The dangerous cartel that is the US Soccer Federation & Major League Soccer

The US Soccer Federation (USSF) is an unhealthy cartel that works in collaboration with Major League Soccer (MLS) to stunt the growth of the men's game in the United States.

January 25, 2018

_________________________________

Soccer over the past twenty-five years has made tremendous gains in terms of viability, partial financial success, and popularity.  Certain players have become household names (Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey) from their play on the world stage (FIFA Confederations Cup, FIFA World Cup), but all of that came to a crashing halt (at least temporarily) with the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) missing the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia this summer. This epic disaster has caused a lot of soul-searching in the United States, on the men's side, and forced current USSF President Sunil Gulati to not seek another unpaid term as its president. The election for a new president is one that for the first time has national interest from the American media.  Former women's national team goalkeeper Hope Solo is a candidate, as is former men's national team players Eric Wynalda and Paul Caligiuri.  There are a few other unknown candidates but they do have work experience involving soccer as a whole, including Kathy Carter, the current head of Soccer United Marketing (SUM) which is a promotional and business endeavor amongst the owners of MLS teams.  SUM owns the television rights to all US national teams, plus the lucrative rights to the Mexican national team telecasts in North America.  It allows MLS owners to collect necessary revenue for a sport that does not have the financial heft of other men's leagues in the United States have (NFL, NBA, NHL, and motor sports-NASCAR, Indy Racing League).

The sudden soul-searching by the soccer community as a whole has forced me to look into the sport I am so passionate about.  [Full disclosure: I am a die-hard supporter of MLS as a whole, along with my favorite professional sports team, the Los Angeles Galaxy].  I attend games regularly, and hope to see the league ascend the lofty heights I dream about before I die.  The bedrock of the league's business model is something called "single entity," which is that the league is a single monolith that owns all player contracts and teams and generally controls where certain national team players can ply their trade, and attempts to improve the fortunes of smaller clubs. "Owners" are considered investor/operators and get to control the team they pay a fee for. It is designed to protect less wealthy owners by having all owners share losses and split profits according to whatever monies they collect from gate receipts, television contracts, and merchandise sales.

The goal is to make sure that no one team has a monopoly on talent and big names from the USMNT and focus more on slow and steady growth. At times this works, and other times, it causes fans to question the league's motives.  For instance, Jermaine Jones, who starred in the 2014 FIFA World Cup by scoring a goal against Portugal for the United States, wanted to come stateside and play for the LA Galaxy, since he has a home in Los Angeles (the San Fernando Valley, to be precise).  However, with a rule that most fans did not know of, he was assigned to the New England Revolution, the MLS team based in Boston, and plays in the home of the NFL's New England Patriots.  That was not even his second choice, but he nonetheless played there for two seasons before finally playing the last few years of his career in Los Angeles.  In most other leagues, this would never have happened.  Jermaine Jones would get to play wherever he chose.  MLS does this to protect teams that generally are not a draw for elite players, since New York, Toronto, and Los Angeles are the preferred destinations, in most cases.

I believe this was a good strategy in the beginning years when MLS was struggling to gain a foothold in the American sports landscape.  The last 20 years have proven that was acceptable, since the league allegedly was losing money, and needed a format that would share those losses with owners who did not have the finances to make their teams better.  Most of these teams are in small markets, such as Colorado, San Jose, Columbus and Salt Lake City.  I understand this was needed because most teams are dependent still on gate receipts, and the teams mentioned above really need those to have that necessary revenue streams.  

The USSF comes into play in helping the league by assigning MLS "First Division" status, which gets an advantage for talent coming into the league, as opposed to lower division soccer.  Part of the reason that the Federation and MLS work together is that lower division soccer, like the National American Soccer League (NASL), does not have a salary cap.  This could threaten MLS if someone with deep pockets provides a massive infusion of new revenue.  This would put MLS in a precarious position of being the first division for soccer, but trail a lower division in terms of financial power to attract top male talent.  It is a problem because MLS gets to control competition, and ensures that the business model it uses, single entity, does not lose any competitive advantage against another league.  MLS does this to protect the parity it promotes to potential owners and current ownership, in that they can move as slowly as possible on their own terms, to the detriment of the sport, in my opinion.

This cartel hurts soccer in the long term.  For US Soccer and the national team to be able to compete on the world stage, it needs to work to cultivate talent.  Part of this responsibility falls on MLS teams, but since they have no motivation or urgency to develop young talent, takes its sweet time in seeking out top soccer players throughout the country.  Critics say that this includes not searching for talent in minority communities and especially in the urban centers and inner cities. Additionally, a critical element of how soccer provides talent is that is it a sport for primarily white families since they are the ones who have money to send their kids on travel teams and receive good coaching.  Most minorities do not have the time or money to provide their kids the access to succeed. It is why I feel that soccer will plod along at its own convenient pace, and that does not bode well for international success.

How does one change this?  Well, since there is a new election for the President of the USSF, I hope that the new person in charge will force MLS to modify its ways.  This would include promoting and supporting lower division soccer, and allow those who want those leagues to succeed can do so.  Lower division soccer needs to have more financial support, and the Federation needs to seek wealthy individuals to provide a necessary cash flow that will allow it to compete on some level to MLS.  This can motivate MLS to either buy those players, and give much-needed financial help to those leagues, or provide MLS with another pipeline of talent with which to cultivate.  The Federation should also on its own develop talent that MLS does not find, and either send them to MLS clubs or allow them to ply their trade in Europe or South America.

These are some steps that soccer can do to promote the sport as a whole and provide a new foundation to succeed on the international level.  I sincerely hope that this happens for the sport I love to move in a more positive direction.

Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem is a bad idea

January 5, 2017


President Trump's idea to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a bad idea.

________________________

There was a shock, surprise, and anger that the United States, at the urging of Israel and its allies in Congress, moved the official US embassy to Jerusalem.  President Trump signed the documents on his desk and then released that order throughout the world.  Since then, there have been small riots in Arab cities, and diplomatic anger as well.  The United Nations and many members of the European Union are against it since many leaders within the U.N. feel that accepted reconciliation by both parties for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that Jerusalem shall be part divided into two capitals for two states.

I don't believe President Trump really took the time to figure this out and made this decision based solely on his gut and the "help" of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and Sheldon Adelson, and certain Republicans in Congress, all of whom are against a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

There are many Jews throughout the world who want a peaceful end to the Palestinean conflict and want a two-state solution. Not because they see the Palestineans as their true friends, but that in order for Israel to have a safe and secure future, the Palestinean issue must be addressed.  In fact, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak is in agreement with this argument (disclosure: I heard Mr. Barak echo these sentiments in a speech I heard in Redondo Beach in 2016).  However, Israeli society has changed over the years, from the group of early founding Zionists who had a shared sense of destiny with each other, and saw the solution to end Palestinean suffering as part of that shared destiny.  The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Yigal Amir, a right-wing extremist, and settler who believed Israel was given to the Jews by God, changed all that.  Over time, those Israelis were replaced with new immigrants to the country by Aliyah (right of emigration to Israel) and the population that had some sympathy toward Palestinians was eroded.  Losing those older Israelis has hurt the peace process considerably.

I cannot believe President Trump did not consider all this before making his order official to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  While rioting in Arab capitals may soon start up again, there is a pause now because Islam's Shia and Sunni communities are beginning a global war against each other.  Saudi Arabia (supported by Israel and the United States) is on one side, and Iran, Yemen, and other affiliated countries on the other side. That may save the Trump Administration some fallout for now over his embassy decision, but over the long haul, this decision will hurt American foreign policy for the foreseeable future.  It will go down as one of the dumbest decisions by an American president and affect the Middle East in a negative direction (that might be irreversible) for last peace.

Trump to create secret spy network that answers to POTUS and CIA Director Pompeo

December 6, 2017

Secret Spy Network created to protect and report directly to President Trump and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.  

Will this network serve America or an individual? 

Is there a danger of this network going rogue and loyal to President Trump only?

_________________________________________________________________

The scary answer to the above questions is "possibly."

There was a recent article written in The Intercept by Matthew Cole and renowned war reporter Jeremy Scahill, who wrote a book on private security firm Blackwater (since disbanded).  It makes sense that Scahill would be involved with this article. He is a self-pronounced expert on the former Blackwater firm and its founder, former Navy Seal Erik Prince (whose sister is the current Department of Education Secretary in the Trump cabinet).  Mr. Prince now runs a consulting firm from Hong Kong, with a Chinese firm providing a partial equity stake in the company.  Additionally, the former intelligence official, and disgraced Reagan administration official Oliver North is a consultant for this plan, which makes me believe this is more than a benign idea. This network would not be required to share their information with the wider U.S. intelligence community.  I would hope this new group is not going to move forward with regard to this type of selfishness, because not sharing information between law enforcement and spy services led to a collapse of necessary information which eventually led to Al Qaeda operatives attacked the United States on September 11th.  It would be very sad for this secret unchecked network to form and operate, which would mean as a country, those elected to serve and protect the nation have not learned a single thing.  Additionally, this secret network would not adhere to the Constitution and serve an individual rather than the nation.

This new idea by White House staff is a dangerous path that the country is being led down to.  I am not sure why Republicans would want to go along with this.  What happens when a Democrat retakes the White House?  Will the GOP go along with this now that the opposition has access to its own secret intelligence group? The authors at The Intercept sought on the record affirmation, but sources told the authors that there is no concrete support for this plan, although investigative questions asked to the National Security Council denied any such plan.  There is no real definitive proof either way that this plan is going forward.  Although, with the involvement of Erik Prince (and his former associate and CIA veteran John McGuire), who has operated a private security force since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, my hunch is that he would run the secret intelligence group.

The Trump White House does not operate under the parameters of previous administrations. This idea would seem to have merit, once one looks back on the previous year of President Trump's policies and methods.

I am very troubled by this issue.  Since America is a very divided country, and conspiracy theorists on both sides of the political spectrum create wildly inaccurate ideas that have no merit, there is no way to determine how this secret group will function.  I am worried that this secret group will spy on Americans and members of the "official" intelligence community.  Since President Trump is a paranoid and insecure man, the idea of this rogue intelligence group is something I feel he will get behind.  No telling what this group, and the intelligence apparatus that serves in a legitimate capacity for Congress and the White House do if there are two different conclusions regarding a serious foreign policy crisis.  If the White House tells the press that there was no rendition of a suspected terrorist in a country that will not allow extraction and the secret intelligence group that is authorized by Trump administration to go ahead and gets that individual out of that country.  That could cause a massive crisis, and might affect serious blowback that will harm Americans throughout the world and inside the United States.

The Intercept article goes on to state countries where Erik Prince's security firm already operates, which include Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Egypt and part of the African continent.  Prince prefers to operate with vague contracts that include plausible deniability, according to the authors (Cole and Scahill).  If there are two intelligence services operating throughout the world, one official and the other rogue, it will lead to massive problems for the reputation of the United States with its allies and will be used against it by its enemies, notably Russia and China's intelligence operations.

This idea is not going to be a good initiative for the foreign policy of the United States.  The country is already divided, and this will exacerbate tensions between Democrats and Republicans, and members of the State Department, the Department of Defense and the intelligence community.  I sincerely hope that Congress does its job and investigate whether this plan is just a pipe dream or a dangerous idea that is taking flight.  It will cause problems and expedite the dangerous tensions that are simmering within the populace.  If the Mueller investigation does not yield the results that Democrats are hoping for, the Republicans will feel that it was nothing more than a political witch hunt, and they might be open to having President Trump to operate outside the parameters of Congress.  The future of the country hangs in the balance.  I pray President Trump does not move forward with this dangerous idea.

Has feminism turned into "Feminism, Inc.?"

November 23, 2017


Has modern "feminism" been removed from its earnest beginnings, and is now a corporate and hypocritical behemoth?

___________________

Feminism is promoted as a movement for equality since its early beginnings with the Suffragettes in Seneca Falls, NY.  At that time, women were fighting for the right to vote and have an equal stake in the civic duty of all Americans.  After that victory, there were more fights relating to sexual harassment (which is making the news now because of Harvey Weinstein, Brett Ratner, Dustin Hoffman, and Matt Lauer etc).  Getting rid of hostile workplaces is a good thing, and hopefully, things will improve to the point it will be rare.  Women can make claims that will be investigated and those who are proven guilty will pay a heavy price.  I believe this is progress and that no woman will have to endure what those women who made claims against Harvey Weinstein.

However, on a political level, I think feminism is transforming into a corporate movement.  For one, it seems to me that now feminism is moving toward financial gain.  For instance, the "equal pay for equal work" language is now popular parlance for every issue.  There is already in place a federal law that states it is illegal to discriminate against anyone for salary based on gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. So, what does the "equal pay for equal work" mean?  To me, it is essentially the same thing, but for some reason, the Democrats and women's rights groups say that it needs to be in place. Is redundancy now an official position for women?  It does not change the current law throughout the country.  So, what is the main point of this agenda?

I think this is a political tool that tugs at the sense of "grievance" that certain liberal women hold. Why? Both the Democratic and Republican parties have focus groups and meetings with consultants to gauge what issues they can use to rally their base.  For the Democrats, single women are one of the largest group of voters that help them win elections (along with African-Americans, Millenials and a small share of white men).  For Republicans, older white conservatives, military veterans and large swaths of Christian evangelicals are the groups they target to win over voters. In order to keep that group happy, the Democrats need to create issues like the "War on Women," where the issue is framed that Republicans want to ban abortions for women who want or need them and protect companies and religious groups that do not want to cover birth control for their employees.

For the upcoming elections in 2018 and eventually the 2020 presidential campaigns, the Democrats will use the sexual harassment and assault allegations as a weaponized tool to force the party to favor women candidates and accuse those within the party and local officials of not "supporting women," or "don't want to see women succeed."  These are dangerous games the Democratic party is playing with the country.  Identity politics can only go so far, and it can be like Frankenstein's Monster, whereby the monster that was created (in this case, Identity Politics) will eventually turn on its creator.  The same thing will happen to Republicans, who are so dependent on their evangelical base that the GOP will see their own insurgency amongst the base they pander to (Trump was the first salvo in this war for the Republican party's soul).

For the Democrats, it will be more difficult to control the various factions within their party, especially the women's activist and rights groups who want to see more women run for Congress and the White House.  For the 2020 election, the high-dollar and powerful donors have already anointed Senator Kamala Harris (D-Ca) as President Obama's heir apparent. She is intelligent, biracial (black and South Asian) and a woman.  It is the perfect trifecta the Democratic party will hurl toward an unpopular GOP incumbent, one who brings out the hysterical in many Democrats and their party leadership.  Will this prove to be a good strategy? Who knows?  I doubt Trump will lose too many followers.  It seems that women who voted for President Trump will still vote for him so this pandering to women by Democrats may not be the best strategy.  Nonetheless, the party will try to work women into a lather by promoting certain policies.

I think that Democrats are hell-bent on running a woman because they have made many promises to the large segment of women voters in their party. Hillary Clinton was that promise, and it was a massive shock to the party that they did not get what they promised to those targeted voters.  So, what is next?  Here are the proposals I think the Democrats are planning for 2018 and 2020, geared toward the Feminism, Inc. (to turn envy and entitlement into a profit):

1. Use the current sexual assault/harassment in Hollywood, media, and Capitol Hill to push for more women in Congress (which is a good thing, but it should be based policies that benefit all Americans, and not geared to one gender under identity politics)
2. With the recent Matt Lauer sexual assault/harassment crisis front and center in the news, use that to force NBC News to have more women in power, and fire as many men associated with Matt Lauer, otherwise the lawsuits will drain Comcast (NBC parent) of its stock price and profits (this has nothing to do with envy, but more so profit for Feminism, Inc.).
3. Use the Lauer issue as a conduit for a (possible) Democratic control of both houses to pass legislation so that it would be legal for companies to hire more women (even though that would conflict with the current law that makes it illegal for companies to discriminate against anyone based on gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

I agree that it is a good thing to have people get paid close to what their peers make, but it needs to be nuanced.  When companies hire new staff, they base their salary offers on what work experience a person has, plus their educational qualifications.  It is very rare for any two people performing the same job to have the exact work history and educational experience.  While paying people the exact same wage is noble, the question becomes who do you promote if two people are getting paid the exact same wage for the same job?  It becomes a subjective decision and one that has no good outcome. So, while I agree that salary parity is a noble goal, the realities of the workplace is that a diverse employee pool will have diverse characteristics for its employees.  I do not think pandering to women will create a better work environment. In fact, it will create the opposite, a hostile work environment where men and women are more concerned as to who is getting paid more, rather than focusing on why they are working in the first place.

Robert Mueller Indictments: Is Paul Manafort the bait for the Big Fish (a.k. Donald Trump)?

Monday

November 7, 2017

Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's Investigation for Russian Collusion 

________________

On October 30th, Independent Counsel Robert Mueller released the highly anticipated set of people who were arrested and charged with various crimes, per the announcement over the weekend.  The first set of targets were Paul Manafort and his business partner, Rick Gates, who were charged with tax evasion and money laundering. I am sure meetings with Russian contacts will be part of pre-trial hearings. Based on what I observed during the campaign, it appeared that several members of President Trump's inner circle, including his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, played a central role in trying to get opposition information about Hillary Clinton through Russian intermediaries.  So why are Manafort and his associates the only related campaign staff who have been indicted?  My guess is that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller III is using Manafort to spill the beans on what he knew, and where the proverbial bodies are buried.

As campaign chair, Paul Manafort was the nerve center for Donald Trump's wacky candidacy for President of the United States.  He ran the operation and worked with supporters and others to craft his message and try to find a weakness for the Democratic nominee.  Plus, he had the ear of Trump until his family forced Manafort out midway through the campaign. Perhaps being pushed out by Ivanka and Jared will allow him to spill the beans on what he knew about the inner workings of the campaign and its alleged relationship with Vladimir Putin and his cronies.  If that is the case, then President Trump should be worried, especially if the rumors about Russian assistance prove to be true.

However, the hysteria by Democrats and members of the extreme left should be met with caution.  There could be bodies that are buried and treasonous meetings with supporters of the Kremlin, but at the same time, those rabid voices need to be tempered with the thought that nothing could come out of this.  The calls for impeachment need to be careful and met with sound evidence.  If a Democratic-controlled Congress tries to impeach President Trump, and the Mueller investigations prove no concrete collusion, then the circus that will be a Democratic chorus could backfire before the 2020 Presidential elections and cause serious problems for the unity of the country.  Impeachment proceedings that are "must-see" TV that does not present evidence or proof, but goes with hearsay, will cause an explosion of rage with Trump supporters.  In addition, future administrations (including Democratic ones) will lead to Democrats and Republicans taking turns to impeach the opposition's administration.  These types of situations lead to internal conflict and civil war.  That will tear the country apart.

If the Democrats win back the House in 2018, what they should do is focus on improving ways for Americans to vote, like making Election Day a national holiday, and providing protections against employers for anyone who wants to vote, be it working people, students, and senior citizens. For instance, there are similar laws in place for those who serve on juries. Also, if Republicans want ID cards for those who plan to vote, have the government pay for them.  Those are things a majority of Americans could get behind.
  
My hope is that Democrats focus on letting the Mueller investigations play out, and exhibit patience for the legal process to.  Impeachment of a president requires proof of high crimes and misdemeanors (which include breaking specific laws and treason).  If the evidence Robert Mueller presents is not a high bar for impeachment, Democrats raise the specter of a witch hunt.  That could provide Republicans an opportunity to preserve President Trump and his administration.  That would be an incredible result of aggressive Democratic tactics, supported by their friends in Hollywood and media companies that own MSNBC, CNN, and CBS.  The public relations firm for Republicans, Fox News, would have the ammunition it needs to show the "bias" that is exhibited by the aforementioned Democrats and their like-minded allies.  The channel would generate so much anger with Trump supporters and those in middle America and the South and within other red states.

Any investigation requires temperance, patience and researching of the facts and any other important details.  I am aware that hatred for President Trump is fierce, but the best method would be to let Robert Mueller do his job without any political pressure and be prepared for whatever rulings or proclamations that are released.  If not, any passionate plays for power and intensive Democratic pressure will start the unraveling of the respect for the rule of law and respect for the traditions, policies, and fairness itself, not just with members of Congress, the White House but among citizens of the country as well.

Las Vegas and the endless tragedy of America and its love of guns

The Tragedy of Death of the Mandalay Bay Shooter and the Route 91 Festival 

October 4, 2017

When I went to bed on Saturday night, I saw a blurb about a shooting in Las Vegas. I thought initially it was part of the usual nuttiness that is part of the Vegas weekend experience.  However, once I logged onto my computer, I was absolutely shocked to read that the death toll from this incident was 59 dead, and a horrible number of wounded, 495 (number could change). It turned out that a random shooter (Stephen Paddock) took an arsenal of powerful guns with endless rounds of bullets, and rained hell on a country music festival that was across the street from the Mandalay Bay hotel, where the shooter was staying.  The amount of carnage was inescapable, and not lost on the rest of the country that this was the most devastating active shooter casualty levels since Orlando's Pulse nightclub shooting in 2015.  It is equally appalling that the country is resigned to being despondent, shocked and angry when these types of events happen on a regular basis.  As soon as these tragedies occur, lines are drawn and proponents of gun control and supporters of the 2nd Amendment assume their usual positions and yell and scream at each other, advocating that their position is right.  Neither side has a monopoly on the correct way to deal with this.  Liberals and Democrats think more intensive background checks and other far-reaching regulations will end this type of violence.  Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians feel that those invasive and draconian methods will not change anything or save lives.  They feel that a more aggressive stance on finding those with mental health issues and ensuring they are found before they commit violence, along with protecting law-abiding citizens access to the gun of their choice (AR-15s, revolvers with large magazines, etc.).

However, there are many holes in the arguments of both sides of this hyper-partisan issue.  Democrats immediately want to institute gun laws, which they feel would limit the number of persons with mental health issues from purchasing guns.  The GOP and the NRA want the government to enforce the laws already on the books.  However, both positions do not truly seek an answer as to how to end this carnage in our country.  New laws will not prevent those who pass background checks from committing mass murder.  The NRA has such a powerful stranglehold on the Congress that many members are too scared to protect its citizens.  The gun lobby wants to make sure that any American citizen has the ability to purchase as many guns as possible, and they know gun and ammo sales increase after every major massacre.

So, where to go from here?  More background checks will not stop anyone who passes background checks from buying an arsenal of weaponry and on any random day, committing murder on a large scale.  Nor will having more guns in the homes of Americans allow them to return fire and save the day.  I think the main issue is that guns are readily accessible to any person who qualifies.  No background checks (unless they are very invasive) can predict which person at any given time will go nuts, so to speak.

What is the solution?  I think the problem is that America is a very violent society, and adding to that is the immense racial tensions that are just under the surface. Unless we tackle those two main issues, I don't see the gun violence going away.  Conservatives, or should I say conservative gun owners, do not want any infringement on their ability to buy as many weapons as possible, regardless of their need or realistic necessity to have so many.  Liberal policymakers tend to live on the coasts (New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami) and do not have empathy or understanding of those who live in the middle of the country.  People who live in large cities and have access to law enforcement arrival in a short period of time do not understand the life of those who live in rural parts of the country. Law enforcement's arrival could take too long to arrive to be effective.

Adding to this tension are the two political parties and the cable networks who constantly feed the point of view to those like-minded people who watch their respective channels.  It is a fight between the fearful of increasing racial demographics of brown, black and Asian American and those who feel that guns are no longer necessary in a 21st Century America.

This war between different thinking about what guns mean to America has no end in sight.

Charlottesvilla and Trump...Why I believe Trump needs to resign

July 19, 2017

What transpired in the college town of Charlottesville, Virgina this past weekend is a pivotal moment in American history.  The election of Donald Trump was a surprise to many in the United States,  and around the world, myself included.  While I did not think Hillary Clinton was the best choice for President of the United States, I did not think President Trump would shame this country in the eyes of the world community. His election gave racists and "aggrieved" white men an opportunity to become emboldened to be open about their horrible worldview.

The movement of racists, neo-nazis and white supremacists came into the open with the planned support and defense of Confederate monuments in Charlottesville against their proposed removal.   The sight of hundreds of white men with torches marching through the town shouting shameful slogans such as "Jews will not replace us!" and "we shall not be replaced," was bad enough.  What made the images worse was the open, physical fighting between those white men and residents and others in opposition.  The tragedy of a white supremacist driving his car (images above) into a crowd of opposition groups, which resulted in the death of a 32-year old woman, Heather Hyer was so appalling.  That this is 2017, and America is still fighting the Civil War in a figurative sense, is very sad indeed.  President Trump had a wonderful opportunity to shame those racist groups (known as the "alt-right,)" but chose to spread the blame around is not indicative of this great country.  I am at a loss as to why he would not publicly speak against the alt-right is questionable.  What is the reason for that?  What is President Trump's end game for his cowardice?

I am of the opinion that he is genuinely afraid to call out these groups because he desperately needs them in order to mount a defense of his first term, should be want to run for re-election.  Since he has the loyalty of a small segment of die-hard supporters, many of whom are part of the alt-right, he cannot make them angry.  Otherwise, he has no strong coalition for victory in 2020.  President Trump will not carry a majority of women, Asians, blacks or Hispanics, he needs to protect what little of his coalition he has. I think Trump is truly afraid of losing people who support him because, without them, he cannot validate anything he says or does.

Trump is, at his core, a very insecure and needy man.  He does not have the capacity to genuinely be sorry for what he says or does, and by doing so, he feels that doing so would lower his self-esteem.   Since he grew up in wealth and privilege, there was no need for him to be humble and generous.

Additionally, I feel that he is incapable of expressing remorse.  The reason I have strong feelings about this is before he challenged President Obama's legitimacy, he was a 'man about town' in New York City.  He was friendly with many members of society and attended social events throughout the city.  In fact, he had good relationships with both Democrats and Republicans. Trump was a well-known commodity in the city, and he, from what I have read and researched, was not the person he is now.  

I think it all changed when Donald Trump attended the White House Correspondent's Dinner in Washington, D.C. a few years ago (2014 or 2015), and sat in that large crowd, listening to SNL's Seth Meyers and President Obama tear into him, and make fun of him personally.  From that moment on, he was on a war path to avenge his image.  This plays into my belief that he wanted to repeal Obamacare since it was the signature achievement of America's first black President of the United States as revenge. Trump is motivated by vindictiveness, and it clearly shows in his demeanor when talking about Obamacare and the 44th President.

His poor habit of tweeting instead of going through the White House Press Secretary and Office of Communications makes a mockery of the official process.  Tweeting shows the world how far the politics of the country has fallen, in that an immature man leads the so-called Free World.  President Trump has no filter, which can be good when you want to change the ways things are done in the nation's capital.  However, when that filter cannot bring unity towards the various groups in conflict in Charlottesville, then the bully pulpit, the power of the president is muted.

What brings me to my decision that President Trump needs to resign, is that when he had an opportunity to shame, by name, the alt-right groups that caused mayhem and fighting amongst American citizens, he lost a lot of the benefit of the doubt that he was given when he was elected President last November 2016.  If a sitting President of the United States does very little to show the nation that he covertly supports the alt-right groups that embarrassed the nation last weekend, it meant that he has lost the country.  Various members of the GOP took umbrage with what he said and condemned the alt-right groups in attendance. However, being the GOP, those members of Congress did not call out President Trump by name and did not shame him into being more forceful in his own condemnation of what transpired in Charlottesville.  That shows that most Republicans want to salvage his presidency as long as possible so that one or two more Supreme Court justices can be appointed.  Those Republicans have more allegiance to their own party and their worldview, rather than protecting the office of the president and the reputation of the country around the globe.

If President Trump does nothing to heal the country and continues to quietly support the alt-right, then he will lose the good faith of many Americans, and eventually, his ability to govern.  If that is the case, then Trump would do the country some good by resigning.  If he does not, he will allow the country to tear itself apart.  Some say that we as a country are still effectively fighting the Civil War. With the ending of fighting in most wars, the victor generally gets to write the rules. What should have happened after General Lee signed the Confederacy's surrender at the Appomattox Courthouse is that President Lincoln should have tried in court those that led secession in the states, and along with Jefferson Davis. Additionally, any symbols of the Confederacy (the Stars and Bars rebel flag, uniforms, etc.) should have been outlawed and burned.

Since that was not what happened, and General Grant vociferously pleaded with President Lincoln to not try General Lee, Lincoln instead allowed those who fought against the Union to be forgiven, which was an attempt to heal the country.  However, that mercy that President Lincoln showed allowed the Confederacy to still linger for an additional 160 years.

President Trump could have taken this opportunity to do what Lincoln should have done, and made efforts to outlaw the rebel flag and force the alt-right and those harboring negative views about the Union to move into the 21st Century, and let the Confederacy die already.  That would be part of "draining the swamp," because those horrible beliefs by some conservatives about race is an underlying part of Washington, D.C. and the lack of compromise.  The Republican party has morphed from a party of limited government compassionate citizens into a party that encourages dog whistles in its ideology to inflame bitterness and anger about race relations in this country, and slavery, America's original sin.

Since he chose not to follow that route, his behavior has emboldened the alt-right to continue to seek conflict. This will eventually create such a large fissure amongst citizens of this country and could tear it apart. Donald Trump needs to resign from his position as President of the United States.   To save this country from internal conflict and rage, he must, for the first time in his short presidency, do the right thing, and resign.

-AK

Serena Williams GOAT Controversy

July 27, 2017

John McEnroe stirs controversy when he says tennis star Serena Williams is the female G.O.A.T., but when compared to men, she would not fare too well.

Recently, tennis legend John McEnroe made waves of controversy when he said that Serena Williams is, in his opinion, is the greatest women's tennis player in history.   He was being interviewed on NPR while promoting his newest book.  The NPR host quantified her question by stating why does McEnroe feel she is the best "female" player, and not greatest "tennis player," of all time? McEnroe, in response, said that if Serena Williams played on the men's tour, she would be ranked somewhere around 700th in the world.  That response set of a political and gender-related hornet's nest of people being offended, and a virtual rehash of the Battle of the Sexes between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs.

Everyone who commented on this story has an opinion of their own.  Women defended Serena and felt that she could beat men's players.  Men defended John McEnroe by stating that men are bigger, stronger and faster and any match between Serena and an elite man would be no contest.  I personally agree with that assessment.  Men are stronger, and the men's game is faster and is known for its sheer power in terms of rallies.  Serena would not win against elite men's tennis players, but that does not stop people from commenting on this controversy.

I think the main problem with this kerfuffle is that women with an agenda, known as "social justice warriors," do tend to inflate female athletic success, and make assumptions and assertions about women competing against men, and expect men to not challenge that flagrantly biased assertion. I feel that is part of it: to create controversy to sell books, films, tv shows, etc. In other words, to devalue women's competitive athletic performance, but to ensure that any success is not inflated when trying to compare that achievement to any performance a man has done.    Chris Evert was right when she stated that comparing men's and women's athletic achievements against each other was in fact, " comparing apples to oranges."  However, it is women doing the comparing, reaching for a sense of vanity and a self-esteem boost.

Comparing women's achievements against men devalues those achievements by saying they are great stories of success, but suddenly change when compared against men's athletic achievement.

Just enjoy both.

Trump Advisors want regime change in Iran - Is this a joke?

War with Iran?  Is Trump Seriously Considering This?

The recent news from a Politico article that some of President Trump's foreign policy advisors want regime change in Iran has got to be troubling news.  Has the president not been following the long and unfruitful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Those wars were supposed to show the strength of the US military and the "power of Ameria" to transform those nation-states into Western-style democracies in short time period.  The war in Afghanistan is a never-ending back and forth between the Taliban and ISIS (rumored) and Coalition forces fighting over the same space and cities.  I don't see anything getting better in that country.  

War with Iran would engulf (no pun intended) the Persian Gulf and the Greater Middle East, and this horrible military endeavor will not end well and will plunge the area into total conflict for many, many years.  I believe it will damage our military and the lasting effects will be irreparable, for Iran, the United States, Israel and neighboring countries.

President Trump may feel that in order to prove that he is no puppet of Putin, he will have to attack and defeat Iran and Syria, two client states of Russia.  He seems to have no understanding of how a government works, and what it can do, or what it can't.  If he cannot grasp that, how on earth do people think he can hold onto the prospects of war and its effects?  Syria is going to be a continued quagmire, with Russian, American and now recently exposed Israeli contributions to both sides of the fighting.  Israel wants President Bashar Assad out of power, which will eliminate a source of concern and one less enemy for the State of Israel.  However, Assad is a loyal client of Russia, and Russia has to show that it too will defend its friends, the same way America has to defend Europe and its allies in the Pacific region (Australia, the Philippines, Singapore and Japan).

Knowing this, why would President Trump want to start a fight with another client state of Russia, which will most likely draw in Putin himself. The danger is that this will constitute the first time great powers went to war with each other since World War II.  It will change the power dynamic and could force a nuclear exchange with Putin.  President Trump does not have the mental fortitude to avoid this type of catastrophe.  Iran will engage Israel through his proxies in the region including Hezbollah.  This will force Israel to engage Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is the most powerful faction within the Iranian government, outside of the Mullahs.  America will have to defend Israel when Iranian and Russian forces retaliate.  I don't see how this conflict doesn't end without some sort of nuclear exchange of tactical nuclear weapons (nuclear bombs with a lower tonnage yield that destroys a smaller area of square mileage) with the Russians.

President Trump's advisors who are pushing this war narrative are, in my opinion, Steve Miller and Steve Bannon, two ultra-nationalists who see war as the only means to change the current state of the world.  Both of these nuts have no problem starting an unnecessary war that will provide no serious benefit to the country at large, or Western civilization.  Who in the Trump White House can challenge the two Steves?  Jared Kushner? Ivanka?  I am not so sure, especially with all the mysterious and troubling people that Trump keeps around, like Dr. Sebastian Gorka, who is a cheerleader for military solutions to almost every foreign policy issue.

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but if President Trump wants war with Iran, I don't see any counter force within the White House to turn him away from this terrible idea.  Jared and Ivanka don't have the influence to overrule President Trump if his ego and pride are on the line if the only solution for the praise he covets is to send America's men and women in the service of their country to another long war with ambiguous successes.  This callous endeavor will spell the end of our military readiness, our ability to deal with difficult situations with military solutions, and the benefit for our overall economy and the American people.  This war will not end well and could lead to horrible consequences for the future of the human race and democracy in the United States.

It is a scary time indeed for all of us on planet earth.

AK

Comey Don't Play That

Former FBI Director Comey and his testimony to Congressional Intelligence Committees

June 8, 2017

James Comey, the recently fired Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation gave, from most accounts, a riveting dose of testimony regarding his conversations with President Trump investigations.  It revolved around the multiple investigations of Trump campaign staffers, and the campaign itself, interactions and alleged collusion with Vladimir Putin's government.  President Trump has been very adamant in getting Mr. Comey to provide proof to the American public that he is not under investigation.  Although in the letter President Trump wrote to fire James Comey, he wrote that Mr. Comey conveyed to him that (three times!) that Mr. Trump was not under investigation.  That did nothing to stifle assumptions, rumors, and gossip amongst the political class in Washington, D.C. watching the hearings on televisions throughout the District.

After watching the hearings, and listening to both liberal and conservative viewpoints on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, I have come to the sad realization that Comey and his testimony are the "No Man's Land" of the trench warfare that Democrats and Republicans are fighting over.  Both groups take away from his testimony what they want to hear, and get their party machinery to repeat over and over.  Democrats continue to shill for the idea that Donald Trump worked with the Russian government to subvert the democratic process to choose an American president.  The Republicans, who control all three branches of power in America, carefully parse Comey's testimony to see if they can avoid any difficult discussions about Trump's culpability.  Congressman Darrel Issa feels that the "non-issue" has been put to rest (he is referring of course, to additional and broad-reaching investigations into the Trump Administration's Russia issue).  The Democrats, to no one's surprise, want to investigate everyone and anyone associated with the Trump Administration.

Comey is just another pawn in this constant war of politics between two out-of-touch political parties. Neither the Republican party or the Democratic party have shown any real desire to work on behalf of the people who pay taxes (they do, but those are bipartisan mega-donors, who provide the lion's share of campaign cash), and those voters have watched certain industries (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, etc) do well, and see successful people do even better while the majority of the country has stagnated wages and many lose their jobs.

President Trump was supposed to be a sacrificial ham sandwich for Hillary Clinton to break the Glass Ceiling.  Instead, he used his savvy ability to listen to and argue for the mood of the rejected American voter, who is financially in trouble.  As a result of his shocking win, Democrats are trying to exercise their anger into proving the Trump Administration is guilty of collusion with a foreign power.  I am not defending Trump per se from any alleged act or accusation. I truly feel that a thorough investigation of the election, the hacking of the DNC, and interactions between Trump campaign staffers and the Russian government needs to be researched and presented to Congress and the American people.  Comey's experience should be part of this investigation, but sadly nothing will come of it.  Because the Republicans and Democrats and constantly using people and events to fight over control of the government, mainly to reward those aforementioned mega-donors, and their friends, there will be no great lesson learned from the 2016 election.

James Comey is a decent and dedicated public servant, whose testimony should be used to improve the methods Americans use to choose their elected officials to administer their country.  The sad part, Mr. Comey's testimony to Congress will be dissected and disseminated to the various echo chambers of the Republican and Democratic parties.  It will not be taken for what it is, a public servant's observations about a troubled year in American history regarding our elections, and how to correct mistakes and errors in cyber security.  It is another nail in the war between to extreme political ideologies, and which will eventually help the true enemy of our country, Vladimir Putin.  No wonder he smiles so often.

AK

Kathy Griffin Controversy, aka "Trump Head"

How Far Does Too Far Go?

How does the Kathy Griffin controversy stack up with other previous 1st Amendment issues concerning the President of the United States? During the Obama presidency, there were countless images of Obama in the Joker makeup, and other images of him with a bone through his nose, similar to the horrible stereotypical images of African tribespeople that racists used to show to the masses. Although I do not recall them, I think there might have been images of 'President Obama in cross-hairs, which is equally uncalled for.  Is the recent image of Kathy Griffin and the severed Donald Trump head the worst case of comics trying to get a reaction out of a shocked society?

I think Griffin's was the worst stunt that I can remember.   I know the 1st Amendment is a sacred law and right that Americans use, but I think in a divided society, with a polarizing President Trump, that image that Kathy Griffin released was both ill-advised and dumb.  It encourages similar behavior from others and will lead down a path that is unforgivable.  I know some comedians suggest that is what they do, to provoke, agitate and whip people into a frenzy.  That is fine and all, but in this day and age, it is not the kind of discussion the American people need to engage in.  

I think it started with the election/Supreme Court affirmation of the presidency of George W. Bush that started the trend of the unhinged behavior of the American electorate to publicly demean and insult the occupant of the White House through words and images that are shocking to many (I know presidents since the creation of the country and constitution have been subject to cartoon images and added ridicule, but lately it has gotten to be alarming).  Democrats and liberals started to goad each other into creating the perception of how stupid President Bush was, which led to the Will Ferrel role of a dim-witted chief executive who was in over his head and had Vice President Cheney the one who ran the country.

Then, when Barack Obama was elected to the White House, it was conservatives turn to raise the shock value of their lack of respect for the president and his family.  The media did not try to show how this type of behavior was not acceptable, rather the media showed these images to rile up the respective sides of the political divide.  It led to abhorrent behavior from some members of the Republican party, including consultants and party leaders, especially on the state and local level in conservative states.  The GOP should have taken the steps to clamp down and show of force that this derogatory behavior will never be tolerated.

For future generations, I hope that the American people will realize that one does not have to like or can even hate the President of the United States. They can make fun of him or her in a clever way, but that promoting behavior that pokes fun at, or at its worst encourages violence of any sort directed at a member of Congress or a President, is unacceptable and should never rear its ugly head again.