Response to Leo's Fury

Leo's post about the ongoing Russian interference investigation was a great read. His writing represents the anger and confusion many American's currently feel about the validity of this presidency and the 2016 election. Leo also makes an interesting comment about the prosecutorial double standard for politicians and federal employees, who seem to shirk punishment even for heinous abuses of power. However, I disagree with his implication that Flynn's potential treason deserves the death penalty. Capital punishment is a barbaric institution, that most civilized egalitarian nations have phased out and for good reason. Nevertheless, I enjoy Leo's passionate writing and his reasonable arguments.

The Firing of James Comey

This reeks of a cover-up. Last night, the President surprised everyone, including James Comey, when the White House announced that the FBI Director had been fired on the advice of AG Jeff Sessions and his deputy, Rod Rosenstein. The White House claims Comey was sacked, because of his conduct during the Clinton email investigations. However, this directly contradicts the President's earlier opinions of Director Comey. On a campaign stop in October, then-candidate Trump claimed that what Comey did "took guts." On March 3, Trump tweeted "FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds! The phony Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election. Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?" It's odd that the president would do a 180 in such a short amount of time, especially given the sustained animosity between him and the Clintons.

The president also made an interesting comment in his letter, thanking Director Comey for informing "on three separate occasions that [he was] not under investigation." This concession is odd. It confirms that Trump was (is?) concerned about being investigated, presumably for his possible connection to Russia. Trump's campaign officials are currently being investigated for possible connections to Russia. Was the investigation getting a little too close to home? Comey's firing certainly throws a wrench into the works. Was this part of the plan?

Rachel's American Health Care Commentary

I enjoyed Rachel Fisher's commentary on the Smirking Chimp AHCA article. However, I feel it could have benefited from some of Rachel's opinion. Health care is an interesting subject to me, and I would have enjoyed Rachel's article more if she included information about Richard Eskow's writing style or an analysis of his argument. Rachel's response is well-written, but it could be more in-depth.

How to Build a Strong Opposition Party

In the past few years, a schism has appeared in the left. It was seen in the rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). During the 2016 Democratic primary, Sanders achieved more than was expected because of his young, leftist base. This base, many of whom identified as Democratic Socialists, were angrier than their centrist counterparts. They expected more from the government, and they expected it sooner. They saw the Democratic Party as the party of Wall Street, capitalism, hypocrisy, and incremental, insubstantial change. This New Left didn't just want to "fix" their broken institutions. They wanted the raze them to the ground and build something better, fairer on the remains.

However, their centrist colleagues admired and trusted the institutions which supposedly made America great.Democrats were the party of process, and they believed the only to way fight right-wing stonewalling was with compromise. After all, to paraphrase President Obama, the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. For some of us, however, this arc is taking too long to bend, and in some ways (voting rights, income inequality) we are backsliding.

This is where the left and the center-left must reconcile. In order to form any formidable "resistance" we must define our goals, how we present them, and how we fight for them. Should healthcare be a civil right, paid for by the government? Or is it a consumer good, controlled by the markets? Should the prison system be reformed or abolished and replaced? How can we present a truly helpful economic vision for the poor and working class? How can we present a a plan for social reformation that liberates marginalized peoples? These are questions the Democratic Party must answer before can pose any significant threat to the rise of fascism. And to answer these questions, the center-left establishment cannot dismiss its base, which grows younger, more demanding, and more radical every day.

Mehdi Hasan's "Why Do North Korean's Hate Us? One Reason - They Remember the Korean War"

Mehdi Hasan is a British columnist who often writes about East-West political relations. In an article for The Intercept, Hasan posits that North Korea hates the United States for a good reason. At first, he discusses the average American's ignorance of Korean War history compared to more famous conflicts (Vietnam, WWII). He cites the No Gun Ri and Bodo League massacres, in which U.S. military officers and airmen "supervised the butchery" of "tens of thousands of suspected communists" and civilians. Hasan argues that, due to the lack of technology and societal advancement, this is very recent history for North Koreans. Citing Korean War scholar Kathryn Weathersby he says, "it is still the 1950s... and the conflict with South Korea and the United States is still going on. People in North Korea feel back into a corner and threatened.

Hasan's claim, that North Korea's primary conflict with the U.S. is due to our brutality in the war, is supported by historical evidence and commentary on modern life in the DPRK. However, Hasan still contends that North Korean should not be absolved of it's crimes against humanity, nor does he expect "Donald Trump to offer a formal apology to Pyongyang... for the United States' war crimes."
The column is informative, and it is written for an audience that isn't familiar with the history of America's conflict with the DPRK. My only critique of the article is Hasan the term "Korea" to mean both Kim Jong Un and the North Korean government and to refer to the North Korean people. A distinction between the two is important and would make the article easier understand.

Thomas Friedman's "Trump: Crazy Like a Fox, or Just Crazy?"

Thomas Friedman is a longstanding contributor to the New York Times editorial page. Friedman, a centrist writing for a centrist audience, has written several books about American politics and government. In his most recent column, he appears to have glued two different articles together. His prose lacks any connective tissue. In the beginning of the piece, Friedman discusses the failures of Trump's Muslim ban, health care bill, and border wall. He also argues that although Trump's more dangerous policies have been blocked, the American people still need protection, ideally from the State of California. This marks a sharp tone shift in the article. After enumerating the failures of Trump's first 100 days, Friedman posits that California's wealth, legislature, and "aspirational goals [sic]" make it "the most powerful opposition party to Trump." He then goes on to list California's natural and legislative assets.

Friedman can't seem to decide what kind of column he wants to write. Is it a post-mortem on the lackluster start of a presidency? Or, is it a profile or America's most successful state? In this article, there is potential for insightful commentary on the institutions that have kept Trump from fulfilling his more outlandish campaign promises. There is also potential for commentary on the lessons we can learn from California's government and economy, but these are two separate articles. I agree with both of Friedman's points; he provides evidence to support them both. However, the structure of his column is confusing, and the length is insufficient for the arguments he is trying to make.

Spicer Calls CNN "Fake News"

This article from The Hill discusses the Trump administration's ongoing feud CNN. Since Day 1, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has been making headlines for his adversarial behavior and untrue claims about everything from inauguration crowd sizes to the travel ban to voter fraud. I thought this article was interesting, because it further revealed the abnormality of this administration. In the past, White House Press Secretaries have been both polite and argumentative with the media. However, Sean Spicer seems to have a scorched earth policy when it comes to critical news outlets. Calling one of the most well-respected new outlets in the world a "fake news" organization seems foolish.

This article also interested me, because of Spicer's appropriation of the term "fake news." In the weeks before and after the election, many media outlets were concerned with the rise of false inflammatory stories that spread like wildfire over social media. Many of these stories came from alt-right websites, could be easily debunked, and lobbied dangerous accusations against left-wing politicians (see: Pizzagate.) Many consider the rise of fake news stories a major factor in Donald Trumps election. Some on the left are quick to point out the irony of Spicer's use of the term.