But Is It Appropriate?

It Was Balloon!

 I read recently the theory that US foreign affairs are entirely determined by domestic politics.  In which case our direction in an increasingly-critical global environment will certainly be directionless.  

It is clear that in the last decade foreign policy doesn't even rise into consideration of voters.  We did violate the titular command in the trendy 2019 movie "Don't Look Up" recently and saw, once again, that we are not alone on this planet, but that was a passing fancy, lost in the absurdity of our own navels.  But I will address the arraignment later on. 

Instead I want to dwell a bit on the stirrings abroad, and what I perceive we are actually doing in the world.  

America is performing a new role on the world stage, still a featured role but no longer a star turn. It's not all about what we want or do; major events arise and resolve elsewhere, and we can engage or watch from backstage.  You know we will be watching. 

China wanted to be watching, too.  They wanted a little-better resolution on that telemetry they were getting sent back from their satellites.  Can you really blame them for sending that innocent balloon?  Yes, they were sending back data the whole time.  Yes, we were recording the data they were sending back for de-cryption efforts.   Spy vs. Spy, remember that one (Mad Magazine)? 

China's leadership have read their history books with the US policy of "containment" (of the Soviet Union), and they have announced they will not settle for it.  Not unreasonably, they insist on the opportunity to compete in Africa, in South America, and they will make a move on Mexico before long.  We should applaud their efforts in ending the warring between Saudi Arabia and Iran. We must allow their competition, unfair as their terms may seem. 

China longs for the broad but lax regulation of the early WTO, as that was a business environment they could exploit.  Things are different now, after the pandemic sliced through the CCP's omnipotence facade:  once at the beginning, and once in the chaotic release of the lockdowns.  The party is going to yield to jingoism if we block the trade aggressiveness that is coming. 

We must insist on change, though, if we are truly to be more friendly.  Xinjiang's penal colonies, for one.  Tibet, for two. Hong Kong, for three.  And we are not yet talking about the South China Sea, the East China Sea, or Taiwan.  Those are matters for discussion, even if now is not the time.  But we cannot buy any more products from the captive states, and we will provide funds to protect the rights of Hong Kong citizens in some ways that are beyond the eyes of the PRC.  We make the commercial terms right for Taiwan to get all that it needs. We can guide that the long-term goal for Greater China is not annexation, or subjugation, or even assimilation and integration, but federation. 

None of this suggests anything other than wary re-armament occurring in the Far Pacific.  United, the challenge is readily met, but includes broad modernization and acts to increase readiness.  Defensive readiness, which today is most expressed as accurate and deadly response capabilities.  

And so we will. 

There is one constant in American foreign policy, and it is that the commercial interests we have will be defended, just as we will act on behalf of our citizens who are endangered abroad.  It is and always has been America First, in actuality if not in slogan-mongering.  So, what's the big deal? 

Biden's policies are a big (f-ing) one:  1) We will reassure our allies after the chaos of the Trump administration's policies; 2) We will keep the pressure on China, and on North Korea, without inviting conflict; and 3) We will defeat Putin, to spite Trump if nothing else.  We will bleed him dry. 

So, yeah, maybe that one is determined by domestic politics.  And the first one, too. 

Fraud

To be sure, misrepresentation is a big problem in our lives, something that affects the quality of our existence daily, through inconvenience if not worse. Adults are constantly bombarded with falsehood, with cheap tricks to make money off them, and promises that will never be believed, or fulfilled.  We are numbed to these, but younger people are not.  

How can we protect ourselves from entities which seek to take advantage of us?  I suggest we legislate a requirement that content generated purely from automatic engines identify itself as such, even if subtly so (think: those fast-speaking disclaimers on the radio or tv).  Violation of the law would be a misdemeanor with the penalty paid by its sponsor:  "Impersonating a human". When a human reviews, edits, and authenticates themself on their own behalf or their entity, then this disclaimer falls off, and it becomes that person's owned product.  It's a small requirement, though it may seem an impossible impediment. If we could get that, perhaps we could reinstate something like the Truth-in-Advertising standards that once existed.  And then apply them to political campaigns. 

 The arraignment of Donald Trump in New York was a necessary first step, and nothing could be more appropriate than that the first charge against the ex-President was for fraud.  He has perpetrated frauds throughout his career, and finally there was a DA ready to call him on it, criminally.  

I imagine the Old Drumpfster with his finger, or something, in the dyke,* trying to hold back the flood, all by himself.   He can't admit to anything on this old charge, now, though he might cop to the misdemeanor version once he has more serious, more dramatic charges to deal with.

Michele's Mistakes 

A fairly big story here in the state of New Mexico is a spate of vetoes of bills passed by the (Democratic-controlled) legislature by Democratic Governor Michele Lujan Grisham.  These have been executed almost completely without comment from the Governor. 

There are a variety of things she is cutting from their budgets and appropriations.  A lot of it is in the category of tax expenditure.  One that bites particularly sharply is a proposed credit (of $2500) for new electric vehicle purchase.  It looks like a sellout; MLG has been re-elected recently and is term-limited.  Very disappointing:  I was giving her credit for the legalization of marijuana (now called "cannabis"); perhaps that was also merely an economic ploy, one called "getting the Texans' money, so it's not just for Colorado". 

Did I mention that the state government is rolling in money?  Never mind, I'm sure it's a temporary condition. 

*Maybe his putter?