Categories
Immigration Media Politics Uncategorized US Politics

The Economist and TDS

Dave 07An Open Letter to the Economist Magazine

June 26, 2018

Dear Sir or Mdm.

As a long-term subscriber to the Economist magazine, I feel compelled to write to you about my concerns regarding your magazine’s symptoms of extreme Trump Derangement Syndrome or TDS. Since 1843, your magazine has arguably been the premier English language source, worldwide, for hard news, delivered competently and dispassionately. Yet I fear that over the last number of years, and particularly since the candidacy and inauguration of Donald Trump, you have increasingly become an advocacy magazine rather than a news magazine.

Trump the Wrecker.jpgNo matter what the story, your take is overwhelmingly negative towards anything Donald Trump does. Let me make it clear; I don’t like Donald Trump. He is a bombastic egotist, although I must point out that his predecessor was simply a more refined egotist.

(Regarding this Economist cover: you forget that Trump was elected to shake up (wreck if you will), the failed modus operandi of the past.)

Presidents are not elected to be refined, but to provide leadership; in other words, to get things done. Elegant and articulate speeches that lead nowhere are not leadership. In that regard, Churchill was an articulate leader; Obama was an articulate failure.

12summit-handshake-jumbo-v4Just to give a couple of recent examples of your ever more absurd coverage of all things Trump; you called Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un in Singapore “a stunt.” So far, that stunt has brought American hostages home; suspended North Korea’s annual “hate America” festival; and apparently will result in repatriating the bodies of American soldiers killed in the Korean War.

Most importantly, it elicited a commitment from Kim to dismantle his nuclear arsenal. If he fails to do it, sanctions and military exercises can be resumed. That’s a better start than any of Obama’s stunts.

You call the US withdrawal from United Nations Human Rights Council, “an empty gesture.” If so, it’s a long overdue empty gesture. Fiddling around the edges of a hopelessly dysfunctional and discredited organization is a waste of time. The HRC needs to be disbanded, and sanely reconstituted.

Recent separation of illegal immigrant families under the Trump Administration are no different in kind than what happened under the Obama administration, yet under Trump you imply that it’s a far more serious moral issue. Is it?

The manifestations of your magazine’s advanced TDS would fill a book, and it distresses me to say that on things Trump, the Economist now has little more credibility than media organizations like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN; organizations that have made no secret of their intention to forgo objective news in their campaign to unseat Donald Trump.

Please do better.

Yours truly

Dave W Reesor

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Categories
Media Politics The left Uncategorized US Politics

Trump’s Win-Win Summit

Dave 07A Zero-Sum Game is a situation in which one person or group can win something only by causing another person or group to lose it. It’s a central tenet of the left -wing Progressivist worldview. If someone gets richer, then, in their view, someone else must get poorer.

A recent issue of The Economist magazine shows Trump astride a wrecking ball with the accompanying article bemoaning the way Trump is “wrecking” the norms of world trade, and diplomacy. (Which, by the way, is exactly what he was elected to do.)

Then in articles and newscasts, Progressivist media outlets like The Economist, CNN and their ilk, confidently predicted that Trump, because of his propensity to ignore the norms of diplomacy, was going to lose at his summit with North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un. And in their worldview, they were proven right. The headline in the following week’s Economist was a play on Kim Jong Un’s name: “KIM JONG WON.”

12summit-handshake-jumbo-v4Well, yes he did. For a couple of days, one of the world’s worst characters was a leading figure on the world stage, and in the world’s media. He met face-to-face with the most powerful man in the world; the President of the United States. They stood side by side. Kim even won the concession that military exercises by the South Koreans and the United States would be suspended.

And in the Progressivist mind, since Kim won those victories, Trump must have lost. Because in the Progressivist mind, life is a zero-sum game.

Progressivists won’t acknowledge that in exchange for Trump suspending military exercises, Kim agreed to de-nuclearize the Korean Peninsula, and that if he fails to do that, the Americans and South Korean can simply resume military exercises and ratchet up the economic sanctions.

Progressivists like to point out that Trump has a big ego. Yes, and so does Kim Jong-Un. Incidentally, so does Barack Obama; otherwise how do you explain a singularly unaccomplished individual accepting a Nobel Peace Prize before he’d done anything?   Omama acceptance 2012An even moderately humble individual would’ve said: “How about we wait until after my first term and see how things have gone?” (But then, someone who began his run for the presidency by saying that he was going to end sea level rise would certainly not foresee any problem with bringing peace to the world, would he? How has that worked out?)

Anyway, Trump has a big ego. But as a New York real estate tycoon it’s inevitable that  he’s had to deal with lots of other big egos, and he understands that it’s inevitable that sometimes two big egos will meet. So they got along and Trump massaged Kim’s ego, (and he massaged his own), and in so doing, he moved the world an important first step away from nuclear war.

I’d call that a win-win-win. The South Koreans seem to think so and they certainly have more skin in the game than anyone else. But Progressivists, especially those afflicted with advanced Trump Derangement Syndrome have no concept of what win-win even means. Or else their animus towards Trump is so pathological that they’d rather leave South Korea under nuclear threat than see the US President have a win. That’s rather sick.

Isn’t it a fact that achieving a win-win is what the Art of the Deal is really all about?

I’m Dave Reesor

Categories
Charlottesville Politics The left Uncategorized US Politics

Trump Was Right!

Dave 07I’ve done a few blogs saying: “Trump is wrong,” so I think it’s fair, that in the interests of balance, but mostly because it’s true, that I point out that Trump got it right; on the Charlottesville riot, and on North Korea. I’ve been working on two blogs making the case for each assertion, but Conrad Black trumped me with his column in today’s National Post. It’s an excellent, and very readable analysis, and one which there is absolutely no chance you will see on the CBC, or in the Toronto Star, or the New York Times.

But here’s my take. Trump’s initial comment on Charlottesville was that there was blame on both sides. Unless you have a full blown case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, it should be obvious that there was. Because, like it or not, the white supremacist nutters had a permit to demonstrate. Like it or not, the so-called antifascist (Antifa) and Black Lives Matter nutters didn’t. Both sides came armed. They’re all racists and fanatics. There was blame on both sides. Both sides should be marginalized by decent society.

My perspective is that Nazis, Fascists, Marxists, Antifa, BLM, etc., are all part of the same dystopian tribe, and that the mayhem in Charlottesville was nothing more than a violent family feud; one that the police should have stopped long before someone died.

I detest everything that the neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan stand for, but mostly I regard them as fools, best to to be ignored. Until Barack Obama unwisely spent eight years poking and blowing on the dying embers of race-based conflict in the United States, the KKK and neo-Nazis were largely ignored, which is the last thing they want. Based on his handling of race relations alone, Obama should have returned his Nobel Peace Prize.

Hitler ChamberlainOn North Korea. In 1994, President Bill Clinton paid the North Koreans $4 billion to end their nuclear program and bought “… Peace for our time.” Oh, sorry; I got my history mixed up. It was actually Neville Chamberlain who said that in 1938, after he bought peace by appeasing Hitler over Czechoslovakia. How did that work out?

Churchill, who at the time was regarded as an unstable warmonger, (sort of like Trump), because he advocated stopping Hitler, was ignored. If Churchill had been listened to, the cost of ending Hitler’s Third Reich in 1938/1939 would probably have been less than 1% of the 50 million who died during World War II, from 1939 to 1945.

Anyway, Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s trash talking dictator, recently threatened to send his missiles to Guam, which is a US territory in the South Pacific. Donald Trump said that such an action would result in North Korea being subject to an onslaught of fire and fury like the world has never seen. Obviously that’s trash talk from an unstable warmonger.

 

Kim Jong UnBut for some reason, Kim Jong Un just announced that he’ll allow Guam to exist for a while longer.

Sleep well!

I’m Dave Reesor