Extra

Trumper Tantrums

Under the March 25 headline "Trump's impulses threaten White House credibility," Pennsylvania Republican Charlie Dent observed how Donald Trump's "lack of impulse control" was proving a problem for politicians "on both sides of the aisle." And then Dent got specific, citing Trump's long history of "disorder, chaos, instability, uncertainty, intemperate statements."

You might say Trump's reputation has been seriously Dented. Which brings us to the appointment of John Bolton. 

Joltin' John Bolton Is Simply Revoltin' 

Trump's nomination of war hawk Mike Pompeo to head the State Department and "Bloody Gina" Haspel to helm the CIA was bad news but at least Pompeo's posting requires Senate confirmation. Not so, John Bolton. 

When former president Jimmy Carter recently warned that Bolton's nomination as National Security Advisor poses "a disaster for our country," he understated the danger. Bolton's installation as Trump's security advisor would risk "a disaster for the world at large." 

A letter to the editor doesn't carry a lot of throw-weight these days. Fortunately, what does carry a wallop is The Colbert Show and the viral impact of Dana Carvey's inspired send-up of NSA-designate John Bolton.
Add this to Alec Baldwin's put-down of Donald Trump and you can wire this message to Wall Street: We've got a rally going in the Laughingstock Market. 

And here (on the rare chance you missed it) are Colbert and Carvey carving up John Bolton—the "madman with the (emphasis) hair-trigger personality." 

 

School of Rock 

The loony concept of arming students instead of disarming mass-murder-minded intruders recently took a bizarre turn in rural Pennsylvania where Blue Mountain School District Superintendent David Helsel announced plans to arm every classroom with a bucket of rocks. 

Faced with a gun-wielding psychopath, Helsel's reasoning went, students could defend themselves by tossing rocks. "We always strive to find new ways to keep our students safe," Helsel proclaimed. 

But this Stone Age strategy was seriously flawed. If such a plan were employed, the first thing that would happen when a crazed killer burst into the classroom would be that all the kids would rush to the bucket. This would only abet the killer. (The phrase "shooting fish in a barrel" unfortunately comes to mind.) 

If you are going to fight pistols with pebbles, wouldn't it make more sense to invoke a "concealed carry" strategy? Consider: If every student in the classroom was armed with rock-filled pockets, a gunman wouldn't know who was packing a boulder. 

The NRA might even endorse this plan. Instead of "everybody must disarm," the prescription could become "everybody must get stoned." 

Out of Toon 

A few weeks ago in the Chronicle, Andy Lippincott, a controversial gay character in Gary Trudeau's Doonesbury comic strip, died of AIDS. But it wasn't the first time. Lippincott's demise originally occurred in May 1990. This provides a reminder that Doonesbury fans are reading a comic strip that is nearly 28 years old! (Also unnerving: recent Doonesbury strips featuring lengthy appearances by a much-younger Donald Trump.) 

And speaking of "a wrinkle in comic-strip time," how about Peanuts? 

On March 29, eight-year-old Charlie was explaining to Linus that in "only 13 more years, I'll be 21." When Linus noted, "This is 1971," Good Ol' Charlie Brown glumly realized he would finally become "a man!… a real person!" in . . . "1984." 

So how does it feel reading a comic strip that's 47 years old? 

BTW: Congrats to Charlie Brown who, on March 29, 2018, turned 55. 

War of Words 

The America language's canon of Improvised Expletive Devices is so extensive it could almost be referred to as the Americanon. Even in peacetime, we take pride in "standing our ground" when we "come under fire" and, when challenged to respond to blowbacks from rhetorical "double-edged swords," we are more than willing to "take a stab at it." Even PBS had a long-running broadcast titled "Firing Line." 

Recently KCBS radio aired an ad for Shane Co. ("You have a friend in the jewelry business") that cited a customer's praise as recorded on YELP. The young woman reported that Shane Co's offer "blew everyone else out of the water." 

On March 23, the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle's Business Report carried a positive story headlined: "Citigroup restricts gun sales by business partners." Running alongside this article was another bit of business news. It was headlined: "US, AT&T fire opening salvos in trial." 

Last month, in response to the latest wave of American-bred gun-violence, the Socialist Action website posted an article by Bruce Lesnick that offered a detailed proposal to rid the country of the scourge of gun carnage. The title of the article was: "A Surefire Plan to Address Gun Violence." [Emphasis added.] 

Vermont Stands Up to the Pentagon 

Good news just in from Vermont. The Burlington City Council has voted 9-3 to bar the Air Force from installing a fleet of F-35 fighter jets at the Burlington International Airport. 

The costly, flawed, and long-in-production weapons come with serious drawbacks. The World Health Organization warns that children exposed to high levels (115dB) of F-35 jet-noise can suffer "delayed reading and degraded concentration, memory and attention." The F-35s are so loud that nearby residents would be at risk for hearing loss, stress, and heart attacks. Nearly 3,000 Burlington families would have to abandon homes located in the jets' "noise danger zone." 

Also: The F-35s are crash-prone and, when they crash, their 12,000 pounds of combustible military carbon composites and flammable stealth coatings create infernos that spew highly toxic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic chemicals, particles, and fibers. In flight, the F-35s burn 1100-gallons of jet fuel every hour, contributing to climate-change blowbacks like Hurricane Irene, which devastated Vermont in 2011. 

No wonder the city council voted 9-3 to reject the Pentagon's biggest flying boondoggle. 

Maybe Ben & Jerry's will celebrate with a new flavor. 

"Quiet Night Delight"? 

"No-go Nougat"? 

Checking the Record for Pentagon Largesse 

Ironically, the Burlington basing of the F-35s was vigorously supported by Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy. Following the City Council vote, Sanders and Leahy issued a mild (nearly noncommittal) statement to the effect that they "expect the Air Force to respond and answer any questions the Council puts forth." 

Open Secrets is a terrific website that tracks and posts political contributions. 

A check of Bernie Sanders' campaign donors reveals his fiscal backers (from 1989-2018) have included the US Navy ($103,766), Boeing ($100,591), and the US Air Force ($82,275). Leahy's list (2013-2018) includes $34,100 from Lockheed Martin, the lead manufacturer of the F-35. 

Race and Weapons: When the NRA Backed Gun Control 

How did it come to pass that the National Rifle Association once became a firm advocate of federal gun control regulation? The answer is in the name of the law: "The Gun Control Act of 1968." 

The law was instituted (with remarkable legislative speed) after the launch of the "modern gun-rights movement" on May 2, 1967 when 30 young men and women showed up at California's State Capitol armed with .357 Magnums, .45-caliber pistols and 12-guage shotguns. These activists were not "Dirty Harry" gun-nuts: they were Black Panthers. 

Suddenly, White politicians across the nation became interested in gun control. The Gun Control Act imposed strict licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, defined new categories of offenses, and prohibited the sale of weapons and ammo to felons and "certain other prohibited persons." (The 1968 law followed in the tradition of southern laws passed after the end of the Civil War that specifically banned newly "freed" slaves from owning guns.) 

 

 

"Shock and Awe," Baghdad and the UN's Blue Veil

The 15^th anniversary of the 2003 US attack on Baghdad—a city of 5 million—brought back some memories for me. In the weeks leading up to the 2003 US attack on Baghdad, I wrote an article that was syndicated by AlterNet. It appeared on January 26 and was titled: "Shock and Awe: Guernica Revisited."
As bad as the attack on Baghdad was, it could have been much worse. According to government documents I revealed in the AlterNet piece, the Pentagon's planned missile attack was supposed to have been 20 times more destructive and deadly.
My article exposed how the military planned to strike Baghdad with 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the first 48 hours of the "Shock and Awe" attack. (A total of 3,000 precision guided missiles were to be rained on Baghdad and other major cities inside Iraq.) 

 

 

Appalled at the disregard for human life, I drew a comparison with an earlier air attack on another civilian target—the Basque town of Guernica, which was brutally attacked by fascist forces and German bombers during the Spanish Civil War. The subtitle of the AlterNet article was: "If George W. Bush gets the war he wants, Baghdad could become the 21st century's Guernica." 

When the war began, however, the ferocity of "Shock and Awe" was replaced by an attack that that Baltimore Sun referred to as "far less destructive and visually impressive." Instead of 800 missiles targeting Baghdad in the first 48 hours, the assault was dialed back to 40-320 Tomahawk missiles (press reports vary). 

The Oxford Research Group has estimated that the US invasion killed approximately 6,616 civilians. The number of civilians killed by German bombing of Guernica is believed to have been between 400 and 1,654. Fair to say, the "limited" US attack on Iraq may have been equal to between four and16 Guernicas.
Did the AlterNet piece change the course of the Pentagon's war plans? I had one related clue. 

Unknown to me at the time, the United Nations had installed a copy of Picasso's Guernica in the UN's New York headquarters. Because of its prominent placement, the famous painting of civilian suffering would have appeared in the background when Colin Powell showed up to announce the beginning of Washington's attack on Baghdad.
I only learned of the existence of the UN's Guernica when the New York Times reported that, prior to Powell's appearance, someone had mysteriously ordered that the mural be hidden beneath a large blue tarp—a literal cover-up. 

I don't have the evidence, but I like to think that the AlterNet article had something to do with both the UN cover-up and the military wind-down.