LastStandMedia

News Burst: August 23, 2017 (Patreon)

Published:

2017-08-23 22:21:16

Imported:

2022-01

Content

Hey Everyone!

I hope this week’s News Burst finds you all very well.

There’s little to report on my end, other than that tomorrow’s video is a natural continuation (in some sense) of Episode 38 (Monday’s video), which is going down as the least-viewed video in Colin’s Last Stand’s history. Way to pick a good topic, guys! ^_~

Speaking of which, make sure to vote in this month’s Topic Election, if you haven’t already. Every vote counts! I think our monthly elections are amongst the coolest features of CLS’ Patreon, and I’d love for more of you to take advantage of it. It takes a minute of your time. So take a look when you can.

Alright, enough chitter-chatter (is that even a term?). Onto the news!

5.) Build the Wall…?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-mexico-pay-for-wall_us_599da87ee4b0a296083ba142

One of Donald Trump the Nominee’s major promises to his base -- and to the voters of America more generally -- was that, if elected, a massive wall would be built on the Mexican-American border designed to keep out illegal immigrants and the drugs they sometimes traffic into the country. The major crux of the promise, however, was that the Mexican government -- not the American taxpayers -- would foot the bill for the wall. Trump, as is usually the case, never quite articulated how that was going to happen, of course, but he promised repeatedly that it would be made so. My assumption was always that the Mexican government (and people, really) would ostensibly pay for the wall through tariffs on exports to the US that would be instituted on Mexican goods, as Trump was (and I guess is?) anti-NAFTA. Of course, none of that materialized, either.

Well, the whole Wall Fiasco has taken a turn for the strange, because in a speech given in Phoenix, Arizona just yesterday, Trump threatened Congress, stating that if the wall wasn’t funded by the upcoming, expected spending bill, the government will be effectively shutdown. Trump isn’t the first president to preside over a government shutdown, of course, but Congress Constitutionally commands the purse, and this seems to be a rather overt attack on their prerogative as a legislative body. Of course, the real issue rests with the Senate. The House, with a significant GOP majority, can easily pass a budget to Trump’s liking, but the Senate is a different story.

The slight Republican majority in the Senate -- which amounts to a 52-48 advantage, including independents that caucus with the Democrats (like Bernie Sanders) -- isn’t enough to overcome the typical 60 vote threshold that the Senate has long been held to, even as moves have been made to destroy that threshold and make the Senate identical to the House in voting procedure (which would be a huge mistake). Trump’s rhetoric is annoying Democrats and upending negotations (link below), while Speaker Paul Ryan insists that a Continuing Resolution (or CR) will likely be passed in the coming weeks to give the legislature more time to figure everything out (link below). Still, I feel like this is yet another chapter in the unpredictability, incompetence, and unreliability of President Trump, who is incapable of getting anything done on behalf of the American people.

Related Story | Trump Willing to Do Whatever it Takes to Get the Wall: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/politics/trump-wall-mexico-government-shutdown/index.html

4.) Spanish Terror Attacks

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/europe/barcelona-catalunya-van.html

This story is a bit old now, having occurred only a day or so after last week’s News Burst, but it’s an incredibly important story nonetheless, one we shouldn’t just gloss over. In case you’re out of the loop, two terror attacks happened back-to-back in Spain last week, one occurring in Barcelona, and the other happening in a nearby city known as Cambrils. The carnage was pretty awful. 15 people were left dead between the two attacks, with nearly 150 people injured. Most of the deaths and injuries happened in the initial Barcelona attack, in which a motor vehicle was rammed into pedestrians. The attack in Cambrils was similar in nature -- driving into innocent people walking on the sidewalk -- but thankfully, the attack wasn’t nearly as devastating, thanks in part to the great work of Spanish police.

You can read about the attack itself in the New York Times article above -- there have obviously been developments since -- but I didn’t want to get too deeply into all of that. What I did want to do was pose a question to all of you, namely: When is enough going to be in enough for Europeans? And when enough finally becomes enough, what could they even do about it to begin with? As far as I could tell in my readings, these attacks weren’t necessarily coordinated by ISIS, though they could have been inspired by ISIS attacks, and, more specifically, about western engagement of ISIS. (ISIS also regularly claims responsibility for attacks they had nothing to do with.) But regardless of inspiration or connections, the ideology behind these types of attacks remain consistent. It’s a really sad state of affairs in Europe right now, and I say that as someone who thinks a strong, steadfast Europe is great for the whole planet, for world peace and stability.

Even though nearly a week old, the story is still evolving, so it may be worth it for you to keep up with some developments happening in recent days. The biggest related story for me is that this particular terror cell had aspirations for far bigger attacks than the two rather small ones (by comparison) they managed to get off (link below). Meanwhile, those associated with the attacks in one fashion or another are slowly being picked off, whether through arrests or through gunfights (links below). Stay safe, my European friends. We’re pulling for you.

Related Story | Building Raided in Connection With Attacks: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/19/barcelona-attack-huge-manhunt-underway-amid-fears-terror-suspect/

Related Story | Spanish Terror Cell Had Far Bigger Plans: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/22/spain-terror-suspect-mohamed-houli-tells-court-cell-planning-bigger-attack

Related Story | Spanish Authorities Catching Up With Suspects: http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-spain-barcelona-suspect-20170821-story.html

3.) The Backlash Against Political Violence

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450722/stop-normalizing-political-violence-use-fighting-words-instead

I was so happy to see the National Review story linked above, because it really says some of what I’ve been feeling in my heart lately. Indeed, my feelings on violence generally could very well be the topic of Monday’s video, if I could just figure out specifically what I want to say. Because I’m so disgusted with violence. Senseless violence is exponentially worse, but violence, generally, is something I’ve never been all that comfortable with. I’m not talking about violence in a movie or a television show, or violence in a video game. I’m not talking about faux gun wounds, over-the-top gore, and all the rest. I have no problem whatsoever with any of that. I’m talking about real violence, with real consequences, instilling real -- and terrible -- values in a new generation of Americans (and citizens worldwide) that are antithetical to my personal values, and to the personal values of many, many others, I’d assume. I'm not a pacifist. I merely think violence has a place and a time, and those places and times are incredibly limited.

I think this article bravely and boldly points out the obvious: The media and pieces of the establishment cheering on political violence perpetrated against those you disagree with -- or even hate -- is utterly disgusting. It’s deplorable behavior that should be called what it is -- vigilantism and hooliganism -- by any honest, good person left in our society (which I would say is a vast majority of us). Listen: I’m called alt-right, a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a Neo-Nazi, and all the rest all the time. None of that is true, of course, as anyone who knows me or listens to what I say (or, in this case, reads what I write) could attest. But facts don’t matter, as evidence has recently shown. People are getting stabbed over haircuts and accidentally assaulted because they “look the part” of a “Nazi.” What’s stopping me from getting assaulted? Perhaps even killed? Who draws the line on who is who and what is what? I say we draw a different line: Don’t put your fucking hands on anyone, period.

The related story (link below) that I’ve included here is one I just had to share, because it’s so incredibly stupid. It’s entitled “Why the American Left Gave Up Political Violence,” and you’d think it’s an actual Onion article. The left gave up political violence? When did that happen? I see left wing people telling everyone to punch their opponents, then act aghast as they’re attacked in turn. I see left wing agitators dressed in all black with masks on destroying their own towns and universities. I see the evidence everywhere that this isn’t true. The fact is, the left propagated this level of recent violence, celebrated it, applauded it, begged it to happen. So enough with the bullshit, already. We all have seen what this level of violence and instigation has gotten us to. I will preach non-violence unless absolutely necessary, and I’m happy to do so, regardless of who that might offend. I’m just saddened that position has become so radical in 2017. I'm not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. I am, however, a human being.

2.) Fighting Free Speech

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/21/the-guardian-view-on-censoring-the-internet-necessary-but-not-easy

Just today, the above link from The Guardian is making the rounds and is being widely condemned by many different people. And rightfully so. For many (me included), it’s not the ideas expressed within the body of the article that are most concerning. For many of us, it’s the rather flippant regard for “censorship” that this article displays that should worry all of us. Censoring the Internet is necessary? Says who, exactly? If you said that 10 years ago, people would be aghast. You’d have to write 10 articles just laying the foundation for that level of bullshit before you even made your argument. Today, we’ve become so desensitized in certain spheres to the encroachment of the powers-that-be that an op-ed like this could be penned and posted without a second thought. What are we coming to as a global society? Moreoever, who will be the decider of these new rules?

Should “everything go” on the Internet? Of course not. Local, state, and federal laws should deal with events on the Internet, just as they do in real life. If you threaten to kill someone online, that should be handled the same way it’s handled in real life. If you say something terrible online, the social and professional repercussions should be identical to if you said them to a person’s face. The population should be safeguarded against cybercrime and illegal activity. But to openly talk about “censoring” the Internet. Really? I don’t think the article published is egregious; I merely think that its line of thinking -- and its careless use of language and ideas -- should concern all freedom-loving individuals. A slippery slope, y'know?

But I’m taking heart in this fight for free speech and expression, too. A note from the most unlikely of places -- from the Chancellor of Berkeley (link below) -- reinforced what I feel like many academics already know, but are afraid to call out: The assault on free speech is antithetical to our laws, to our traditions, and to our standing as a learned populace. The Atlantic is also getting into the game (link below) with a story that largely cites a satirical response to a New York Times op-ed, in which this level of free speech curtailing as being called for by some elements of the left could so easily backfire on them that that in and of itself would be a spectacle. Who on God’s green Earth would possibly walking around proclaiming they’re “anti-free speech?” How can these ignorant people not realize the end result of their calls? How can they not understand how incredibly stupid they sound?

Related Story | Berkeley's Chancellor Speaks Out: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/08/23/chancellor-christ-free-speech-is-who-we-are/

Related Story | A Short-Sighted Attack on Free Speech: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-most-shortsighted-attack-on-free-speech-in-modern-history/537468/

1.) Reengaging in Afghanistan

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/attack-we-will-trump-vows-victory-afghanistan-stays-silent-troop-n794651

I don’t know why I was even so surprised by this story, considering nothing Donald Trump said he would do as a presidential nominee has come to pass now that he’s President Trump. Tax reform? Nope! Health care reform? Nope! The wall? Nope! Protectionism? Nope! The list goes on and on and on. It’s exhausting, really. But the one thing I thought Trump might stick to was his anti-war rhetoric. Even though I was largely disgusted by the man himself, I didn’t hate many of his policies, and I thought it was intriguing that he brought to the Republican mainstream something that I’ve been desperate to see for years, now: An anti-war, isolationist streak that brings the GOP back where it belongs, in the realm of small, unintrusive government that doesn’t get involved in the affairs of others unless absolutely necessary.

Of course, I should have known better, not only because of all of the stuff I just told you about, but because his rhetoric with North Korea -- and even Venezuela (?!) -- indicated to me that his anti-war, isolationist bluster was just that. Sitting at the Resolute Desk, privy to the world’s most sensitive and frightening information, can change a man (or woman), and I get that. Intentions aren’t always followed through, because they can’t be, or because situations change once you have all of the information at hand. Just ask President Obama about Guantanamo Bay, as an example. But Trump’s reversal on Afghanistan took me by surprise, because it is so obviously a place we don’t need to be anymore, a place we shouldn’t be anymore, a place that we shouldn’t waste another ounce of American blood or money in. Arguments to the contrary, for me, make no sense and hold little water. "The Generals" making the call is meaningless; "The Generals" have 200+ years of mistakes under their belts, too (some massive). They aren't Gods.

When we went into Afghanistan 16 years ago, it was for good reason. But 16 years is a long time. Afghanistan is the lengthiest continuous conflict in American history, and regardless of if gains will be lost, we have to ask ourselves more pragmatic questions, primarily if losing even more to hold those gains is worth it. What is ultimately the end goal? The excuse of containment is an old one, and it’s one that could be used in probably a dozen different regions of the world. Afghanistan (and Pakistan) isn’t unique in this sense, though Trump would make it seem otherwise. I wish we had a mind, as a people, for reducing conflict and getting out of harm’s way, as opposed to finding a threat everywhere, and with everything. This doesn’t excuse Taliban actions. It simply means that a standing army hasn’t been able to accomplish the mission in 16 years. A few thousand more troops is suddenly going to change the math? These types of wars are endless. We shouldn’t be fighting them at all.

Related Story | There Are More US Soldiers in Afghanistan Than You’d Think: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-has-thousands-more-troops-afghanistan-pentagon-admits-n795141

Related Story | Trump Doesn’t Care About Winning; He Doesn’t Want to Lose: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trumps-afghanistan-strategy-isnt-to-win-its-to-avoid-losing/2017/08/22/0fc3b5e6-877a-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html