One of the things that the Government is pretty bad at is issuing and enforcing regulations.
It would seem pretty easy to simply issue a regulation that says don't start a forest fire.
That would however be open to so much interpretation that it would become either unenforceable or so prohibitive that it would penalize innocent campers.
You can't wait for the fire to happen so to enforce such a regulation you would have to define what constitutes a "forest fire" and what activities likely to create one should be prohibited.
In ancient history I was once tasked when I was a boy scout to go around and enforce regulations about fire safety. Enforce is probably too strong a word, I visited the other camp sites and checked to see if the fire met the guidelines, which as I remember was mostly about clearance.
You couldn't have overhang and you had to have a clear diameter of ten feet.
Overhang was the bigger issue because, well there's wind.
It wasn't a particularly windy evening but at one site I had a fairly long discussion with a troop leader about whether the tree branches were overhanging his fire. The did when the breeze was blowing but otherwise not so much. I didn't consider his setup dangerous but I had to complete my checklist so was there overhang or not. If I checked yes he would have to move his perfectly safe fire, somewhere, although as he pointed out it was already in the best possible place.
So maybe because I wasn't all that strict and maybe because he was like 100% more knowledgeable than me I checked his site off as safe. There was no forest fire.
However, in my later life I've worked with Government people who would definitely have checked the "no" box partly because they sometimes feel they have to.
Government workers are very dedicated and diligent but in general many of them are simply inexperienced. They tend to treat the regulations as the most important thing, not what the regulations are supposed to ensure or prevent. So even when there is effectively zero chance of a forest fire they make you move your fire.
So maybe its not the regulations as much as the lack of experience and judgement that's the problem.
However, if you use judgement you are likely to be second guessed by someone who likely knows even less than you do. Suspicions about why you were lenient have to be addressed.
So they get enforced and often the result is both troublesome and ineffective.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Monday, October 30, 2017
Crimes?
We are likely to see the first arrest today from the special investigator and it should tell us a bit more about at least the appearance of illegal activity by accused.
Trump and some of his supporters are trying to deflect and accuse the democrats and Hillary of certain offenses but they have problems distinguishing between normal legal behavior and crimes.
I don't know for sure if anyone in the dotard's campaign did something illegal, the courts get to decide that, but getting indicted is an indication they might have.
Being in charge of a department that was one of several that approved the sale of a Canadian company to a Russian firm is not a crime, unless of course someone could prove a bribe was involved, which unrelated donations to the Clinton Foundation aren't.
It doesn't even seem like the Secretary was directly involved in the approval process.
Also hiring a firm to do research on your opponent is perfectly legal.
The desperation is such that some are trying to accuse the campaign of mischaracterizing the payments since they were characterized as legal expenses because the actual money went to their lawyer.
The lawyer was the one who funded the research and maybe should have disclosed this to the campaign for reporting purposes, but since the difference between spending the money on legal costs or opposition research is meaningless legally, they are both acceptable, the booking error is hardly a significant offense. It certainly isn't indictable.
I'm pretty sure that if you examine the books of any large campaign there will be some mistakes, and let's be clear, funding this research was pretty routine at the time.
Our dotard has no idea of the difference between criminal and meaningless accusations, maybe someone will explain it to him soon.
Trump and some of his supporters are trying to deflect and accuse the democrats and Hillary of certain offenses but they have problems distinguishing between normal legal behavior and crimes.
I don't know for sure if anyone in the dotard's campaign did something illegal, the courts get to decide that, but getting indicted is an indication they might have.
Being in charge of a department that was one of several that approved the sale of a Canadian company to a Russian firm is not a crime, unless of course someone could prove a bribe was involved, which unrelated donations to the Clinton Foundation aren't.
It doesn't even seem like the Secretary was directly involved in the approval process.
Also hiring a firm to do research on your opponent is perfectly legal.
The desperation is such that some are trying to accuse the campaign of mischaracterizing the payments since they were characterized as legal expenses because the actual money went to their lawyer.
The lawyer was the one who funded the research and maybe should have disclosed this to the campaign for reporting purposes, but since the difference between spending the money on legal costs or opposition research is meaningless legally, they are both acceptable, the booking error is hardly a significant offense. It certainly isn't indictable.
I'm pretty sure that if you examine the books of any large campaign there will be some mistakes, and let's be clear, funding this research was pretty routine at the time.
Our dotard has no idea of the difference between criminal and meaningless accusations, maybe someone will explain it to him soon.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Budget Follies
Nobody I know likes taxes, really, although I do know people who understand paying taxes is something we need to do to pay our countries bills.
It sees that a lot of people aren't aware of that so they simply want the taxes cut and the bills paid, well magically I guess.
If I sit down to discuss my household budget there is a general understanding that the amount of money coming in has to equal the money going out in most instances.
Sometimes of course you might have to borrow to pay for something big, like a house or a car so this becomes the household debt which results in monthly payments I have to make.
So my budget includes all the things I have to pay, including debt payments and things I would like to have which I don't have to buy.
At the end of the day I want these numbers to be less than the cash I bring in.
This results in a nest egg that I can use for retirement or special things.
However if I was to find out that I was going to get less cash each month, I would have to adjust, either by taking money our of that "nest egg", borrowing or reducing spending. If I was to decide to just go ahead and spend more it would be a reckless maneuver.
The Government isn't very different, it has income, mostly taxes, it has mandatory payments, mostly what are called entitlements and debt and it has discretionary spending.
We tend to view defense spending as required spending but while veterans benefits are, defense spending is actually discretionary. We could spend less and in fact the last time we had a budget surplus it was to some extent related to the reduction in defense spending after the cold war ended.
Now we spend more than we take in and the situation isn't likely to get better. Some of this is driven by our aging population and the benefits we owe them and some of it goes back to the early days of the last republican administration.
When it started the country was running a surplus and two things happened. A tax cut was passed and then the war on terror broke out and we started spending increased amounts in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots.
We quickly went back to deficits and have been there ever since. luckily for us the Fed has suppressed interest rates to make the debt a bit more affordable, but it still consumes more and more of the budget each year.
Sane people would look at this and conclude we need more revenue, or less spending.
That's what sane people would do, but our representatives have decided its time to increase defense spending, increase infrastructure spending and cut revenue, taxes.
Since that is the opposite of what sane people would do, I guess the only real conclusion we can draw is that the people doing it are insane.
This is our friendly deficit loving republican party.
Wait they are increasing usage fees at the national parks, that's the ticket.
It sees that a lot of people aren't aware of that so they simply want the taxes cut and the bills paid, well magically I guess.
If I sit down to discuss my household budget there is a general understanding that the amount of money coming in has to equal the money going out in most instances.
Sometimes of course you might have to borrow to pay for something big, like a house or a car so this becomes the household debt which results in monthly payments I have to make.
So my budget includes all the things I have to pay, including debt payments and things I would like to have which I don't have to buy.
At the end of the day I want these numbers to be less than the cash I bring in.
This results in a nest egg that I can use for retirement or special things.
However if I was to find out that I was going to get less cash each month, I would have to adjust, either by taking money our of that "nest egg", borrowing or reducing spending. If I was to decide to just go ahead and spend more it would be a reckless maneuver.
The Government isn't very different, it has income, mostly taxes, it has mandatory payments, mostly what are called entitlements and debt and it has discretionary spending.
We tend to view defense spending as required spending but while veterans benefits are, defense spending is actually discretionary. We could spend less and in fact the last time we had a budget surplus it was to some extent related to the reduction in defense spending after the cold war ended.
Now we spend more than we take in and the situation isn't likely to get better. Some of this is driven by our aging population and the benefits we owe them and some of it goes back to the early days of the last republican administration.
When it started the country was running a surplus and two things happened. A tax cut was passed and then the war on terror broke out and we started spending increased amounts in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots.
We quickly went back to deficits and have been there ever since. luckily for us the Fed has suppressed interest rates to make the debt a bit more affordable, but it still consumes more and more of the budget each year.
Sane people would look at this and conclude we need more revenue, or less spending.
That's what sane people would do, but our representatives have decided its time to increase defense spending, increase infrastructure spending and cut revenue, taxes.
Since that is the opposite of what sane people would do, I guess the only real conclusion we can draw is that the people doing it are insane.
This is our friendly deficit loving republican party.
Wait they are increasing usage fees at the national parks, that's the ticket.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
More Saturday Ramblings
Does anyone really want the monkey house to climb around the uranium deal again? We can't afford any more mutants there.
All those fake Government numbers are now touted as good news by the same guy who called them fake.
The good news is that the trends the previous administration left us are still continuing.
Se effectively our dotard told a bunch of children that they came from ugly parents?
The media is taking a lot of abuse and some of it is really deserving of it. However we still have some outlets that try to report facts.
Some of the worst of the web sites promoting garbage have decreased traffic according to a recent report. Maybe Abe was right about not being to fool all of the people all of the time?
Imagine you go to a music festival and some deranged person starts shooting and you get hit but survive. Then you are attacked by a bunch of conspiracy theorists claiming the event never happened? Just imagine.
The release of the JFK papers is really a non-event and if we release more it isn't going to change anything, except we might find out a few embarrassing things about people
I hear people argue that the American public has the right to know. well we do know but people who were promised confidentiality and information related to classified projects that could jeopardize national relations are properly sealed.
The dotard is once again raising the emails as an issue. It served him well even though it had no real substance but its become a bit of a fall back position for him.
Republicans like to roll out Hillary and Nancy Pelosi when they have any trouble. More so that Obama. Guess they have more misogynists than racists, although I'm sure the count is close.
All those fake Government numbers are now touted as good news by the same guy who called them fake.
The good news is that the trends the previous administration left us are still continuing.
Se effectively our dotard told a bunch of children that they came from ugly parents?
The media is taking a lot of abuse and some of it is really deserving of it. However we still have some outlets that try to report facts.
Some of the worst of the web sites promoting garbage have decreased traffic according to a recent report. Maybe Abe was right about not being to fool all of the people all of the time?
Imagine you go to a music festival and some deranged person starts shooting and you get hit but survive. Then you are attacked by a bunch of conspiracy theorists claiming the event never happened? Just imagine.
The release of the JFK papers is really a non-event and if we release more it isn't going to change anything, except we might find out a few embarrassing things about people
I hear people argue that the American public has the right to know. well we do know but people who were promised confidentiality and information related to classified projects that could jeopardize national relations are properly sealed.
The dotard is once again raising the emails as an issue. It served him well even though it had no real substance but its become a bit of a fall back position for him.
Republicans like to roll out Hillary and Nancy Pelosi when they have any trouble. More so that Obama. Guess they have more misogynists than racists, although I'm sure the count is close.
Friday, October 27, 2017
Circus, Circus
The monkey house managed to pass a $4Trillion budget resolution without a single democratic vote. We clearly don't have a lot of bipartisan work going on but one would think that the budget is something that should be a little bi-partisan.
Of course in and of itself it barely mustered enough republican votes and it only did that by promising to fix things in it later.
The budget resolution is actually only important because it allows the senate to us a provision called budget resolution to pass certain things with a simple majority. That is still a tricky proposition as health care showed us but it is at least possible.
The question I have is if the planned tax cut bill is so wonderful why can't some democrats be convinced to support it?
I remember times, not that long ago really, where budgets were at times passed with close to everyone on board. This was when we used to use normal process as Sen McCain mentioned and committees attempted to compromise so that both parties could support a bill.
In our new no compromise environment, or at least no compromise with the other party we see the rise of partisan politics that George Washington was worried about.
When adherence to party is greater than adherence to country.
Not everything in the budget is bad and in fact most of it is probably routine. The issue was the introduction of the budget resolution process so the Senate might be able to pass a Tax cut without compromising with the democrats/
Of course they have their own internal demons to deal with, so the outcome is still uncertain.
The three ring circus continues.
Of course in and of itself it barely mustered enough republican votes and it only did that by promising to fix things in it later.
The budget resolution is actually only important because it allows the senate to us a provision called budget resolution to pass certain things with a simple majority. That is still a tricky proposition as health care showed us but it is at least possible.
The question I have is if the planned tax cut bill is so wonderful why can't some democrats be convinced to support it?
I remember times, not that long ago really, where budgets were at times passed with close to everyone on board. This was when we used to use normal process as Sen McCain mentioned and committees attempted to compromise so that both parties could support a bill.
In our new no compromise environment, or at least no compromise with the other party we see the rise of partisan politics that George Washington was worried about.
When adherence to party is greater than adherence to country.
Not everything in the budget is bad and in fact most of it is probably routine. The issue was the introduction of the budget resolution process so the Senate might be able to pass a Tax cut without compromising with the democrats/
Of course they have their own internal demons to deal with, so the outcome is still uncertain.
The three ring circus continues.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Paying for Research
As we see the monkeys in the House scramble around trying to figure out how to convince themselves that reducing revenues somehow reduces the deficit, we have our very own self proclaimed intelligent dotard saying that he is somehow the victim because those mean Democrats and Hillary researched his background.
Of course if he had even normal intelligence he would know this is common and was done by his own team as well.
Even sillier is the way the press is so easily manipulated by stories that really mean nothing at all.
The research resulted in a dossier which is either true or not.
If there was some evidence that someone was directed to compile a false narrative, that might be something, of course it would still depend a lot on what the campaign or the Democratic party did with the information.
What is clear, at least to most intelligent observers, is that the other campaign and current administration have no problem making wild accusations without any research at all, sometimes based on a TV story, sometimes based on pure imagination.
Accusations related to e-mails without even a shred of evidence that they had anything meaningful in them was done without any research of even common sense.
In fact if I was to list every instance of false facts and allegations I might be writing forever.
I guess the real joke is that they paid someone to do the research and as damaging as it seemed never used it either because they couldn't verify it or didn't actually receive it.
Hell they could have followed the dotard's example and just made stuff up.
Lots of people tell me that's the way to go.
Of course if he had even normal intelligence he would know this is common and was done by his own team as well.
Even sillier is the way the press is so easily manipulated by stories that really mean nothing at all.
The research resulted in a dossier which is either true or not.
If there was some evidence that someone was directed to compile a false narrative, that might be something, of course it would still depend a lot on what the campaign or the Democratic party did with the information.
What is clear, at least to most intelligent observers, is that the other campaign and current administration have no problem making wild accusations without any research at all, sometimes based on a TV story, sometimes based on pure imagination.
Accusations related to e-mails without even a shred of evidence that they had anything meaningful in them was done without any research of even common sense.
In fact if I was to list every instance of false facts and allegations I might be writing forever.
I guess the real joke is that they paid someone to do the research and as damaging as it seemed never used it either because they couldn't verify it or didn't actually receive it.
Hell they could have followed the dotard's example and just made stuff up.
Lots of people tell me that's the way to go.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
His Fantasy World
Maybe I was naïve but I used to think that once people got elected to office the idea was to ignore politics until the next election and try to get things accomplished.
Clearly now it is about politics and nothing but politics all the time.
Some of this is clearly related to our dotard of a president who has no idea what public service actually means and seems to believe some of his own lies.
The problem is that the things he says are simply not possible and that he seems to simply want to undo anything that his predecessor got credit for out of jealousy is not a way to get things done.
Of course some of what he wants would be wonderful if it was close to possible.
Eliminate all environmental regulations but get a cleaner environment.
Pass a health care bill that reduces cost, improves care and covers more would be nice.
Reduce taxes on everyone but don't increase the deficit.
Repudiate all our trade deals but have improved trade.
Fail to honor our foreign obligations but get greater respect from the people we have betrayed.
Only mine clean coal (most call this natural gas) and create lots of jobs.
Treat everyone equally once you eliminate all diversity in the country.
Clearly now it is about politics and nothing but politics all the time.
Some of this is clearly related to our dotard of a president who has no idea what public service actually means and seems to believe some of his own lies.
The problem is that the things he says are simply not possible and that he seems to simply want to undo anything that his predecessor got credit for out of jealousy is not a way to get things done.
Of course some of what he wants would be wonderful if it was close to possible.
Eliminate all environmental regulations but get a cleaner environment.
Pass a health care bill that reduces cost, improves care and covers more would be nice.
Reduce taxes on everyone but don't increase the deficit.
Repudiate all our trade deals but have improved trade.
Fail to honor our foreign obligations but get greater respect from the people we have betrayed.
Only mine clean coal (most call this natural gas) and create lots of jobs.
Treat everyone equally once you eliminate all diversity in the country.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Sexual Targets
Its pretty hard to discuss some issues honestly without being misunderstood.
One of these is the recent sexual harassment charges against some people in the movie industry and just in general.
We see cases where powerful men took advantage of their positions and imposed certain situations upon women who either worked for them or wanted to work for them.
Its certainly nothing that hasn't been going on for a long time but its become a hot button issue where you are either on the right side or you are condemned.
Take comments made by Mayim Bialik where she said she hadn't had that problem because of the way she dressed and acted and because she isn't your typical attractive starlet or star.
The reaction was instantaneous and vehement causing her to provide clarifications and deal with some public shaming.
Except of course most of us realize that what she said made perfect sense.
I never worked in Hollywood but it is pretty obvious in any particular environment that you have women and men for that matter who go out of their way to be attractive and appealing and others who dress and act more modestly.
Of course everyone has the right to dress how they see fit as long as it complies with any dress codes, but one group comes across as approachable and the other doesn't.
Does this impact sexual predators? Common sense would tell you it does, although you hear talking heads argue that sexual abuse is about power, not sex. Well I think it's more a combination.
I'm not talking about physical rape here, but it seems pretty obvious that appearance and behavior have an impact on what happens. Attractive women generally are pretty good at dealing with powerless men who approach them. They get enough practice. Its men who are powerful that are hard to say no to.
In my job one of the women on a team I ran was young, attractive stylish and very outgoing. It was pretty normal to see a small cluster of young men stopping by and chatting to the point where I had to talk to some of them about wasting time and talked to her about the same issue. It helped but I suspect that when I wasn't there it still went on.
Now there was nothing inappropriate about her dress or behavior, and she was very pleasant and able to carry a conversation. We had a fairly friendly relationship in a father-daughter sort of way and I did mention at one time that she needed to be a little careful.
Well eventually she took a job in another location and a few years later I heard she was involved in a sexual harassment case. I have no doubt she was in fact harassed and I am not saying it was her fault in any way.
I also wasn't very surprised.
One of these is the recent sexual harassment charges against some people in the movie industry and just in general.
We see cases where powerful men took advantage of their positions and imposed certain situations upon women who either worked for them or wanted to work for them.
Its certainly nothing that hasn't been going on for a long time but its become a hot button issue where you are either on the right side or you are condemned.
Take comments made by Mayim Bialik where she said she hadn't had that problem because of the way she dressed and acted and because she isn't your typical attractive starlet or star.
The reaction was instantaneous and vehement causing her to provide clarifications and deal with some public shaming.
Except of course most of us realize that what she said made perfect sense.
I never worked in Hollywood but it is pretty obvious in any particular environment that you have women and men for that matter who go out of their way to be attractive and appealing and others who dress and act more modestly.
Of course everyone has the right to dress how they see fit as long as it complies with any dress codes, but one group comes across as approachable and the other doesn't.
Does this impact sexual predators? Common sense would tell you it does, although you hear talking heads argue that sexual abuse is about power, not sex. Well I think it's more a combination.
I'm not talking about physical rape here, but it seems pretty obvious that appearance and behavior have an impact on what happens. Attractive women generally are pretty good at dealing with powerless men who approach them. They get enough practice. Its men who are powerful that are hard to say no to.
In my job one of the women on a team I ran was young, attractive stylish and very outgoing. It was pretty normal to see a small cluster of young men stopping by and chatting to the point where I had to talk to some of them about wasting time and talked to her about the same issue. It helped but I suspect that when I wasn't there it still went on.
Now there was nothing inappropriate about her dress or behavior, and she was very pleasant and able to carry a conversation. We had a fairly friendly relationship in a father-daughter sort of way and I did mention at one time that she needed to be a little careful.
Well eventually she took a job in another location and a few years later I heard she was involved in a sexual harassment case. I have no doubt she was in fact harassed and I am not saying it was her fault in any way.
I also wasn't very surprised.
Monday, October 23, 2017
Robbing our Children
The positions espoused by our current administration and government are probably the most selfish things any government has promoted.
I think most of us would want our children and their children to live in a world where the economy wasn't in turmoil because of a crushing national debt.
Where the climate was still safe and the air was breathable
Where quality health care was available and affordable.
We don't want that would to be a post nuclear nightmare either.
I think we would like that world to be a place where everybody felt welcome and safe no matter what their ethnicity or religion or sexual preferences.
A place where men and women had equal opportunities to pursue their dreams and affordable education options to help them fulfill those dreams.
A place where housing communities banded together instead of being torn apart.
Its our responsibility to create the world we want for them.
Otherwise we are robbing their future.
I think most of us would want our children and their children to live in a world where the economy wasn't in turmoil because of a crushing national debt.
Where the climate was still safe and the air was breathable
Where quality health care was available and affordable.
We don't want that would to be a post nuclear nightmare either.
I think we would like that world to be a place where everybody felt welcome and safe no matter what their ethnicity or religion or sexual preferences.
A place where men and women had equal opportunities to pursue their dreams and affordable education options to help them fulfill those dreams.
A place where housing communities banded together instead of being torn apart.
Its our responsibility to create the world we want for them.
Otherwise we are robbing their future.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Economic Reality
Its hard not to notice that many people who consider Government the enemy want the Government to bring back jobs.
Government and especially the Federal Government is not in charge of creating jobs. That's what business does.
I'll accept the possibility that Government policies might decide if an area is a good place to do business, but of course ultimately what decides that is if a business can make money.
What determines that are many factors such as cost of labor or availability of other resources but maybe more importantly a market for what they produce.
This same concept applies to each individual as well. Its always been true but when jobs are plentiful, many people got them when they really had little to offer except robot like performance.
Unfortunately for them robots do that better.
If you don't have a service or skill to sell, or the service or skill you do have is not worth very much, that is what you are going to get.
Its called free enterprise.
Many so called proponents of free enterprise are now upset when they see it in action.
This country has always provided opportunities for those willing to scramble and provide a marketable service.
If you are not willing to do that and are not impaired in some way you really have no one but yourself to blame when you find yourself unemployed and unemployable.
The immigrants who have the work ethic you are lacking are not to blame, they understand that no one owes them anything.
A lesson can be learned from that.
Government and especially the Federal Government is not in charge of creating jobs. That's what business does.
I'll accept the possibility that Government policies might decide if an area is a good place to do business, but of course ultimately what decides that is if a business can make money.
What determines that are many factors such as cost of labor or availability of other resources but maybe more importantly a market for what they produce.
This same concept applies to each individual as well. Its always been true but when jobs are plentiful, many people got them when they really had little to offer except robot like performance.
Unfortunately for them robots do that better.
If you don't have a service or skill to sell, or the service or skill you do have is not worth very much, that is what you are going to get.
Its called free enterprise.
Many so called proponents of free enterprise are now upset when they see it in action.
This country has always provided opportunities for those willing to scramble and provide a marketable service.
If you are not willing to do that and are not impaired in some way you really have no one but yourself to blame when you find yourself unemployed and unemployable.
The immigrants who have the work ethic you are lacking are not to blame, they understand that no one owes them anything.
A lesson can be learned from that.
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Saturday Musings
Why is it such a big story when it turn out everybody in Hollywood already knew this producer was a sleeze? Wouldn't it be more productive to find some new ones?
We have a president who doesn't seem to be any better plus seems to be a bigot as well. Seems like we are a pretty tolerant people.
I'm starting to think the Republicans need an e before the c in their name.
If you are going to go public with defamatory statements about someone you should make sure they are at least close to being true. A four star general should know better.
I agree that a phone call to a grieving widow is a very troubling matter, but the widow would be the one who decides who listens in.
Not every politician is like your boss general, in fact almost none of them are as willing to simply lie and make false public statements.
Deficit is increasing this year and the Republicans in congress passed a budget to make it worse. Sure that's fiscally responsible.
The budget and the tax plan are about as swampy as it gets. Need someone to drain both of them.
Republicans feel the need to get something done before next years election. Of course they should realize what they do also matters.
It just seems like a majority of people, in and out of Washington are really moderates, but they have to appease the more radical groups in each party. Maybe we need a new moderate party and leave the other two on the fringe.
Maybe we could actually do something that makes sense then?
We have a president who doesn't seem to be any better plus seems to be a bigot as well. Seems like we are a pretty tolerant people.
I'm starting to think the Republicans need an e before the c in their name.
If you are going to go public with defamatory statements about someone you should make sure they are at least close to being true. A four star general should know better.
I agree that a phone call to a grieving widow is a very troubling matter, but the widow would be the one who decides who listens in.
Not every politician is like your boss general, in fact almost none of them are as willing to simply lie and make false public statements.
Deficit is increasing this year and the Republicans in congress passed a budget to make it worse. Sure that's fiscally responsible.
The budget and the tax plan are about as swampy as it gets. Need someone to drain both of them.
Republicans feel the need to get something done before next years election. Of course they should realize what they do also matters.
It just seems like a majority of people, in and out of Washington are really moderates, but they have to appease the more radical groups in each party. Maybe we need a new moderate party and leave the other two on the fringe.
Maybe we could actually do something that makes sense then?
Friday, October 20, 2017
Aging America
The Republican party pretends to be the fiscally conservative party and accuses the Democrats of being the big spenders.
The current budget and tax proposals in Washington would seem to put the lie to that claim.
The budget measure the Senate approved last night is expected to expand the deficit by $1.5 Trillion over the next ten years.
Now if a Democrat ever came up with such a proposal the attacks from "fiscal conservatives" would never end.
However since Republicans are trying to pass anything right now I don't see them taking a stand.
Will have to see what happens when the bill goes to the house and I think the whole thing is simply designed to allow the passage of tax breaks with a simple majority.
However, if they actually leave Social Security and Medicare alone and increase Defense and Infrastructure spending while cutting taxes on the wealthy, well the deficit will grow, maybe much faster than predicted.
The budget makes growth assumptions and if the growth is less, which I believe is likely the deficit will be worse.
Of course there is a possibility that the tax saving will spur the economy but our demographic picture tells us its unlikely.
We don't have enough workers in the right ages to grow very much as boomers leave the workforce.
That also the problem with Social Security and Medicare.
Younger people are needed to work, earn money and spend money for our economy to grow.
We probably should be emulating the early years of this country and allowing vast number of immigrants in to revitalize our economy.
Instead we are going down the path of an aging country getting cranky about young people and foreigners.
The current budget and tax proposals in Washington would seem to put the lie to that claim.
The budget measure the Senate approved last night is expected to expand the deficit by $1.5 Trillion over the next ten years.
Now if a Democrat ever came up with such a proposal the attacks from "fiscal conservatives" would never end.
However since Republicans are trying to pass anything right now I don't see them taking a stand.
Will have to see what happens when the bill goes to the house and I think the whole thing is simply designed to allow the passage of tax breaks with a simple majority.
However, if they actually leave Social Security and Medicare alone and increase Defense and Infrastructure spending while cutting taxes on the wealthy, well the deficit will grow, maybe much faster than predicted.
The budget makes growth assumptions and if the growth is less, which I believe is likely the deficit will be worse.
Of course there is a possibility that the tax saving will spur the economy but our demographic picture tells us its unlikely.
We don't have enough workers in the right ages to grow very much as boomers leave the workforce.
That also the problem with Social Security and Medicare.
Younger people are needed to work, earn money and spend money for our economy to grow.
We probably should be emulating the early years of this country and allowing vast number of immigrants in to revitalize our economy.
Instead we are going down the path of an aging country getting cranky about young people and foreigners.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Do Your Job
There's people who work and people who spend most of their time talking about how great they are.
We all know those people, You've probably worked with at least one of them. They don't do much but everything they do is both the hardest thing ever tried and also they did it better than anyone else.
They have no problem taking credit and unfortunately because they talk themselves up they have a tendency to get recognized before more deserving workers who just do their jobs.
Its one of the problems with the subjective way many American businesses run and why in so many cases you find incompetent bosses.
Obviously this is not always the case, but we now see an example of someone who got ahead because of nepotism, failed multiple times, had a few successes but who is convinced he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
He isn't and he may even realize that, but he might be too delusional.
Doing his job includes many things but fighting with widows of deceased servicemen isn't one of them.
In fact he seems to think that he is job one.
He isn't, he is now supposed to be a public servant who needs to do his job.
That job would be working with congress, uniting the country and dealing with foreign affairs. Being the Commander in Chief gives him added responsibility for the troops he theoretically leads.
It doesn't matter if I agree with his policies, he should try to get something passed and be willing to strike a deal in the best interests of the public.
He ran on a campaign about how Government was broken and on the wrong track.
That's the only campaign promise he has managed to fulfill.
We all know those people, You've probably worked with at least one of them. They don't do much but everything they do is both the hardest thing ever tried and also they did it better than anyone else.
They have no problem taking credit and unfortunately because they talk themselves up they have a tendency to get recognized before more deserving workers who just do their jobs.
Its one of the problems with the subjective way many American businesses run and why in so many cases you find incompetent bosses.
Obviously this is not always the case, but we now see an example of someone who got ahead because of nepotism, failed multiple times, had a few successes but who is convinced he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
He isn't and he may even realize that, but he might be too delusional.
Doing his job includes many things but fighting with widows of deceased servicemen isn't one of them.
In fact he seems to think that he is job one.
He isn't, he is now supposed to be a public servant who needs to do his job.
That job would be working with congress, uniting the country and dealing with foreign affairs. Being the Commander in Chief gives him added responsibility for the troops he theoretically leads.
It doesn't matter if I agree with his policies, he should try to get something passed and be willing to strike a deal in the best interests of the public.
He ran on a campaign about how Government was broken and on the wrong track.
That's the only campaign promise he has managed to fulfill.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Empathy
Its a very difficult thing talking to someone who has lost a loved one. Nothing is likely to ease the pain, so most people tend to say things like "He's in a better place" or "You have your wonderful memories to hold onto."
Of course this requires that you have at least a little tact and social awareness.
To tell a widow, "well he knew what he signed up for" is both insensitive and wrong.
No one I know signs up to die.
The understand the risks but hope to serve our country while surviving.
Its certainly not comforting and only said by someone so self absorbed that they have no empathy at all.
It also isn't surprising that he said this to the widow of a black soldier.
Clearly he is uncomfortable in dealing with black people in a non-official capacity.
Its not surprising that he is inept at this and he could have avoided some of the awkwardness if he had been at Dover when the bodies returned. Of course he had a golf game that demanded his attention.
This man only cares about himself and maybe his children. You can tell his relationship with his current wife is pretty chilly. I'm not really sure he cares about his children the way a father should, he seems to lust after his own daughter.
The characteristics he displays are symptom of a sociopath in that he doesn't seem to understand normal human emotions. However he might just be an egomaniac.
Those who fell for his lies are starting to see that he isn't going to deliver the better life they were hoping for. More likely they will be impoverished by the cost of his health plan, which is make things worse so they repeal the law nicknamed after his predecessor
Of course that assumes that the North Koreans don't deliver a bomb to end their troubles.
At least that would be quicker..
Of course this requires that you have at least a little tact and social awareness.
To tell a widow, "well he knew what he signed up for" is both insensitive and wrong.
No one I know signs up to die.
The understand the risks but hope to serve our country while surviving.
Its certainly not comforting and only said by someone so self absorbed that they have no empathy at all.
It also isn't surprising that he said this to the widow of a black soldier.
Clearly he is uncomfortable in dealing with black people in a non-official capacity.
Its not surprising that he is inept at this and he could have avoided some of the awkwardness if he had been at Dover when the bodies returned. Of course he had a golf game that demanded his attention.
This man only cares about himself and maybe his children. You can tell his relationship with his current wife is pretty chilly. I'm not really sure he cares about his children the way a father should, he seems to lust after his own daughter.
The characteristics he displays are symptom of a sociopath in that he doesn't seem to understand normal human emotions. However he might just be an egomaniac.
Those who fell for his lies are starting to see that he isn't going to deliver the better life they were hoping for. More likely they will be impoverished by the cost of his health plan, which is make things worse so they repeal the law nicknamed after his predecessor
Of course that assumes that the North Koreans don't deliver a bomb to end their troubles.
At least that would be quicker..
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Fairness
In three years there will be a census and the year after that the States will redraw their congressional districts. Now, this last happened ten years ago when there was a reaction to the Affordable care act and many state governments became Republican controlled.
The districts they drew up, aided by computers pretty much led to a decade of Republican majorities in the House of Representatives as well as in many state legislatures.
This is called gerrymandering and it has been around since the early days of the Republic.
It use to be done fairly crudely, but with computers it can now be done precisely.
One technique is to pack districts. Assume you have an equal number of Republican and Democratic voters. You would assume they would be equally represented. But if you pack Democratic districts you can easily manipulate the representation, or vice versa.
Assume you have ten district but you can draw them up so that 90% of the Democrats are packed into just three of them, leaving the other seven safely in Republican hands. You see that the Democrats are guaranteed less than equal representation.
Some of this may seem like the results of geography, where say the cities are predominantly one party and have large concentrations of voters. Of course in a fair system the number of representatives would still equate the number of voters.
There are other techniques used, such as dispersion, but it can get pretty complex and you can simply look at certain results to see the inequality.
In the link below they explore the issue and give examples of the 10 worst examples.
Gerrymandering examples
One solution would be to have an independent group draw up the districts but of course this would probably have its own issues.
If we believe in giving each person an equal vote we need to do something.
Its only fair.
The districts they drew up, aided by computers pretty much led to a decade of Republican majorities in the House of Representatives as well as in many state legislatures.
This is called gerrymandering and it has been around since the early days of the Republic.
It use to be done fairly crudely, but with computers it can now be done precisely.
One technique is to pack districts. Assume you have an equal number of Republican and Democratic voters. You would assume they would be equally represented. But if you pack Democratic districts you can easily manipulate the representation, or vice versa.
Assume you have ten district but you can draw them up so that 90% of the Democrats are packed into just three of them, leaving the other seven safely in Republican hands. You see that the Democrats are guaranteed less than equal representation.
Some of this may seem like the results of geography, where say the cities are predominantly one party and have large concentrations of voters. Of course in a fair system the number of representatives would still equate the number of voters.
There are other techniques used, such as dispersion, but it can get pretty complex and you can simply look at certain results to see the inequality.
In the link below they explore the issue and give examples of the 10 worst examples.
Gerrymandering examples
One solution would be to have an independent group draw up the districts but of course this would probably have its own issues.
If we believe in giving each person an equal vote we need to do something.
Its only fair.
Monday, October 16, 2017
Respect
In all honesty I had no idea who Harvey Weinstein was before the sex abuse scandal got so much play. Of course because he was a movie producer in that self absorbed industry the media acts like his conduct exposes something new.
His behavior isn't new but it might have involved famous people. That doesn't make it more important than the same or worse behavior that goes on almost everywhere.
This is a culture that in some ways encourages the objectification of women while at the same time demanding that such objectification should have no consequences.
Most men have heard other men talking about women as objects and I suppose women may also objectify hunks every now and then.
No one should ever abuse or harass another human being whether sexually or otherwise.
It happens al the time and we see it on many levels.
Bullying is a form of harassment that starts pretty early.
Racism is still way too prevalent in this society.
Sexual harassment is just another form and so is the fact that millions of women are payed less for equal work.
The answer of course is simply respect. R E S P E C T!
Each person is entitled to it and should be treated with it.
It seem like it would solve a lot of problems and isn't all that hard to do.
We should try it.
His behavior isn't new but it might have involved famous people. That doesn't make it more important than the same or worse behavior that goes on almost everywhere.
This is a culture that in some ways encourages the objectification of women while at the same time demanding that such objectification should have no consequences.
Most men have heard other men talking about women as objects and I suppose women may also objectify hunks every now and then.
No one should ever abuse or harass another human being whether sexually or otherwise.
It happens al the time and we see it on many levels.
Bullying is a form of harassment that starts pretty early.
Racism is still way too prevalent in this society.
Sexual harassment is just another form and so is the fact that millions of women are payed less for equal work.
The answer of course is simply respect. R E S P E C T!
Each person is entitled to it and should be treated with it.
It seem like it would solve a lot of problems and isn't all that hard to do.
We should try it.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Sunday Wanderings
Religion is one of those things that you think would unite people yet it has the opposite effect in many cases.
Most religions actually have very similar teachings, if not all of them. I never researched all of them so there must be some that don't preach honor, respect and reverence, I just don't know which ones they are.
They have certain differences and the three that I'm most familiar with Christianity, Judaism and Islam actually all have similar roots and form a progression.
They all arose in the mid-east and are very similar in most things with some exceptions that are mostly superficial.
Religious scholars may disagree with me and maybe I'm missing something but the essence of all three are worship of a single God and the requirement to live a "good" life.
Yet throughout history religion, especially these religions have led to a lot of hate and death.
The idea that any God would reject some of his creations because they were born in the wrong part of the world or were raised in a different culture is on the face of it absurd.
Geography and culture could hardly matter to a supreme being.
Of course many things about what people believe about God is simply silly.
Even the idea that we could understand such a being is pretty absurd.
The God we worship is created by us, in our own image.
The hate we show is ours, not his. The prohibition on using his name in vain can have no greater meaning than when we use His name to justify killing or hate.
If you claim to believe in God its time to act like it. Actions do speak louder than words.
Most religions actually have very similar teachings, if not all of them. I never researched all of them so there must be some that don't preach honor, respect and reverence, I just don't know which ones they are.
They have certain differences and the three that I'm most familiar with Christianity, Judaism and Islam actually all have similar roots and form a progression.
They all arose in the mid-east and are very similar in most things with some exceptions that are mostly superficial.
Religious scholars may disagree with me and maybe I'm missing something but the essence of all three are worship of a single God and the requirement to live a "good" life.
Yet throughout history religion, especially these religions have led to a lot of hate and death.
The idea that any God would reject some of his creations because they were born in the wrong part of the world or were raised in a different culture is on the face of it absurd.
Geography and culture could hardly matter to a supreme being.
Of course many things about what people believe about God is simply silly.
Even the idea that we could understand such a being is pretty absurd.
The God we worship is created by us, in our own image.
The hate we show is ours, not his. The prohibition on using his name in vain can have no greater meaning than when we use His name to justify killing or hate.
If you claim to believe in God its time to act like it. Actions do speak louder than words.
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Saturday Thoughts
Its a bit sad when you realize that so many people can be so easily fooled by things that never were.
Take a story that has persisted for about 50 years, that returning Vietnam veterans were spat upon when they returned to the states. Now there is no evidence of this happening, although it may have, but all through that period the vast majority of Americans still supported the troops if not the war.
I got out during this period and passed through airports in California, Chicago and New York in my uniform and the main reception I got was being ignored. I think a few people may have acknowledged my service but it was just busy airports with no spitting gong on.
For any number of reasons, most of them related to the fact that you went into and out of the service individually the only people normally waiting for you would be your family. Even on campus as a veteran in the City University system, I don't remember anyone accusing me of anything.
However, even though my own experience wasn't supportive of the story, I assumed it was happening or had happened to other vets, but apparently not, at least not in any significant way.
Things like this get pushed by certain factions and take on a life of their own. Once they get repeated often enough they get picked up by society as true.
People have always felt that things were better in the past. Its called nostalgia and generally its very unreliable.
Things generally get better at least technically and socially. When I was a young person we had black and white TVs with manual tuners and all sorts of people were being oppressed, blacks, gays, Hispanics, and women to a large extent. That is not an all inclusive list.
Well the TVs are certainly much better and I think there is less oppression, at least to some extent.
Now I was young and healthy and able to run and feel good about a lot of things without too many worries.
I think that is the main reason we feel to old days were better, but they really weren't.
You have to grow up.
Take a story that has persisted for about 50 years, that returning Vietnam veterans were spat upon when they returned to the states. Now there is no evidence of this happening, although it may have, but all through that period the vast majority of Americans still supported the troops if not the war.
I got out during this period and passed through airports in California, Chicago and New York in my uniform and the main reception I got was being ignored. I think a few people may have acknowledged my service but it was just busy airports with no spitting gong on.
For any number of reasons, most of them related to the fact that you went into and out of the service individually the only people normally waiting for you would be your family. Even on campus as a veteran in the City University system, I don't remember anyone accusing me of anything.
However, even though my own experience wasn't supportive of the story, I assumed it was happening or had happened to other vets, but apparently not, at least not in any significant way.
Things like this get pushed by certain factions and take on a life of their own. Once they get repeated often enough they get picked up by society as true.
People have always felt that things were better in the past. Its called nostalgia and generally its very unreliable.
Things generally get better at least technically and socially. When I was a young person we had black and white TVs with manual tuners and all sorts of people were being oppressed, blacks, gays, Hispanics, and women to a large extent. That is not an all inclusive list.
Well the TVs are certainly much better and I think there is less oppression, at least to some extent.
Now I was young and healthy and able to run and feel good about a lot of things without too many worries.
I think that is the main reason we feel to old days were better, but they really weren't.
You have to grow up.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Trump Care is less care
The question is how much damage to the health coverage of Americans can the dotard do before everyone wises up?
The general concept of making sure Americans get adequate health care when they need it is pretty much universally agreed to, at least verbally. The discussion should be about how to do that.
Now, the reason that the clowns in congress weren't able to pass any health care laws is that they ran into a few republicans with a conscience.
Of course the Affordable Care Act doesn't achieve that goal either, but its a step in that direction.
Now by signing an executive order and stopping subsidies, the dotard is taking a step back and increasing the premiums on the people who weren't doing great under the ACA already.
The first one is going to take a while to implement but what it does is attempt to cherry pick healthy people out of the exchanges leaving a sicker pool of people to insure. The healthy people could pay less but the riskier people will pay more.
This might sound fair except it defeats the concept of insurance. The idea is that a lot of healthy people and a few sick people pay the same amount and they all are covered against costs that would bankrupt people otherwise.
The second action stops subsidies paid to insurance companies that have to bear high costs for mandatory coverage. Since the affordable care act mandated that rates for all be capped, certain high cost conditions were not calculated into them since they were unpredictable. The subsidies served to reduce the premiums for that coverage.
Now without the subsidies those premiums will go up to cover the full potential risk. This will have a disparate impact since if you qualify for the individual tax benefit you will be protected from the increase. So people who have to pay the full cost without Government help will be faced with even more cost increases.
Many of these people were the ones who Trump highlights in his criticism of what was Obamacare. Of course he now needs to take ownership of it as he goes out of his way to make things worse.
The general concept of making sure Americans get adequate health care when they need it is pretty much universally agreed to, at least verbally. The discussion should be about how to do that.
Now, the reason that the clowns in congress weren't able to pass any health care laws is that they ran into a few republicans with a conscience.
Of course the Affordable Care Act doesn't achieve that goal either, but its a step in that direction.
Now by signing an executive order and stopping subsidies, the dotard is taking a step back and increasing the premiums on the people who weren't doing great under the ACA already.
The first one is going to take a while to implement but what it does is attempt to cherry pick healthy people out of the exchanges leaving a sicker pool of people to insure. The healthy people could pay less but the riskier people will pay more.
This might sound fair except it defeats the concept of insurance. The idea is that a lot of healthy people and a few sick people pay the same amount and they all are covered against costs that would bankrupt people otherwise.
The second action stops subsidies paid to insurance companies that have to bear high costs for mandatory coverage. Since the affordable care act mandated that rates for all be capped, certain high cost conditions were not calculated into them since they were unpredictable. The subsidies served to reduce the premiums for that coverage.
Now without the subsidies those premiums will go up to cover the full potential risk. This will have a disparate impact since if you qualify for the individual tax benefit you will be protected from the increase. So people who have to pay the full cost without Government help will be faced with even more cost increases.
Many of these people were the ones who Trump highlights in his criticism of what was Obamacare. Of course he now needs to take ownership of it as he goes out of his way to make things worse.
Thursday, October 12, 2017
Vegas Timeline
What happened in Vegas was a horrible event that surpassed pretty much anything that we could have suspected up to that point.
Some things are just windows to a new level of horror for which we are not prepared.
Take what happened on 9-11. Before that the idea of a terrorist crashing a plane into a building wasn't something most of us even considered so generally we were conditioned to cooperate with a hijacker. After 9-11 it is something we all think about and even on that day, the flight in Pennsylvania was brought down because of what had already happened to the earlier flights.
Now in Vegas we had a deranged person open fire on unsuspecting concert goers from a hotel room which wasn't something we generally worried about.
So now we see come articles indicating that maybe he first fired at a Hotel security person from his room a few minutes before he opened fire on the concert below.
Its still a bit unclear but to see people act like the police should have prevented what followed is totally ridiculous.
There have been armed shooters in hotels which would have conditioned them to act in a certain number of ways, none of which would have included thinking he was planning to open fire on a concert nearby.
Generally the first thought would have been that it was some sort of issue, maybe involving a hostage.
Police response would have been to cordon off the hallway and attempt to establish communications to determine the situation. They wouldn't have rushed headlong into an unknown situation without a lot more information.
Of course they also would have to arrive on the scene.
If the shots were in fact fired five minutes before the actual mass shooting, the situation would not have been dramatically different.
We don't get to teleport around yet.
Some things are just windows to a new level of horror for which we are not prepared.
Take what happened on 9-11. Before that the idea of a terrorist crashing a plane into a building wasn't something most of us even considered so generally we were conditioned to cooperate with a hijacker. After 9-11 it is something we all think about and even on that day, the flight in Pennsylvania was brought down because of what had already happened to the earlier flights.
Now in Vegas we had a deranged person open fire on unsuspecting concert goers from a hotel room which wasn't something we generally worried about.
So now we see come articles indicating that maybe he first fired at a Hotel security person from his room a few minutes before he opened fire on the concert below.
Its still a bit unclear but to see people act like the police should have prevented what followed is totally ridiculous.
There have been armed shooters in hotels which would have conditioned them to act in a certain number of ways, none of which would have included thinking he was planning to open fire on a concert nearby.
Generally the first thought would have been that it was some sort of issue, maybe involving a hostage.
Police response would have been to cordon off the hallway and attempt to establish communications to determine the situation. They wouldn't have rushed headlong into an unknown situation without a lot more information.
Of course they also would have to arrive on the scene.
If the shots were in fact fired five minutes before the actual mass shooting, the situation would not have been dramatically different.
We don't get to teleport around yet.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
President Strangelove
When you look at the devastation the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused you also have to realize that today's bombs are much more devastating.
Science and technology certainly don't stand still.
We have gone 72 years since that event and haven't seen another one used as a weapon.
During the cold war and maybe especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis we seemed close at times but bot sides realized that it was in fact MAD to start such a war.
There can be no winners, only losers.
Consider two countries that concern us North Korea and Iran.
Iran, by all accounts, doesn't have a nuclear capability and has agreed to suspend or dismantle required technology for period of time in exchange for the lifting of certain sanctions,
The agreement certainly isn't perfect but it would achieve its intended purpose.
It wouldn't achieve results that weren't included as part of it which is of course true of every agreement.
We all know that any agreement entered into by the previous administration is going to be called inadequate. We know that the current occupant is a jealous person.
However, the agreement was likely as good as we were gonna get but if he tries to renegotiate it we'll see if he can get anything at all.
North Korea is however a different kettle of fish.
They already have the bomb and perhaps a means of delivery.
While clearly we could wipe the country from the face of the earth, it wouldn't be consequence free.
Further, if just one bomb got sent to a major city, the devastation would be horrific, beyond our prior knowledge of horrific.
We also have a much less stable leadership group there. Of course our leadership is totally unstable.
We may be closer to a nuclear catastrophe than even during the cold war, mainly because the person in charge is mentally unstable and unreliable.
Of course I doubt any of North Korea's allies would launch nukes to defend that country, it would end up being MAD.
They aren't led by morons after all.
Science and technology certainly don't stand still.
We have gone 72 years since that event and haven't seen another one used as a weapon.
During the cold war and maybe especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis we seemed close at times but bot sides realized that it was in fact MAD to start such a war.
There can be no winners, only losers.
Consider two countries that concern us North Korea and Iran.
Iran, by all accounts, doesn't have a nuclear capability and has agreed to suspend or dismantle required technology for period of time in exchange for the lifting of certain sanctions,
The agreement certainly isn't perfect but it would achieve its intended purpose.
It wouldn't achieve results that weren't included as part of it which is of course true of every agreement.
We all know that any agreement entered into by the previous administration is going to be called inadequate. We know that the current occupant is a jealous person.
However, the agreement was likely as good as we were gonna get but if he tries to renegotiate it we'll see if he can get anything at all.
North Korea is however a different kettle of fish.
They already have the bomb and perhaps a means of delivery.
While clearly we could wipe the country from the face of the earth, it wouldn't be consequence free.
Further, if just one bomb got sent to a major city, the devastation would be horrific, beyond our prior knowledge of horrific.
We also have a much less stable leadership group there. Of course our leadership is totally unstable.
We may be closer to a nuclear catastrophe than even during the cold war, mainly because the person in charge is mentally unstable and unreliable.
Of course I doubt any of North Korea's allies would launch nukes to defend that country, it would end up being MAD.
They aren't led by morons after all.
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Adult Day Care.
As I watch politicians start to bicker among themselves as their plans to loot the American people are falling apart I have to remember the old saying "There is no honor among thieves."
They only band together to steal and they just aren't trustworthy.
Now once the people who own them aren't getting the pay back they expect they start to punish them by withholding funding which drives them crazy.
Of course some decide to get out of the game and at that point you get to see the true nature of the group.
They start to turn on each other.
Of course its more noticeable when the puppet leader lacks all self control.
Its sort of like the stories you hear about Al Capone who felt he was invincible and made no attempts to hide who he was.
Of course he wasn't, no one is.
Of course the difference is that Capone was not only brutal, he was successful.
Our Dotard is pretend brutal and unsuccessful, although of course he claims great success.
Then like a petulant 3 year old he throws a tantrum and destroys something.
Three year old generally grow out of that behavior.
Think this guy is past that.
We all get to observe his tantrums.
What fun.
They only band together to steal and they just aren't trustworthy.
Now once the people who own them aren't getting the pay back they expect they start to punish them by withholding funding which drives them crazy.
Of course some decide to get out of the game and at that point you get to see the true nature of the group.
They start to turn on each other.
Of course its more noticeable when the puppet leader lacks all self control.
Its sort of like the stories you hear about Al Capone who felt he was invincible and made no attempts to hide who he was.
Of course he wasn't, no one is.
Of course the difference is that Capone was not only brutal, he was successful.
Our Dotard is pretend brutal and unsuccessful, although of course he claims great success.
Then like a petulant 3 year old he throws a tantrum and destroys something.
Three year old generally grow out of that behavior.
Think this guy is past that.
We all get to observe his tantrums.
What fun.
Monday, October 9, 2017
Columbus Day thoughts
In the United States today we have a holiday called Columbus day named after the "explorer" of the same name.
I put in quotes because he was trying to find a cheaper route to the east to make profits from the lucrative spice trade. He did get this idea financed and sailed with three ships to get to the east to try to break into the Portuguese monopoly.
The world is round and while it wasn't universally accepted at the time it was accepted by certain people, including Columbus.
What happened of course is that he discovered or stumbled upon the Americas and thought they were indeed the Indies.
He was wrong and he started the period of colonization, and slavery that led to the world we inhabit today.
His place in history is assured, but was he a hero, a villain or just someone trying to exploit a new way to make money?
I'm pretty sure it was the last of those but he did take risks for it and that displayed certain heroic qualities.
He didn't treat the native peoples very well, sharing the general view of Europeans at the time that they were more civilized and superior.
Was what happened a catastrophe or a great expansion of Western Civilization?
Guess that depends o your point of view but of course it was still pretty common then as it would be now for the stronger people to simply oppress the weaker people.
Condemning this behavior is to condemn much of world history and maybe basic human nature.
A look at history clearly shows that we aren't very nice to each other, the animal kingdom or the environment.
We can certainly try to do better, but there will always be barbarians, and we have to guard against them.
They're just below the surface in all of us.
I put in quotes because he was trying to find a cheaper route to the east to make profits from the lucrative spice trade. He did get this idea financed and sailed with three ships to get to the east to try to break into the Portuguese monopoly.
The world is round and while it wasn't universally accepted at the time it was accepted by certain people, including Columbus.
What happened of course is that he discovered or stumbled upon the Americas and thought they were indeed the Indies.
He was wrong and he started the period of colonization, and slavery that led to the world we inhabit today.
His place in history is assured, but was he a hero, a villain or just someone trying to exploit a new way to make money?
I'm pretty sure it was the last of those but he did take risks for it and that displayed certain heroic qualities.
He didn't treat the native peoples very well, sharing the general view of Europeans at the time that they were more civilized and superior.
Was what happened a catastrophe or a great expansion of Western Civilization?
Guess that depends o your point of view but of course it was still pretty common then as it would be now for the stronger people to simply oppress the weaker people.
Condemning this behavior is to condemn much of world history and maybe basic human nature.
A look at history clearly shows that we aren't very nice to each other, the animal kingdom or the environment.
We can certainly try to do better, but there will always be barbarians, and we have to guard against them.
They're just below the surface in all of us.
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Evil In America
Because of the jobs I've had and who I worked for I was fortunate to visit many parts of the country and meet people from pretty much every part of it.
The people were from different national backgrounds, different religious beliefs, different political views and different economic situations, but in almost every case they shared being decent human beings.
Some were foreign nationals but most were native born Americans, white and black, Hispanic or Asian, and even some Native Americans.
None of them were obviously evil people, although of course what resided in their hearts was unknown to me.
I worked for some of these people and some of them worked for me but while we may have disagreed on an approach or a business decision we generally didn't consider the other person as evil or subversive.
Now of course such people do exist and I may have run across some, but certainly I'm sure most of the people weren't and shared a fundamental human desire to help others and do good.
However, there is undoubtedly evil in America and sometimes it manifests itself in a person going on a rampage but more frequently it is manifested via support for things that will in fact hurt other people, sometimes badly.
I don't want to get into a religious discussion but the main reasons seem to be greed, for money and/or power driven by certain people who have no compassion for anyone not directly related to them.
Of course these motivations are usually hidden as other things but if you follow the money, or the power it leads back to a certain group that is already rich and powerful but can't ever have enough.
Take health care. The American people have by and large come to the realization that everyone should get adequate health care. Yet we here proposals being promoted that would hurt our poorest and weakest while putting money in the pockets of our wealthiest.
Similarly this so called tax reform is going to hurt a certain number of people, give many others a negligible reduction but line the pockets of those same people.
I doubt these people think they are evil but as the bible says they aren't likely to end up in heaven.
The politicians who allowed themselves to be bought aren't any better. In fact all those pushing lies and half truths are in fact participating in evil.
Taking high powered guns and shooting a bunch of innocent people is clearly evil and despicable. Taking high powered influence and pursuing policies that will result in people dying or despairing is just as bad.
The people were from different national backgrounds, different religious beliefs, different political views and different economic situations, but in almost every case they shared being decent human beings.
Some were foreign nationals but most were native born Americans, white and black, Hispanic or Asian, and even some Native Americans.
None of them were obviously evil people, although of course what resided in their hearts was unknown to me.
I worked for some of these people and some of them worked for me but while we may have disagreed on an approach or a business decision we generally didn't consider the other person as evil or subversive.
Now of course such people do exist and I may have run across some, but certainly I'm sure most of the people weren't and shared a fundamental human desire to help others and do good.
However, there is undoubtedly evil in America and sometimes it manifests itself in a person going on a rampage but more frequently it is manifested via support for things that will in fact hurt other people, sometimes badly.
I don't want to get into a religious discussion but the main reasons seem to be greed, for money and/or power driven by certain people who have no compassion for anyone not directly related to them.
Of course these motivations are usually hidden as other things but if you follow the money, or the power it leads back to a certain group that is already rich and powerful but can't ever have enough.
Take health care. The American people have by and large come to the realization that everyone should get adequate health care. Yet we here proposals being promoted that would hurt our poorest and weakest while putting money in the pockets of our wealthiest.
Similarly this so called tax reform is going to hurt a certain number of people, give many others a negligible reduction but line the pockets of those same people.
I doubt these people think they are evil but as the bible says they aren't likely to end up in heaven.
The politicians who allowed themselves to be bought aren't any better. In fact all those pushing lies and half truths are in fact participating in evil.
Taking high powered guns and shooting a bunch of innocent people is clearly evil and despicable. Taking high powered influence and pursuing policies that will result in people dying or despairing is just as bad.
Saturday, October 7, 2017
Saturday Ramblings
Throwing paper towels into a crowd just doesn't seem like the best way to distribute them.
Were paper towels really what the hurricane victims needed?
Calm before the storm, its not that calm and what storm?
Just rename the Affordable Care Act the Trump Care Act and it will be the best thing that ever was.
I'm very sorry for those communities which are still suffering from the loss of old manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately I don't see it getting better until new technology shows up in those areas.
The Obama recovery has continued under Trump. This month the hurricanes hurt jobs, think that's legit.
People are talking about who is going to replace Tillerson? The President says he is fully behind him.
I read that some alt-right groups are going to march in Tennessee about white lives matter. Maybe they should have marched in Vegas.
I can't believe that people don't realize that the black lives matter movement is basically saying they should matter as much as white ones.
I sort of get a kick out of the alt right media which spins everything into something it isn't.
Unfortunately millions of Americans buy into it including the dotard in the White House. America has gotten dumber, or maybe those people are getting more visibility now.
Republicans have looked at the demographics and are trying everything they can to suppress voter turnout. Support Democracy much?
The tax "reform" plan is really nothing except some tax cuts for businesses and wealthy people with a few trinkets for everyone else. Those blankets might be infected with small pox folks.
Were paper towels really what the hurricane victims needed?
Calm before the storm, its not that calm and what storm?
Just rename the Affordable Care Act the Trump Care Act and it will be the best thing that ever was.
I'm very sorry for those communities which are still suffering from the loss of old manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately I don't see it getting better until new technology shows up in those areas.
The Obama recovery has continued under Trump. This month the hurricanes hurt jobs, think that's legit.
People are talking about who is going to replace Tillerson? The President says he is fully behind him.
I read that some alt-right groups are going to march in Tennessee about white lives matter. Maybe they should have marched in Vegas.
I can't believe that people don't realize that the black lives matter movement is basically saying they should matter as much as white ones.
I sort of get a kick out of the alt right media which spins everything into something it isn't.
Unfortunately millions of Americans buy into it including the dotard in the White House. America has gotten dumber, or maybe those people are getting more visibility now.
Republicans have looked at the demographics and are trying everything they can to suppress voter turnout. Support Democracy much?
The tax "reform" plan is really nothing except some tax cuts for businesses and wealthy people with a few trinkets for everyone else. Those blankets might be infected with small pox folks.
Friday, October 6, 2017
Iran Accord
It is likely that our dotard is likely to repudiate the nuclear deal with Iran.
He like to repeat the right wing media analysis of the deal and that it wasn't in America's best interests.
All evidence supports that Iran is effectively living up to the deal but they think the deal should have done more than it does, such as requiring Iran to stop supporting terrorists.
Now that would be fine except the agreement was negotiated with one goal in mind and wasn't just a bilateral deal with us.
It also may not actually matter much except for a public relations thing.
Certainly if all the other countries and Iran continue to honor it our non-participation is sort of optional.
Since the financial assets that had been blocked have already been released, you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.
Unilateral American sanctions may have some impact, but the rest of the members who stay in the agreement won't honor them.
Worst case is that Iran uses this action to resume its nuclear development program and that would result in resumed UN Sanctions but because we took the first step it may be easier for the Iranians to get sympathetic support as the victim.
Not what anyone would want but you know the only thing that matters to our dotard is politics and public relations.
A safer world, not so much.
He like to repeat the right wing media analysis of the deal and that it wasn't in America's best interests.
All evidence supports that Iran is effectively living up to the deal but they think the deal should have done more than it does, such as requiring Iran to stop supporting terrorists.
Now that would be fine except the agreement was negotiated with one goal in mind and wasn't just a bilateral deal with us.
It also may not actually matter much except for a public relations thing.
Certainly if all the other countries and Iran continue to honor it our non-participation is sort of optional.
Since the financial assets that had been blocked have already been released, you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.
Unilateral American sanctions may have some impact, but the rest of the members who stay in the agreement won't honor them.
Worst case is that Iran uses this action to resume its nuclear development program and that would result in resumed UN Sanctions but because we took the first step it may be easier for the Iranians to get sympathetic support as the victim.
Not what anyone would want but you know the only thing that matters to our dotard is politics and public relations.
A safer world, not so much.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
Unknown Disturbed People
The shooter in Vegas was essentially fairly normal in most respects.
Meanwhile he apparently decided to commit an atrocity was the worst mass shooting in our history.
Story after story I see attempts to understand this apparent contradiction, unsuccessfully in my opinion.
I have no idea why he did it but clearly he was disturbed about something.
He had a girlfriend, money, a place to live and access to his preferred recreation, gambling.
In many ways he was just a guy.
Some people remember that he would be grumpy at times.
Some Starbucks employees remember him yelling at his girlfriend.
He looked a little scruffier recently by some accounts.
None of which would lead to any particular motive.
Its also pretty obvious that it wasn't a spur of the moment thing.
Some seem impressed by the planning involved, although it consisted of a few pretty straightforward things, Getting the right room would be the hardest.
Apparently he attempted to explode some Aviation Fuel Tanks and failed at that.
The search for a motive is going to go on and its not obvious one will be found.
Its probably scarier to think that an normal guy with above average intelligence, not down on his luck would just do something like this.
Its actually pretty terrifying.
Meanwhile he apparently decided to commit an atrocity was the worst mass shooting in our history.
Story after story I see attempts to understand this apparent contradiction, unsuccessfully in my opinion.
I have no idea why he did it but clearly he was disturbed about something.
He had a girlfriend, money, a place to live and access to his preferred recreation, gambling.
In many ways he was just a guy.
Some people remember that he would be grumpy at times.
Some Starbucks employees remember him yelling at his girlfriend.
He looked a little scruffier recently by some accounts.
None of which would lead to any particular motive.
Its also pretty obvious that it wasn't a spur of the moment thing.
Some seem impressed by the planning involved, although it consisted of a few pretty straightforward things, Getting the right room would be the hardest.
Apparently he attempted to explode some Aviation Fuel Tanks and failed at that.
The search for a motive is going to go on and its not obvious one will be found.
Its probably scarier to think that an normal guy with above average intelligence, not down on his luck would just do something like this.
Its actually pretty terrifying.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Blood Money
In response to a question today about actions the Senate might take to control bump stocks, the accessory used to convert the semi-automatic weapon used in Vegas to automatic the majority leader said he wanted to wait until the investigation was complete.
Well, guess maybe the weapon was really a knife or possibly some of the injured (over 500) might die changing the number killed.
We may even discover that the person who did this was unhappy about something.
Of course he has to stall hoping the public outrage can be assuaged by the blood money the NRA will pump out saying guns didn't do it, a person did.
Of course they certainly enabled it.
Our speaker of the house deflected by saying he thought they might look into mental health issues?
Last time they allowed mentally ill people to buy guns, guess they could expand that a bit.
Nothing will happen except the donations will flow a bit more freely, the advertising will increase and in a few months we'll have another tragedy.
Maybe they should issue everyone body armor.
At least it would be something.
Well, guess maybe the weapon was really a knife or possibly some of the injured (over 500) might die changing the number killed.
We may even discover that the person who did this was unhappy about something.
Of course he has to stall hoping the public outrage can be assuaged by the blood money the NRA will pump out saying guns didn't do it, a person did.
Of course they certainly enabled it.
Our speaker of the house deflected by saying he thought they might look into mental health issues?
Last time they allowed mentally ill people to buy guns, guess they could expand that a bit.
Nothing will happen except the donations will flow a bit more freely, the advertising will increase and in a few months we'll have another tragedy.
Maybe they should issue everyone body armor.
At least it would be something.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
The Dark Part of the Soul
Everyone wants to know why the gunman in Vegas did what he did.
I suspect we will never really know.
Unfortunately we live in a time and country where one person who gets upset or mad about something can simply decide to etch his name into history by killing a lot of other people.
Now of course people are going to say guns aren't to blame but he wouldn't have done as much damage with a knife or a club.
Of course he did pass every background check and I read they are trying to find out where he got the fully automatic weapons.
Really? I'm not a gun enthusiast but I learned a long time ago how to convert a semi-automatic into a full automatic, it isn't very hard. There's some videos on You-Tube walking you through the process.
The AR 15 is even easier as I remember.
Now I don't encourage any such behavior and why anyone would actually need even a semi-automatic assault rifle is a mystery to me, but I also don't really care.
Unless of course they start shooting people with it.
Now there's nothing in our current system that could have prevented what happened in Vegas and I doubt we will institute the things we would need to do to prevent it in the future.
People sometimes go into dark places in their soul and don't come out.
What prompted it is impossible to say if he didn't tell us or someone else.
It doesn't seem to me from what I know about the shooter that he would actually have any issues with the people he shot.
He just wanted to shoot people and so he did.
Not as much evil as indifference, indifference to the lives he took and the lives he ruined because of those who are maimed or lost loved ones.
We just made it easy for him.
I suspect we will never really know.
Unfortunately we live in a time and country where one person who gets upset or mad about something can simply decide to etch his name into history by killing a lot of other people.
Now of course people are going to say guns aren't to blame but he wouldn't have done as much damage with a knife or a club.
Of course he did pass every background check and I read they are trying to find out where he got the fully automatic weapons.
Really? I'm not a gun enthusiast but I learned a long time ago how to convert a semi-automatic into a full automatic, it isn't very hard. There's some videos on You-Tube walking you through the process.
The AR 15 is even easier as I remember.
Now I don't encourage any such behavior and why anyone would actually need even a semi-automatic assault rifle is a mystery to me, but I also don't really care.
Unless of course they start shooting people with it.
Now there's nothing in our current system that could have prevented what happened in Vegas and I doubt we will institute the things we would need to do to prevent it in the future.
People sometimes go into dark places in their soul and don't come out.
What prompted it is impossible to say if he didn't tell us or someone else.
It doesn't seem to me from what I know about the shooter that he would actually have any issues with the people he shot.
He just wanted to shoot people and so he did.
Not as much evil as indifference, indifference to the lives he took and the lives he ruined because of those who are maimed or lost loved ones.
We just made it easy for him.
Monday, October 2, 2017
What Happened in Vegas
We had a horrific tragedy in Las Vegas where at least 50 were killed and over 200 injured based on current reports.
The perpetrator is know and not believed to be connected to any terrorist organizations.
Our prayers and hopes for recovery for the wounded go out to the innocent victims who were at a music festival.
We don't know the shooters motivation, he was killed so not sure we ever will, but the fact that a single person could inflict this much damage with what had to be an assault rifle should give us all pause.
Unfortunately sick events like this sometimes inspire copycats so it makes all large outdoor gatherings less safe.
I don't know if any kind of security could have prevented this, but we should try to find a way.
We need to figure out ways to protect ourselves as best we can.
Too many senseless indiscriminate deaths this morning, way too many.
The perpetrator is know and not believed to be connected to any terrorist organizations.
Our prayers and hopes for recovery for the wounded go out to the innocent victims who were at a music festival.
We don't know the shooters motivation, he was killed so not sure we ever will, but the fact that a single person could inflict this much damage with what had to be an assault rifle should give us all pause.
Unfortunately sick events like this sometimes inspire copycats so it makes all large outdoor gatherings less safe.
I don't know if any kind of security could have prevented this, but we should try to find a way.
We need to figure out ways to protect ourselves as best we can.
Too many senseless indiscriminate deaths this morning, way too many.
Sunday, October 1, 2017
Sunday Musings
I realize that the Trumps and Kardashians are very similar except the Kardashians are more ethical.
Look, Trump is a big picture guy, only way he can keep the crayons almost inside the lines.
I'm wondering who is going to be the one to go transgender?
This whole president gig is just a set up for the Trump reality show coming in a few years.
The republicans can't figure out that attacking Hillary doesn't really do much anymore.
It appears that many Republican voters can't focus on more than a single issue, look at the recent Alabama primary.
The guy they selected is going to bring the level of the congress down a few notches, which is difficult to do, if he gets elected and he probably will.
All these voters seem to want people to challenge the establishment unless they're football players I guess.
Remember all those threats about what we were going to do to North Korea? Did anyone believe them? The carry a little stick while talking loud guy might believe himself.
I'm pretty sure he is so delusional that he isn't actually lying, just, you know, delusional.
Of course he might just be lying.
Tax plan isn't going to help him, really?
The people who actually believe him have to realize that nothing he says means anything.
Or maybe not.
He's doing more to fight the NFL than he is to counter North Korea. Guess once he figures out that a dotard is an insult he might react.
I wonder if he could even identify North Korea on a map. He doesn't have any golf courses there.
He might think its in Africa with that country he made up at the UN, Nambia.
Look, Trump is a big picture guy, only way he can keep the crayons almost inside the lines.
I'm wondering who is going to be the one to go transgender?
This whole president gig is just a set up for the Trump reality show coming in a few years.
The republicans can't figure out that attacking Hillary doesn't really do much anymore.
It appears that many Republican voters can't focus on more than a single issue, look at the recent Alabama primary.
The guy they selected is going to bring the level of the congress down a few notches, which is difficult to do, if he gets elected and he probably will.
All these voters seem to want people to challenge the establishment unless they're football players I guess.
Remember all those threats about what we were going to do to North Korea? Did anyone believe them? The carry a little stick while talking loud guy might believe himself.
I'm pretty sure he is so delusional that he isn't actually lying, just, you know, delusional.
Of course he might just be lying.
Tax plan isn't going to help him, really?
The people who actually believe him have to realize that nothing he says means anything.
Or maybe not.
He's doing more to fight the NFL than he is to counter North Korea. Guess once he figures out that a dotard is an insult he might react.
I wonder if he could even identify North Korea on a map. He doesn't have any golf courses there.
He might think its in Africa with that country he made up at the UN, Nambia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)