Observations on Obama and Trumps Reactions to Terrorism

I found this to be a very interesting article, in that the content addresses the types of changes we may see in our government, and the writing reveals just how much liberals don't understand about the alternative point of view.  Here are my thoughts on the author's perspective, point by point.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/ankara-berlin-trump-obama/511202/
Titled: What Their Reactions to Monday's Attacks Reveal About Trump and Obama
Monday’s horrors—the attack on a Christmas market in Berlin and the assassination of a Russian diplomat in Ankara—offer a natural experiment. Since they occurred during the brief window every four or eight years in which America has both a president and a president-elect, they provoked two sets of statements, one from the outgoing administration and another from its soon-to-be successor. The differences are revealing.  So far I agree, it is an interesting opportunity for comparison.

The first difference, unsurprisingly, is that the Obama administration exercised caution. It said the Berlin atrocity “appears to have been a terrorist attack.” Team Trump, by contrast, simply called it a “horrifying terror attack.” The White House avoided speculation about the Turkish assassin’s motive. Team Trump, by contrast, called him a “radical Islamic terrorist.”  Caution is a good thing, compared to impulsiveness, but it is not in itself a virtue.  Being overly cautious when a strong response is called for is a mistake.  If avoiding speculation is a virtue, we should keep that in mind later.  There is no speculation here about the Turkish assassin being a radical Islamic terrorist, he was shouting Allah Akbar and talking about jihad as the attack took place.

More significantly, the two administrations used the attacks to tell radically different stories about who was being attacked, and why. The Obama administration identified the victims as members of a nation. Its five-sentence statement about the Berlin attack used the words “Germany” or “German” four times. And the White House linked the United States and Germany strategically, declaring that, “Germany is one of our closest partners and strongest allies.”  It is not confirmed that all the victims were German, although I see that as a reasonable speculation.

Team Obama’s response to the Ankara assassination was also state-centric. It offered its “condolences to the Russian people and Government” and declared, “we stand united with Russia and Turkey in our determination to confront terrorism in all of its forms."  Russia and Turkey are not “partners” and “allies” of the United States in the way Germany is. Still, the Obama administration implied a world in which even nations with sharply different interests cooperate against their common foe: “terrorism in all its forms.” Taken together, the Berlin and Ankara statements gesture toward a liberal internationalist order of the kind the United States helped build after World War II: an inner circle of cooperation linking the United States and its closest NATO allies surrounded by a broader circle represented by universal bodies like the UN, in which countries band together across ideological and geopolitical lines to battle the transnational scourges that threaten them all.
We are not "united with Russia and Turkey in our determination to confront terrorism in all of its forms."  That statement is a direct lie.  Turkey is supporting ISIS in its fight again their long time enemy the Kurds, and Russia is shooting down civilian airliners in Ukraine, and supporting Syria's slaughter of civilians in Aleppo.  Even though it sounds nice and cooperative to those who wish for a "liberal internationalist order," there is no truth in that statement.

Team Trump’s statement was utterly different. It described the victims as members not of a nation but of a religion. Its statement about the Berlin attack didn’t refer to the victims as Germans. (It didn’t mention the words “German” or “Germany” once.) Instead, it defined them as people killed “as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday.” The Obama team’s statement made no assumptions about the victims’ faith: It simply noted that the attack had occurred at “a Christmas Market.” The Trump statement, by contrast, implied that the victims all celebrated Christmas. And it linked those killed in Berlin to other “Christians” who “ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter … in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad.”
Since the attack took place at a location described even by liberal news agencies as a "Christmas market" it is reasonable to deduct that the victims present celebrate Christmas, and mindless speculation to assume otherwise.  The location is also significant because it leads to the reasonable deduction that it was deliberately targeted as a symbol of Christians, with victims who are more likely to be Christians, but Trump did not even speculate they were targeted because they were Christians.

The contrast grows even sharper when you add in Team Trump’s response to the Ankara attacks. Unlike Obama’s statement, which said nothing about the assassin’s faith, Trump’s called him “a radical Islamic terrorist.” The Trump statement also said nothing about working with either Russia or Turkey, let alone working with them against “terrorism in all its forms,” which implies that terrorism has forms other those rooted in Islam.  The facts are that the shooter was shouting "Allah Akbar" during the attack, making him an Islamic terrorist.  So Obama let out a key detail that Trump included.  Most conservatives would read this line as a criticism of Obama if they didn't know the source.  Trump is not the president, and even if he was, he is not obligated to work with Russia and Turkey to respond to an incident that in no way involves the US.  While it is possible that terrorism can have forms other than those rooted in Islam, the terrorist attacks they are responding to are rooted in Islam, so ignoring that is implying a lie.

What do these statements tell us? That Team Obama defines the struggle against terrorism as a conflict pitting countries of all religious and ideological types against a common stateless foe, while Team Trump defines it as a conflict between Christendom and Islam. (That’s how ISIS defines it too. The Islamic State also views the world in terms of religious civilizations rather than nations). The natural implication of Obama’s worldview is that preventing terrorism requires cooperation between very different nations. The natural implication of Trump’s is that preventing terrorism requires keeping Muslims out. Neither of Trump’s statements acknowledges the possibility that Christians might perpetrate terrorism or Muslims might be victims of it. (Indeed, on the very same day as the attacks in Ankara and Berlin, a gunman opened fire at a mosque in Zurich, Switzerland, injuring three.) The message to Muslims in Germany and the United States is the same one Trump has peddled for more than a year now: You are the enemy within.  Since we are in a battle against ISIS, we had better begin to understand and acknowledge how they see the world, and learn to view things the same way if we are going to overcome them.  They target Christians because they are Christians, which is the central fact about this religiously motivated conflict.  We aren't fighting ISIS because they are Muslims, we are fighting them because they are terrorists.  We are at peace with other Muslim countries, they are not at peace with other non-Muslim countries.

Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential Options

I can agree that Trump has all sorts of faults, what I can't agree with is that Hillary is a better choice.  She has publicly committed a long list of felonies, removing classified information from a secure environment, destruction of evidence, gross negligence, obstruction of justice, etc.  There are lots of records of her lying about things, even Democrats appear to know that she can't be trust.  I don't know if Trump can be trusted, but I KNOW that Hillary can not be.

Conservatives have not been focusing their attacks on Hillary supporters, only Hillary herself.  Liberals have been attacking Trump supporters throughout the campaign.  By labeling anyone who supports Trump as a racist bigot, liberals have dismissed any of the other legitimate issues that those people are concerned about.

Trump may hold some racist views, but I don't care too much about that, and apparently MOST other people don't either.  He probably represents views prevalent among those his age, and while people may disagree with those views, that obviously doesn't disqualify him from being president.  Racism is not an important issue to Trump's supporters.  It is to Democrats, but they make the incorrect jump to conclude that anyone who doesn't think that racism is an important enough issue to disqualify Trump must be a racist.  I make a similar claim about Hillary being a criminal.  If anyone doesn't think it matters that Hillary has openly violated laws, we can see that they don't think that criminal behavior is an important disqualifying issue.  But it would be incorrect to conclude that all Hillary supporters must be criminals themselves.

Besides the issues with Hillary personally, which I see as potentially canceling out the issues with Trump personally, let's look at their claimed visions for America.  Hillary wants the US government to try to take control of everything from your paycheck to your healthcare to your guns to the global climate.  Trump wants to bring jobs back to the US, he wants to stop illegal immigration, and scale back government regulation.  Whether he will be able to accomplish much of that is subject to debate, but at least he claims to be trying to move in that direction.

Ironically, as a resident of California, my vote doesn't count anyway, as Democrats will win this state by a 2:1 margin until something even more dramatic happens.  I voted Libertarian, primarily to protest the two party system, not because I think Gary Johnson would be much better of a President.  I would have voted Republican to show support for their more conservative platform if there had been a shred of evidence that it could possibly make a difference.

The Lesser of Two Evils

I don't know too many people who are excited about their options for the upcoming presidential election.  Back in 2008, I used to joke that if Hillary had a chance to run against Bush, we would have had 100% voter turnout, half to vote against Clinton, and the other half to vote against Bush.  The point was that no one would be voting "for" anyone, only against a much hated opponent.  Ironically that theoretical conundrum is nothing close to the current reality we face.  Both main party candidates are viewed unfavorably by a majority of the American public, far more so than the Bush presidency ever was.  This has led to a major debate about the issues involved with third party candidates, and a number of interesting ideas have been put forward.

Some people are convinced that voting for the lesser of two evils is immoral, and that they will vote for a third party candidate, or no one at all.  Others claim that voting for a third party candidate is similar to not voting anyway.  Based on the structure of our elections, that may be technically true, if it is also true that third party candidates have no practical chance of winning.  This can't be proven, but we can look to the historical example of Ross Perot to examine the chances of that happening, and the possible effects.  It seems pretty clear from looking at the numbers that Perot's campaign cost Bush Sr that election, but another 10% of the vote and he could have actually won.  So it is possible, but that was from a mature political campaign that had time to build up, not a last minute shotgun attempt.

So if we assume that third party candidates don't have a realistic chance of actually winning, at least in this election, let's look at the mathematical effects of a third party vote.  Let's say we dislike Clinton more than Trump, but we want to vote libertarian to "make a statement."  Based on the way the election is structured, this actually helps Clinton, the candidate we like the least.  Not voting also helps Clinton in the same way.  Candidates are not trying to get a set 50% of the vote, they just have to get more than any other candidate in that state.  (They do need 50% of the electoral college votes from the states, but that is a different issue, to be examined later)  So a vote for one candidate is also a vote against all of the other candidates.  If we vote for Trump, that is one less vote he needs to beat everyone, and one more vote everyone else needs to get to top him.  Essentially in this case your vote counts for two.  If there are 10 voters, and Trump is down by 4 votes, he only needs to get two voters to switch sides from Clinton.  (A 4 point deficit of 3-7 becomes 5-5 if two people switch)

But if we add in third party options, this where people seem to be confused about the results.  Lets examine the same ten voters, and say there are 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 3 independents, and one hard core Green member who never considers anything else.  Usually candidates need to get 5 of the remaining 9 to win, which is 2 of the 3 independents.  But if two voters who usually vote Republican jump on the #NeverTrump bandwagon, and vote Libertarian, it very much helps Clinton.  Now she doesn't need 5 votes to win, she only needs 4 total.  Even if Trump got 2 of the 3 independent voters, Clinton still wins, and with fewer total votes than she would otherwise need.  If 50% of the votes was required to win, voting third party would hurt Trump, but not help Clinton reach 50%.  But 50% is not required, so a third party vote actually helps Clinton win.  This assumes the third party voter dislikes both main candidates, but prefers Trump over Clinton.  The reverse would be true for most Bernie supporters.  Unless the third party candidate actually wins, a vote for them actually helps the candidate you like the least, compared to if you had limited your options to the main two parties.

On the other hand, if you have absolutely no preference between the two main candidates, then go ahead and vote third party, but I guarantee you won't like the result.  And I'd say if you have zero preference between the options, you haven't done your research, as there are many differences.  Some people compare it to the choice between death by gunshot or drowning, but if that is an accurate analogy, shouldn't you still have a preference in that case?  If I was certain to die either way, I'd take the gunshot, if there was some chance I might make it, I'd take the water.  My preference would depend on the specifics of the situation, but I would definitely have a preference.  Research the specifics of the situation, and figure out what you prefer.  Even if your preference is different than mine, I can respect that more than just throwing up your hands and ignoring the situation.

Now I am not as opposed to third party candidates as this makes me sound, I am just laying out the hard math of the situation.  A few months ago, I was actually hoping that Bernie would make a separate run.  Not because I wanted him to win, and not because I wanted the left vote split to ensure Trump wins.  I wanted him to run because that would have created an opening for a conservative third (or fourth in this case) party candidate who might actually have a chance of winning due to that situation.  It would have removed the "only way to defeat Clinton is to support Trump" argument that is actually true, based on the math above.  If both sides had split, there would be a reasonably even, four way race, with real options available, which is a novel concept for Americans.  But that didn't happen, and this is the situation we are faced with.  Morally, I'd say we are responsible for the outcome of our actions, not just our intentions.  If a bunch of third party votes, (or no votes) lead to a statistical change in the outcome, those voters are as responsible for the outcome of the election as those who voted for the candidate who won.  (Or technically half as responsible, but still very much responsible)

But what if the winner would have won regardless of their vote?  Doesn't that make it more complicated?  They didn't know that would happen when they voted, so I'd say they would still be responsible.  But what if they did know that?  I live in CA, and democrats usually win by a huge margin.  That is more complicated, and that is the decision I am looking at.  At this point, my vote will depend on the polls, with the intent to oppose Clinton.  If a third party is close to being a realistic contender, I may vote for them.  If not, is Trump winning the state a reasonable possibility?  If so, I will vote for him in a bid to oppose Clinton.  If there is no way Clinton is going to lose the state, then I can vote for whoever I want, but only because my vote doesn't really count, at least in regards to having an effect on the outcome.  But in that case I would vote third party to make a statement, and possibly help get them over thresholds that will help increase options in future elections.  But for people who live in states where their vote has an actual effect on the outcome of the election, look closely at the situation and the numbers before you make your decision.

Brexit

This whole issue of the UK leaving the EU presents some interesting ideas that may be more viable than they otherwise would have appeared.  The United Kingdom might no longer be very "united" if Scotland and Northern Ireland vote to separate from them.  Other countries might leave the EU as well.  But the more interesting application is in the US.  Although many state constitutions reserve that right, there are no written rules at the federal level for how a state withdraws from the union.  There was a proposed constitutional amendment in 1860 to ban withdrawing, implying that it would otherwise be allowed.  But the Civil War laid the issue to rest at the time, establishing very strong precedent against it.  So how would it have to happen now?

I have long thought that it would be wise for each state legislature to ratify a constitutional amendment to allow states to withdraw after a percentage (50/60/66/75 take your choice) vote of the population and/or legislature.  Even if the states involved had no plan to actually withdraw, it would give them leverage when negotiating with the federal government, and curb the unhindered expansion of federal power.  Once 75% percent of the legislatures had ratified it, it would be law without involving Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court.  It would bypass all of the DC gridlock, and return power to the states.  The first step in that process is a Convention of States, which is currently being actively pursued by certain political groups.  The only reason state legislatures might hesitate to ratify that amendment (which gives them more power and leverage against the Federal government) is that they might fear other states actually leaving, and weakening the remaining union.  But I see no other way of reversing the exponential increase of federal government expansion and intrusion, short of revolution or civil war, which I believe is best to avoid.

The Illusion of Security

I am not overly security conscious.  I don't lock my house unless I am going to be gone for a while, and only recently got used to my wife locking the doors at night.  My shop is even more rarely locked, although I used to secure it more, a habit I developed while the property was unoccupied.  But after a recent theft of my tools, I am re-evaluating those procedures, and will obviously lockup more.  But I am very conscious of the possibility of over reacting to that unfortunate turn of events.  I have heard suggestions for cameras, alarm systems, stronger doors and gates, and a guard dog.  I might even go the dog route, but security wouldn't be the primary reason.

The opposite end of the spectrum from me not locking the doors are people who feel naked without a gun on their person, and sleep with it next to them.  This is clearly a manifestation of fear.  Now for some people, that fear may be justified.  A long career spent locking up criminals is bound to make enemies who are real threats to your safety.  But other people without those risks who are at the same level of alert and security are suffering from an unhealthy level of fear, and I want to be conscious about not heading down that road.  Physical security is not too different from financial security, in that it is mostly an illusion, and you will never feel like you have enough unless you define that threshold ahead of time.  Look at people stockpiling guns and ammunition.  I fully support their right to do that, but past a certain point, it is unhealthy.

From a spiritual perspective, it is putting your faith in the wrong things, whether that is money, guns, or steel doors.  We should take basic precautions and avoid squandering our resources, as part of valuing life and the opportunities God has given to us.  But there has to be a point where you trust God to take care of you, and that point will be different for various situations.  If someone lives in Africa, maybe a body guard is called for, while the same person wouldn't need one in Nebraska.  No amount of money is more than you could lose and no amount of security is actually going to make you "safe," in that there is always risk of something happening to you, but clearly God designed life to be that way.  We need to accept that, and trust Him, once we have taken appropriate measures to take care of ourselves and our family.

Memorial Day

I just finished watching Black Hawk Down, as part of my recognition of Memorial Day.  It is a film that honors US soldiers who died fighting in Somalia in 1993.  19 men died during an operation to restore order to the starving city of Mogadishu.  The film does a good job of presenting a balanced view of the issue, honoring those who fought without glorifying war.

Memorial Day is officially designated in recognition of those who died to protect our country, as opposed to those you survived serving in the armed forces, who are honored on Veteran's Day.  I feel that they are pretty linked, as both groups risked the same thing by joining the military, and veterans who survived combat usually experienced losing their teammates in the conflict.  That is a loss in and of itself, even if they personally survived.  And while there is a quote in the movie about people not choosing to be heroes, some just are, in reality that is not entirely true.  Some people deliberately take bigger risks than others to aid their fellow soldiers, even to the point of certain death.  The movie highlights two Delta Force operatives, who voluntarily inserted against a force of hundreds to protect the victims of a helicopter crash.  Neither survived, and both were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.  I worked on Act of Valor which celebrates the selfless act of Mike Monsoor, jumping on a grenade to save others in his unit.  That act was choosing to be a hero, and fully deserving of the high level recognition it has received.

The US value its troops and their lives far more than any other nation.  We give our soldiers the best gear we can make, and don't leave a man behind.  When Mike Durant was captured during the Mogadishu raid, we mobilized a whole fleet of Marine units to come rescue him, and would have taken over the city to find him.  But we didn't offer anything to negotiate for his release, because that incentivizes future kidnappings and further endangers our soldiers.  He was released under they threat of massive retaliation.

So our value for our men in the big picture prevents us from negotiating for their release.  Obviously that policy has been ignored recently, but compared to European nations who are constantly ransoming their captured citizens to fund ISIS, we are still doing pretty good.  We speak the only language the enemy respects, force and violence, and have managed a number of successful rescue operations recently.

Hopefully we will continue to honor the sacrificed lives of soldiers in past struggles for freedom, by continuing to defend freedom in the future.  And I am one who believes that freedom is the most valuable thing one could fight or die for, but that view seems to be losing traction in the modern world, where true freedom in misunderstood or taken for granted.  But those who died for it didn't take freedom for granted, and no one else should either.

Is Change Good or Bad?

The US Presidential Election primaries have been more interesting than usual.  This is probably due to a number of reasons.  As our world becomes more interconnected, news travels faster, and people's thoughts and opinions are easier to poll and share.  We also live in a more polarized political climate, as people become more entrenched in their positions, and less willing to tolerate compromise.  But regardless of those magnifying factors, this race is a unique one, with both major parties experiencing close races from vastly different candidates.  Both parties are facing the possibility of a rogue third party campaign on their side of the political spectrum, and that would usually spell certain defeat by dividing votes against a united opposition.  But if both parties experience major splits, that would lead to a four way race in the general election, and it legitimately becomes anyone's game.  I believe this could be a positive thing, depending on the form that it takes, by giving people more options at the polls, less manipulated by political parties and cross party sabotage of stronger candidates.  Depending on the outcome, this scenario could cause a major shift in the traditional two party system.

I do have concerns about the direction our country appears to be headed, but change has rarely been a positive thing recently.  Most of the changes seem to have been for the worse, leading one to want to see a stop to the change we are experiencing.  But really, we all want change, just the right type of change.  The popularity of political outsiders on both sides of the aisle during this election season is evidence that I am not alone in my concern about complacency towards business as usual.

I recognize that the future has looked scary in its own way to every generation.  People born in 1890 would have grown up using horses for transportation, and been flying in jets when they retired.  Our own parents used slide rules and typewriters in school, and saw the shift brought on by TVs, computers, and the internet.  We have seen the cultural changes from cell phones, and will soon see the effects of Virtual Reality and other advances changing how we live and experience life.  Some of those changes will be good, others bad, as with everything else in life.

While I am concerned about my own future, I am an adult and quite capable of taking care of my self in a wide variety of situations.  I worry more about my new born son, and the world that he will grow up in.  I can't expect to protect him from all of the changes in our society, and his experiences will be vastly different from mine.  But if I see the possibility of our society collapsing in on itself within my lifetime, it seems like a near certainty that he will witness that, whatever it ends up looking like.  Hopefully he will be even more prepared for it than I am, but it sure doesn't seem that way when I look at him now.

Why is Writing so Hard Now?

This process used to come easily to me, so I don't know why it has been so difficult recently.  Maybe I am just out of the habit.  Maybe I just don't have the time, but that is all relative.  I am expecting a baby any day now, so then I really won't have the time.  Most of my effort recently has been put towards marketing an idea on the internet, which it turns out is hard to do.  I have a Kickstarter campaign in progress, that will complete at the end of the weekend.  It is unlikely to be a success, barring direct intervention from God, but it has been a learning experience.

People always tell me that you learn more from failure than success, but I had never really experienced that.  I was usually successful at what I undertook, and I knew a lot, so that conflicted with the premise.  My primary failures were in regards to relationships with girls, and it is debatable whether I really learned that much from those experiences.  My biggest failure to date had probably been a large investment in a startup company that never went anywhere.  I didn't learn much from that, besides not to trust other people, because I wasn't very involved in the process.  I just have a giant stack of boxes in my barn to remind me of that decision.  Supposedly the owner learned a lot from the experience, but so far on my dime.

But this experience marketing my movie on the internet has taught me all sorts of things, even if it does end in failure.  It illustrated to me how hard it is to create something out of nothing.  I learned all sorts of things about PR firms, internet advertising returns, and the challenges of sharing an idea, and getting people to invest or buy into an idea.  The sting of failure is probably also mitigated by success in other areas.  I got hired onto my first serious paid project in two years, exactly one hour after launching my marketing campaign, so I haven't had as much time to focus on it as I was expecting.  But that is a good problem to have.  Ironically I am in a similar position in that project, trying to create something out of nothing, but my area of responsibility in that process is much more familiar to me.  And the fact that I will be able to do much of the work from home is the culmination of years of planning and effort to put myself in that position, just before my first child is born.

And kids will be whole new adventure, which will give me plenty of new ideas and content to share on here and/or none of the time to actually share it.  I am pretty nervous about the early stages of that process, but I am told by nearly everyone that you adjust to it more than you expect as it happens.  So we'll see.