MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘American Enterprise Institute’

Russia, Ukraine, and the West | Frederick Kagan | The JBP Podcast | #230

Posted by M. C. on March 1, 2022

Follow the money.

The Russian background discussion is very interesting. The AEI analyst, historian seems to have forgotten the 2014 US state department sponsored overthrow of the pro Russian Ukrainian government. Recall the famous Victoria Nuland “F*** the EU” phone call where she discusses who will lead the new government. No mention of Neo-nazi riddled replacement government. There is little in the anti-Putin tirade that doesn’t apply to US foreign policy since WWII. Notably the Middle East and South East Asia.

The US doesn’t lie!!!

Any association with the AEI should peak your warparty/warmonger situational awareness.

AEI/Raytheon/McDonnell Douglas want to get those US made weapons to Ukraine ASAP! But the question is why is it the US’ responsibility? Surprise, the defense budget is way too low.

Did I mention follow the money?

This episode was recorded on February 27, 2022. Dr. Frederick W. Kagan is a former professor of history with a PhD in Russian and Soviet military history from Yale. He is also a celebrated author and the director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project. In this episode, I discuss the nature of the conflict that has taken the world by storm over the last 5 days—Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine and the ongoing resistance of its citizens. Dr. Kagan is a wealth of information on military history, geopolitics, Putin’s relationship with the USSR (which his father helped defend) and Ukrainian sovereignty, and other aspects of what’s most certainly a moment in human history that won’t be forgotten soon.

Find more Dr. Frederick Kagan: https://understandingwar.org and https://criticalthreats.org

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Four Libertarian Principles to Guide Childcare Policy

Posted by M. C. on June 28, 2021

by Laurence M. Vance

Just as many conservatives believe that the federal government should have an education policy, so many conservatives believe that the federal government should have a childcare policy.In a free society, the government would be completely indifferent as to whether anyone had children or not. It would not concern itself with their education, health care, or upbringing.
[Click to Tweet]

A case in point was an event held last March held by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) titled “Should Conservatives Favor Child Allowances?,” as well as a recent article by Lyman Stone on the AEI website titled “More Choice, Fewer Costs: Four Key Principles to Guide Child Care Policy.”

According to its website, AEI

is a public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world. The work of our scholars and staff advances ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.

AEI scholars are committed to making the intellectual, moral, and practical case for expanding freedom, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening the free enterprise system in America and around the world.

Lyman Stone “is an Adjunct Fellow at AEI, a Research Fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, and a former International Economist at the US Department of Agriculture.”

At the AEI event, two conservative scholars argued against a government child allowance, and one argued for it. This was followed by a panel discussion in which three conservative scholars argued against a government child allowance and two argued for it, including Stone.

In his remarks, Stone posited four “key principles that should guide policymakers as we debate childcare policies and the increase in spending in this area: choice, compensation, fairness, and cost.”

1. Choice. The government should “do more to support school choice by providing vouchers to families.” But it should also support childcare choice. Any new government spending “should give parents more choice about childcare, not less, and correspondingly should not discriminate between different parental choices.”

See the rest here

This post was written by: Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance is a columnist and policy advisor for the Future of Freedom Foundation, an associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a columnist, blogger, and book reviewer at LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Gun Control and the Second Amendment, The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom, and War, Empire and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society. Visit his website: www.vancepublications.com. Send him e-mail.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

My Corner by Boyd Cathey

Posted by M. C. on April 23, 2021

“Slouching towards Armageddon”

American Foreign Policy’s Death Wish

If Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) had their way American troops—boys, men, women, and, yes, transgenders—would not only be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, “for as long as it takes” uttered an unchastened Cheney (re-affirmed in her congressional positions of power by gutless fellow Republicans), but everywhere else in the world where “the ‘democratic’ way of life” must be imposed by American might. And the result? A continuation of thousands of body bags…

http://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

Friends,

If Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) had their way American troops—boys, men, women, and, yes, transgenders—would not only be in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, “for as long as it takes” uttered an unchastened Cheney (re-affirmed in her congressional positions of power by gutless fellow Republicans), but everywhere else in the world where “the ‘democratic’ way of life” must be imposed by American might. And the result? A continuation of thousands of body bags, billions of dollars from an already desperate American middle class, and the destruction of indigenous cultures dating back thousands of years, to be replaced with feminism, same sex marriage and gender fluidity, and the fruits of robber baron capitalism.

The response of those two leaders and others in the Washington establishment bespeak the era of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton when Neoconservative scribblers like Bill Kristol and the late Charles Krauthammer (canonized now by Fox News), and the globalist policy wonks at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), ruled the roost…and America’s international role of spreading democratic, secularist…and ultimately anti-Christian…dogma was riding high. It was the time before the advent of Donald Trump and “Make America Great Again,” before the scales and blinders began ever-so-slightly to come off the eyes of millions of Americans.

Back in April 2014, at Communities Digital News, I noted that:

“Today, Republican Party leaders, like those over in the Democratic Party, endorse what they call ‘equality’ and believe generally in imposing ‘liberal democracy’ around the world. Recall leading Neoconservative writer Allan Bloom’s dictum that he famously penned a few years back, which serves as motto for most in the current Republican leadership: ‘And when we Americans speak seriously about politics, we mean that our principles of freedom and equality and the rights based on them are rational and everywhere applicable. World War II was really an educational experiment undertaken to force those who do not accept these principles to do so’.”

Those Neoconservatives have never given up, and many of their major mouthpieces—a Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg, the writers at National Review—became leaders of the Never Trump movement. Others, less honest and more corruptive and evil about their motives, with dishonest smiles on their faces, buried into the Trump administration (e.g., think here of a John Bolton or General Mattis) where they could subvert and impede even the slightest movement toward realism in American foreign policy. (My constant belief is that a major failing of Trump and his presidency was his inability to surround himself with advisors and officials who would genuinely carry out an America First agenda; many acted consistently and fervently to sabotage and undermine it.).

What I wrote back in 2014 came to mind during these past few weeks. And two events—two items in the news—triggered my thoughts.

First, came a subdued report earlier this month, barely noticed by national media that the much-ballyhooed accusations in June 2020 of the Russians paying financial bounties to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan to kill American servicemen was essentially based on nothing—no solid intelligence –just the “assessment” of some of those same inflamed global policy wonks who continue to dwell in the bowels of the permanent managerial state bureaucracy. Remember how the media and politicians reacted last June and July? For days there was hardly anything else of any import on MSNBC or CNN. “The Russians are paying the Taliban to kill American boys!” cried Nancy Pelosi.  “Trump’s a Russian stooge!” bellowed Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff, “maybe taking direct orders from the Kremlin! He must be impeached!”

And so it went, with headlines on the national (and local) news for days and days. But now some of the media most culpable for spreading and propagating that falsehood—think here of The Daily Beast—casually admit (usually buried way back on page 13) that what they reported was wrong. Indeed, the US intelligence agencies have, surprise surprise, walked back the accusation. The story, they now maintain, “is, at best, unproven — and possibly untrue.” 

It was all political, but it also demonstrated once more the incredible power and reach of our corrupted Intel agencies whose ideological subinfeudation to and use by Neocon globalism remains unbroken and unbreakable.

The second item that caught my attention was a fascinating essay in The Asia Times (March 19), and the title tells all: “Life after death for the neonconservatives.” The author, David P. Goldman (from whom I would not have expected such realism), asserts that “[t]he obsession of American foreign policy after the fall of communism was [imposing] pro-Western democracy in Russia, and the foreign policy establishment have never forgiven Vladimir Putin  for returning Russia” to its older, pre-Soviet traditions. But now, “the obsession is back with Joe Biden—and with it, the neoconservatives who dominated the failed administration of George W. Bush. For several reasons, President Biden’s March 16 denunciation of Putin as a ‘killer’ without a soul ranks among the dumbest utterances ever by an American leader – and that’s a crowded field. To begin with, heads of state do not insult each other this way, except in wartime.”

Goldman continues that the idiotic and senseless American (and presidential) insults and the accompanying ratcheting up of tensions along the Russian-Ukranian border, largely pushed and encouraged by the US handing a blank check to Ukraine, have forced a wary Russia, the world’s second major power, into a reluctant alliance with China, the world’s third major power which is something that foreign policy realists have always dreaded and worked to avoid.

Not only that but Russia’s collaboration, at least tacitly, is needed for any lasting deal with a nuclear Iran. And there is little inclination now in Moscow to assist the Neocon blockheads at the State Department to facilitate this.

This latest bout with “Russians did it!” hysteria appears to be largely the result of the Intel agencies’ recent  “assessment” (March 16), once again charging those utterly beyond-the-pale demiurges from Moscow, who want to re-create the Soviet empire, “of operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy, and the Democratic Party.” As Goldman observes, that report is more of the same unsupported drivel, the fluff, we’ve been hearing for years from Democratic AND Republican political leaders. And a continuation of the fatal fascination that establishment Neocons have with Russia—“It won’t act like a responsible democracy! It wants to do its own thing!” Or, to paraphrase Allan Bloom, if they won’t do what we tell them to do, steps must be “undertaken to force those who do not accept these principles to do so.”

Despite their apparently weakened position after four years of Trump and a gradual realization among millions of Americans that Neoconservative solutions to global problems are not only wrong, but positively dangerous, they’re back and occupy positions of authority in the Biden presidency. Thus, while the administration tacitly encourages the BLM/Antifa mobs in our streets, pushes Critical Race Theory in our schools, and opens the floodgates for illegals at our border, we venture ever so close to world conflagration internationally.

During the Bush and Obama years the Neocon foreign policy establishment got the US to spend over $6 trillion for foreign wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. And more than 801,000 people have died (up to now) as a direct result of the fighting (Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs). And at the same time, again Goldman: “America lost industrial jobs at the fastest rate in its history, and America’s trade deficit ballooned to $600 billion a year. It failed to export democracy, but also failed to export anything else,” except misery, dislocation and upheaval.

Goldman correctly labels the essential ideology of the Neoconservatives as “right-wing Marxism.” He continues:

“Being determines consciousness, taught Marx, and ideology arises from the social structure. For Marx, that meant that communism would create a New Man free of the vices of capitalism; for neoconservatives, it meant that the mere forms of democratic governance would create democrats.”

It took no less an observer than Joschka Fischer of the German [Leftwing] Green Party to notice what had happened and what my friend Dr. Paul Gottfried calls the “strange death of Marxism”:

“When I came to Washington as German foreign minister during the [George W. Bush] administration and met the neoconservatives, I instantly recognized them as the old comrades! I got the book by [neocons] Richard Perl and David Frum, An End to Evil, and took Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution from my bookshelf, and compared them page by page. Except for some changes in terminology, they were the same book.”

I am sure that Lindsey Graham and Liz Cheney would object strenuously to the comparison. And I am certain that Jonah Goldberg and the National Review crowd would cry “fascist” if made the butt of such a comparison.

But the comparison holds and will not go away. The establishment “conservative movement” long ago accepted the progressivist version of history and its idea of inevitability, and the national GOP has done its best to rationalize politically that vision. In the end, the conservative/Republican establishment—what Gottfried calls “ConInc”—and the post-Marxist Left emit from the same fetid and poisonous philosophical swamp. And, despite its protestations to the contrary and its sometimes defensive appearance against the rot, that pseudo-Conservatism is essentially antithetical to Western Christian civilization.

Until it is overthrown our precipitous decay will continue. 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Walter Berns and the Cult of “Patriotic” Sacrifice | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 18, 2020

Berns thinks he can solve a fundamental problem of modern America, and
wait till you hear what that problem is. People in America aren’t
willing to sacrifice their lives to the state. They are too much devoted
to their own selfish interests. To overcome this dire state of affairs,
we need to establish a “civil religion” in the guise of patriotism.

Think public service programs. Emphasis on “Program”.

https://mises.org/wire/walter-berns-and-cult-patriotic-sacrifice?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=b4fc4d239a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_07_17_06_30&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-b4fc4d239a-228343965

In his great new book The Problem with Lincoln, Tom DiLorenzo brought back an old memory. As Tom points out, Walter Berns, who taught political science at Cornell and then worked for the American Enterprise Institute, was one of the main figures urging us to worship Honest Abe. He quarreled with the main Lincoln idolater, Harry Jaffa, but I’m not going to go into what they fought about. Rather, I’d like to focus on an argument in Berns’s book Making Patriots (2006), to which Tom refers.

Berns thinks he can solve a fundamental problem of modern America, and wait till you hear what that problem is. People in America aren’t willing to sacrifice their lives to the state. They are too much devoted to their own selfish interests. To overcome this dire state of affairs, we need to establish a “civil religion” in the guise of patriotism.

Berns acknowledges that America was founded on individual rights, but he thinks there is a difficulty with overemphasis on Lockean rights to life, liberty, and property. No doubt, these have their proper place, and it is not a small one. But “patriotism means love of country and implies a readiness to sacrifice for it, to fight for it, perhaps even to give one’s life for it. But, aside from the legendary Spartans, why should anyone be willing to do this?…why should self-interested men believe it in their interest to give their lives for the idea or promise of their country?”

Things were different in the ancient world. In classical Athens, no conflicting loyalties stood between the citizen and his city: “Athenians were enjoined to be lovers of Athens because they were Athens—in a way, by loving their city, they loved themselves—and because, by gaining an empire, Athens provided them with the means by which they gained fame and glory.”

By no means does Berns seek to restore the ancient city. Quite the contrary, he recognizes that the “institutions of both Athens and Sparta were ordered with a view to war, and, precisely for this reason, neither Athens nor Sparta could, or can, provide a model for America.” Since the rise of Christianity, allegiance no longer can be undivided. The soul of the religious believer does not belong exclusively to the political community, and the great mistake of the French Revolution was its futile attempt to uproot the church and restore the ancient ways. The founders of the American Republic avoided this trap. So far, so good.

But Berns now asks an odd question. If Christianity cannot be eliminated, how can as much as possible of the unity of the ancient city be restored? His answer—and it is not a bad one given his premise—is that religion must be rigidly confined to the private sphere. In that way, the state may proceed toward its great tasks, unhindered by the scruples of believers. Though believers may practice their faith unmolested, they must realize that private conscience must always bow before the law.

Our author makes entirely clear that, on this matter, he is a thoroughgoing Hobbesian:

with the free exercise of one’s religion comes the requirement to obey the law regardless of one’s religious beliefs….Whether a law is just or unjust is a judgment that belongs to no “private man,” however pious or learned, or, as we say today, sincere he may be. This means that we are first of all citizens, and only secondarily Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other religious persuasion.

Thus, if your religion forbids you to fight, Berns would grant you no right to avoid military service. It may be a prudent policy for the government to make room for conscientious objectors, so long as they number but few. But their status is a privilege, and Berns does not hide his dismay with the Supreme Court for making “the exception the rule for anyone willing to invoke it.” No wonder Murray Rothbard said that Berns is an enemy of freedom.

So much for religion—or, rather, so much for religion that extends beyond devotion to the state. What is to replace it as an object of popular devotion? We cannot, of course, rely on so egotistic a notion as natural rights; instead, we need a national poet around whose work the emotions of the people can concentrate.

Fortunately, one is at hand: Abraham Lincoln. “As…Shakespeare was, or is, to the English (and Robert Burns to the Scots, Gabriele D’Annunzio to the Italians, and Homer to the Greeks) so Lincoln is to us; he is our spokesman, our poet.” Lincoln gives Berns exactly what he wants. His winged words, especially the Gettysburg Address and his second inaugural address, remind all Americans “that freedom is more than being left alone, that there is a price to be paid for it.” The great bloodletting that took place during Lincoln’s crusade was an essential means to bond all Americans together in love.

Berns’s argument rests on a false premise. Why should we think that a free people needs to be bonded together to defend their hearths and home from attack? Wars are rarely justified, but in the case of a genuine invasion, people don’t need a civil religion to defend themselves. Certainly we don’t need a religion that worships Lincoln.

 

Author:

Contact David Gordon

David Gordon is Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and editor of The Mises Review.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Kissing the Carter Doctrine Goodbye (Shouldn’t Be This Hard) | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on May 5, 2020

Should you be curious about why 9/11 happened, tracing U.S. efforts to implement the Carter Doctrine would be a good place to begin your inquiry.

By adhering to the Carter Doctrine, the United States has sown chaos across much of the region while inadvertently promoting radical Islamist terror. Should you be curious about why 9/11 happened, tracing U.S. efforts to implement the Carter Doctrine would be a good place to begin your inquiry.    

More war—that’s the answer. I’m guessing that by now President Carter himself might be having second thoughts. 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/kissing-the-carter-doctrine-goodbye-shouldnt-be-this-hard/

It has produced bloodshed, grief, and instability, but our esteemed foreign policy elite just cant let go.

(L-R) Pres. Carter and Saudi Arabia’s Prince Fahd at arrival ceremony on South Lawn of White House in 1977. (Photo by Mark Meyer/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty Images)

Writing in Foreign Policy, three distinguished members of the foreign policy establishment—Hal Brands of Johns Hopkins, Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Ken Pollack of the American Enterprise Institute—have issued a warning: Don’t look now, but President Trump appears intent on repudiating the Carter Doctrine. If he does, all the great successes achieved by U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf over the past several decades will be lost. This, they want you to believe, would be a terrible thing.

There is an alternative view and it goes like this: Dating from January 1980, the Carter Doctrine was a catastrophic error. Leading directly to the progressive militarization of U.S. policy in the Gulf, it has produced bloodshed, grief, and instability. Pursuant to the terms of the Carter Doctrine, the United States has spent trillions and sustained tens of thousands of casualties. We killed even more. By adhering to the Carter Doctrine, the United States has sown chaos across much of the region while inadvertently promoting radical Islamist terror. Should you be curious about why 9/11 happened, tracing U.S. efforts to implement the Carter Doctrine would be a good place to begin your inquiry.

You won’t hear any of that from the triumvirate of Brands, Cook, and Pollack. Theirs is a good news story —at least until Trump started screwing things up. Acting in accordance with the Carter Doctrine, they write, “the United States established and upheld the basic rules of conduct in the region.” Making that claim with a straight face requires ignoring a) U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s war of aggression against Iran, which began the very year of the Carter Doctrine’s promulgation; b) the vicious U.S. sanctions imposed on Iraq throughout the 1990s, punishing not Saddam, but the Iraqi people, c) the Axis of Evil cynically devised to create a fictitious rationale for attacking nations without any involvement in 9/11, d) the flagrantly illegal and reckless U.S. invasion of Iraq dating from 2003; e) the rise of ISIS and various Al Qaeda offshoots as a direct consequence of that failed war; and f) the embrace of assassination as an instrument of statecraft.

Brands, Cook, and Pollack do not explain how these actions accord with “basic rules of conduct,” merely conceding that the George W. Bush administration “botched the reconstruction of Iraq” as if the Iraq War were a really nifty idea that inexplicably didn’t turn out well.

A more accurate description of U.S. policy in the Gulf from the 1980s through the first decade of the twenty-first century would be this: Washington devised rules and then disregarded them whenever they proved inconvenient. More often than not, havoc resulted.

Brands, Cook, and Pollack correctly note that various initiatives undertaken under the aegis of the Carter Doctrine have ultimately redounded to the benefit of the Islamic Republic of Iran. But if Iran is a problem, they have a solution. Kick some ass.

They urge Trump to respond to “further acts of Iranian aggression”—it’s always the other side that commits aggression—“with strikes against Revolutionary Guard facilities, warships, ballistic missile sites, command and control nodes, or other valuable regime assets.” Brands, Cook, and Pollack want the United States “to strike hard enough to demonstrate both to Iran and to the world that it will not back down from a fight, and that if Iran chooses to escalate, so too will America.”

More war—that’s the answer. I’m guessing that by now President Carter himself might be having second thoughts.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around? | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on February 16, 2019

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-are-these-professional-war-peddlers-still-around-tucker-carlson-max-boot-bill-kristol/

By Tucker Carlson

One thing that every late-stage ruling class has in common is a high tolerance for mediocrity. Standards decline, the edges fray, but nobody in charge seems to notice. They’re happy in their sinecures and getting richer. In a culture like this, there’s no penalty for being wrong. The talentless prosper, rising inexorably toward positions of greater power, and breaking things along the way. It happened to the Ottomans. Max Boot is living proof that it’s happening in America…

Boot first became famous in the weeks after 9/11 for outlining a response that the Bush administration seemed to read like a script, virtually word for word. While others were debating whether Kandahar or Kabul ought to get the first round of American bombs, Boot was thinking big. In October 2001, he published a piece in The Weekly Standard titled “The Case for American Empire.”

“The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition,” Boot wrote. “The solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation.” In order to prevent more terror attacks in American cities, Boot called for a series of U.S.-led revolutions around the world, beginning in Afghanistan and moving swiftly to Iraq.

“Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul,” Boot wrote. “To turn Iraq into a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East: Now that would be a historic war aim. Is this an ambitious agenda? Without a doubt. Does America have the resources to carry it out? Also without a doubt.”

In retrospect, Boot’s words are painful to read, like love letters from a marriage that ended in divorce. Iraq remains a smoldering mess. The Afghan war is still in progress close to 20 years in. For perspective, Napoleon Bonaparte seized control of France, crowned himself emperor, defeated four European coalitions against him, invaded Russia, lost, was defeated and exiled, returned, and was defeated and exiled a second time, all in less time than the United States has spent trying to turn Afghanistan into a stable country.

Things haven’t gone as planned. What’s remarkable is that despite all the failure and waste and deflated expectations, defeats that have stirred self-doubt in the heartiest of men, Boot has remained utterly convinced of the virtue of his original predictions. Certainty is a prerequisite for Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

North Korea Is Walking Back War – And Pundits Are Strangely Disappointed – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on January 11, 2018

Why make agreements when you can bomb them back to the stoneage, make them a puppet and make $Billions for the MIC?

But as the pentagram continues to re-learn, once the shooting starts the plans go all to hell.

http://original.antiwar.com/feffer/2018/01/10/north-korea-walking-back-war-pundits-strangely-disappointed/

In talks this week at the DMZ, South Korea welcomed the participation of North Korea in the upcoming Winter Olympics. The two countries also discussed restarting reunions of divided families and reducing tensions on the Korean peninsula. Earlier, both sides reestablished their hotline.

All of this adult conversation is a welcome change from the war of epithets between the “dotard” president of the United States and the “little rocket man” in Pyongyang.

Strange, then, that a politically diverse set of pundits in the United States has been worried only about how North Korea could use these talks to drive a wedge between South Korea and the United States…. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »