So as Donald Trump continues to ignore history so Jeb Bush looks to rewrite it as he has just engaged the help of his brother George W to win over the good folk of South Carolina in the next primary. Speaking at a political rally last night the man that gave us the Iraqi War and the ensuing hellish wash back that has disfigured if not destroyed millions of people's lives asserted that the Presidency was 'a serious job for a serious man' - well I'm glad that's cleared that up ! It is reassuring to hear that the 43rd President has lost none of his pithy thoughtful eloquence...
 
Why oh why has Jeb called on his brother to help his ailing and failing campaign? Some would say desperation, others would say that George W in some parts of the US including South Carolina, is still respected by many Republican voters - this point is true. Moreover, Trump's version of history that includes the endlessly repeated story over 'the weapons of mass destruction' has become a running sore that needs to be patched over if 'Jeb is not going to ebb' away from the White House.
 
Now the story of George W and his 'War on Terror' is an update on my previous blog concerning 'knowing nothing'; This is about a more serious condition called 'knowing something' and that is certainly where you would place good old George W. All crusades need 'legitimacy' especially in the nuanced understanding of democracy that the US has developed over their relatively short history. With God on his side George W desperately needed to explain to the American people as well as the rest of the World that dismantling Iraq in response to the 9/11 attacks was sound even though Saddam and the rest of his brutal regime had nothing to do with this action. Therefore, with Archangel Blair by his side the already discredited information from escaped disaffected Iraqis 'proving' that Saddam possessed the aforementioned weapons was literally heaven sent.
 
Subsequently, whilst 70% of the UK marched and voted against the conflict, 70% of the US cheered the President on as he launched a war that as yet has no ending. A conflict that has had consequences beyond most people's worst nightmares. The fragmentation of Iraq, which will not be put back  together again. The death of hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Syrians etc etc. The displacement of millions that have had their lives reduced to tented poverty, starvation and/or finally drowning to death off the coast of Greece or Italy in sheer desperation to escape the inhumanity of man. Also remember that 90% of the IS's 'high command' is made up of officers from Saddam's 'defeated military'. Moreover, many of the members of the other myriad of rebel groups fighting in Syria and now in Libya emanated from the dismantling of the Ba'ath Party and death of Saddam Hussein. Also, remember Paris. And just like many preceding 'clashes of civilisation' this Bush given crusade has now sucked into its vortex France, UK , Turkey, Iran and Russia. With the ever increasing prospect of an outright war between Moscow and Ankara. Taking account that Turkey is a member of NATO this scenario is extremely chilling.
 
So, Jeb Bush the warning should be very clear - be careful what you wish for - since your brother used his Presidential power in an arbitrary unthinking way, egged on by the messianic madness that is Blair, because they knew something. So, Jeb Bush how much do you know! My sense is that although the reappearance of George W will give Jeb a lift in South Carolina and help blunt the blustering of Donald Trump, overall this reawakening of the past will not make pleasant reading for many 'middle of the road' republicans. Mind you what has sense got to do with any of this? It is amazing to see what time does to people's recollections, for did you know -  Nixon 'really' didn't know what was going on, Clinton was only being friendly and George W knew he knew something...
 
Roll on November... and sanity.
 
KK
 


       
 

 
 
 

 
                     
 
            
             

Without wishing to sound too perverse I have wanted to write about 'nothing' for years - some of my readers/students think I have already developed the knack rather well -  yet this current process of US primaries has finally given me the opportunity to develop this theme.
 
In 1855 a political movement in the US named itself the Know Nothing Party. In essence it developed out of a reaction sometimes violent to the arrival of large numbers of Irish and German Catholics immigrants during the 1840's and they subsequently operated under the banner of the Republican Party. It has been described as a semi-secret organisation - how you can be semi-secret defeats me - but shush! they were made up largely of white Protestants who were concerned primarily with the religious 'purity' of American citizenship. Now if you feel this theme has contemporary resonance then consider The Tea Party. Of course because of present day sensibilities, sensitivities and legislation the Tea Party and its standard bearers cannot be as outwardly racist as its political predecessor but you do not have to be a member of the KKK to understand the smuggled message that underpins much of Donald Trump and co's campaigning rhetoric. It simply boils down to this (you do not need to know anything else) - the reason behind the increasing economic and social tensions inside the US and the growing reduction of American influence overseas is due to the continuing dilution of the founding principles of the nation that were put in place and successfully promoted by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Therefore, the remedy to the nation's ills is also simple. Reinstate these founding principles by reversing, removing or revising the current liberal agenda that currently pervades the nation.
 
Why has this reductive understanding been gaining traction ? Again simple, because the messengers of this reconstructed narrative have been successful in convincing sufficient numbers of average White Americans that they have become victims. The reason why you cannot get the job you deserve, the reason why cannot get into the correct school or college of your choice, the reason why there is increased violence in your community is because of the growing influence and behaviour of 'outsiders' who do not understand 'our rules'. Moreover, due to years of largely liberal 'leadership' - with the obvious exception of the Reagan presidency - we have seen preferential treatment given to minorities in the areas of education and employment, the promotion of sexual deviance (gay rights), and the development of religious practices and political views that are clearly Un-American. Our nation's priorities have become undermined by the corruption of others and the incompetence of our own government.

Now these selective sentiments, which are also felt by certain sections of European society, are based on 'knowing nothing'. On not knowing that the United States was energized and expanded by the very same multiplicity of ethnicities that are now seen by many as 'outsiders'. Moreover, without the influence and money these outsiders brought the Founders original project would not have been as successful in utilising and focusing the nation's imagination, innovation and industry. Also, what are these magical founding principles that have been recently infected by others? Well, self determination, individualism and a understanding of freedom through economic development do not strike me as issues that belong to one ethnic/religious group to the exclusion of others. However, if you are willing to no nothing about the 'hierarchy of race' that has existed throughout the US since its inception, if you are willing to no nothing about the continuing systemic unfairness built into the US legal system that is clearly not colour blind, and if you are willing to no nothing about the misuse of American power overseas as well as recognising the benefits it can bring then of course Trump and the rest of the 'boys in the band 'make perfect sense.
 
In the eyes of the law ignorance is no defence but it seems for many in the US that it is the ideal platform to launch a political movement and for some politicians an ideal environment to play dumb since Trump is not. For if they knew anything we could suggest that the conservative right are reliving the historic 'horrors' of the Red Scare, the Yellow Scare, Communist infiltration, black integration and Catholic contamination but thanks to the Glory of God - whoever he or she is - we know nothing about anything.
 
 Please read on to know something... As time goes by

KK 
 
        
 

 

 
           
 
             

The death of US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia late yesterday has certainly added spice to a presidential election that was already running hot. Why? Lets go back briefly to first principles. Of the three branches of US governance - executive, legislative, and judiciary - the Supreme Court is ultimately the most powerful since it is the final arbiter when interpreting the US Constitution(1787). The Constitution is not only the primary legal instrument of the nation, in many ways it is the nation. It sets out the structure of society, the distribution of power within its federal framework as well highlighting the rights and responsibilities of all citizens. Therefore, as American history has often revealed Congress may make the laws, the President may issue the directives but if this august body deems any of these decisions 'unconstitutional' then they 'count for nowt'. Hence, the make up of the nine judges that form this ultimate court is critical to the social development of the US. In other words, its membership is highly, highly political.
 
Until the death of Justice Scalia the 'recent' balance on the court had favoured conservative thinkers, moreover, Scalia was a proponent of the notion of 'originalism' - the consideration that the court should not move too far away from the original intentions of the Founders who constructed the constitution in Philadelphia(1787). All Supreme Court justices are presidential appointments who are confirmed by the Senate. Therefore, just as Reagan appointed Scalia in 1986 as a reflection of his own very conservative considerations it now seems conventional if not common sense that Obama will nominate a liberal lawyer that will not only swing the 'scales of justice' in favour of liberal understanding but it could have a profound effect on the current 'running list' of Supreme Court opinions that are now due for consideration; abortion, contraception and immigration. However, this is presidential election year.
 
In theory President Obama has until next January - the swearing in of the new President - to nominate and get appointed the replacement Justice, and usually after a short period of respect the nomination and Senate hearings only take a few weeks (on average 90 days) but already the majority leader of the Senate - Republican Mitch McConnell - has noted, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,". Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." Signalling that the Republicans will do all in their power to 'delay, delay delay' as Donald Trump demanded last night in the latest GOP TV debate. Moreover, what Scalia's demise has highlighted is that out of the eight remaining justices three are over the age of 70 suggesting that deciding the next White House occupant is even more critical to the long term future direction of this nation.
 
As I've mention in previous blog entries the President of the United States is 'the most powerful man in the World' outside of the US since Congress is primarily the 'decider of domestic intentions' however, the Presidential appointment of Supreme Court Justice's is a way that the President can influence indirectly domestic development as well as leaving a strong lasting personal, political legacy - just consider that Reagan left office in 1988 but Scalia his chief judicial proponent of conservative values who has had major effect on Second Amendment understanding - gun laws - has only just departed during a hunting trip to Texas - how fitting.
 
Have any of these developments got anything to do with law and justice? Little. Have they much to do with democracy? Guess ! But they have much to do with political power. Since the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means the replacement of Scalia will seem crucial to the warring factions during the primaries. Will the average American care? Well, the last poll looking at who the American citizen most trusted in government - the US Supreme Court - mind you that is not saying much. But the political elite on 'the Hill' will care greatly since in their eyes the 'law of the land' determined by the Supreme Court, is the US.   
 
More later,
 

KK



 
      
 

 
    
 
         

Over the last couple of weeks while writing about the US Presidential elections I have asked the reader as well as myself - directly and indirectly - what is real? This is a straightforward enough question but potentially it has a series of complex answers. Hence, I would like to layout a clear, straightforward example of how difficult it is to measure the actual importance of the US primary elections when you look at the fairness and transparency of the process.
 
As each primary and caucus is held throughout the nation to identify the Democrat nominee for the Presidential race off the votes received by each candidate are counted and translated into delegate votes - there are 4,700 delegates in the Democrat Party Convention (To be held in Philadelphia during July). This suggests that the candidate who receives the most popular (regular) votes also receives the most delegate votes and therefore wins. Straightforward enough. So, if we look at New Hampshire, which is a small state, where Sanders received 60% of the vote (151,584) this was translated into 15 delegates for Sanders that subsequently go forward to the Convention. However, Clinton who received only 38% of the vote (95,252) also received 15 delegates votes to be carried forward. How? Why? Because within the Democrat Party system there are what is known as 'superdelegates'. There are 700 and they can be allocated to a candidate as required regardless or in spite of the popular vote. Hence, after this series of primaries are complete Sanders could collect a majority of the regular vote but still lose the nomination because of the allocation of these superdelegates.
 
This interim 'super system' was brought in by the Democrats during the early 1980's after the 'Carter disaster' - perceived as a calamitous presidential one term in the White House by James Earl Carter, who subsequently lost big to Reagan - so that the Party could assert more control over who could become their nominee. Like many interim systems it has yet to be replaced. This somewhat nuanced approach to democracy raises a myriad of issues. Firstly, it potentially devalues the 'real vote' that is actually taking place. This is a polite way of saying Mr or Mrs New Hampshire your vote does not actually count. Secondly, it suggests that the Democrat Party does not respect or trust the ordinary people to get the answer 'right'. By right I mean to fit in to where the Party's financial backers have placed their money. Finally, 'democracy' is all good and fine as long as you come up with the answer we want. This is a play on the old maxim in the American system of 'voting early and voting often', but now its vote early but then leave the result to us.
 
Now few of you would be surprised to learn that already many of the superdelegates in the Democrat Party have declared for Clinton. So, the only real way Sanders can get the nomination is to win BIG in the majority of the primary elections. Taking account of the Black vote that hugely favours the Clinton's (last night's TV debate between Clinton and Sanders focused on Obama's legacy of which Sanders is highly critical of, not Hilary, she was very supportive of the present incumbent simply because she wants to shore up her Black support) this seems highly, highly unlikely. So why bother with this process in the first place? Now the answer to this is straightforward. If the US sees no reason to try and reconcile the 'American Dream' with the actuality of American life why not have a voting system that projects the transparency of democracy whilst producing the answer that the 'super voters' wanted in the first place. Hence, what you think you see and what you actually get is... reality!  
 
More political magic later in the week.
 

 
KK


 
  


 
   

 As the political circus rolls into New Hampshire - the second performance on their nationwide tour - I'm already beginning to wonder whether this stopover really matters. But apparently it 'really' does, for Donald Trump it is an opportunity to regain the 'initiative' after his unexpected defeat by Ted Cruz in Iowa. Moreover, it is a another chance for Marco Rubio to confirm his 'credentials' as the establishment's favourite. Meanwhile Hilary Clinton who sort of won against Bernie Sanders in Iowa is now looking at 'damage limitation' having 'already priced into the market' the loss she is about to endure from the man from Vermont.
 
If you have no real idea what 'regaining the initiative', 'confirming his credentials', 'damage limitation and priced into the market' actually mean within the context of the US primaries do not worry your in good company but apparently I'm obliged to include these phrases in my introduction since it gives the allusion that I really understand what is going on and since virtually every media report in the US has already done so. However, I'm writing this introduction just before the vote is declared in the Granite State so just maybe all will become clear when I scribe the second part of this blog later today...                 
 
...The results are in and for once they reflect the predictions as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders win big. What does this mean? For the establishment within the two respective parties these are concerning results. Does this suggest that Trump will eventually arrive at the Republican Convention in the early summer with the necessary delegates to win the the nomination? Surely not! But his clear victory has placed serious doubts about the conventional view that someone like Rubio will claim the day, especially after the mauling he took from Christie, Bush and co in the latest TV debate. For Clinton the size of her loss is indeed unsettling since the last time she stood in a New Hampshire primary in 2008 she beat one Barack Obama. However, this is still early days in a process that will run through into July.

Moreover, in the Republican struggle the fight back can still come effectively from one of four opponents  - Cruz, Rubio, Bush or Kasich. So, will resistance grow as the prospect of Trump actually winning becomes a possible reality? On the Democrat side the issue is far more straight forward since it is clearly a two horse race and Sanders who has performed beyond expectations has yet to come up against the Clinton fire wall - Black Americans. If you look at the polling breakdown Clinton should benefit hugely from this section of society as the campaign trail turns south and down to South Carolina via a Nevada caucus for the next primary encounter. However, two issues that must be worrying the Clinton camp, firstly, in large part women are not voting for her because they do like or trust her, plus Sanders support has benefited from a growing number of young people who are attracted by his anti establishment agenda. Here lies the key. 
 
Although Trump and Sanders represent the opposite and opposing ends of the American political spectrum their commonality is that they are both seen by many voters as 'outsiders' - Two 'real Americans' who do not represent the vested interests that Congress stands for.(Trump is not a professional politician and although Sanders is he is an independent candidate). Moreover, the anger that many feel towards the political elite because of their inability or unwillingness to change anything is difficult to counter. Hence, the challenge for opponents of Trump is how to deal seriously with a man they thought was just a circus clown. Moreover, as Clinton heads South her team must wish that Hilary possessed a little of the 'Bill effect' that he once had on women and that Black America does come to her rescue otherwise just as in 2008 her long held dream will no longer be her reality.
 
More next week,
 
KK
 


                    
     
 
      

In a World that is about to face its Fourth Industrial Revolution - robotics, enhanced artificial intelligence and a world without work - one of our immediate challenges for all is to discern what is real. In other words, what is reality ? Now before we all descend into existential madness I ask this question since it keeps coming to mind as I gaze with receding degrees of sobriety at our current political condition especially when we consider the US presidential race. What are we told? What are we shown? What are we asked to consider? What are we asked to believe? Is any of this process real? Do we honestly believe in some perverse way that this over extended and hubristic political exercise has anything to do with most people's reality?

I ask this since over the next few months we will exposed to the mounting insanity that is the US primaries. Triggered by the bell that was rung for round one in Iowa on Monday night we had in the red corner Donald Duck Trump - the true blue heavyweight American - who was slatted to win big by the US polling data, but whoops along came another republican straight out of the same right field, well Canada actually but hey ho - Ted Cruz - punching above his weight and takes the Iowa crown. But wait a minute before fans of Ted the Texan start cheering too loudly apparently neither of these aforementioned gentlemen actually won. The real winner according to the ringside 'expert' commentators was Marco Rubio who came third in this political dog fight, but because of his 'performance' he is now seen as the real victor. But by who? Consider this, Donald and Ted are not real, they are just political phantoms placed to amuse and distract the crowd into believing that they actually have a real say in who becomes President. For it seems that the Republican party funded by Big Oil have already placed their 'undeclared' vote on an 'electable' and acceptable man from the sunshine state - Rubio.  The days of Jeb Bush are but a distant memory.
 
Whilst in the Blue corner this political media show-time becomes even more 'entertaining'.  Hilary Diane Rodham Clinton - the very experienced Arkansas bruiser - was slatted to win big in Iowa only last week, once again by those expert predictors of big data but suddenly we find that Bernie Sanders - the Socialist Slugger, a true red American - almost took the fight (Hilary on points 0.2%). But apparently Bernie did actually win because by coming second in the vote by such a close margin he now has the 'momentum' for the next contest in New Hampshire and is predicted to win big . But by who? Well, the Democrat Party funded by Wall Street are keeping their own counsel at present but is it likely that Sanders - a declared Democratic Socialist - will get the nod from the biggest capitalist club in town? Or is this come-back lady with confirmed Washington credentials as well as some interesting e mails going to enjoy the support of the 'establishment'?  I wonder. Do not mention Bill.
 
There is a serious side to this comedic political narrative that has been consciously camouflaged by the hurly burly that comes with a big fight night (the post, post modern version of the Colosseum and the Roman illusion of SPQR ). Since the decision as to who will win the coloured nominations and get a 'shot at the title' will not be decided by the voters of Iowa or New Hampshire but by America's 'real people'; the investors that pay for and control the 'real message' - The story that we are told, the evidence that we are shown, and what we are told to believe.          
 
Another sense of reality that US voters largely will not be exposed too (If you do not wish to descend into madness with me do not read this last paragraph). If we do not deal with climate change now (recognising that Paris was just another exercise in sophistry) the next generations that follow are toast. If we do not deal with the issues surrounding the use and abuse of natural resources now we will continue our downward spiral into contiguous and continuous bloody warfare. If we do not stop this current warrior based competition and redefine the place and space of being human meaningfully we will cease to exist. These elemental and primordial issues have nothing to do with ethnicity, gender and or sexual orientation. They have nothing to do with whether you were born in Wichita or Warsaw and they have little to do with the political conflict that will role out through the US over the coming weeks. But back to the show, who will really win? Whoever, big money tells us will win. As the present reality of our future is too awful to contemplate since our destiny is no longer being 'managed' by our 'elected' politicians but manipulated by the Multi National Corporations that pay for our thoughts to agree with their powerful short term cataclysmic ambitions, where do we hide?. Hence, the virtual reality of entertainment not enlightenment is the only real political game in town - true madness.  
 
KK