Reason and Russia

Let’s get back to reason.

Brexit did not happen because of Russia.

It probably had more to do with the fact that legal superiority of Community law over the laws of British Parliament implemented in the UK under the European Communities Act section 2(1) is illegal and unconstitutional under UK law.

It also might have something to do with most of the laws the subjects of the UK are forced to accept originate, not from British Parliament, but from unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.

The UK wants to be ruled by people they directly elect. That’s reasonable. If you’re against or confused by this, then Brexit must have been caused by the Boogie Man, which, happens to be the Russians this week.

Donald Trump was elected, and turned US states Republican that haven’t voted that way since the early 20th century. Many people simply didn’t like or trust Hillary Clinton. It’s reasonable to fathom that Trump voters who elected him were tired of the slowest economic recovery in recent history. If you can’t understand that, then Trump must have been elected by nefarious Russian agents in the Kremlin and the United States.

If you’re interested in election meddling, here’s a brief history. The United States has interfered in elections in Cuba, Nicaragua, Angola, Panama, Dominican Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Chile, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq and Guatemala among others. Hillary Clinton personally intervened in elections in Haiti and Honduras. What’s more, the Obama administration hacked into Angela Merkel’s email and the emails of the European Commission (and probably more that we don’t know of).

Why President Obama would want to spy on the European Commission is still a mystery. Perhaps he was really keen on discovering the results of the EU’s investigation of whether water can help in hydration or not (that actually was an EU investigation). Nevertheless, this is what countries do to every other country. Recall Germany and the European Union trying to influence elections in Poland, Austria, and Hungry. The EU tries to influence referendums in the UK, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and other EU member states by punishing them for wanting self-determination. I guess fear is the best motivation for keeping that horrible experiment alive.

The whole job description of the State Department, or any other country’s foreign ministry, is to attempt to influence events and collect information in other countries. Did Russia publishing of some of Mrs. Clinton’s emails somehow get the thousands and thousands of counties in the US with each their own voting systems to un-elect Clinton? I really doubt it. However, what is doubtless is the stupidity of the global Left, in the US and Europe, to blame all their failures on Russia.

The Left would be wise to remember Shakespeare when Cassius said, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

I had an opportunity the other day to meet with John Nixon, Head CIA Leadership Analyst and the individual who first debriefed Saddam Hussein. He told me the pity of American foreign policy is we always feel more comfortable when we can blame and explain events we don’t understand on a Boogie Man. It would behoove us and our politicians to wake up; poking the Russian bear based on faint speculations is a dangerous game.

It’s Yale, stupid

On April 7th the Dutch voted in a referendum against the EU-Ukraine association agreement by a majority of 61.1 per cent, albeit with a low turn out. Nonetheless, it would appear that in the Netherlands the roughly 1/3rd of the population familiar with this topic who turned out to vote strongly disagree with the EU status quo. What happened on April 7th in the Netherlands is called basic democracy.

The Dutch seem to suggest, why prop up a corrupt and divided government in Ukraine just to risk a possible conflict with Russia – to what benefit at what cost? It’s logical.

Then, in an April 13th letter to the Financial Times Yale Professor of Political Science, David R Cameron, writes that the EU should just forget about the Dutch vote because, “The outcome of the referendum hardly represents a democratic vote….” Because, “The vote was 61 per cent against [and] the turn out was 32 per cent. That means 19 per cent of the Dutch electorate voted against the agreement.” Thus, according to Professor Cameron, means only a small minority of the Dutch electorate voted against the EU – Ukraine association agreement and the referendum should be disregarded.

What is he talking about? I don’t exactly need to open up a new excel tab to realise Professor Cameron’s whole argument rests on the assumption that the 68 per cent of the people who were too lazy or didn’t care enough to turn out to vote are all deeply in favour of the EU-Ukraine association agreement and would risk a potential conflict with Russia in order to achieve it. Additionally, since we are talking numbers here, I don’t exactly have to make a giant statistical leap to know it’s a bit unlikely that 68 per cent of the Dutch electorate all agree with Professor Cameron.

This is almost as absurd as Yale Professor of Economics Aleh Tsyvinski who wrote in a recent report on China that growth during Mao was actually “pretty good.” What? What about the 40 – 60 million people who died of famine and from the mismanagement of the economy – so perhaps a better thesis would be, “Despite the holocaust of humanity, the famines, the purges, the unimaginable suffering, growth under Mao was actually pretty good.”

The bigger question is why so many things recently emanating from Yale are so…well stupid. From the outrage over the Halloween costume emails, to safe spaces, to the controversy over the title master, to whether or not Calhoun College should be renamed, the list goes on.

It seems the professors are reaping what they have sowed, which is essentially, stupidity.