Venezuelan opposition figure María Corina Machado, according to to Nobel Institute director Kristian Berg Harpviken, will travel to Oslo to collect her Nobel Peace Prize on December 10.

As news goes, Machado’s alleged trip pings three different stories.

First, there’s the story of whether someone who’s supported multiple violent coup attempts,  backs international sanctions, and calls for foreign military intervention, all to put herself in political power, really deserves a “peace” prize.

Given the warlike records of past recipients such as Woodrow Wilson and Henry Kissinger, I guess Machado’s not really an outlier, but rather an exemplar of the politicized nature of the award. The only metric by which she really looks very good is by comparison to the regime she opposes.

Then there’s the story of the reaction from that regime, headed by “president” Nicolás Maduro (who seems to have lost the last election, even after banning Machado’s candidacy, yet remains in power). If she leaves the country, Maduro’s attorney general says, Machado becomes a “fugitive.” She’s so far avoided (recent) arrest, mostly remaining in hiding, and it’s unlikely that she’d face extradition back to Venezuela and into the regime’s hands if she leaves, but it’s still not a very good look (Maduro and Co. are masters of the not very good look).

The biggest story, though, is the US regime’s continuing escalation in and around Venezuela.

President Donald Trump embarked on a serial murder spree around the Caribbean in September, ordering boats (and people) blown up by US military forces on the pretense that he’s fighting a “narco-terrorist cartel” headed by Maduro (on whose head he’s placed a $50 million bounty). He’s also steadily increased the US military presence in the region, rattling the American saber for “regime change” in Caracas.

It’s been tempting, so far, to write Trump’s belligerence off as an attempt to distract from his domestic political failures (including the longest “government shutdown” in history) and personal scandals (such as his long, close personal relationship with the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein).

On the other hand, if he’s really going to take the US to war with Venezuela, what better moment — for theatrical and propaganda purposes — to launch a full-scale attack than just as his quisling of choice accepts a “peace prize” in Oslo?

It’s an evil and stupid idea, but given the US government’s long record of evil and stupidity when it comes to Latin America, it shouldn’t exactly surprise anyone.

It’s tempting to hope for a war in which both authoritarian kleptocracies find ways to lose. Unfortunately, the biggest losers in every war are the civilian non-combatants of all the countries involved.

If the program is really”America First,” the policy will be “hands off Venezuela.”

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Americans, the Associated Press reports, spent a record $11.8 billion online on “Black Friday” (the day after Thanksgiving) this year … and another record, $6.4 billion on Thanksgiving itself. Physical in-store traffic for Black Friday also ticked up versus the previous week, although shopping for deals has strongly moved online in recent years.

What caught my eye about the story, though, was the headline, which suggests the record sales occurred “despite wider economic uncertainty.”

“Despite?” More likely, in my opinion, “because.”

With inflation still running at about 3% annually, prices subject to Donald Trump’s seemingly random tariff policies, the job situation looking more uncertain and unpredictable than it has since the COVID-19 panic, etc., what have American consumers been up to?

I can tell you what they’ve been up to, because I’ve been up to it myself.

What we’ve all been up to is “waiting for the best deal if the purchase isn’t an emergency.”

I started waiting in early October, right after Amazon’s “Big Prime Deal Days” sale.

Not on groceries and stuff like that, obviously. But on electronics, household goods, and other non-perishables, I kept a running list in my head of things I needed or wanted and held off on buying until I started seeing “early Black Friday deals.”

Unless you’re wealthy, you probably did the same thing.

The big sales bumps for Black Friday, Cyber Monday, etc., aren’t a sign that the economy’s great. They’re a sign that we’re watching our money even more than usual, waiting for the sale price instead of paying MSRP.

Fortunately, our own uncertainty is mirrored by the uncertainty of retailers. As you may have noticed, we see a lot more “big sales” these last few years. Retailers love to sell lots of stuff year-round, but when no one can know what prices — and incomes — will look like next week, it feels like the best time to get those items out the door and the money in the bank is “ASAP.”

That probably explains the ever-expanding nature of “Black Friday.” Even a few years ago, that fell on, um, Friday. Then we started seeing “Cyber Monday,” then “early Black Friday deals” and, I noticed this year, “Black Friday Week.” A few years from now, the big pre-holiday sales event may be called “November.”

We’re keeping an eye out for especially good deals for two reasons.

First, we don’t know what tomorrow will look like.

Second, we strongly suspect it won’t look as good as today.

We’ve lived in more optimistic, less uncertain times, but this isn’t one of those times.

It’s not just a Trump thing. His second presidency may — hopefully does — represent the pinnacle of massive government debt coupled with cockamamie tax and trade policy, but he didn’t invent those problems. He just inherited them and put them on steroids.

Here’s hoping you found what you were looking for on, or around, Black Friday. And that you won’t feel like you have to watch your bank balance quite so closely next year. Happy holidays.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“You can refuse illegal orders … you MUST refuse illegal orders.”

That’s the message from a recent video featuring six Democratic members of Congress, all former members of the US armed forces and/or intelligence services, and directed at current members of those organizations.

Seems non-controversial, but someone else would like a word. Er, several words:

“Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? … SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

As you’ve probably guessed, that someone else is US president Donald Trump.

And he’s not just talking. He’s had US secretary of defense Pete Hegseth threaten to recall one of the politicians in question, US Senator Mark Kelly, to active duty in the   Navy for a potential court-martial. He’s having the Federal Bureau of Investigation request “interviews” with with all six politicians.

Yes, really.

But, like I said, the whole thing seems uncontroversial. This is, to use a turn of phrase Trump seems to like, a “witch hunt.”

It’s been 40 years since I spent the summer in San Diego becoming a US Marine. I’m sure things have changed since then, but I doubt they’ve changed so much that anyone graduates any armed forces boot camp without receiving instruction in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

A summary, from memory, on the section  (Article 92) concerning orders:

You must obey lawful orders.

You must not obey unlawful orders.

As I recall it, the case my platoon’s instructor used as an example was Lt. William Calley’s conduct in Vietnam during an event later known as the “My Lai Massacre.”

Here’s what the US Court of Military Appeals had to say about Calley’s defense that he was “just following orders”:

“An order requiring the performance of a military duty may be inferred to be legal. An act performed manifestly beyond the scope of authority, or pursuant to an order that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal, or in a wanton manner in the discharge of a lawful duty, is not excusable.”

Calley served three years (of a life sentence) for the murders at My Lai.

Why? Because you must refuse illegal orders.

If it’s “treason” or “sedition” to state that fact, then every instructor in every basic training class on military law is a traitor who’s been teaching treason and preaching sedition to every recruit since 1950, when the UCMJ was adopted … and probably long before that.

Would these particular politicians  have made this particular video if it was a Democrat  issuing illegal orders from the White House?

Probably not, but they’re right anyway.

Note to military and intelligence personnel:

You must refuse illegal orders.

If this be treason, make the most of it.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY