End of Hong Kong to Philippines yacht race, on Xena, 30 April 2014

Trump 100 days

A liberal friend, an anti-Trumper is telling me what chaos the first 100 days are. 

I say I don't agree. So, they say, what's he done that's good?

I start to answer, but am interrupted every minute. The animus, the hate, is strong. 

So, I'll say it here. With my score in [square brackets].

A summary of the summary is that Trump has moved at lightening speed with his program, that he set out in his campaign, that he's moved at historically rapid speed, but that the pushback has also been at historic levels, and with historic levels of Lawfare. 

TRUMP Administration [a solid B]

Controlling the Southern Border. [A+]

From 10,000 a day illegally coming through the border illegally under Biden-Harris, from all over the world, not just Mexico, because they'd heard "Biden has opened the border". And in they came, unvetted, unchecked. Trump measures brought that down to low single figures. 98.4% drop. That's a huge achievement, to his campaign promises. To an issue the public cared about by 80% to 20%.

It also gave immediate lie to the Kamala Harris line that "we can't do anything about the border, because it needs legislation and Trump doesn't support legislation". No, and no. Trump did it by Executive Order.

Deporting illegal immigrants [B]

Trump and his Border Czar Tom Homan have pushed hard on this. Main issue? Pushback from Dems and Dem-appointed courts, with unprecedented numbers of injunctions. Seems to be "Lawfare 2.0". 

Tariffs [Too early to tell]

"Tariffs be bad" say the People Who Know. Including me, with my Bachelor of Economics. The other side says "If tariffs are so bad, why do all the countries we're tariffing using them so widely?". 

It's shock tactics. To push for a reordering of global norms. Had the approach have been the traditional one, of "consultations" and "meetings", we know nothing would have happened. 

Still, too early, as I said here. Give it some time. Like three months or more. 

Economy [Too early to tell]

Same as with tariffs. Though worth noting: Stock market, which took a hit, is back to same level of September. No longer a "chaotic rout", iow. 

DOGE [B]

DOGE is all about getting rid of government waste, fraud and abuse. To reduce the budget deficit and the scary level of debt. 

Government waste, fraud and abuse is rampant. But has HUGGGGGe push back by the system and people on the streets, who kind of positioned themselves as for all the corruption. Shocking that the pushback includes violence against the head of DOGE, Elon Musk and his Tesla, by vandalism of Teslas, charging stations and showrooms. Not a one of the Dem leaders came out against this. 

DEI [A]

Getting rid of DEI is all about getting rid of racism. Which is what it is, no matter what the Left says. 

Trump gets an"A" for the effort. But a "B" only because pushback is defanging the move, a bit unfair, perhapsDeleted this for government and universities. A policy that is clearly racist by preferring certain races over others in employment and entry to school. 

Good and very popular moves to say that there are just two sexes, Male and Female, and that no males -- who believe they are women --  are allowed to participate in female sports. This is popular with 80% of the voters. 

Gaza [A]

Strong, unequivocal support for Israel to pursue the genocidal, jew-hating terrorist outfit of Hamas and Hezbollah. Replaces the dilatory, fickle support from the Biden government. 

I'm on-board for that. And not at all for the pro-Hamas, "Free Palestine", "from the River to the Sea" crowd. 

Russia-Ukraine [D]

A failure to get movement on this big promise of "I'll fix this in one day". 

At the very least the administration has brought the focus to: "if not peace, then what's the plan?". To which silence has been the stern response. 

Europe [B]

Unelected leader of the EU, Ursula von der Leyen has been hurt by Trump's hurty words. And threatened to go with Norway, Vietnam, Iceland (!), instead of the one country that has saved Europe in two world wars and established the post-war infrastructure for global prosperity. 

Veep JD Vance was right to criticise Europe for abandoning some cherished values of the west, in is speech at Munich. Even if European bureaucrats had hissy fits. 

Australia [D]

A "D" because there's nothing much "wrong" that Australia's done to the U.S.. While we've supported the U.S. in every war. Should have been more careful. 

If it does turn out that the Labor Party wins on this coming Saturday, a big factor would have been Trump. Malpractice by him, that makes no sense. 

Canada [D]

No need to be quite so trolling about the cold state to the north. They are very hurty about hurty words after all. For conservatives, this was Trump doing electoral malpractice. Or political malpractice. Why did he do it? We'll likely never know. 

If Trump hadn't happened, it would have been a major Conservative win. By 20+ points. But, you know, crazy took over. Shame. 

Greenland [B]

Before Trump, who thought about Greenland? Apart from me, who went there on a ski trip across the Island. But just look at it. Clear that it's a security issue, which China all sniffing all around the arctic. By pushing Greenland to front of mind, he's got Greenland protector Denmark to spend nearly $ 2 billion more on defence and to allow the United States a greater presence. 

Panama [B+]

Pushing China out of the canal -- which was built and funded by the U.S. - - is right. That's movement. 

DEMOCRATS [an "E" not for "effort"but for blind "resistance"]

Violence. Injunctions. "Resistance“ (a war term). "Hands Off". Lawfare 2.0. Sitting on the steps of Congress (Jeffries, Booker, today). Pointless 25-hour filibusters (Booker last week).  

All the Dems have done is to be reflexive. If Trump says it, they say the opposite. If Trump wants it, they don't. It's got to a crazy level where if the Trump administration wants to move on violent gangs, the Dems now love violent gangs. 

The saying goes now, "The Dems are on the wrong side of every 80/20 issue". If 80% of the country support something -- like no males in female sports --the Dems are all in to take the 20% side. 

That's where they are as I write this. With much angst and upset even within the Democratic Party about this. Not yet resolved.  

Dog brain

 

Greenpeace attacks American energy self-reliance.

This is the sort of scam that's come to light through the DOGE process. A process that aims to reduce government waste, fraud and abuse. 

Greenpeace really has a lot to answer for. To think that when I was a younger man I applied to join a Greenpeace vessel in the Southern and Antarctic Oceans. Their ships were chasing and harassing Japanese whaling vessels. Now, that was a noble cause. It was also successful. 

I wasn't accepted for the position I'd applied for — as Ship's Cook — because I didn't have a piece of paper saying I could make a decent lasagna. 

Just about then Greenpeace succumbed to hubris. And the delusion -- peddled by Jane Fonda & Co in The China Syndrome — that nuclear stations could go full ballistic and melt down through the Earth to China, with its horrid day-glo radioactivity that will kill us all. That was the beginning of the Greenpeace scare campaign that brought the burgeoning nuclear industry to a grinding halt. 

Greenpeace halted the safest, the greenest, the most efficient, the cheapest form of baseload power, all because of their scaredy feelings. 

For that alone they deserve condemnation. IMO. 

Let alone this chicanery reported by AOL, and as revealed by the DOGE process.  Which Democrats hate on. Because it's a Trump idea:

/Snip:

In a stunning revelation, it has come to light that Greenpeace, a self-proclaimed environmental watchdog, has received taxpayer-funded support through the Tides Foundation, backed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This funding, meant for international aid and development, has instead fueled destructive campaigns against American energy independence, private property rights, and economic prosperity.

Between 2016 and 2019, the Tides Center, a sister organization to the Tides Foundation, received $1.5 million from USAID for a global transparency initiative. More recently, reports indicate USAID granted the Tides Center $24.7 million, of which millions were funneled to radical organizations, includingGreenpeace. Rather than advancing global development, these funds have supported unlawful activism aimed at sabotaging American energy projects. [Read on]

Everyone accuses. No one proves. The Jews never stole land | Oren Cahanovitc

Click above for the video

Oren Cahanovitc lays it out. 

The simple proposition. Name one town or village that was stolen by Jews from the Arabs, prior to 1947. There is none.. 

The land that Israel gained, after its independence in 1947, was land won in a war. As is won in every war. Like the Poles in 1945. Or the Ukrainians in 1945. Or, later, like the partition of India. It's true. All these involved someone winning land, someone losing land. The only country in the world that is demonised for this, for exactly the same situation is Israel. This is flat out anti-semitism. 

Also, the fact that the Jews in Israel are not mostly the Ashkenazi jews of Europe but the Mizhrati jews of the middle east, from where they'd been kicked out. And no longer considered refugees. Unlike the invented nation "Palestinians", who are refugees to this day, 80 years after their "nakhba". 

Executioner understudies

 

Predictions for Canadian and Australian elections, and a Canada-Australia nuclear deal

The Canadian federal election is 28th April, later today Hong Kong time. 

My prediction is for the sitting Liberal government (ie, Democrat equivalent) to win, led by Mark Carney. 

This mainly because of the Trump nonsense of trolling Canada and Trudeau as a 51st State of the US. That's sure got Canada's hackles up and piqued their patriotism. Absent Trump's shenanigans, the winner would likely have been Pierre Poilievre,  leader of the Conservative opposition.

Meantime, the Australian election is this coming Saturday 3 May. 

Again, like Canada, the likely winner is the sitting government of Anthony Albanese of the Labor Party. Absent the Trump factor, it would more likely have been the Liberal (in this case, the Republican equivalent) of Peter Dutton. 

In Carney's case, the main thing I have against him is that he's a Net-Zero zealot. With all that goes along with that: an obsessive focus on renewables, on shutting all fossil fuels, making electricity more expensive and less reliable for a Net-Zero carbon emissions economy in 30 years, that will have no measurable impact on future global temperatures, according to all the models. (Canada, like Australia, accounts for only around 1% of global carbon emissions).

BUT... Carney has a redeeming feature in his policies: support for expanding nuclear energy:

Carney has stated unequivocally that a net-zero economy is “impossible without wider adoption of nuclear power.” At a 2022 Brookfield investor day, he said, “There’s no transition that works without nuclear, full stop”. [Ref]

If elected as expected, he ought speak to OZ. Who don't believe that. 

Australia also has a Net Zero zealot in the shape of the PM Albanese's Climate Czar Chris Bowen. Bowen -- and the rest of the Labour Party, it would seem -- are adamantly against nuclear power. That's despite the fact that we, Australia, have abundant uranium resources, which we are quite willing to sell to countries who don't share our delicate sensitivities, our ideological aversion to the clean, green, safe, NewClear power. 

These two similar countries, massive, resource rich, small in population, members of the Commonwealth, couldn't they at least get together on Nuclear? Canada is keen to export its Candu nuclear technology, long tried and tested, long safe, clean and green. Carney supports development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which form part of the Liberal party proposals for Nuclear for Australia. 

How about an AusCanNewClear alignment? Or "Canada, Australia, Nuclear", aka CAN. As in "Yes, we CAN".

If only. If only sanity would descend on our politicians. To replace zealotry. 

Capitulationist and Dictator in one package.

The Democrats call Trump Hitler.

They also call him a capitulationist. To horrid dictator Putin. Like Chamberlain to Hitler at Munich in 1938.

So Trump has achieved the unique position of being at once, in one big Orange Man package, both Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. 

Wunderbahr!

But, Delores.. where will you go?

 

Orchid time

We have an orchid-whisperer at home...

“America First doesn’t mean America Alone” | Scott Bessent

Click above for the video

America First doesn’t mean America Alone”.

So says Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, interviewed above at an International Finance Conference. Where he gave a speech, here. “America’s grand plan”.

The World Bank and IMF “have to get back to factory settings”. Back to doing what they were set up to do. There has been too much “Mission Creep”, especially in recent years following a U.S. obsession with all matters “woke”: social justice, DEI, Critical Race Theory, Climate Change zealotry, and so on. 

People who hate on America gonna keep on hating on America, no matter what. They won’t know or won’t remember, or will wilfully ignore: that the post-war global infrastructure — a huge success — was set up by America. 

The Marshall Plan for a Europe, the Breton Woods financial structure, the Japanese Constitution, the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, later the WTO. All these kept world peace (ok, not perfectly…), and massively grew world trade. All arose out of a patrician, a noble, a generous, a humanist impulse in America. One can pick and be picky, but it was and remains a grand vision for the benefit of mankind. One that is not helped by large, aggressive mercantilist late-comers. 

This vast system is in need of  reform. That’s what Scott Bessent is saying. That’s what Trump and his team are aiming to do. Against the very stiff headwinds of the opposition, who oppose literally everything — and I mean “literally” literally — no matter how commonsensical. (They’ve now decided they love ultra-violent Central American gangs, just because Trump wants to deport them…for goodness sake!).

So these are the historic times we live in. Of a president, flawed to be sure, but nonetheless determined as none before him this century, to take on the torrid task of international trade and economic reform. 

These are the Interesting Times we live in. 

The current tariff battle needs time to work (or not). It’s too early to say if it’s a success or failure. But its goals are correct and clear, as Bessent lays out, and there some shoots of optimism. The main battle is with China. And there are glimmers in the tunnel. At least I like to think I see them. As I merrily mix my metaphors. “Thorny shoals ahead”, my mate Ross used to say. Well, says the optimist, we can do it!

By the way, many people, Democrats mainly, criticise “America First” as some kind of horrid, xenophobic, authoritarian right-wing thing. They forget, or don’t know, that it was first used by Democratic president Woodrow Wilson, back around 1916, and that it was picked up and used by Bill  Clinton. Just one more of the many cases of “it’s good for me, but not for thee”.

Enough said... A tale of Two Countries. Of Mercantilism vs the Market

Zhi Hu = Chinese Quora

Baidu = Chinese Google

You Ku = Chinese YouTube

WeChat = Chinese WhatsApp

Alibaba = Chinese Amazon

Ant = Chinese PayPal

WeiBo = Chinese X (Twitter)

Sina WeiBo = Chinese Facebook 

XiaoHongShu = Chinese Instagram

Bai Ke = Chinese Wikipedia 

Douyin = Chinese Blogger

Tik Tok = Chinese Tik Tok  (except in China Tik Tok is not allowed)

=============================

ALL the above in the Left column are Chinese knock-offs of the ones in the Right hand column. 

IOW: Copy cats 🐱

None of the ones in the Right hand column are allowed in China. 

IOW: No American technology is allowed in China. 

All of the ones in the Left hand column are allowed in the United States. 

IOW: All Chinese technology is allowed in America

Including the Chinese-owned App Tik Tok, which is openly propagandising in America about how bad America is. 

This is "fairness", Mercantilist-style. What Trump is after is Reciprocity. 

On a somewhat more elevated and scholarly note, but also on the same issue of mercantilism, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on China, Bretton Woods, the World Bank and the IMF. Here. He's tough. But on an elevated level. 

It is "absurd", says Scott Bessent, for China, the world's second-largest economy, to be treated as a "Developing Economy". It's that label that gave it the excuses to do the stuff above. To shut out technologies to protect its domestic copy-cats, to be export-driven at the expense of countries around the world. He's right on that. China should long ago been taken off the list of Developing Economies. 

And must be now. 

Rusty makes his move

Dear Grok: "Name me some living US politicians you would consider Extreme Left and Extreme Right"

Grok:

I’ll start by clarifying that "extreme" in politics is tricky to pin down—labels like "far-left" or "far-right" often get thrown around loosely, and what’s considered extreme can shift depending on the context or who’s talking. That said, I’ll base this on politicians whose views consistently align with the outer edges of the left-right spectrum, using their public stances, voting records, and policy advocacy as a guide. I’ll keep it to living U.S. politicians actively serving or recently prominent, and I’ll aim for precision without fluff.

Extreme Left

These are politicians whose platforms emphasize anti-capitalist policies, revolutionary socialism, or far-reaching structural changes like dismantling major institutions or nationalizing industries. They often align with democratic socialism or beyond, advocating for policies well to the left of mainstream liberalism.

1. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) - U.S. Representative (D-NY)
   • Why: AOC identifies as a democratic socialist and pushes policies like the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and wealth taxes targeting billionaires. Her rhetoric often critiques capitalism itself, calling for systemic overhaul, and she’s a prominent voice in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. She’s also supported ideas like abolishing ICE and decriminalizing certain border crossings, which are seen as far-left by many.
   • Caveat: While bold, her policies still operate within the democratic framework, so some might argue she’s not "extreme" enough compared to, say, historical Marxist revolutionaries. Still, she’s among the furthest left in Congress.
2. Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator (I-VT)
   • Why: Sanders, another democratic socialist, has spent decades advocating for universal healthcare, tuition-free college, and breaking up big banks. His 2016 and 2020 presidential runs mainstreamed ideas once considered fringe, like nationalizing healthcare and taxing extreme wealth. He’s been vocal about class struggle and has praised aspects of socialist systems abroad, which puts him on the far-left edge of U.S. politics.
   • Caveat: Like AOC, Sanders works within the system, and his policies, while radical for the U.S., are closer to standard social democracy in places like Europe.

Extreme Right

These are politicians who advocate for nationalist, authoritarian-leaning, or highly traditionalist policies, often rejecting compromise with moderates. They might support extreme deregulation, anti-immigrant measures, or policies rooted in religious fundamentalism, aligning with far-right ideologies like nativism or paleo-conservatism.

1. Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) - U.S. Representative (R-GA)
   • Why: Greene is a vocal proponent of hardline nationalist and populist views, often aligning with the MAGA movement’s most uncompromising wing. She’s pushed conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon sympathies), opposed immigration broadly, and called for dismantling federal agencies like the Department of Education. Her rhetoric often emphasizes "America First" policies, Christian nationalism, and skepticism of establishment institutions, marking her as a far-right figure.
   • Caveat: Her influence within the GOP has grown, which might suggest her views are less fringe than they seem, but her positions remain divisive even among conservatives.
2. Lauren Boebert - U.S. Representative (R-CO)
   • Why: Boebert shares Greene’s MAGA-aligned, nationalist stance, with a focus on Second Amendment absolutism, anti-abortion extremism, and slashing federal programs. She’s been outspoken against progressive policies like the Green New Deal and has flirted with conspiracies around election integrity. Her rhetoric often appeals to far-right militias and anti-government sentiments, placing her on the spectrum’s edge.
   • Caveat: Like Greene, her visibility in the GOP might make her seem less "extreme" to some, but her policy stances and rhetoric consistently push far-right boundaries.

Notes

• Context Matters: The U.S. political spectrum is narrower than in some countries. What’s "extreme left" here (e.g., democratic socialism) might be mainstream in Europe, and the "extreme right" often avoids the overt fascism seen elsewhere but leans into nativism or populism.
• No Perfect Fits: True extremists (e.g., advocating violent revolution or outright fascism) are rare among elected U.S. politicians due to the system’s checks and public scrutiny. The ones listed are the closest to the edges while still holding significant office.
• Balance: I’ve avoided equating "extreme" with "bad" or picking sides—both ends have coherent arguments and blind spots. The left often focuses on systemic inequality but can overreach on practicality; the right prioritizes tradition or liberty but can veer into exclusionary or conspiratorial territory.

================

Me, (not Grok): If you'd asked me the question, I'd have said exactly AOC and Bernie on the Left. On the Right I'm not sure who I would have said, though MTG and Boebert do fit the label, I agree.