Listening to the dontard or reading his tweets you have to wonder how he can live in such a fictional world.
He continues to blame the Democrats for the things he can't accomplish, apparently surprised that the opposition party opposes him.
Meanwhile his party has control of both houses?
Now its true that it requires certain skills. When you refuse to be a politician and have an all or nothing type agenda you don't have them
The way it works is you have to adjust your agenda to appeal to enough people to get it to pass.
Of course our political world has become so antagonistic that this becomes hard to do.
We have committees in congress where we see memos about the same fact written very differently by the two parties.
I don't see this getting better anytime soon as we start to see the primaries dominated by the most radical party members on both sides.
So someone who represents a centrist position is going to have trouble being the party nominee.
The ultimate outcome of this is a bit difficult to gauge since it extends all the way to the White House.
If we were to elect a President who could work with both sides and forge a middle path we could see some results.
However such a candidate is unlikely to get nominated in today's environment, so its going to be rough sailing for the foreseeable future.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Monday, July 30, 2018
Media
Saw a recent poll where most Americans are in favor of helping the farmers hurt by our tariff wars.
I don't think they should be hurt either, but of course it still represents a type of social welfare program that the dontard and his supporters oppose.
The fact that what they do and what they say is contradictory is not surprising.
It isn't even entirely their fault since they get fed so much bad information.
One of the trends in America over the last couple of decades has been the infusion of "conservative" media.
Some think this was a reaction to the "liberal" media but it really depends on where you think the American media was.
Trying to report facts without opinion was the old standard. Opinions were identified as such in editorials or Op-eds.
Fact based reporting was by definition non-political, but it was viewed by some as liberal bias.
Of course some examples of news stories that seemed to have a liberal bias could be found, there are many many news stories out there written by many different people. You can find examples of almost anything, but to argue there was a liberal conspiracy is actually giving liberals too much credit.
What may be true is that the way journalism was taught and practiced tended to focus on actual events, not opinions.
This has changed with the advent of some clear opinion media. CNN which was our first cable news channel was deemed conservative although that is of course a matter of opinion.
We see FOX which is nothing but opinion and more insidiously we see local newspapers being controlled more and more by groups pushing an agenda.
Certainly, having a political position is every one's right, but opinion should be labeled as such not hidden in news stories.
At last not as a policy.
I don't think they should be hurt either, but of course it still represents a type of social welfare program that the dontard and his supporters oppose.
The fact that what they do and what they say is contradictory is not surprising.
It isn't even entirely their fault since they get fed so much bad information.
One of the trends in America over the last couple of decades has been the infusion of "conservative" media.
Some think this was a reaction to the "liberal" media but it really depends on where you think the American media was.
Trying to report facts without opinion was the old standard. Opinions were identified as such in editorials or Op-eds.
Fact based reporting was by definition non-political, but it was viewed by some as liberal bias.
Of course some examples of news stories that seemed to have a liberal bias could be found, there are many many news stories out there written by many different people. You can find examples of almost anything, but to argue there was a liberal conspiracy is actually giving liberals too much credit.
What may be true is that the way journalism was taught and practiced tended to focus on actual events, not opinions.
This has changed with the advent of some clear opinion media. CNN which was our first cable news channel was deemed conservative although that is of course a matter of opinion.
We see FOX which is nothing but opinion and more insidiously we see local newspapers being controlled more and more by groups pushing an agenda.
Certainly, having a political position is every one's right, but opinion should be labeled as such not hidden in news stories.
At last not as a policy.
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Swampier and Swampier
The Federal Government consists of a political part, mostly the people elected and high level appointees and a professional part, people with expertise who have achieved their positions via education and experience.
You wouldn't want to fight a battle with a bunch of inexperienced campaign workers and you shouldn't try to run a professional agency with them either.
Unfortunately, our dontard doesn't really have much regard for professionalism, he is focused on loyalty to him, not to the country or the flag, just to him.
A lot of the federal government is nearly invisible to most people unless you deal with them but they are involved in high level science and technology as well as dealing with the laws and interactions of Government.
Having worked with many of these people over the years, they are of course like everyone else in having problems and issues, but the one thing they do well in almost every case is their jobs.
Politics at most levels of the Federal Government are not part of day to day life, and in fact they are generally prohibited.
If you are working with foreign countries or determining the safety of food for the public or combating disease, you are not interested in which party people belong to.
You hear talk about a deep state and what they get wrong about that is that it isn't the people, it the laws that have piled up over the years dictating how those agencies operate.
Of course when professionalism isn't the primary consideration you get the current administration where people resign weekly it seems for ethics violations only to be replaced with someone just as bad.
It is worse as you see them politicizing every position they can to reward loyalty instead of capability.
The swamp is growing deeper and deeper, no draining going on at all.
You wouldn't want to fight a battle with a bunch of inexperienced campaign workers and you shouldn't try to run a professional agency with them either.
Unfortunately, our dontard doesn't really have much regard for professionalism, he is focused on loyalty to him, not to the country or the flag, just to him.
A lot of the federal government is nearly invisible to most people unless you deal with them but they are involved in high level science and technology as well as dealing with the laws and interactions of Government.
Having worked with many of these people over the years, they are of course like everyone else in having problems and issues, but the one thing they do well in almost every case is their jobs.
Politics at most levels of the Federal Government are not part of day to day life, and in fact they are generally prohibited.
If you are working with foreign countries or determining the safety of food for the public or combating disease, you are not interested in which party people belong to.
You hear talk about a deep state and what they get wrong about that is that it isn't the people, it the laws that have piled up over the years dictating how those agencies operate.
Of course when professionalism isn't the primary consideration you get the current administration where people resign weekly it seems for ethics violations only to be replaced with someone just as bad.
It is worse as you see them politicizing every position they can to reward loyalty instead of capability.
The swamp is growing deeper and deeper, no draining going on at all.
Saturday, July 28, 2018
North Korea
Yesterday marked the 65th anniversary of the armistice that stopped the fighting in the Korean war and it also saw the return of some remains of soldiers who died in that war.
Obviously the symbolism of the first had something to do with the timing of the second, but certainly there is nothing bad about returning the remains.
North Korea is one of the most closed societies on the planet and has a lot to gain from normal diplomatic relations.
It finally got some recognition with the threat of nuclear weapons and since those were its best bargaining chips, its going to play them carefully.
Its main goals would appear to be the formalization of peace, the removal of sanctions, and the removal of the American troops in the South.
There may be other things, but they will become obvious as time passes.
Our position seems to simply be the elimination of their nuclear program when for all these years it was tied to other objectives, like a reduction of the threat to the South.
North Korea is a country that would hardly be worth talking about except they have managed, despite being a fairly backward nation, to maintain a large military presence and have represented a threat to peace in the Korean peninsula since the 1950s.
They also have seemingly figured out that our dontard is mostly interested in getting his ego stroked and public relations so they can proceed without much real cost.
Still any progress there is a good thing, as long as the threat to the South is curtailed.
Its just hard t imagine they aren't ready to unify the peninsula as soon as we leave.
Obviously the symbolism of the first had something to do with the timing of the second, but certainly there is nothing bad about returning the remains.
North Korea is one of the most closed societies on the planet and has a lot to gain from normal diplomatic relations.
It finally got some recognition with the threat of nuclear weapons and since those were its best bargaining chips, its going to play them carefully.
Its main goals would appear to be the formalization of peace, the removal of sanctions, and the removal of the American troops in the South.
There may be other things, but they will become obvious as time passes.
Our position seems to simply be the elimination of their nuclear program when for all these years it was tied to other objectives, like a reduction of the threat to the South.
North Korea is a country that would hardly be worth talking about except they have managed, despite being a fairly backward nation, to maintain a large military presence and have represented a threat to peace in the Korean peninsula since the 1950s.
They also have seemingly figured out that our dontard is mostly interested in getting his ego stroked and public relations so they can proceed without much real cost.
Still any progress there is a good thing, as long as the threat to the South is curtailed.
Its just hard t imagine they aren't ready to unify the peninsula as soon as we leave.
Friday, July 27, 2018
Growth
Last quarter was the best rate of growth in four years.
It should be noted that the administration four years ago was the Obama administration, the one that the current administration accuses of being bad for business.
That growth wasn't sustained for the whole year and this rate isn't likely to be either.
It was partly fueled by people trying to get ahead of the potential tariffs, meaning that certain deliveries were moved forward in time.
They aren't going to happen when they would have.
Growth is of course a good thing even if it is partly fueled by stealing from the future.
Some things are going to hurt growth, the most prevalent being the increase in cost from the tariffs.
Steel and Aluminum prices are up, good for those manufacturers, bad for everyone else.
The more we impose the more it will impact growth.
More significantly is where is the growth?
The problem with our economy has been high paying manufacturing jobs being replaced by lower paying service jobs.
The high paying service jobs are in areas that require significant expertise, not the sort of thing that many high school graduates would have.
Of course the economy here is still doing well but a young person has more and more problems trying to live in the area they grew up in.
Higher prices due to tariffs isn't going to help.
It should be noted that the administration four years ago was the Obama administration, the one that the current administration accuses of being bad for business.
That growth wasn't sustained for the whole year and this rate isn't likely to be either.
It was partly fueled by people trying to get ahead of the potential tariffs, meaning that certain deliveries were moved forward in time.
They aren't going to happen when they would have.
Growth is of course a good thing even if it is partly fueled by stealing from the future.
Some things are going to hurt growth, the most prevalent being the increase in cost from the tariffs.
Steel and Aluminum prices are up, good for those manufacturers, bad for everyone else.
The more we impose the more it will impact growth.
More significantly is where is the growth?
The problem with our economy has been high paying manufacturing jobs being replaced by lower paying service jobs.
The high paying service jobs are in areas that require significant expertise, not the sort of thing that many high school graduates would have.
Of course the economy here is still doing well but a young person has more and more problems trying to live in the area they grew up in.
Higher prices due to tariffs isn't going to help.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
Weather or Not?
One of the things about science, at least good science, is that it accepts the possibility that new data or new facts might change accepted theories.
Some things are of course much more settled than others, but you will generally never hear scientists say something is 100% certain.
Clearly some science is so well established it approaches that degree of certainty, but a good scientist is always open to the possibility that some new data or event will cause a theory to change.
You see this degree of uncertainty used by some individuals to deny what are probably science facts as "unproven" theory.
We saw this for many years when the tobacco companies tried to argue that they weren't selling cancer sticks. They knew they were but were able to promote the idea that it was "unproven" science.
Every unbiased experiment and test came to the same result, that smoking was a factor in increased levels of certain cancers but that is only proof beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to "proven".
As I said most things in science can never be proven but we accept that if every observation shows the same result that it is in fact true.
We see this now with a few people arguing that climate change isn't caused by human activities, and in fairness not all of it is. What we do know is that human activities, primarily the release of previously trapped carbon into the atmosphere contributes to higher worldwide temperatures.
This greenhouse effect has been tested extensively and al the experiments and calculations show it has that outcome. Is it the only factor? No, the earth has gone through multiple climate cycles over its existence caused by natural factors, but we know that industrial age human behavior has an impact.
Every year we observe weather events that are supposed to be exceedingly rare but are happening fairly frequently. We see the rise in the oceans and the melt of the polar ice caps proceeding.
Lets suppose for arguments sake that only a small percentage of this is the result of human carbon release. Why wouldn't we stop it anyway?
Is a few dollars saved today worth watching our children being forced to move to higher ground?
The potential future cost of the environmental damage will be astronomical, and like most things early efforts can have significant future benefits.
A single weather event is not climate change. When weather events form a trend it is.
Some things are of course much more settled than others, but you will generally never hear scientists say something is 100% certain.
Clearly some science is so well established it approaches that degree of certainty, but a good scientist is always open to the possibility that some new data or event will cause a theory to change.
You see this degree of uncertainty used by some individuals to deny what are probably science facts as "unproven" theory.
We saw this for many years when the tobacco companies tried to argue that they weren't selling cancer sticks. They knew they were but were able to promote the idea that it was "unproven" science.
Every unbiased experiment and test came to the same result, that smoking was a factor in increased levels of certain cancers but that is only proof beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to "proven".
As I said most things in science can never be proven but we accept that if every observation shows the same result that it is in fact true.
We see this now with a few people arguing that climate change isn't caused by human activities, and in fairness not all of it is. What we do know is that human activities, primarily the release of previously trapped carbon into the atmosphere contributes to higher worldwide temperatures.
This greenhouse effect has been tested extensively and al the experiments and calculations show it has that outcome. Is it the only factor? No, the earth has gone through multiple climate cycles over its existence caused by natural factors, but we know that industrial age human behavior has an impact.
Every year we observe weather events that are supposed to be exceedingly rare but are happening fairly frequently. We see the rise in the oceans and the melt of the polar ice caps proceeding.
Lets suppose for arguments sake that only a small percentage of this is the result of human carbon release. Why wouldn't we stop it anyway?
Is a few dollars saved today worth watching our children being forced to move to higher ground?
The potential future cost of the environmental damage will be astronomical, and like most things early efforts can have significant future benefits.
A single weather event is not climate change. When weather events form a trend it is.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
Conservative Socialism?
When conservatives complain about welfare you have to remember that they are only opposed to welfare that doesn't help them.
Tax incentives for business, farm subsidies, small business grants are areas that all or some conservatives support.
Food stamps, health care and other "entitlement" programs that in many cases benefit our poorest citizens are the ones they object too.
Now there is a bit of logic here, since the ones they support are in some ways supportive of business, if not free enterprise.
It should also be noted that they also go to people who tend to vote conservative, as opposed to those who don't.
We now see the dontard proposing to give $12 billion to farmers who are being hurt by retaliatory tariffs. This will of course be paid by the rest of us, as will the higher prices resulting from his tariffs.
So pay more for imported goods and have some taxes go to farmers.
Not the best deal for most of us, and not even a good deal for farmers since they will still have trouble selling product overseas.
It also may violate a number of WTO provisions, but that can take forever to adjudicate.
What will or will not happen with the trade war is pretty uncertain unless saner heads take over, and I don't see any of those around right now.
The more the dontard bellows about them being successful the more you know they have issues.
Obviously he is trying to fix a problem he created when the solution was simply to make American business more competitive.
He has no clue how to do that of course, so we get whatever this is.
I guess redistribution of wealth is a socialist concept and he claims to be a conservative so I guess we have conservative socialism at work.
At least its better than national socialism.
Tax incentives for business, farm subsidies, small business grants are areas that all or some conservatives support.
Food stamps, health care and other "entitlement" programs that in many cases benefit our poorest citizens are the ones they object too.
Now there is a bit of logic here, since the ones they support are in some ways supportive of business, if not free enterprise.
It should also be noted that they also go to people who tend to vote conservative, as opposed to those who don't.
We now see the dontard proposing to give $12 billion to farmers who are being hurt by retaliatory tariffs. This will of course be paid by the rest of us, as will the higher prices resulting from his tariffs.
So pay more for imported goods and have some taxes go to farmers.
Not the best deal for most of us, and not even a good deal for farmers since they will still have trouble selling product overseas.
It also may violate a number of WTO provisions, but that can take forever to adjudicate.
What will or will not happen with the trade war is pretty uncertain unless saner heads take over, and I don't see any of those around right now.
The more the dontard bellows about them being successful the more you know they have issues.
Obviously he is trying to fix a problem he created when the solution was simply to make American business more competitive.
He has no clue how to do that of course, so we get whatever this is.
I guess redistribution of wealth is a socialist concept and he claims to be a conservative so I guess we have conservative socialism at work.
At least its better than national socialism.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Taxes
Are taxes too high?
Well they aren't high enough to pay all our bills so we have to borrow and add to the national debt every month.
Some like to argue that we should spend less, but of course besides the often cited waste and abuse there is little agreement on what to cut.
The biggest components of our budget are tied up in what we call entitlements and defense with a big component for interest on the debt.
After those three things we have all the rest which is somewhere under $500 billion. The deficit is almost twice that. The link below gives more details.
Budget breakdown
One big problem we face is that our nation has gotten older. The best way to pay for entitlements is to have enough young workers paying taxes to cover the outlays for retirement and Medicare.
We don't as the baby boom generation ages and the number of births decreases.
This trend is going to continue to force larger deficits every year unless we take steps to increase income or reduce payments (a suicidal political issue).
We are not going to reduce defense it seems and the rest of the budget is not enough so the simple answer is tax revenue is too low.
The two ways to increase tax revenue is to grow the economy or increase taxes.
Growing the economy sounds good, seems like everyone will benefit, but remember our tax system is primarily an income tax, so you have to grow worker's income to get more taxes, especially since we are reducing the corporate tax rates.
Where are the workers?
Unemployment has been extremely low so the only way to increase worker income is through paying the workers we have more. Its clear that's not going to happen to the degree or level we would need to raise tax revenues by 25% or so.
Of course mandating raises of that amount for everyone sounds good to most people, but it is likely to lead to more automation and is opposed by our business dominated Government.
Immigration was a source of additional workers, but we have an anti-immigration government that is restricting it.
We are living on borrowed time and money.
Well they aren't high enough to pay all our bills so we have to borrow and add to the national debt every month.
Some like to argue that we should spend less, but of course besides the often cited waste and abuse there is little agreement on what to cut.
The biggest components of our budget are tied up in what we call entitlements and defense with a big component for interest on the debt.
After those three things we have all the rest which is somewhere under $500 billion. The deficit is almost twice that. The link below gives more details.
Budget breakdown
One big problem we face is that our nation has gotten older. The best way to pay for entitlements is to have enough young workers paying taxes to cover the outlays for retirement and Medicare.
We don't as the baby boom generation ages and the number of births decreases.
This trend is going to continue to force larger deficits every year unless we take steps to increase income or reduce payments (a suicidal political issue).
We are not going to reduce defense it seems and the rest of the budget is not enough so the simple answer is tax revenue is too low.
The two ways to increase tax revenue is to grow the economy or increase taxes.
Growing the economy sounds good, seems like everyone will benefit, but remember our tax system is primarily an income tax, so you have to grow worker's income to get more taxes, especially since we are reducing the corporate tax rates.
Where are the workers?
Unemployment has been extremely low so the only way to increase worker income is through paying the workers we have more. Its clear that's not going to happen to the degree or level we would need to raise tax revenues by 25% or so.
Of course mandating raises of that amount for everyone sounds good to most people, but it is likely to lead to more automation and is opposed by our business dominated Government.
Immigration was a source of additional workers, but we have an anti-immigration government that is restricting it.
We are living on borrowed time and money.
Monday, July 23, 2018
Single Issue Voters
There are voters who really only care about a single issue.
These issues inspire a level of passion that makes other behavior and issues irrelevant.
Perhaps the most divisive is the opposition to abortion.
Simply put if you consider abortion to be murder, it becomes an evil that has to be stopped.
The only discussion possible is whether it is in fact murder and if you have already decided it is, not much can be said.
Realistically we wouldn't accept murder for any excuse, and while for those who consider a fetus a non-human until after birth, the argument is simply not going to persuade anyone.
The logical approach here is to make abortions unnecessary via sex education and birth control, but of course it won't always be effective in 100% of the cases.
Clearly a women has rights over her own body and the question becomes at what point does the fetus also gain legal status?
No one would accept a women having the right to murder an infant. So the clear dividing line is birth.
Clearly the fetus becomes a baby at some point and to religious folks that is when it gets a soul.
Many believe that a soul is created when the egg and sperm match up.
If you believe that abortion is simply murder.
For people who support choice, they don't accept that or may not believe that souls even exist.
Many I believe feel as I do, it would be better if there were no abortions, but the women has the right to decide what to do, not someone imposing their belief system.
So to some extent abortion becomes entangled in first amendment protections, since the main arguments to prohibit it are religious ones.
Still, the point is that abortion opponents do feel that they oppose murder and aren't going to change their position anytime soon.
This single issue provides a large block of evangelicals and others to the anti-abortion candidate.
It makes them will to vote for a hypocritical, lying, adulterer with very little actual consistency in his positions.
.
These issues inspire a level of passion that makes other behavior and issues irrelevant.
Perhaps the most divisive is the opposition to abortion.
Simply put if you consider abortion to be murder, it becomes an evil that has to be stopped.
The only discussion possible is whether it is in fact murder and if you have already decided it is, not much can be said.
Realistically we wouldn't accept murder for any excuse, and while for those who consider a fetus a non-human until after birth, the argument is simply not going to persuade anyone.
The logical approach here is to make abortions unnecessary via sex education and birth control, but of course it won't always be effective in 100% of the cases.
Clearly a women has rights over her own body and the question becomes at what point does the fetus also gain legal status?
No one would accept a women having the right to murder an infant. So the clear dividing line is birth.
Clearly the fetus becomes a baby at some point and to religious folks that is when it gets a soul.
Many believe that a soul is created when the egg and sperm match up.
If you believe that abortion is simply murder.
For people who support choice, they don't accept that or may not believe that souls even exist.
Many I believe feel as I do, it would be better if there were no abortions, but the women has the right to decide what to do, not someone imposing their belief system.
So to some extent abortion becomes entangled in first amendment protections, since the main arguments to prohibit it are religious ones.
Still, the point is that abortion opponents do feel that they oppose murder and aren't going to change their position anytime soon.
This single issue provides a large block of evangelicals and others to the anti-abortion candidate.
It makes them will to vote for a hypocritical, lying, adulterer with very little actual consistency in his positions.
.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Local Politcs
The vast majority of Americans don't really think about politics much.
They think about getting through the day, the week, the year.
How to save for a new car, college, a new home.
What's going on with the price of gasoline, food, the movies.
Is my job secure, are my kids going to have jobs, will I be able to retire.
If I get sick can I afford it? What about the rest of my family?
Are my parents OK, can they continue to live alone? Can they afford a nursing home?
Is Social Security gonna survive?
Are my children going to have to go to war?
Are my taxes going up?
And many other concerns.
Politics matters only in so much as it impacts these concerns.
If you look at America from the 50000 foot level, it is looking pretty good. We still have the strongest economy in the world. We are developing new industries and forging global ties.
However, on the ground real people are fighting for survival every day.
This has always been true, but over the last 20 or 30 years it has gotten worse.
We saw many "secure" jobs go away either because of technology or outsourcing.
Then we saw the financial world crumble and many people in "good" neighborhoods, lost their homes and their lifestyles.
We have seen the cost of medical care and college skyrocket.
These are the issues that we care about. Want to help refugees? Make sure we are OK first.
This was why a rich bully with a checkered sexual past and a penchant for lying was able to squeak by, he promised to worry about America first.
Of course, he was lying, but many fell for it. It was better than talking about idealistic things that sound good but are for other people. Help refugees? Sure after we are OK. Ensure equal pay? Sure, but give everyone more pay.
All politics are local, they simply are.
They think about getting through the day, the week, the year.
How to save for a new car, college, a new home.
What's going on with the price of gasoline, food, the movies.
Is my job secure, are my kids going to have jobs, will I be able to retire.
If I get sick can I afford it? What about the rest of my family?
Are my parents OK, can they continue to live alone? Can they afford a nursing home?
Is Social Security gonna survive?
Are my children going to have to go to war?
Are my taxes going up?
And many other concerns.
Politics matters only in so much as it impacts these concerns.
If you look at America from the 50000 foot level, it is looking pretty good. We still have the strongest economy in the world. We are developing new industries and forging global ties.
However, on the ground real people are fighting for survival every day.
This has always been true, but over the last 20 or 30 years it has gotten worse.
We saw many "secure" jobs go away either because of technology or outsourcing.
Then we saw the financial world crumble and many people in "good" neighborhoods, lost their homes and their lifestyles.
We have seen the cost of medical care and college skyrocket.
These are the issues that we care about. Want to help refugees? Make sure we are OK first.
This was why a rich bully with a checkered sexual past and a penchant for lying was able to squeak by, he promised to worry about America first.
Of course, he was lying, but many fell for it. It was better than talking about idealistic things that sound good but are for other people. Help refugees? Sure after we are OK. Ensure equal pay? Sure, but give everyone more pay.
All politics are local, they simply are.
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Economics
Has the US economy improved because of the policies of the current administration?
Its easy enough to argue both sides of that, we have seen continued increased economic growth and reduced unemployment, but we were seeing those before the election.
The reduced business taxes and regulation reductions are providing some stimulus, but we see the increased deficits and tariffs as headwinds to future growth.
If you live in the fantasy world of this administration, he has turned the economy around. He is creating manufacturing and mining jobs and making America energy independent.
Of course the amount of truth in those statements is negligible but there is a little truth there.
His policies have started to hurt farmers as one of their biggest customers has made American products more expensive leading to lost sales.
His immigration policies have also led to labor shortages in certain seasonal industries.
We are seeing some increases in energy costs and those will have an impact.
If you simply look at trend lines since the great recession, the change between the two administrations is simply not dramatic.
Remember we had some pretty major stimulus, the tax cuts and the increased Government spending that should cause a growth spurt, and we see some impact, but of course that is really borrowed money since our deficit is so high.
We are seeing some interest rate increases which will slow growth a bit and while I doubt the congress can do anything at all short term, we see the administration trying to pass another tax break.
There is certainly no economic miracle and the long term impact seems negative, but short term there is some increased growth.
If you believe that the growth will become permanent and propel the economy, we may be able to pay for these cuts.
If not, well we have a growing debt problem to deal with.
If the interest rates go high enough it will be a disastrous issue.
Its easy enough to argue both sides of that, we have seen continued increased economic growth and reduced unemployment, but we were seeing those before the election.
The reduced business taxes and regulation reductions are providing some stimulus, but we see the increased deficits and tariffs as headwinds to future growth.
If you live in the fantasy world of this administration, he has turned the economy around. He is creating manufacturing and mining jobs and making America energy independent.
Of course the amount of truth in those statements is negligible but there is a little truth there.
His policies have started to hurt farmers as one of their biggest customers has made American products more expensive leading to lost sales.
His immigration policies have also led to labor shortages in certain seasonal industries.
We are seeing some increases in energy costs and those will have an impact.
If you simply look at trend lines since the great recession, the change between the two administrations is simply not dramatic.
Remember we had some pretty major stimulus, the tax cuts and the increased Government spending that should cause a growth spurt, and we see some impact, but of course that is really borrowed money since our deficit is so high.
We are seeing some interest rate increases which will slow growth a bit and while I doubt the congress can do anything at all short term, we see the administration trying to pass another tax break.
There is certainly no economic miracle and the long term impact seems negative, but short term there is some increased growth.
If you believe that the growth will become permanent and propel the economy, we may be able to pay for these cuts.
If not, well we have a growing debt problem to deal with.
If the interest rates go high enough it will be a disastrous issue.
Friday, July 20, 2018
Time Sensitive
In many endeavors you can have short term success by coming up with a new unexpected tactic that surprises your opponents.
Take the performance of the dontard during the primaries.
His bullying and bluster succeeded because they weren't expected and second, they were more popular with the public than the other candidates expected.
Of course being the only one doing it in a large crowd got some immediate benefit and ultimately led to success at the polls.
In the general election, it didn't work as well, but with assistance from some bad campaigning, the FBI and the Russians he managed to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote pretty badly.
It doesn't continue to be successful since it stops being a surprise and others learn how to counter it.
Its the same on the world stage as other nations realize that they are dealing with the dontard, they will adjust.
If you watch some of the media stations, you get the impression that the US can dictate how things should be. If this was ever true it isn't anymore.
In fact we are most likely sacrificing a certain amount of good will and future prosperity to the silly behavior of the dontard.
Tariffs, massive deficits, attacks on our social welfare programs and increased environmental recklessness are all strategies that will hurt us down the road.
Its a lot like the behavior of many in the urn up to the financial crisis, when they treated the increase in their home values as a bank account.
It doesn't last forever.
Take the performance of the dontard during the primaries.
His bullying and bluster succeeded because they weren't expected and second, they were more popular with the public than the other candidates expected.
Of course being the only one doing it in a large crowd got some immediate benefit and ultimately led to success at the polls.
In the general election, it didn't work as well, but with assistance from some bad campaigning, the FBI and the Russians he managed to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote pretty badly.
It doesn't continue to be successful since it stops being a surprise and others learn how to counter it.
Its the same on the world stage as other nations realize that they are dealing with the dontard, they will adjust.
If you watch some of the media stations, you get the impression that the US can dictate how things should be. If this was ever true it isn't anymore.
In fact we are most likely sacrificing a certain amount of good will and future prosperity to the silly behavior of the dontard.
Tariffs, massive deficits, attacks on our social welfare programs and increased environmental recklessness are all strategies that will hurt us down the road.
Its a lot like the behavior of many in the urn up to the financial crisis, when they treated the increase in their home values as a bank account.
It doesn't last forever.
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Neville Trump?
Well he seems to get the idea finally that our commitment to the NATO alliance could involve us in a war.
Of course it is a better argument that the NATO alliance has prevented a "hot" war in Europe, at least for the NATO countries.
It was formed when the Soviet Union was already in control of much of Eastern Europe and was clearly a danger to the rest of it.
NATO told them that any attack on any member would be an attack on all.
This was to avoid the issues that led to World War 2 when appeasement allowed Hitler to grab pieces of Eastern Europe without any real consequence, until the west decided to defend Poland.
We now hear an American President question why we would go to war over a small member of that alliance.
History tells us why, because a nation that is expansionist must not be allowed to act with impunity.
Do I want to see Americans involved in a war in Europe? Well no, no one should, but the best way to prevent that is to make it clear in no uncertain terms that aggression against a NATO ally will not be tolerated.
We saw the failed policy of appeasement when Mr. Hitler was perfectly willing to sign that if the west just gave him the Sudetenland he would be content.
We all know how well that worked out.
Of course it is a better argument that the NATO alliance has prevented a "hot" war in Europe, at least for the NATO countries.
It was formed when the Soviet Union was already in control of much of Eastern Europe and was clearly a danger to the rest of it.
NATO told them that any attack on any member would be an attack on all.
This was to avoid the issues that led to World War 2 when appeasement allowed Hitler to grab pieces of Eastern Europe without any real consequence, until the west decided to defend Poland.
We now hear an American President question why we would go to war over a small member of that alliance.
History tells us why, because a nation that is expansionist must not be allowed to act with impunity.
Do I want to see Americans involved in a war in Europe? Well no, no one should, but the best way to prevent that is to make it clear in no uncertain terms that aggression against a NATO ally will not be tolerated.
We saw the failed policy of appeasement when Mr. Hitler was perfectly willing to sign that if the west just gave him the Sudetenland he would be content.
We all know how well that worked out.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Who's Interests
Now you see it, now he says you didn't.
Not much of a trick, unless of course the first part was really an illusion.
However, it was broadcast to the entire world and we all saw our leader act subservient and obsequious, not his usual behavior.
Of course his record isn't very good against people who he can't bully, or at least think he can.
Being a vindictive small minded person himself, he was probably deathly afraid that his business interests or those of his relatives in Russia could be hurt.
He may have also been afraid of what they might reveal, except at this point most of us except the dossier as probably true.
He could easily have been bribed with promise of future opportunities once he was out of office.
He equates himself with America so if he doe well, well that's his version of America first.
He has no real concern for workers or anybody who can't help him succeed personally.
His promises were all really aimed at his cronies, hey great health care for you rich people and less crowds as I strip everyone else's.
Revive mining and steel, well if you own a mine or a steel plant maybe.
He is being outwitted and outmatched on the world stage and his rants in NATO are tolerated because its pretty much a shattered alliance without us.
I'm sure they are simply grinning and bearing it for the next few years.
You just have to remember that to him America first has always meant:
Look Out For Number One.
Not much of a trick, unless of course the first part was really an illusion.
However, it was broadcast to the entire world and we all saw our leader act subservient and obsequious, not his usual behavior.
Of course his record isn't very good against people who he can't bully, or at least think he can.
Being a vindictive small minded person himself, he was probably deathly afraid that his business interests or those of his relatives in Russia could be hurt.
He may have also been afraid of what they might reveal, except at this point most of us except the dossier as probably true.
He could easily have been bribed with promise of future opportunities once he was out of office.
He equates himself with America so if he doe well, well that's his version of America first.
He has no real concern for workers or anybody who can't help him succeed personally.
His promises were all really aimed at his cronies, hey great health care for you rich people and less crowds as I strip everyone else's.
Revive mining and steel, well if you own a mine or a steel plant maybe.
He is being outwitted and outmatched on the world stage and his rants in NATO are tolerated because its pretty much a shattered alliance without us.
I'm sure they are simply grinning and bearing it for the next few years.
You just have to remember that to him America first has always meant:
Look Out For Number One.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Not Presidential
The question you have to ask is the performance yesterday in Finland, an act of knowing sedition or simply an act of idiocy?
I imagine using that approach in every interrogation, well he strongly says he didn't do it, so guess we have to let him go. But what about all that evidence our people have gathered? Well he says he didn't do it and he seemed pretty positive about it.
There is enough evidence of Russian involvement to convince even the so called intelligence committees in the house and senate so it must be quite persuasive.
This is the problem with the dontard. He doesn't have a sense of perspective or any understanding of real issues.
He spends his time playing the role of president rather than being the president. His experience in business didn't prepare him, he inherited it and was always the boss.
The president isn't the boss. The executive branch has an equal role with the other two branches, something we call checks and balances.
The founding fathers would be mostly aghast at how much president get involved in this day to day politicking.
They envisioned the job as being the administrator of the operation, running the government efficiently based on what the legislature passed.
Not being naïve, they knew he would have some involvement, but more in the way of a senior advisor who might every so often have to veto something that was either unworkable or against the best interests of the nation.
Clearly presidents have become much more involved in mundane politics, but we never had one quite as inept as this one.
I imagine using that approach in every interrogation, well he strongly says he didn't do it, so guess we have to let him go. But what about all that evidence our people have gathered? Well he says he didn't do it and he seemed pretty positive about it.
There is enough evidence of Russian involvement to convince even the so called intelligence committees in the house and senate so it must be quite persuasive.
This is the problem with the dontard. He doesn't have a sense of perspective or any understanding of real issues.
He spends his time playing the role of president rather than being the president. His experience in business didn't prepare him, he inherited it and was always the boss.
The president isn't the boss. The executive branch has an equal role with the other two branches, something we call checks and balances.
The founding fathers would be mostly aghast at how much president get involved in this day to day politicking.
They envisioned the job as being the administrator of the operation, running the government efficiently based on what the legislature passed.
Not being naïve, they knew he would have some involvement, but more in the way of a senior advisor who might every so often have to veto something that was either unworkable or against the best interests of the nation.
Clearly presidents have become much more involved in mundane politics, but we never had one quite as inept as this one.
Monday, July 16, 2018
What They Want?
Right now we have a meeting in Finland between our dontard and his manipulator.
I'm sure it will be described as historic and the greatest ever, as our Mohammad Ali of a President likes to exaggerate.
Going into it he talked about how relations between the US and Russia were the worst ever, would think the Cuban Missile Crisis and pretty much the whole cold war would be worse.
Its almost impossible to take anything he says seriously, but you have to since he is also dangerous in many ways.
Its odd how many people who seem reasonably intelligent simply buy into his BS if they are Republicans.
Many of them have to know better and I wonder how they persuade themselves to ignore his idiotic comments and support his policies.
They may want fewer regulations, but do they really want to sell off the National Parks?
Have they no interest in protecting the Earth for future generations?
Do they really believe that reputable publications like the Times and the Washington Post are inherently biased?
Do they really want to alienate our NATO allies and allow China and Russia to expand their influence?
Its hard to believe they want to balloon the deficit and national debt by giving tax cuts to businesses and wealthy people, although some of them might be included.
I now they can't be in favor of a trade war that will ultimately hurt profits.
Do they really want to close our borders to those who want to start a new life and reverse the message on the Statue of Liberty?
I know many of them want to attack entitlement programs, but they do realize Social Security and Medicare will be included?
Is it really their intent to increase the number of uninsured people in this country, and end up paying more because they have less preventive care?
Its what they are supporting so I guess it must be.
Unless they just don't realize it.
I'm sure it will be described as historic and the greatest ever, as our Mohammad Ali of a President likes to exaggerate.
Going into it he talked about how relations between the US and Russia were the worst ever, would think the Cuban Missile Crisis and pretty much the whole cold war would be worse.
Its almost impossible to take anything he says seriously, but you have to since he is also dangerous in many ways.
Its odd how many people who seem reasonably intelligent simply buy into his BS if they are Republicans.
Many of them have to know better and I wonder how they persuade themselves to ignore his idiotic comments and support his policies.
They may want fewer regulations, but do they really want to sell off the National Parks?
Have they no interest in protecting the Earth for future generations?
Do they really believe that reputable publications like the Times and the Washington Post are inherently biased?
Do they really want to alienate our NATO allies and allow China and Russia to expand their influence?
Its hard to believe they want to balloon the deficit and national debt by giving tax cuts to businesses and wealthy people, although some of them might be included.
I now they can't be in favor of a trade war that will ultimately hurt profits.
Do they really want to close our borders to those who want to start a new life and reverse the message on the Statue of Liberty?
I know many of them want to attack entitlement programs, but they do realize Social Security and Medicare will be included?
Is it really their intent to increase the number of uninsured people in this country, and end up paying more because they have less preventive care?
Its what they are supporting so I guess it must be.
Unless they just don't realize it.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
Environment Benefits
I was reading about an agreement reached recently concerning fishing for Krill in the Antarctic.
It seems that the amount of Krill available is not the problem, simply that the easiest to fish areas are also where much of the marine life harvests krill, the bottom of the food chain.
The agreement simply is that the krill will be harvested in other areas, where impact to penguins and other animals (not the krill) will be minimized.
So a plentiful supply of krill oil will be available as a supplement and hopefully the Adele penguins and humpback whales will continue to have plentiful food.
Its this type of common sense management that is our best hope to save the planet for future generations.
Thee are things we all can do to reduce our environmental footprint, whether the Government mandates it or not.
Using environmental long lasting light bulbs helps the environment as well as your pocketbook as the extra cost of buying them is offset by reduced utility bills.
Many poser plants were switching to natural gas because its cheaper, cleaner, more easily transported and plentiful. The dontard's administration is trying to mandate use of coal because, well he's a dontard, but the economies will prevail.
Smart decisions is not always the case as Americans after the reduced gas prices of the Obama administration went back to SUVs. Even there we see that the current models are much more fuel efficient than their predecessors were although obviously not as efficient as smaller cars or hybrids.
Still, even with small setbacks, we see a pretty clear path towards smarter products and smarter behavior since it is usually something that has pretty immediate benefits.
Working at home or even attending classes at home is less stressful on the environment and the people doing it.
There are clear advantages to home shopping say and yes it hurt malls and some stores, but in the long run it is better for the planet as well.
Some lament the lack of social interaction, and that may indeed prove to be a problem, but it may not, it may just be a different type of society, perhaps better, perhaps worse.
It seems that the amount of Krill available is not the problem, simply that the easiest to fish areas are also where much of the marine life harvests krill, the bottom of the food chain.
The agreement simply is that the krill will be harvested in other areas, where impact to penguins and other animals (not the krill) will be minimized.
So a plentiful supply of krill oil will be available as a supplement and hopefully the Adele penguins and humpback whales will continue to have plentiful food.
Its this type of common sense management that is our best hope to save the planet for future generations.
Thee are things we all can do to reduce our environmental footprint, whether the Government mandates it or not.
Using environmental long lasting light bulbs helps the environment as well as your pocketbook as the extra cost of buying them is offset by reduced utility bills.
Many poser plants were switching to natural gas because its cheaper, cleaner, more easily transported and plentiful. The dontard's administration is trying to mandate use of coal because, well he's a dontard, but the economies will prevail.
Smart decisions is not always the case as Americans after the reduced gas prices of the Obama administration went back to SUVs. Even there we see that the current models are much more fuel efficient than their predecessors were although obviously not as efficient as smaller cars or hybrids.
Still, even with small setbacks, we see a pretty clear path towards smarter products and smarter behavior since it is usually something that has pretty immediate benefits.
Working at home or even attending classes at home is less stressful on the environment and the people doing it.
There are clear advantages to home shopping say and yes it hurt malls and some stores, but in the long run it is better for the planet as well.
Some lament the lack of social interaction, and that may indeed prove to be a problem, but it may not, it may just be a different type of society, perhaps better, perhaps worse.
Saturday, July 14, 2018
The Establishment
There has always been a strong anti-establishment sense in this country, going back to our colonial days.
Many of our earliest settlers were intent on escaping authority in their home countries, often because it was attempting to make them conform to standard beliefs.
Of course others saw the establishment offered them no opportunity for advancement and came here because it had both freedom and opportunity.
As the "establishments" grew here, originally on the East Coast, the answer was an escape into the frontier, which followed some laws, but not all of them.
Of course when the British attempted to get us under control we had the Revolution.
A lot of the anti-establishment feelings were relieved by the movement west, into the states like Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and the southern plains followed by Texas and the West.
This spirit lived on as the establishment spread and slowly but surely exercised control.
Being anti-establishment isn't the same as being unpatriotic, because most Americans feel the country belongs to them and that the "establishment" is trying to control it at their cost.
This is the great populist movement that has existed since the colonial period which at times rises to the top and upsets the apple cart.
Andrew Jackson, a poor boy who became a war hero and a rich slave owner was able to capture this to get elected to the presidency.
He was viewed as a man of the frontier who wasn't going to let the "establishment" control people's lives. Of course after him the establishment reared its ugly head again.
The establishment is of course necessary to avoid complete chaos but what is the good part versus what isn't is often a matter of how it impacts you.
When you see your factories close and your job opportunities disappear, that's the establishment doing it. When you see unarmed members of your race shot down in the streets, that's also the establishment.
The establishment is whatever is in control and it will always exist. Call it the deep state, or the "Man", its effectively the same thing.
We just don't like it.
Many of our earliest settlers were intent on escaping authority in their home countries, often because it was attempting to make them conform to standard beliefs.
Of course others saw the establishment offered them no opportunity for advancement and came here because it had both freedom and opportunity.
As the "establishments" grew here, originally on the East Coast, the answer was an escape into the frontier, which followed some laws, but not all of them.
Of course when the British attempted to get us under control we had the Revolution.
A lot of the anti-establishment feelings were relieved by the movement west, into the states like Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and the southern plains followed by Texas and the West.
This spirit lived on as the establishment spread and slowly but surely exercised control.
Being anti-establishment isn't the same as being unpatriotic, because most Americans feel the country belongs to them and that the "establishment" is trying to control it at their cost.
This is the great populist movement that has existed since the colonial period which at times rises to the top and upsets the apple cart.
Andrew Jackson, a poor boy who became a war hero and a rich slave owner was able to capture this to get elected to the presidency.
He was viewed as a man of the frontier who wasn't going to let the "establishment" control people's lives. Of course after him the establishment reared its ugly head again.
The establishment is of course necessary to avoid complete chaos but what is the good part versus what isn't is often a matter of how it impacts you.
When you see your factories close and your job opportunities disappear, that's the establishment doing it. When you see unarmed members of your race shot down in the streets, that's also the establishment.
The establishment is whatever is in control and it will always exist. Call it the deep state, or the "Man", its effectively the same thing.
We just don't like it.
Friday, July 13, 2018
Character
I watched some of the badgering of Peter Strzok as they tried to turn what was essentially pillow talk into a conspiracy.
Now he shouldn't have use his government issued phone for these communications and on a different level maybe he should have honored his marriage vows, but these two failings do not a conspiracy make.
Its pretty ludicrous to watch these elected representatives try to spin this into something that will either help the dontard or help their party in the mid-terms.
They just couldn't do it.
I'm sure they will try to act like they got something, but they just didn't.
There wasn't anything to be got.
As Mr. Strzok pointed out at one point, the FBI is hardly a den of democratic operatives, it is in general a very conservative organization.
These are law enforcement professionals who deal with issue of national security and terrorism.
They are dedicated professionals but of course they aren't required to drop personal convictions at the door.
They don't conspire as a group to influence politics and apparently unknow to our reps, they are governed by the Hatch act which restrict political activity in your official capacity.
As I said the texts that should have been on private cell phones are simply idle talk between two people in a personal relationship, who viewed an individual candidate negatively, not his party or his voters.
A natural reaction to a sexist, homophobe who exhibits bias towards many and respect for none.
Now he shouldn't have use his government issued phone for these communications and on a different level maybe he should have honored his marriage vows, but these two failings do not a conspiracy make.
Its pretty ludicrous to watch these elected representatives try to spin this into something that will either help the dontard or help their party in the mid-terms.
They just couldn't do it.
I'm sure they will try to act like they got something, but they just didn't.
There wasn't anything to be got.
As Mr. Strzok pointed out at one point, the FBI is hardly a den of democratic operatives, it is in general a very conservative organization.
These are law enforcement professionals who deal with issue of national security and terrorism.
They are dedicated professionals but of course they aren't required to drop personal convictions at the door.
They don't conspire as a group to influence politics and apparently unknow to our reps, they are governed by the Hatch act which restrict political activity in your official capacity.
As I said the texts that should have been on private cell phones are simply idle talk between two people in a personal relationship, who viewed an individual candidate negatively, not his party or his voters.
A natural reaction to a sexist, homophobe who exhibits bias towards many and respect for none.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Government?
Sometimes as I observe the clown show in Washington, I wonder how did we get here?
The answer is mostly apathy.
Too many Americans don't care or don't think they make a difference.
In fact, it almost seems like we have turned the system over to the most rabid among us.
If you do in fact believe strongly in something, say that abortion is akin to murder, you are simply more likely to get involved and support certain candidates.
Poll data shows that most Americans actually support reasonable approaches to a lot of the issues facing us while rabid minorities have odd agendas.
Of course apathy is only part of the problem, the other is misinformation.
The government is not interested in coming for your guns or making your children change their sexual orientation.
These are not real issues.
Similarly, football players who kneel during the national anthem don't cause any harm to anybody.
They have the right to express a view, like everybody else.
We have so much inflammatory rhetoric about things that are simply either not true, or inconsequential that we should laugh at these issues?
Having to press one to speak in English to a robot on the other end is not the end of American culture.
Its recognition that this is a diverse nation with many people legally here who are native Spanish speakers.
We are not about to adopt sharia law, its not even remotely possible.
However we have entertainers pretending to be news people who incite listeners for ratings.
We believe all sorts of things that are demonstrable false and because of that things that are demonstrably true get questioned.
Apathy and misinformation, not a formula for good government.
The answer is mostly apathy.
Too many Americans don't care or don't think they make a difference.
In fact, it almost seems like we have turned the system over to the most rabid among us.
If you do in fact believe strongly in something, say that abortion is akin to murder, you are simply more likely to get involved and support certain candidates.
Poll data shows that most Americans actually support reasonable approaches to a lot of the issues facing us while rabid minorities have odd agendas.
Of course apathy is only part of the problem, the other is misinformation.
The government is not interested in coming for your guns or making your children change their sexual orientation.
These are not real issues.
Similarly, football players who kneel during the national anthem don't cause any harm to anybody.
They have the right to express a view, like everybody else.
We have so much inflammatory rhetoric about things that are simply either not true, or inconsequential that we should laugh at these issues?
Having to press one to speak in English to a robot on the other end is not the end of American culture.
Its recognition that this is a diverse nation with many people legally here who are native Spanish speakers.
We are not about to adopt sharia law, its not even remotely possible.
However we have entertainers pretending to be news people who incite listeners for ratings.
We believe all sorts of things that are demonstrable false and because of that things that are demonstrably true get questioned.
Apathy and misinformation, not a formula for good government.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Side Deal
So much going on with the dontard.
The one thing that stands out though is the seeming success he had getting the Pfizer company to undo the price increase it announced on July 1.
This was after a long conversation between its CEO and the dontard and the announcement by Pfizer talked about waiting for the dontard's health plan to be rolled out.
Since there is no such health plan and since the price increases made him look bad after he said drug companies would be reducing prices you have to wonder what was really said.
I suspect he got them to pull the price increases until after the election since clearly its in both their interests.
I'm sure that they will again get their increases or some other compensation.
Remember, the dontard is trying to further reduce corporate taxes and a loss of congress would make that nearly impossible.
Since the CEO of Pfizer is not unaware of the current politics, he probably got some other assurance, maybe related to some approval he needs or other benefit not dependent on the outcome of the election.
Now the other alternative is that he simply rolled back the prices because he was convinced by the dontard it was in the public interest.
A CEO of a major drug company.
The dontard.
Draw your own conclusion.
The one thing that stands out though is the seeming success he had getting the Pfizer company to undo the price increase it announced on July 1.
This was after a long conversation between its CEO and the dontard and the announcement by Pfizer talked about waiting for the dontard's health plan to be rolled out.
Since there is no such health plan and since the price increases made him look bad after he said drug companies would be reducing prices you have to wonder what was really said.
I suspect he got them to pull the price increases until after the election since clearly its in both their interests.
I'm sure that they will again get their increases or some other compensation.
Remember, the dontard is trying to further reduce corporate taxes and a loss of congress would make that nearly impossible.
Since the CEO of Pfizer is not unaware of the current politics, he probably got some other assurance, maybe related to some approval he needs or other benefit not dependent on the outcome of the election.
Now the other alternative is that he simply rolled back the prices because he was convinced by the dontard it was in the public interest.
A CEO of a major drug company.
The dontard.
Draw your own conclusion.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Not the Worst Case
All things considered the Supreme Court nominee that the dontard went with, fits the generally acceptable criteria.
Clearly he could have picked someone with absolutely not qualifications, like many of his cabinet picks.
It was going to be a conservative, that was a given, but this one is at least qualified.
The Supreme Court is supposed to enforce the constitution.
Its not designed or suited to set policy, that is the job of the congress.
The constitution has congress passing the laws, the President executing those laws and the Supreme Court ensuring the laws comply with the constitution.
Of course they all have additional duties, and everyone of them has become more partisan than the founders envisioned, but fundamentally we have those three branches for those three reason.
It may be naïve to think that a Supreme Court justice can actually rely on the law and not partisan politics to form his/her opinions, but if it is I remain naïve.
Time will tell if the changes of this new court are simply conservative, meaning the constitution gets interpreted narrowly restricting further government encroachment or radical where it attempts to undo previous precedent.
Time will tell.
Clearly he could have picked someone with absolutely not qualifications, like many of his cabinet picks.
It was going to be a conservative, that was a given, but this one is at least qualified.
The Supreme Court is supposed to enforce the constitution.
Its not designed or suited to set policy, that is the job of the congress.
The constitution has congress passing the laws, the President executing those laws and the Supreme Court ensuring the laws comply with the constitution.
Of course they all have additional duties, and everyone of them has become more partisan than the founders envisioned, but fundamentally we have those three branches for those three reason.
It may be naïve to think that a Supreme Court justice can actually rely on the law and not partisan politics to form his/her opinions, but if it is I remain naïve.
Time will tell if the changes of this new court are simply conservative, meaning the constitution gets interpreted narrowly restricting further government encroachment or radical where it attempts to undo previous precedent.
Time will tell.
Monday, July 9, 2018
Bully Pulpit
Back in Theodore Roosevelt's time, bully was used to signify strength, something used for a good purpose.
So in his day, using the bully pulpit was using his position as President to send out strong messages to both foreign and domestic recipients.
Of course the term has changed over the years and today we have an actual bully using the bully pulpit.
I actually understand, to some extent, how it is nice to see some self righteous people get their comeuppance. There have been times in my life when some self-righteous a**hole felt entitled to point out what I was doing that wasn't acceptable.
It happened a lot more when I had a lot less money.
I am convinced that we need to move progressive forces forward in this country for the benefit of all.
This was the future I grew up believing in, as the predictions of the future included a shared benefit for all, not what we seem to be developing, haves and have nots.
However, sometimes, maybe too often, people come to act like they are just better than everyone else.
When you start to tell people what they should think, or what they should say without accepting that other opinions might be valid,, you have become self-righteous.
Americans have always loved movies where the authority figure who was imposing his/her will, was taught a lesson at the end.
Now of course our dontard can be on either side of that, but to many he has punctured enough ego balloons to become a bit of a hero.
In fact he has become a bit of the last man standing in the Republican party which originally felt he didn't live up to their standards.
From the other party's side we saw some of the same things at work with Bernie Sanders, who punctured a few balloons of his own.
Americans love underdogs, at least for a time.
This one has outstayed his welcome.
So in his day, using the bully pulpit was using his position as President to send out strong messages to both foreign and domestic recipients.
Of course the term has changed over the years and today we have an actual bully using the bully pulpit.
I actually understand, to some extent, how it is nice to see some self righteous people get their comeuppance. There have been times in my life when some self-righteous a**hole felt entitled to point out what I was doing that wasn't acceptable.
It happened a lot more when I had a lot less money.
I am convinced that we need to move progressive forces forward in this country for the benefit of all.
This was the future I grew up believing in, as the predictions of the future included a shared benefit for all, not what we seem to be developing, haves and have nots.
However, sometimes, maybe too often, people come to act like they are just better than everyone else.
When you start to tell people what they should think, or what they should say without accepting that other opinions might be valid,, you have become self-righteous.
Americans have always loved movies where the authority figure who was imposing his/her will, was taught a lesson at the end.
Now of course our dontard can be on either side of that, but to many he has punctured enough ego balloons to become a bit of a hero.
In fact he has become a bit of the last man standing in the Republican party which originally felt he didn't live up to their standards.
From the other party's side we saw some of the same things at work with Bernie Sanders, who punctured a few balloons of his own.
Americans love underdogs, at least for a time.
This one has outstayed his welcome.
Sunday, July 8, 2018
Amateurs
In fairness, every president comes into the job unprepared.
Some more than others.
Watching the current group however is a whole new level.
Its clear that he has no idea what the job entailed and has no concept of the fact that he is supposed to represent the nation.
The current "discussions" with North Korea amply demonstrate the naive and unrealistic nature of this group.
I don't want to give North Korea much credit, they are dealing with rank amateurs and they have already achieved significant positives from playing with them.
I doubt there is any way to get them to pay more than lip service to the idea of dismantling their nuclear program, and while it would be nice if they did, I doubt they are really much of a threat to us either way.
They would have to be stupid to do anything and they just aren't.
We supply the stupid in that relationship.
Sure stroke the dontard's ego a bit and he declares they are just wonderful people who will do everything we want them to.
Well they aren't, they haven't been since they initially invaded the South and they aren't about to change.
We have managed to prop up his regime with no discernible benefit and further we have made them seem like a much more important player than they really are.
Now they talk about our gangster demands and the dontard has achieved nothing and given them a platform.
Lambs to the slaughter.
Some more than others.
Watching the current group however is a whole new level.
Its clear that he has no idea what the job entailed and has no concept of the fact that he is supposed to represent the nation.
The current "discussions" with North Korea amply demonstrate the naive and unrealistic nature of this group.
I don't want to give North Korea much credit, they are dealing with rank amateurs and they have already achieved significant positives from playing with them.
I doubt there is any way to get them to pay more than lip service to the idea of dismantling their nuclear program, and while it would be nice if they did, I doubt they are really much of a threat to us either way.
They would have to be stupid to do anything and they just aren't.
We supply the stupid in that relationship.
Sure stroke the dontard's ego a bit and he declares they are just wonderful people who will do everything we want them to.
Well they aren't, they haven't been since they initially invaded the South and they aren't about to change.
We have managed to prop up his regime with no discernible benefit and further we have made them seem like a much more important player than they really are.
Now they talk about our gangster demands and the dontard has achieved nothing and given them a platform.
Lambs to the slaughter.
Saturday, July 7, 2018
Out of Date
You have to decide at some point in your life if you are happy with the world as it is or if you want to make it better.
Of course the history of our species shows we have always eventually opted for making it better, even if at times that ended up making it worse.
After all we aren't eating raw meat and scavenging for food.
We invented fire, and tools and weapons and the wheel and everything that followed.
All along the way we find people who think this is enough or even too far and want to stop future progress.
Its very hard for me to understand groups that decide to pick a point in human history and stop there.
Of course they are allowed to do that, at least in this country, and they form a certain flavor to areas they inhabit.
However, the period they picked seems pretty arbitrary.
Similarly of course the same could be said about almost every institution that follows a document or religious text written in the past.
It reflects that time and while we may like to think the world stands still, it doesn't.
Its likely that some religious prohibitions have valid roots, valid for when they were formed, but unless we really think God is concerned with our dietary habits or manners of dress they are clearly outdated.
Progress goes on for the majority of us regardless and as a pundit once said, you just have t build a better mousetrap.
Of course generations tend to think what they grow up with is normal, so a baby boomer can take pride in being able to read cursive and tell time on an analog clock.
Skills that are simply not longer needed.
They don't make you better, just out of date.
Of course the history of our species shows we have always eventually opted for making it better, even if at times that ended up making it worse.
After all we aren't eating raw meat and scavenging for food.
We invented fire, and tools and weapons and the wheel and everything that followed.
All along the way we find people who think this is enough or even too far and want to stop future progress.
Its very hard for me to understand groups that decide to pick a point in human history and stop there.
Of course they are allowed to do that, at least in this country, and they form a certain flavor to areas they inhabit.
However, the period they picked seems pretty arbitrary.
Similarly of course the same could be said about almost every institution that follows a document or religious text written in the past.
It reflects that time and while we may like to think the world stands still, it doesn't.
Its likely that some religious prohibitions have valid roots, valid for when they were formed, but unless we really think God is concerned with our dietary habits or manners of dress they are clearly outdated.
Progress goes on for the majority of us regardless and as a pundit once said, you just have t build a better mousetrap.
Of course generations tend to think what they grow up with is normal, so a baby boomer can take pride in being able to read cursive and tell time on an analog clock.
Skills that are simply not longer needed.
They don't make you better, just out of date.
Friday, July 6, 2018
Our Ugly American
When you consider our dontard the one thing that stands out most is how he fits the profile of the ugly American.
I'm not just talking about his looks, he actually used to be reasonably handsome and while he hasn't aged well, that's not the real issue.
The ugly American is characterized as loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless, ignorant, and ethnocentric.
If that doesn't describe him, I don't know what does.
Now this behavior is not universally disliked in parts of this country by at least some individuals, but for the majority it is not something we aspire to.
The first problem is that while I'm an American and I've served her in some capacity most of my life, I know that when I've been in foreign countries the people are not inferior or different than Americans are.
Many Americans profited from a series of events which they had little to do with, and it doesn't make them special. At one time, especially shortly after World War 2 we lived in the country that probably benefited most from that war, since except in Pearl Harbor, we didn't see our cities bombed or factories destroyed. Few other countries were so lucky.
Add to that the educational benefits we provided our returning GIs and we entered an age of prosperity that had never existed previously and as the baby boomers grew of age it continued.
Of course this didn't make us superior to other people and starting in the 70s we saw a resurgence of other countries where in many ways because of pension and health care benefits, the average worker here is less fortunate than those in many other developed countries.
However, when we were on top, many Americans became arrogant and apparently our dontard's attitudes have never adjusted.
His behavior and attitude are almost a caricature of the ugly American and he certainly lends himself to cartoonish behavior.
Its only a matter of time before he commits a blunder beyond recovery. Unfortunately its the rest of us who will suffer.
I'm not just talking about his looks, he actually used to be reasonably handsome and while he hasn't aged well, that's not the real issue.
The ugly American is characterized as loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless, ignorant, and ethnocentric.
If that doesn't describe him, I don't know what does.
Now this behavior is not universally disliked in parts of this country by at least some individuals, but for the majority it is not something we aspire to.
The first problem is that while I'm an American and I've served her in some capacity most of my life, I know that when I've been in foreign countries the people are not inferior or different than Americans are.
Many Americans profited from a series of events which they had little to do with, and it doesn't make them special. At one time, especially shortly after World War 2 we lived in the country that probably benefited most from that war, since except in Pearl Harbor, we didn't see our cities bombed or factories destroyed. Few other countries were so lucky.
Add to that the educational benefits we provided our returning GIs and we entered an age of prosperity that had never existed previously and as the baby boomers grew of age it continued.
Of course this didn't make us superior to other people and starting in the 70s we saw a resurgence of other countries where in many ways because of pension and health care benefits, the average worker here is less fortunate than those in many other developed countries.
However, when we were on top, many Americans became arrogant and apparently our dontard's attitudes have never adjusted.
His behavior and attitude are almost a caricature of the ugly American and he certainly lends himself to cartoonish behavior.
Its only a matter of time before he commits a blunder beyond recovery. Unfortunately its the rest of us who will suffer.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
Golden Age
So how is the economy doing?
It seems to be humming along pretty much like it has been since the end of the financial crisis.
The fundamental change is that the new service jobs just pay less than the old manufacturing jobs did, in general.
This may not be a permanent situation but it isn't going to change quickly.
We clearly are developing a have vs have not society.
If you have the skills, talent or connections you can do very well.
If you don't you get to work for low wages and meager benefits, probably with student loan debt hanging over you.
One of the promises of the current administration was that it was going to restore the America where manufacturing jobs and mining jobs provided a middle class lifestyle to millions.
It was an empty promise, which would require fundamental changes in the global economy which are just not going to happen.
In addition, the anti-union approach reduces the possibilities even more.
Clearly the benefits of technology and globalization weren't shared equally.
The approach of giving more to the owners with some expectation that this will lead to good paying jobs is attempting to emulate a period that actually never existed.
The industrialization of America led to exploitation of workers, including children, until they were forced to adopt better pay and working hours via regulation and union efforts.
It wasn't unbridled capitalism, although that did make some people very rich.
Current policies are trying to recreate the golden age of robber barons, not the golden age of American workers, which is a good thing if you are actually a robber baron.
Most of us aren't.
It seems to be humming along pretty much like it has been since the end of the financial crisis.
The fundamental change is that the new service jobs just pay less than the old manufacturing jobs did, in general.
This may not be a permanent situation but it isn't going to change quickly.
We clearly are developing a have vs have not society.
If you have the skills, talent or connections you can do very well.
If you don't you get to work for low wages and meager benefits, probably with student loan debt hanging over you.
One of the promises of the current administration was that it was going to restore the America where manufacturing jobs and mining jobs provided a middle class lifestyle to millions.
It was an empty promise, which would require fundamental changes in the global economy which are just not going to happen.
In addition, the anti-union approach reduces the possibilities even more.
Clearly the benefits of technology and globalization weren't shared equally.
The approach of giving more to the owners with some expectation that this will lead to good paying jobs is attempting to emulate a period that actually never existed.
The industrialization of America led to exploitation of workers, including children, until they were forced to adopt better pay and working hours via regulation and union efforts.
It wasn't unbridled capitalism, although that did make some people very rich.
Current policies are trying to recreate the golden age of robber barons, not the golden age of American workers, which is a good thing if you are actually a robber baron.
Most of us aren't.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Happy 4ht!
We celebrate July 4th as Independence Day
The actual vote took place on July 2nd but the document was signed on the 4th and we have celebrated it ever since.
Its a holiday that most associated with good feeling in this country, coming at the height of the summer with its parades, fireworks, barbecues and beach trips.
Enjoy it and if you are going to use some fireworks, be safe.
Watch a baseball game, eat some hot dogs, have some apple pie and ice cream, its that type of American day.
Enjoy.
The actual vote took place on July 2nd but the document was signed on the 4th and we have celebrated it ever since.
Its a holiday that most associated with good feeling in this country, coming at the height of the summer with its parades, fireworks, barbecues and beach trips.
Enjoy it and if you are going to use some fireworks, be safe.
Watch a baseball game, eat some hot dogs, have some apple pie and ice cream, its that type of American day.
Enjoy.
Tuesday, July 3, 2018
Patriotism
What does it mean to be a patriotic American?
Does it require some type of service or observance of rituals such as standing for the flag?
I gather some would say it does but there are enough example of spies or traitors who can do those things.
If we look at our history we see people who served the country, and we honor them as patriots, but some who served later on went on to do unpatriotic things.
Of course what is the patriotic thing to do in many cases is a difficult question.
You can look at a person like Hillary Clinton who spent much of her life in public service who is attacked by some for that very service.
Even the respect we show our military has varied over time and is likely to vary again considering the past.
This question is somewhat addressed in the movie "Saving Private Ryan" and if you haven't seen that movie this is a bit of a spoiler.
In that movie a group of Rangers is sent to locate the last surviving son of a mother who had sent her four sons to war. Saving this one man costs multiple lives in the effort, although of course they died fighting which was actually more related to the war going on than the mission. However at the end, the Captain who led the mission, tells Private Ryan as a young man, "Earn this!".
Now we know he got sent home and we know that many years later he visited the Normandy site with his family. He appears to have lived a normal American life, possibly as a farmer, since he was a farm boy originally.
In the movie we feel that that was enough, being a good man, raising a family and caring were enough.
Of course we also know from the movie that Private Ryan fought heroically before he was "saved" so there isn't any real doubt about his being a patriot.
Still, most of his life was simply spent working, raising a family and we assume enjoying his life.
We certainly don't know his politics or his religion but why would any of that be relevant.
I don't know what being a patriot really means but I suspect its related to more than just saluting a flag or singing a song.
Happy Fourth of July!
Does it require some type of service or observance of rituals such as standing for the flag?
I gather some would say it does but there are enough example of spies or traitors who can do those things.
If we look at our history we see people who served the country, and we honor them as patriots, but some who served later on went on to do unpatriotic things.
Of course what is the patriotic thing to do in many cases is a difficult question.
You can look at a person like Hillary Clinton who spent much of her life in public service who is attacked by some for that very service.
Even the respect we show our military has varied over time and is likely to vary again considering the past.
This question is somewhat addressed in the movie "Saving Private Ryan" and if you haven't seen that movie this is a bit of a spoiler.
In that movie a group of Rangers is sent to locate the last surviving son of a mother who had sent her four sons to war. Saving this one man costs multiple lives in the effort, although of course they died fighting which was actually more related to the war going on than the mission. However at the end, the Captain who led the mission, tells Private Ryan as a young man, "Earn this!".
Now we know he got sent home and we know that many years later he visited the Normandy site with his family. He appears to have lived a normal American life, possibly as a farmer, since he was a farm boy originally.
In the movie we feel that that was enough, being a good man, raising a family and caring were enough.
Of course we also know from the movie that Private Ryan fought heroically before he was "saved" so there isn't any real doubt about his being a patriot.
Still, most of his life was simply spent working, raising a family and we assume enjoying his life.
We certainly don't know his politics or his religion but why would any of that be relevant.
I don't know what being a patriot really means but I suspect its related to more than just saluting a flag or singing a song.
Happy Fourth of July!
Monday, July 2, 2018
Consumers
One of the things that is characteristic of the age we live in is how much stuff we are told we need.
Advertising is a very ancient profession, there is evidence of ancient advertising for the oldest profession but it was generally limited to point of sale or word of mouth until fairly recently.
People with something to sell want to sell it and telling customers you have the best or cheapest merchandise is a pretty obvious approach.
However with the advent of media we have seen advertising in more and more places selling more and more items.
We live in a consumer age in the greatest consumer society of all.
It never occurred to me that I needed many of the things I have today until I was convinced by advertising.
Think about all the things your phone can do for you. It now can recognize your face eliminating the need to use a fingerprint or pin code.
Of course it creates a problem, since all these wonderful items need to be paid for.
Still this desire to have more and better things is probably the most defining characteristic of Americans in general.
Of course not for everybody, but far too many have fallen prey to the idea that you have to drive a new car, have the latest phone, get coffee at an expensive establishment, dress for success, and generally live the good life.
Its the age we live in.
Advertising is a very ancient profession, there is evidence of ancient advertising for the oldest profession but it was generally limited to point of sale or word of mouth until fairly recently.
People with something to sell want to sell it and telling customers you have the best or cheapest merchandise is a pretty obvious approach.
However with the advent of media we have seen advertising in more and more places selling more and more items.
We live in a consumer age in the greatest consumer society of all.
It never occurred to me that I needed many of the things I have today until I was convinced by advertising.
Think about all the things your phone can do for you. It now can recognize your face eliminating the need to use a fingerprint or pin code.
Of course it creates a problem, since all these wonderful items need to be paid for.
Still this desire to have more and better things is probably the most defining characteristic of Americans in general.
Of course not for everybody, but far too many have fallen prey to the idea that you have to drive a new car, have the latest phone, get coffee at an expensive establishment, dress for success, and generally live the good life.
Its the age we live in.
Sunday, July 1, 2018
Trust Them
As a slogan it seemed to resonate with people who felt that the changes they had seen in their lifetime were somehow not so good.
These changes included improved diversity, more creature comforts, tremendous increases in technology but along with that there was a loss of certain jobs that used to pay well because they were outsourced, eliminated by technology or simply obsolete.
Opportunity in America has become something that you have to earn. It was always so, but for a time, a period in history where nostalgia (not reality) tells us we all were living in Mayberry RFD or in Springfield with a father who knew best and a mother who cooked best.
Generally reality wasn't much like that but people forget the drudgery of the factories where the first thing a lot of workers did when they got paid was hit the bar, with a decent chance they would hit the wife later if she asked where his paycheck was.
Yes more women stayed home, some happily, many not.
This glorious period supposedly existed in the 50s, 60s and 70s when we of course had a country torn by civil rights protests and Vietnam war protests assassinations and presidential corruption which led to a resignation.
The idea that America was greater than rests upon a nostalgic view of men earning a decent wage and a cookie cutter family in a little pink house.
It ignores the racism, bigotry, sexual predation and rampant growth in drug use that was going on.
Why did so many of these idyllic children flee to the big cities as soon as they were old enough?
The progress in America has been steady and for most Americans things generally got better, unless of course you lost a high paying low skill job to a robot or a foreigner.
Instead of learning some skills or becoming an entrepreneur, it was easier to turn to opioids, Fox and Trump who told you it wasn't your fault, you should blame anyone who did well in the new economy.
Trust them, they will make the rich richer but something might roll your way, maybe, although probably not. Just trust them.
These changes included improved diversity, more creature comforts, tremendous increases in technology but along with that there was a loss of certain jobs that used to pay well because they were outsourced, eliminated by technology or simply obsolete.
Opportunity in America has become something that you have to earn. It was always so, but for a time, a period in history where nostalgia (not reality) tells us we all were living in Mayberry RFD or in Springfield with a father who knew best and a mother who cooked best.
Generally reality wasn't much like that but people forget the drudgery of the factories where the first thing a lot of workers did when they got paid was hit the bar, with a decent chance they would hit the wife later if she asked where his paycheck was.
Yes more women stayed home, some happily, many not.
This glorious period supposedly existed in the 50s, 60s and 70s when we of course had a country torn by civil rights protests and Vietnam war protests assassinations and presidential corruption which led to a resignation.
The idea that America was greater than rests upon a nostalgic view of men earning a decent wage and a cookie cutter family in a little pink house.
It ignores the racism, bigotry, sexual predation and rampant growth in drug use that was going on.
Why did so many of these idyllic children flee to the big cities as soon as they were old enough?
The progress in America has been steady and for most Americans things generally got better, unless of course you lost a high paying low skill job to a robot or a foreigner.
Instead of learning some skills or becoming an entrepreneur, it was easier to turn to opioids, Fox and Trump who told you it wasn't your fault, you should blame anyone who did well in the new economy.
Trust them, they will make the rich richer but something might roll your way, maybe, although probably not. Just trust them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)