And find that he’s a combination of Todd Akin, Sarah Palin, and all their favorite GOP stereotypes.
Has the coup against Erdogan failed?
I was watching Fox News about an hour ago and most of the commentators seemed to be guessing that the coup in Turkey has failed and Erdogan is in control.
If true, this would not be a good outcome. The thought is that this will strengthen him and he will use it as a way to make himself—and his restrictions on dissent and opponents—even more powerful.
Meanwhile, President Obama has been backing Erdogan as the democratically elected leader of the country. However, not only is Erdogan an Islamist who would like to make religion a much bigger part of the traditionally secular Turkish government, but he is a power-hungry wannabee dictator a la Chavez (Muslim-style). Back in May the NY Times reported on a power grab:
Erdogan occupies what is supposed to be a nonpartisan, ceremonial role in a parliamentary democracy, where Davutoglu, a longstanding ally, was technically the leader. After serving as foreign minister for years while Erdogan was prime minister, Davutoglu became prime minister when Erdogan chose to run for the presidency in 2014. Davutoglu, it was imagined, would be the soft-spoken, bookish vizier to the tough, populist president.
A little background here—Erdogan had already served three terms as Prime Minister, the constitutional limit. Therefore this “chose to run for the presidency” business (the phrase the Times used) was because he was unable to remain as PM and yet wanted to remain in power, as others have done before him (Putin did a version of it in Russia, for example, from 2008-2012, although the titles were different). So Erdogan had every intention of remaining fully in charge—whatever his title and the relative powerlessness that was supposed to accompany it—and he did.
More:
Erdogan and his colleagues made no secret of their desire to rewrite the country’s constitution – drafted by a military government in the 1980s – and expand the powers of an executive presidency…
Despite internal unease within the ruling Justice and Development Party, known by the Turkish abbreviation AKP, and heated protests from political foes, Davutoglu and other party officials embraced their president’s agenda, at least publicly.
Parliamentary elections last June threw a wrench in the works. Opposition to Erdogan’s push for a presidential system, as well as the rise of a leftist, pro-Kurdish party, saw the AKP lose its parliamentary majority for the first time in over a decade. This prompted months of discord and acrimony as Turkey’s parties proved unable to form a successful coalition government, an outcome which Erdogan’s opponents claimed was precisely what the president wanted.
New elections in November followed a wave of instability and violence across the country. The polls restored the AKP’s commanding majority in parliament and gave fresh momentum to Erdogan’s plans to reshape the pillars of the Turkish state.
Reports suggest the relationship between Erdogan and Davutoglu has been rocky for quite some time ”” with the latter frustrated by the former’s clampdown on political freedoms, including the arrests of academics and journalists, and wary of scrapping the parliamentary system for a presidential one.
Then Davutoglu, who is supposed to be the actual “democratically elected leader” of Turkey in conformance with the Turkish constitution and the title he holds (Prime Minister), was actually ousted recently in a power move by Erdogan, who is supposed to be the figurehead under him. Of course, the positions have always been reversed in this strange simulacrum of a democracy:
The clearest sign in the collapse of the tandem’s relationship came last week when Erdogan loyalists voted to strip Davutoglu of the power to appoint provincial-level party officials, something that he, as the sitting head of the party, would be expected to do.
Then, in May, Davutoglu announced his early retirement:
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu – Turkey’s leading political figure, at least on paper – announced Thursday that he plans to step down from power after less than two years in office…
Citing a “premature end” of his four-year-term, Davutoglu’s resignation comes amid concerns over Erdogan’s increasing authoritarianism, and many observers fear it will enable the president to further consolidate his power.
And then—surprise, surprise—a new Prime Minister was selected who turned out to be a strong ally of Erdogan’s:
Binali Yildirim, the country’s minister of transport, maritime, and communication, received 1,405 out of a total of 1,470 votes at a meeting of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP. Yildirim was the sole candidate for chairman at the special session called after Ahmet Davutoglu announced earlier this month he would not seek re-election.
Yildirim is a longtime ally of Erdogan…
Erdogan has been trying to consolidate the two offices in Turkey into one, giving himself more power. But with the selection of Yildirim, he pretty much did that already, because Yildirim is Erdogan’s yes-man.
Which brings us to today’s coup, or today’s coup that may have failed, and Obama’s early support for the Erdogan forces. This is giving me an extremely creepy deja vu feeling that harks back to one of the earliest things Obama ever did as president, support the wrong side in Honduras. I wrote many many posts on the Honduras matter at the time and later (here’s a relatively recent one).
The details in Honduras were rather different from those in Turkey. But this is what I wrote back in 2009 about what the side Obama supported in Honduras was trying to do there, and it somewhat resembles what the Erdogan side has been doing in Turkey in its consolidation of power:
The way is clear: tyrants very often use “democracy” as an excuse to get the people to override a constitution and grant them what turns out to be dictatorial, or near-dictatorial, powers, as well as the ability to extend or abolish term limits and stay in power longer than the constitution says (and in many cases indefinitely). Once the rules are changed about term limits, and power is consolidated and the voting apparatus compromised, staying in power is a relatively easy matter, really a trifle.
[NOTE: You can find updates on the Turkey situation here.]
[ADDENDUM: Daniel Pipes opined in November of 2015 that the AKP’s election victory was fraudulent.]
Military coup in Turkey?
The military says it’s been successful, although it’s unclear whether that is true, but there is an ongoing attempt at a military coup in Turkey (hat tip: commenter “Sergey”]:
The full Turkish military statement reads: “Turkish Armed Forces have completely taken over the administration of the country to reinstate constitutional order, human rights and freedoms, the rule of law and general security that was damaged.
“All international agreements are still valid. We hope that all of our good relationships with all countries will continue.”
The Turkish president Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan is on holiday and outside the country. Reuters has quoted a source within his office as saying that he is safe.
Follow the link and others to keep up with breaking events. I am about to step out for a couple of hours, but will update later on this evening.
“We are at war”
Listening to many commentators on the cable news stations last night talking about the terrorist attack in Nice, I kept hearing the phrases: “We’re at war.” “This is World War III.” “This is war.”
My reaction was, “Where’ve you been since the morning of September 11, 2001?” We have been at war since then, whether you realized it or not.
George W. Bush realized it, and tried to rally the Western world to realize it, too. He was only moderately successful, but his actions might have been successful enough had he not been succeeded by the election of a president who wanted to soothe and lull us into thinking it had all been a big bad Bush dream.
And most people were only too happy to be lulled.
Right after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that precipitated America’s entry into WWII, Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is alleged to have said, “I fear that all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” Whether he did say it or did not actually say it, it expresses a sentiment that so far has yet to occur in this particular war. What would it take, and what will it take?
The Bastille Day terrorist
The death toll in yesterday’s horrific terrorist attack in Nice, France, has now reached 84, with many more injured, some of them very seriously and 25 on life support, so one can expect the death toll to rise. The perpetrator of this evil deed has now been identified as:
…Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, a chauffeur and deliveryman who was born in Tunis but had lived in France for years. Three police officers exchanged fire with Lahouaiej-Bouhlel during his rampage, and found him dead in the passenger seat of the truck, Molins said.
There were many police on the scene, because it was a large crowd on Bastille Day, and France was already on alert. I am puzzled as to why it took so long for them to get him, but perhaps some facts will emerge about that, too (he was certainly a moving target, partially protected by the truck itself).
Police found two automatic weapons, ammunition, a mobile phone and documents in the truck, the prosecutor said. They also found fake weapons and more documents at Lahouaiej-Bouhlel’s residence.
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel had a history of threats, violence and petty theft, Molins said, dating from 2010 to 2016, and had been sentenced this year to six-months in prison for a road rage incident.
But he was “totally unknown” to French anti-terror groups, Molins said, and so far authorities have not found links to terror groups or evidence of radicalization.
“No evidence of radicalization”? I submit that the act itself is evidence of radicalization. He followed the instructions of al Qaeda quite precisely and used a method rather popular with Muslim terrorists in Israel and elsewhere (the following is from an article dated November of 2014, so this is hardly news):
…[A] Palestinian man who Israeli police say had connections to Hamas drove a car into a crowd near a light rail station in Jerusalem, killing one person and injuring a dozen others. It followed a strikingly similar attack in the same area two weeks ago that killed a 3-month-old Israeli. In both cases, the driver was killed by police at the scene.
These attack…are…the latest examples of a terrorist tactic that gets less discussion than many others but seems increasingly common, particularly in Israel.
…While the tactic may be most common in Israel, it’s appeared elsewhere as well…[A] Canadian man believed to be an ISIS sympathizer drove his car into two soldiers in a parking lot in Quebec. In Beijing last year, three Uighurs drove a jeep into Beijing’s crowded Tiananmen Square, killing two and injuring about 40. In 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, a recent University of North Carolina graduate, drove an SUV into “The Pit,” a popular campus gathering spot, injuring nine people. He told police after his arrest that he had wanted to “avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world.”
A variation on ramming attacks is also recommended in the fall 2010 issue of Inspire, the English-language online magazine published by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. The magazine…was read by the Tsarnaev brothers…The article recommends that practitioners take care to gather enough speed to “achieve maximum carnage” once crowds begin to scatter, and to choose their targets carefully. “If you can get through to ”˜pedestrian only’ locations that exist in some downtown (city center) areas, that would be fabulous,” the author, editor-in-chief Yahya Ibrahim, writes. He also suggests a number of countries where such an attack could take place, including the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Denmark, and Holland. So far, thankfully, no one seems to have attempted an attack along these lines.
As I said, that was written in November of 2014. That last sentence is no longer true, of course, and as you can see, the Bastille Day perpetrator followed the instructions and did those earlier attacks one better (“better” in terms of how terrorists rate these things, numbers of people killed and amount of fear and publicity sowed). This is the only vehicular terrorist attack that has killed so many people, in part because the perpetrator chose his venue very well (pedestrian area with no other cars and huge crowds), and used a much larger vehicle.
I have two questions at the moment. The first is why a non-citizen with a criminal history like that was allowed to stay in France. I know the answer, of course: it happens all the time, and it happens here, too. The second is how the truck managed to get onto the boulevard. Did it simply smash through the barriers? Were there no guards there, or did he kill them, too? I assume some more details on this will emerge.
As for the “why,” even if this guy had no obvious Islamist terrorist ties (and I’m not at all sure he didn’t), it’s not necessary to have any. ISIS, Al Qaeda, the internet, and the news take care of that, both for the inspiration and for instructions on the execution.
It’s official: Trump will be the nominee, and Pence is his VP
There are two pieces of election 2016 news today.
The first is that the NeverTrump movement is stillborn, which is no surprise whatsoever. Not with a bang but a whimper, it was crushed by the committee:
A long-shot, last-ditch attempt by a few Republican delegates to prevent Donald Trump from securing the GOP nomination failed by an overwhelming margin late Thursday night.
Some anti-Trump delegates on the Republican National Convention Rules Committee sought a strategy to unbind convention delegates, allowing them to vote their conscience against Trump even if they were bound to him by primary results. Delegates loyal to Trump and the Republican National Committee fought back by proposing a counter-measure to clarify that all delegates are bound to vote based on the primary results.
The votes came near the end of a marathon 14-hour session of the rules committee to set any changes ahead of next week’s convention to officially nominate Trump as the Republican presidential candidate. The first vote, on the pro-Trump measure to keep delegates bound, passed easily, 87 to 12.
At least a month or two ago (maybe earlier) it became clear that the official movement to block Trump was going nowhere. The reasons also seemed (and seem) clear: (1) there were not enough delegates who felt that way (2) they could not coalesce around a viable alternative. Also, in recent days Trump has seemed to be climbing in the polls to the point where he appears at least somewhat competitive with Hillary or potentially competitive with her.
I maintain that it was #2 that was the most important factor in both making the movement die in its official sense—among the delegates—and it was also the reason Trump was the winner of the primaries in the first place: Republicans could not unite around an alternative. There was no lack of alternatives, however; there were too many, but no one person could manage to gather enough of the divided party members (and crossover Democrats and Independents) to beat Trump. Trump is a symptom of a divided party, not a cause (although his candidacy has further divided the party in a time when it needs unity).
That’s why during the primaries I kept calling out in increasing desperation for a whole bunch of Trump’s opponents to drop out. It didn’t happen, and now we are left with this. I continue to think that any number of alternative candidates would have had a better chance of beating Hillary, but that is moot. I continue to understand why many private citizens will continue to be NeverTrump and write in various candidates, vote for Johnson, or not vote at all (I cannot condone voting for Hillary), although I’m not a NeverTrumper myself.
The second announcement is that Trump has chosen Mike Pence as his running mate. Within the last week or so, that had become widely expected, too, although until recently I (and many others) had thought Newt Gingrich would be the one. To me, Pence is a ho-hum choice but not a bad one at all. And given the limitations of the field—after all, whoever Trump picked had to be willing to hitch his or her wagon to Trump’s rather dubious star—Pence was probably one of the best possibilities:
Democratic and progressive groups, including Planned Parenthood’s political action organization, took aim at Pence’s opposition to abortion and other policies, while Republicans were largely supportive of the move, one of the most conciliatory overtures Trump has made to date.
Former Trump rival Marco Rubio tweeted out his approval, calling it a “great pick” and saying Pence is “rock solid.” Sen. Dan Coats, a fellow Republican from Indiana, also expressed enthusiasm. “Mike Pence is a great choice and will make an excellent vice president,” he tweeted.
Nate Silver certainly thinks it was a good pick for Trump—or rather, as he puts it, Pence “was Trump’s least worse choice”:
…[I]n Pence, Trump would basically be getting a “generic Republican”: a 57-year-old white man; the governor of a midsize, red-leaning state; someone with very conservative but otherwise conventionally Republican policy positions.
That’s probably a good thing, because a generic Republican at the top of the ticket would have a heck of a chance against Hillary Clinton, whose unpopularity would be record-breaking if not for Trump himself.
So there you have it.
Terror in Nice
[Further UPDATES as the story develops.]
A terrorist drove a truck through a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, killing 73 people.
As with all such horrific events, reports of the death toll and other details will probably change over time.
After the terrorist purposely plowed the truck into the crowd, there was more:
A gunman reportedly got out of the lorry and fired into the crowd on the seafront Promenade des Anglais, an area popular with tourists in the Riviera resort, leaving dead and injured people lying in the street.
He was shot dead by police but there were reports that an accomplice had fled and that guns and grenades were found in the lorry.
The local Prefecture described the slaughter as a “terrorist attack” but an interior ministry spokesman, Pierre-Henry Brandet, said it was too early to be certain of the killers’ motives.
Maybe not certain, in the literal sense of the word, but certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
It doesn’t take much to turn an ordinary, benign object into a weapon, does it?
Bastille Day is the French Fourth of July.
UPDATE 9:20 PM
An eyewitness says that the truck was zigzagging through the crowd, aiming at people who were trying to get away.
UPDATE 11:15 PM
A terrorism expert on Fox (I didn’t catch the name) said earlier this evening that an Al Qaeda manual from 2010 suggested these sort of vehicular attacks. There have been quite a few in Israel, although not of this magnitude. The manual suggested that the best way to get high casualties was to choose a road that had few vehicles and many pedestrians, perhaps one that had been turned into a pedestrian mall. I just heard another commentator on Fox saying that was the situation this evening for the Bastille Day celebration and fireworks; the road had been closed to vehicles and was loaded with pedestrians.
There’s little doubt this was carefully planned to maximize the number of people killed.
First reports on the identity of the terrorist state that he was 31, a resident of Nice who was born in Tunisia. I wonder how long he’s lived in France.
The Ruth Bader Ginsburg flap continues
Her anti-Trump comments seem to have struck a nerve.
Ginsburg has now made an attempt at walkback:
“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” the associate justice said in a statement.
She added: “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”
Ouch, that slap on the wrist by the Times editorial staff must have smarted. The question is why she felt free to violate the rule for judges against commenting on candidates in the first place, one she had to have known exists. Did she feel that cocky about Hillary’s prospective victory? Does she plan to retire soon? And more importantly in the strategic sense, did she not know such remarks could backfire by pulling the mask off to show her naked partisanship? I guess when she says “more circumspect,” she means that at least until November she’ll keep her mouth shut about this.
Even some liberal commentators are noticing something, though:
On Wednesday’s edition on Bloomberg’s With All Due Respect, co-host Mark Halperin admitted what many on the left probably wouldn’t dare to. He admitted that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about Donald Trump have not been as controversial as they should be because she’s a liberal. “If a Republican justice did that to a Democratic candidate, I think, the world explode,” Halperin exclaimed to co-host John Heilemann.
Halperin’s exclamation came in response to his co-host who described Ginsburg’s comments as “unusual” and “probably inappropriate.” Halperin had plenty to say about Notorious RBG’s disparaging Trump comments. “NO! Definitely inappropriate. Repudiated by some Democrats. In this partisan period that’s extraordinary,” he said, speaking over Heilemann.
Ginsburg’s remarks are not just an example of a clear violation by Ginsburg and an indication of how partisan she is (and how bold she has become about it in her public utterances), although that’s certainly true. They highlight how biased the reporting is—so much so that a few people are defecting, at least ever-so-slightly, from the pack.
Booker T. Washington: controversial then, controversial now
Booker T. Washington was a towering figure. Born in slavery, he become a leader of early post-Civil War black advancement and in particular emphasized the value of education. You can read about his manifold accomplishments here, as well as the arguments and controversy he sparked and still sparks today for his gradualist and non-confrontational approach to overcoming the very serious barriers set for the black people of his time. The following is a short summary that only scratches the surface:
He called for black progress through education and entrepreneurship, rather than trying to challenge directly the Jim Crow segregation and the disenfranchisement of black voters in the South. Washington mobilized a nationwide coalition of middle-class blacks, church leaders, and white philanthropists and politicians, with a long-term goal of building the community’s economic strength and pride by a focus on self-help and schooling. But, secretly, he also supported court challenges to segregation and passed on funds raised for this purpose. Black militants in the North, led by W. E. B. Du Bois, at first supported the Atlanta compromise but after 1909, they set up the NAACP to work for political change.
Different versions of these same disagreements continued—and continued to escalate—during the 60s, and they continue to this day.
But this post isn’t meant to be an exploration of Washington’s life, fascinating though that might be. It’s about two quotes of his. Here’s the first:
I pity from the bottom of my heart any nation or body of people that is so unfortunate as to get entangled in the net of slavery. I have long since ceased to cherish any [spirit]] of bitterness against the Southern white people on account of the enslavement of my race. No one section of our country was wholly responsible for its introduction, and, besides, it was recognized and protected for years by the General Government. Having once got its tentacles fastened on to the economic and social life of the Republic, it was no easy matter for the country to relieve itself of the institution. Then, when we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look facts in the face, we must acknowledge that, notwithstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery, the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe. This is so to such an extend that Negroes in this country, who themselves or whose forefathers went through the school of slavery, are constantly returning to Africa as missionaries to enlighten those who remained in the fatherland. This I say, not to justify slavery ”” on the other hand, I condemn it as an institution, as we all know that in America it was established for selfish and financial reasons, and not from a missionary motive ”” but to call attention to a fact, and to show how Providence so often uses men and institutions to accomplish a purpose.
Interesting perspective from a man who was born in slavery. It can be found in his autobiography Up From Slavery
And this is from his 1911 book My Larger Education: Being Chapters from My Experience (Dover Thrift Editions)
There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs ”” partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
Washington knew there were very real grievances—he had been personally subject to most of them, and much worse ones than are present for black people today. But his answer was not the same answer given by Black Lives Matter—although to him black lives most definitely did matter. That doesn’t mean Washington’s point of view didn’t have flaws (it did) and the views of his opponents some value (they did), but with the above paragraph I submit he was correct about some activists and he remains correct.
Which brings us to the present. I recommend reading this Powerline post (please read the whole thing) that draws a direct line between Black Lives Matter’s focus on what they consider racist-inspired police brutality towards blacks and the current rise of crime in urban areas, a rise that has ended up causing the death of far more black people than have been killed by police:
The virulent antipolice campaign that began with a now-discredited narrative about a police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, has made police officers think twice before undertaking precisely the type of enforcement that led to that twenty-year crime drop…
With police so discouraged, violent crime has surged in dozens of American cities, as we have seen…Homicides were up 76 percent in Milwaukee, 60 percent in St. Louis, and 56 percent in Baltimore for the year through mid-August, compared with the same period in 2014. Murder was up 47 percent in Minneapolis and 36 percent in Houston through mid-July.
But something even more fundamental than public safety may be at stake. There are signs that the legal order itself is breaking down in urban areas…
The lawful use of police power is being met by hostility and violence, which is often ignored by the press…
The irony is that the historic reduction of crime in the United States since the 1990s was predicated on police singling out African-Americans for their protection. Using victims’ crime reports, cops focused on violent hot spots; since black Americans are disproportionately the victims of crime, just as blacks are disproportionately its perpetrators, effective policing was heaviest in minority neighborhoods. The cops were there because they do believe that black lives matter.
In the recent eruption of violent crime, the overwhelming majority of victims have been black. The Baltimore Sun reported that July 2015 was the bloodiest month in the city since 1972, with 45 people killed in 30 days. All but two were black.
It is almost inexpressibly sad and ironic, and there is no end in sight. The MSM is complicit in this particular cycle of violence, as are many of the activists.
I did not realize that public libraries had been all been closed
Did you?
But that’s the only explanation I can think of for this extraordinary remark of Barack Obama’s delivered yesterday at the funeral for the five murdered police officers in Dallas:
It’s easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.
There’s a popular rumor to the effect that public libraries—which still were wide open when last I checked, even in the inner cities of large urban centers—contain books and even computers. And that teenagers are allowed into them, and can place their hands on both the books and the computers.
Yes, you may doubt it, but it’s true, and such centers often even have special programs geared to the needs of urban youths (see also this, for another example).
What’s more—and I know it’s very difficult to believe—libraries are free as long as a person resides in the city served. Yes, I realize that this is arcane information that probably hasn’t yet reached Obama, but it’s true. Nor does a person have to go through any sort of background check to get the card except perhaps to prove residency.
Meantime, buying a Glock legally is not only not easier for a teenager, it is impossible if the teenager is under 18. What’s more, smartphones are mini-computers, and there are very few teens in America who don’t have at least one.
Not to mention the fact that Glocks are expensive: about $500 a pop. So even an illegal purchase would be very expensive.
But hey, when Obama says something in that sonorous voice of his, the fact that it’s a ridiculous Big Lie doesn’t matter to a lot of people, because if he said it, it must be so. I’ve adopted a light tone for this post, but there’s really nothing funny about what Obama said and the technique of the Big Lie that he continually employs to make his political points, hoping that the American people are stupid enough to believe him.
Loretta Lynch’s off-putting testimony
I have rarely felt so repulsed by Congressional testimony as I did yesterday on watching some of Loretta Lynch’s answers before the House. I used the word “answers,” but they were really the most astoundingly verbose double-talk I’ve ever heard. Maybe double-talk isn’t quite right, either; another phrase that comes to mind is from the fictional character Holden Caulfield, and it’s one of his favorites: “slinging the old bull.”
Well, it’s hard to imagine someone slinging the old bull any better than Lynch did yesterday. If you want to take a look, here’s hours and hours of it (I only watched a series of brief clips, myself, and that’s all I could stomach):
Did Lynch actually answer any questions with a substantive answer of any sort? I don’t know; as I said, I didn’t wade through the whole thing or anywhere near it. But most Americans aren’t about to do so, either. Most Americans who pay any attention to the news at all will probably see about what I saw, and it occurs to me that an awful lot of people (perhaps even a certain number of Clinton fans, and certainly quite a few “undecideds”) will be similarly repulsed by it.
So in that sense, although I believe that Lynch thought what she was doing would help Clinton, Democrats, and the liberal cause, I’m not sure sure that her non-responsive tap-dancing isn’t as harmful or even more harmful to that cause than any truthful or at least substantive answers she might have given. People don’t like being flipped off, especially in such a controlled-yet-somehow-testy way. Lynch was unfailingly polite, but her affect was like a steel trap tightly shut, and one could hardly escape the idea that she doesn’t feel that anyone is entitled to know anything about anything she does.
The Clinton email controversy is an issue in which a lot of people are interested, even if they weren’t at first. And—although lots of you are always criticizing the Republicans in Congress, and although nothing will come of this in terms of indictments or impeachment or whatever else would be an obvious result that you might want—I think it does have an effect, and that effect is to show the American people what an imperious, non-transparent presidency they have.
This cannot help Clinton. It cannot.
And interestingly enough, at the same time we have Donald Trump rising in the swing state polls. Those polls were taken before the Lynch testimony, of course. But portions of them were taken after the Comey announcement. Polls are fluid and the hour is early, and there will no doubt be many twistings and turnings along the way before November. But my gut feeling on watching Lynch is that anyone who actually decides to view even a few minutes of her testimony cannot help but become angry at the stonewalling combined with the condescension.
Whether that will translate into Trump votes is another question. Many Hillary voters are NeverTrump voters, so it may be that none of it will sway them.
[NOTE: I also think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s intemperate anti-Trump mouthing off will annoy quite a few people, and that Trump’s extremely on-point response (even the NY Times agreed that he was correct!) can only help him with those who aren’t already totally in the bag for Clinton.]
[ADDENDUM: And get a load of this.]
The European “migration” of the “asylum seekers” is down
If you reward a behavior you get more of it. When you stop rewarding it, you get less.
That’s not as absolute a law as that of gravity, but it’s the way it usually goes, and the phenomenon of the enormous rush of immigration from countries such as Syria seems to have abated for now in conformance with that law of rewards and lack thereof:
The human traffickers who brought a million desperate asylum seekers through Turkey to the Greek islands have been stopped. Where once thousands a day were smuggled by the mafias on cheap rubber rafts, very few are making the trip this summer.
To shut down the Eastern Mediterranean route, countries such as Macedonia, Hungary and Bulgaria acted independently and threw up razor-wire fences along their southern borders, defying Europe’s central authority in Brussels.
The European Union itself struck a deal that threatens to send the migrants back to Turkey from Greece en masse…
… it worked.
The unimpeded flow of humanity, dominated by Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans, to Europe is over, at least for now. Arrivals in the Greek islands are down 97 percent.
Meanwhile, Brexit has occurred and about 50,000 people are still waiting in camps in Greece, but the influx has stopped. The people remaining in the camps mourn the fact that they came too late. Few new arrivals are coming:
The migrants and refugees appear to have made a financial calculation: Why spend $1,000 on a smuggled voyage only to be sent back later after enduring a few squalid months in a dirty camp on Lesbos?
“I would not have come to this place to rot,” said Akash, 24, from Bangladesh, who traveled here with two cousins. “It cost us everything we had.”
From the start it has been difficult to determine which of the refugees are bona fide political refugees fleeing persecution and worse, which are economic opportunists lured by the promise of jobs (nothing wrong with that, if a country needs them and wishes to let them in), and which are parasites wishing to take advantage of the European welfare states—and what the proportions are of each group. But their arrival has upended the politics of Europe and the demographics of several countries, and has even affected politics in this country.