Today's Reading List (Partial)

I certainly won't do this every day, but I have the time today so what the heck. Here is a taste of what yours truly is reading today.

Albert Hunt at Bloomberg says, "Republicans Peddle Nonsense to Sell Heathcare Plan":

Congressional Republicans are rushing to overhaul the U.S. health-care system by passing a bill that is based on dishonest claims, avoids the usual professional analysis, and makes a mockery of serious legislative process.

He then goes through each of the claims being made by this latest monstrosity's supporters and debunks them. Informative.

Michael Fuchs at The Guardian asks, "Is Trump about to repeat George W. Bush's worst mistake?" Interested to know what Mr. Fuchs believes W's worst mistake was (such a bounty from which to choose), I read on:

In 2003, the United States initiated perhaps the greatest strategic disaster in US history by diverting attention from a necessary war in Afghanistan to an unnecessary war in Iraq. The Iraq war resulted in hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, untold economic catastrophe, states in the Middle East in complete ruin, and the rise of Isis – all while the effort to go after terrorists in Afghanistan languished.

President Donald Trump’s first speech before the United Nations general assembly this week made clear that Trump wants to take America down a similar path by diverting much-needed attention from North Korea to starting an unnecessary conflict with Iran.

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the analysis but it's an interesting conversation starter. Here's to hoping that the only wars America fights in the future are absolutely necessary and unavoidable.

Sharyl Attkisson at The Hill revives President Agent Orange's claim that Pres. Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, given the latest revelations that Paul Manafort was suspected of being a foreign agent prior to the election. A snippet:

Officials involved in the surveillance and unmasking of U.S. citizens have said their actions were legal and not politically motivated. And there are certainly legitimate areas of inquiry to be made by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But look at the patterns. It seems that government monitoring of journalists, members of Congress and political enemies — under multiple administrations — has become more common than anyone would have imagined two decades ago. So has the unmasking of sensitive and highly protected names by political officials.

She makes an interesting point. Sometimes I wonder if the government is spying on me, then I realize that I'm not nearly important enough for that kind of effort.

The always "full of it" Victor Davis Hanson writes in Investor's Business Daily that "Allegations of Foreign Election Tampering Have Always Rung Hollow." The one who shamelessly pushes "Voter ID Laws" to "ensure the integrity of our elections" says this:

allegations that a president won an election due to foreign collusion have been lodged by losers of elections throughout history. Some of the charges may have had a kernel of truth, but it has never been proven that foreign tampering changed the outcome of an election.

An example he tosses out of tampering that rings hollow:

Democrats allege that during the 1968 campaign, Republican nominee Richard Nixon opened a back channel to the South Vietnamese to convince them to stall peace talks to end the Vietnam War. 

Well, perhaps this was alleged because it was true. Perhaps these things don't ring as hollow as Mr. Hack Hanson would have his readers believe. Of course, he ends with an attempt to shift the argument:

Hillary Clinton lost the election for dozens of logical reasons. Foreign collusion was never one of them -- nor has it ever been a valid reason for a presidential candidate's defeat. 

This is not the basis of the charge against the president. Regardless of whether Russian efforts actually tilted the election, was Donald Trump and/or his campaign either actively involved in these efforts or complicit in them? If the answer is yes, then the American people have a right to know. If the answer is no, then the American people have a right to know. Regardless, the American people have a right to know.

Phillip Lemoine at National Review opines (unsurprisingly) that "Police Violence Against Black Men is Rare." A taste of his argument:

In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small. The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives. Perhaps even more importantly, the narrative distracts from far more serious problems that black Americans face.

I can't imagine a more serious problem than being randomly targeted and disproportionately killed by those tasked with protecting and serving your community. When discussing these "far more serious problems," Mr. Lemoine notes that it is "likely" that just as many black men are unjustifiably killed the police every year as are struck by lightning. 

I do find it interesting that one of the publications that is loudest about the "tyranny of big government" when it comes to stuff like providing healthcare is so uncritically supportive of that part of big government that actually carries guns and kills people, i.e. the police and military. I can't square that circle; maybe someone else can.

The New Republic talks about "Deadbeat Democrats" and declares that Bill Clinton set the stage for the GOP's war on the poor.

Feeling hemmed in by white voters who had responded to Reagan’s racemongering about the shiftless poor guzzling up government benefits, Clinton decided to make a sort of Faustian bargain: He would “reform” welfare in a way that would detoxify the politics around it, gambling that the move would create more support for a strong safety net in the long run. 

How'd that work out Bill?

Since 1995, the number of Americans living on $2 or less a day has nearly tripled—including some three million children.

Well, let me tell you I'll be proud to brag about that statistic when I meet St. Peter at the pearly gates. (I hope my sarcasm shines through).

Daniel Kishi writes at The American Conservative that Google, Facebook, and Amazon are the new robber barons, and it's time for a conservative focus on anti-trust and busting monopolies. I say, "Amen Brother!" A snippet:

Although the modern Republican Party stands accused of cozying up with corporate interests, the history of conservative thought has a rich intellectual tradition of being skeptical—if not hostile—towards economic consolidation. For conservatives and libertarians wedded to the tenets of free market orthodoxy—or for Democrats dependent on campaign contributions from a donor class of Silicon Valley tycoons—redefining the legal definition of monopoly and rekindling a bipartisan interest in antitrust enforcement are likely non-starters.

But for conservatives willing to break from the principles of free market fundamentalism, the papal encyclicals of the Roman Catholic Church, the distributist thought of Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton, the social criticism of Christopher Lasch, and the observations of agrarian essayist Wendell Berry provide an intellectual framework from which conservatives can critique and combat concentrated economic power. With a respect for robust and resilient localities and a keen understanding of the moral dangers posed by an economy perpetuated by consumerism and convenience, these writers appeal to the moral imaginations of the reader, issuing warnings about the detrimental effects that economic consolidation has on the person, the family, the community, and society at large.

There is certainly more than this out there, but this is a sampling of today's reading.