Alza en Precio del petroleo es en parte por el riesgo de sanciones de E.U. a Venezuela (Español)

Estaba viendo noticias financieras y note que el precio del petroleo subio arriba de $50 por primera vez desde Mayo:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKBN1AH2SJ?il=0

Un poco relacionado a lo mismo, este domingo se llevo a cabo en Venezuela de la eleccion para una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente (ANC).
Las imagenes de las protestas en contra de la ANC fueron impactadoras (las vi por youtube):

Debido a eso, hoy me puse a pensar en las repercuciones que pudiera traer el caos en ese pais a nuestro pais (y a todo el mundo).
Por lo pronto, el departamento del tesoro de la administracion de Trump, hoy por medio de un comunicado acuso a Maduro de ser un dictador y acuso a su gobierno de usurpar la Asamblea Nacional (la que si fue elejida democraticamente). El comunicado es fuerte an tono pero en si, solo anuncia que todos los bienes personales de Maduro (sujetos a juridiccion Estado-Unidense) seran conjelados, y que se prohibira que EstadoUnidenses hagan tratos comerciales con el.

Pero no se menciona nada sobre el petroleo. Es posible que sea por el impacto que ese tipo de sanciones pudieran tener sobre el precio de la gasolina aqui.
El gobierno de Estados Unidos probablemente tiene en mente las repercuciones politicas que hubiera de la poblacion norteAmericana a sus gobernantes, si el mercado del petroleo se desestabiliza mucho y el precio de la gasolina sube demasiado. Aunque tambien hay que tomar en cuenta que una alza en el precio del petroleo beneficiarian a los productores de fracturacion hidraulica de este pais (que tambien son contribuyentes al partido republicano (y al democrata en algunos casos)).

Asi que hay muchos beneficiarios (pero tambien muchos perdedores) si el precio del petroleo sigue subiendo. Por lo cual, es dificil predecir si Estados Unidos impondra sanciones adicionales a Venezuela que afecten su produccion petrolera (y a los tratados entre los dos paises). Mientras tanto, en ese mismo articulo de Reuters (enlaze arriba), se indica que altos suministros de petroleo de OPEC han prevenido que el precio del petroleo siga subiendo mas.
Veremos que sucede en los siguientes dias.

Hiking in Arizona during monsoon season

Earlier this month I posted "No summer monsoon rain in Phoenix (so far)". & boy, was I wrong. Soon after, the storms started which is very welcome during the summer heat, but then the problems also began; wind damage, microbursts, uprooted trees, etc. In more tragic cases like in Payson, even death.

But for this morning, there was no rain forecast so I decided to go hiking.
Nevertheless, when I got to Camelback mountain there was drizzling rain. I thought about turning back & going home, but I just thought to myself "just hike slow & steady", "like a tank".
A young woman (friend of mine) once said that. We were hiking and she kept stopping wanting to take a rest. & at one point, she wanted to head back. A senior-citizen hiker whom we'd passed by earlier (slow & steady) walked right past us. I said to her:"See? If he can do it, you can too -- He's slow but he's advancing".
"He's slow -- Like a tank" she said.

So yes, I decided to hike "like a tank".
& still, despite my shoes not having enough thread for slippery rock it was a good hike (I did witness from afar a couple of people slip and fall, thankfully they were accompanied by friends or significant others & it ended up not being anything serious). But it is risky if you're not 100% focused on the hike, & even then I've fallen a few times on other occasions: it happens to everybody, you just gotta be alert & take precaution.

But it was worth the hike as always, the view from the top is always great (as you can see from the picture above).

North Korea launches yet another ballistic missile (& update: Trump wh's staff squabbles lead to Reince being pushed out)

When I woke up this morning and turned on the TV I expected news about the failure of #Trumpcare: instead I got this on my screen:

This morning's news about North Korea launching yet another ballistic missile puts the "the mooch" vs Reince war in perspective (if you don't know about that war: congratulations; just know they're two members of the white house staff). 

My main point is, Trump's white house's staff appears unable to get along among themselves. Which begs the question; how is this white house supposed to unite & project strength towards our enemies when a real crisis arises?

Now there's talk of Russia propping up the North Korea regime:

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/07/25/2017072501303.html

'Russia has roughly doubled oil shipments and other exports to North Korea even as the international community is working to turn off the spigot for the belligerent regime.

Moscow is fast emerging as a powerful backer of Pyongyang at a time when even China seems to be having second thoughts, and has been at the forefront of blocking discussion of further sanctions in the UN Security Council.

A government official in Seoul said on Monday, "There's something going on that the traditional Pyongyang-Moscow friendship alone isn't enough to explain. Moscow seems to be trying to squeeze in between Pyongyang and Beijing to raise leverage in its relations with Washington and Seoul."'

Also today, Russia seized 2 US properties and ordered US embassy staff to evacuate. It appears Russia and China sense the weakness & unpopularity of president Trump, and thus they intend to take full advantage of it in order to advance their interests. Hence, Trump needs to get his house in order quickly, so he can then begin to face the formidable powers trying to overtake the U.S. in the world stage.

"Trump Chief Of Staff Priebus Is Out — In Biggest White House Staff Shake-Up Yet"


http://www.npr.org/2017/07/28/531082618/trump-chief-of-staff-priebus-is-out-in-biggest-white-house-staff-shakeup-yet

Update: as you can see from the link above, I guess old RRRRReince lost the war & now he's out. 

Trump prefers "the mooch". For now at least, since it reminds me of what Rob Sheffield from "Rolling Stone" magazine said about the Iron Throne from GOT: "Sitting on the Iron Throne is like playing keyboard for the Grateful Dead - life expectancy tends to drop drastically". If you think about "sitting on the Iron throne" as serving in the Trump administration. 

Not that anyone who's served Trump is killed (thankfully), but they do seem to get fired regularly: Flynn, Comey, Spicer, kasowitz, Priebus, etc. How long will "the mooch" last?     

#Trumpcare disguised as the #SkinnyRepeal bill (Update: it fails to pass Senate)

I was watching CNN today when I came across this chyron: 'senators demand assurances house won't pass "skinny" repeal bill'.  It was a televised press conference from GOP senators Graham, McCain, Johnson, & Cassidy about how much they disliked the "skinny repeal bill". Graham even called it a "disaster, a fraud".  Yet these senators are willing to pass it if the house promises not to pass it: huh?
Ted Lieu put it best when he tweeted: "Note to #GOP Senate: Um, if you don't want #SkinnyRepeal to become law, you shouldn't vote for it. Did I really just write that sentence?"

We are at the absurd point where the U.S. healthcare insurance market will probably plunge into chaos, all because the GOP just want to pass any bill that resembles #Trumpcare (probably because these senators were pressured by the right-wing like little schoolboys bullied by school-yard bullies).

Waiting to see if the #SkinnyRepeal bill actually passes...

Update late tonight: dramatic night. But as you can see above, the senator from my state John McCain, made the difference in the #SkinnyRepeal bill failing to pass the senate.

Now, the right-wing machine will begin attacking McCain non-stop but I'm guessing at this point in his life, McCain doesn't care. Besides, the right-wing machine have been smearing McCain for decades, even Trump said he wasn't a war hero.
Who knows if #Trumpcare will eventually pass the senate. I believe the republicans will continue trying to repeal #Obamacare: it's in their nature. But at least for tonight, many people will prob rest easier knowing they'll still have health insurance.

Las sanciones Estado-Unidenses contra Venezuela pueden afectar negativamente a los 2 paises (Español)

Segun el NYTimes (en un articulo publicado el dia de hoy), las sanciones planeadas por Estados Unidos contra Venezuela pueden traer grandes riesgos para los 2 paises.
Gran parte del riesgo proviene del petroleo que Estados Unidos le compra a Venezuela, que es alrededor del 10% del petroleo total que Estados Unidos importa.

Segun el articulo, el regimen de Maduro se sigue tambaleando: no puede cumplir con sus obligaciones financieras, esta batallando para darle de comer a su pueblo, y esta teniendo dificultades para pagarle a los trabajadores petroleros, a los soldados, y a la policia. Si a todo esto se le agregan nuevas sanciones Estado-Unidenses, el golpe financiero adicional contra Venezuela pudiera ser devastador. Trayendo a consequencia conflictos en las calles aun mas violentos o un golpe de estado.

David L. Doldwyn, un miembro del departamento de Estado del convoy de Energia durante la administracion Obama, comento sobre las complicaciones que pudieran ocurrir a base de las sanciones, y de los problemas adicionales que pudieran surgir en Venezuela:

"Sanciones duras pueden llevar a un incumplimiento de sus bonos y a un colapso de sus inverciones internas y de su produccion de petroleo". "Otras repercusiones pueden incluir disturbios civiles, un flujo de refugiados fuera del pais, un corte de la ayuda financiera que provee Venezuela a Haiti y a Cuba, lo cual pudiera llevar a un flujo de migracion de esos paises a Estados Unidos".

Segun el articulo; tambien puede haber riesgo para Estados Unidos: un embargo puede hacer que los precios de la gasolina suban, arriesgando trabajos en areas productoras de petroleo en Estados Unidos y bajando ganancias para las grandes refinadoras. Y si la situacion sigue deteriorandose a un punto donde se pare por completo las exportaciones de petroleo Venezolano hacia Estados Unidos (Venezuela vende 700,000 barriles de petroleo al dia a Estados Unidos (de una produccion total de alrededor de 2 millones de petroleo al dia que es un poco mas del 2% de la produccion mumdial)), Chevron, Valero Energy, Phillips 66 y otras refinadoras se vieran forzadas a reemplazar el crudo pesado Venezolano con importaciones de lugares como Kuwait y Arabia Saudita, que produciera costos mas altos debido a los gatos de transportacion de barcos petroleros.

Segun el articulo, el problema inmediato es un plan que tiene Maduro de sostener una eleccion este fin de semana para una asamblea constituyente que pretende eludir al congreso controlado por la oposicion y escribir una nueva constitucion. La nueva asamblea, que fue hecha para ser dominada por grupos que apoyan al regimen, pretenderia consolidar mas control en las manos del presidente.

Esto que acabo de escribi es solo un resumen de como entendi yo el articulo. Pero los invito a leer el articulo por completo por si mismos (aun si esta en English):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/venezuela-sanctions-oil-maduro-vote.html

If you want to stop #Trumpcare: call your senator (here's their number)

Senate republicans are trying to repeal Obamacare with proposals bearing ridiculous titles like "skinny repeal". 

"Skinny repeal" would repeal individual and employer mandates as well as the medical device tax, and it hasn't even been scored by the C.B.O. (though repealing the individual mandate means premiums would spike and the number of uninsured would rise: according to C.B.O. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/upshot/skinny-obamacare-repeal-would-clash-with-republicans-health-care-promises.html)


The NYTimes also has an article about what US citizens can do to try to prevent any sort of #Trumpcare proposals from taking effect:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/opinion/citizen-action-on-health-care.html

The article makes some important points (among them):

 "The Republican leadership’s strategy for repealing Obamacare has depended on secrecy.

No hearings. Little public debate. Few town-hall meetings. Rushed votes. And, in a depressing spectacle yesterday, a Senate vote to move a bill forward even though neither the senators themselves nor their constituents know which bill is actually under consideration."

"Is there anything that concerned citizens can do? Yes, there is.

“The next 24 hours are critical. The public blowback must be immediate and overwhelming,”

Topher Spiro, a former Congressional aide who opposes the various bills, wrote yesterday."

I was searching the web trying to find John McCain's number (the senator who represents me. McCain's number is (202) 224-2235 btw). & I just thought I'd just post a link to the site where I got the senator's information from (in case you'd like to call your own senator (which I think you should)):

https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Senate votes to consider #Trumpcare. How each senator voted:

As protesters in the Senate gallery chanted “Don’t kill us, kill the bill!”, GOP senators today voted to begin debating Trumpcare. Afterwards, Trump said; "we had two Republicans that went against us, which is very sad, I think. It’s very, very sad for them.” Obviously, Trump is threatening any GOP senator who'd dare vote against Trumpcare.

The NYTimes has a helpful guide about how each senator voted (unfortunately, Trump's intimidation works: the two senators from my state of Arizona: Jeff Flake and John McCain voted yes):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/25/us/politics/senate-vote-republican-health-care-bill.html

Mueller's #TrumpRussia investigation's "legal dream team"

I watched a "Vice news" youtube video last night;

Mueller's Legal Dream Team & D.A.R.E.: https://youtu.be/IABnNawIRdE

The video is very helpful in introducing the highly-qualified professionals Mueller has hired to investigate #TrumpRussia (you should watch it). Upon watching the video, you will definitely understand why Trump's so worried with the knowledge this "legal dream team" is conducting an investigation into his shady finances.

In fact, Trump is so worried about Mueller's investigation, he's getting desperate in his effort to either fire or have AG Sessions resign (in order for the Donald to appoint an AG who'd be able to fire or undermine Mueller).

This Trump tweet from early this morning is astounding (can you imagine if Obama had attacked Holder this way?):

Now there's talk of either the hated Ted Cruz or Rudy Giuliani being appointed as AG when Sessions is eventually forced out. But why'd they even take the job? My guess is, Cruz would rather stay as Texas senator as opposed to being the next fired Trump AG in a few months.
And Giuliani would rather avoid being involved in a potential conflict of interest due to him being (sort of) part of Trump's campaign when the (alleged) potential collusion with Russia was being perpetrated. Nevertheless, for Trump, it appears desperate times call for...

Increases in home prices are outpacing wage gains

A house was put up for sale in my 'hood recently. So I obviously searched the internet right away to see what they were asking for and was surprised to see the price (I live in a working-class mixed-race neighborhood not some rich-people-enclave). My first thought was "who can afford these prices?".
But that's the reality of trying to afford to live in this country.
Thus, I wasn't surprised to see a NYTimes article today titled "U.S. home sales stumble as prices hit record high".

Home prices are going up, but at the same time employers and corporations are not increasing wages for workers. So I'm not sure how society is supposed to function properly when everybody is in debt: medical, utility bills, college loans, car payments, and now the inflated (I belive) price of housing.

According to the NYTimes article, the median house price jumped 6.5 percent from a year ago to an all-time high of $263,800 in June. How are young millennial families first starting out supposed to afford a home at those prices?

According to the article, the increase in the price of houses is a result of many different factors, including:

"Homebuilders are struggling to plug the inventory gap amid rising costs of lumber. Homebuilding is also being constrained by shortages of labour and land."

And then there's Trump, who keeps saying #MAGA. Yet I don't see any solutions to this most important problem of affording a house. This week, the only thing congress seems to want to accomplish is #Trumpcare which would actually mean more medical debt for the working-class. Because it would include the decimation of Medicaid which would make things worse for medical emergencies and senior care in the future. 

But back to home prices, The NYTimes article is an interesting if somewhat depressing read (link below)

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/07/24/business/24reuters-usa-economy.html

Are Trump loyalists plotting to oust Sessions?

Trump had a tweet today where he appears to confirm talks between Sessions, and Russian diplomat Sergei Kislyak, did take place during the 2016 campaign (see image above) https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/888708453560184832?p=v.

              & now, republican Chuck Grassley is urging the "leaker" who shared the
              aforementioned information to "leak the FULL text immediately so it can be
              investigated/help stop speculation":
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/chuck-grassley-urges-leaker-to-release-full-text-on-jeff-  sessions-russia-talks-end-speculation/article/2629426

It seems suspicious to me that spy agencies are releasing this information now. & that Trump loyalists (like Grassley) are bringing attention to it. Could it be a way to embarrass Sessions so he will resign?
I think Sessions is unlikely to resign as AG (he's on a power trip; putting more effort into the "war on drugs", deporting Latinos, etc.) & I doubt Trump will fire him (& risk alienating rightwingers): but who knows?

This appears to me to be Trump loyalists trying to oust our current AG because the Donald is unhappy Sessions can't fire Mueller (since Sessions recused himself). Rachel Maddow made a good point during last night's broadcast of her show, when she said Trump firing Sessions is the easiest way for the Donald to assign an AG who'd quickly fire or undermine Mueller.

As much as I dislike Sessions, & what he's doing to divide undocumented immigrants's families, I still think he shouldn't resign or be fired just because Trump wants the Russia investigation to go away.

That's where we're at at this point in the Trump presidency, hoping a radical rightwinger like Sessions stays as AG so that the #TrumpRussia investigation continues.

Sean Spicer resigns

I was reading the NYTimes this morning & was surprised (but not really) to see right across the top of the page: Sean Spicer is resigning because "he vehemently disagreed with" Trump's choice for a new communications director:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/us/politics/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary.html

I think there's more to the story than just disagreeing with "choice for new communications director". It might be as complex but at the same time as simple as most human relations are: Spicer was ridiculed and attacked by the press (rightly so, I think), and for all his troubles, Trump didn't even allow him to meet the Pope and seemed to constantly undermine him. In addition, Bannon called him "fat" & everybody (including Trump) made fun of him because he was played by a female comic (Melissa McCarthy) on SNL.

On top of that, Trump has no loyalty to his supporters (see his recent attacks on Sessions who was with Trump from the beginning). Thus, Spicer probably thought it'd be best to cut his losses and get to hell out of the dysfunctional Trump white house. & who can blame him?

#TrumpRussia investigation: Mueller looking into Trump's family business

A friend once told me; it's not so much the collusion with Russian hackers that Trump's trying to hide, but more like his shady dealings with Russian Oligarchs. "The only way Trump got to the place he's at, after all those bankruptcies, is by doing illegal transactions" she said, "The Donald has a lot to hide".

Upon hearing today's news about special counsel Mueller's investigation of Trump's family business, I now believe my friend may be right.

Bloomberg has a concise report about what Mueller might be up to at this point in the #TrumpRussia investigation (we don't know for sure though, because Mueller is running a tight ship (or at least a leakFree operation)):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-20/mueller-is-said-to-expand-probe-to-trump-business-transactions

"FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development in New York with Russian associates, the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008, the person said."

"The Justice Department’s May 17 order to Mueller instructs him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign” as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation,” suggesting a relatively broad mandate.""

"Agents are interested in dealings with the Bank of Cyprus, where Wilbur Ross served as vice chairman before he became commerce secretary. In addition, they are examining the efforts of Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law and senior aide, to secure financing for some of his family’s real-estate properties. The information about the investigation was provided by someone familiar with the developing inquiry but not authorized to speak publicly."

Trump rages at Sessions because of Russia investigation

I just read the article by the NYTimes in which they interview Trump. The following is an excerpt of what the news media is talking about:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html

'But Mr. Trump left little doubt during the interview that the Russia investigation remained a sore point. His pique at Mr. Sessions, in particular, seemed fresh even months after the attorney general’s recusal..."

“Jeff Sessions takes the job, gets into the job, recuses himself, which frankly I think is very unfair to the president,” he added. “How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair — and that’s a mild word — to the president.”

Mr. Trump also faulted Mr. Sessions for his testimony during Senate confirmation hearings when Mr. Sessions said he had not had “communications with the Russians” even though he had met at least twice with Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak. “Jeff Sessions gave some bad answers,” the president said. “He gave some answers that were simple questions and should have been simple answers, but they weren’t.”'

I am surprised (like everyone) by Trump saying he wouldn't have hired Sessions. Mind you, he's saying this on the "failing New York Times" no less.
To paraphrase the Donald: "What the hell is going on?"

There's a lot of questions & few answers: What does it mean for Sessions & for the rest of the Trump loyalists? Will Sessions resign? Does the fact Trump is calling out Sessions in the hated-by-the-right-wing-#fakeNews-NYTimes make a difference?
If you have a boss and your boss publicly said he wouldn't have hired you. & in addition, your boss accused you of giving "some bad answers" during a testimony: would you resign?

Despite being criticized by Trump in the paper of record, I still think Sessions won't resign. Because Sessions has a very powerful position from where he's enacting his right-wing agenda, and I bet Sessions thinks he can outlast Trump if he plays his cards right. But we'll see; the next few days should be interesting.  

Trump says: "We'll let Obamacare fail"

Trump says "We'll let Obamacare fail":

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/politics/trump-health-care-failure/index.html%2BTrump+let+obamacare+fail&client=safari&rls=en&hl=en&ct=clnk

Incredible, but it appears Trump is more interested in getting back at Obama than in actually improving the U.S. healthcare system.
Then again, it shouldn't come as a surprise. Because, if you look at most of the executive orders Trump has signed, you'll see that most of those orders have been specifically made to undo Obama's legacy:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-executive-orders-memorandum-proclamations-presidential-action-guide-2017-1

Which is why I believe Trump wants to see Obamacare fail, because the program (despite being called ACA) is popularly known as Obamacare, thus it has the name Obama on it. It may be as simple as that. In Trump's mind: Obama = very bad, therefore Obamacare = very bad healthcare.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/opinion/trumpcare-obamacare-let-it-fail.html

According to a NYTimes editorial (link above):

"While the Affordable Care Act is not collapsing, the Senate and House health bills and President Trump’s promises to sabotage the A.C.A. have destabilized some of the health insurance marketplaces created by that law. Nearly 40 counties in Indiana, Nevada and Ohio are at risk of having no insurers participating in the marketplaces next year; other counties will have only one company offering policies."

"In addition, policies sold in the marketplaces could cost a lot more if the Trump administration carries out its threats to stop providing subsidies to insurers to lower deductibles for low-income and middle-income people. It can do that through administrative action."

Knowing Trump and his use of executive action to undo Obama's policies, Trump will probably take all necessary steps to sabotage Obamacare. But then what? Despite having a majority in the senate, the republicans don't appear capable of passing a healthcare bill which they can all agree upon (republicans can't even come to a consensus amongst themselves, let alone reach across the aisle to Democrats).
Trump & the GOP first need to understand the dynamics of the senate and the country, in order to then do what's best for the people of the United States.

But I'm not too optimistic, since Trump doesn't seem capable of understanding the huge implications of letting a huge healthcare program (which is providing millions of Americans with health insurance) fail.
Case in point; the fact that the program is popularly called Obamacare appears to be at least one of the reasons Trump wants to see it fail.

Trump & republicans threaten to repeal #Obamacare without immediate replacement

This morning, Trump took to Twitter to say: "Republicans should just REPEAL failing ObamaCare now & work on a new Healthcare Plan that will start from a clean slate. Dems will join in!".

Unbelievable, Trump still think he's a Twitter troll who can just text BS on his smartphone without consequences. He's tweeting about Republicans like I would tweet about Democrats: difference is; (as I've said before) HE"S THE PRESIDENT. That type of nonsense is expected from Trump, but when I was watching the news this morning, McConnell suddenly appeared on my screen. McConnell stated he'd also like to repeal Obamacare and wait two years to see what happens.
I gotta say; it appears Trump's irresponsibility is rubbing off on McConnell (or maybe it was the other way around all along?).

I say irresponsible because, according to the CBO, a repeal of Obamacare would result in 18 million uninsured people within a year:

"Speaking on the Senate floor on Tuesday morning, Mr. McConnell laid out plans for a vote on a measure like the one vetoed by Mr. Obama in January 2016, which, Mr. McConnell said, would include a “repeal of Obamacare combined with a stable, two-year transition period.”

Under that bill, the Congressional Budget Office said, 18 million more people would be uninsured within a year, and 32 million fewer people would have coverage in 2026, compared with current law. Premiums, it said, would increase at least 20 percent in the first year and would double by 2026."

Thankfully, as I was writing this post, another article appeared on the NYTimes website titled "Plan C on Obamacare, repeal now, replace later, has collapsed":

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/us/politics/republicans-obamacare-repeal-now-replace-later.html

So it appears some GOP senators (namely Collins, Moore Capito, & Murkowski) are showing (at least) a little bit of common sense.
Nevertheless, I still don't trust the GOP (for obvious reasons) and I know they'll keep #Trumpcare alive somehow. Just remember, it's no surprise some on Twitter took to calling it "Zombie #Trumpcare".

Will Trump return Washington/NewYork compounds back to Russia?

I was talking with a friend this weekend who I hadn't seen in a while. & during our conversation, she mentioned the Donald junior story, then asked me what I thought about it. So of course, I gave my long-winded opinion. She did sound very upset about Russian intervention in the election which kind of surprised me (because I didn't know she cared that much).

Our conversation kept going until we somehow got to the time (right before leaving office) when Obama took New York & Washington property away from the Russians. My friend incorrectly said Trump had already returned those properties. So I said "I don't think so". Sure enough, after googling the issue, I found that those properties have not been returned. "But it's only a matter of time" she said; always wanting to have the last word.

Nevertheless, I did remember back when the Obama administration first seized the compounds; the Russians didn't seem to care too much about it (they even invited American families & children to a Christmas/NewYear's event at the Kremlin). It's obvious Putin was sure Trump would return the properties.

But now, since it's been six months of the Trump administration and the compounds have not been returned, the Russians are "stepping up the pressure" (according to this bloomberg article; link below):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-17/russia-raises-heat-on-trump-over-seized-property-ahead-of-talks

It'll be interesting to see if Trump caves to Putin & returns the properties thus proving my friend (& many others) right.

At least 9 people die in Arizona flash flooding

This evening, the local news reported that at least 9 people died in flash flooding in Payson, Arizona (90 miles northeast of Phoenix).
I was just thinking about how on my last hiking post I complained about the high-humidity & lack of rain here in Phoenix during the beginning of the monsoon season. This tragedy occurring nearby certainly puts everything into perspective. Another harrowing reminder about the unpredictability of the summer monsoon season, and how it can quickly become a life-or-death situation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/us/arizona-flash-floods-kills.html

The NYTimes has an article about it (link above) with more details. It states six of the victims were children, and the tragedy occurred in a swimming hole called "cold springs" which is part of the "Verde River system". The article also states "flash flooding has caused more deaths in the state than any other thunderstorm-related hazard". So take all necessary precautions during monsoon season (which lasts through september):  http://www.monsoonsafety.org/safety-prep/

No summer Monsoon rain in Phoenix (so far)

I took the picture above while hiking Camelback mountain a couple years ago during the summer monsoon season; obvious moisture in the atmosphere but no rain. It's been the same this year.
We haven't had rain so far this summer (I live in Phoenix) & it's been disappointing. The trees around my house obviously benefit from the rain, not to mention we enjoy a drop (however small) in temperatures.

I've been a little worried because last year by this time we'd already had a couple storms. & I just hope when we actually do get rain, it is not a huge storm which causes flooding or damage (we shall see). Nevertheless, according to the weather forecasters (supposedly) we'll have rain this weekend.

I gotta say; I hope it rains in the next couple of days even if it ruins my weekend hiking plans.

A few months into the Trump presidency; will #Trumpcare #MAGA?

"Pomp and circumstance" is all I've heard from the cable news channels this morning, because Trump is in France for some reason (Macron wants something from the U.S. probably), I could see Obama going to France to dine with Macron at the "Le Jules Verne" too. Hence #MAGA appears to mean make America stay the same. Although I shouldn't say that, because who knows what's going on behind the scenes as far as gutting environmental & labor regulations? & Goldman Sachs is firmly represented in Trump's cabinet; so who know what's going on with bank regulations?

But so far, from what I can see (by watching "noticias Univison") with Trump the only tangible change has been deportations going up & immigrant families being separated. Thus, Agriculture as well as other industries which rely on cheap labor are having a hard time finding workers (Although; maybe those industries should pay more to find American workers?).

I've done well during the Obama years (thank God) & the foundation of the economic progress following the crisis of '08 seems to be strong, thus I expect to do well during any presidency (hopefully). But I thought Trump was going to #MAGA? And what does that mean exactly?
So far, Republicans are just trying to cut Medicaid, give tax cuts to the rich, & today they're even still trying to attack Hillary for "colluding" with Ukraine (? ) (Isn't the neverending '16 election over? Besides, even if Ukraine wanted Hillary to win; wouldn't that prove the Trump administration is pro-Russia? Since Ukraine is pro-West and is in conflict with Russia?).

But anyways, back to #MAGA. In this country, is up to you to do well, but luck has a lot to do with it as well. If you were lucky to be born into a stable family with stable income, or had parents who had built up wealth, you're probably doing well (or maybe not: everybody has different circumstances).
Among other things, the government can provide infrastructure, education, national security, and a "social safety net" in case you fall on hard times. Following today's senate unveiling of the new #Trumpcare bill, it appears the GOP thinks destroying the "social safety net" will #MAGA.

I don't think so.

GOP vow to press ahead with #Trumpcare bill

Amidst the chaos of the Donald Trump Junior scandal, the republicans are vowing to press ahead with their effort to pass #Trumpcare. 
The following article in the NYTimes reveals several important details about this terrible bill:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/senate-republicans-health-bill.html

Like the "Ted Cruz proposal": 

"...proposal by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, that would allow insurers to sell stripped-down insurance policies if they also offered at least one plan that complied with federal insurance standards under the Affordable Care Act. Under this proposal, insurers could, for example, omit coverage of certain services like maternity care or mental health care."

"Critics of his proposal say it would create two insurance markets: an inexpensive one for the young and healthy, and another, far more expensive one for sick and older Americans that could price those with pre-existing medical conditions out of the market."

Also, the unpopular #Trumpcare bill would still include "deep cuts" in Medicaid spending:

"About two-thirds of the increase in the projected number of uninsured Americans would result from deep cuts in expected Medicaid spending, the budget office said. The bill would impose caps on Medicaid spending and would roll back the expansion of the program under the Affordable Care Act."


It'd be great if I'm proven wrong, but I doubt it; I believe the GOP's wealthy donors want their tax-cuts badly, thus #Trumpcare is very likely to be rammed through by the GOP. 

We can only hope the constituents affected (& even those not affected but who have a conscience) respond accordingly & stop #Trumpcare in its track.

Senate GOP might still pass a #Trumpcare bill (Plus the Don jr. story)

If #Trumpcare passes the senate (which might be a reality since the GOP is hellbent on cutting taxes for the rich), it'll have a devastating effect on all of us, including working-class families, poor people & (with the decimation of Medicaid) on future retirees in nursing homes. The media should be covering this issue nonstop. Instead, all we'll hear from the mainstream media today's probably gonna be the Donald Trump junior story.

Nevertheless, I do understand the economic reality of the Don junior story for a newsmedia obsessed with ratings (though to be fair: all media conglomerates are obsessed with ratings). The story has many rating-generating story-lines; a celebrity offspring, a female Russian agent, potential treason, dirty politics. McConnell probably loves it too: the Don junior story allows Mitch to work behind-the-scenes on passing #Trumpcare while we're not paying attention to his machinations.

Don't get me wrong: it is important to cover #TrumpRussia. But not at the expense of shining a light on McConnell still trying to pass the terrible #Trumpcare bill.

As far as the meeting between Don junior & Natalia; it's clear Trump jr should've called the FBI as soon as he was contacted by Veselnitskaya. Instead, Junior went to the meeting thus giving a sign to the Russians to go ahead and attack the Hillary campaign. Junior is not the brightest bulb of the bunch. He might've started this whole #TrumpRussia collusion by himself as a consequence of his ill-conceived meeting with a Russian agent.

I'll admit I'm susceptible too; I watched MSNBC last night because I knew the Don junior story had broken. But you'd hope newsmedia editorial staff were more responsible than an average viewer, and therefore had more concern for public awareness of upcoming legislation.

Legislation, I might add, which might affect a large percentage of their audience.

Should we ignore Trump's tweets?

I'm always hearing news about the Donald being in a stupid Twitter war with one person or another. Last week, the person was "morning Joe" (?). Today, the person is Chelsea Clinton (Chelsea? I guess we're still in the never-ending 2016 election (with a hint of 90's nostalgia)).

Based on the aforementioned inane tweets, should people ignore Trump's twitter account?

I admit this came to mind while I was reading an opinion article in the  "Phoenix New Times". 

The article urges the media to ignore Trump's tweets:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/time-for-cnn-media-to-ignore-president-donald-trumps-tweets-9484627 

The article makes some valid points but also gets into some non-issues like attacking CNN's Fredricka Whitfield for misspeaking about the Dallas shooter (that's another story entirely, but point taken).  

But back to Trump & Twitter; don't get me wrong, I get angry about Trump's tweets too, and I start "furiously" responding to him. In addition, I retweet what I considered to be the best replies against his "tweetstorms". 

But it is getting old.  

And speaking of old, It seems to me Trump is like a grandpa who's starting to forget what he said, then argues he never said such things in the first place. & has a Twitter account to blab his contradictions (like Trump vs Trump on cyber security) & divulge his conspiracies (Obama "tapped" his phones). The Donald also reminds me of the old right-wing uncle who's always watching Fox News and retweeting whatever "news" Fox is choosing to propagate (always putting Trump in a positive light of course). At some point, we tune such people out. The reason I haven't tuned out Trump is because HE'S THE PRESIDENT.

And I don't know if I'm at the point where I can just ignore the Donald & his tweets. Simply because some of the replies against Trump are interesting, funny, and informative. Hence, some of the interesting, smart (progressive) Twitter people should keep tweeting and replying @ the Donald. 

Still, more often than not I find myself paying less attention to Trump's tweets.

Rachel Maddow says she doesn't pay attention to Trump's Tweets at all. According to her, it's more important to focus on what the Trump administration is doing as opposed to what they're saying.

I think that's right. Nevertheless, some journalists and comedians should continue to keep Trump's twitter account in check, by hopefully replying in an agressive but smart, funny & engaging manner.

 

Que estados controla cada cartel en Mexico (en Español)

Hoy me puse a leer la nueva revista de Rolling Stone (subscribete en www.RollingStone.com) y encontre una historia sobre la guerra contra los carteles y los nuevos jefes que surgen cuando otros jefes son encarcelados o ejecutados. Parece que la historia contenida en la revista todavia no esta disponible en la edicion digital de "Rolling Stone" (yo voy a actualizar este mensaje cuando suban el articulo). Mientras tanto, tome una foto con mi Telefono de algo que se me hizo interesante: es un mapa de las areas que los carteles controlan en los diferentes estados de Mexico.

Yo pienso que esta es informacion relevante para la gente en Mexico (simplemente para saber a que atenerce uno).

**Update: "Rolling Stone" publico la historia (de donde obtuve el mapa arriba) en su edicion digital:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-brutal-rise-of-el-mencho-w491405

The Trump/Putin meeting in Hamburg

I don't have anything against the Russian people; in fact (being on the left side of the ideological specter) I admire the fact they did their part (& then some) in defeating fascism. And for that, they suffered in a corrupt system which failed, & they had a Cold War with us which they lost. I gotta be honest though, I'm grateful to be living in the country which actually won the Cold War & then prospered (no matter what; everybody wants to be on the winning side: am I right?).

Anyway, I remember as a kid learning about the Soviet Union from the adults in my family (the republican side of the family) about how Reagan supposedly defeated "those damn Russians" with the "arms race" or whatever.
But it seems to me the Soviet Union collapsed due to poor planning as well as not diversifying their economy, & not taking advantage of their endless supply of resources all thoroughout Eastern Europe.

But all of it is in the past. And don't get me wrong, I don't mind having a friendly relationship with Russia at this moment: I believe in dialogue as opposed to conflict.

Given all that, I don't know what to make of #TrumpRussia: I do enjoy watching Maddow and all those MSNBC shows which have stories about the potential collusion. But at the end of the day, now it's all in Mueller's capable hands.
Which brings me to Trump & his meeting with Putin. I heard a CNN analyst call it "presidential". Given Trump's supposedly "alpha" style of handshakes with other world leaders, I actually saw it as weak.

Trump even seemed to rub Putin's back at one point.

Now imagine a "bizarro" world (Seinfeld reference) where Hillary Clinton had developed a good relationship with Putin during her tenure as secretary of state. Let's say for example she had been a radical socialist in her young age (instead of the Goldwater young republican she actually was) who had admired the Soviet Union thus been seduced by Putin's view of the world.

Now imagine, if in this "bizarro" world (but very similar to this world), Putin had used his hackers and his weaponized digital warfare to inject "fake news" into the social-media political battlefield of 2016 to attack the republicans thus making sure Hillary won.

I suppose the same events which have taken place so far in this world (up to the appointment of a special counsel) would have also taken place in the "bizarro" world. Only instead of MSNBC, Fox news would be the one having big ratings by investigating the "Hillary/Putin Russian connection".
Now imagine if in this bizarro world, Hillary had met Putin in Germany during the G20 and had smiled sweetly at Putin while rubbing his back, would CNN analysts be calling her behavior "presidential"?

I don't think so.

Hamburg, Germany G20 Protests

While watching the news this morning (about the large-scale protests in Hamburg: which of course, the presence of unpopular Trump is probably making more Europeans attend), it makes me think about how docile we-the-people are here in the United States.

The government wants to take what little health-care protections we have away from us, doesn't provide quality education (unless you pay dearly for it), most income goes to the 1%, etc. etc. & we-the-people just take it. The U.S. population has grown fat and detached; more interested in reality TV stars and sports than engaged in politics. I include myself in that department to be honest: more interested in watching sports events with friends (Canelo is gonna fight!) or binge-watching series on Netflix when I'm not out hiking (getting away from it all supposedly).

That's the thing with the U.S., you get sucked into the materialistic idea of a what a good life means.
Instagram and facebook the pictures of where you went this weekend and who you were with.
Meanwhile, the system keeps working against you. I don't condone violence against police officers but the population does have a right to protest (as was peacefully proven by the Women's march early this year). But events like that particular march are few and far between. In Europe, protests appear to be a regular occurrence; which is a good thing if you want to keep the government in check.

Incremento de violencia en Mexico y la "guerra contra las drogas" (Español)

Segun el siguiente articulo de la publicacion Britanica "Guardian" (titulado "Tiroteo entre carteles deja a 26 muertos en mas reciente choque"), analistas atribuyen el incremento de violencia en Mexico a varios factores; incluyendo el hecho de que los carteles Mexicanos estan cambiando el enfoque de sus operaciones contrabandistas a los Estados Unidos, de la marihuana a la heroina, trayendo como consequencia una ola de violencia en el estado de Guerrero (que es un productor de la amapola de opio).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/05/drug-cartel-mexico-shootout-el-chapo

El articulo indica que otro factor ha sido la estrategia federal de capturar o matar a los jefes (de jefes) de los carteles, ya que despues de esas capturas, los de los puestos mas bajos del cartel y sus rivales, comienzan a pelearse por el negocio. Tambien, cambios en gobiernos estatales (como en Chihuahua y Sinaloa) han contribuido a la matanza, ya que arreglos (formales e informales) entre politicos y jefes de la mafia son volcados o se tienen que volver a negociar.    

Es muy triste lo que esta pasando en Mexico, pero parte del problema (pienso yo) es la gran demanda por drogas que hay aqui en Estados Unidos (lo que trae como consecuencia la violencia interminable en nuestro vecino de sur). Un punto importante en el reporte del "Guardian" es el hecho de que los carteles estan cambiando el enfoque de su contrabando, de la marihuana a la heroina: debe ser por la legalizacion de la marihuana en varios estados de Estados Unidos (incluyendo en el gigantesco estado de California). 

Esto es muy interesante para mi, ya que yo soy de los que pienso que legalizar la droga en Estados Unidos resolveria muchos de los problemas que acarrean los carteles. 

Todo parece indicar que la legalizacion de la marihuana en Estados Unidos esta forzando a que los carteles Mexicanos reevaluen sus operaciones. La pregunta es; que droga seria demasiado peligrosa como para legalizarse? Definitivamente la metanfetamina, pero, y la heroina?  

Esas son algunas de las preguntas que tendriamos que contestar antes de legalizar las drogas (aparte de la marihuana).  

What's next for the U.S. economy?

Despite the flat market today, from my point of view (which is that of relatively young guy), I believe the fundamentals of the economy appear to be strong.
Here in Phoenix, you can actually see the economy chugging along: simply by looking at the construction of new freeways and the sale of new homes. Also, the remodeling and resale of old homes as well as the great number of people who are moving here from other states. On a national level, you can see it by the fact we are at or near full-employment.

It wasn't always like this. When Obama took office in 2009, the economy was in free-fall. Thankfully, among other actions, Obama injected the stimulus into the economy, bailed out the American auto industry, and passed regulations so Banks wouldn't make the same mistakes that led to the '08 crash.

All of which brings us to Trump, and what exactly is he going to do to keep the economy going. If we look at his track record of legislation up to this point, I don't think Trump's gonna do much, but we'll see.

What I am afraid of, is what the negative effect of Trump not doing much is going to have on the psychic of the consumer and thus the economy.

My previous point (above) is the main premise of an article in the NYTimes business section today (link below):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/upshot/confidence-boomed-after-the-election-the-economy-hasnt.html?mcubz=2

The article states that despite strong consumer optimism, the economy hasn't had concrete economic gains. Most importantly, at the end of the article the author finds a clue in the partisan breakdown of sentiment surveys; much of the boom in consumer confidence after Trump was elected was due to "conservatives feeling more giddy about their side winning".

Conservative sentiment aside, as I said at the beginning of my post, I do believe the fundamentals of the economy are strong. But what'll happen next is what worries me: the republicans control all branches of government (President, House of Representatives, as well as the Senate) and they have a strong economic foundation on which to build on: will it mean better wages? Better education? Better healthcare? Since I'm not a conservative I'm not too optimistic thus my "consumer confidence" is low.

But I do hope I'm wrong.

Hiking vs staying home and playing video games

"Why Some Men Don’t Work: Video Games Have Gotten Really Good"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/upshot/why-some-men-dont-work-video-games-have-gotten-really-good.html?ref=business

 I went hiking today because I think it's healthy to stop consuming news, and just get away once in a while. Plus I had the day off because of the long holiday weekend: Happy 4th of July! 

I just wish I had more free time to explore Arizona beyond the mountains near the valley (see my Camelback mtn. picture above). That's why I found the article in the NYTimes (link and picture above) surprising.

According to the article, between 2004 and 2015, young men's leisure time grew by 2.3 hours a week. And a majority of that increase was spent playing video games. 

I couldn't imagine staying at home playing video games instead of going outside and doing something interesting or productive. In all fairness through, who am I to judge you if your hobby is playing video games?

Nevertheless, I'll write about it, because (being a relatively young man myself) I've known coworkers, friends, and family in the age group described in the NYTimes article above. From what I've witnessed, some young men are able to play video games without it affecting their social life; one young man I knew even had his social life enhanced, and his new gaming girlfriend would defend the fact that he'd always be playing video games. Others played a lot of video games but eventually grew out of it and started families and careers. But in some cases, it does become a day and night obsession. This is anecdotal, but in the most extreme case, I knew a man over thirty who moved back to this parent's house, and despite being fired from his job for always being late, he'd still play video games all day.

I do love the graphics and the realistic design of modern video games, because I remember the primitive aspect of the old video games I used to play as a kid. This is probably why early on I decided not to play modern video games because I knew I'd probably get hooked. It seems to me that most young men did not arrive at the same conclusion, and instead chose to play video games consequences be damned.