How Donald Trump won the Election.

How did Donald Trump win the election? How did a man who said so many things during his campaign that would have automatically disqualified any other candidate, end up becoming President-Elect of the United States? How did a man who wasn’t supposed to make it out of the debates get so far?

Trump won because the Left put up a weak candidate. Clinton was weak against Trump’s populism. The anti-Establishment fervor around the world is at an all-time high, so, what does the Left do? They put up the single most Establishment candidate one can think of — and then are surprised when she loses to a populist. You DON’T fight populist politics with estabishmentarian politics. You put up an equally popular, but ideologically different candidate.

Trump won because he made the voters feel like he was one of them. Though that’s obviously fallacious, but it is how the people felt. Clinton used ridiculous tactics like running to the Right for donations, and not handling the email scandal very well at all… Taking one million dollars in foundation money from the Qatari government as a “birthday gift” for Bill Clinton. She spewed ridiculous platitudes like “stronger together!” and “I’m with her!” and the people didn’t like that because it was representative of how out of touch she was with them. All very cutesy, but ultimately, the people don’t care about what’s cute. They care about what you’re going to do for them. And they KNOW that you, as a career politician, and as an Establishment hack, aren’t going to have their best interests at heart, and aren’t going to bring the change they’re crying out for.

They also know that you voted for the Iraq War, supported US military interventions overseas, have been less-than-clear as to what your strategy is in terms of foreign policy going forward. They’re tired of foreign military interventionism. They’re tired of being involved in Middle Eastern civil wars. And while Trump has also been less-than-clear on his policies, they know that Hillary is hawkish. So when she says something like, “Implementing no-fly and safe-zones in Syria” and “Standing up to Russia”, they know what that means — greater US military presence in the Middle East. Because that’s exactly what it would take to live up to those proposals.

She didn’t make a concession speech the night of the Election. Why? Because she was so upset? Oh, please, spare me. You lost an election because you didn’t run a good enough campaign. Deal with it. You know how the political game works. You know how losses feel at a party-level, so, man up and come out and tell the however-many thousands of people that gathered to see you speak, that you’re sorry that you lost and whatever else you need to say, then go home and cry about it. But don’t you dare skip the concession speech. It makes you look like you don’t care about those who supported you enough to console them when you lost and promise that you’ll work harder for the next election and keep pushing and keep fighting for them.

Ultimately, not everyone who voted for Donald Trump did so because they liked every single on of his policies, or because they approved of his comments against minorities, or because they were crazy about his appointments on the campaign trail. They voted for him because he wasn’t a representative of the Washington elite, and Hillary is/was. They voted for him, not because they hate Hillary because she’s a woman (though I’m sure some do), they hate her because she IS the Establishment. They voted for Trump because he promised them their jobs back — now whether he’ll deliver on that, we’ll see. Hillary promised them the Trans Pacific Partnership, which ships jobs overseas through expansion of privileges for businesses that relocate.

This ridiculous train of thought that everyone who voted Trump is somehow a racist/misogynist/bigot/Islamophobe is part of the reason the country is so divided. While I agree that Trump has to take some responsibility for the things he’s said on the campaign trail, and some of those who voted for him do hold some abhorrent views of minorities, I’d argue that this was a vote against an Establishment corporatist hack who is the embodiment of everything that the world body-politic is rebelling against at the moment. The Left could have won the election by a landslide, had only they picked the right candidate — Bernie Sanders was the answer to Donald Trump. But no, in their infinite wisdom and arrogance, the Democratic Establishment picked Hillary Clinton, who then lost to Donald Trump.

Trump’s Inheritance.

Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States.

In January of next year, he will inherit the office of the world’s most powerful politician, as Americans bid adieu to Barack Obama’s presidency, and control over the House and Senate to the Republican Party. While many on the Left have decried Donald Trump as a racist, sexist, bigot — to use Hillary Clinton’s words, “A basket of deplorables”, and while such criticism of Trump isn’t that far-fetched, the country — particularly the Left, must not forget what he inherits from President Obama.

Obama’s presidency, while promising change, has produced very little progress in America. While things have undoubtedly improved under his guidance — up to 30 million people now have healthcare that didn’t before, the economy is stronger now than it was under George Bush, Cuba and the US have reopened diplomatic ties and some trade. Iran is now not on the path to obtaining a nuclear weapon, thanks to the nuclear deal agreed between the West, spearheaded by the US, and the Shi’a Islamist theocracy. While these are things to pat him on the back for, much has remained the same, or regressed.

In terms of foreign policy, this is where I feel Obama has really let the Left down. While I give him due praise for orchestrating an agreement with Iran, there is more to criticize him on, than there is to praise him. Whether it’s his military interventions in one form or another in seven different countries: Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Or, his failure to close Guantanamo Bay (as he promised us all when he campaigned with “change we could believe in”), or an expansionist policy in regards to surveillance and intelligence agencies, see: the NSA. He’s also expanded the use of drones as a weapon of war, conducting far more strikes than George W. Bush ever did.

Trump will inherit an open Gitmo, a vast surveillance and intelligence apparatus with  unprecedented capability and power, an ongoing campaign of interventionism in the War on Terror, the capability to unilaterally declare war, without Congressional approval. He will also inherit a disaffected populous, that has lost all faith in it’s elected officials to serve it’s needs and wants. He will inherit deep mistrust and rebellion against business-as-usual politics.

While there are reasons to fear Trump’s presidency, based upon his policy positions and some of the things he has said, the Left must not, in it’s fear, lose sight of what he inherits, and under which Party and President that inheritance was left unto him.

As a friend said, “You cannot give yourself powers that you don’t want your opposition to inherit.” And that’s what America now faces.

Why France’s ‘Burqini’ ban is anti-Freedom.

Three French towns recently took the decision to ban the burqini. Most recently, a village in Corsica banned the burqini. Following a ban imposed by the French resort town of Cannes.

The Mayor of Cannes defended the ban, stating that they were “a symbol of Islamic extremism,” and “not respectful of good morals and secularism.”

Glorious irony. Now, I completely understand that the wearing of the burqa, hijab, and other religious attire within the Islamic faith, and particularly within certain Muslim-majority countries is enforced upon women – whether by their spouses, or by the laws of the land — this is not necessarily the case in France. Or at least it wasn’t, until now.

France has long been a bastion of secularism and democracy and freedom, “Liberté, égalité, fraternité“, springs to mind. And while I believe completely in each word in the French national motto, the latest decision by these three towns is, in fact, the antithesis of that.

The  — or any country — enforcing upon you by law what you can and cannot wear is the definition of a degradation of freedom.

Furthermore, if the mayor of Cannes is concerned about protecting his country from extremism by banning an article of clothing that it apparently symbolizes — then does he not realize that, if anything, his policy has just created more ammunition for the extremists to recruit young women who (rightly) feel as though their freedoms have been trampled upon. Extremist groups like ISIS, who have already gleaned a large group of followers and fighters from the streets of Europe, will only use this latest legislation to further their recruiting.

Overall, while liberty, equality and fraternity are wonderful things and should be protected — individual freedom of choice must be protected.

Language Matters.

Invariably throughout my blog posts, I will use terminology and language that is unfamiliar to people who aren’t already in this space. But, I think that language is important when talking about current affairs. The terms you use matter — they matter, because in order to have an understanding — even a basic one — of the complexities of the politics of say, the Middle East, or an organisation like the Islamic State, you have to understand the terminology.

It matters, because if one doesn’t use the right terminology, one can fall into the trap of not identifying a problem correctly. Both sides of any political discourse are guilty of such. And because that is the case, it hurts the overall conversation that is taking place.

So, in an attempt to not fall into said trap, I’m going to lay out some of the terms that I’ll likely be using most frequently.

• Islamism: As separate from the religion of Islam (and that differentiation is incredibly important), Islamism is the desire to impose any version of Islam over society. (Though there are other meanings, for the purposes of this continuing conversation, I’ll use this one).
• Sunni & Shi’a Islam: Two of the main sects within Islam. This video articulates the differences quicker and better than I can do so here.
• Jihadism: A Western neologism used to describe Islamist political movements in the 21st century.
• Salafism: A deeply conservative political movement within Sunni Islam. The doctrine preaches emulation of the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. Dr. Jonathan A.C. Brown, a professor at Georgetown University, explains Salafism in this video.

  Caveat: Salafis are split into three main groups: Purists, Activists, and Jihadists. “Purists” are largely apolitical, and do not advocate violence to spread Salafism. “Activists” are politically active individuals, but do not believe in the use of violence to spread Salafism. “Jihadists” are extremely political, and believe in the use of violence and terrorism to spread Salafism. Jihadists are also the smallest minority of these groups.
  

• Wahhabism: Another deeply conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam — slightly younger than Salafism, and also the state religion of Saudi Arabia.
• Salafi-jihadism:  The use of violence and terrorism in pursuit of political and/or religious objectives  that specifically relate to the Salafi movement.

Those specific terms aside, I don’t feel it necessary to give definitions of the Islamic State (also primarily known as ISIS), or Al-Qaeda, nor the Taliban, as these are well-known entities to those who visit this site. But, hopefully a breakdown of the terms I’ll be using frequently will help you to understand why the nuances matter, and why the differences are very important indeed in a space such as this.

Coming Back.

Hi all,

Been very, very absent lately — it’s been a couple of years since I wrote anything on current affairs, and, after a bout of searching for my passions and all that jazz, I’ve decided to come back to where I first started to write online — current affairs is that place. It’s where I began as a young journalism student in high school. It’s what I wrote about for the first few months out of high school. And it is something that I talk about all the time.

Whether it’s the actions of the Islamic State over the last few months, recent terrorist atrocities in Europe, Turkey’s rumblings in the Middle East, or the US Presidential Race. I will try to provide my opinions on such subjects. I’ll attempt to delve deeper into issues and cut through superfluousness. I’ll try and discuss ideas and actions, and the link between the two when it exists — and when it does not.

Religion and politics are two things that you shouldn’t discuss over dinner, apparently. Well, in this blog, I’ll be discussing both — whether they pertain to particular event, such as a terrorist attack. Or a post about a particular nation state, and how religion and politics is infinitely intertwined there — for example, a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

I’ll do my best to share my thoughts, and maybe that’s all this blog will be. Simply a place for me to post my thoughts on any given issue. Since the news cycle is literally 24/7, I won’t be able to cover everything, but I’ll cover the stories that interest me, and I hope they interest you too.

And… I’m back! Time for an update

Hi all,

My apologies for being so absent recently. I’ve promised you content and haven’t delivered. Please accept my sincere apologies.

I’ve been so busy since my last post on June 10th, a lot has happened – I’ve been working a lot, discovered cycle-touring (and that has become my main focus – I also have a blog on that, too.)

And so, over the course of the last five months, I’ve been frequenting cycling forums, and I’ve even purchased my very own touring bike! Head on over to http://jackonabike.ca/ to see all my cycling content!

My plans for my immediate future have changed somewhat, also. I now plan on becoming a bit of a freelance travel writer. Travelling by bicycle and writing about my endeavours for magazines, local newspapers and of course, my followers. I also have set up a Twitter account @jackonabikeCA, that I’ll be posting blog posts too, as well as anything cycling-related.

Now, back to this blog. I’m unsure as to when I’ll be posting on here. But, I will post anything that crosses my mind that isn’t related to cycling/cycle-touring. So, keep your eyes peeled for posts!

Cheers,

Jack.

Sorry for being absent lately!

Just like to put up a short post apologising for my absenteeism recently – had so much going on. 

 

Anyway, I’m back! Look out for an upcoming blog post(s) on the unearthing of the NSA’s surveillance operation, codenamed “PRISM”, as well as anything else that tickles my fancy!

Again, my apologies, and as always, enjoy!

The Boston Bombings – A comparative look at the reaction.

We all saw how the world reacted to the Boston Bombings, it was very much a collective effort to get the city back on it’s feet again as quickly as possible. How does that differ from the way the country reacted to 9/11? Well, let’s examine it, shall we?

In my previous article on the Boston Bombings, I showed you a clip of the President’s speech at a Church service in Boston. The message from the President was clear, Boston and indeed the country would not be frightened by this act of terrorism. Instead, it would remain united, defiant and focused on bringing the perpetrators to justice.

They were successful in bringing Dzhokhar Tsamaev to justice in just a few short days after the attack. And the aftermath of his arrest, and the attack itself was one of positivity and moving forward.

Think back to almost twelve years ago, the chaos in New York as two passenger aircraft hurtled into the World Trade Center Towers, three thousand were killed in America’s first real taste of international terrorism, or terrorism of any kind. “Shock and awe” are two words that could be used to describe the events of that day.

As the planes struck the World Trade Center in New York, President George W. Bush was, at the time reading “The Pet Goat” to a class of second-grade children at a school in Florida. He continued to do this for seven minutes.

In the days and weeks after the attacks, the country was thrown into a state of fear. People afraid to leave their homes, news outlets spouting stories left, right and centre about possible terrorist plots. Most, if not all of which turned out to be untrue.

And while the Boston Bombing was not even close to being on the same scale as the 9/11 attacks, you notice that the city and country were not thrown into a state of fear. And while reports emerged of ricin letters being sent to the homes of Government officials, including one to President Obama himself.

While rumours spread on Twitter that the ricin letters were connected to the Boston Bombings, though authorities quickly quashed those rumours and arrested a Mississippi man in the hours following the release of the letters.

Note also, the difference in Presidential reactions to the two attacks – one, George Bush’s, was to label an enemy almost immediately, and telling the nation that the country would “strike back”. And so began a war which has lasted for over twelve years and still goes on to this day.

President Obama meanwhile took the time to go to a Church service held in Boston and reassure the American people of their safety and that the law enforcement  agencies were doing everything that they could be apprehend the suspects. Two very different Presidents, two very different messages – one of banging the war drums and promises of “striking back”. The other of reassurance and justice for the city of Boston, and the American people.

I know who I’d rather be led by. Do you?

The Boston Bombings – Update and Aftermath (Part One of Two)

The Boston Bombing

On April 15th, two large explosions rocked the Boston Marathon, three people died and a further 264 were wounded. Among the dead, were two young children.

The pressure-cooker bombs exploded, sending shrapnel and bits of metal flying – people lost limbs, the pictures that circulated on Twitter and the Internet in the coming minutes and hours were horrific.

Two men were the prime suspects in the bombings, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsamaev – both ethnic Chechen’s whose family moved to the United States in 2002 from Dagestan in the Russian Federation.

The Manhunt and, “CAPTURED!!!”

After a manhunt lasting for more than three days, Tamerlan was killed in a shootout by police on April 18th, and a day later, Dzhokhar was captured by police and taken to a hospital with wounds to his neck, head, legs and hand. Reports differ as to whether the wounds were sustained from shots fired by police, or whether they were sustained in the blast.

In the minutes following Dzhokhar’s capture, Boston Police put out a post on Twitter saying, “CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won. Suspect in custody.”  A rather poetic end to a frantic manhunt.

The city rejoiced in the capture of Dzhokhar, and the country shaken by this barbaric act was once again calm. Dzhokhar Tsamaev was charged from his hospital bed with “using a weapon of mass destruction” and “malicious destruction of property.” Such charges could carry the death penalty.

“A weapon of mass destruction” is classified under Title 18 the United States Code as:

(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;

(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;

(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or

(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

Treated as an enemy combatant.

While the city rejoiced in the capture, Congressional Republicans wanted Tsamaev treated as an enemy combatant, meaning that he could be imprisoned for an indefinite amount of time. Being declared as such waives a prisoner’s Constitutional Habeas Corpus rights. Rights which declare that any persons imprisoned by the  United States must face trial by judge and jury.

The same Constitutional rights on which the United States was founded, and which many Americans hold so dear, let’s remember that Dzhokhar Tsamaev is an American citizen. An enemy combatant is neither granted those rights, nor the rights of a prisoner of war.

He is currently in a “hospital prison”, according to a CBC News article.

The Aftermath

The Boston Bombings were a heinous act of terrorism on U.S. soil – the first real, “shock and awe” terrorist attack since 9/11. No one saw it coming, it just happened.

However, minutes after the explosions, EMS personnel and the Emergency Services were swarming the area. . The runners who had just crossed the finish line, but weren’t caught in the blast, ran on to Brigham and Women’s Hospital to give blood to the injured who were coming in scores, needing urgent blood transfusions.

The city pulled together during the aftermath. Many lives were saved by the swift actions of the emergency services and First Responders, as well as the selflessness of those who gave blood.

A day later, several churches in the city of Boston opened their doors for prayers for the survivors of the explosions, as well as prayers for the families of the three dead. For the next few days, candlelight vigils were held around the city of Boston, the state of Massachusetts, and indeed all across the United States.

The President’s Message

 

 

Barack Obama gave his speech at the Boston Bombing Memorial on the 19th of April. He brought a mixed message to the people of Boston, one of reassurance and defiance. Saying that, the terrorists had “picked the wrong city”. Reassuringly, he told Bostonians, “Everyone of us stands with you. Boston may be your hometown – but we claim it too.”

The President’s message rang in the ears of Bostonians, who picked up the pieces of their broken city, and carried on. The city became stronger in the face of great adversity.

Been M.I.A lately!

I thought I’d update my readers as to my absence lately as I’ve been Missing In Action (M.I.A). My glasses finally gave in on me after seven years of faithful service, and for the best part of two weeks I’ve been unable to see much at all.

I had to zoom in on my Google Chrome web browser so much, wearing only reading glasses, that I could not see the page where I write my posts clearly enough to post anything at all.

But today I got contact lenses, so I’ll be back to posting as usual. Keep checking in for new articles! Including a two-part article collection – the first is an update on the Boston Bombing. It details what happened, the aftermath of it, and tells how the city of Boston, and the country as a whole pulled together and grew in the face of adversity. The second part will compare the country’s response and reaction to the Boston Bombings, compared to that of 9/11. Asking the question whether the change of leadership was the reason that the two events caused such a different reaction.

And “Ding Dong, Free Speech is Dead.” An analysis of censorship by the BBC – paying particular attention to the death of Margaret Thatcher and the reaction surrounding the release of, “Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead.”, a track celebrating the death of the Iron Lady.

Make sure you keep reading! As I know I’ve got a lot to catch up on!