately adversely affecting Trump supporters) and its access to our rare earth minerals.  (Hon. Trump’s predictable response will be to threaten to increase tariffs on Chinese goods.  If he does so, such measures will hurt China temporarily, but will undoubtedly impair America’s ability to maintain its defensive capabilities, alarm global financial markets, and increase America’s inflation rate; Hon. Trump currently can’t politically afford these outcomes.)  

Europe, Russia, and Ukraine.  Here again, Hon. Trump’s inexplicable disregard for America’s traditional strategic allies has provided us with an unexpected opportunity to expand our global influence.  The American president’s trade wars with the European Union, his boorish and imperialistic behavior – his threat to annex Greenland by force will never be forgotten by the other NATO nations — and his willingness to essentially abandon the other NATO nations as they face what they consider a real Russian threat to their own security has created a rift, a distrust between the European nations and America, that many experts have opined will never be entirely repaired.  America’s unwarranted Iranian incursion has exacerbated this ill will among Europeans by driving up their energy costs with the likelihood that an extended conflict will materially and significantly damage their economies.  Our approach needs to be subtle.  I will humbly suggest that despite our intent to maintain solidarity with Russia, with whom you have indicated that we have an unbreakable bond, expansion of Russian political control into western Europe is not in China’s interest.  While true democracies provide an image of political freedom which the PRC must effectively counteract in messaging to our people, China needs an economically strong Europe to buy our goods.  Without wishing to offend Your Uniqueness with being too candid, Comrade Putin, with whom I am sure you have the warmest relationship, leads the hollow shell of a once-proud nation; besides nuclear weapons — which you have seemingly made it clear to the Comrade that he cannot employ in his struggle against Ukraine – and admittedly sophisticated intelligence capabilities, Russia has limited geopolitical assets and few prospects of generating them.  Its army has been embarrassingly exposed by the Ukrainians.  While China would of course outwardly applaud a Russian conquest of Ukraine, and China clearly has an interest in covertly assisting Russia because our own prestige will be degraded if Russia is perceived to have been defeated by Ukraine, our interests are arguably best served if the struggle continues in its current status – depleting both Russian and European assets – which will make the former more dependent upon us for military assistance, and the latter more amenable to any trade proposals we will wish to make in the future.  We should surreptitiously provide Russia the aid it needs to keep it going, but not enough to enable it to overpower the Ukrainians.  In retrospect, Comrade Putin’s Ukraine invasion might be interpreted not only as an effort to reestablish the USSR but also as an attempt to achieve a greater level of parity with China among those nations choosing to be led by enlightened leaders rather than by their people; if so, its abysmal strategic failure has reduced Russia to a position of China’s favored supplicant.  If necessary, we should make it absolutely clear to Comrade Putin – similar to the manner in which America asserted its precedence among western democracies by instructing Great Britain and France to cease and desist in their Middle East invasion during the 1956 Suez Crisis — that China does not consider it in China’s interest for Russia to attempt any further reestablishment of the USSR, and that any Russian expansionist designs will HALT at the current NATO border.  One may suggest that over the coming decade Europeans will become increasingly desirous of dealing with us economically because they’ll be seeking a counterweight to America – as long as they see China as a check on Russian expansion, and China’s actions do not cause European leaders to view China as a national security threat.

South America and Africa.  These continents are obviously somewhat less important geopolitically and each includes too many countries to enable each to be dealt with specifically in this memorandum, but again, Hon. Trump’s obviously racist and one-sided mercenary instincts provide us with opportunities.  Hon. Trump’s attempt to maintain a sphere of influence over South America to the exclusion of China – his so called, “Donroe Doctrine” – is a joke.  In Brazil, his feud with its leftist leader, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and his willingness to interfere in Brazilian domestic affairs and legal and democratic processes in support of “the Trump of South America,” Brazil’s former rightest president, Juan Bolsanaro, has alienated South America’s largest and most powerful country.  I will also suggest that even America’s recent deposition of Venezuela’s leftist president, Nicolás Maduro, will backfire on the Americans.  While America’s capture of Sr. Maduro was originally viewed by ordinary Venezuelans as an act of liberation, by Hon. Trump leaving the entire Maduro regime in place – deferring popular elections, turning his back on and thus insulting the opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, after she agreed to share her Nobel Peace Prize with Hon. Trump — in return for Sr. Maduro’s minions’ willingness to provide America access to Venezuelan oil (which Hon. Trump somehow, inexplicably, considers “American oil”) will ultimately turn Venezuelan public opinion against America, making it a fertile ground for us.  Likewise, one of the first initiatives of Hon. Trump’s Administration – “DOGE” — cut out aid programs to Africa considered vital to protect Africans’ health, and Hon. Trump’s well-publicized racist reference to African countries as “Shithole Countries” has undoubtedly created sufficient disfavor among African nations that China, through deft diplomacy and economic aid, can establish primacy on the African continent as well.

North America.  Since the continent is America’s direct sphere of influence, and the economies of Canada and Mexico rely heavily upon trade with America, there is only so much that can be done within this region, but even here, there are opportunities.  Hon. Trump’s imperious approach to Mexico – recall his highly offensive attempt to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the “Gulf of America,” and that not long ago America was accused by the Mexican government of conducting operations against Mexican cartels without the Mexican government’s knowledge – taken together with his offensive trade policies and his disparaging and obviously racist attitudes and references to Latin peoples have alienated Mexico sufficiently that I would suggest that deft Chinese diplomacy may enable us to establish greater economic ties with Mexico, which will be eager to have some counterweight against America.  Canada, of course, will be the most difficult.  Although Canadian Prime Minister Carney clearly has no use for Hon. Trump, and is seeking to link Canada more closely to the EU and establish even deeper ties for Canada within NATO, the Canadians’ geographic, ethnic, and cultural proximity to America enable Canadians, more than any other people, to conceptually separate Hon. Trump and his administration from “America” and the American people.  Even so, Hon. Trump’s offensive calls to make Canada America’s “51st state” and one-sided trade policies have undoubtedly increased anti-American sentiment among some Canadians, and Canadians have now undoubtedly recognized that a large share of the American electorate is gullible, easily persuaded by demagogues.  Their government may well embrace deeper exchanges of commodities with China as a counterweight to future American instability and unreliability.  We should encourage these sentiments by granting as favorable a trade status to Canadian products and produce as our own domestic circumstances can afford.

Your Uniqueness, if you have found any merit in what I have placed before you, I will beg your sufferance for my delay in providing you with my additional very low and obviously very uninformed and unworthy views supplementing those I have had the temerity to place before you; if you haven’t, I am confident that I will have no need to further ponder how China might manage the nations with which we share our own immediate sphere of the world, and our runaway province Taiwan.  Just keep in mind:  You are a Manchester City fan.  Amazingly, so am I!  Go City!         

Just a Surmise

This is posted on a whim. 

As many are aware, the White House Correspondents Association holds an annual black tie dinner on the last Saturday every April, and for many years it was attended by Presidents of the United States of both parties.  These affairs generally involved gentle jibing by Chief Executive at the White House Press Corps covering him, and the Correspondents’ (generally) good-natured ribbing of the President in response.

President Donald Trump did not attend any of the four Correspondents’ Dinners during his first term, and skipped last year’s, the first of his second term.

He’s going tonight.

Here’s the surmise – one that if it hadn’t already occurred to you when you started reading this note a few seconds ago, probably has now:  

Mr. Trump wants to start a fight.  He knows that except for perhaps the few days after he incited the January 6, 2021, attack on our nation’s Capitol building, he is as unpopular with the entirety of the American people as he has ever been, he’s mired in a war of his own making that is exacerbating Americans’ financial straits, and he wants to be attacked by the Correspondents – whom he recognizes are no more popular than he is — in a manner that can be portrayed as disrespectful in the alt-right media silo inhabited by his now-wavering supporters.  I am confident that Mr. Trump and his media advisors well recall that at the 2018 Dinner, the ribbing of then-White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders (now the Governor of Arkansas) was not good-natured, was considered in retrospect personally disrespectful, was described by even left-leaning observers as “over the line,” a “take down.” It was not a good look for the press.  I expect Mr. Trump to attempt to provoke the media in his remarks with the full litany of his normal attacks – “fake,” lying,” “failing,” “enemies of the people,” etc., etc. etc.

While Mr. Trump’s potential ploy is readily predictable, I hope – and have some confidence – that the Washington Press Corps will be too savvy to take the bait.  It probably regretted (as I recall, it should have) the treatment Ms. Sanders received at the 2018 Dinner, and the correspondents undoubtedly recognize what Mr. Trump is more than likely to be up to.  In the moment, a tongue lashing from Mr. Trump will be uncomfortable, but it’s hard to conceive of him saying anything he hasn’t said before; if the reporters don’t respond provocatively, his speech is a one-day story – tomorrow, a Sunday in spring when nobody watches media anyway – and it’s gone Monday.  If they take the bait and respond combatively, that becomes the story, and gives him the rallying point – the distraction — for his supporters that right now he desperately needs.

We’ll see what happens.   

I Fought the Bot … and the Bot Won

[Even amid the chaos we live in, sometimes one needs a distraction.  After being encouraged by friends for quite a while to do so, in recent months I have taken up the New York Times’ online Wordle game.  For those of you who aren’t familiar with Wordle, skip this one.  For those who proceed, you know the tune. 😊]

Starin’ at the squares and feelin’ dumb
I fought the Bot and the Bot won                            
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

I needed ideas ’cause I had none
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

I used my words, and it feels so bad
Guess my race is done
It’s the best guess that I ever had
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

Just prayin’ for a good six run
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

I missed my tries and I lost my run
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot and the Bot won

I used my words, and it feels so bad
Guess my race is done
It’s the best guess that I ever had
I fought the Bot and the Bot won
I fought the Bot  … and the Bot won.

[I hate that snarky Bot – particularly for the clearly patronizing way he congratulates me on the rare occasions when I meet his expectations.  😉]  

We obviously have more serious ahead of us.  In the meantime, enjoy the coming of spring.

This Weekend, It’s Hungary

As the news media trains its spotlight this weekend on the efforts of Moe, Larry, and Curly … er … Vice President J.D. Vance, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff (a real estate developer by trade) and Presidential Son-in-Law Jared Kushner (a real estate developer whose true specialty has seemingly become exploiting his relationship with his father-in-law) to reach an enduring peace settlement with the Iranian regime in Pakistan, I suggest that the weekend event having the greatest impact on the future of human democracy is not there – where I am willing to wager there will be a lot of diddling around, with very little progress — but rather in the outcome of the election taking place tomorrow – April 12 — in Hungary, in which Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his party, democratic in name, autocratic in fact, are in what has been reported to be a close contest against challenger Péter Magyar and his supporters.  (Apparently, if it is indeed a close race, Mr. Orbán and his people haven’t yet gained the level of control over his nation’s voting processes mastered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the lately-deposed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.)

[An (long) aside on the Iran talks, nonetheless.  There has been a fair amount of speculation in the press as to why President Donald Trump disregarded one of the primary tenets of international diplomacy by choosing Moe … er, Mr. Vance to lead the American delegation in the talks with the Iranians; the conventional wisdom is that using a high level emissary in preliminary negotiation raises the risks and ramifications arising from any failure.  One might also have the concern that Mr. Vance was a poor choice because he has been in politics about a minute and a half and obviously has no meaningful background in the nuances of Middle East politics, even compared to Larry and C … er, Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner.  My guess:  Mr. Trump, who even as he degrades, undoubtedly retains very sophisticated instincts of self-preservation, is well aware that as his Iranian adventure has clearly gone sideways, Mr. Vance, in an effort to maintain his standing with the MAGA base for a 2028 presidential run, has leaked to whomever will listen that he was against the invasion from the beginning (such a leak, even is such was the case, is the primary No-No of presidential – vice presidential relations in any administration).  Now, Mr. Vance has been roped in to the Trump policy.  If the talks succeed, the success is Mr. Trump’s; if the talks fail, the failure is Mr. Vance’s; and if Mr. Trump doesn’t like what Mr. Vance achieves, the President can disown it and publicly politically emasculate Mr. Vance.  As little sympathy as I have for Mr. Trump, if that’s what he’s thinking by sending Mr. Vance to Pakistan, pretty clever.  A longer post on Mr. Vance will hopefully appear in these pages before too long, but right now, if I have ventured accurately, what the President is doing to his Vice President couldn’t be happening to a more-deserving guy. 😉].     

On to Hungary.  As all who care are aware, Mr. Orbán came to power by democratic means well over a decade ago but since that time has taken extensive measures to close off any challenge to his right-wing party, and reporting is too extensive not to conclude that he has made Hungary – a member of NATO and the European Union – a tool of Russian President Vladimir Putin and done all he can to hinder NATO’s and the EU’s assistance to Ukraine’s attempt to hold off the Russian invasion.  (There are credible reports that high Hungarian officials under Mr. Orbán’s command have been communicating the details of NATO’s strategies to defend Ukraine to Russian officials.)  (On a less strategic note, I also think that one can fairly surmise that during Mr. Orbán’s years in power, while he has espoused Hungarian nationalism and railed against the fall of Western Civilization, progressives and immigrants, he hasn’t let too many helpings of goulash pass him by.  😉)   

There are obviously sufficient concerns about the election’s outcome in the Orbán camp and among the world’s autocratic regimes that the Trump Regime dispatched Mr. Vance to campaign for Mr. Orbán.  (We’ll let that maneuver, an unthinkable diplomatic faux pas in any other administration, par for the course for the Trump Regime, go by).  I am most struck by the irony and hypocrisy in reports that Mr. Orbán is claiming that Mr. Magyar’s campaign is being assisted by sinister outside forces – when he clearly has the forces of the Putin and Trump Regimes on his side.  Now, that takes some chutzpah.

From reading I did some time ago, but concede have not confirmed for this note, I understand that neither NATO or the EU have mechanisms for expelling any member once admitted.  If that is indeed the case – speaking as someone who spent a lot of his career drafting commercial agreements, for which exit clauses were almost the first issues one considered – such were colossal oversights.  That said, I understand that no matter what the level of frustration that Mr. Orbán’s obstructive behavior is causing NATO and the EU at this juncture, no move could be made by these organizations at this time to expel Hungary; such would be all the pretext that Mr. Trump – such an obvious supporter of Mr. Orbán — might need to pull the United States out of NATO (in fact, if not in law).    

What transpires if Mr. Magyar and his supporters do prevail – I suspect that the polling done in the race, which I understand favors the challengers, is probably less than truly precise – remains to be seen.  Some observers are declaring that such a victory would be a significant blow to alt-right movements across the globe. That said, the first step is to see if they do indeed prevail.  I have seen commentators opine that even if it is clear that Mr. Orbán loses, he will not go quietly; he certainly has a seditious roadmap to follow, provided by a kindred spirit across the ocean.  (Ironically, as much as Putin will want to help Mr. Orbán stay in power, I’m sure that the Russian President sees that Russia cannot overtly attempt to maintain Mr. Orbán in power; such would be considered an attack on a NATO nation.  😊) 

We’ll see what happens.  Let us hope for the best.

Pondering Mr. Trump’s Easter Post

As all who care are aware, on Easter Sunday Morning, Donald Trump – you know, our president – posted the following on his social media account (no “*ing,” since he didn’t use any):

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran.  There will be nothing like it!  Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH!  Praise be to Allah.  President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

This is one of those times that I just can’t resist stating the obvious (the most obvious observation first:  Mr. Trump probably wasn’t really sincerely extending praise to Allah 😉):

  • The Iranian Regime will not be cowed by Mr. Trump’s bluster.
  • The Iranian Regime hopes that Mr. Trump will carry through on his threat, which could make him a pariah in the international community if he fails to restrict any strike to military-related targets, and could very well turn much of the Iranian populace, which heretofore has opposed the Regime, against America.
  • Mr. Trump seems to have placed himself in a box; if the Ayatollahs fail to accede to the President’s demands and Mr. Trump fails to follow through with a dramatic strike that corresponds to the emphatic nature of his threat, Mr. Trump’s inevitable future threats will lack all credibility with the Iranian regime.
  • The tone of the Easter post made clear to the Iranian Regime (as well as to the rest of us) that despite his protestations, Mr. Trump is terrified by what the Iranian Regime’s continuing hold on the Strait of Hormuz will do to the global economy; he is desperate; he wants/needs a quick deal much more than they do.
  • We have an unstable, capricious, deranged, delusional, diminishing, desperate geezer in the most powerful office in the world.

I’d love the opportunity to ask the author of The Art of the Deal:  When you see that the other side is panicking and anxious for a deal, do you back down and give the other side what it wants — or do you exploit your advantage?

Acknowledging that the following inquiry invades the realm of the eminent psychologists whom I am honored sometimes read these notes, it nonetheless does not seem unreasonable for us laypeople to wonder:  Is the President of the United States … going looney?   

While pundits have been understandably primarily commenting on the ramifications of Mr. Trump’s behaviors for the outcome of the current Iranian conflict, I have heard at least a couple who have made larger observations in different contexts from which one could infer what I, and I perhaps you, have been thinking:  For a second, put aside Iran, and even concerns specifically about Mr. Trump’s fascist impulses.  How do we get through another almost three years with this guy?  And if he somehow leaves the presidency before his term is up, how do we survive J.D. Vance, whom I would suggest would, in many ways, even be worse?

The Effect of the Passion and Resurrection

As Christian Churches across the globe commemorate what is known as, “The Triduum” – three days (Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter) representing the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth — one might reflect upon the underlying import of the Lord’s passion, death, and resurrection – what was the ultimate effect. 

It is traditional Christian doctrine that the greatest Christian feast day of the year is Easter, because it is the day, according to the Nicene Creed that spells out the basics of at least Catholic Christianity, that He “… rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,” thereby proving that He was the Son of God – God as well as Man.  St. Paul, the primary spreader of the Christianity in the early Church (who has thirteen letters attributed to him included in the New Testament, compared to seven for all other Christian writers), whose faith was based on Christology – i.e., the mystery of the Incarnation, Jesus as both fully divine and fully human, and his mission as Savior – wrote (in one of the letters scholars agree Paul himself actually did write) to the Christian community in Corinth, “[I]f Christ has not been raised, then empty is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. [1 Cor. 15:14]” 

As the years have passed, I have reflected upon whether Easter should, indeed, be considered the greatest of Christian Holy Days.  If one accepts Christology as taught by St. Paul, all the Lord did by rising from the dead (not that big a feat, since he was God 😉) was prove to us that He was God.  He already knew he was God.  With some temerity, I will venture that the greatest day for those who believe in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth may not be Sunday but today – Good Friday – when the Son of Man, whether or not He was also God — whom even non-Christian faiths acknowledge to be one of the holiest men ever to ever live — endured torture and execution through one of the cruelest, most painful manners ever conceived by humankind … and preached forgiveness and love of His enemies right to the last.  One might venture that His death, and the selfless submission to the Father’s will with which he faced it, were significant not only because of the Christologist belief that it enabled Him to prove He was God through His Resurrection, but also because they created a marker that has caused His message to be carried through the ages.

In the Easter Season, there is a tendency to emphasize the Gospel of John.  The author(s) of John’s Gospel – almost certainly, despite Christian tradition, not the Apostle John himself — were seemingly most influenced by the teachings of St. Paul.  In the Gospel of John, the Lord speaks in much more detail about His Divinity than is recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (the “Synoptic Gospels”), which all biblical scholars acknowledge were written at least a decade and perhaps decades closer to the Lord’s life and death.  During this Easter Season, I am most taken by the substance Lord’s message recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, here from Matthew:

“[O]ne of [the Pharisees] tested him by asking, ‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’  He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the greatest and the first commandment.  The second is like it:  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ [Matt. 22: 35-39]”

I think it is undisputed that one of the chief protagonists in the debates in the Christian community regarding the meaning of the Lord’s ministry following the Lord’s Crucifixion was St. James, referred to in the Gospel of Matthew as the “brother of the Lord.” (Assuming one believes in the Virgin Birth of the Lord, we’ll pass for purposes of this discussion whether Blessed Mother, a married woman whom I deeply, deeply revere, had to be, as the Catholic hierarchy maintains, “[for]ever virgin.”)  Some scholars believe that James was both the Lord’s biological brother and one of the two men named “James” listed among the twelve disciples; other scholars maintain that he was another James, but still someone personally well acquainted with the Lord.  It is seemingly undisputed that James was a – some maintain the — acknowledged leader of the Christian community in Jerusalem after the Lord’s death, that he and Paul knew each other, and that although both were undoubtedly holy men committed to the Lord, they did not always see eye to eye on matters of faith.  (At least one scholar has maintained that James was a source of frustration for Paul in Jerusalem; Jerusalem Christians were, not surprisingly, more persuaded by the views of one who had known the Lord personally than by those of one who had not.)  James has but one letter in the New Testament, but it certainly has the echo of someone who knew the Lord and his teachings intimately:

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this:  to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world. … [I]f you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. … What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?  Can that faith save him?  If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,’ but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?  So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.  Indeed, someone might say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’  Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. [Jas. 1:27; 2:8; 14-18]”

The primary tenet of calling oneself Christian, as Christianity has evolved since the Council of Nicaea in 325, is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was both God and Man.  To believe otherwise is considered by the Catholic Church hierarchy as “heresy” – which simply means you can’t really consider yourself a Christian – be a true member of the team — if you don’t believe the Nicene Creed.  For those who claim to be Christians, belief in the Resurrection is accordingly an essential affirmation.  Fair enough.  I’m a Catholic, and I believe that the Lord was God, but in the larger consideration of Everlasting Life, I don’t think whether one believes in His Divinity matters.  (I also believe that since the Almighty provided us with minds, He doesn’t mind if we think and question; He can take care of Himself.  I’m not so sure that this view is as widely appreciated by Christian hierarchies.  😊)  Since I believe that a merciful and loving God affords many paths to Him for those who seek to find Him, I will be so bold as to suggest (never before or after this will I be so presumptuous as to speak for the Lord in these pages; for my sake, He’d better by merciful and loving 😉) that the Lord cares much less whether we believe that He is God than whether we abide by the message He provided us:  Love the Lord your God; and love your neighbor as yourself.  As a result of His selfless, guiltless sacrifice over 2000 years ago, we have been blessed with the knowledge of the path to Everlasting Life – not an easy path, but one that can be trod by anyone of any or no faith.

Happy Easter.

The Noise Yields Its Time to Mr. Walsh

Yesterday, one of the panelists on MSNOW’s The Weekend was former U.S. IL Rep. Joe Walsh, a traditional Republican who has joined the Democratic Party during the Trump Era.  As part of a discussion of the widespread anti-Trump Regime sentiment evidenced by the large turnout at the NO KINGS rallies across the country this past Saturday, Mr. Walsh said this:

“This is a really important point – and again, this is scary to say.  The current president of the United States is doing everything he can to mess with – I watch my language – the midterms, to cancel the midterms, to never accept the results of the midterms.  Jackie [Alemany, a The Weekend host], you asked at the top, ‘What next, what next, No Kings?’  We have to make sure there are midterms … these protests have to keep growing.  … [The results need to be] ‘Too Big to Rig.’ [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

Mr. Walsh continued later:

“Look, a lot of people voted for Trump in ’24 who are not MAGA.  They voted for Trump because the Democrats suck or because of the border or because [they] want[ed] things to cost less.  Those people are fleeing from him and that’s why there’s going to be a blue tsunami if we have midterms, if we have free and fair midterms.  The other thing is – can we just; we don’t talk about this enough – he’s [i.e., Donald Trump] whacked. [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

And finally, the former Congressman added:

“I think we have to assume that there will be [free and fair elections]; we have to prepare like there won’t be.  Like we never envisioned – ‘Oh My God’ – a president can lose an election and then try to overturn the election and that happened and then January 6th happened.  He’s doing it right now, again.  We have to prepare for the worst.  [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

The national NO KINGS turnout shows that we have a lot to work with in the contest to preserve our democracy.  That said:  The struggle has barely begun.

This is a Great Day to Be an American

I believe that we currently confront the greatest internal threat to our democracy since the founding of our republic.  That said, we still have the right to avail ourselves of the opportunities enshrined in The Constitution of the United States of America, most specifically:

“Amendment I

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If you read these pages, I suspect you agree with my assessment of the danger we face.  If you do, I hope that today you will participate in a NO KINGS march and rally.  Judging by the maps I’ve seen, one close to you shouldn’t be hard to find.  😊

God Bless America.      

Those Who Cannot Remember the Past …

[Let’s start with reality:  the Iranian Ayatollahs are bad guys, and America’s interests and global stability would be advanced if there was regime change in Iran.  That said, given President Donald Trump’s recent claim that his Administration and the Ayatollahs were far along in substantive talks to end the current war – a typical Trumpian transparent effort to calm the financial markets — while at the same time the Ayatollahs were denying that any talks at all were occurring, a close friend asked me which side I thought was lying.  My response:  “They’re probably all lying.”  It turned out that I was right:  subsequent credible sources reported that exchanges were occurring, but the sides were so far apart substantively that no actual progress was being made.]

Various matters have prevented me from burdening you with much in recent weeks, and a more detailed note of impressions regarding the Trump Regime’s excursion into Iran remains incomplete; but recent credible reports regarding the Regime’s movement of Marine Expeditionary Units and 82nd Airborne troops into position to land in Iran – I have heard amounting to about 1,000 forces overall — has prompted this note.

We have seen time and time again –including in our own Revolutionary War – that in war, if the locals can stick it out long enough, they have an advantage over a larger, more established, better equipped, invader.  To cite a maxim that is both cliché and true:  the invaders need to win in order to win; the locals win if they don’t lose.  As long as locals can effectively inflict sustained damage on an invader through asymmetrical means, they’re winning.  Sooner or later, the invader feels that the effort isn’t worth the expense, and goes home.  The South Vietnamese government we put our faith in for over a decade was a sham; the North Vietnamese simply wore us down, waited us out.  The Taliban were back in charge in Afghanistan before we were even gone.

Let’s for this note put aside concerns about democracy and morality presented by the Trump Regime and simply look at substantive policy.  I have seen reported by multiple credible sources that Mr. Trump considered his antiseptic removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro a model for what he thought he could accomplish through military force in Iran.  If true, such boggles the mind.  The Iranians ain’t the Venezuelans.  Not understanding that is about the dumbest substantive policy mistake we’ve seen Donald Trump make in his conduct of the presidency (and that’s saying a lot).  Sr. Maduro and the Trump Regime’s current puppet, Delcy Rodríguez, are at bottom small-time spineless grifters interested in lining their own pockets, easily rolled by a bigger bully — the kind of people that the Trump Regime understands, because they are of the same ilk.  Mr. Trump, despite his years as president, will apparently never get that many political and religious leaders don’t think like he does – that they may enjoy wealth and gold trinkets, but they viscerally prioritize power and (sometimes) principle over trappings and comfort.  Putting aside partisanship, if Mr. Trump had called me before the invasion and asked me my reaction, out of concern for our troops, I would have said, “Mr. President, don’t do it.  First, believing Netanyahu’s (widely reported) intelligence that the Iranian people will rise up if you attack is fool’s gold.  We had intelligence that the Cuban people would rise up against Castro if Kennedy ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion.  We sponsored an invasion, and they didn’t.  If John Bolton’s book from your first Administration is at all accurate, you had intelligence that the Venezuelans were going to rise up against Maduro in 2019, and you were ready to go in to help topple the Maduro government when they did.  They didn’t, so you couldn’t.  If you attack Iran, you’ll be on your own.  The Ayatollahs aren’t the Venezuelans; in this context, they are the Russians.  They will not be cowed by whatever weaponry you bring to bear; they will not give up; they will fight to the last man.  Have your staff give you a one-pager on what happened to Napoleon and then Hitler when they decided to invade Russia.  Then decide whether you want to start a shooting war in which you give the Iranians no option but to retaliate.”

We invaded.  No regular Iranian citizens stepped forward.  As this is typed, the Ayatollahs remain defiant and bellicose.

Donald Trump, given his obsession with TV and financial markets and his addiction to the short-term, is incredibly susceptible to asymmetrical warfare, and although the Ayatollahs hate all of America, I’ll bet you a dollar that they now hate Mr. Trump the most – and understand how to most hurt him.  They are undoubtedly aware of polls indicating that a significant majority of Americans consider Mr. Trump’s Iran offensive to be one of choice, not of necessity, and accordingly recognize that such means that if Mr. Trump’s invasion goes wrong, he’ll take as much blame with the American people as they will. Next:  this war is real, not a reality show or publicity stunt [i.e., not the kind of macho movie/TV conflict that the Trump people (perhaps most embarrassingly, moronic Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth) relish — Arnold Schwarzenegger intoning, “I’ll be back”].  The Iranians are almost certainly going to avoid engaging us in the open like the thousands of mindless generic movie extras killed by Sylvester Stallone’s fictional John Rambo while Rambo extricated those he had fictionally come to save.  They can pick their spots; they win by defeating Mr. Trump with the American people.  I would suggest that they only need to pursue two avenues: 

First — as they’re obviously already doing — they effect damage, through drones or other materiel, on shipping passing through the Strait of Hormuz on a regular-enough basis to completely disrupt global energy markets (and thus, the global economy), sending American and global gas and other costs skyrocketing.  Who are Americans going to blame?     

Second – what really prompted this post – they wait for Mr. Trump to land troops.  When Mr. Trump isn’t getting his way, his first instinct is to double down.  I fear that the Ayatollahs want Mr. Trump to land troops on their soil.  For all the talk we’ve heard from pundits over the last few weeks about how the Pentagon has repeatedly “gamed out” an invasion of Iran, does anybody think that over the last five decades, the Iranians haven’t “gamed out” how to respond to any American invasion?  1,000 American military personnel will present no credible threat to the Iranian Regime – but will provide it with a target-rich environment.  Our people will be sitting ducks.  How long will it take for an Iranian drone to hit 20, 30, 100 of our troops clustered in one place?  If such occurs, I would suggest that this will be a rare instance – since so many Americans consider this a war of Mr. Trump’s choice, not a war of necessity – that the vast majority of Americans will blame Mr. Trump as much as they do the Iranians for the deaths.

If so, Mr. Trump loses where he cares the most:  both the financial markets and a significant share of the American support he still retains.  The Iranians win by not losing.

It is hard not to be deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s misguided reliance on the American military’s sophisticated but specific expertise to eliminate the global threat presented by Iran will in the long run amount to no more than the equivalent of kicking over an anthill that one encounters on a grassy plain:  i.e., a maneuver which successfully destroys the ants at the top of the hill, but leaves hundreds or thousands of unharmed ants below — and in a position to establish other hills throughout the plain.  Although we have unquestionably been in a cold war with Iran since the Ayatollahs assumed control of the nation in the 1970s, I fear that we are now going to be engaged in a somewhat hotter conflict for the remainder of the lifetime of my Baby Boomer generation.  That said, I pray that at least in the short run, for the sake of our troops who could otherwise soon be capriciously placed in harm’s way, our delusional, narcissistic Manchild President will find a way out of this box of his own making.