New Year

Well the last day of another year and at least to those following the western calendar the chance to end some things and start new things tomorrow.

Of course in nature while it is related to the winter solstice and therefore the promise of spring the date is just another one in the series.

Still it is as good a time as any to reflect on what is good, what is bad and what needs to change.

Of course many will immediately think about the current administration but changes there will be decided by either the impeachment or the voters.

So what sort of resolutions do we need?

Well most of us and most of the world are aware that we face a potential catastrophe in our impact upon climate.  The few that deny this seem motivated by greed with the only rationale usually offered is that if we take the actions needed it will hurt our industry. 

It might and it might not.  We may very well lead the way to a better more efficient way to power the modern and future world.  To get there we have to move forward and create it. 

We also have the opportunity to embrace a new world of understanding for all people.  Too many want to enforce their own beliefs on others.  This type of bigotry is something that needs to be relegated to the past.

In addition to accepting people we need to assure everyone has access to the health care he or she needs.  Ideally we can progress towards a future that provides for the safety and security of all.

If that is not our goal, then what is?

Employment

Talk of the economy tends to focus on two areas, unemployment and the stock market.  The stock market has done well as corporate profits have based on current economic policies.  In addition each month we are reminded of how the unemployment numbers are near record lows.  The problem is that those statistics, while accurate are a bit misleading for many of us.  The chart below reflects workforce participation in the labor market.  As you can see following the great recession it dropped significantly This drop means millions of Americans are no longer looking for work, so they are not unemployed, but they aren't working.

This very well may reflect the impact of the boomers leaving the workplace, or it might reflect the jobs we have lost.

Wages have also been largely stagnant over this period, not completely but not rising as much as they would if the jobs of today were the same as the jobs of the past.

If machinist jobs paying $30 an hour are eliminated and filled by robots but a low paying service job is created paying minimum wage, we see employment numbers unchanged but wages decreasing.

So are people  better off than they were?  Not as much as they should be, if at all.

Tactics

I've lived through three presidential events, two impeachments and one resignation and while certainly each is unique what we are seeing is something new in this one.

With Nixon you had an unfolding of evidence where both sides were determined to find out the truth.  Certainly he had supporters, less over time but they acted like a tribunal in search of the truth.

It seemed likely that as dramatic development unfurled he was going to be both impeached and convicted and seeing the handwriting on the wall he resigned.

With Clinton, the act he was accused of was lying about an encounter with a young intern.  Once it was proven the encounter had happened and he apologized the crime he was accused of was effectively perjury under oath.  He was clearly guilty but he was not removed from office, partly because while a serious matter it was more of a personal issue where he lied about infidelity.  It didn't really have much to do with the National Interest.

Now in the current one we see charges of attempting to use national resources to further personal interests and then obstructing the investigation.  What seems different this time is that instead of trying to determine if the events happened, it is likely they did, his supporters  are on the attack, politicizing the process while accusing the opposition of being political.

Now we know the phone call happened and we know that witnesses and documents are being withheld.  The American public would like to see these documents and hear these witnesses, so the question becomes, was there enough evidence already for the House?

There was and if in fact there is evidence that the motivation was indeed perfect, one would think the Senate supporters would roll out the documents and witnesses to refute the accusations.

They aren't going to do that, they will simply acquit based on political reasons.

They think the American public will agree and some will.

I don't think it is enough for those who aren't already rabid supporters.  We will see.

Young People

Its easy as you age to criticize the younger generation.  After all, they generally don't listen to your advice and insist on doing the same stupid things you did when you were younger.

Of course this isn't universally true, but more true than not.

Some things have to be experienced to be learned.

If you touch hot things you will get burnt is a fairly universal example.

A lot of people like to act like the current generation of young people is the worst one yet.

It isn't, they are ultimately the same as all previous generations.

People respond to their surroundings, its why we have been so successful.

They may have a lot to learn, but didn't we all?

What I believe is inevitable is that as time passes they will become exactly what they need to be   The world is a bit different for them but they will manage to survive it.

Eventually they will have a younger generation to complain about.

The stupidest one ever.

Taxes

Think about taxes.

They are the amount you pay the Government in exchange for certain services.

The biggest items we pay for are National Defense, various entitlement program, and the Interest on the National Debt.

It might be better to say we pay for Military services since most of it has a very tenuous line to actual defense of this country.

In fact its fairly safe to say that with our Nuclear Arsenal, it is unlikely that anyone would overtly attack us.

Before World War 2 we tended to keep a fairly small active army when we weren't actually at war.

Following that war, we perceived a need to counter the threat of worldwide communist expansion and defend our European Allies via NATO.

The chart below shows the last 100 years of spending and we see the increase of WW1 followed by a decrease and the increase of WW2 followed by a decrease.  However the post war amounts dwarf the prewar amounts and have continued.

What have we gotten for this spending?  Well the country has not been invaded but we have thousands of dead young people because of Korea, Vietnam and the War on Terror.

The question is, what do we gain by all this spending?  Consider how much less the National Debt would be if we curtailed it a bit?

Do the Right Thing

Besides being the name of a Spike Lee movie it is also, at its nature a reasonable basis on which to live your life.

There may be a question at times of what the right thing is, but for the most part in individual actions it isn't.

Problematically though the people doing what is clearly the wrong thing are simply enforcing some rules or following some orders.

Still, seeing children separated from their parents based on some immigration law interpretation is hard to justify as the right thing.

Using things that make climate change worse when there are viable alternatives is not the right thing.

Accepting wrongdoing in any person because he promises you some benefit is not the right thing.

After all isn't that the same logic a bank robber would use?

Holidays

I hope everyone is having a healthy and happy holiday, whatever holiday you are celebrating.  Even if you are not celebrating one, be healthy and happy.

Its better than the alternatives.

The Malevolent Force

When you hear people talk about the unknown "they" who are ruining everything and destroying American values, it isn't just a figure of speech,

America, as just about everyone realizes, has some deep divisions.  Perhaps the one hardest to understand is the rift between views of reality.

I tend to think reality is the same for everybody.  However, it clearly isn't.

There are people who actually think that certain facts are manufactured for some reason.

In fact at the bottom of many people's realities is a belief in an unknown force that is malevolent.

For Nazi Germany it was Judaism which was determined to economically enslave everyone else.  While that lives on to some extent, we now have new villains to consider, the Deep State, Immigrants, the oligarchy, and scientists.

The need to fight back against these malevolent groups is clear if you can enter the correct reality.

It is unclear why they want to disrespect the American Flag or seize everyone's guns, but they do.

Some of the villains have clear motives, like big pharma wanting to make more money.

Its less clear why some are pushing things like climate change, but someone will figure it out.

The Constitution

Many Americans give the Constitution a sort of magical quality and consider it nearly perfect.

It isn't but the best quality about it is one we use the least, the ability to update it.

This document was reflective of its times and permitted slavery, denied women the right to vote and is heavily geared to protect property owners and doesn't support one person one vote very well.

In fact in order to pass it we had to tack on the first 10 Amendments (the Bill of Rights) almost immediately.

The Constitution itself does a good job of creating three equal but separate branches of Government with three different intertwined roles.

There are still issues in this country that should be updated, if we want a democratic country.  For example the electoral college and the distribution of Senators by State are not democratic in  implementation and lead to states with lower populations having more influence than populous states.

States or ex-colonies had a lot to do with this as the federal government was primarily designed to deal with things like foreign policy while the States concerned themselves with the everyday stuff.

It is still an important document that has helped this country thrive but it did also allow this country to fight a bloody civil war.

Amendments have corrected some of its early flaws, but we haven't fixed some others.

We need to.

The Bully President

We are seeing a rather unprecedented, for this country, heavy handed takeover of a major American party.

It doesn't seem like this is going to be the new norm or even if it will last any time at all, but we have seen a large group of Americans who were elected to represent the American people, representing one person who may or may not even care about the country.

Without arguing about the motives of the party dictator, the more interesting factor relates to how they were forced to toe the line?

As always the primary motivator was fear, fear of losing their seat to his rabid followers.

One of the problems we have in this country is our process of selecting party nominees.

They are all subject to potential primaries after which they have to win an election.

Not long ago, a sitting politician hardly worried about the first, he was likely unchallenged and many were fairly assured of winning the second.

Today we see a situation in which, using social media, an upset President can turn his followers against you overnight.

So step out of line and face an expensive primary fight which even if you win is likely to hurt you badly in the general election as his followers aren't the type to turn around and support you.

It didn't take a lot of this to scare the bejesus out of the politicians who primarily only care about their continued employment.

The bully President has no loyalty to anyone in his party who steps out of line and they know it.

In the soviet union the penalties for stepping our of line were often a trip to the GULAG, here its simply having to get a real job, a terrifying prospect for many of them.

The Economy

There is a lot of talk about how our economy is doing so well and we have low unemployment.

However we have at least much bad news as good when you consider the state of the American public.

Unaffordable college costs, increasing health costs and prescription costs, more and more Americans falling below the poverty level, wages not keeping up with inflation and more.

We see the wealth gap increasing because the economy is certainly doing well for the wealthy and investors, not the average worker.

`So when wall street and certain economists talk about the great economy, although most don't call it great, they discount the increasing deficit, the growing trade gaps and the income inequality.

Is the economy good?  Depends on who you are but not most people.

Eliminating Voters

Generally when you take an action it should make something better, not worse.

So we see a concerted effort underway to invalidate voter registrations, primarily in states controlled by republicans who don't like people in democratic area voting.

Now, the actions generally involve invalidating voter registrations because someone did not respond to a mailing.

This might have had some validity at one time, but I know that snail mail I get has a good chance of being discarded unopened if it isn't clearly something important.

Putting Important on the envelope isn't enough, in fact it almost a flag that it isn't, at least to my way of thinking.

I have opted everywhere I can to get mail electronically, and this includes statements and bills, so what I get via snail mail is almost exclusively spam, including ironically, many exclusive offers.

Now I do get a certain amount of official correspondence from say the Department of Motor Vehicles and other government agencies, but I know who they are.

Without having received a letter questioning my existence from some state commission to eliminate voters, I don't know if I would recognize it.

It would sound like spam if I even opened it, asking me to verify personnel information, something that is generally discouraged nowadays.

It would likely warn me that failure to respond could result in loss of my privileges, a common spam tactic.

The question is eliminating some number of people who has died or moved and therefore weren't going to vote anyways doesn't justify eliminating actual voters who might vote for someone you don't like.

Unless of course that was your objective all along.

Climate Change

With a few exceptions, like the current President, the impact of humans on the environment is accepted by all educated people.

We are taking carbon that has been stored in the ground for millennia and releasing it into the atmosphere.

In addition we have eliminated vast swaths of jungle and other carbon absorbing natural biomass.

This has led to a increasing impact on worldwide temperatures which serves as a trigger.

As the ice melts at the poles it does two things.  Raises the sea level but also exposes heat absorbing land to solar radiation.

While this is in fact a natural process, it was triggered by human activity and may already be self sustaining.

There is really no easy cures but we can mitigate the damage by reducing carbon output and increasing carbon absorption

It may seem too late, but it will be later tomorrow.

Health Care

There are issues which should be debated in the election on actual facts, not lies.

Unfortunately lies are abundant and will continue to be used for the foreseeable future.

Still we can consider some facts.

Take health care.

Health Insurance isn't the issue, health care is.  We have a system where most Americans think they have adequate access to health care, until they actually use it.

Especially before the Affordable Care Act, health costs were the leading cause of individual bankruptcies as insurance companies found ways to deny care, set coverage limits and do everything they could to transfer costs to the individual.  Of course that was true if you had health insurance.

In all honesty, when someone needs significant health care his concern isn't about the ins and outs of his health plan.

We need a system where every person in this country can get the care he needs when he needs it and not base it upon some affordability criteria.  So who pays?  We all do obviously.

Health care is one of those things you can spend much of your life not needing.  Then you do.

Since at any one time you have large parts of the population not concerned about it, we have convinced many, especially young healthy people its not essential.

Until it is.

The system should simply allow every person to get the care they need.  Medical professionals should be paid based on the skills they have, not the patients they treat.

Is a basic need, not a way to get rich.

Lessons Learned, or Not.

While I hesitate to draw too many comparisons between different countries, the recent election in Great Britain may reveal some important issues.

Perhaps the most similar trend is that both countries are in a post industrial period.

The industrial period was notable for its need for seemingly infinite workers who engaged in a long struggle to gain status with the Unions as a main factor.  It had a lot to do with their well being and led to certain political alliances.

The current period is probably best referred to as the technological era where the need for manual labor has been greatly reduced leading to a significant decrease in that well being.

Those worker have been forced to accept positions that don't pay as much or get government assistance.

It has torn at traditional political alliances leading to new voting patterns, at least in the last election.

It also pointed out that being zealous is not an effective vote getting process.  Many of the policies embraced just didn't have broad popular appeal, although eagerly supported by relatively small groups.

If your platform is viewed as radical by moderates, you will almost certainly lose a general election.

Finally they had a very individually unpopular leader.  It amazes me how that happens but it is the result of certain party infighting.  Becoming your party's nominee is hardly the goal, winning the general election is.

How to pick a candidate that has broad public support in the modern age is the challenge.

Past Sins?

People evolve over time.  Depending on how old you are, you have likely held various beliefs and opinions in the past that now seem wrong.

Rightly or wrongly when I was growing up in the Bronx we used to use words related to nationality that are now considered inappropriate.  They may have been pejorative, but they were generally used as descriptive.

Similarly many of us were raised to believe certain behaviors, now accepted were sins and illegal.  It wasn't something you formed an opinion on, it was simply what it was.  You may have wondered why but it wasn't something that was an issue until later.

Was it wrong?  From today's perspective it is but people were arrested for things back then that we wouldn't even blink at today.

I was reading an article today which talked about how the rail industry, itself an environmentally friendly form of transport, defended coal which it makes a lot of money transporting back in the 90s and to some extent later.

Was this wrong of them?  This article implies or states it was, but the railroads defended an item which was, and still is, a major customer to them.  Yes we knew a lot about carbon pollution back then, but it wasn't the consensus it is today.

Should people be condemned for positions they took at a time when that position was either the consensus position or at least a position you could honestly hold?

They might be demonstrably wrong using what we know today, but as they say 20-20 hindsight is easy.

I see a lot of people criticized for things they could have known or should have known but which at the time they didn't know.

The past isn't always relevant, it just isn't.

Impeach and Release?

One of the problems with Impeachment is that it is essentially a political process, where it starts to seem like more shenanigans.

Especially when there is almost no real chance at getting a conviction.

The founders allowed a simple majority of the House to pass articles of Impeachment but a two thirds majority to convict.  It therefore seems like a political stunt to do the first with no legitimate chance at the second.

The current Impeachment is problematic because the high crime and misdemeanor here is not clear and convincing to many, i.e. a smoking gun.

Yes he tried to get the Ukrainians to investigate a potential rival and held up things they wanted, a meeting and military assistance to get them to comply.  He then failed to cooperate in the investigation.

It just doesn't shock that many people.  Watching the hearings the arguments revolve around whether these are even impeachable offenses.

They clearly are since the only standard is what the House decides but then again they don't resonate.

Part of the problem is the low regard Americans have for politicians of both parties.  Sure they lie and manipulate to get elected.  This just seems like more of the same.

Many Democrats were effectively looking for something they could impeach him for.  When this came up they had something but its not a smoking gun.  Its more like convicting a gangster of tax evasion.  Is it enough to persuade the American people?  Well once again it is breaking down based on politics.

He's guilty but to many it seems more like a slap on the wrist issue than a lose your job one.

If you like to catch and release when you fish this may be satisfying, just not getting any dinner.

Entertaining Lies

Before we had fake news we had false narratives.

Its a technique where facts are taken out of context and spun into a whole new story.

This has been done throughout history as a way to justify actions which were in fact unjustifiable.

When Hitler invaded Poland, the German people were told how Poland attacked first.

We have the Gulf of Tonkin incident which may represent a similar rearrangement of facts.

The only real defense we have is a free press.  However  the thing which can defeat a free press is fake news.

If you have news outlets which follow no rules and publish stories meant to confuse and contradict we can create a confused public.

This seems to be the main tactic currently being employed by the Republican party, although of course in their version it is the Democrats.

Too many Americans have bought into alternative news outlets, some of which have high ratings, because they tend to be more controversial and entertaining.

So faced with boring legitimate news vs entertaining false narratives, we have to hope Americans make the right choice.

Its a close call.

Well He Served Himself

Pretty much everyone rationalizes their own bad behavior.

It starts early when toddlers often deny obvious bad actions.

I assume there re psychological theories about this, but in my view it is simply because we are all the central characters in our view of the world and we understand why we did what we did.

We wouldn't do bad things if we considered them bad or if we didn't think the good outweighed the bad.

Of course we might know that the action is viewed as a crime by society but it doesn't outweigh our internal calculations.

Now take the current Impeachment inquiry.  The actions taken are clear and the charges related to those actions are also clear, but fundamentally the other side says how could it be wrong if it was supposed to benefit the incumbent.

There were potentially many more possible charges and counts including obstruction of justice in the Russian probe but in order to move it along it was reduced to two which clearly happened,

Abuse of power when he used the office of the President to pressure a foreign country to investigate American citizens, who were not charged with any crimes in this country.

Obstruction of Congress, well documented by the President's own memo and instructions as well as numerous public statements.

He thinks these actions were OK, after all they were designed to protect him.

What could be more important?

Freeing the Guilty

One of the things that we have in this country are protections for the accused.

In fact those protections have grown over the years until proving guilt can be quite challenging, even when you actually have the guilty party.

If you don't confess and go to trial, with a good lawyer and enough money, you may very well get off on what we call a technicality.

Every action by law enforcement and the prosecution has to pass scrutiny that they didn't skip any steps or mishandle any evidence.

Further, we impose upon witnesses who often have to miss work, travel distances and wait around to repeat their account which can then be attacked by the defense.

Of course we then have the jury which is also inconvenienced and we certainly don't compensate them sufficiently.

The vast majority of cases get settled with a plea bargain because we probably couldn't; handle the workload of all those trials.

Yes the police make mistakes at times but in the vast majority of arrests the person they arrest is guilty.

The smart ones just don't admit it. It certainly improves their chances of getting off.

Loving This Country

People who like to proclaim they love this country have a lot of funny attributes.

I'm not talking about the average citizen who goes about his everyday lie, pays his taxes, possibly serves in the military and exercises his right to vote.

I'm talking about those who feel the need to yell it out, generally implying that anyone who disagrees with them doesn't love this country.

First if you do love this country you would realize it is a land of free speech and free opinions, meaning not everyone has to agree with everyone else.  Failing to recognize that is hardly loving this country.

Second we are a nation of immigrants.  Very few of us are native Americans which means we are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants.  Attacking the more recent immigrants who are no different than earlier waves of immigrants is not loving this country, its attacking its very nature.

Third, our history is not all rosy.  Things happened that resulted in the near annihilation of Native Americans and the enslavement of millions.  We also saw a part of the country try to secede over the second issue, among others.  Not accepting our history is not loving this country, it is who we were, if not who we are.

We are clearly not the best in many areas, even if we want to claim we are number one in everything.  Many of our schools are sub-par and it shows in standard tests.  We have a lot of people who can't get satisfying work.  many of our citizens are effectively denied the right to vote.  Not everyone has access to adequate health care or the means to pay for it.  Our seniors do not all have comfortable retirements.  We could do a lot better and some countries do.

Love of country does not mean denying who we were, or who we are.  The country is the people in it, not the rocks.

Just Entertain Us

Life can be pretty boring for most people, and hard.

Childhood is usually a high point but not always.

At adulthood, we are usually asked to work, be responsible, settle down, raise children and other things which, even if fulfilling in many ways, are essentially boring.

This isn't new, its been the same essentially forever, and in many ways we have more comforts to make life a bit easier, however the boredom sets in and it shows.

Adultery and drug addiction are two symptoms

A third one is to watch shock shows on TV.

We live in the golden age of yellow journalism as the internet and the tremendous number of channels allow fringe views to spread.

Conspiracies, an evil "deep" state, shenanigan's by politicians and a general attack on our way of life has led to our unhappy state.

The fact that much of this is the idle ramblings of someone trying to get ratings and sponsors is irrelevant.

The fact that most of it isn't even true is also irrelevant.

Be entertaining by being shocking and you can get rich.

It worked back in the age of yellow journalism and it is working today.

It entertains us.
.

Candidate Will Emerge

Before a single primary has been held we have lots of prognosticators talking about the potential Democratic candidate.

Based on his efforts to date, the current President seems to think that Joe Biden is the likely candidate, or at least the one he is most nervous about.

He may become the candidate, but then again he may not.

If we knew who we were going to support before the process plays out, we wouldn't need the process.

Some of the candidates are starting to become better known, and others are fading.

If you were to look back to 2008, at this time the front runner wasn't the eventual nominee.

We have to do the process and hopefully select the best man or woman for the job.

We have hardly started yet.

The Issues are the Issues

Nowadays people running for office are required, at least in some cases, to account for things that they did or didn't do, even when that event is simply routine life events.

I'm not talking about things which were crimes or which related to deeply felt political beliefs but simply actions which people do in the ordinary course of their lives.

Take a situation such as we have with Senator Elizabeth Warren who earlier in her life indicated on some documents that she had native American ancestry.

She does in fact have some but the amount is apparently inconsequential by some standards but was relying on some family traditions which spoke of it.

There is no evidence that she has specifically benefitted by this and she has never claimed tribal membership, however, it has led to her getting a nickname from the philanderer in chief and is almost guaranteed to become a prominent issue, at least at certain rallies if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

This obsession we have with inconsequential facts from people's past lives is ridiculous when you think about it.  The longer you have been alive and the more situations you have experienced. the more likely you are to have some things in your past that might be held against you.

God forbid they discover a photo or document detailing some foolishness you might have engaged in n school or elsewhere when you were still too young to know better.

What should matter, barring some real dark past is your current life and qualifications.

Of course with the rise of social media we will soon have a vast amount of opportunity to find "flaws" in the future.

You support Universal Health Care, but here is a picture of teenage you engaging in silly behavior!  Lets focus on that.

All In

Its clear that the only defense the republicans have is to deny reality.

First pretend that the acts never happened.
Second pretend they served the national interest.
Third argue they aren't really of any importance.
Finally argue the whole thing is a political act based on party politics.

The arguments are not designed to make a legal difference only a political one. It might be working since much of the American public is willing to accept any argument that lets them vote like they want.

Since the outcome is predetermined the only thing that matters is public reaction.  Pretending anything else is foolhardy.

The proceedings like most other things in America need to be dumbed down the American public is not going to become more interested or increase their attention span.

To pretend otherwise it's possibly noble but ineffectual.

The Republicans learned this and have gone all in.

The Democrats bet next.

Voter Turnout.

The process we now use in this country to pick our candidates and ultimately our leaders and regulators is based on Democracy.

It is at best partially Democratic since we don't get 100% voter participation.

Whether people who don't bother to vote would make a significant difference in who gets elected is arguable, but there are enough of them that they could make a difference.

There have been some demographic studies that show that non-voters are less white, less wealthy and younger than voters.

Those factors would indicate that they are likely to be a more liberal group, on the whole, than voters which partially explains why one of our political parties is into voter suppression as a tactic.

So getting out more voters, as the Democrats did in 2018 but failed to do in 2016 would seem critical to winning that election.

How to get these voters interested in the process is the problem.

Many are so disgusted by politics in general that they don't thing voting is worthwhile.

Changing that perception might be key and maybe some of the policies that appeal to them need to be prominent.

Of course if you alienate current voters you may have a bigger problem.

A Nation of Laws

Next week the Impeachment hearings go into another phase with the judiciary committee taking over.

Unfortunately it is probably a fairly meaningless exercise.

The facts have been clear for a while for anyone interested in the truth.

The President has violated any number of laws and constitutional prohibitions by using his office and public funds to further his private interests.  He has also engaged in obstruction of justice and as part of that witness interpretation.

The only thing that you can say he hasn't done is perjure himself since his lies weren't done under oath.

Now some of his defenders will argue that what he has done isn't an impeachable offence, with no real basis for that since the actions clearly violate the constitution.

Still there are arguments that seem to work with some of the American people which are simply strategies.  First they want to paint this as a Democratic witch hunt.  It turns out that it is almost exclusively a Democratic situation because of the stranglehold exerted on the Republican party by his base.  Because of the flaws in our primary system, it is fairly easy for a motivated group to either win or make life difficult in party primaries and since our congressmen and women are primarily interested in winning reelection, it is a powerful weapon.

Still it seems inevitable that impeachment will pass in the house but he won't be convicted in the Senate.

How this plays our in the general election remains to be seen.

We need to stay a nation of laws for our democracy to survive, if it can.

Which Future?

 People in this country can get jobs but the jobs that they can get are just not what they used to be.

You used to be able to take care of a family working normal hours.

It's only the fortunate few who can still do that.

To say the economy is doing so wonderfully is misstating the facts.

This is unfortunately the results of the automation and technology improvements that have taken many good paying jobs and turned them into robotic jobs.

This was not the Utopian future predicted by some science fiction writers.

At least not for most of humanity.

This is the future where we destroy the climate, force most of humanity into debt and menial jobs while a small number of privileged elite enjoy the fruits of their labor.

The world needs to decide which path to take.

Egalitarian, or elitism.

A Country in Debt

If you consider a simple economic construct, the country and many of its citizens are living on borrowed money and therefore borrowed time.

You can blame it on any number of things, but in many cases it simply comes down to wanting what we want now, and worry about tomorrow later.

This was part of the issue involved in the financial crisis of 2008-2009 where an assumption that home prices would only continue to go up led to loans on what is best described as a whisper and a prayer.

When they didn't go up and many of the mortgages couldn't be refinanced or paid, we had a collapse that almost drove us into a depression.

To solve that problem we inserted a great amount of money into the economy via stimulus to give us a jump start.

We are still living off a series of jump starts as we haven't reigned in spending and individual income growth has not kept up with debt increases.

We can't afford many of the things we want and the Government can't afford the programs it already has.

No one seems willing to do what needs to be done to address it so I guess eat, drink and be merry, until they take the T-Bird away.

Profits

Our economy is basically based on profiteering.

Lets be clear, there is nothing wrong with making a profit, it inspires enterprise which stimulates the economy and creates jobs.

However it depends a lot on how many are eating at the trough.

Profit related to value added is productive, but profit related to effectively nothing is a problem.

In one model you might have the producer, say the farmer, who could sell direct to a consumer resulting is a single profit.

That became less possible so we see them selling to middlemen who take the product from the farm to the city say.  A second profit.

Generally they then resell the product to retail outlets who sell to the consumers, a third profit.

This is true for almost all the things we buy with escalating profits.  Of course there is usually some real service provided.

In health care of course we have multiple streams.  There is the delivery of the medical service, the equipment used, and the cost of running the hospital.  We then add the profit stream of the insurance provider.

How to reduce the cost unrelated to the actual delivery of health care would go a long way to making health care more affordable.

We just don't want to.

Deflection!

Realistically, it is pretty obvious that Hunter Biden only got the job with Burisma because of who his father was.  That is of course not corrupt unless it led to some sort of "quid pro quo" where Burisma benefited here.

Some say that this was when the VP got the Ukraine to fire the corrupt prosecutor, but since there is widespread consensus that this was strongly supported by the International community and his investigation into Burisma was over, it isn't much.

Children often benefit from famous parents, i.e. the Trump children but it isn't corrupt unless it actually is.

One may wonder if having Hunter Biden on the board didn't help Burisma in some situations where it could appear to others that it gave them an inside track to the American Government, but clearly they hired him for that very purpose and unless he did something corrupt for them it is simply the way business is.

Of course some will cling to the idea of corruption because it helps cloud the corruption of withholding Government assets or using your office for personal gain.

Those are actual acts of corruption, not flights of imagination.

Proof vs innuendo, I prefer the proof.

Violating Standard Behavior

One of the things the impeachment hearings have revealed is that we have become a nation without a strict code of conduct.

This was the obvious conclusion from the last election when lies were thrown about recklessly against one candidate while facts concerning sexual misconduct, financial malfeasance and lying about the other candidate were dismissed as lies.

Now some might argue the opposite because we have now created a public space where the number of false accusations and rumors have led to everything being questioned.

One could pretend that all news sources are equally credible, but that would be incredibly naive.

We have long established well regarded news sources and then we have things like Infowars and Breitbart which range from pure fantasy to twisted truth.

To many people they are equally valid.

If you consider something like the shooting at Sandy Hook, we have a well documented actual event which was called a hoax by one of these media sources.  It's ludicrous but it gets out there.

When some of these outrageous stories are debunked it tends to make all media suspect.

False news however started can be reported on as something being asserted, making it seem somewhat relevant if done enough.

This tactic is being used currently to make the behavior of the administration seem like something everyone does anyway and therefore no big deal.

It is a big deal to try to use your position in the Government to further your own interests.

Its not normal or common and accepting it is simply a lowering of our Standards.

Issues

Elections are often treated like popularity contests when they should be about issues.

If you consider the issues important to voters you get a mix of economic and social ones.

I believe most Americans are pretty close on how they feel about most issues, however because of the spin applied they feel far apart.

For example almost all Americans would like an immigration policy that protects our borders while still allowing legal immigration.

However it is generally presented by at least some media outlets as an all or nothing scenario.

For many years Governments didn't really enforce border security for many reason.  One reason was simply that we needed many of the undocumented workers to take certain seasonal jobs.

When did this rise to a major issue?  It seems like it was escalated by certain media outlets that created some catchy slogans.  The one about us not being a country if we don't enforce our borders is catchy.

The border issues are more significant the closer you are to them, although even then it doesn't seem to be a major problem except for an unfortunate few.

Yet somehow it has grown into a divisive issue, simply because it serves a political purpose.

We should set logical and reasonable goals and implement policies to achieve them.

Instead we fight.

Fresh Blood

One of the things that is as certain as death and taxes is that people age.

This is a natural event and it can't be stopped.

Of course we live in an age where people live longer than ever and we like to imagine that age is something we can control, but of course we can't.

Watching the debate last night I simply couldn't get past one fact, the leading candidates are older than they really should be.

It is both a physical issue and mental one potentially but its more of a cultural one.

They may or may not experience significant deterioration in four to eight years, but certainly they are high risk.  However listening to their answers they tend to reflect things not as relevant as they once were.

Take Joe Biden's attitude toward Marijuana, which he tried to correct last night but considering how most of his life he was in a world where it was considered bad he has deep cultural embedding to overcome.

Similarly, Elizabeth Warren thinks fondly of how her brothers served, and remembers inaccurately I think her mother checking the mail each day.  A letter made her day and assured her the son was still alive.  Her fond memories of military or alternative service was one step short of reinstituting the draft and her response seemed to assume only men would be asked to serve.

I generally think Bernie Sanders simply reflects the radicalism of his youth and while it plays fairly well, it just seems dated to me.

We are what we were and the world these folks grew up in is not the world of the future.  There has to be a time when we pass the baton on to a new generation, and it just seems like its time.

A Conspiracy for Everything!

Perhaps the worst thing about the explosion in media access that took place over the last 20 years or so is that we have enabled a golden age of conspiracy theories.

These conspiracies always existed but they lived on the fringe, not on our newsfeed.

It is more democratic but this is the real fake news, although each theory has proponents who would argue that.

Combined with the growing mistrust of "Government" we now find conspiracies everywhere.

If the Government experts announce vaccines are safe but some erroneous data indicates erroneously that it might correlate with an increase in autism we spawn a anti-vax movement, based on nothing at all.

In fact since vaccinations became nearly universal, you can correlate them with any thing else that also increased.  Of course that isn't cause and effect, but not everyone understands that.

We have a menu of conspiracy theories so you can pick the ones you want.  Our President likes anything that makes him look better, no matter how far-fetched.  He obviously delves into far right web sites which in some cases simply make them up based on next to nothing.

It just seems like a big conspiracy.

Independents

It wasn't that long ago when the Republican party was opposed to the expansion of executive power in this country.

Of course they did that when we had Democratic presidents.

It details some of the problems we have n this country (not just us) with having a semi official two party system.

While the largest group of voters (about 38%) identify themselves as independent, there are very few elected officials who are independent.

The ones that are, like Bernie Sanders, are really affiliated with a single party.

Certainly the two parties claim to stand for American values but they have become so partisan in certain areas, like gun control, abortions, equal rights that we come to a near stop on legislative progress.

As they go down this path, many people drop party affiliation as they view one as too left and one as too right.  Of course as they leave they reduce the number of moderates in their old party leading to shifts to the fringes and more moderates leaving.

This plurality of Americans are poorly represented.

Saturday Thoughts

I don't know if the hearings are going to change anyone's mind about Impeachment, we no longer seem swayed by facts.

If you lost your job during the great recession and it hasn't come back yet, it isn't going to.

The wonderful benefits of automation are great but the reduced need for labor should be offset by increased hourly wages.

Listening to the administration, he wants the economy to be propped up by negative interest rates, guess the tax cuts didn't work, except for the wealthy.

What I find surprising is how many people around my age, or at least boomers are the real snowflakes, unhappy where they ended up and blaming everybody except themselves.

If you don't like your life, change it.

We think the millennials are spoiled but they got that listening to us.

Whistleblower

Thee is a lot of commotion being made by certain Republicans concerning the identity of the Whistleblower who first reported the phone conversation with the Ukraine.

They argue that his identity should be disclosed since defendants have the right to face their accuser.

While this is not particularly relevant in an Impeachment inquiry, it is also irrelevant because the Whistleblower is not an accuser.

He reported a event that he felt might be a concern to the appropriate channels.

This is not an accuser under any definition of the word and to pretend otherwise is simply spin.

It would be like someone reporting a car accident to the police who would then investigate.

It is then the police who determine the circumstances and specifics of the situation and if someone did in fact break the law the actual witnesses and accusers would be identified.

The original person who notified the authorities is not an accuser or necessarily a witness.

The same hold true for the Whistleblower.

Why Public Hearings?

Most of the facts are known to anyone paying attention at this point so we are now going to have a spectacle designed to sway public opinion.

I don't think many opinions will be changed related to impeachment, maybe a few, but ultimately the following scenario is almost certain.

After the hearings the House will vote articles of Impeachment.  The Senate will conduct what is likely to be a sham trial and acquit the President.  There is a very small chance that when given the opportunity enough Senators may decide to vote for conviction but I doubt that very much.

So why are we bothering?

Its much more about the election than it is actual impeachment.  The hearings will highlight the President's behavior and it is clearly inappropriate.  Is it Impeachable?  Well he will be impeached but probably not convicted, so there is no answer to that question.

Still highlighting the actions may be persuasive to certain voters.

If enough voters in certain swing states decide they have had enough of this guy and his empty promises, it will suffice.

If not, well that's a different outcome.

Veterans

Today is a day we set aside to honor Veterans and we certainly should.

They risked everything for this country, and many have long term issues because of it.

We have seen a change in attitudes to veterans over the years.

The Vietnam era was probably the low point as sometimes Veterans were blamed for things that happened during that war.

We now have returned to honoring Veterans for their service.

In many ways they represent the best of us and we should recognize that and make sure they are given the services they need.

The Tide of Change

It was true in the early 1800s and is true today, the growing populations in certain areas is predictive of the politics of tomorrow.

It is fairly inevitable and while it takes a bit of time, like the tide it can't be stopped, just delayed.

Democracy is designed to create a Government that reflects its citizens and as the citizens change so does the Government.

Some might not like the changes and want to hold them back as long as possible, but one way to make them happen even faster is to tweak the dragon.

Inevitably we will have a significant change n the Republican party or they will cease to be relevant eventually.

Not everywhere and not all at once, but policies that rely on an aging population that is shrinking as a percentage of the total population can not survive forever.

Its what Democracy is supposed to do, represent the people, the people here now, not some past time.

Its actually a good thing and its happened before.  Many things we considered essential to Government were not even considered a couple of hundred years ago.

Its call progress.

Politics Are Local

America has always had certain divisions.

Even when we were colonies under England we might have been unified because we were all on this continent but our origins and evolutions were very different.

Yes we sort of united to defeat a common enemy, England, but it took us a while to form a constitution and in that document we added the Bill of Rights because we didn't trust each other very much.

Our earliest divisions were central government vs states right.  This evolved partly because of slavery as the slave states argued for states rights while opinions generally swung against slavery overall.

We had a bloody civil war but it might have ended formal slavery but it didn't end the conflict.

In fact, in many ways, once reconstruction ended the states enjoyed significant freedom.

It took the great depression and the subsequent world war for the federal government to rise again.

The country once again untied against a common enemy, Communism, and in doing so we saw significant trends toward centralized Government.

We are seeing a new crisis in which the efforts towards nationalized policies is running up against some opposition.

It seems fairly obvious that many of the issues are national in scope but this creates resistance.

Since our constitution has built in safeguards for the States (the Senate, the Electoral College), the issue has to be fought locally.

You can't just tell them one way is better, you have to convince them.

All politics are local after all.

Democrats Should?

In show after show about the upcoming primaries and subsequent election you hear pundits talk about what the Democrats should do.

They need to nominate a candidate who appeals to independent voters or who shuns far left policies or who can beat the incumbent.

Of course the advice is part of the new world we live in where cable has created so much time that simply needs to be filled with something.

Maybe years ago when party bosses decided who the nominee was going to be strategy like this could happen.

Today, however the decision is made in the primaries and those are decided by the people who vote.

The primaries have many flaws, participation is not what it should be and potentially we nominate candidates who don't really represent the party as a whole.

However the primaries are a form of Democracy which allows the voters to select the candidate.

The reasons any one person might vote for any one candidate can be complex, but I know we don't all get together and decide who to vote for.

The Democrats and the Republicans don't get to decide the candidate via back room deals.\\

Look at the last round of Republican primaries where the outcome was clearly not expected.

Democracy is simply a messy process, it will be who it will be.

Off Year Elections

Election held on off years don't include the "big" national offices but they still are elections with important State and local results.

How much of an indication are they for the even year elections is questionable unless of course a clear trend exists.

In general the elections confirmed that Democrats are doing well in traditional Republican suburbs but its not a done deal.

It did show that some of the factors that allowed the current President to run up big numbers in some States may be gone.

Still the electoral landscape would still make victory a possibility (the popular vote is probably going Democratic).  What a lot of television pundits seem to ignore, it might make them uncomfortable, is that a lot of the 2016 success was based on his anti-abortion and racist positions.  He tries to camouflage his racism, but he provides the racists plenty of signs.

This is in fact his real base and its probably unshakable, a racist isn't going to change easily and the anti-abortion group is fully committed.

Those groups are not enough to win the Presidency, he needs some dupes to think he is actually a conservative too.  He really isn't, look at his budget deficit and his centralization of power in the executive branch, two very not conservative things to do.

Of course he also ran against a very unpopular opponent which hopefully isn't going to be repeated.

Mandatory?

In America we cherish individual freedom, but what we cherish is freedom of decision.

We don't want to be told what to do, but of course we can take suggestions.

This is the problem with Universal Health Care, even if it is in fact better for almost everyone.

Or current system is inefficient and expensive but it pretends to offer us some choices.

Those choices may be limited by your employer or by your income, but we think we get to decide.

In fact once a year we tend to have some open season where a certain number of options are provided.

It doesn't matter if these choices are restrictive, at an individual level it has the appearance of freedom.

Its the first hurdle that universal mandatory plans have to overcome.

We don't like mandatory.

Innocent or just missing evidence?

We don't generally give accused people the benefit of the doubt much anymore.

Many accused people, especially celebrities are considered guilty when accused.

Our system of justice says you are innocent until proven guilty, but the court of public opinion uses a much lower threshold.

The courts apply a beyond all reasonable doubt criteria for criminal cases and in many cases, even with criminal acquittals, there is plenty of reasonable evidence.

To protect the innocent we have erected many restrictions on what evidence can be admitted and what a jury can be exposed to.

There is an old adage that says it is better to let a 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent one.

Of course one wonders if future victims of those 100 would agree with that?

Offensive Defense

The thing I have trouble understanding is why some seemingly intelligent people go on TV and say clearly outlandish things.

Some simply repeat meaningless talking points, propagated for the base but which I simply can't believe they actually believe.

For example, they continue to act like there was some issue with Hillary Clintons use of a private e-mail server when investigation after investigation uncovers no leaks, not compromised secrets and no wrongdoing.

The fact that a small number of emails received by her may have retroactively been determined to have classified data is meaningless since she was clearly in possession of a suitable security clearance.

The sender might need some retroactive instruction on procedures, but, none of these e-mails were hacked or provided to enemies of this country.

It might play well as a refrain with some of the base, but when I see someone who clearly should know better simply act like there was something there, it is clearly a talking point which I don't believe they can believe.

In fact the current strategy of many of these people is to drag out the Clinton's and try to argue their guy isn't any worse then they were.  Well since they hate the Clintons so much, shouldn't they also condemn their guy?

Lies and hypocrisy are what they have left when the facts are not longer in question.

Techno 1984

One of the great fears of the post World War era was that personal privacy would be sacrificed as the State became more omnipresent.  The book 1984 detailed such a world but was inaccurate in its forecasts.

We have surrendered our privacy to big business, not big brother.

Of course big brother is there, but for various reasons has been constrained in its tracking.

Few such constraints apply to big business which knows what you are thinking, sometimes before you do.

It couldn't have happened without our cooperation and it was the rise of the Internet and computing power that was the real impetus.

Before them media was simply something broadcast and the information about effectiveness and preferences had to be obtained from things like focus groups.

Today they are pretty much aware of everything you do on-line and use it to target you.

It isn't going to stop, I'm not even sure the majority of us want it to.

The technological revolution has provided many benefits, privacy wasn't one of them.

Health Care for All

The next election is likely to be decided, at least partly, by the issue of Health Care.

No one opposes providing it, although some seem to want to exclude certain people from receiving it, but the major issue is about how to pay for it and how to provide it.

Ultimately the health care we receive is provided by health care professionals, on-line resources, parents, various other providers using traditional or holistic methods, and, ourselves.

A great many things can be self treated or simply get better by themselves.

When something is more serious or traumatic, like a broken limb or bleeding wound, medical care is required.  Still it is more efficient to make using the simplest remedies cost effective.

How to do this and provide a system that assures everyone has access to the care they need is the issue.  Our current system works for a fairly large percentage of the population but not for many others.

A lot depends of whether you have a job with benefits or not and if not how you obtain health coverage.  It also varies widely by where you live.

It would seem that one way would simply be to provide coverage to all those who don't currently have it and work out a transition plan for the rest.

We spend a tremendous amount on health care already and it would seem that an efficient system could reduce overall costs and provide the same or better coverage.

Its the details that are hard.

Why Do You Care?

Some of the issues that seem to be the most divisive are things that really mean almost nothing.

For example who cares if you have to push one to continue in English?

I was brought up to respect the flag, but I also realize that it isn't particularly significant and if someone wants to wear a flag bikini its pretty meaningless.

I suppose there might be situations where I am using a bathroom where someone enters who makes me feel uncomfortable, but I don't use a lot of public bathrooms in the first place and even if it did it probably wouldn't scar me psychologically.

I will say that I don't care what you call yourself but I a too old to keep learning new terms.  If I call you by a gender defining term that is not to your liking, I don't mean anything by it and why does it matter?

There are many other trivial things that get people excited when we should really focus on things that make a difference.

If you think you are woke, you are likely just differently prejudiced, thinking all those unwoke people are the problem.

Impeachy?

There isn't any reasonable doubt about the fact that the phone call involved a request for a favor, which included an investigation of a political rival.

The question is whether this is an impeachable offense?

The constitution talks about High Crimes and Misdemeanors, but the definition of those is pretty much up to the Congress.

So naturally it will be contested.

There are a long list of actions which some consider impeachable and some don't.

Violations include campaign finance rules, obstruction of justice and others.

Still at this time these violations are being tolerated by many in his party.

So impeachment yes, conviction probably not, re-election seems unlikely.

Time will tell.

Swing States

The next election is going to be decided by a fairly small number of people living in the swing states.  Of course every vote counts but most of us who live in states that are certain to go a certain way, barring some miracle, their electoral college votes are already determined.

So it will come down to certain swing states.  Which way these states swing will most likely determine our next president.  The last election was a few hundred thousand votes elect someone who got 3million less votes than their opponent.

The system isn't going to change anytime soon so the question facing Democrats is should they select a candidate who is the most popular overall, or, one who can win those states.

Clearly it would be ideal if that was a single candidate, but the progressive wing, which dominates the coastal area with the largest population, may vote for a candidate who will be "too left" for those voters.

Of course the policies of the left, universal health care, income equality, climate change policies, etc. could be popularized before the election in those states but that is potentially high risk.

Of course any Democratic candidate will support those policies to some extent so the progressive agenda might be sufficient. 

Christians?

When you consider the state of Christianity today its not very promising.  In its early days it was a religion that offered a message of love, a chance to be "born" again into a community where you were expected to love God and your fellow man.

While that message may live on in some areas, the general view of the religion is one where many of the so called Christians seem driven by self interest and in many cases bigotry.

Those evangelicals who claim to be Christian while supporting an amoral President and hating many of their fellow men should stop calling themselves Christians.

They have in many cases turned a blind eye to love of God and kindness to others and adopted convoluted biblical interpretations.  The old testament is not a Christian document, it is the basis of Judaism.

Those who quote it as God's word should realize it is not Christian at all.

They are no different from the Scribes and the Pharisees and the money lenders condemned by Jesus in their behavior.

Diversions

You can feel the desperation grow as the momentum for Impeachment gains speed.

The attempt to divert the public's attention and point out supposed "violations" by the Democrats is unlikely to work.

It is of course the main strategy of the desperate and it has worked to some extent in the past.

However, when you have dug a hole as deep as this, it takes more than meaningless exhibitions to fix it.

Some will go along with it, and maybe it will provide enough cover to give the required number of Senators cover to vote to acquit.

Maybe not.

When the hearings do go public the criminal and selfish behavior will be on display for all.

Some will ignore it but most won't.

Its not fake news, its fake diversions.

Modern Benedict Arnold

Breaking security rules was a cause celebre for many of the Republicans who did just that yesterday.

Taking and using a cell phone in a SCIF is a serious violation and the culprits are unlikely to be punished.

Arguing that Republicans are being locked out of the hearings when nearly half the committee members in the meetings are in fact Republicans shows that this was purely a publicity stunt.

In some ways I don't mind the meaningless protest, they are having trouble finding productive ways to defend the President.

He wasn't exonerated by the Miller report, he obstructed justice but since then he has continued to violate various laws and worse engaged in behavior that is getting our allies killed and displaced.

What he calls a big success is a blemish on this country that will outlive his Presidency and him.

He is the Benedict Arnold of foreign policy.

Fiddling While Earth Burns

Many of us heard about the time in ancient Rome when the Emperor Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned.

Of course it isn't completely true, fiddles weren't invented yet but the essence of the story has some validity since the fire cleared out an area of Rome which he wanted for a Palace and was effectively a slum before the fire.

In the end it was blamed on the Christians who were then martyred but eventually Nero was killed and replaced.

By this time Rome was already master of the known world but its was generally at its peak leading to power struggles and eventual decline.

Today we see much of the world effectively fiddling while the Earth burns.

Climate change is real and getting worse.  The changes it makes to the Earth accelerate the changes to come.

It may in fact already be too late to stop it as some of the effects take a situation initiated by human behavior but which after a tipping point is accelerated by natural ones.

Take the simple fact that ice reflects heat while bare earth tends to absorb it.  So when a glacier recedes exposing earth, the warming accelerates.

Further a lot of methane trapped in the permafrost starts to be released as the permafrost melts.

We need to reduce our contribution to this process and possibly find ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere instead of increasing it.

If we care about the future.

Steal the Oil?

We apparently have a pirate at the helm of the country who thinks we can grab some country's natural resources because, well, we can.

Whatever the mess is in the middle east, it isn't going to get better by acting like a colonial power and stealing stuff.

You would think that with a genius in charge we could come up with a better plan than a repeat of the colonial expansions of the 19th century.

Of course it is never going to happen, we have people who know how wrong it would be.

The only one who doesn't get that is the one at the top.

Of course he thinks in ways the rest of us can only be astonished by.

Public Servant

Getting elected President effectively means the country has selected you for a specific job.

It is a powerful job, perhaps the most powerful in the World, but its still a job, making you a public servant.

As such you are supposed to serve the public, its right there in the name.

Not just some of the public, all of it, although of course at times the public may be in conflict with themselves.

The public is not there to serve the President.

When a President forgets is it leads to behavior which is self serving, not public serving.

Promises?

When you consider the impetuous nature of our President its a wonder things aren't worse.

Of course according to him things are going just fine.

Our skyrocketing deficit caused in part of the tax law he pushed which spurred a brief increase in profitability gets bigger and bigger.

While unemployment is low, the jobs being created are not high paying manufacturing or mining but mostly low paying service jobs.

Income inequality continues to grow. Many people are being forced to work multiple jobs to cling to the American lifestyle.

Homelessness is at an all time high as well as opioid addition as the demands become greater and greater.

Our trade wars hurt many sectors with the full impact still to come.

We have lost influence in Asia, the middle east and have betrayed one of our allies.

We are about to turn Afghanistan back to the Taliban, an oppressive regime that promoted terrorism.

He has adopted policies that treat fellow humans in humanely.

He has reached out to foreign Governments to attack his political opponents and has welcomed their interference in our elections.

The only promise he has kept are the ones to his Russian master and his rich cronies.

The rest of us are on our own.

They Didn't Make Tea

Hopefully the silliness over the e-mails is finally over.

It was never a thing in the first place.

The point is that the use of a private e-mail server is simply not even riskier than the Government systems which have been hacked many times.

People who deal with sensitive issues write e-mails and classified items are almost always given special attention.

However, sometimes a reference can be made to something in an e-mail that can be referring to something classified.

Especially when you reclassify items after the fact.

The simple fact is that outside of politics it was clear there was no real issue.  The people involved weren't trying to compromise any issues, they were simply communicating about their jobs.

Sometimes they may have failed to properly mark a document but they weren't disclosing secrets to the enemy.

We have much worse going on now, and the people who created the tempest in the teapot are suddenly quiet.  The teapot was empty but we certainly have lots of caviar and vodka now.

Ranter in Chief

When you consider the two people involved its pretty obvious which one was likely to lose control and engage in an insulting rant, the its not the one with the Italian last name.

I can't imagine even his most ardent supporters thinking that he was the cool headed one.

Not that they care, they hate everyone who isn't their idol anyway.

So does it matter that he went on a rant?

He seems to mostly rant on twitter, so its a bit different when he does it in a meeting.

Still its who he is so no real surprise there.

Still its a bit of a surprise, but hey she wasn't at Normandy was she?

Debates

When you listen to the pundits discuss the Democratic candidates and the various groups in the Democratic party, it just seems like they get it very wrong when they think it is divisive.

Certainly there are differences in the positions and many different factions that support different approaches to goals and aims.

It is the way we work these things out and as we move forward we will sort out the outliers and the voters in the primaries will make choices.

At this time there is too much time, too many candidates and too many issues to know who will emerge.

Hopefully, unlike in 2016 we will see a leader with charisma emerge who will build momentum and get the nomination, like in 2008.

As much as I admire and respect some of the candidates for their long service, I would personally prefer someone younger with broad appeal to emerge.

Either way, no matter who the candidate, the party will be energized by the liar in the White House who has jeopardized the rights of minorities, our climate, our health care, our international relations and ultimately our economy.

The economy was on a strong recovery when he was elected and all he has accomplished was to increase profitability for his cohorts, not the well being of the middle class.

We need to get America back on track to our future.

Our Future

What kind of country do we want to live in.

Because of our history as a frontier country we started with very few rules.

This worked for some, not the native Americans or African Americans generally, but a certain group were able to accumulate great wealth and many others were able to be "free" and worship as they pleased, live as they pleased and escape the restrictions of the old world.

It was never as free as we sometimes pretend it was, but it was a time when an ambitious person could make his or her fortune with a little gumption and a little luck.

This was in fact what was know as the American dream where people of modest origins could succeed greatly.

Not everyone did of course, most didn't, but we were generally the best place to try.

A land of opportunity is part of our identity, but everyone should have a chance to pursue opportunities.

To do this we need to assure we have good schools for all.  This should include advanced levels of both academic nd technical training.  The young people need to be prepared for their roles going forward without saddling them with ridiculous levels of debt.  Perhaps in exchange they can provide some time in public service.

We need a health system that serves all of us without requiring decisions about whether we can afford to be well.

Finally we need to provide security to our older citizens.  They have earned that much.

Moving Forward

It would be a  better world if we all led a lives that followed the golden rule, love thy neighbor as you love thyself.

We seem however to have problems with the definition of neighbor.

Most of us have replaced it with a version that goes, watch out for number one.

This is becoming more and more prevalent in our country and our world.

People in need are ignored and the mantra you hear is very nationalistic in tone.

The idea that this attitude can somehow make a county great is mistaken.

Greatness is a product of innovation and spirit.

If you have a closed mind and a desire to stay the same you will never be great.

There is no example in history of a closed society being great, it stagnates and gets passed by others.

Lets welcome the future and not try to recreate a past that we remember better than it actually was.

Immigrants R Us!

One of the ironies in this country is the fact that people who were looked down upon when they were part of an immigrant wave, have now switched to the ones who want to discriminate.

Our earliest inhabitants who weren't native Americans were English, French and Spanish with some Dutch and Swedish people mixed in.  Of course we had the African Americans who were brought here against their will.

Subsequent waves of immigrants including Irish, Eastern European, Southern European and Asian were all initially discriminated against.

We now are applying that discrimination to current immigrants from Central America.  It should be noted that many Puerto Ricans and Cubans went through this in the 50s and 60s who are now generally accepted.

In fact, except for African Americans the history shows that after a generation or at most two the immigrants are fully integrated into our society rising to important positions in Business and Government.

African Americans and to some extent Jewish people remain easily identifiable and to that extent still experience some degree of discrimination.

We may be seeing a change in that but what is more certain is that the Central American people who are considered inferior now will be fully integrated into society in a generation or two.

Why make them wait?

Dont trust US

Its pretty obvious that our "genious" president isnt very good at foreign affairs.  The examples are piling up with the latest being hi decision to give Turkey free reign in northern Syria.

Besides the fact that this promotes the interests of Russia and Iran, it also puts the Kurds in a perilous position.

If betrayal of an ally isnt bad enough, the Kurds have been guarding thousands of Isis fighters who are now likely to go free.

So increased used potential for terrorism both abroad and here.

Isis is not likely to send us a thank you, at least not a peaceful one.

Make the World risky again, anyone?

Demographics

If you consider the future of America based on every demographic trend, its darker in complexion than it is now.

Between immigration and birth rates, people of African, Hispanic and Asian ancestry are increasing faster than people from people of Northern European ancestry.

It really shouldn't be an issue, everyone will be an American after all, except we have some politicians and a party that has sold its future for current advantage.

Trying to convince "white" Americans that they are in some sort of danger and need to adopt restrictive voting measures, stringent immigration strategies, and other measures to maintain their control is short sighted.

Even Republicans realize they need to expand their appeal to more minorities, but that becomes a bit of a conflict with the current repressive approach.

Generally more and more voters are not registering with either party, but minority voters are not trending in favor of Republicans.

Considering the trends this is a recipe for disaster for them but while the inevitable looms, they rely on an aging base.

The "victory" in the last presidential election was by the slimmest of margins in a few states that swayed the electoral college.

Repeating that will be almost impossible and will continue to get more and more difficult.

Any Farfetched Theory Will Do

Watching the current situation in Washington, it seems like the administration is simply floating any theory it can think of hoping one will stick.

The primary theory seems to revolve around proving some sort of conspiracy where the deep state, foreign countries and anyone else they can think of conspired to defeat Trump.

Obviously they didn't do it well, primarily because they didn't do it well.

The fact that enough voters held their nose and voted for the Republican candidate because they were fed so many lies and conspiracies about his opponent led to a electoral college victory while he was thumped in the popular vote.

No one conspired against him except maybe himself, as no one thought he was going to win in the first place.

The assistance he got from foreign governments (Russia), Wiki leaks, the FBI, and to some extent the progressive part of the Democratic party allowed him a victory which was more accident than historic.

Why would there be a conspiracy?

It would have been silly at the time.

Helping People, Radical?

One of the main themes of the upcoming election is that some of the candidates are just too radical for America.

Providing everyone with health care, the right to love anyone you want, the right to control your own body, the idea that income should be more equally distributed, humane treatment of immigrants and refugees are some of the radical ideas attacked

In sum one party is saying we can't afford it as a country or certainly can't afford it for non-citizens.

All of this while some people are amassing wealth that would embarrass the robber barons of the past.

Economic conditions in this country have actually deteriorated for the majority of people while improving for others.

It is a skill based technology based world where many of the things that were simply taken for granted about employment no longer are givens.

Good medical care, and adequate pension, job security are mainly things of the past or things reserved for the few, not the many.

Our employer based system for providing them has been collapsing as technology and greed has reduced benefits and driven up employee contributions.

The idea that it is radical to want everyone in this country to have access to health care and everyone an opportunity to retire with dignity is, well, radical itself.

The country is wealthy because of its people, all its people, both new and old.

They all should share in it.

Tough Audience

If I don't trust you I'm not going to believe much of what you say.

In much of Rural America, experience has taught them that politicians can't be trusted.

They have generally seen declines in many areas important to them because of the ongoing economic trends in the country and the world.

A lot of manufacturing that provided jobs has gone away unable to compete with cheaper imports.

Medical care has become more expensive and difficult to obtain as the number of medical professionals in these areas have declined.

Young people have opted to move to bigger cities where there is more opportunity.

The country as a whole seems to have abandoned some of their basic core values concerning religion and sexual preferences.

Illegal immigration has led to increases in crime, welfare and a general attack on their way of life, at least as they see it.

They are older, angrier and certain that America has lost its way.

When they hear promises about universal health care, taxing the wealthy, reducing student debt, none of it resonates with them, it just sounds like bigger government and more taxes.

They don't support impeachment and probably never will.

Medicare Fixes?

It seems like our President is about to announce his plan to make Medicate more affordable and sustainable.

It seems to consist of a number of actions, none of which can be forced.

The primary driver would be to expand telecare.  This is a system that I think it fairly universal in health plans already, where you can call a number to get medical advice.

It does reduce cost but only if people use it instead of actual visits.  We are talking about Medicare and many of the senior are unlikely to switch to an automated system, at least no in enough number to impact spiraling costs very much. Still doing something that health plans already do is about as innovative as this administration gets.

The other ideas involve getting health companies to share some of their profits with subscribers and reducing payments to those negotiated in some Medicare advantage plans.

There is nothing wrong in any of this except it is probably going to have almost no actual impact.

It will be hyped as the greatest reform ever, but when you look behind the curtain there is only a sad little man pulling the levers.

The Big Lie

There is so much lying going on in Washington right now that it is hard to  weed them out and get to the truth.  It is likely a deliberate policy and designed to throw everything into some level of confusion for those not paying a lot of attention.

Oddly despite clear evidence a certain number of the public believe things that are contrary to what their own leadership admits.

Simply put, if you believe that people are spreading lies about the President, you disregard almost everything.

Of course we have some wild accusations being spread by the administration which once again is designed to make everything seem questionable.

It was  tactic used by various totalitarian regimes, the big lie.

Take Germany's invasion of Poland, which was claimed by the Germans to be self defense.

As ludicrous as that seems it was in line with other lies they had gotten away with concerning how Germans in other countries were being oppressed under foreign regimes.

The Russian rolled out that lie about the Crimea.

The know not everyone will believe it, but they only need enough to cause inaction.

Its the same tactic about the administration misbehavior.  Of course he sees a real possibility of losing the electoral vote this time as well as the popular vote.

Its close to desperation time.

Alternate Realities

As the truth about the President's malfeasance sinks in with the American public, his defenders are trying to revive the old hits from the past, especially related to Hillary Clinton.

Of course she isn't even in the current race and the attempts to deflect attention are unlikely to succeed.

First, because her use of a private server indicated no actual leak of classified information.

She  never colluded with a foreign poser to try to steal an election.

Sometimes the old standards just don't work anymore.

The only real question is, after the other disgraceful things he managed to get away with, talking degradingly about women on tape, using derogatory language on tape, insulting war heroes and gold star families, spreading lies and misinformation about many things, including immigrants and supporting racists and white nationalists, is this enough to bring him down?

That remains to be seen, but it will probably have to happen quickly to be effective, the more time passes the more he comes up with alternate versions of reality.

Impeachable Offenses?

The constitution uses the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in talking about impeachment.

What this actually means is debatable.  Treason and bribery, which are also mentioned are fairly clear.

One definition is that an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is.  This may seem a bit arbitrary but is it really?

It probably is the best definition since the body that determines the ultimate definition is in fact the legislature.

So if a majority of the House feels certain acts are indeed within the definition they are correct.

It is up to them.  Of course before that we can and will have a lot of discussion and whether the Senate agrees is a different issue entirely.

Whistleblower and Hearsay, So?

One of the things about hearsay is that it is, by itself, of questionable value, since it is one persons account of what another person said.  It is generally inadmissible in court cases since the person doing the actual talking should be the one questioned, not someone who heard him/her.

However, hearsay is certainly constantly used in investigations and other matters, providing a path to determine who needs to be investigated, or questioned.

Some are attacking the whistleblower report because it relies to a large extent on hearsay.

Since the purpose of a whistleblower report is to alert others to possible bad behavior, hearsay is certainly acceptable since it will be the results of the investigation that matter.

We have the transcript of the call that was the heart of the whistleblower complaint and it verifies the hearsay in the complaint.

It is part of the process to uncover corruption and it worked.

Improper Behavior

It is hard to judge whether we live in particularly bad times considering the behavior of our public officials.

What is clear is that we have more information than they did in the past, so for instance, we know almost instantly when they do something.

In the past there would be a delay.

In the days before television and maybe radio, news was slower and a bit more filtered.

Many of our public officials engaged in certain behavior which was essentially ignored by the media of the time.

Nothing is currently ignored.

The past of course had its own corruption and feuds.  Famously John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were bitter rivals.  Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel over comments about his character.

Our history is filled with politicians lining their own pockets and engaging in questionable practices.

Some were clearly better than others but even in recent times we have had Presidents with questionable histories and behaviors.  

The current incumbent has a history of sexist behavior, improper business dealings and ongoing lying and paranoia.

Is he the worst ever?  Like I said, its hard to judge, but he is in the running.

Clueless Leadership

There was a report that in some private conversation or communication, the administration told the Iranian President that if he agreed to negotiations we would lift all sanctions.  Once the report came out it was denied by the administration.

The problem is that the Iranian regime, for all their fundamentalist beliefs and enmity to Israel, have more credibility than our administration does.

Was this offer made?  I don't know but thinking about it, probably.

The administrations foreign policy efforts have almost no successes.  We and the world are in worse shape than we were before the last election.

North Korea scored a major propaganda coup and has continued to develop its weapons.

We withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal and have nothing with which to replace it.  Our sanctions are hurting Iran but we have seen drones shot down, oil fields attacked and tankers seized.

Our allies don't agree with many of our positions and it shows.

We have allowed China the inside track on trade in the Pacific by leaving the trade agreement.

Whatever our interests are in Venezuela, we are not achieving them.

Russia continues to expand and interfere.  We have embarrassed the Ukraine.

The administration was embarrassed by a teenage girl at the UN and really want's something to distract the public it can call a victory.

Would they have proposed such a deal in private?  I'm sure they would, but they can't pull off private very well either.