Dan Lipka Web Log

The media is making a big deal that Trump's first 100 days are upon us.  They are evaluating the job he has done so far.  This drives me crazy. Who cares if he does something at day 75 or day 150?  This represents less than 10% of his term in office.  It is utterly and completely meaningless and reminds of companies in the stock market that get obsessed over quarterly earnings.  It artificially puts pressure to accomplish something without the benefit of time and consideration. Replacing the fundamental Health Care legislation in the country should time to deliberate and come up the best possible solution.  Same thing for tax reform, economic policies, and military strategies. On a related note, Trump seems like he is going to force out a new tax policy to meet the 100 day deadline. Expect huge cuts all around, larger than expected. This will really help his popularity.  He will insist that will boost the economy (which it might in the short term), but the deficit will be the lar

Up until the election, I got most of my news from The Guardian, the NYTimes, Washington Post, or the Daily Show.  Since the election, I found myself searching more and more news sites to get a more complete perspective on the world.  This included Foxnews, CNN, Brietbart, and Politico.  I was surprised to find 75% of the news on Brietbart to pretty reasonable.  Yes, some of the stories were inflammatory or taken well out of context, but most of the stories represented a real perspective in this country.  The comments by the readers are an entirely different story and are significantly more radical. The site that has most disappointed me is the NYTimes.  I am a very liberal person, but I want my news to be objective and the NYTimes just is not.  They actively spin the news to fit their agenda and the politics of their readers.  However, they still do a tremendous job of research and have some of the most comprehensive and original articles.  The Guardian still remains my favorite, alth

"I explained to the President of China that a trade deal with the U.S. will be far better for them if they solve the North Korean problem!" - President Donald Trump via Twitter. I'm no expert, but this policy seems like an extraordinarily bad concept. Does these mean that the greater the threat that N. Korea is, the better the deal that China can expect for intervening.  In other words, if it is worth X amount of trade concessions to China to convince N. Korea to stop its nuclear program today, would it be worth even more if N. Korea advanced its nuclear capacity. N. Korea probably couldn't hit the United States with nuke now, but if they showed the ability to launch many nuclear ICBMs, that would raise the stakes.  The point is that China would gain leverage as N. Korea gets more threatening. Why wouldn't China secretly encourage (i.e. share materials, expertise) N. Korea to build up, if only to get a better deal from Trump. China certainly has the ability to i

The situation in North Korea is almost apocalyptic. The country is run by a ruthless dictator (the son of a dictator) who thinks he is a god. He has been worshiped his whole live and demands utter loyalty.  He learned that if a country has a nuclear deterrent, that it is almost impossible for any other country to attack. No nuclear power has ever been directly at war with another nuclear power. Kim Jong-Un has relentless continued to develop nuclear capacity (while abusing and neglecting his people).  Looking into the future, there are many bleak possibilities. 1) North Korea perfects nuclear weapons, but never used them. Kim Jong-Un continues to abuse his people. This is pretty bad for the 25million people who live there, but won't impact the rest of the world. Likelihood: 60%.  Why would he use nukes unless he is threatened.  2) North Korea perfects nuclear weapons and either used them or sell them to people who will use them.  This would be a disaster of epic proportions

I follow the news way to much, especially as I try to understand the issues from all perspectives. However, I randomly pulled up CNN (not one of my favorites) and saw "Just in: US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan".  Of course there are serious questions of such a significant military strike, but I'm currently more curious about how the rest of the news will handle/describe/report this and when. What sources just go with the story without confirming?  What sources jump to conclusions about this?  It has been 10 minutes already and no other media outlet has mentioned it.  Tick Toc? (Or maybe this is just fake news) Update: Two minutes later, the story is picked up by Fox News West Michigan  (not main fox news) and the Daily Star .  Ok, a minute later it is everywhere.  There is no way that all these media outlets have confirmed this independently (maybe there was a press release?) Next Update: Most of the very prominent liberal media sources (NYTimes,

It is careless and naive to think that Donald Trump does not have special traits or skills that make him exceptional.  True, he started with money and power, but he has turned a small fortune into an empire worth billions.  He started in real estate and built a conglomerate that has successful businesses in a variety of diverse sectors, including gambling, entertainment, resorts, and hotels. He has a mastery of bureaucracy, courts, systems, and communications.  There is something special about a person that can do this. Usually, someone that has achieved similar things might have an exceptional intellect, understanding of economics, is visionary, is charismatic, ridiculously dedicated, a great networker, confidence, or a combination of many things.  There are very few tremendously successful people that don't excel is something, that don't have a "superpower".  So what is Trump's superhuman ability? Perhaps Trump has the unique ability to be whatever you want hi