Someone's Gettin' Screwed.

        So, Emily had an all morning rehearsal and has another tonight, so we went to Sonny's for a late lunch. My digestion was considerably impacted by the fact that while behind the bar,  as usual, one of the wide screens was showing the Faux News channel (already bad enough!), far more disturbing was the content on the other  which was airing the "Superchannel."  For the uninformed or, mercifully, unexposed the Superchannel airs some extremely grotesque religious programming (isn't that a redundancy) and what to my wondering eyes should appear but our (and Bubba's) old friend, Jim Bakker. Since his clown passed, he has surrounded himself with various other sycophants of  a similar bent, although without the 4 inch fake lashes.  

        Ol' Jim was selling something which was hard to actually evaluate from where we sat. which was out of hearing, but the scrolling script billed it as "1345 meals for $670 dollars." Bakker pled earnestly, hyping the free shipping  and periodically cutting away to a shot of stacks of canned goods containing something or other. Godly groceries? Who knows? The scroll did contain an endorsement, allegedly from a satisfied customer, extolling the savor of the Beef Stroganoff (canned, of course).

        I was torn between disgust and curiosity as to the possible end objective (other than fleecing the suckers) of the spiel which accompanied this 5 or 6 minute sales pitch. One has to wonder what Bakker intends  to build with the profits. I  can almost envision the  good works possible at the Bankok Christian Hooker Revitalization  Intervention Shelter Temple ("Bankok CHRIST")  center, where I'm sure Jim will periodically do some intensive one on one counseling? Now for the tacky close:

       Bakker is billed on screen as "Pastor Bakker."  The word "pastor" derives from the Latin noun "pastor" which means "shepherd" and relates to the Latin verb pascere – "to lead to pasture, set to grazing, cause to eat." As we know modern shamans have hijacked it as alternative to Priest, which is apparently too Catholic?  The symbolism being conveyed is that of the moral shepherd, leading his human flock. On the other hand, when I see this fraudulent felon, rehabilitated only in the eyes of the ignorant, and think of him with a "flock," I only see a sheep needing a rape kit. 

Another Example of Stossel Stupidity

        

          In another installment what has become a seemingly endless string of poorly researched and written op-ed pieces, John Stossel joins his frequent cohabitant of the local paper's op-ed page, the equally clueless Michelle Malkin, in pandering to the consumers of lies and half truths on the Far Right.

       Today's screed purports to be a celebration of "private property," which seems right in Stossel's usual wheelhouse, but then he goes completely off the rails by stating almost categorically that Bernie Sanders supports collective farming. One of Sander's difficulties in reaching the American electorate, that is, of course, in addition to his apparent inability to use an "inside voice," vice shouting every single sentence, lies in the tag "Socialism" which has been gleefully applied by the Far Right. In truth, he has provided the glue to affix that label by using the term " Democratic Socialism" to describe his beliefs.

       To many of the unwashed and, sadly, to many who, had they paid attention in school, would know better, the word "Socialism" is synonymous with Communism. It is not. Stossell would have us believe, or at the very least allows the ignorant to conclude, that Sanders proposes the end of private property and the commencement of collective farming, a la 1930's Soviet Russia. This is simply a lie of the right. Sanders' focus, vis a vis "Socialism" is in the areas of services (health care, for example) where all citizens have a stake. He has never even hinted at collectivization of anything such as land, business, etc, and would be laughed out of town if he did.

       What truly caught my attention, however, is that in the area of land use and agriculture, which Stossel uses as his example, we (the USA ), in what is at best perplexing and at worst sinister, far from being Socialist, are now in many cases hovering simultaneously both ends of the political spectrum, depending upon where in the production process we look. Processing and distribution is markedly  monopolistic and cartel like in operation, while planting and production is, in many cases, almost at the public (Government's) breast.

       In the area of seed production, and agricultural chemical production, just three US firms (Dow, Monsanto, and DuPont) dominate the entire industry and by extension the market. As sinister or (probably even more so, depending on one's economic savvy is the following:  Just four companies control 60 percent of terminal grain facilities, and Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Zen Noh control 81 percent of U.S. corn exports and 65 percent of soybean exports. Cargill has the largest global terminal capacity, handling significant grain exports in Canada, the United States, Brazil, and Argentina. It owns and operates a worldwide transportation network of ships, trucks, barges, railcars, and grain elevators for storage. Cargill is also among the top three beef producers in the United States and plays an important role in poultry production.

       Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill now control the vast majority (over 85%) of US corn production, and continue to control more and more of America's farmland. While there are still around 2 million small farmers in America, most of their output is done under contracts to sell to these large agribusinesses, which by virtue of said contracts, hold absolute control over the land. So Stossel is right in one sense, private property is great for these businesses, and as long as they are compliant, those small farmers, but the control of their fortunes now lies , not in, on, or of the land, but in boardrooms far away. 

       We are slaves to corn in America and produce 84% of the world's supply. (for much more and more detail of corn, agribusiness  and it's grip on us all, read  the superbly written "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by  Michael Pollan.) If this were small farmers, in control of their own destinies and family farms dealing directly with consumers, what a wonderful thing that would be. Unfortunately that's not the way it is. And, while Stossel will never admit the "inconvenient truth", much of this corn production while profitable for the major consolidators and processors, is subsidized and crops insured by.....you guessed it - the US government, as in our taxes.

       No other industry sector in America profits as much per capita from public charity as do those who draw farm subsidies. In fact the entire system of price supports for things such as sugar, corn, milk, etc, alone tops $20 billion annually. Added to that, federally funded crop insurance and credit adds another $36 billion annually. To put some perspective in play, that figure is about half of the total amount Medicare paid for drugs in 2016. Of course, all who benefit from Medicare paid into that system, while all of those who paid into Medicare also paid for farm subsidies, etc, but very few were beneficiaries of that largesse.

       In summary, Bernie Sanders has never once advocated for government takeover of the means of production of anything. He has decried the growth of monopoly and cartels and the leverage they exert in the political and social sphere in the United States. He has also advocated for a level playing field in one area critical to all Americans - health care. He, and others,  have also frequently maintained that government regulation "In the public interest" is appropriate and serves to protect the flock of citizens from the wolves of Wall Street. This point of view in that arena is congruent with the tenets of Theodore Roosevelt, that most non-Republican Republican.

       Stossel, meanwhile holding up US agriculture and private land ownership as an icon of private grit, determination and capitalist triumph, has yet again displayed his abysmal ignorance. In the aforementioned op-ed piece he has chosen and glorified as "capitalism personified" the one economic sector in America which is actually the most "Socialist" in concept, that being government funded crop insurance, guaranteed prices for output, and government guaranteed loans based on assumed production. There is no sector in the US more "protected" from failure than US commodity farmers, and by extension, those to whom they are forced to sell their products, while the agribusiness processors and distributors are at the other end of the spectrum, verging on monopoly and market control.

       I can appreciate well expressed alternate opinions, whether or not I concur with conclusions, but sheer ignorance such as regularly displayed by John Stossel is a waste of paper and ink.

Smoke Screen

      

      Let's make several general assumptions about our devout Far Right devotees regarding truth, reality and critical thinking. I believe that their grasps of these concepts are, in the same order, "Fake", manufactured and beyond their grasp.

       The latest manifestation of these disabilities is the entire fecal hurricane of "mis" and "dis" information surrounding the 2010 sale of partial interest in a Canadian uranium mining corporation by Canadians to Russians. The crux of the disinformation campaign is the allegation that, then SecState, Hillary Clinton 1) had some influence over the sale. and 2) benefited from it. Reread that last part and understand what the Breitbart and Faux News meat puppets would like to you disregard, that being, that the issue revolves around two independent nations, neither of which is the United States, consummating a commercial transaction.

Several absolute truths are incontestably involved here.

First:

       Uranium One, which holds mining contracts in several western states is a Canadian corporation, which also mines in Canada. The chronology of said mining operations concessions are difficult to trace chronologically, but predate the Obama administration. In fact, Uranium One is South African in origin and merged, during the Bush 43 administration, with Canadian held UrAsia energy, out of Vancouver B.C. A Russian corporation, Rosatom, made, and had accepted, several offers over time which eventually resulted by 2010, in Rosatom owning Uranium One as a subsidiary.

       Rosatom, sells uranium to civilian power reactors in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration. But then, U.S. owners and operators of commercial nuclear reactors purchase, and historically have purchased, the majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Only 11 percent of the 50.6 million pounds purchased in 2016 came from U.S. domestic producers.

       Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ (in the ground) recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. It is broken out as "in situ" because an alternative source of fuel is, or should be, reprocessed fissionable material from "spent" reactor fuel. recovered and reprocessed from expended cores. Unfortunately, although the UK has been doing this for 50 years successfully, and France for 35, the US lags for a number of reasons better explained in another essay.

       There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for only an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S.

       This is analogous to US Oil companies producing oil in other nations and selling it, which happened for most of the 20th century, and with which most Americans had no issue.

       As for production, Uranium One was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 Congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for less than 6 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission. So in brief summary, all this is about less than 6% of the current US domestic Uranium production.

Second:

       The Senate Committee on Foreign Investment in the USA, established 42 years ago by President Ford, has zero ability to nix such a sale. In a very strange context, they can "bless" such a transaction, but are powerless to stop it, as one would expect when both parties to said sale are other nations. It is rather like a couple eloping and asking for parental blessing, but leaving in any case. The Committee can only recommend that the President stop such a transaction. In considerations such as this, the "blessing" (a mere courtesy, not permission, mind you, since none is required) involves the Committee and several cabinet posts giving a cheery wave to the process or weighing in with their disapproval if any. Remember, it doesn't matter, because the two parties can still do the deal, regardless, unless POTUS halts it. The Cabinet level weigh ins are generally not even brought to the level of the department head, since there is no negative action which can ensue as a result. It is important to remember that, since the allegations of a Clinton quid pro quo for her blessing would have been of no consequence. Historically, from 2005 to 2015, only one such Presidential "veto" was issued, that in 2012 by President Obama and, like most reviews, revolved around technology transfer concerns.

Third:

       Even if the Committee's decision (to "bless" or not to bless") mattered, and it wasn't contentious,  Clinton as SecState was one of the lesser voices which would have had influence, since the Committee by statute is chaired by the Treasury Secretary and the slate of Cabinet heads includes, Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, Commerce, Energy, Treasury. Of the above persons, all except SecDef Gates (a Bush 43 appointee) were confirmed by majorities of the Republican controlled Senate, most of them overwhelmingly, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu whose confirmation was unanimous. I mention this because of all the above, Chu was the most directly involved with the issue. Even so, the Committee gave their assent to the concept of the sale as did every single Executive Branch department involved! It is noteworthy that Reagan actually refused to quash a merger when strenuously urged to do so by both Treasury and Defense department heads, making him the only President to refuse such advice.

Fourth:

       If one understands the implications of all the above, the alleged quid pro quo (cash to the Clinton Global Initiative foundation for a Clinton approval), seems like a fool's bargain for Rosatom, especially since, even if Clinton had screamed "no" and held her breath, it just didn't matter. As it turns out it wasn't actually discussed with her, but was, as was customary in such instances, signed off on, after review, by a subordinate.

Fifth and finally:

       As much as the far rightists would love to besmirch the Clinton Foundation, the reality is that, markedly unlike the Trump Foundation, their books are, and have been, open for 15 years, and every charity rating organization in America gives, and has consistently given, them top marks for transparency, utilization of funds, and the percentage of income allocated to administration (very low, by comparison with similar others) and the efficacy of program dollars applied to the relevant causes. In all this is buried the fact that as much as the Right media have tried to do so, there is zero evidence that either Clinton has ever personally benefited from Foundation contributions. I believe this to be particularly disturbing to the talking heads of the Right because the Trump Foundation and its record of Trump spending other people's money on himself look positively shitty and venal by comparison.

       So why all the uproar now? It's simple, really. In light of an increasing stream of real hard data linking Trump, his son, his son in law, his chief of staff and himself to Russian interests, it's a smoke screen to deflect  observers from the truth, that truth being the utter moral and ethical bankruptcy of the current administration. Period.

Culturally Obtuse.

      Someone in our community once again, in a letter to the editor,  raised an issue which seems to permeate the far right, washed and unwashed; that being general cultural illiteracy. In this case it was a defense of the fact that Donald Trump, apparently with forethought, chose not to bow when introduced to the Emperor of Japan.

      The writer vociferously defended the Cheetoh in Chief, apparently because in their mind, addled as it is, courtesy and subservience are one and the same. It is truly sad to consider that for some of our fellow citizens, even the rudiments of diplomacy and protocol are signs of weakness, vice respect for cultural norms. The writer ends with the statement that, "No American president should bow to anyone other than 'The God of Abraham!"

      What I find at once appalling and ironic is that I'm pretty sure the latter personage has very little of Trump's respect, since his ego locker has little space for any other than Trump, himself.

      Several years ago, around the beginning of the campaign season in 2012, ex-Seal, now Interior secretary, Ryan Zinke scathingly denounced then President Obama's bow when greeting the Emperor of Japan. The venom fairly dripped from the page, in the following "This president is shaping America to be one of the followers, to relinquish our role as a world leader. I didn’t fight 23 years as a Navy SEAL to watch America bow to anybody.” Taken at face value, it would seem that Zinke believes that no other US head of State has ever bowed to any other foreign leader.

      Of course, it is of interest to realize that Zinke himself retired because his own judgment was questioned in a final fitness report as follows: The fitness report, signed by retired Vice Adm. Albert M. Calland III, who was the commander of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, better known as SEAL Team 6, cited Mr. Zinke's "lapses in judgment" for his declining performance. Such language in these reports regularly prevents servicemen and women from rising to the highest officer ranks, ergo retirement is common while one still can before being required to. Oddly enough, this is not inconsistent with a general SEAL tendency to retire early, frequently to enter into civilian contracts doing much the same thing as their military assignments, killing people on command. Zinke, in his new job as Interior Secretary of course, has continued his mission of undoing what the Obama administration did with regard to national monuments.

      But enough about Zinke. Is he correct that American Presidents don't or shouldn't bow to foreign figures or that President Obama's bows were aberrant? The question is akin to "Should common courtesy and diplomacy apply in foreign relations?"

      As it happens, the "Bower in Chief" was George W. Bush, who has bowed to numerous persons with whom Zinke, I'm pretty sure would have issues. These include several Saudi princes and their king on several occasions, even kissing one on the mouth! Bush 43 was also positively obsequious in his bow and assumed reverence for former Hitler youth member, Pope Benedict.

      

Nothing says "I'm your Bitch" quite like a kiss on the lips!

Liz gets a bow!

And one for the former Nazi

      Richard Nixon demonstrated deep bows to both the Emperor of Japan and Chairman Mao. (you remember, that Chinese Communist guy, whose troops killed US servicemen in Korea?

   

"Hi. Too bad we won the war, huh?"

   Bush 41 also demonstrated proper grasp of protocol when bowing deeply before the casket of the WWII Japanese Emperor, Hirohito, whose forces had shot him from the sky in the Pacific! George H.W. Bush cited the deep bow as "respect," a concept with which secretary Zinke is perhaps unfamiliar, as we are certain Trump is. Of course, George H.W. also had the sense of balance to later vomit on a head of state.

      Earlier, Dwight Eisenhower actually bowed to Charles de Gaulle as well as Queen Elizabeth, a Pope, and even the head of the Greek Orthodox church. 

"Hi ya Chuck, 'sup? We won the war for ya!"

So you guys are sort of like Catholics, right?

       In summary, American Presidents displaying the courtesy traditional in such situations is the norm, not the exception. Trump's inexcusable behavior is the exception and is simply one more marker of his boorishness and general lack of either class or cultural intelligence. Hell, after blowing off the emperor he probably asked for ketchup with the sushi.

Not a Gun Problem?

"Truly heartbreaking news in #Sutherland Springs. Please say a prayer for First Baptist congregation, first responders & the community there"

         This is Texas senator John Coryn's (R-TX) response tweet to the horrible shootings yesterday. "heartbreaking news?" - absolutely, but if Coryn really cared about his constituents' safety from lunatics such as Devin Kelly, he'd push for a firearms sales waiting period in his state (there is none) and support federal background checks (there is no requirement) in TX.

       I hate (sort of, anyway)  to pander to the obvious, but if prayers really had value, one would at least have to consider  that there might have been far fewer deaths in the first place. I get the same reflexive response every time I hear either the "Why do bad things happen to Good people?" sermon or the parson's exhortations to pray  "Because God answers prayers for people of faith." Why? Because 6 million "people of faith" died in the Holocaust. Either they didn't pray hard enough or the sky magus was too busy hurling fireballs around the cosmos  to give a shit. )Or maybe he was watching Tim Tebow  trying to be a pro football player and laughing his arse off.

        All the prayers in the universe apparently  wouldn't be as effective as if someone with a shred of concern and/or common sense  had  looked  at this asshole's Facebook page featuring his auto-loading Ruger AR-566 in the profile photo, compared that fact with his Bad Conduct Discharge (which was for disciplinary and/or emotional issues)  and  said, "Hey! Just maybe  this guy shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm of any sort, never mind an automatic assault weapon"

        Of course the Great Cheetoh immediately pronounced this "not a gun issue,"  as he essentially also did in the recent horrific Las Vegas massacre. If this guy (the shooter) had been even a third generation legal immigrant or a Muslim, instead of a white, native born lunatic, it would have been branded an act of  terrorism, but instead, the Whore of Washington rolled over and assumed the submissive position to the NRA immediately. He called it a "mental illness"  issue.

         So? So any responsible system of background checks would have revealed the shooters' distinctly checkered past and raised the question of his suitability to own  a "banana clip ready" (you know, in case the deer and his closest friends are also armed?)  automatic assault weapon or, in this psychotic's case, even a slingshot. The vast majority of Americans, in poll after poll, favor background checks, not as a way to limit firearms access to responsible gun owners, but as a means to keep assault weapons from seriously disturbed persons such as  the late Devin Kelly.
       

        How did he get the gun? He openly purchased it over the counter at a sporting goods store in Texas, falsely (and unnecessarily)  claiming Colorado residency. Of course,  he lied about having no criminal record, and in the absence of a federal database, waiting period, or federal background check, the merchant, ever eager to sell, did so. No one knew any different. In fact, Kelly had been incarcerated, while in the Air Force, for one year, then awarded a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) for assaulting both his wife and child ! As an aside, he was also tried for cruelty to animals, a huge red flag re: impaired mental status.

         Unfortunately, a BCD isn't considered a felony unless incarceration is for more than 1 year. Additionally, the Air Force (not atypically of all the uniformed services) did not render any mental assessment, (although in retrospect.....!) choosing instead to discharge him and put the civilian populace at his mercy. Oddly and disturbingly enough, he could have purchased the firearm in Texas even with a felony conviction if five years had elapsed since the act. Meanwhile the Grand Cheetoh plays golf and eats sushi, undoubtedly with ketchup.

Nothing new about it!

So, I'm at the local font of theology, listening as the shaman proclaims that Jesus was the originator of all the stories and parables attributed to him by those who made up much of the Jesus narrative about a hundred years after his death. It amazed me that a man with (allegedly) a master's degree in a Social Science field could elide right over The Buddah, Confucius, Aesop, Socrates and Plato, Ashoka and Lao Tsu (to name just a few) most of whom told stories akin to most of the parables hundreds of years earlier.

In the case of the "Prodigal Son" fable, It is attributed to the Buddha around 500 years earlier, with a far more humanistic message. He (the poohbah in charge) mentioned that Jesus tried to "get people to think and was punished for it" as if that had never happened to anyone previously. I stopped myself from asking him later if he'd ever heard of Socrates or the Socratic method, which is precisely the way Jesus is alleged to have posed questions to his followers, or Socrates' death because of his willingness to ask difficult moral questions and question authority. As a semi-literate Galilean, Yeshua Bar Joseph probably was unaware of Socrates and his followers, or that most of the moral issues he posed had already been visited multiple times.

Ashoka's Rock Edicts, scattered throughout his Indian realm during the third century BCE, could also easily have been inspiration for many of those things modern Christians are sure Jesus innovated. 
Try this one for example:
"'When an unconquered country is conquered, people are killed... . That the beloved of the Gods finds very pitiful and grievous. ... If anyone does him wrong, it will be forgiven as far as it can be forgiven... . The beloved of the Gods considers that the greatest of all victories is the victory of righteousness."

Or this: "Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought "Let me glorify my own religion," only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others"

Or: "Every religion has the wholesome core of love, compassion and good will. The outer shell differs, but give importance to the inner essence and there will be no quarrel. Don't condemn anything, give importance to the essence of every religion and there will be real peace and harmony."

Or attributed to The Buddha (as well as the original Prodigal Son narrative): "He who gives away shall have real gain. He who subdues himself shall be free; he shall cease to be a slave of passions. The righteous man casts off evil, and by rooting out lust, bitterness, and illusion do we reach Nirvana."

Or Confucius: "To practice five things under all circumstances constitutes perfect virtue; these five are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness."

Or Socrates: "One who is injured ought not to return the injury, for on no account can it be right to do an injustice; and it is not right to return an injury, or to do evil to any man, however much we have suffered from him."

 I also like this one, from Socrates, since it's the "canned" answer offered by clergy when prayers aren't answered "Our prayers should be only for blessings in general, for God knows best what is good for us."

Plato: "We ought to fly away from earth to heaven as quickly as we can; and to fly away is to become like God, as far as this is possible; and to become like him is to become holy, just, and wise."

Lao Tsu: "Treat those who are good with goodness, and also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. Be honest to those who are honest, and be also honest to those who are not honest. Thus honesty is attained."

And all these men arrived at these conclusions and philosophies hundreds of years BCE. Sounds to me like Yeshua bar Josef was a plagiarist!

Ignorant Outrage

        The results of the Bowe Bergdahl trial have ignited a storm of ignorant outrage. I say "ignorant" because the general tone of said protests is in two areas. The First: many are apparently angry that their government won't execute Bergdahl. The Second:  irate assertions that  "back in the day...etc" with a general allegation that there has been a recent (a sidelong barrage at the Obama administration in some cases) change in how desertion has been treated historically in this case.

        Some actually seek to somehow blame President Obama for all of this as if he had influence over military judges who don't work for him. Many angry responses on Facebook, re: my  attempts to shed light on the reasons for some portions of the Bergdahl decision, immediately elicited words like "traitor" (as in Bergdahl was one,  liberal (as in I must be one for pointing out the related facts) , insane, softy (me)...etc.  Let's deal with facts first.

        The US Constitution defines two things clearly and has for over 200 years. The first is "Treason," the second is "War."  John Marshall's strict constructionist  decision in the Aaron Burr case during the Jefferson administration stands today. Bergdahl is not, and cannot be held, guilty of treason per Article 3, section 3. Period.

        Execution for desertion cannot be awarded by a military court unless it is in time of war, per the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Section 885, art. 85 "desertion")This specifically means that  the President must have asked for, and Congress approved, a formal declaration of war for this (death penalty) to apply.

         The last 76 years have seen numerous military overseas "adventures" but there has been no declaration of war since 1941. Korea ,Viet Nam and The Middle East were and are obviously military conflicts, but not "war" per our governing document. A lot of the unwashed and generally moronic angst revolves around this definition of war. 

      It is apparently useless pointing out that if Bush 43 had wanted to have a declaration of "war" in Iraq, he could have asked Congress for one. He didn't. Lyndon Johnson settled for a fallacious Gulf of Tonkin "resolution", based on an incident which never happened per Admiral Jim Stockdale, the longest POW captive of the "war," after Eisenhower and JFK  simply used "military advisors" and the CIA. Harry Truman was apparently OK with a "United Nations Police Action." in Korea.  See the word "war" there anywhere? Me neither, and the law doesn't either! Yes, many will still scream "war" when referring to these military actions, but there's a reason for laws, and these zealots are a significant portion of these reasons.

        Finally, the Bergdahl decision isn't a "softening" of policy. Of an estimated almost 50,000 deserters in WW II (an actual "war") only one man, Eddie Slovik" was executed. He was, in fact the only US serviceman executed for the crime of desertion since the US Civil War, a span of over 150 years, and he actually deserted five times, before being held terminally accountable. Of more than 4,000 Viet Nam era deserters, most were pardoned, none did hard time.

        More recently, and more significantly, Army Sgt. Charles Jenkins, who abandoned  his post  in 1965,  surrendered to North Korean forces, living there for 19 years, until 2004. Jenkins suffered no physical torture at the hands of his "hosts", no penal imprisonment; in fact at one time he taught English in a North Korean university! His penalty? 30 days confinement, with, amazingly, 6 days off for "good behavior",  reduction to Private and the same Dishonorable Discharge awarded to Bowe Bergdahl. It is noteworthy that, the President at the time of Jenkins' repatriation and trial , George W. Bush, remained mute with regard to his personal opinion on the issue and the trial, considering it a military matter and that his opinion, if voiced might be prejudicial to the process. This was an appropriate, and uncharacteristically wise, Bush decision.

        Interestingly enough, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does address the issue of influencing, or attempting to influence,  a military court in Section 837, Article 37. This is what it says:  "No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts."

        Considering the blatantly prejudicial comments made by the Commander in Chief of all US personnel subject to the UCMJ, it's probably a good thing that he is above the law, or at least considers himself to be. Had this been a civil trial and Trump a Governor or Mayor, it would most likely have been grounds for either a mistrial, change of venue, or jury dismissal.

        This is in no way an apologia for Bowe Bergdahl's actions which I would condemn. I would have had no difficulty with a prison sentence in his case, but regardless of what one thinks (or "tweets") about Bergdahl, his punishment is consistent with over 70 years of history. In fact it has been perhaps more harsh for Bergdahl, held captive and tortured for five years, than for Jenkins, the Korean  deserter who suffered neither, colluded with North Korea, but was more leniently judged.