War and Stuff and POTUS Policies.

Responses to Facebook chats.

<>BILL CLINTON. President Clinton and NATO and the Kosovo War. That is a huge discussion. After 1991 and the end of the Warsaw Pact (and Cold War sort of), NATO would have at least stayed cool. Nope. So the Slovenian War and Bosnian War (and Kosovo War) were "rationales" for NATO expansion. Pissed Russia off, of course. On the trade angle, Bill's trade pact with Jiang Zemin in 2000 is another huge discussion. The following year, China joined the WTO as a privileged member or Most Favored Nation (MFN). Next is history, such as China's unflagging trade expansionism. 🏛🗽☮️

<>BARACK OBAMA. President Obama and prolonged or heightened the Afghanistan War. He could have stopped this war from surpassing the Vietnam crisis as America's longest war but he didn't. In his first term, he increased U.S. military presence there but he withdrew 8,400 (from 98,000) in his second term. 

       To his credit, Mr Obama presided over a mission to take out Osama bin Laden in 2011. Yet he also helped install the U.S.-educated Ashraf Ghani as president, which only infuriated the Taliban. Development projects in the countryside didn't really work because the people out there rejected them or didn't really mostly participate.

       Lots to talk about the Afghanistan story. Budget or expenditures etcetera. You may google numbers.

       Meanwhile, before Barack left office in 2016, he enhanced arms aid to Israel via a 10-year $38 billion military aid package in September of that year (which would expire next year). 🏛🗽☮️

<>JOE BIDEN. Two weeks following November 2020, as President Biden exalted his election win, China gathered 14 Asia Pacific economies to form the largest trade pact in history, the RCEP. China meanwhile solidified its trade partnership with Taiwan (think Foxconn and TSMC's silicon supply). 

       So all the war-mongering that Mr Biden did per South China Sea via Taiwan didn't work. President Trump is doing it via tariffs but the Chinese are not dumb; the CCP's trade leverage has exponentially strengthened since 2001. 

       Meanwhile, the U.S. still gotta sell arms in Asia because the Arab League, especially Saudi Arabia, ain't cool with "arms for oil" anymore. Well, unless wars continue, policies may change? Hawks will not allow peace in the desert, obviously. 

       Iran is a key but per recent news, the Supreme Leader is pissed with Mr Trump's “dares.” Still, Tehran's new moderate leadership doesn't want more war or China will stop buying Iran's oil (if the Strait of Hormuz becomes a bottleneck). Etc etcetera. ☮️☮️☮️

FB Friend: I’m tired of this horror movie we’re trapped in the middle of.

Me: Imagine, those who are ACTUALLY in these/those horror for real--while we (only) watch the movie.

Who Rules America? / More Migrant Talk.

Responses to Facebook chats.

Who Rules America?

Who rules: The 1 Percent. The current eerie divide is basically caused by both sides' corporate powers. Divide and rule. Only, they gotta decide between themselves who'd gain more profit traction by way of partisanship politics. Their zealots are pretty much what they are. Partisan zealots.

       The (New) Left favors a hawkish playbook, and uses its military brawn the traditional way: Proxy wars, "arms for oil," and the likes. The other, a dovish playbook, which puts more premium on trade wars (tariff gambits) or economic negotiations. The common denomination is–military brinkmanship stays. Up front or in the background.

       Whatever the case, Washington's military spending stays exponentially spiking. America is culturally obsessed with weaponry as proof of power, whether they use them or not. (So far, hawks are winning over Trump's doves. Or we don't really know the actual composition of Mr Trump's crew, dovish or hawkish.) 💻✍️📲

More Migrant Talk.

<>Due to record number of border crossings (from 2021 to 2024), the U.S. asylum fiscal management is now bankrupt. Cities that house them are facing budget problems and their constituents, jittery. But those who were removed or deported were mostly facing criminal cases hence they were directly sent to prisons in their country of origin. 

       The U.S. helps these countries with the surge of new inmates. I guess, they pretty much dealt with basic accounting per U.S. taxpayer money. Feed them in U.S.prisons or feed them in El Salvador etc prisons. Which is more expensive? I give them the benefit of the doubt. (Hint: President Trump is massively cost-cutting.)

<>The thinking that the U.S. is helping undocumented migrants (or helping Americans) by having them pick veggies and fruits for us is a bit flawed. Farms and factories actually exploit or abuse these migrant workers by paying them $2/hr (no benefits and insurance etc) and house them in trailers like 12 in a 4 room trailer. Some are minors, too. Food is rationed. 

       Meanwhile, those who are left wandering about, figure that one out. When calamities happen, they are not counted of course. Anyhow there are still many who are in DOJ housing, foster homes, churches and NGO-provided facilities with paralegal aid, awaiting asylum but these numbers have overflowed years ago. Bottomline, the U.S. needs to process their papers before accepting more applications. No brainer. 💻✍️📲

Signal Chat and War Plans. And Stuff.

WASHINGTON's top security staff's surreal “group chat” goof, or whatever that “accidental” shenanigan is called, is of course a national American frolic. A sure feed to the partisanship caterwaul or hate Trump showtime. Certainly, an SNL material.

 

       Beyond this though, whether Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic journalist in the center of the Signal chat drama, was mistakenly included in the chat room or not, it proves that the internet is not a safe place, especially for this kind of internal top-level government "chat." Anyhow, hackers can easily breach an online site if they want to, regardless if the trespass is a juvenile nerd mischief or a really massive terror intent. 

       Whatever the case, the Houthis in Yemen now know what's up in the U.S. camp. Of course they're not dumb. They got their own "chats," too, to discuss this. But then, was the booboo actually a trap? Journalists are not supposed to be in the “room” so who let Mr Goldberg in? And why? Did Jeffrey infiltrate the security soiree? Is that legal? I don't know.

       Anyways, whatever Defense chief Pete Hegseth, security advisor Mike Waltz etc chatted per “bombing Yemen” is rendered senseless when smokes of social media chatter subside. It was a chat or a plan that wasn't carried out. (As though a “war plan” isn't a fact of superpower leadership playbook and such acts weren't carried out in actuality in the past…) 

WASHINGTON regroups. In Mr Trump's first term, his military took out ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Iran/Quds chief Qasem Soleimani leading to the Doha Accords that eventually ended the 20-year Afghanistan war (never mind the stupid drama thriller in July 20, 2021 or during Joe Biden's time). 

       Meanwhile, as we know it, the Israel/Hamas ceasefire is shaky and fighting resumes. The Hezbollah is a bit quiet but the Houthis are not easy to obliterate. They have resumed shudders in the Red Sea. Etcetera. So I am not amused by the Signal brouhaha. I am not partisan but I favor the end of wars or relatively dovish U.S. plans to help ease hostilities in the region over escalating them.    

       For the meantime, I expect President Trump to yell "You are fired!" However, I can't help but ask, why would this fiasco be a laughing matter to many or a fodder for jest? Because when war escalates, we stay comfy as ever in America? Of course… So let the shaming continue? 🏛🗽🏛

[Visual: USA Today.]

Old Journalism. Blogging. Social Media.

Response to a Friend's Facebook post.

SOMEONE here on my Facebook Page (older or my age) disagreed with my thoughts on current politics by insulting my “journalist-self” or, according to him, my inability to consider facts hence my opinion or insight about what's going on. He was reacting to my "My Thought..." per the day’s news, quoted the first line from a mostly liberal media source. His words, as the usual case, were rude and smothered with juvenile snides and punctuated by that annoying laughing emoji. 

       I wrote back saying this is my social media self, my opinion, my "blog," my random take on a current news report. Not me years ago after I covered an event or interviewed someone. When I wrote as a journalist or reporter, I was "detached" from my subject and myself. I write about what I saw and heard more than how I felt about the event that I covered. (My youth's editor Joe Burgos' to me: "Write news, not poetry.") 

       Then, I often wrote about how I feel about the news that I filed via poetry, songs or I painted. My feelings or emotions about what I saw or experienced went through my literary work. The artist in me beyond or apart from the journalist me. Then came social media and blogging. I extensively post as I blog extensively. That persona is like the guy who responds in a poetry workshop in GAT or political “talakayan” at Grand Inihaw over beers after a day's work at the beat albeit not rude or insulting. 

       When I blog, I don't just "decide for myself." Blogging or journaling isn't like jotting outbursts in a diary, which is private or all for yourself. Although I am currently writing a sort of memoir (I meant to leave to my kids and family when the day is "done.") That is like a diary, not a blog or Facebook post. Etc etcetera. Anyhow, we didn't expect the internet to "replace" traditional journalism. So comparison is a bit difficult. Just two different animals, I guess. 📰✍️💻

Ukraine. And Trump Stuff.

Response to a Friend’s Facebook post.

THE New Left howls, “I stand with Ukraine.” Me, I stand with Ukraine and I stand with Russia. I stand higher for No War so no more military aid to whatever country, amidst war or peacetime. And I stand with the (current) U.S. position in brokering peace in whatever way but not via more fighting or arms aid. End the war now and then we can talk more about trade and economics next. 

       Ukraine's minerals are not a one-shipment deal so whatever deal President Trump offered, sign it. Let FDIs enter Ukraine for recovery and rebuilding. Not just from the U.S. and the European Union, but also from China and BRICS nations. 

       Most importantly, hold a national election in Ukraine, alongside a probe of how the foreign aid to Kyiv, since February 2022, was spent. Before 2022, more than 3 million Ukrainians worked in Russia. Both peoples are kin or couples and friends. My neighbors are Ukrainian/Russian wife and husband. Yet in America, we chose to take a stand to divide them over taking a stand to end this war. 

       We are not really affected by this war the way the Ukrainians and Russians are so we treat this as a dramatic Left vs Right caterwaul while comfortably seated in front of our gadgets, sipping wine or drowned in beer. Mostly, the New Left’s stand is due to their hatred for Mr Trump who chose to shake hands with Russia rather than goad Vladimir Putin to continue the war. Yet Donald uses that friendship, perceived or real, to end this war. 

       Volodymyr Zelensky's fate as President depends on this war. He suspended the election because the war is still happening, hence he expects to get more aid? Logical. Probably if Kamala Harris won last November, he will get more? But America has already given a lot of taxpayer money to Kyiv. Money that the U.S. can, for example, allocate for FEMA or health services. 

       Mr Zelensky has no leverage to negotiate apart from his country's "rare earth" etcetera. Whoever is POTUS, the quid pro quo for USAID or military aid is natural resources or priority country in trade deals. That's always been the case, historically. Aid is not dole-out or gift. (I am a Filipino who protested USAID when I was in the Philippines.)  

       At least, President Trump's deal is not the "arms for oil" that was the deal in the Middle East for many years. That region is already rich and now high on economic development so they now reject "arms for oil." Volodymyr still insists on arms for rare earth etcetera. He is dreaming. But I am scared for him. Hint: His military might make a move. You know, that is also historical and we know whose hand would push it. 🇺🇸☮️🇺🇦

Ukraine. And Trump Stuff.

Response to a Friend’s Facebook post.

THE New Left howls, “I stand with Ukraine.” Me, I stand with Ukraine and I stand with Russia. I stand higher for No War so no more military aid to whatever country, amidst war or peacetime. And I stand with the (current) U.S. position in brokering peace in whatever way but not via more fighting or arms aid. End the war now and then we can talk more about trade and economics next. 

       Ukraine's minerals are not a one-shipment deal so whatever deal President Trump offered, sign it. Let FDIs enter Ukraine for recovery and rebuilding. Not just from the U.S. and the European Union, but also from China and BRICS nations. 

       Most importantly, hold a national election in Ukraine, alongside a probe of how the foreign aid to Kyiv, since February 2022, was spent. Before 2022, more than 3 million Ukrainians worked in Russia. Both peoples are kin or couples and friends. My neighbors are Ukrainian/Russian wife and husband. Yet in America, we chose to take a stand to divide them over taking a stand to end this war. 

       We are not really affected by this war the way the Ukrainians and Russians are so we treat this as a dramatic Left vs Right caterwaul while comfortably seated in front of our gadgets, sipping wine or drowned in beer. Mostly, the New Left’s stand is due to their hatred for Mr Trump who chose to shake hands with Russia rather than goad Vladimir Putin to continue the war. Yet Donald uses that friendship, perceived or real, to end this war. 

       Volodymyr Zelensky's fate as President depends on this war. He suspended the election because the war is still happening, hence he expects to get more aid? Logical. Probably if Kamala Harris won last November, he will get more? But America has already given a lot of taxpayer money to Kyiv. Money that the U.S. can, for example, allocate for FEMA or health services. 

       Mr Zelensky has no leverage to negotiate apart from his country's "rare earth" etcetera. Whoever is POTUS, the quid pro quo for USAID or military aid is natural resources or priority country in trade deals. That's always been the case, historically. Aid is not dole-out or gift. (I am a Filipino who protested USAID when I was in the Philippines.)  

       At least, President Trump's deal is not the "arms for oil" that was the deal in the Middle East for many years. That region is already rich and now high on economic development so they now reject "arms for oil." Volodymyr still insists on arms for rare earth etcetera. He is dreaming. But I am scared for him. Hint: His military might make a move. You know, that is also historical and we know whose hand would push it. 🇺🇸☮️🇺🇦

Ukraine. Russia. U.S. European Union.

Response to a Friend’s Facebook post.

I DON'T don't get the narrative that President Trump being cordial with Russia is bad for the world (according to Time, NY Times, Washington Post, Rolling Stone in so many words). So would that mean a return to the Cold War would make the world peaceful? Nope.

       Meanwhile, I thought, for a moment, that Volodymyr Zelensky was fine with the end of war. Yet when France et al protested Mr Trump's chat with Vladimir Putin, Mr Z again changed his mind and whined that Ukraine will be ignored in the peace negotiations. 

       Fact is, the EU was concerned after Donald Trump mentioned U.S. interest in Ukraine's "rare earth." Of course that was the rationale for the war: Ukraine's massive natural resources (including who'd run natural gas company Naftogaz). The EU invested a lot in this war, as well, via $145 billion in aid since the start of war in 2022.

       But Europe also needs Russia's energy imports. In 2021, Russia supplied 75 percent and 45 percent of the region's natural gas and oil needs, respectively. Meanwhile, E.U. is collectively mired at 1 percent economic growth. 

       The West, especially Europe, wants Ukraine's natural wealth and a war is the perfect tool to get a handle of those and Volodymyr is more than willing to pawn his country for this quid pro quo as he enriches himself. (Refer to the Kyiv leader's ill-gotten wealth stashed in British Virgin Islands, Belize and Cyprus + real estates in London). 

       America and Europe want Ukraine's wealth. It just so happened that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have contrasting playbooks on how to get them. Joe via a war so he (with help from EU leaders) goaded Russia to a war. Donald's strategy is trade negotiation, not war.    

       I don't think Russia is interested in Ukraine's natural resources though. Coal-rich Donbas seeks to secede, it's their decision. But I believe war will end, the U.S. and EU will talk about profit share in rare earth, how to run Naftogaz in a partnership etcetera, and Russia gets Nord Stream 2 to operate and sell energy to the EU again. Volodymyr Zelensky will be eased out via election or regime-change. ☮️☮️☮️