China is taking a turn for the better over North Korea’s “Rocket Man”. Stronger sanctions, limits on trade, cutting off oil, halting banking—it was all a wise move on China’s part.
At the United Nations, North Korea made no new friends. They made no indications of any change of heart. North Korea shares the same view of President Trump as the American Left: that he is crazy and irrational and should be called the types of names expected on an elementary school playground.
Even China’s new best buddy, Russia, is concerned for stability in the region. It’s not a threat. It doesn’t sound like a threat. Russia is genuinely concerned. Conflict with North Korea is, indeed, a nosedive and it does affect all Koreans, both North and South, as well as Japan, Russia, and, of course, China. Ending trade is the best bet.
Keeping North Korea alive and kicking as a China-Russia buddy is no longer a reasonable “hopeful”. Now, it’s about damage control. China is being urged to consider cleaning up the dismembered parts of a soon-to-be-former North Korea to avoid other problems.
Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, is expected to call an election. There’s no better time to get re-elected than when the backyard “Rocket Man” is firing missiles over your country and Russia and China won’t do anything about anything except cut off trade with “Rocket Man”. So, from this week’s ongoing drama with North Korea, Japanese Prime Minister Abe is likely to remain in office and China got more involved.
Socialists worldwide claimed Trump would be bad for America and predicted his loss in the election; Russia probably would think the same and try to help him. If Russia aimed to help Trump, that would be yet one more mistake on behalf of the global club of socialists—both official and unofficial. There is no news here, though many report it as such.
The faithless elector movement has already found it’s scrutiny, already fulfilling Symphony’s prediction from just last week. Their point man is reported as a would-be fraud. And, the dwindling movement itself does not include most of the people who voted against Trump. These are only the few who don’t know how to accept loss.
The anti-Trump alarmism has an interesting history since his announcement to run. Trump makes public comments that reflect a private self-talk of “no excuse, no whining, and know which battles you’ll lose”; his opponents lost, don’t seem to know it, make progressively-more dramatic excuses of how it’s “someone else’s fault” (this time the Russians), and won’t stop whining. They seem to follow the Kübler-Ross five-stages of grief. This current suspicion of the Russians has a few contradictions…
In the “election hack” narrative, no one claims that votes were directly altered. Though, precincts in Wisconsin had more Republican votes than registered voters and Democratic precincts in Detroit had something similar. Both parties can thank Hillary for exposing those precincts in her generous reverence for honesty—but, we don’t hear much thanks.
The purported “bias” in the leaked-hacked info. implies that an unbiased leak would have been preferable. And, it ignores the reversed bias from the American media, not to mention its failure to recognize the use of “fear marketing” from the Trump opposition.
Moreover, the clearer influence of Russian propaganda has always been in sectors of education, where the Constitution is attacked, turning points in American history are left out, and Communism is touted as an ideal theory. Those who opposed Trump seem to agree with one or more of those talking points, but only seem concerned as if Russia wanted to pick and choose candidates rather than sowing doubt of the entire process itself; and they certainly show no concern for the Russian influence in their own ideology. The Russian-conspiracy theorists should suspect themselves most of all—and they will, sooner or later.
Hillary’s involvement in a bid to recount the election results will lead to her indictment. Before, her indictment was in question. Perhaps Trump would be “magnanimous” and not persecute his political opponent. That would make sense since political retribution is a can of worms that few want to open—except perhaps Hillary. Then again, no one is sure what she wants from this post-concession recount.
Chris Wallace proved his dated journalism nose once again; he asked the wrong candidate about accepting election results. He really expected the tables to be reversed. He questioned Trump based on his speculation of the vote rather than on the character of the candidates.
Of course Hillary would contest the results after she conceded to them. From her retributive, venomous, retaliatory mode of operation—even with every indication of magnanimity from Trump—she thought surely she would be indicted because that’s what she would do. While some speculate that Hillary hopes to sow doubt about Trump’s legitimacy and stir chaos in the nation, she’s just a wolf trapped in a corner who doesn’t seem to know that she is driving nails into her own political coffin.
Michigan and Wisconsin both could see intervention from their own legislatures and State Supreme Courts. The States could determine that the request for a recount came too late to be completed before the electoral college meets. The US Supreme Court would be divided and bounce decisions back to the States. Other speculations include Congress choosing the President and Vice President, but it is doubtful to even get that far. The States are about to display their power. America’s adversaries will quietly watch and that will make them respect America more than anything we will read in the headlines over the next eight years.
Fidel Castro died at 90 years old. He even said goodbye at the most recent Communist Party Congress. Cubans celebrated in the streets of Miami while Black Lives Matter mourned.
Liberal leaders’ ill preparation of their voters should be cause enough for suspicion. Ongoing disappointment is one of the best-kept secret evils of the two-party system. If Liberal leaders truly cared so much for their voters as their never ending empathy implies, they would have made sure that Liberal voters were ready for the inevitable losses associated with bipolar politics. But, they didn’t. Why?
Ill preparation from Liberal leaders isn’t the biggest cause for question.
The Republican compromisers in Congress over-reached. For decades, they have condescended and lectured their voters on “why having a majority means they must lose”. They didn’t seem to realize that, while Left-wing voters were sissified and setup for dismay this past election, Right-wing voters were strengthened and beat into confidence. As Tolkein writes of Morgoth, “his cunning overreached his aim; his words touched too deep, and awoke a fire more fierce than he designed.” Had the Republican Congress not passed so many Liberal laws on the Bush agenda–stiff FDA rules, the added bureaucracy of DHS, Common Core and centralized education, the Patriot Act, to name a few–the Religious Right would have gladly accepted his brother as the likely-to-lose nominee.
But, this raises the deeper question that Liberal voters also are just now considering: Why do Republican politicians, ostensibly controlled by so-called “Big Wall St. Money”, vote for Liberal ideas against the will of their voters? Wouldn’t that indicate that the so-called “Big Wall St. Money” wants Liberal things to happen? Given the evidence in plain sight, Liberal voters have every reason to question their own political talking points because those points all agree with “Big Wall St. Money”. It’s only a matter of time before they finish mourning their first failure and realize what they already knew.
The news in Asia is Trump. Having put their chips with Clinton, some governments in Asia are scrambling to guess what Trump’s next move will be. Japan didn’t interfere. So, things are “business as usual” in Tokyo. While Asian politicians scramble to clean up their attempt to chose America’s next president, they still might not learn from Japan’s example: It is generally best if one country does not interfere with the elections of another country.
That election-country boundary is somewhat askew where Beijing and Hong Kong are concerned. Beijing is not supposed to interfere at all, as per the condition of the H-Kexit from Britain in 1997. Beijing did, however slightly and defensibly and yet predictably objectionable, and now Beijing must intervene.
Pro-Independence lawmakers inserted a byword for China in their oaths, which legally alters the oath. In doing so, they relegated their oaths’ legitimacy to the determination of higher courts in Beijing. If they couldn’t figure out how not to invite intervention, how could they keep domestic peace as lawmakers? If they didn’t know the legal meaning of words, how could they craft laws with proper wording in Hong Kong? Though unanswered at this time, these are questions their actions begged, making their argument for the second H-Kexit less credible, but, nonetheless more infamous and more famous, depending on who is asked. Infamy and fame gain equal press. “Press” is the battle HK Independence advocates win every time, which is why some in Hong Kong argue that “press” is all they want. But, there is always more going on.
In answering the metaphoric question of whether to be the dead lion or the victorious fox, the Hong Kong Umbrella students chose to be dead foxes. Some call them “martyrs”. Others call them “dinner”. The weakness and failings of disrespect aren’t limited to Hong Kong. The rest of the world is demonstrating the same toward Donald J. Trump, who did get elected after all. Now, Asia must figure out how to deal with the decision in the US while Trump figures out how to deal with the indecision of Asia. Unlike fame and infamy, decision and indecision fair differently.
China had been doing so well. Hong Kong had one of the best democratic systems of representation in the world—allowing a plurality of representatives to be elected in each legislative district. Since the Crown left Hong Kong, the number of newspapers went from three to countless. Hong Kong became a world city, dearly loved from the four corners of the world.
Then, it all changed.
The decline began with a natural sentiment against status quo. That wasn’t enough by itself. China, having possessed Hong Kong for just over 15 years, declared that politicians would be vetted for being pro-China in advance. That was the first clue.
Foreseeable anger was ignited by likely influence from media mogul Jimmy Lia—who to this day captured some of the best photojournalism of protests he likely created. The “Umbrella Movement” started as a face, but was given a name when police used pepper spray, provoking the crowds to respond with umbrellas. The Western media’s influence can’t be ruled out, but neither can many factors.
Latest episodes of the ongoing Hong Kong drama included the recent elections. A few students from the Umbrella Movement protests were running. A number of pro-Independance candidates were not allowed to run after Hong Kong mandated a pro-China affidavit signed in advance—and the election office could decide if the signers were “sincere”. Two Umbrella students seemed to get past the process and were elected, but not allowed to take their oaths. This week, after turmoil, disruption, and well-covered attention from international press, the State-run People’s Daily declares that they should never take their oaths. Beijing will decide next week. Beijing also removed Hong Kong’s minister of finance, Lou Jiwei, 66.
The argument against pro-Independence legislators is rooted in the Basic Law, a kind of Constitution for Hong Kong. The Basic Law states that Hong Kong is part of China. All laws are open to request for review. China and India both did with Britain. But, in this situation, there is no distinction explained as to the right or wrong way Hong Kongers may ask to seceded. It’s all either forced or just not allowed.
Beijing miscalculated. Free people, such as in Hong Kong and much of the West, must be governed and laws must be controlled. Things work reverse of that way in China. Perhaps China’s control of Hong Kong would have gone better had there been a powerful British advisory envoy to help China understand the newly acquired anomaly called Hong Kong SAR. But, the Chinese don’t like to take advice and the British don’t like to give it.
Hong Kong could have been happy without changes. But no one liked status quo, not the people, not even Beijing, and arguably not the Crown. The question remains unanswered: Was it Beijing’s goal to incite Hong Kongers to rise up by vetting people before rather than reviewing laws after? Or, was it the Crown’s goal to allow China to irritate the dragon by not training Beijing how to ride it yet handing over the reigns? Was it all a plot from the Western press who just want to sell newspapers? Or, is it all some alien plot managed from a secret extraterrestrial base on the moon? All possibilities remain equally on the table since we don’t really know what’s actually going on.
It is unlikely that China wanted Hong Kong to break down. It was one of the best things China had going. Hong Kong won’t be the same. Change is coming before China promised and before Britain required, one way or another.
Hong Kong didn’t see the only shuffle in the Western Pacific. Taiwan was booted from Interpol. The guesses as to that hidden hand and its motive are much less vague than guesses about Hong Kong’s.