Mad for "Mad Dog"

Many of President Trump’s top cabinet picks have been controversial. Arguably, the least so is Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis. A highly respected general in the U.S. Marine Corps, Mattis earned a reputation as a strong, capable leader and a force to be reckoned with. He was confirmed as Secretary of Defense on January 20 in a 98-1 Senate vote.

General Mattis is a lifelong military man. He enlisted in the Marines in 1969 as a reservist – while studying history at Central Washington University – and in 1972 was commissioned as a second lieutenant. Mattis steadily climbed in the ranks, serving in operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the war in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War. Following his promotion to lieutenant general in 2005, Mattis assumed command of the corps’ Combat Development Division and later the I Marine Expeditionary Force. Later that year, President Bush promoted him to the rank of general, and he was given command of the United States Joint Forces headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia. Mattis was promoted to four-star general in 2007, and in 2010 President Obama named him as commander of the United States Central Command (the armed forces in the Middle East and neighboring countries). Mattis retired from the Marine Corps in 2013.

His appointment and confirmation as defense secretary were met with tremendous approval in both the Department of Defense and the military. “Knowing General Mattis, I thought he would be a great choice,” said retired Col. Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who served under General Mattis from 2006 to 2007. “He relishes that role, the Warrior Monk, he thinks of himself that way, as the warrior but also the monk -- the contemplative, the thoughtful.” Many suspect that General Mattis will counterbalance Trump’s unpredictability, and that his military expertise will provide the administration with more of the experience it lacks in that area.

Military members on Twitter and other social media erupted in cheers and praise when Mattis was confirmed. A Marine who earned the respect of everyone he served with, he had a favorable reputation for getting down and dirty with even the lowest-ranking soldiers in the trenches. “General Mattis is an expert and scholar in warfare—he’s a “Marine[‘]s, Marine” —aggressive, but astute. He leads by example—this is what people idolize about him,” stated Marine Corps special operations command operator Sean Conner in an article in the Independent Journal Review.   

“Mattis is a scholar, a humanist, and a venerated Warrior who has successfully led our nation’s most elite forces within some of our most arduously precarious battles, and won,” wrote retired Marine Capt. Eric Kirsch.  

Throughout his military career, General Mattis was known for his intellectual persona and cool, contemplative, but never soft demeanor. Those around him saw his deep thought in action, as well as an unwavering drive when it was called for. Though he is sometimes criticized as being too blunt, Mattis’s supporters argue that this attitude is what strikes fear in his enemies. When commanding his troops in Iraq, he told them: “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.”

Despite the seemingly overwhelming support for Mattis, some opponents argued that he had not been retired from the military long enough to head the Pentagon, due to our country’s constitutional and cultural tradition of civilian control of the armed forces. Federal law says that retired military members cannot be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years of their retirement. General Mattis has been retired for just four. In order to confirm him, Congress voted to make an exception, for Mattis, to the law mandating the retirement period.  

Some have expressed mixed emotions over the appointment. In a conversation with one of our staff writers, a Department of Defense insider said: “I think Mattis will eliminate the PC culture. It does not have a place in the military. The military believes he is a strong leader, so there will be a morale boost with his appointment. I believe he will establish a more dominant presence with our military. I think we may be quicker to escalate situations where diplomacy was needed, though. He’s called ‘Mad Dog’ for a reason. His tact may be a little too harsh for the position he’s in.”  

Despite a few concerns, the general consensus seems to be that Mattis will make an excellent Secretary of Defense. His experience demonstrates extensive knowledge, and his resilience will allow him to balance Trump’s headstrong tendencies, providing stable guidance for the military and other Defense Department operations. “America's enemies weep,” stated Army Sgt. Steven Hildreth, “and all I can do is smile.” People are going mad for “Mad Dog.”

Self-Proclaimed “Nasty Woman” Gets Nasty

One of the most popular videos shared on Facebook last week was of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) “schooling,” “grilling,” or “snubbing” Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education. During a contentious three-hour hearing, the senator took the opportunity to display her classless charm by asking reductionist questions and interrupting DeVos in her attempts to answer them.

Betsy DeVos, a businesswoman and philanthropist, is the child of self-made billionaires Edgar and Elsa Prince. Her business history includes seats on the boards of educational advocacy organizations, which focus on improving access to charter schools in underprivileged areas like Detroit. Former senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has lauded her as a “champion of at-risk children.”

Senator Warren’s grandstanding and value-signaling performance at DeVos’s confirmation hearing was unnecessary and unproductive. She began by asking about DeVos’s background in higher education and how she will navigate the current student loan dilemma. The senator’s questions, however, had nothing to do with the nominee’s experience with issues in higher education, only her personal experience in paying for it. Warren peppered DeVos with yes-or-no questions like: “Have you ever taken out a student loan from the federal government to help pay for college?”

She went on to ask if DeVos’s children had to take out loans. The answer to both questions was no, but DeVos added that her children are “fortunate” in not having to do this. As Senator Warren continued with these privilege-checking questions, she interrupted DeVos’s attempt to explain her (admittedly distant) personal experience with receiving federal Pell Grants. This general yes-or-no line of questioning showed more about Warren’s character than DeVos’s experience.

Senator Warren also got into the issue of fraud in higher education. She opened this part of the questioning with a knock or two against President Trump – using a previous comment by DeVos. Early in the primary season, DeVos donated millions to Carly Fiorina before ultimately supporting Marco Rubio. During the primary season, she also called candidate Trump an “interloper” who “does not represent the Republican Party.”

After this gratuitous aside, Senator Warren pushed DeVos to promise to directly hold for-profit colleges and universities accountable for providing students a sufficient education. DeVos clearly explained that she will have the Department of Education enforce proper rules and regulations for educational standards and government oversight, but Warren accused her of planning to “subcontract” such responsibilities in her position as Secretary of Education.

This subcontracting or delegation really is not a problem at all. It is indicative of the approach of a good businesswoman, and the likely approach of President Trump’s cabinet as a whole. Capable CEOs do not involve themselves in every detail of their companies. They delegate, or hire, qualified experts to inform them of the details of most issues. With this information, the CEO makes an informed decision about how to steer the company or department. President Trump may be incompetent, unprepared, and often unintelligible, but he is surrounding himself with an intelligent, skilled, and economically savvy cabinet. His nominees are generally outsiders to Republican politics, and in some cases even dissenters from it. There are also major Trump appointees who disagree with him on certain important issues. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, for instance, disagrees with President Trump on the Iran nuclear deal and Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson dislikes Trump’s previous calls for a ban on Muslim immigrants. These are the kind of people who will effect change in this or any presidency – those who are willing to put aside personal differences, while also standing by their own views and values, to set productive policy.

One name missing from the social media outcry following the confirmation hearing is that of Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH). Senator Hassan also had the opportunity to pepper Betsy DeVos with questions, in this case about her experience with students with disabilities. Unlike Warren, Senator Hassan was clear and respectful – allowing DeVos to complete her answers – and managed to extract some meaningful information. She helped reveal to the committee that DeVos is wholly unfamiliar with a number of federal statutes related to the situation, and potential problem, of students with disabilities signing away certain rights when they enter charter schools. She did not interrupt DeVos, but asked open-ended questions and allowed her to tie herself into a knot attempting to explain her position on the issue.

This is how it should be done. This is how you resist a cabinet nominee seems somewhat undereducated about public school systems. This is how you resist a president who may threaten the rights you believe in. You don’t get nasty and rude. You use patient cunning to allow unqualified nominees to embarrass themselves.

Misguided Social Justice

Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) often choose to focus on invisible issues rather than on more egregious problems that impact the world as a whole. More specifically, many SJWs conflate the concepts of social justice and microaggression in an attempt to identify with those around the globe who actually suffer hardships.

Additionally, the actions that Social Justice Warriors often take are inherently selfish. They use their privileged positions in the media and academia as platforms to talk about issues that are more likely to affect them rather than marginalized groups. Muslim women living in Iran, for example, don’t care about “manspreading.” Instead, they're concerned about the possibility of being harassed or raped if and when they venture into public without their husbands.

Similarly, the Liberal media bring forth the issue of microaggression when describing the hardships of people of color. Journalists selfishly emphasize the perceived discrimination they have experienced, for example focusing on and perhaps twisting comments their opponents make, rather than tackling the more serious issues marginalized groups face on a daily basis. Mass incarceration is a huge issue among black communities. The average African American is in far greater danger from being questionably arrested for a petty crime than from a white person petting their afro.

When microaggressions are brought to the forefront of social justice issues, many Americans begin to view such issues as insignificant or petty. People are even beginning to dismiss real issues of racism and sexism because they are downplayed by the Liberal media. Additionally, paying too much attention to microaggressions further marginalizes, and in an indirect sense even mocks, those who experience true discrimination. Upon ascending to high positions in both the media and academia, it seems as though Social Justice Warriors fight to maintain their privilege rather than speak out about serious kinds of discrimination.         

One can argue that implicit discrimination, including microaggression, is at the forefront in academia because it is more fixable than explicit discrimination. Successfully eliminating implicit discrimination, however, would not fix any of the more significant problems. Assuming that all forms of implicit discrimination were eliminated, only a small segment of the population – those who learned about it in institutions of higher education – would even notice.

In addition, I think it is a far greater task to police people's words and behaviors through pretentious critique than it is to dismantle institutional barriers. Both tasks are difficult, but the former is effectively impossible. In contrast, the latter – changing laws to even the playing field for marginalized groups – has been one of the most positive developments of the last century.

Ironically, those who write about discrimination are unlikely to experience the brunt of it, thanks to their socioeconomic position. Instead of writing about the really serious issues, like mass incarceration or rape, SJWs somewhat selfishly use their safer, more privileged positions to address microaggressions, which are more likely to happen to them. This is a shameful phenomenon that should stop immediately. 

Go to the Opera

Opera is a break from the daily slog; it is like the gift of seeing fireflies or hearing raindrops from a windowsill on a summer’s night. There is no material benefit, just the joy of seeing and listening.

Opera is unique. It is composed of many parts – singers, orchestra, and sets, elaborate details and moving pieces. The characters are never one-dimensional, and they emote passionately and dramatically through their solos, duets, and extravagant gestures. There is never a dull moment: mysterious spells, dreaded illnesses, dancing fairies, ill-advised marriages, magical forests, ice queens, unrealistic fathers, manipulative siblings, overbearing mothers, unexpected deaths, star-crossed lovers.

The costumes and sets are usually over-the-top as well – like eating a sprinkled or chocolate-covered doughnut. But who doesn’t love those? And the orchestras, they are magnificent -- always boisterous and raucous, constantly striving to not be overlooked.

There are so many favorite characters and choruses. To name just a few: Violetta in Verdi's opera La Traviata, the unknown prince in Puccini’s Turandot, and the chorus in Verdi’s Nabucco when they sing “Va, Pensiero,” a haunting and captivating melody that one could also call a popular tune. Italians from all walks of life, as part of Verdi’s funeral procession, spontaneously sang it through the streets of Milan. They adored him, wanted to lament his passing, loved the politics the song represented (Italian unification), and knew great music when they heard it.

When Luciano Pavarotti played the unknown prince in Turandot and sang “Nessun Dorma” at the summit of his powers, there was no one his equal. After listening to him on iTunes, one understands how the audience reacted: Swoon! Bravo! None of the YouTube videos of “Nessun Dorma” sung by the most famous tenors in the last 50 years match Luciano; he was the master.

But iTunes, YouTube, or an iPad do not suffice; the revelation indeed happens when one attends an opera, even in the cheap seats. That visual and auditory experience can only be described as magical, a feast for the senses. It all comes together to cast an enchanting spell, like a fairy tale where the princess goes to the ball. It’s exciting to dress up, drink champagne, people-watch, take your seat in anticipation, and watch the thrilling scenes progress.

Do not listen to opera because it is viewed as sophisticated or for “keeping up appearances.” Listen to opera because it truly has a range, complexity, drama, and beauty that cannot be found anywhere else; it’s kismet! Sure, there is exceptional folk, pop, hip hop, jazz, rap, classical, rock n’ roll, blues, and swing music – all laudable -- but who can pass up a riotous thunderstorm? Plays are amusing; Shakespearean plays, such as Taming of the Shrew, are fantastic. Musicals, besides Phantom of the Opera, can be boring. But opera is the apex. It consists of incredible stories, lots of passionate singing throughout, expansive arm-waving, extravagant costumes, instances of over-acting, and a boisterous orchestra – the whole delicious éclair.

Opera is always surprising and vital, even when it was written two hundred years ago. It is a means of expressing in an exaggerated and intense way what it means to be human – in all its joy, despair, confusion, humor, sweetness, and power. Opera covers the spectrum of emotions in four hours; it can make you sigh, shiver, smile, laugh, guffaw, or weep.  One cannot listen to, or see, an opera and not be engaged and transfixed by its sublime nature. To appreciate opera is to see what waits just below the surface of things: truth, understanding, courage, love, sacrifice, anger, perhaps forgiveness – everything that makes life beautiful, all-too-human, and worth living. Don’t miss out on the spectacle.
 

Trump's Reversal on Russia

After insisting for weeks that Russian intelligence operatives – under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin – were not responsible for the cyber attacks against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and other organizations for the purpose of influencing the election, President-elect Trump altered his message.

In his first post-election news conference, he stated “I think it was Russia” and that Putin “shouldn’t have done it” and “won’t be doing it” in the future.

Trump’s change of tune came on the heels of a security briefing in which top U.S. intelligence officials informed him of allegations that the Kremlin had indeed engaged in an extensive conspiracy with members of his team and employees of his company in order to help get him elected.

Though Mr. Trump animatedly denies any such connection with Russia, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other intelligence agencies have been trying for months to substantiate these incendiary claims.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, claims that Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russian intelligence emanated from a dossier that British intelligence agent Christopher Steele compiled for Mr. Trump’s political opponents – both Republican and Democratic – last year.

Senior intelligence officials deemed the allegations contained in Steele’s dossier significant enough to summarize in an addendum to the classified briefing that the president-elect received on January 6. Their decision to share this unverified information stemmed from an abundance of caution, by which the incoming president should be made aware of accusations against him that could become public.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated: “The IC [intelligence community] has not made any judgment that the information in the Steele document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.” President Obama received the same information.

In addition to claiming that the Kremlin colluded with Trump’s presidential campaign, Steele’s dossier also alleges that Russian officials have evidence of Mr. Trump’s behavior that could be used to blackmail him, including sex tapes and bribes taken during business deals.

Since becoming president-elect, Trump appears to have skipped several intelligence briefings and national security meetings. Is it possible that he has only recently taken an interest in security briefings because his personal reputation is at risk? Could Trump’s reversal on Russia be an attempt to sweep evidence of his poor behavior and collusion under the Oval Office rug? What could the Russians possibly have on Trump that would make him change his tune and ultimately leave room for speculation that the Russians influenced the election – leading many Americans to question the legitimacy of his victory?

On the same day as his first post-election news conference, Russian officials denied that they had compromising material on Mr. Trump, calling the claim an “absolute fabrication” and an attempt to damage U.S.-Russian relations. Moscow also denied that it used cyber attacks to try to influence the election.

Recent intelligence reports suggest that Trump’s multiple GOP primary opponents, not the Russians, were the ones responsible for collecting dirt on him. But these rivals have denied they commissioned the Steele dossier. Tim Miller, a spokesman for Jeb Bush’s campaign who later worked for an anti-Trump group, is among those who denied any involvement. “It defies logic,” he said. “If we had it, why didn’t we use it?”

Though Trump switched his position on Russia’s involvement in the DNC leaks, he remains skeptical that Russia has been the only instigator of cyber attacks against the U.S. “I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people,” he noted. “And … everything else that was hacked recently… that was something that was extraordinary. That was probably China.”

Trump makes a good point here. The United States has many adversaries abroad who have both the motive and capability to initiate cyber attacks. I would certainly hope that the president-elect’s change of tune on Russia reflects his commitment to double-down on efforts to secure American documents from foreign threats.

The Peaceful Transition: An American Tradition

As he gave his farewell address in Chicago on January 10, President Barack Obama suggested the importance of public acceptance of President-elect Donald Trump.

“In ten days,” he said, “the world will witness a hallmark of our democracy.” At which point the audience, now upset, began to boo.

Obama’s reaction to this showed great character and demonstrated one of the most important American principles. He spoke firmly, saying: “No, no, no, no, no -- the peaceful transfer of power from one freely elected president to the next. I committed to President-elect Trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition, just like President Bush did for me.” Though it is a concept often overlooked by the media, a peaceful transition of power is of utmost importance to the American presidency.

The first such peaceful transition between political parties occurred following the election of 1800. Even though this election was turbulent and hard-fought, President John Adams willingly relinquished his title to a bitter enemy, Thomas Jefferson. One can assume that some who opposed Jefferson were unhappy about this, but the new president noted the possibility of an even worse kind of alienation in his inaugural address, stating: “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Making a point similar to the first part of Jefferson’s message, President-elect Trump recently said: “I pledge to every citizen in our land that I will be a president for all Americans.”

In addition, both he and Obama have commented favorably on their meetings regarding a peaceful White House transition. The most important part of such a transition, however, is not the people exchanging keys to the Oval Office but rather the American public.

Among the few elections that I have witnessed, this one appears to have drawn the most anger and the most protests from the losing side. Citizens are organizing and participating in marches to protest Trump’s inauguration, House members and other elected officials are refusing to attend the ceremony, and there are even rumors that some groups will try to disrupt the events by smoking marijuana or harassing inauguration viewers in an attempt to lower attendance.

If the inauguration is seriously interrupted by protest in its various forms, a “hallmark,” as President Obama has called it, of our nation will be disrupted as well. A peaceful transition represents more than just a passing of the torch from one president to another. It shows the American people that they should accept the election’s outcome whether they agree with it or not.

January 20th will mark a substantial change in America. There will be a new president for the first time in eight years, and in this case one who is strongly opposed to much of what the outgoing president has done and advocated. On this date, as on every Inauguration Day, it is important to remember Jefferson’s words. We may not be Federalists and Republicans anymore, but we are Democrats and Republicans who want to better the Union that we live in. Let January 20th be a day of peace, free from partisan divisions. Let Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump carry on a long-lasting tradition, and let them show the American people that the United States can still be united.