 |
| 8:00 |
It’s 8:15 as I start this, and I’ve been up for an hour. We received only a dusting of snow overnight, so I won’t have to shovel—just sweep it off the car. It’s 26° and overcast, with a faint rose tint lingering over the Bemus shoreline.
Yesterday was another football Sunday, though I grew bored with the games, even the Bills’ win over the Jets. The day began as usual with coffee, the blog, and listening to various pundits on CNN discuss the attempt to topple Maduro’s regime in Venezuela. By 10:00, I’d had enough and went outside to shovel the driveway—first with my battery-powered snow shovel, then with the regular one. Two or three inches had fallen overnight, so it needed attention despite my efforts Saturday afternoon. Afterward, I took a short walk around the neighborhood. The snow clinging to the trees, houses, and lawns looked like something straight off a Christmas card.
When I returned, Evie was making Italian penicillin soup. It wasn’t ready for lunch, so she made me scrambled eggs, a bagel, and reheated the Bob Evans sausages left over from Saturday night’s dinner. I turned on the Colts–Oilers game, but couldn’t get interested, so I went upstairs, happy to return to my novel, A Beautiful Blue Death by Charles Finch—a mystery set in Great Britain in the 1860s. It’s a fun read. As usual, I took a half-hour nap and woke feeling refreshed.
Back downstairs, Evie was prepping dinner—Wiener schnitzel, at my request. Around 4:00, I went up to the attic and pulled out my cross-country skis and poles, wondering what it might be like to ski on the lake. I put on my boots and trudged out through a foot and a half of snow. By the time I reached the lake, I was out of breath. When I stepped onto it, my boot immediately sank into slush. I walked in front of the house, and every step ended the same way—snow giving way to slush. Clearly, cross-country skiing was not in the cards.
 |
| Late Afternoon Ice Fishing |
By 6:00, Evie was frying the schnitzel, microwaving baked potatoes, and making a salad. Tired of football, we turned to our series, All Saints, and watched three episodes. All three held our attention, so we’ll stick with it a while longer. Evie went to bed after the third episode, and I watched the first half of the Steelers–Ravens game before heading upstairs myself.
Thank you to the readers who responded to my initial comments on Venezuela. The responses were thoughtful and civil, and I appreciate reading how differently people view the extraction of Maduro. It always makes me rethink my own position. It also led me to reflect on other times when the United States ventured into foreign countries “with good intentions.” How did that turn out for the country's civilians?
Below are the results of some of our past efforts:
Conflict | Non-U.S. (foreign) deaths (approx.)
Vietnam War | ~2.4 to 3.7 million
Iraq War | ~225,000 to 250,000
Afghanistan War | ~160,000 to 180,000
Total (three conflicts) | ~2.8 to ~4.1 million
If anyone deserves removal from office for the good of the United States, it’s Trump—our malignant narcissist—not Maduro.
We would do well to heed what John Adams said a couple of centuries ago, quoted in George Will’s column yesterday:
“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”
—John Adams
“WHEN YOU’RE DEAD, YOU DON’T KNOW YOU’RE DEAD.
ReplyDeleteTHE PAIN IS FELT BY OTHERS.
THE SAME THING HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE STUPID.”
Hi Tom, thanks very much. While I appreciate your concerns about a quagmire, I don’t find your examples particularly analogous. Vietnam, for example, was a proxy war and application of containment policy that was part of the liberal consensus for a generation as we fought the Cold War. I think this example is much more akin to Panama in 1989 (Noriega) or even Clinton’s authorization of an invasion of Haiti in 1994 (you might recall that we intervened over Aristide). I also don’t think this was merely a “do good” mission—we have serious strategic concerns with respect to Venezuela (which was cozying up to our adversaries, China and Russia), and Maduro, in addition to being a bad guy who rigged elections and tortured opponents, had committed serious offenses against the US, and who was specifically targeting the US with cocaine in an intentional bid to destabilize our population. But my point yesterday was not so much to argue the case for this particular operation—reasonable minds can disagree on that—but to make the case that it was not some kind of break from American foreign policy tradition and did not represent a descent into Putinism. I think you can look to recent history, from Noriega, to Haiti, to the bombing of Serbia, to Obama’s intervention in Libya, and more (Reagan in Grenada, eg), to find plenty of precedent for America intervening abroad, even to the point of taking out leaders (Noriega, Milosevic, Gadaffi, Aristide’s opponent in Haiti).
ReplyDeleteAs for the wisdom of doing this, my own view is we have far more strategic concerns at stake and grievances against Maduro than we had in some of these other conflicts (Clinton’s Serbia war, in particular, was much more just an effort to do good). Overall I tend to favor the projection of American power and our involvement in foreign affairs where it is in our strategic interests. I sense you are much more isolationist and in that you find common cause with the “restrainer” wing of MAGA. I do agree it’s important to learn from our past mistakes, and I think we need to avoid entanglement in Venezuela. Given Trump’s longstanding opposition to the Iraq War, I tend to see it as unlikely he would approve any kind of serious military operation (as opposed to the quick surgical strike). Trump is not a “restrainer,” but in 5 years of foreign policy we’ve observed from him and, again, his consistent denunciation of the Iraq War, I see no possibility of even a Clinton or Obama (Libya) level of military involvement. We shall see. Thank you for considering my perspective.
AI Prompt: Create a fact and logic based brief argument on how President Trump and US core values, economic approach and social values differ from that of Venezuela and President Maduro's; highlighting economic and social impact on each country and their citizens
ReplyDeleteAnswer: The United States under President Donald Trump has historically championed core values rooted in democratic governance, individual liberties, free-market capitalism, and the rule of law, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and reflected in policies promoting economic deregulation and trade deals like the USMCA.
In contrast, Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro adhered to Bolivarian socialism, emphasizing state control of resources, collectivism, and alliances with authoritarian regimes like Russia and China, often at the expense of democratic institutions and human rights.
Trump's leadership style was entrepreneurial and populist, focusing on "America First" priorities such as tax cuts, energy independence, and confronting adversaries through sanctions and negotiations, which aligned with U.S. traditions of pragmatic diplomacy. Maduro's approach was authoritarian and repressive, involving election manipulation, suppression of opposition, and reliance on military loyalty to maintain power amid corruption scandals, diverging from democratic norms and leading to international isolation.
Economically, the U.S. during Trump's 2017-2021 term saw GDP growth averaging 2.3%, unemployment dropping to 3.5% pre-COVID, stock market gains of over 50%, and rising median household incomes, fostering broad prosperity despite pandemic setbacks.
Venezuela under Maduro experienced catastrophic decline: GDP contracted by over 75% since 2013, hyperinflation reached millions of percent, oil production halved, and imports plummeted from $80 billion in 2012 to $10 billion by 2017, triggering widespread poverty and food shortages. His regime inflicted widespread abuses on citizens, including violent repression of protests with excessive force, extrajudicial killings (over 125 deaths in 2017 protests alone, plus dozens more in 2019 and 2024), arbitrary arrests of thousands (including political opponents, journalists, human rights defenders, and children), torture methods like beatings, electric shocks, and sexual violence, incommunicado detentions in overcrowded facilities with inadequate food and healthcare, and attacks on media freedom through censorship, station closures, and harassment. Maduro faced allegations of crimes including crimes against humanity (per UN and ICC investigations into systemic repression since 2014), fraudulent elections (2018 and 2024 condemned as sham), corruption, drug trafficking
Socially, U.S. stability under Trump included reduced crime in key areas and immigration controls aimed at security, contrasting with Venezuela's humanitarian crisis: over 7 million refugees fled due to violence, malnutrition, and healthcare collapse, with poverty rates exceeding 90%.
These disparities logically stem from systemic differences—capitalist incentives driving U.S. innovation versus socialist mismanagement eroding Venezuela's potential—highlighting why democratic capitalism has yielded superior outcomes. Recent U.S. actions in 2026, including Maduro's capture, underscore ongoing tensions but reinforce America's interventionist stance against perceived threats to regional stability.
Cool it down, sir. Yes, you have proven your point to yourself. You were a fan of ‘surgical strikes’ but you seem to have settled on this hospitable domain with boots on the ground. Mr. Davis must prefer clean snow where this is turning into slush. What is this? Waterloo? Gettysburg?
ReplyDeleteCore values? January 6th. Capitol insurgency. Tomorrow.
We both might be overstaying our welcome here. So, let’s please relent and take our leave before Tom Baba declares it a no-fly zone. And, he should do so with the precedence that they just cut the pension of a retired navy officer who had said it was wrong.
Don’t know who you’re talking to, sir, but I left only the comment commencing with “thank you, Tom.” Someone else left the AI comment. In any case, my comment was addressed to Tom, not you, and I will refrain from engaging you to the extent you were trying to address me. Have a good day.
ReplyDelete