Flaming Fundamentalists For Peace

Views From The Outside For April 28, 2026

2026-04-28T00:01:00.003-04:00

Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language.

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

Trump Orders US Military To ‘Shoot And Kill’ Iranian Small Boats Choking Strait Of Hormuz
Trump Reclassifies State-Licensed Medical Marijuana As A Less-Dangerous Drug In A Historic Shift
US Stocks Edge Back From Their Records As Oil Prices Swing Higher
Ex-Philippine President Duterte To Face Trial On Crimes Against Humanity Charges
Navy Secretary John Phelan Is Leaving In The Latest Departure Of A Top Defense Leader

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Is Iran Doing Trump's Dirty Work?

2026-04-24T00:01:00.028-04:00

Back during the initial tariff war days, Trump presented one of his visions for America. Using tariffs, Trump wanted to build an America that was nearly self-sufficient in terms of manufactured goods while seeing the world clamor for its products. That would guarantee the positive trade balances that Trump falsely believes our nation needs.

Fast forward to now. Because of the Iran War, the U.S. has sold more LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) and oil than what was sold before the war. How? Factor in the Iranian attacks on facilities the Gulf Coast Countries along with the closure of the Straight of Hormuz and we see why some nations are starting to look to the U.S. to make up for the loss of supply in those commodities. These increases in sales are benefiting Trump's friends who own those related businesses. Here, we should note something about Iran's attacks on its neighbors. Iran used those attacks to do unto others what was being done to it in order to get the world to care about what was happening to them. Morally it was wrong, but such an approach is understandable.

The above leads to the following question, is Trump receiving more incentive to keep the conflict with Iran going or to find an exit strategy? In terms of valuable fuels, both Russia, which is led by Trumpˋs geopolitical partner, and the U.S. have both profited more and grown more important in terms of providing the world with those resources.

Here we should remember what was repeated in last weekˋs article and stated in an earlier article. It was said here that Trumpˋs criteria for success are domination and acquisition. And in the Iran War, Trump has boasted about Americaˋs military domination over Iran. In addition, Trump believes that he has currently put Iran in an economic stranglehold with his naval blockade in order to force Iran to accept his terms for peace.

And so is Trump looking for an offramp to the war? I donˋt think that is the case. It seems to me that, as long as the Stock Market behaves, Trump is comfortable with or without an agreement with Iran at this time. At the same time, Trump has expressed little to no concern for the human costs of the war--that is especially true when he so flippantly threatens to wipe the Iranian civilization off the map. Has he shown any concern for how the Iran war has caused great hardship to those in some Asian nations? If he has, I havenˋt seen it. And what about his concern for how this war caused inflation on the American public? Again, I havenˋt seen it. Trumpˋs rhetoric suggests, if not implies, that he doesnˋt care about what non oligarch Americans are suffering from this war. Instead, what Trump has continually bought up is Americaˋs military might, which is under his control, and how America is profiting from the war. And so it seems that those factors seem to have eased any discomfort Trump might experienced which would have caused him to look for an early exit from the war.

When we look at Trump's actions through the lens of his criteria for success, again which are domination and acquisition, Trump seems to be comfortable with saying "I'll stay." And the most disturbing part of this story is that Trump's criteria for success will remain the same in all of his future foreign and domestic policies. Here we should note what Trump recently said about social safety nets. He said that our nation cannot afford to pay for safety net programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and child assistance programs while paying for the kind of military that he wants. And so if Congress approves of his new defense/warmongering budget, Trump will become more powerful than any President ever has. And, in the true way of authoritarians, expect more wars in the future.

Views From The Outside For April 21, 2026

2026-04-21T00:01:00.394-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

Ceasefire At Risk After US Seizes Iranian Ship, Iran Shuns Peace Talks
The Iran War Has Revealed Trump's Pressure Point: The Economy
Pope Leo Downplays Feud With Trump, Says 'Not In My Interest' To Debate Him
UK's Starmer Faces Parliament Over Mandelson Vetting As Resignation Demands Swirl

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

A Way Of Understanding The Ceasefire Talks

2026-04-17T00:01:00.006-04:00

IMO, the commentators on the ceasefire talks whom I have listened to have, for the most part, overlook some of the significant factors that contribute to how the ceasefire talks will pan out. I will cover a few of those missed factors below.

The first factor that is overlooked are the criteria that Trump uses to measure success. Theses criteria were mentioned in an earlier article posted on this blog (click here for the article). Those criteria are domination and acquisition. Unless Trump can compel Iran to accept a subordinate role in the negotiations, what Iran proposes will be considered to be not in good faith by the Trump team. And Trumpˋs negotiation team will either pursue its perceived dominant position until Iran submits or it will eventually give up and consider a new framework and set of proposals. On the other hand, Iran is merely looking to be treated as an equal partner in the any set of talks and that includes looking to whether it can survive in tact with any set of conditions that it accepts.

Trumpˋs assumed position of superiority in the ceasefilre talks is based on entitlement. That sense of entitlement is based on its superior advantages in relying on the rule of force.

One might excuse Trump taking the above approach because he is dealing with an adversary. However, that was Trump's approach to negotiating new trade deals with now formerly close allies. He used threats of high tariffs to try to compel nations into trade deals that they did not favor.

And so, what are called 'maximalist' conditions, will be more strongly required because the more such conditions an opponent accepts, the more that Trump will seek to control his opponents. Note here how Trump responds to another party whom he could not dominate. For example, Trump could never dominate Russia which is why Trump has insisted that only Zelensky make concessions in his negotiations with Russia. And so far he has given up on acquiring Greenland.

And so what we can expect is that Trump will insist that only Iran will make concessions to his 15 part peace proposal in their ceasefire talks until he realizes that there are limits to his ability to control Iran's responses.

We should also note that Trump has expressed desires to take Iran's oil for himself (a.k.a., America, according to Trump). That is what he did with Venzuela.

Another factor we should note, and I picked this up from reading a headline from a foreign source, is that Trump is a better at marketing than business. Here we should note that Trump is always marketing something or someone. And though that is not uncommon among public figures, he does that to such an extreme degree that has not been seen done by past American Presidents.. One reason for his compulsion to constantly market himself and others is that, like an overweight person who constantly overeats, he constantly seek affirmation.

We should note that the driving force behind Trumpˋs efforts to market himself and his opponents is the effect he can cause. And results in truth and facts being regarded as completely irrelevant in terms of his marketer tactics. That is because the purpose of his marketing is to win the public to his side and make it opposed to his opponents. And so truth and facts are replaced by convenient claims when Trump markets either himself or his opponents.

That truth and facts have little to nothing to do with Trumpˋs marketing of himself and others can be seen in 3 of his most recent controversial statements. When the Pope called on all nations to favor dialogue to violence and condemned those who rely on war, Trump said that the Pope did not care if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon and would blow up the world. Based on the Popeˋs statements about U.S. immigration policies, Trump claimed that the Pope was soft on crime. Of course the purpose of such marketing is to imply that Trumpˋs policies are the only standard to be used to determine if one is against both Iranˋs dangerous aspirations and crime.

Another example can be seen in Trumpˋs post that has him dressed as Jesus while he heals someone. Trump claimed that his post depicted himself as a doctor, not Jesus. But if that is so, then why was Trump dressed in clothing that we normally associate with how Jesus dressed? Trump also claimed that only the fake news would interpret the picture as Trump portraying himself as Jesus. In reality, Trump took down the post after many Maga Christians complained about it.

Another example can be seen when Trump was questioned about the bombing of an Iranian school that killed around 165 children. When asked about it, he said that that school was hit by a malfunctioning Iranian missile. Forensic evidence has proven Trump to be wrong.

These examples show how Trumpˋs marketing of himself and his opponents is so often based on convenient, and unproven, claims rather being based on truth and facts. This kind of marketing by Trump is not a recent approach. It has been Trumpˋs approach to marketing himself and other from the beginning of his entry into the political arena. For example, from early on his his 2016 Presidential campaign, Trump claimed that the only way he could lose the Presidential election was if the election was fraudulent. In other marketing statements, he has called Marxists, ˋvermin.ˋ He has called the press ˋthe enemy of the people.ˋ And he has constantly berated Democrats and SCOTUS justices who ruled against his policies.

The question for the American people is when will they catch on to Trumpˋs marketing approach. When? Will it be now when Trump has marketing people like the Pope and those MAGA Christians who complained about the pic that very much looks like it was portraying Trump as Jesus? Or will they look at those examples as exceptions to the rule?

Until Trump can compel Iran to act as a subordinate in the ceasefire talks, he will not only push Iran in that direction, he will market Iranˋs proposals negatively so that the American public will only blame Iran should the ceasefire fail. Currently, Trump is employing a blockade of the Gulf of Hormuz to pressure Iran into submission.

Should that fail, Trump will look for the first or best exit ramp that can be most easily marketed as a complete victory for himself and surrender by Iran.

There is one other factor that should be included here. That factor are the goals and approaches taken by Israel. That is because Israel is co-participant in the war against Iran. In addition, from all appearances, Israel seems to have somewhat different goals in this war than the U.S. does. Israelˋs goals would have a more pervasive effect on Iran that those of the U.S. That is because Israel appears to follow its own version of the Bush Doctrine which came into play after 9é11.

In that doctrine, Netanyahuˋs government wants to eliminate all emerging threats in its region. And by the word ˋthreats,ˋ that doctrine really means competitors. And so those that could compete with Israel both in terms of being technologically advanced and having a powerful military are automatically regarded as threats.

Added to that is if Netanyahuˋs government is in alignment with the ˋGreater Israelˋproject that calls on Israel to possess the land between the Nile to the Euphrates river, then Israel would want its immediate neighbors to be decimated both in terms of technological advancement and military power.

Should Netanyahuˋs goal become part of Trumpˋs goals, then there will be no permanent ceasefire between Iran and the combo of the U.S. and Israel until Israel reaches its goals.

Certainly Iran is not an innocent party in this war. Its oppression of many of its own people testifies to that. And yes, Iran sponsors terrorism. But here we should note that the IDF practices terrorism and is more of a threat to the Palestinian people. And so there are no ˋgood guysˋin this war. However, Americans should be more concerned with Trumpˋs flaws than Irans because what foreign policy goes around, often comes around in domestic policy.

Views From The Outside For April 14, 2026

2026-04-14T00:01:00.004-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Again, Our Biggest Threat Is Authoritarianism

2026-04-10T00:01:00.147-04:00

Why is authoritarianism our biggest threat? It is because authoritarianism can play a highly significant role in how we determine what claims are true and what claims are not. It is also our biggest threat because it is becoming more prevalent, especially in the West

We should note a couple of things about authoritarianism. First, it always comes with hierarchy whether that hierarchy is based on ideology, ethnicity, wealth, biological sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or some other category. Some forms of authoritarianism revolve around a single leader or group of leaders. Other forms of authoritarianism revolve around groups that are based on ethnicity, ideology, or economic class.

Authoritarianism knows no ethnic, ideological, class, sexual orientation, or gender identity boundaries. That is because in authoritarianism, the leader wants their followers to reflexively or automatically accept or reject what is said based on who said it. In other words, it is the credentials of the source that determines a reflexive or automatic reaction. Here, we should note that we should recognize the credentials that experts have in the specific field(s) have. But with authoritarianism, credentials of the source are often irrelevant to the subject of the claims.

Basically, authoritarian leaders want to be nanny thinkers for their followers. And so they will attack the credibility and credentials of sources that their followers are exposed to. For example, when Hillary Clinton referred to a certain group of Americans as 'deplorables,' she was trying to get her followers to reflexively or automatically reject everything that the people to whom she was referring were saying. When Trump followers call those who protest against him as suffering from 'Trump Derangement Syndrome,' those followers want people to reflexively or automatically reject everything that Trump protesters say. And Leftists have their own pejorative labels for those whom they oppose such as calling some the 'bourgeoisie.' In other words, when we see someone employing a pejorative use of labels on a person or group or ideology they oppose, they are making an authoritarian appeal.

However, the presence of authoritarian followers does not imply that a given leader is authoritarian. Why? It is because not all leaders who have authoritarian followers act as authoritarians. Non-authrotarian leaders might have some followers who are authoritarian followers. That is, without the authoritarian appeal of a given leader, some authoritarian followers will latch on to any leader that they consider to be appealing. Such a follower will automatically reject or accept what a source says solely based on whether their adopted leader contradicts what a source says. The basic dynamic here is the same however. If what a given source says is supported by the leader of an authoritarian follower, then that follower automatically accepts what the given source says. Otherwise, what a given sources says will is automatically or reflexively rejected.

This leads us to one of the problems with being an authoritarian follower. That is that an authoritarian follower does not use facts and logic to determine whether to accept or reject a claim. For the authoritarian follower to seriously consider what an unapproved source says results in a cognitive dissonance. For how can one both believe a single claim from an unapproved sources while trying to reject everything that that source says? As the follower continues to agree with what an unapproved source says, the more credentials the follower attributes to that source. As that credentials of that source increase, the follower must eventually decide whether to part ways with their adopted leader.

A caveat should be introduced at this time. It to automatically reject what an non-expert in a given field says is significantly different from automatically rejecting what an expert says. Though we shouldnˋt always automatically accept what a given expert in the field of the discussion says, they should be seen as having more credibility and credentials than a non-expert says.

Authoritarianism holds out a couple carrots to potential followers. Following a leader, especially a popular one, as being always or almost always correct can be an ego boost to some. It makes some people feel more significant because of how they have connected themselves with an esteemed person or ideology or group. Being an authoritarian follower can especially appeal to those who feel alienated from others. And so fear becomes involved because if one should decide not to follow leaders or ideologies, one can lose a vital connection that being an authoritarian follower provides. Thus, challenging the beliefs of an authoritarian follower, even when done with facts and logic, can seem personally threatening to the authoritarian follower.

Another carrot that authoritarianism holds out is that it allows one to feel more comfortable, and even more in control, in a world that often seems to complicated. It is easier to latch on to a leader and put all of one's trust in that leader than to battle through the complexities of life and the world to come to one's own conclusions.

Authoritarianism plays a big role in determining what many believe or reject. And unfortunately, that role doesnˋt revolve around facts and logic. It is very unfortunate because authoritarianism, though never having disappeared, is definitely on the rise in the West, both in Europe and in North America.

How should we respond to authoritarianism? We should note that authoritarian leaders want their followers to reflexively or automatically reject or accept what is said by a given source. The kind of thinking implied in authoritarianism is black-white thinking. In such thinking, either everything that a source says must either be accepted or rejected. And that provides the key in battling authoritarianism. To fight authoritarianism, we need to see red flags raising when someone employs black-white thinking And so we need to challenge the appeal to either reject or accept everything that is said by a source. To auotmatically reject everything that someone says is to say that that source needs to listen to me or us while we have no need to listen to it. Such an approach is driven by arrogance which, in turn, is often driven by ignorance. And to accept everything that an adopted leader says, implies that that adopted leader is omniscient. And contrary to Trumpˋs view of himself, the only being who is omniscient is God.

All-or-nothing thinking, including black-white thinking, is the cognitive foundation of authoritarianism. And so to refuse to employ all-or-nothing thinking is to reject authoritarianism.

But such an approach can be problematic for the religiously conservative Christian. That is because with what God has communicated to us, there are times to employ all-or-nothing thinking. But the source for such thinking is the Scriptures, not manˋs ideologies or abilities. We can learn much from manˋs ideologies, but we cannot afford to approach any ideology in an all-or-nothing manner. That is there is no ideology that does not need to be supplemented by other ideologies. There is no ideology that can solve all problems. Likewise, there are few ideologies that have nothing to teach us.

And so we can start stopping authoritarianism by learning how to take hybrid approaches to problem solving. For example, in his book, Stride Toward Freedom, King notes that while Marxism forgets that life is individual while Capitalism forgets that life is social. And so King proposed that we combine the best approaches and thinking that are in Marxism and Capitalism to find a better approach to the economy and politics. Such an approach prohibits us from automatically rejecting or accepting what a source says.

Again, we are seeing a move away from Democracy with equality and toward authoritarianism with hierarchy. To stop this move, we need to understand authoritarianism and the kind of thinking that it employs. That understanding can save us from being ruled by tyrants especially if those tyrants first appear to be wearing sheep's clothing.

Views From The Outside For April 7, 2026

2026-04-07T00:01:00.417-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréa

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Blog Break

2026-03-24T00:01:00.005-04:00

Please note that the dates from the last posting of this blogpost have changed.

For personal reasons I am taking a blog break from posting from Tuesday, March 24th to Monday, April 6th. The next new post will be on Tuesday, April 7th. In the meantime, you can visit some of the other pages on this blog accessed through the tabs shown above or the incomplete list below.

Other Pages

Audio-Visual Library Page (this is my favorite page on the website)--has recently been updated
Activism page
Needs updating
Favorite Articles page
Needs updating
Favorite Websites page
Needs updating
Past Blog Posts page
Needs updating

Looking For Statistics In All Of The Wrong Places

2026-03-20T00:01:00.064-04:00

At the end of February, Trump ordered the military to start a war of choice against Iran. It is a war of choice because Iran posed no immediate military threat to the U.S. At least that was the opinion of at least some of our allies and U.S. intelligence agents.

With that in mind, the question became how would this war of choice affect American voters. The focus then revolved around gas prices and inflation. That a prolonged war in which gas prices were high close or up to the midterm elections, that it could cause Trumpˋs party to lose control over at least one chamber of Congress.

The problem with that analysis, if true, is what that prediction reveals about Americans moral values. For if inflation statistics were the most prominent factor in determining how Americans respond to war, then Americans believe only in transactional voting. That seems to be an apt description of the MAGA voters who oppose Trumpˋs decision to go to war because they feel that Trump was following an Israel first policy.

If moral values are more important to us than inflation, the statistics we would be looking at would include: the number of civilians whom the Iranian regime has killed, the number of Iranian civilians who have been killed by the war, the number of Iranian refugees who are fleeing from the war, the number of civilians killed in Lebanon, and the number of displaced people from there The statistics from Lebanon are as much a part of our statistics even though the U.S. is not attacking Lebanon. That is because Israel is using American made weapons in its war against Lebanon .

But the above are not the only statistics to consider. That is because there are future statistics to consider. For example, what if our war against Iran produces a civil war within Iran between supporters of the regime and its opposition? Or how many Iranians will die as a result of injuries or the destruction to infrastructure that the current war will causing? We could also consider how many people from other nations will die because their enemies acted unilaterally without consulting the international community just as the U.S. and Israel did in attacking Iran? Finally, how many people will die when the continued use of war eventually results in the exchange of WMDs between waring nations as warned against in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto?

When we just consider the moral statistics, we find grounds for both going to and refraining from waging war against Iran. But regarding the number of innocent civilians killed by the Iranian regime, if that is an adequate justification for waging war against Iran, does it also provide an adequate justification for the U.S. or another nation to go to war against Israel for Israelˋs treatment of the Palestinians in the Occupied territories? Perhaps that has been Iran's justification for using proxies to attack Israel. And if that is the case, just maybe we are more like our enemy than we care to admit

It seems that the price of gas should be less of a factor than the statistics mentioned above in determining the midterm elections At least it should be that way if Americans hope to keep their democracy. That is because authoritarian candidates can more easily win elections based on transactional voting such as what financial benefits they promise to voters. And so elections can be their way of getting their feet in the door of high government positions.

The news networks that have reported that inflation is a major issue in determining how voters will vote in the midterm elections might just be right. But then we Americans must be honest with ourselves. We must then admit that the more transactional we are in our voting, the more we put Democracy at risk. That is because Democracy is based on values such as on the principle of equality. Transactional concerns do not involve equality, but they can include personal weath. That is not to say that personal wealth is unimportant. It is that Democracy should be more important to voters than immediate financial fixes, or even long-term ones.

Views From The Outside For March 17, 2026

2026-03-17T00:01:00.271-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Militaries May Win Battles But It Is Presidents Who Lose Wars

2026-03-13T00:01:00.189-04:00

I still remember the Vietnam War days, after all I was one year from going. Day after day we saw heard the battle statistics like they were college football scores. According to those scores, we were winning by so much that we chalked up the war as a victory well before it finished. And so we were shocked when the nationˋs most trusted news broadcaster, Walter Cronkite, said otherwise. His announcement came, if memory serves, after the Tet Offensive.

Why did we lose that war? It was because our nationˋs leaders failed to understand why the enemy was fighting, the different strengths of the enemy, and the resolve of the enemy. Over 2 million Vietnamese and 58+ thousand American service people died for that lack of understanding.

We failed to understand the enemy because our leaders failed to understand a people and culture that was not their own. They projected their own personalities, values, and culture on the enemy and thus lost the war because they didn't realize how difficult winning would be.

Fast forward to 2001 and 2003 and our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. We told ourselves that Iraqis would greet us as liberators and though some did, but not enough celebrated our invasion. And our efforts to invade and then rebuild their respective nations and the lies we told ourselves caused us to lose those wars.

We should note that we lost the war in Iraq after President Bush announced ˋMission Accomplished.ˋ And we lost the war in Afghanistan after we not only established an elected government, we kept troops there to protect that government.

And so Trump claims that we will achieve a lasting victory if, after winning all of the battles, we avoid rebuilding the nation ourselves. Instead, we can let the Iranian protesters overthrow the theocracy and establish their own government on their own.

And so if we will not try to rebuild Iran after destroying it, what is it that we donˋt understand about Iran that can cause us to lose this war? We know that Iran is run by a theocratic government in which the most popular religion is one that is held by its leaders. Yes, the opposition has many supporters, but so does Iranˋs theocracy. But do we understand the degree of commitment that the government and many of its people have in persevering when attacked by their arch enemies? After all, such an understanding could tell us how much the government and people will endure vs how much our nation can endure in fighting the war.

With the Vietnam War, not understanding the desire for reunification that many Vietnamese had outweighed their commitment to the U.S. installed governments caused us to naively escalate our involvement in Vietnam. Our nationˋs leaders believed that that war was about the spread of Communism back then and could be won by our military. And so North Vietnam and the VC were willing to endure more suffering than our nation was willing to in fighting the war.

Another nation that is fighting a war for reunification is Russia. Russia illegally and immorally invaded Ukraine in order return Ukraine back to itself And this explains how much suffering Russia is willing to endure. What Putin didnˋt anticipate how much Ukrainians did not want to be part of Russia again.

A nation can also fail to anticipate how an opponent can fight back. In Vietnam, because of the disparity between conventional military strength between the two sides, both the NVA and the VC often fought using gorilla tactics. The result is that the NVA and the VC were able to prolong the war past our own nationˋs endurance. And one of their strengths was the number of combatants they had to draw from.

In Iraq, both our own blunders and an insurgency was used to offset the disparity in military strengths.

In our attacks on Iran, Iran is addressing the disparity in our respective military strengths by using its weapons to fight an economic war rather than engage in a head to head military confrontation. And so when our Secretary of Defense reports on the progress of the war, which he does like a teenage boy would report on playing a video game, he fails to address both a key vulnerability of ours and Iranˋs progress.

Another issue is the respective costs of the war. Though the militaries of Israel and the U.S. are much more powerful than Iranˋs, the cost of our weapons far exceed the costs of Iranˋs weapons. This can make it easier for Iran to win of attrition caused by financial concerns. Cheaper weapons can make it more feasible for a nation to persevere in fighting than more expensive weapons can. And thus there comes a point when continuing to fight can begin to cost too much and factor in to how long both sides are willing to fight.

Because of the Cold War, we sometimes believe that the only wars that we canˋt afford to fight are mutually destructive wars where nuclear weapons are involved. But in the current war with Irans, we could face a total breakdown of the global economic system which would be very destructivee. And so despite our military accomplishments, we will not know who will win this current war until some time after Trump and Netanyahu announce ˋMission Accomplished.ˋ

But there is another factor that determines whether we should fight in a given war. That is the moral factor. With each war, the participants risk experiencing military defeat and/or moral suicide. We are currently witnessing this in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is apparent by their actions that both Israel and groups like Hamas have not only experienced, but have embraced, moral suicide. It appears, with the victims of the current war, that the U.S. and Israel, along with Iran, are at least flirting with moral suicide. This moral factor would better influence the decision to enter a war if values influenced the participantsˋ decisions more than their respective interests did.

Another factor that should come into play in determining whether to go to war or not is the precedent that such an action sets. The powerful nations believe in privilege based on power. Thus, when they are going to war, they don't think of themselves as setting a precedent or an example for other nations to follow. That stands in contrast to International Law that presumes the equality of all nations. And so when Russia invades Ukraine or the U.S. and Israel team up to attack Iran, they are not aware that they are setting an example for the nations wishing to become part of the powerful elite to follow. Nor do they consider how other nations, wishing to go to war with another nation, can rationalize their actions by pointing to the unjust wars prosecuted by the powerful elite.

A nation's military may win all of the battles, but it is the leader of a given nation that determines the success of prosecuting a war. And when one considers the above, most wars are lost when a President decides to start a war. And that happens when opportunism is at least partially fueled by ignorance.. But there is something else that we need to consider, if we follow the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, leaders would conclude that almost every war is not worth starting because the accumulation of wars leads to the eventual use use of WMDs. And here we should note that today, WMD is equated with nuclear weapons. But who knows what else could become a WMD in the future.

Views From The Outside For March 10, 2026

2026-03-10T00:01:00.021-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

The UN

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal De Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

Der Spiegel

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Thou Shall Not Judge: A Geopolitical Approach

2026-03-06T00:01:00.042-05:00

Picture a Middle Eastern nation that prefers to have nuclear bombs and other weapons to defend itself from a regional rival that is dead set on destroying it. If the nation you saw in your mind was Israel, you would be correct. But if the nation you first thought of was Iran, you would also be correct during the Netanyahu years. That is because Netanyahu has dreamed of destroying Iran for 4 decades.

That brings us to the first 2 chapters of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Following Paulˋs argument against homosexuality in Romans 1 comes the warning against judging others at the beginning of Romans 2. We Christians often conveniently forget that sequence.

Why are we warned against judging those whose sins are listed in Romans 1? It is because in so doing we condemn ourselves for we commit some of the same sins. James says something similar in James 2.

We often think that the warning against judging others as applying only to individuals. But should that be the case? What if we apply that passage to nations, especially after they attack other nations for an alleged offense?

Take the American and Israeli attacks on Iran that started last Saturday as an example. A number of reasons have been given for the attacks. The Iranian takeover of the American Embassy in 1979 is one. The claim that Iran has killed thousands of Americans in another. And that Iran has recently killed tens of thousands of its own people is another. And then there is Iran's exporting of terrorism while wanting to possess nuclear weapons.

We should note that before the Iranian Revolution with its takeover of the American embassy in 1979, we supported another Iranian government that employed a secret police that would arrest, imprison, and torture dissidents in order to maintain a Ẁhite Revolution that consisted of a top-down government and a modernization of parts of Iranˋs society. When that government was overthrown, the U.S. provided shelter for is leader, the Shah, in part because he was suffering from cancer. Those in the Iranian Revolution wanted to put him on trial for the crimes he had committed against the Iran's people. And so here the U.S. supported one dictator who was cruel to the Iranian people, we are currently attacking another such leader who did the same.

The claim that Iran has killed thousands of Americans is false though the number is above 1,000. And many of those deaths were members of our military who were killed by proxies in response to their presence or actions. In addition, there were some embassy bombings that contributed to that number. But the claim is made in a way that implies that the murders would occur at the spur of the moment to civilians in public and that is false.

Along with Israelˋs and Americaˋs claim that the current Iranian regime has treated its own people horribly, what is never mentioned is how Israel treats the Palestinians and how America supports that treatment.

Israelˋs government has officially opposed the creation of a Palestinian state while it uses the Occupation to cover its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. And so we must ask, especially wth Israelˋs recent atrocities in Gaza and its violent annexing of land in the West Bank, how different, other than with tactics, is Israelˋs treatment of the Palestinians from Iranˋs treatment of its dissidents? Certainly, Iran's current government is evil because, in part, of how it treats its people. Here we are not asking which nation's practices are the most evil. When evil is being practiced, such a question is irrelevant here.

Do we understand how our accusations against Iranˋs government can easily turn to self-accusations or perhaps confessions of wrongdoing? That is not to excuse the atrocities Iran has committed. What we need to realize is that those who are doing the accusing are just as guilty of committing or supporting atrocities as the Iranian government is.

And so if attacking Iran can be justified for its treatment of its own citizens, why are Iran and its proxies not justified in attacking Israel for its treatment of Palestinians? Are not Iranian citizens and Palestinians humans and thus deserve to be equally respected as people with human rights? A similar argument can be made for Israelˋs right to defend itself against Palestinian attacks. If Israel can openly and brutally attack Palestinian civilians, which has been done on a monumental scale in Gaza, then what is wrong with Palestinians returning the favor?

If we wish to justify the joint U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran because it was expanding it ballistic missile program and plans to build a nuclear arsenal while shouting ˋdeath to Americaˋ and ˋdeath to Israel,ˋ what is wrong with Iranˋs nuclear intentions when Israelˋs Prime Minister has wanted to attack Iran for decades? After all, Israel has a nuclear arsenal and its own missiles.

One thing that is wrong with all of the attacks on both Israel and Iran is that their perceived necessity could have been avoided through negotiations. But the negotiations that are needed here are the ones between Israel and the Palestinians over land. That is because most of the atrocities that are either practiced or enabled by Iran has been because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Those nations who exercise their judgement against other nations or people with the non defensive use of force have demonstrated that they rely on the rule of force. Israel, in particular, uses force to enact its own version of the Bush Doctrine. That Doctrine stated that the U.S. would not allow rivals to become even emerging threats. And that is what Israel attempts to do with attacks on its neighbors. And such an approach is done to eliminate any possible check on Israelˋs desires to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the Occupied Territories.

Here we could also ask my fellow Americans this question. If America is justified in attacking Iran for its treatment of its own citizens, then wouldnˋt the use of force to affect regime change in America have been justified during slavery and Jim Crow? After all, our treatment of Blacks and other minorities has been horrific for most of our history. However, our nation's need for self-flattery refuses to consider the question.

Applying the beginning of Romans 2 to geopolitics presumes that there exists a great equality between ethnicities and between nations. And the question then becomes if people who look down on others in judgment are subject to the judgment of God, then why wouldnˋt nations be subject to that warning too?

Something else needs to be added. Because of his lack of self-restraint, Trump has taken the act of judging others for crimes that America also commits to a new level. Certainly Iranˋs leaders are morally horrible. But in acting as their executioner, Trump if not imitating their crimes, commits his own set of crimes. For in judging other nations, Trump assumes that he is only answerable to himself.

The Bible says not to judge in several places. At the same time, there are times when we must confront people or nations with their wrongdoing. How do we handle this possible contradiction? Perhaps when judging others, we must distinguish between looking down on others from looking at others. While the former judges with a sense of moral superiority that comes from being blind to one's own sins, the latter does not.

Views From The Outside For March 3, 2026

2026-03-03T00:01:00.404-05:00

Am Still recovering from physical problems that have infringed on my posting on this blog.

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Trumpˋs Ends Justify The Means

2026-02-27T00:01:00.000-05:00

Considering that Trump said that the only constraint on his foreign policies was his own conscience, which he seems to conflate with International Law, we will better understand his response to the SCOTUS decision that invalidated many of his tariffs.

Among other things, Trump called the decision made by the liberal justices from the Supreme Court unpatriotic. With the other pejorative labels that Trump called those justices Trump was displaying his normal tantrum behavior at criticisms. He was also putting his authoritarian credentials on public display which he did not do by merely disagreeing with their ruling, but by how he expressed his disagreement. Trump was displaying his authoritarianism because his verbal abuse of the justices who voted against his use of tariffs was designed to get the American people to automatically reject what the justices said. Such a move is part and parcel to how authoritarian leader relates to their people.

We can come to two conclusions about Trump from his reaction. First, that he equates Americanism with himself. And second, the basis on which he judges a decision, whether it be his or that of others, is determined by using an immediate ends justifies the means ethic.

Regarding the first conclusion, when a leader identifies himself with his nation, the people, movement, or ideology, he is joining list of authoritarian leaders from history who have done the same thing. Such an identification causes the leader to portray criticisms of himself or herself with opposition to what or whom they identified themselves with. And so when the Russian Tsars so identified themselves with the Russian people, they counted criticisms of themselves with attacks on the Russian people. In a similar way, Lenin considered even fellow socialists who criticized him and his Bolshevik party as opponents to the Revolution.

And so while the 6 justices who ruled against Trump did so because of their reading of the federal law in question and The Constitution, Trump wants us to view their ruling as being against America. That is because he wants all Americans to consider himself to be the sole standard of what it is an American. And again, he wants us to automatically dismiss the ruling of the SCOTUS.

Similarly, when Trump continued to publicly berate those justices with pejorative labels and name calling, he is using another tactic to accomplish the same authoritarian goal. Trump, in talking about the majority and minority opinions, never dealt with the specific logic of the different opinions.

Instead, by touting claims he made about the results of his tariffs, he was showing that it was the immediate ends of his tariffs that should have determined the SCOTUS decision, not the specific law involved nor The Constitution. The immediate ends was that Trump could impose his will on trading partners or, in the case of India and Pakistan, on 2 nations in order to stop a war. Though stopping a war should be seen as a significant accomplishment, using tariffs as leverage to force all, including allies, what Trump considered to be favorable trade agreements to the U.S. is bullying. It is one thing to use leverage to keep another party from exploiting oneself, but he did that to friends, allies. And he used an apparent lack of understanding of the significance of a trade deficit. And so Trump used tariffs to subordinate all trading partners to accept as many of his demands that he could get.

Here we should note what the German Chancelor Mertz said in Davos. He said that democracies do not have subordinates. And yet, Trump used tariffs to subordinate even our allies into acquiescing to enough of his demands. His tariffs worked to get the immediate ends that he desired. And since he associates the acquisition of those ends with making America more prosperous and strong, Trump saw those tariffs as being pro-American and opposition to those tariffs as being anti-American regardless of what federal law and The Constitution say.

But we should also note that Trump is looking at the immediate ends without considering the possibility some longterm tradeoffs to his approach. That being coerced into concessions causes friends to distrust the one who is coercing The one who is forcing concessions is looked on as a bully. Those who were friends will then find other trading partners with which to do business. And so the bully will eventually find him or herself with few if any friends. And in the world of today's commerce, that spells an eventual decline in prosperity.

Currently, many, possibly former, friends of the U.S. are actively seeking new trading partners with new trading relationships to replace their trading partnership with the U.S. That could leave the U.S. in a situation where it is on the outside looking in on mutually enriching trading relationships.

Something else should be said. Trump's vision for America is for America to become not just completely self-sufficient in all of its needs, but to also be the desired trading partner of most of the world. That is the goal of his approach on tariffs and efforts to acquire new territories. In that way, the U.S. could have a trade surplus with each nation it trades with. In other words, Trump is saying to the countries of the world that they need us but we don't need them--which is something he said about Canada. He wants a surplus because he considers a trade deficit to be theft. And yet, he doesn't mind if other nations have trade deficits with us. All of that demonstrates that he does not understand what a trade deficit means.

A trade deficit means that the people and businesses of one nation purchase more goods and/or services from other nations than what they sell to those nations. And considering that the U.S. is one of the most populated nations in the world and has the strongest economy, in part, demonstrated by collective wealth of its businesses, it is logical that the U.S. would have a trade deficit with most nations in the world.

Can there be unjust tariffs that contribute to a trade deficit? Yes. But those tariffs are found by examining the details rather than merely looking at a given deficit. And here we must distinguish the tariffs from other nations from those that are truly unfair to us from those that are used to protect essential industries of a trading partner.

Back to Trump's immediate ends justifies the means ethic, his shortsightedness, his misunderstanding of trade and tariffs, and the authoritarian mentality that he is pushing on America confirm the ethic described here. And unless Congress will standup and act as an equal branch of government to the Executive Branch, Trump's use of the immediate ends justifies the means will become even more prevalent than what we have seen so far.

Please note that this ends justifies the means ethic is agreeable to Trump's conscience. And if that is true in terms of trade, where else can it be true? One thing is for sure, the ends justifies the means is not well supported by International Law, a law that a stresses the equality of each nation.

Should History Be Just A Drug

2026-02-20T14:46:00.001-05:00

Laura Ingraham used to preach to artists: ˋShut Up and Sing.ˋ With her message, Ingraham either did not know or ignored the difference between artists and entertainers. For while all artists are entertainers, not all entertainers are artists. What is the difference between the two? Artists use either their platform or art to act as secular prophets to society on almost any issue. And their job as prophets is to make society feel uncomfortable with its significant faults. Entertainers sing just to make us feel good.

I mention this because Marco Rubio came close to, if not actually, taking a page out of Ingrahamˋs message. He said the following at the Munich Security Conference this month (click here for the source):

We want allies who can defend themselves so that no adversary will ever be tempted to test our collective strength. This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it.

At first, such a wish seems reasonable. And it would be reasonable until we see how Trump deals with pride and guilt at home. For Trumpˋs war against Wokeism and DEI shows that Trump does not want to be reminded of any negative criticisms based on the past or present. In other words, he doesnˋt want to hear any prophetic messages despite his penchant foror speaking prophtically, that is in his mind, to others.

What we end up with here is the kind of thinking that serves as the cognitive foundation for authoritarianism: all or nothing thinking. For, based on Trumpˋs domestic policies and Rubioˋs above statement, it seems that Trump wants his Western allies to be proud (and loud) as he is as opposed to feeling guilty over the past and perhaps the present too.

Even MAGA Christians, along with the rest of us believers in Christ, must tell Trump that we, as Christians, cannot go with him there. Why? Perhaps the parable of the two men praying explains why (see Luke 18:9-14):

9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

This parable applies because it gives birth to two questions that we believers in Christ must always ask ourselves. First, when is it safe for any Christian to pray the prayer of the Pharisee? Second, when does any Christian no longer need to pray the prayer of the tax collector?

As for all of us in society, we have go back to the logical issue here, Why must we choose between being proud or feeling guilt and shame over the past? Why canˋt we, as people, experience both sets of feelings? Why must we choose between one or the other?

If we realize that Trump views America as an extension of himself. And considering that Trumpˋs Administration has criticized Great Britain for its own Wokeism as well as the hate speech laws that many European nations have, Trump, through Rubio, seems to be demanding that his European allies br likr how he wants America to be.

There are other reasons for continuing to feel guilt and shame over the past. One reason is that those feelings not only reminds us of what our ancestors did, it also reminds us of what we are capable of repeating. We Christians should note that Daniel confessed that his generation of Israelites committed many of the same sins that their ancestors did.

That reminder should not only help humble us, but it can be a useful tool in exercising self-restraint. And so without that shame and guilt, Europe could, once again, repeat its past mistakes as well as committing Americaˋs current great sin of rationalizing its dependence on the rule of force on the grounds of its exceptionalism.

And now, what becomes of history if we forget the shame and guilt for our past atrocities? Why isnˋt it true that if we can share in the pride of past heroes with their accomplishments, then we can also share in their shame due to their past atrocities? If we canˋt share in that shame, then history becomes nothing a feel good drug designed to help us bury our self--doubts and criticisms, which ia much like entertainment provided by even our favorite entertainers does.

The Tale Of Two Speeches

2026-02-15T11:33:00.001-05:00

There were two noteworthy speeches given at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this year. The first one was given by the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney. The second one was given by President Trump. Trump's speech included a hostile response to Carneyˋs speech.

We should note that when the world listened to Carney speak, they heard Carneyˋs declaration of independence from subordinate relationships with the great powers. They also heard his call for a revolution by like middle powers in becoming strong enough by becoming interdependent. However, when Trump listened to Carneyˋs speech, he heard Carly Simon sing, Youˋre So Vain.

Perhaps Bob Rae, a former Canadian Ambassador to the UN, gave the best interpretation of Trumpˋs speech when he said that even when you compare their tones of voice, Trumpˋs speech was very comparable to Marlin Brandow in the movie The Godfather.

Trumpˋs speech combined elements from both individual and corporate narcissism as he used some false claims about his accomplishments of his 2nd term as President and what the U.S. has done for the world. He also scolded the world for not showing adequate gratefulness for how the U.S. makes the world go round. Trump told the Davos audience that the nations rise and fall with how well the U.S. does. Trump asserted that the U.S. leads and the nations follow. Therefore, nations like Denmark owe the U.S. parts of their kingdom, specifically Greenland, out of gratitude for all that the U.S. does for them.

Trump is now angry that Carneyˋs speech stole the show and so he has been issuing one threat after another. The latest threat pertains to the opening and use of the newly constructed Gordie Howe Bridge that connects Ontario to Michigan.

Trumpˋs treatment of Canada and the Western allies has prompted some guest commentators on news shows to suggest that Trump just might have been a Manchurian Candiate who has become President. Along with what some see as Trump's pathological narcissism, we can begin to see reasons why Carneyˋs World Economic Forum speech gained more approval than Trumpˋs. And what we see in terms of those speeches, while Trumpˋs speech set a very low bar for measuring speeches, Carneyˋs intellect, values, and foresight set an extremely high bar.

Finally, in reference to Marco Rubio's speech at the current conference in Munich, the European nations must take note of how Trump has been treating Canada before finding relief in Rubio's words and tone of voice when talking about America's commitment to the European nations.

Unlimited, Trump wants To Be Unlimited

2026-01-26T10:25:00.001-05:00

This post signals a partial return of my blog. It is only a partial return. I have had several health issues that have interfered with my maintaining this blog.

For those in Europe and other places who have felt a great deal of discomfort due to Teumpˋs actions and/or rhetoric, I have a message for you from America: Welcome to our world. Since Trumpˋs reelection, myself and many others have felt an unrelenting anguish and anxiety. Our anguish is due to the suffering he inflicts on others, and our anxiety is due to what may com our way. Trumpˋs demeanor and behavior have us singing an adaptation of a song from Wicked: Where will he strike next?

Of course we Americans only have ourselves to blame. As George Carlin used to say, selfish, ignorant people elect selfish, ignorant officials. And we should note that many of us, especially those who share my faith, have enthusiastically joined the ranks of those people. For we have pursued not only authoritarianism, but ignorance with a passion. Many of us have locked ourselves up in conservative echos chambers, some of which I suspect are heavily influenced by Vlad Putin, since our authoritarianism has controlled whom we listen to and whom we donˋt by telling us to automatically accept or reject what a source says by who who source is.

We Americans are at fault also because we have passionately embraced a corporate narcissism regarding our nation--such as proclaiming that we are the greatest nation in the history of the world. And it was America that produced Donald Trump. As Carlin noted about our politicians, their parents, schools, the society they grew up in, and its economic system was, and still are, American.

Trumpˋs American experience taught him that domination and acquisition are leading criteria that measure greatness. And so note that Trump reduces America to be an extension of himself. That is why He called the British move to relinquish land on Diego Garcia 'stupid' rather than recognizing how principled a move that was. That is why Trumpˋs false claim that our giving Greenland back to Denmark after WW II was 'stupid.' And that is the reason why Trump saw America under Biden as a complete failure even though Biden brought down inflation and unemployment rates to low levels and that America still had the strongest economy in the world.

Trumpˋs reduction of America to an extension of himself also includes his ego. This is why Trump sees America as the leader and rest of the West, if not the world, as followers, and why his view of America being that 'city on the hill' as being totally self-sufficient while the world flocks to us for our products.

BTW, there is another reason why we see Trumpˋs grasp for unrestrained power. Try as he did, he could not grab that kind of power domestically. That is due to the remnants of our judicial branch and that there were just enough non-authoritarian Americans.

But enough about us. And so, Trump has turned his sights on the Western Hemisphere. And his Blitzkrieg abduction of Maduro and hostile takeover of Venezuela have had the same effect on him that tasting blood has on some animals. And instead of considering wider issues, Trump and his gang tried to focus solely on the results rather than the means. That focus implies 'the ends justify the means' ethic.

A while back ago, a former MI6 boss, Sir Alex Younger, stated on a BBC show that with Trump, the world has descended into a world of strongman leaders. It's not that there were no such leaders before. For there was already Putin, Jinping, and Netanyahu. What each of these leaders have in common is that they feel entitled to obtaining their respective targets. And so here we should note that trying to negotiate with those who feel cheated out of what they perceive is legitimately theirs is almost an impossible dream.

What is new now is that a sitting U.S. President has brazenly joined the gang of such leaders. And what else should we expect from an authoritarian leader like Donald Trump. Such leaders want their followers to automatically accept or reject what is said depending on who said it. Here we should note the felt need that such leaders have for such followers. Along with his narcissism, that should reveal to us why such leaders are so offended by dissent and challenges.

And so while the Greenland deal has yet to be accepted, we find ourselves in the new world that was accurately depicted by Prime Minister Mark Carneyˋs landmark speech at the World Economic Forum. As for Trump, his sense of urgency to obtain Greenland could be revelatory. Was his urgency due to his Nobel Peace Prize snubbery or does he know something about his health that we donˋt know? Or is Trump trying divert European attention and resources away from Ukraine? Or is there another possible explanation for his current focus on Greenland? Remember that from almost day 1 of his 2nd term, he made obtaining Greenland, and Canada a priority for his Presidency.

Finally, while Trump apologists, including at least some Christian ones, focus their attention on what Trump accomplishes and away from his means. His threat to use force in obtaining Greenland might tell us that Trump's ways of getting what he wants may not always be innocent. For example, compare Trump's threat of using force, especially on the heels Trump's attack on Venezuela, with the U.S. Army's definition of terrorism:

the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. This definition emphasizes the targeting of noncombatants and critical infrastructure to influence policy

As to how close Trump's threat to take Greenland by force is an example of that definition, you be the judge.

Medical Delay

2025-08-19T00:01:00.006-04:00

Due to health problems, there will be no new posting until the health problems are resolved.

Views From The Outside For August 15, 2025

2025-08-15T00:01:00.383-04:00

Views From The Outside

Because of illness, the list is of news links will be shorter this week:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Views From The Left For August 13, 2025

2025-08-13T00:01:00.198-04:00

Views From The Left

Articles:

Below is a list of articles from a sampling of leftist websites. The articles listed below express views that will sometimes be divergent from the views of the owner of this blog. Reliability ratings of each source will be in parentheses.

Martin Luther King statement made when speaking against the Vietnam War (click here for source):

'I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.'

Alternet

Common Dreams

Democracy at Work

Democracy Now

Jacobin

Mother Jones

The Real News Network

Socialist Worker

ZNetwork

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Factual Reliability Rating

I am using two websites that rate the factual reliability of news sources used by this feature. In comparing the two ratings, Mediabiasfactcheck gives more 'High' scores for various news sources while Adfontesmedia gives reliability ratings that are based more on bias. Also, while some news sources, none of these are listed below, will receive the highest factual reporting rating by Mediabiasfactcheck, that is not the case with Adfontesmedia.

I find that the best way to choose a news source reliability rating is to use the trial and error method. Here, one should count how many times a news information source site posts an article that is eventually shown to be false and compare that count with the factual reliability rating given by sites like Medeabiasfactcheck and Adfontesmedia.

Alternet

Mediabiasfactcheck : High
Adfontesmedia : Generally Reliable

Common Dreams

Mediabiasfactcheck : : High
Adfontesmedia. : Generally Reliable

Democracy at Work

Mediabiasfactcheck. : Not rated
Adfontesmedia. : Not rated

Democracy Now

Mediabiasfactcheck. : High
Adfontesmedia : Mixed Reliability

Jacobin

Mediabiasfactcheck : High
Adfontesmedia. : Mixed Reliability

Mother Jones

Mediabiasfactcheck. : High
Adfontesmedia. : Generally Reliable

The Real News Network

Mediabiasfactcheck : High
Adfontesmedia : Generally Reliable

Socialist Worker

Mediabiasfactcheck. : High
Adfontesmedia : Mixed Reliability

ZNetwork

Mediabiasfactcheck : High
Adfontesmedia : Not Rated

Is Trump Proving The Communist Manifesto To Be Right?

2025-08-12T00:01:00.138-04:00

Well, perhaps, not the whole manifesto. But consider the quote below:

'The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.'

Now think of tariff policies towards allies or his plan to provide weapons for Ukraine or his stated plans for Gaza. Or think about how Trump's Administration has attacked foreign aid and domestic social safety nets, and regulations that protect workers, customers, and the environment. What characteristics has Trump, who is certainly an example of today's bourgeoisie, exhibited? Don't we see the best descriptions of the connections between the U.S. and other nations as being 'naked self-interest,' 'callous cash payment,' and 'egotistical calculation.' We also see that latter characteristic in his self-worship statements.

Or think about Trump's remaking of the EPA, his attacks on scientific and medical research or his takeover of the Kennedy Center. Isn't that where he exhibits 'philistine sentimentalism.'

Noam Chomsky's Profits Over People talks about some of those characteristics as being a part of today's Neoliberal Capitalism. Note to those of us Baby Boomers, today's form. of Capitalism is not the form that we grew up under. But when his book came out, which was 1999, many of these traits were hidden in the shadows. Now despite that in the foreign front Trump is not neoliberal, on the domestic one he is. And the difference that exists between 1999 and now is that these traits are not just being exhibited in the open, they are being promoted as prized traits that benefits the common good.

It isn't that The Communist Manifesto is right about everything; it isn't. But its interpretation of the form of Capitalism of when and where it was written seems most appropriate to today's form of Capitalism as employed by the Trump Administration.

We should note that Trump is not the only problem here. In a commercial local to where I live, a congressperson is publicly thanked by certain taxpayers because they had their taxes cut. And the concluding statement is that this congressperson cares about these people because they cut their taxes. The logic employed by the commercial is overly simplistic and uses a form of all-or-nothing thinking which is part and parcel to accepting authoritarianism. For no matter what else that congressperson voted on, that they only had to cut taxes for particular groups of people to prove that that congress- person cared for them. Who cares if that congressperson also voted for legislation that allows businesses to pollute the environment or increase the emissions of greenhouse gases? Who cares if that congressperson also voted for legislation that allows businesses to exploit workers and/or cheat customers? Who cares if that congressperson also voted for legislation that will stop research on diseases and the environment? And who cares if that congressperson also voted for legislation that will cause the national debt to increase and perhaps reach a tipping point? All that congressperson had to do was to vote for tax cuts to show that they care.

Of course DOGE paved the way for those tax cuts. And I imitated DOGE's approach in my approach to life, it might look like the following. For example, if I wanted to lose weight, I could ask myself which limb I use the least and then have it amputated. I could refuse to pay my car insurance because I haven't had an accident in a while. What could go wrong with that philosophy?

Trump's 'America First' motto is calling on America to be a selfish nation. And this should be considered to be more than ironic because of Trump's support from the Evangelical community. But perhaps it should be expected since many in the Evangelical community uncritically embrace Capitalism, even today's Neoliberal form. That such an embrace of Capitalism exhibits traits such as 'naked self-interest' and 'egotistical calculation.' From their devotion to their information bubble, we know that many from the Evangelical community also show a 'philistine sentimentalism.' Perhaps we should ask ourselves if Capitalism has more of an influence on the Evangelical Community than our preaching of the Gospel has on Capitalism.

Capitalism revolves around making personal prosperity one's first pursuit. It derives its motivational energy from its promotion on maximizing profits. Perhaps, just as war corrupts all of its participants, something I have heard from both a war correspondent and people in the military, so too does Capitalism. For what drives a Capitalist nation is not just the desire to make profit seeking its number one priority, it is the consumer mentality. Consumerism makes Capitalist economies tick.

In a consumeristic economy, the strong tendency of its participants is for those people to measure their personal significance by what and how much they consume. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed this fear about America because of its Capitalist economic system when he wrote, in Stride Toward Freedom, that people would exclusively judge themselves by their income and possessions rather than by what they contributed to others and their relationships with people.

In his speech on the Vietnam War, he wrote the following, which has been cited on this blog a few times:

'I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered'

Note what King associates a thing-oriented society, which a consumer oriented society is: 'racism, extreme materialism, and militarism.' Do we see how the more consumer oriented we become, the fewer people can remain unscathed from how it corrupts. And that consumerism is driven by economic systems that lean heavily toward Capitalism--especially today's Neoliberal Capitalism.

It would be easy to point fingers at others at this point, but one can do so only when they are suffering from significant self-delusions. These points being brought up here for there for us to acknowledge where we have been corrupted first.

And so, no, we can't just point our fingers at Trump and others like him and be done with looking at how our nation should change. We also need to look at ourselves, and perhaps at ourselves first. If we have passionately embraced Capitalism because of how it has allowed us to become more prosperous consumers, how are we also confirming what was previously cited from The Communist Manifesto about Capitalism, especially Capitalism here and now. Just perhaps we can't change who our leaders are without first changing who we are.

Views From The Outside For August 8, 2025

2025-08-08T00:01:00.487-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

Illness has prevented me from providing more links from the sources below.

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Views From The Left For August 6, 2026

2025-08-06T00:01:00.296-04:00

Views From The Left

Articles:

Martin Luther King statement made when speaking against the Vietnam War (click here for source):

Alternet

Common Dreams

Democracy at Work

Democracy Now

Jacobin

Mother Jones

The Real News Network

Socialist Worker

ZNetwork

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Factual Reliability Rating

Alternet

Mediabiasfactcheck : High
Adfontesmedia : Generally Reliable

Common Dreams

Mediabiasfactcheck : : High
Adfontesmedia. : Generally Reliable

Democracy at Work

Mediabiasfactcheck. : Not rated
Adfontesmedia. : Not rated

Democracy Now

Mediabiasfactcheck. : High
Adfontesmedia : Mixed Reliability

Jacobin

Mediabiasfactcheck : High
Adfontesmedia. : Mixed Reliability

Mother Jones

Mediabiasfactcheck. : High
Adfontesmedia. : Generally Reliable

The Real News Network

Mediabiasfactcheck : High
Adfontesmedia : Generally Reliable

Socialist Worker

Mediabiasfactcheck. : High
Adfontesmedia : Mixed Reliability

ZNetwork

Mediabiasfactcheck : High
Adfontesmedia : Not Rated

Pedro Martinez On Trump's Aid For Ukraine?

2025-08-05T00:01:00.394-04:00

The title of this article is a bit deceiving because I have no evidence for even hinting that MLB Baseball great Pedro Martinez has voiced an opinion on Trump's aid for Ukraine. But there is something that Martinez said about the dark side of MLB Baseball in the Netflix documentary, The Comeback. That dark side, according to Martinez, is the business side because it knows no loyalty or friendship.

And so when we come to Trump's aid package for Ukraine, note that Trump described it like a business transaction. The US will provide weapons for Ukraine's defense only those weapons are being sold. And they are; they are being bought by European nations that are committed to Ukraine's defense. Here, it seems, that Trump appears to be more focused on the US is making a profit than on helping a nation under siege. Would Trump have offered an aid package for Ukraine if there were no European nations willing to foot the bill? We cannot say for sure, but as things stand, Trump is showing no loyalty to Ukraine with his aid package.

And with Russia's war against Ukraine where it seems civilians are major targets, we need to ask this question: What does Trump owe Putin? For he has always expressed admiration for Putin and there is no doubt that he was elected with Putin's help. And he has been very slow to put new sanctions on Putin while quick to put tariffs on our, perhaps now former, allies. It could be that either Trump owes him a lot or, surprise, Trump will be reneging on a debt. If Ukraine meant more to Trump than just an avenue for revenue, he would show a certain degree of loyalty to Ukraine despite the costs. But if Trump's actions regarding the Russian-Ukraine war also show that he owes Putin a significant debt, then whatever sanctions he employs or actions he takes on Russia will be for PR reasons only. That makes Trump's positions and actions very interesting at this time.

Though this blog is adamantly opposed to almost all of Trump's actions as President, he should be given credit for the following. He said that Ukraine cannot be a part of NATO. Why? The first answer should be history. Russia's history with its western neighbors is horrific. And so we must respect Russia's sensitivity here. The second answer is that any move that the West made/makes westward after George W. Bush's agreement with Gorbachev violates at least the spirit of the agreement that they made regarding the reunification of Germany. So to be fair, if a peace agreement can be made prior to Russia conquering it, then Ukraine must not become another member of NATO.

I think that we would do well to interpret Trump's Presidency as being similar to how a heavy-handed CEO runs a large corporation. This might explain Trump's criticisms of Biden. Trump compared how Biden was running the nation with how he, Trump, wants to run his businesses. First, many parts of the business that were not contributing making a profit, such as many foreign aid and domestic social safety nets, were axed. Also axed were dissidents in government and scientists whose findings he could neither refute nor control. We should note that corporations tend to foster authoritarian environments with some being more authoritarian than others. The more authoritarian the environment, the less tolerance is shown to those in leadership positions who disagree.

And if we continue along this line, then realize that Trump expects certain kinds of relationships with other nations (a.k.a., 'the competition') in Trump's eyes, that he wants his own businesses to have with other businesses. It isn't enough for the US to be coexisting with other nations in the world. He wants his business to be on top, which means that he wants America to dominate and even control other nations. When, under Biden, America was not dominating others and was giving away too many freebees, Trump saw America as failing. And let's be honest about Biden, he did fail in a lot of areas other than the ways that Trump views failure.

So, in other words, Trump has taken a reductionistic approach to our nation. He runs it like a business with his own authoritarian way.

Now if we return to what Martinez said about the dark side of baseball, don't we see that playing out in Trump's Presidency? That for Trump, there is little room for loyalty to those subordinates who now disagree with at least some of what he says and does. In contrast, loyalty is a trait that is best measured by how one reacts despite the negative consequences that come with remaining steadfast. His berating and even silencing of those people show his lack of loyalty and friendship while displaying his authoritarianism.

And so now, both our nation and Putin should be a bit leery of Trump. For if the business side of Trump's personality infringes on being loyal, then our nation must ask what would Trump's asking price be for betraying our nation. Some would say that he has already been doing that by how he has used his Presidency to increase his personal wealth.

But Trump's lack of loyalty should also put Putin on notice. Suppose Trump turns on Putin for personal gain? Suppose Trump betrays Putin and reneges on paying his debt to him? That betrayal is not one that I expect to happen nor is it one to be taken lightly. But should that happen, the conflict that could arise from that betrayal would be ominous for the whole world.

Again, what Martinez said about the business side of baseball should very much concern us because of how Trump seems to rule as our President. For right now, we have a President who is behaving like a CEO. But what would happen if we have a CEO would be King?