Where Moderate Republicans Are Wildly Popular

Morning Consult has updated their popularity ratings for the nation’s fifty governors. Some of the results aren’t too surprising. The least popular governor in the country is Chris Christie of New Jersey. He’s followed by Connecticut governor, Dan Malloy. Also trailing the pack are Republican governors Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Bruce Rauner of Illinois.

What’s less predictable is the profile of the most popular governors.

The two most best-rated are Larry Hogan of Maryland and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts. Not far behind them are Phil Scott and Chris Sununu of Vermont and New Hampshire, respectively.

What they all have in common is that they are Republicans serving their first term in states Hillary Clinton won. In fact, Vermont, Maryland, and Massachusetts were some of her strongest states.

There are other Republican governors near the top of the popularity list, like Asa Hutchison of Arkansas, Kay Ivey of Alabama, and Doug Burgum of North Dakota, but they all serve states that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

So, we’re living in a time when being a fairly moderate Republican can be extremely popular, but you’d never know it by the way the Republicans in Washington DC are behaving. Our Republican U.S. Senators and Representatives are terrified of crossing Trump and his supporters, and moderates are retiring and looking for the exits.

I guess this says something about how perverse our national politics have become, perhaps through a combination of factors including the gerrymandering of House districts.

But you can still be a moderate Republican, and a wildly popular politician, as long as you do it in a blue state and stay far away from our nation’s capital.

What Did Thomas Barrack Know, and When Did He Know It?

Most of the media focus so far has been on the arrest of Paul Manafort and George Papadopoulos, with Rick Gates’s arrest getting much less attention. Within the administration, however, things are a bit different.

Some White House advisers are unhappy with Thomas J. Barrack Jr., Trump’s longtime friend and chair of his inauguration, whom they hold responsible for keeping Gates in the Trump orbit long after Manafort resigned as campaign chairman in August 2016, according to people familiar with the situation. Barrack has been Gates’s patron of late, steering political work to him and, until Monday, employing him as director of the Washington office of his real estate investment company.

Thomas J. Barrack Jr. is a key, and yet perhaps unwitting, character in the Trump-Russia story. To understand why, we’ll need to go back in time.

Forty years ago, in Beirut, Lebanon, Mr. Barrack became an acquaintance of Paul Manafort. It’s interesting to know how each of these men found their way there. For Barrack, it was a kind of homecoming. His grandparents had immigrated to the United States from a part of Syria that is now located in Lebanon. After getting undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Southern California, Barrack landed a job with President Nixon’s personal attorney Herbert K. Kalmbach. This was the first of Barrack’s unsavory connections, as Kalmbach would later be convicted and jailed for his work on Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President.

Barrack next landed a job with the Flour Corporation, which sent him to Saudi Arabia. There he had a fortuitous experience that paved the way for his great financial success in life.

Barrack became a lawyer, and his ability to speak Arabic led to an assignment in 1972 to go to Saudi Arabia to work on a gas deal. Barrack played squash with a local Saudi. Soon the Saudi brought his brothers. It turned out they were all sons of the king of Saudi Arabia. Barrack spent many hours listening to the Arabs discuss their world, which he said gave him “great respect for the society and community.”

The princes, in turn, hired him, and he became, as he put it, the American representative of “the boys.”

So, Barrack was in Beirut forty years ago working for the Saudi Royal Family.

Paul Manafort got there by a different route. His grandfather also immigrated to the United States, settling in Connecticut. His father served as the mayor of New Britain from 1965 to 1971. Manafort got his undergraduate and law degrees from Georgetown University. He soon landed a job with the law firm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease in Washington, D.C., where he was assigned to work with a Saudi construction company.

A roommate at Barrack’s Beirut apartment introduced him to Manafort, who represented a firm doing business with a Saudi construction company. They became close friends and, four decades later, Barrack persuaded Trump to hire Manafort for his presidential campaign.

When they met, these two men were both quite a lot more connected than they might have seemed as young Americans living abroad. Barrack had worked for President Nixon’s attorney while Manafort had helped James Baker round up the delegates President Ford needed to fend off a primary challenge from Ronald Reagan.

The relationship they forged would become more important than either of them could have imagined at the time. Barrack went on to become a billionaire real estate developer who would befriend and mentor Donald Trump. When Trump needed to round up the delegates he needed to win the Republican nomination in the winter of 2016, Barrack would recommend the services of his old friend Manafort who had provided the same service to President Ford in 1976.

How precisely this came about could be the most important question that Bob Mueller needs to answer.

Here’s how the Washington Post described it in an October 10th profile of Barrack:

Barrack supported Trump’s campaign, and shortly after Trump lost the Iowa caucuses, he reconnected with his old friend Manafort, a longtime Republican consultant.

“I really need to get to” Trump, Manafort said, according to Barrack. He told Barrack he wanted to work as Trump’s convention manager, helping him navigate what they expected would be a contentious affair.

Barrack, who had long been friendly with Kushner, as well as Trump’s daughter Ivanka, said he wrote them an email urging Trump to hire Manafort.

The timeline there is almost uselessly vague, so let me clear it up. The Iowa caucuses took place on February 1st. A couple of weeks later, Barrack and Manafort had a meeting at the Montage hotel in Beverly Hills where they discussed a packet of memos Manafort had prepared to put forth his credentials to handle the delegate fight. On February 29th, Barrack forwarded the packet to Trump along with “an effusive cover letter” that “described Mr. Manafort in terms that Mr. Trump would like, calling him ‘the most experienced and lethal of managers’ and ‘a killer.’”

This must have seemed like a great idea to Barrack, as he could make two good friends happy at the same time. What he almost definitely didn’t then realize is that Manafort had an ulterior motive and was a desperate man.

It’s been known for some time that Manafort was deeply in debt when he approached Barrack about working for Donald Trump. Specifically, the New York Times reported in July that Manafort owed as much as $19 million to a Russian oligarch with mob connections named Oleg V. Deripaska.

When Barrack and Manafort made their pitch to Trump, Manafort wrote “I am not looking for a paid job,” and Barrack reiterated the point in his cover letter: “[Manafort] would do this in an unpaid capacity.” It wouldn’t become clear until later why a man who owes millions to a mobbed-up Putin connected Russian oligarch would be looking to work for free.

On March 28th, Trump hired Manafort without pay. Soon after, this happened:

On the evening of April 11, 2016, two weeks after Donald Trump hired the political consultant  Paul Manafort to lead his campaign’s efforts to wrangle Republican delegates, Manafort emailed his old lieutenant Konstantin Kilimnik, who had worked for him for a decade in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.

“I assume you have shown our friends my media coverage, right?” Manafort wrote.

“Absolutely,” Kilimnik responded a few hours later from Kiev. “Every article.”

“How do we use to get whole,” Manafort asks. “Has OVD operation seen?”

The initials OVD obviously stand for Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska. What Manafort was hoping is that by landing his position with Trump, he could somehow free himself from the millions and millions of dollars of debt he owed to Deripaska.

By late summer, it became clear that Manifort was too close to Vladimir Putin and he was fired by the Trump campaign on August 19th. But Manafort’s partner Rick Gates stayed on and gained influence. On Election Night, Gates and Barrack hit it off and Barrack hired Gates to help him organize the inauguration. This is the point at which we have some right to question Barrack’s judgment.

He knew why Manafort had been fired and it must have been a source of some embarrassment since he had so enthusiastically recommended him. But he had no obvious reservations about working with Manafort’s partner. And Gates would run into quick problems after the inauguration. At first, he landed a job working for America First Policies, a non-profit set up to help push Trump’s agenda. But he was quickly forced out because of his association with Manafort. Nonetheless, Barrack continued to befriend him, hiring him to work for his real estate business and dragging him to meetings in the White House. By June, the Daily Beast was picking up on the grumbling about Barrack’s decision-making:

After leaving the Trump-boosting nonprofit America First Policies in March—as former FBI Director James Comey officially announced an investigation into alleged ties between the Trump campaign team and Russian officials—Gates is now working directly for Tom Barrack, according to eight sources in and around the Trump White House…

…And when Barrack stops by to meet Trump in the West Wing, he has brought Gates with him, according to multiple sources familiar with the meeting. Late last week, Barrack was again at the White House, with Gates in tow, two White House officials confirmed.

In fact, it wasn’t until Gates was arrested yesterday that Barrack broke his ties with him:

Rick Gates, charged today with multiple counts of money laundering, tax fraud and illegal foreign lobbying, was fired by real estate company Colony NorthStar Inc., where he had been a consultant to Executive Chairman Tom Barrack.

Now, Barrack has been no stranger to scandal. In the Reagan White House, he worked for Interior Secretary James Watt who actually retreated to Barrack’s ranch after he was forced to resign in disgrace. He probably also arranged to have someone buy Edwin Meese’s house at an inflated price which cost him a promised job at the Commerce Department. More recently, he’s been accused in Italy of conducting a $190 million tax avoidance scheme. But it’s his decision to pitch Manafort to Trump that has cast the biggest pall over his career, and his almost inexplicable and unshakeable mentorship of Rick Gates is a close second that casts some suspicion on innocent explanations for his role in Manafort’s hiring.

Was he really an unwitting participant? Has he been as naive as he’d like us to believe? Why did he stick with Gates even after he’d been badly burned by Manafort?

I hope Robert Mueller can provide us the answers to these questions.

And then I want to know why Trump was seething when he saw Gates and Manafort had been arrested. Shouldn’t he have been happy considering all the legal and political problems they’ve caused him?

Maybe the president wasn’t an innocent victim here, either.

Camp Westerbork – Tragic Stopover to German Death Camps

Impression on film by Werner Rudolf Breslauer has become part of UNESCO historical archive.

Dutch newspaper – province of Drenthe
Camp Westerbork, the film

The Photography of Rudolf Werner Breslauer

From Yad Vashem’s online photo archive comes another haunting image of life – for some- in the Westerbork concentration camp in Holland. Pictured above is the camp Commandant Gemmeker lighting the candles on a Christmas tree for the officers. The ability of the camp administrators and guards to adhere to societal norms and traditions provides us with insight into the nature of the human behaviour of the perpetrators.  How the perpetrators of the Holocaust could celebrate Christmas traditions while overseeing the incarceration and deportation of Jews is haunting.

Yad Vashem’s description of this archival photograph states that Rudolf Werner Breslauer – a Jewish inmate-, enjoyed good relations with camp commandant Gemmeker, prepared this album, probably in early 1943. It depicts different scenes from the comp and its surrounding area: daily life in the camp, deportations, forced labor, Christmas feast of the SS staff, private life of Gemmeker and his mistress etc.Visit their website for a complete viewing of this album.  

UNESCO Memory of the World Register

<< NEVER AGAIN >>

Papadopoulos Can Unlock Part of the Puzzle

Probably the most stunned people in the world in March 2016 were the members of the Washington Post editorial board after they got done interviewing Donald Trump. Of course, if you read the transcript of their interview at the time, you were probably left almost insensate from your close contact with 151 proof Stupid. Things didn’t start out in an obviously ridiculous manner, however, or, at least it wasn’t immediately obvious how insane things were from the moment Trump opened his mouth.

FREDERICK RYAN JR., WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHER: Mr. Trump, welcome to the Washington Post. Thank you for making time to meet with our editorial board.

DONALD TRUMP: New building. Yes this is very nice. Good luck with it.

RYAN: Thank you… We’ve heard you’re going to be announcing your foreign policy team shortly… Any you can share with us?

TRUMP: Well, I hadn’t thought of doing it, but if you want I can give you some of the names… Walid Phares, who you probably know, PhD, adviser to the House of Representatives caucus, and counter-terrorism expert; Carter Page, PhD; George Papadopoulos, he’s an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy; the Honorable Joe Schmitz, [former] inspector general at the Department of Defense; [retired] Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg; and I have quite a few more. But that’s a group of some of the people that we are dealing with. We have many other people in different aspects of what we do, but that’s a representative group.

The folks at the Post’s editorial board are fairly connected people, but they didn’t know who the hell Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were. I kind of doubt that Donald Trump knew who they were, either. Apparently, he just pulled a card of his suit coat and started reading names. With the breaking news that Papadopoulos has been a cooperating witness for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who possibly has been wearing a wire, we may be getting closer to finding out who was responsible for putting his name on that card.

It’s been known for a couple of months that “between March and September [2016], the self-described energy consultant [Papadopoulos] sent at least a half-dozen requests for Trump, as he turned from primary candidate to party nominee, or for members of his team to meet with Russian officials,” including Vladimir Putin. For the most part, though, much more attention has been paid to how Carter Page got on Trump’s list. Was Page introduced to Sam Clovis by Corey Lewandowski, as the Daily Caller reported in April? Was the Washington Post right when they reported that Page volunteered his services and Clovis did no more vetting than a Google search before welcoming on board? We know that Lewandowski and Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, were also in attendance at the meeting with the editorial board. We know that Clovis had a role. But we also know that it was ultimately Sen. Jeff Sessions and some of his top aides who were responsible for putting together a foreign policy team for the candidate.

Why were two minor unknown people with major Kremlin ties on that list?

It’s a bigger question than it might seem, and I’ll try to explain the full context in subsequent posts. What seems certain is that Papadopoulos got caught in a major lie and decided to cooperate with the Special Counsel in an effort to reduce his penalty. He can explain a big part of the puzzle. I’m sure he has told Mueller’s investigators exactly how he was recruited or infiltrated the Trump campaign and what he was expected to do. He may have bolstered the credibility of his story by getting others to confirm aspects of it in ways that were recorded.

Where that leads us, I don’t know. But I’ll be exploring the possibilities.

We Won’t Have Halperin to Kick Around Any More

Mark Halperin was fired by NBC and MSNBC today. This follows on the bad news from last week.

Political analyst Mark Halperin has lost a book deal and an HBO project based on it in the wake of sexual-harassment allegations by at least five women.

Late Thursday, Penguin Press announced it would cancel a book by Halperin and longtime collaborator John Heilemann about the 2016 presidential election.

“In light of the recent news regarding Mark Halperin, the Penguin Press has decided to cancel our plans to publish a book he was co-authoring on the 2016 election,” the publisher said in a statement.

HBO said it was ““no longer proceeding with the project tied to the untitled book. HBO has no tolerance for sexual harassment within the company or its productions.”

That project was going to be the upcoming season of the highly-rated Game Change program. You don’t want to know the details of why this has happened to Halperin, but I’ll provide some anyway:

CNN’s Oliver Darcy reported Wednesday night that women described Halperin as having a “dark side” that ranged from “propositioning employees for sex to kissing and grabbing one’s breasts against her will.” Three of the women described “Halperin as, without consent, pressing an erection against their bodies while he was clothed,” Darcy wrote. Halperin denied “grabbing a woman’s breasts and pressing his genitals against the three women,” according to the report.

If I were to write an epitaph of Halperin’s career, or carve something on his gravestone, I’d definitely mention that Dana Milbank said that his political analysis was “soulless” and “amoral.”

His treatment of women, unfortunately, has been even worse.

I know that Donald Trump only hires “the best people,” so I suppose there’s a chance that Halperin could fall up into the White House. Ordinarily, I’d predict that he’d land at the Fox News land of misfit toys with other spectacular washouts like Oliver North, Mark Fuhrman, Howard Kurtz, and Geraldo Rivera. But Fox News probably doesn’t need one more sexual harassment rehabilitation project at the moment, so maybe a better bet is that Halperin will follow Larry King and Michael Flynn to Vladimir Putin’s RT network. I doubt his father is proud.

Whitefish in Puerto Rico

This was really fast:

Faster than I could follow this matter and put together the diary that I was ready to post before this breaking news.  Perhaps it will still have some value and all the relevant information has yet to be disclosed.

This is completely bizarre and inexplicable.  So much so on its face from reports in WaPo and the NYTimes  that even federal agenciesmembers of Congress from both parties are calling for an investigation,

The bare-bones facts are:  1) Electricity in Puerto Rico is supplied by the state owned and operated Puerto Rico Electrical Power Authority (PREPA) that filed for bankruptcy in July 2017.  2) Hurricane  Irma damaged the electrical grid in PR, but it was Hurricane Maria that destroyed most of it.  3) Retoration of power in PR is a major project.* 4)  FEMA grants to PREPA total $171 million 5) PREPA awarded a $300 million contract to Whitefish Energy Holdings, Montana  (WEH)
$300 million is a major contract.  Major contracts go to large, well-established major contractors and often such contractors form joint-ventures because no one contractor possesses all the resources required to get the job done.  SOP for any public entity is to solticit bids from contractors and award the contract to the lowest cost responsible bidder.**

Whitefish isn’t a major contractor.  It was only established in 2015.  Not as a consolidation or spin-off from long-established electricity contractors but brand new.  That means that it has an extremely limited track record and limited working capital and equity.  In no way would such a contractor be deemed a “responsible bidder” for a three hundred million dollar prime contract.  As electrical contractors self-perform, as contrasted with subcontract, most of the work, getting to that “responsible” level requires a higher degree of in-house construction expertise and capital bases than that required for a general contractor.

Not possible that Whitefish would qualify for much, if any, public works contract.  That includes work for public utilities (i.e. LADWP), COE, and DOD.  And contracts with private utility companies would be relatively small, less than a million dollars.  
A $300 million public works contract?  Not even close to plausible.  Yet somehow it did happen.  And now a whole lot of people and entities are asking a whole lot of questions.

The Guardian:

The mayor of San Juan on Wednesday accused the company restoring power to Puerto Rico of threatening to withdraw its services after she drew attention to its controversial contract.

Who does Whitefish CEO Andy Techmanski think he is?  Donald Trump? (The company’s investors also include HBC Investments, a Texas-based firm whose founder donated generously to President Trump. )  No CEO of any “responsible” construction company would ever respond to questions by making a threat on twitter.  That confirms how out of its league Whitefish is.   Does it help that Whitefish Energy Apologizes to Puerto Rico, San Juan Mayor for Twitter Comments?

The Daily Beast reporter Ken Klippenstein has been tweeting about the contract.  Unfortunately, his link and Vice’s link to the contract doesn’t work.   Recall this is a public works contract and therefore, the contract should be accessible.  Thus, until it is available, I can’t make any assessment of the terms of the contract.

However this anomaly came to be, some are scrambling:

…The Federal Emergency Management Agency said Friday that it has “significant concerns” with the contract that PREPA drew up with Whitefish, and that it would be reviewing it — but that it had not done so prior to the contract’s approval, as the contract itself states.

The White House, too, disavowed the contract, saying that neither the federal government nor Zinke had any involvement in it.

“He reiterated once again that we have no role — the federal government — and specifically he had no role in that contract,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said during a White House press briefing. She also said that President Donald Trump specifically asked Zinke whether he was at all involved with the contract on Friday, “just for clarification purposes.

Zinke took to Twitter himself to say he was not involved in the contract negotiations.

If the statements from the Trump administration aren’t true (would be an exception for them if they are true), this will be a big deal.  Possibly a very big deal because disaster aid for Puerto Rico is already a weak spot for Trump according the the HarrisHarvard poll:

62% disapproval on “Administering the government” (page 12) (strongly approve 16% (page 16)

And specifically: Trump’s Handling Of Hurricane Maria Is Getting Really Bad Marks

The latest Associated Press/NORC poll found that just 32 percent of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of disaster relief for victims of recent hurricanes “in U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands,” while 49 percent disapproved. In the same survey, 48 percent approved of his handling of disaster relief in Florida and Texas; just 27 percent disapproved.

——-

*Makes the Sonoma County fire related outages (over two weeks in some areas) look like child’s play.

**Recall Bunnatine Greenhouse.
https://news.vice.com/story/multiple-investigations-opened-into-controversial-puerto-rico-energy-con
tract

Catalonia?

As someone distrustful of extreme nationalism and committed to the European ideal as the best way we have yet found of maintaining peace and prosperity in Europe, I am utterly conflicted by the drive for Catalonian independence.

On the one hand I am committed to the European principle of subsidiarity – that decisions effecting peoples lives should be made with their maximum involvement and as close as possible to their own communities.

I therefore have no problem with negotiations for greater Catalonian autonomy, if Catalonians generally are unhappy with decisions made on their behalf by the central government in Madrid.

But granting Catalonia full sovereignty is an altogether different matter. It implies that Catalonia will have its own army and distinct relationships with the EU and all foreign states. On what basis could it be granted?
The modern system of nation states was born of two world wars, the disintegration of several empires and many more local conflicts. Boundaries were often drawn on fairly arbitrary lines by departing imperial powers with terrible consequences for local populations drawn from different ethnic groupings or religious traditions.

All to often it was the relative strength of different armies which determined their exact location. Some boundaries, when drawn, resulted in the death and dislocation of millions of people, as in the partition of the Indian sub continent into India and Pakistan, and, subsequently, Bangladesh.  As we speak, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya are being driven from their ancient tribal lands in Myanmar.

Anyone who says this couldn’t happen in Europe doesn’t know their history. There are huge ethnic tensions with large Russian minorities in the Baltic states and a low intensity war is being fought in Ukraine. Tensions in the Balkans resulted in the disintegration of Yugoslavia with a state of near war between Serbia and Croatia and many deaths around Kosovo.

Even Brexit can be seen as an uprising by English nationalists which may yet result in the disintegration of the UK. Scotland may tire of Westminster rule, and the historic settlement between British and Irish nationalists as codified by the Good Friday Agreement is threatened.

There are many reasons why a region might wish to secede from a larger state – and these often crystallise around differences of ethnicity, religion, language and culture. Often these may hide divergences of economic interests – as when Biafra, which controlled most of Nigerian oil – sought to secede from Nigeria. Many European states have regions that are more prosperous than others and which may see it as being in their own narrow self-interest to secede from their respective states

Memories of the Spanish civil war, and feelings of discrimination ever since, no doubt contribute to the Catalonian sense of grievance. The heavy handed tactics of the Rajoy regime in seeking to repress an unauthorised referendum cannot have helped. But how would Catalonian independence improve matters for many Catalonians and most Spaniards? Is it just a case of local elites seeking to wrest more power from national ones?

There has been a general upsurge of populist and far right nationalist parties throughout most of Europe in response to austerity, immigration, and the regressive redistributive effects of globalisation. Global corporations seem to hold more and more sway over nation states and the bulk of their profits go to the already rich.

The splintering and disintegration of Europe into ever smaller nation states would exacerbate this process by increasing the imbalance of power between global corporates and smaller states vying for investment and jobs for their people. The EU has failed its member states by not being assertive enough in correcting this imbalance.

However, whatever chance the EU has of redressing this imbalance, the smaller states have none, and it is noteworthy that most nationalist movements have no analysis of how they would address this issue. If anything, their solution is to compete ever more aggressively for such investment, beggaring their neighbours even more in the process if necessary.

If Catalonians are unhappy with Madrid rule, they should press for ‘an ever deeper Union’ at EU level to ensure their grievances are addressed. Many Catalans point to an alleged hypocrisy between an EU willing to interfere in the budgetary affairs of heavily indebted states and civil rights violations in Poland and Hungary and yet remaining silent on the repression of their attempts at self-determination.

But there is no inconsistency here. It is Spain which is the EU member, and not Catalonia; and it is for Spain to decide its own internal constitutional arrangements. Rightly or wrongly, the EU has been granted powers by the Maastricht Treaty to interfere in the budgetary processes of member states. It has no Treaty powers to direct Spain to grant greater autonomy to Catalonia.

If Spain were to regress into a Francoist autocracy, repressing human rights and democratic norms in contravention of European Treaties, the EU might well have to take action. But we are not there yet, and not by a long way. Let the Catalonian leadership take its grievances to the ECJ if it feels a European Treaty have been infringed.

In the meantime the stability of Europe, no less that the stability of Spain requires that any movement towards greater autonomy or independence in Catalonia can only be achieved by peaceful negotiation and consent. The Catalonian leadership have failed to articulate precisely what grievances Catalonian independence would better address, and precisely how this would be in the best interests of both Catalonians and the rest of Spain.

A negotiation is always a two way process, and your proposed solution has to be able to offer some advantages to your adversaries as well. Shouting “we want, we want, we want” ever louder is not an argument. Just how would the rest of Spain and the EU benefit from Catalonian independence, especially with so many other separatist movements waiting in the wings?

But for Rajoy and for other European leaders the drive for Catalonian independence should also be a warning moment: The EU and its members cannot prosper so long as ordinary people see their incomes and benefits stall by reason of austerity, while they feel threatened by increased competition for jobs and scarce resources from immigrants, and while ruling elites seem ever more in thrall to global capitalism.

It is high time that the persistent problems of corporate tax avoidance and lax banking regulation be addressed. The EU either acts to address the increasing imbalances in welfare between European elites and ordinary citizens or it too will collapse amid a mêlée of competing nationalisms and possible wars.

Catalonians, no less than the rest of us, cannot take the benefits of the EU for granted. The EU has to be re-imagined for each successive generation and cannot live off past achievements forever. Brexit will provide a cautionary tale for those who would seek to achieve the benefits of pooled sovereignty without the responsibilities. We do not need another débâcle in Catalonia.

SPP Vol.637 & Old Time Froggy Botttom Cafe

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be starting a new painting.  I will be using a photo from one of my trips to Red Canyon in Utah.  This is a poor photo of a photo that doesn’t quite show the true color of the place.  I believe that Red Canyon has the best color in the southwest, and I have been all over the southwest.  The photo that I’m using is seen directly below.  I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 5×7 inch canvas.

I started with a pencil grid on both a print of the photo and the canvas.  In this way I was able to transfer the elements to the canvas in an accurate pencil sketch.  I’ve already applied some paint to the sky.  I’m using a top down approach as in the last painting.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.