Korea - Vietnam

The meeting with North Korea in Vietnam didn't result in any progress on de-nuclearization and it wasn't likely to.

North Korea has achieved most of what it wanted just getting treated as an equal giving it great propaganda at home.

While clearly it would be in the country's best interest to agree to de-nuclearize in exchange for an end of sanctions, the dictator is only interested in his own grasp on power.

Opening up the country to outside influences isn't likely to help in that respect, what does help is his propaganda showing him standing up to the Americans.

As much as his people are deprived of many things we take for granted, they aren't generally aware of how much worse off they are, and seeing their leader on the World Stage gives them a sense of patriotism.

Our president has a similar motivation, but it should be obvious by now that he is generally outclassed by most people he deals with.

One could argue whether this was predictable based on his somewhat spotty career as a developer and business man.

He did at times make deals and in a few instances the deals worked out.  However he didn't build an empire our of nothing, he started with a significant base and pretty early on played the publicity game making his name a bit of a commodity that has been worth a fair amount.

His goal of getting North Korea to denuclearize is not actually achievable and his belief that suspending testing is a great victory is questionable, since they might not need more testing to get what they were aiming for.

Still, as predictable as this outcome was, it was probably worth a try.

Congressional Hearing

The testimony of Michael Cohen was interesting overall but not unexpected.

We saw a pretty accomplished "fixer" respond to various attacks on his character with pretty straightforward answers.

What was predictable was that republican after republican tried to attack the previous close associate of the current president as a man of questionable character, which is certainly true, but he was a close associate of the president for that very reason.

Still there is no credible reason that the documents and testimony are falsified.

I don't see that the testimony today is going to change many minds about the situation.  There was already plenty of evidence about the activities of the campaign and while some details remain to be revealed we have plenty of indictments and guilty pleas to see that the group was hardly full of upstanding characters.

Is there sufficient evidence to prove the president was aware of and directing the bad deeds?

Maybe not enough for the true believers but from a common sense point of view, there is plenty.

Science vs Superstition

We live in an era where many of the things that used to kill us are not much of a threat, assuming we follow prevalent advice.

Of course from our earliest days we tried to overcome injuries and illnesses via use of people who claimed to have certain abilities or communion with spirits.  Some of the things they did with herbs and other remedies actually had beneficial effects, since trial and error often led to moderately effective treatments.

However, they often used a hit or miss approach with no guarantee of success and like many current charlatans noted their successes without ever mentioning their failures.
Once in a while they used techniques that actually were likely to do more harm then good.

While there is evidence going back to ancient times of applied medical techniques using a more scientific approach, it was in the modern era that we developed the technology and infrastructure to effectively eliminate many diseases that had been a scourge to humanity.

Our life expectancy has greatly increased and many diseases that used to be largely fatal are now not.

Unless of course we ignore science and rely on superstitious remedies.

I was reading the story of a young boy who died from diabetes because his family decided to trust a herbalist who told them Insulin is poison.  It isn't.

We see people refusing vaccines because of inaccurate information or studies that have been discredited  because they don't understand or trust the science.

Yes some corporations might make unseemly profits providing drugs, but we do have ways to verify the effectiveness of those drugs.

Sometimes promises are made by non-traditional practitioners that seem too good to be true.  They are.

It is easy to believe that a complex problem has a simple solution that relies of some mystical belief.  If the ancients knew all the cures for everything, why didn't everything get cured?

Venezuela Crisis

What is going to be the final outcome in  Venezuela and certainly there are lots of questions related to the validity of the last election there, but I find it curious that our administration seems most upset by the fact that they have a semi-socialist economy.

Even more curious is the fact that while we are demanding regime change in Venezuela, Air Force One is heading towards a meeting with a certified brutal dictator who our dontard seems to like.

Venezuela is a country in crisis, both economically and politically and it is certainly possible that the best solution is regime change.

Still its unclear if US involvement is going to have a negative or positive impact on a solution.  Many Latin Americans remember the days when the US tried to dictate to them and felt free to intervene.

It might be the one thing that guarantees that the current regime stays in power if this anti-American interventionist spirit takes hold.

We may be heading towards an active US military intervention which is unlikely to result in a quick solution to the problems there.

Since we no longer recognize the current regime, its hard to envision any other solution.

Unfortunately military intervention is probably not really a solution at all.

Propaganda

I was watching a video of a group of children who confronted Senator Feinstein in her office to ask her to vote for the Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal is a proposal that goes way beyond climate change and in fact has some fairly radical ideas.  Each of these ideas is worthy of consideration but to package them together and demand an all or nothing response is actually harmful to meaningful climate legislation.

Opposing the Green New Deal is not opposing climate change and in some ways the idea of attaching climate change to some of the other proposals is almost designed to result in failure.

The propaganda move of sending a group of schoolchildren who were clearly coached to say certain things to try to undermine a prominent democratic senator, who by the way is not up for re-election for quite a while is clearly part of some agenda.

The question is who's?

Since the result doesn't actually advance the cause of climate change it might very well be logical to assume it was organized by climate change opponents.

It could also be just misguided progressives, who would rather fail than achieve modest success.

In fact the confrontation, if that is even an accurate word for what happened, was clearly staged to get a negative reaction.  The first video posted was a poor representation of what actually happened.  Further, one has to ask what makes anyone think that schoolchildren between the ages of 10 and 16 or so are experts?

I admire that they are concerned about climate change but they were used to get an effect here and listening to them say pre-coached phrases was pure theatre.

We need to address the issues of climate change and negotiate what we can in the current legislature.  We also need to take action on an individual basis.

We don't need to set up total failure.

Saturday Ramblings

The crisis on the Southern Border seems pretty quiet today.  What day of the crisis is this?

Real crisis going on in Puerto Rico but apparently the President doesn't want to address it.  Over a year now.

Weather for any given day is just a data point while climate is a function of that data.  Still seems like we are seeing plenty of odd data points every year. (sorry if that brings back bad math memories)

Sheriffs in rural Washington State don't want to enforce the new gun laws passed in a referendum.  So do they think everyone can pick and choose what laws to follow?

Supreme Court just said unreasonable fines constitutional protections apply to the States.  About time.  Some of the seizures were simply outrageous.

The Governments are forced to find ways to raise money that isn't identified as a tax, although of course by definition it all is.  We have more and more supplemental tax cameras that take a picture of you doing something and sending you a bill for turning on red or speeding etc.  Now, while it wasn't close to perfect I did think having those enforced by humans added a bit of common sense into the process that is missing now.

What I find interesting is that in addition to the fines, a lot of places now add court admin fees to the cost.  What is the fine use for?  Seems like double dipping to me.  Guess the fine money was already spent.

One of the problems is that many local governments are saddled with obligations made by their predecessors. Often pension promises are underfunded and not getting better.  It is a problem that has to be solved but it should be solved transparently, not is shadowy seizures and fines.

There are no easy answers but kicking the problem down the road isn't an answer at all.

Filling Air Time

It always interesting to watch political pundits talk about the future and what is going to happen.

They get much more wrong than they get right.

I would wonder how many thought, four years ago, that our current President would even be a serious contender?

Still, I see them arguing over who would be the best candidate to run for the Democrats in 2020 and what he/she will need to do to win.

It can be interesting, but essentially its just filler, since whatever they say now simply doesn't matter.

In fact I sometimes think that with all the analysis and information we see or hear that the business of analysis is a self serving industry.

The cable channels have tie to fill and they find people willing to fill it.

Many, if not most of these people would be effectively invisible to most of us otherwise.

Yes, someone may be a professor of political theory at a University, but the academic career that qualified you for that position is unlikely to make you an expert prognosticator.

The eventual candidate may be someone we aren't even considering now and his/her ability to win will depend on how voters view the contenders.

Its simple but largely unknown at this time.

Still we will see this discussed over and over again simply because it fills air time.

Capitalism and Taxes

While people are generally governed to a large extent by self interest, it isn't often that self interest and the good of the country don't go well together.

It was called the invisible hand of economics and the idea is that everybody pursuing what is best for them will result in the overall best result.

There are some problems with that, the different level of power and influence being the main one, but generally it works pretty well and is to a large extent the basis of capitalism.

No other system has in fact produced greater economic well being than capitalism.  We do have to remember that capitalism is in fact an economic system, not a social one.

Since it does in fact generate the most wealth it provides the greatest tax base.

This is where capitalism as an economic system needs to serve the greater needs of society.

It is never generally in anyone's best economic interest to fund social programs, at lest not directly.  Of course it does help stabilize society and make economic pursuits safer.

This leads to the question of what tax levels should we have to fund social programs?

Well economically it should be the largest amount that doesn't impact economic growth.

Since economic growth is the engine that drives the economy we don't want to kill it, but a tax rate is a funny thing as far as motivation goes.

At every tax rate, a capitalist will engage in activities that are profitable.

We hear some proposals talking about Tax rates as high as 70%.  We had those during some of our most prosperous times.  We have now made it possible for those who have been helped the most by this country to pay a much smaller share in the name of tax relief.

Creating an environment for success is essential but tax rates are seldom much of a factor.  Funding the programs that promotes the good of the many over the few is the role of government.

News?

Sometimes we give coverage to stories that really don't deserve any.
 
Often assumptions are made about the motivations that are purely speculative and usually wrong.

For example there was a short to do in some papers over a picture of Prom going boys, some of whom looked like they were giving a NAZI salute.  Of course it was also a good interpretation that they froze their arms in the picture when they were just waving.

Looking for the worst in things has become a universal occupation, as people hunt and hope to find something that gets them a few minutes of fame on social media.

Once in a while they find something legitimate but much of the time it is simply a misinterpretation.

Must of what you see on the Internet is simply wrong.

It is simply not held up to any particular standards unless of course it is published by one of the traditional media sources.

Its not much different than it always was, when rumors would get circulated that had little or no basis in fact, sometimes to promote a cause, except that with social media, word of mouth is so much faster.

Its basically how the Russians influenced the last election by posting purely fictitious items and having them spread rapidly without any verification.

This does create a lot of fake news, but not the fake news that the President talks about, he wants to categorize legitimate news as fake news.

In fact, he spreads a lot of fake news himself as much as he lies.

Unfortunately determining what is and what isn't fake becomes our responsibility and we are simply not very good at it.

There are real facts out there, just might be hard to find them.

The Power of the Purse

I find it very hard to understand anyone who thinks we have a crisis or emergency at our southern border.

Yes some migrants try to cross illegally, generally to then claim asylum after they surrender.

No documented terrorists have been found to cross that way, although of course the possibility can't be ignored.  Still we don't have instances of terrorist acts committed by people crossing that border illegally.

There have been some crimes, and sometimes violent crimes committed by undocumented aliens, but these are actually pretty rare and the fact that they people were undocumented aliens is not much of a factor.

We have plenty of news coverage of what is going on at the border and the main issues concern the safety of people trying to seek asylum and a better life in this country.

The problem is that we have a chief executive who was searching for some excuse to grab some money to build a useless wall and is misusing an act meant to facilitate action in real emergencies.

This needs to be fixed, because that is Pandora's box once it is opened.

The constitution requires appropriations to be made by the congress, because the power of the purse strings is the best way to control a wayward executive.

If that line is crossed we may find ourselves going further and further into tyranny.

It has happened, unfortunately, many time throughout history and we need to nip it in the bud.

There are simple solutions that would allow quick response in real emergencies and still preserve the constitution.  Simply requiring any such declaration to be ratified by congress within a reasonable time would do the trick.

It obviously isn't something they can pass right now, but it needs to happen.

President's Day

February has a National Holiday honoring our first President, George Washington, although it is called President's Day by most people.

The holiday is most closely associated with Washington and Lincoln, although to some degree we celebrate all the Presidents.

To most Americans, the past presidents are not very memorable with a few exceptions.  Many of them are hardly remembered.  At the time of his election William Henry Harrison was a war hero but he only served 31 days before dying of pneumonia and is best remembered for that.

Each of the Presidents rose to the highest office in the land based on accomplishments, but those actions are generally forgotten with a few exceptions.

What did happen, over the years, is that the President was given more ability to act by the Congress because of the potential need for quick response in emergencies.

This accretion of powers has to some extent changed the balance of power in America from what was originally intended.  While different in form, most of the founding fathers probably had something like Parliament in men.  In England the executive power is almost totally subjugated to the Parliament.

We have evolved differently here, and not necessarily in a good way.  The current President is clearly abusing some powers granted to his office and while it is offensive to see the powers abused, it may result in a needed correction to the proper balance.

The power of the people is inherent in the Congress where many more diverse viewpoints exist.

Survivors

There are some quite popular shows about events that basically destroy civilization as we know it and highlight the difficulties faced by the survivors.

The event causing the apocalypse are varied from a zombie apocalypse to an pandemic that wipes out most of the population.

The shows focus on the survivors and ignores the billions who perished.

The popularity of these shows varies and some actually have approached the issue from a comedic point of view.

Watching these shows is pretty entertaining, but I would like to note that we also have access to the real thing in some places.

Consider Syria where war has reduced much of the country to a post apocalyptic wasteland creating refugees and ongoing atrocities.  Not entertaining and all too real.

Or places devastated by natural disasters like Puerto Rico or Haiti.

If you watch news coverage of those events you might notice being a survivor is generally not as adventurous as depicted on some of these shows.

There are actually plenty of people who could help the refugees and victims in other parts of the world.

Some do of course but most don't.

In fact we are almost as invisible as the billions wiped out in our popular shows.

To the extent we are not zombies trying to eat their brains I guess its better.

Not much though.

Incentives

Sometimes I hear well meaning people talk about things that they obviously don't understand.  They make statements such as "That money should be used for community incentives instead of a corporate incentive".  Of course this implies that the money actually exists.  Almost all incentives are a reduction of taxes or fees that would otherwise have to be paid.  If the project doesn't happen there is no money at all, in fact there is less money.

Take the Amazon deal that is now not happening in New York.  It would have created about 25,000 jobs and would have redeveloped an area that is currently underutilized.  Yes to some extent it would have led to some disruptions of people living there, but it would have provided a strong tax base in the area, created all those jobs, created all the secondary jobs, increased the need for housing and in exchange they would have received about $3 billion in incentives.

Yes they are a rich company and maybe they don't need incentives but now that they cancelled the deal, the incentives won't happen, but neither will all the other things.  So New York doesn't have $3 billion to spend, they have less taxes and less income taxes for the indefinite future.

It means there is less money to spend on schools, and other priorities as well as less jobs in general.

Is this a better outcome than having a thriving business in Long Island City that would employ tens of thousands and pay direct and indirect taxes for the foreseeable future?

That is probably a matter of opinion, but what is clear is that the incentive money actually doesn't exist without the deal.

There are no spoils from this victory.  Just less all around.

National Emergency?

There is a situation on the Southern Border that has been going on a long time.

It isn't really getting worse, in fact by most accounts it has been getting better.

Still the dontard is determined to act like this is an emergency and try to use money intended for other purposes to build a silly wall.

To the extent this is likely to fail, it is probably just a stunt to fire up the anti-immigration part of his base.

These are the people convinced that having Spanish as an option on automated phone systems is somehow a threat to their liberty.

This is not something new in American history.

From the earliest times there were people who decried how new immigrants were destroying the American way.

Wave after wave of immigrants were greeted by some with distrust and hate even as they built this great country to what it is today.

We wouldn't have settled the west or built our great cities without them, but each wave was going to destroy our values.

Oddly, the immigrants we object to now actually share a lot with us already, at least historically, being from American countries that revolted against a European master and who won their freedom.

In some ways they aren't much different than the waves of poor Americans who fled the dust bowl and southern poverty over the years

They are just on the other side of a border created by events they had nothing to do with.

Emergency?  The only thing that comes close is our failure to act like good neighbors and extend a helping hand.

Straws

It looks like a border wall has become more of a symbolic issue than a real issue.

It is clear to almost everyone that it will have little or no impact on the so called issues brought up about the border.

It may deter some casual crossers, if any exist, but you have to remember that the border is already protected by natural barriers that aren't crossed casually now.

It is such a long border that the people, the coyotes, who currently arrange crossings and profit handsomely will find ways under or over it for profit.

It will not deter terrorists or drug traffickers who already use other mean to enter the country.

Still it has become a rallying cry for people even as it has no real value.

It is likely to stay with us until the current occupant of the white house is replaced

Its easier than espousing real solutions that are probably too complex for many.

It may or may not inspire certain anti-immigration groups to get out and vote.

It may not work.

Its simply one of the straws they are grasping.

Is it working?

When the Democrats won control of the House, many people thought this is going to make congress even more dysfunctional. 

It would make sense, one party controlling the House, the Senate and the Presidency, versus two.

However early results indicate mote seems to be getting done rather than less.

Yes we did have a long Government shutdown, but the agreement was actually negotiated in the time allotted and we are likely to avoid another.

I noticed that an environmental bill and land management bill passed with near unanimity when they could come close last session.

It is of course too early to be certain, but it makes sense when you think about it.

When the Republicans controlled both houses, they didn't feel the need to include Democrats in the early process, only presenting them with a take it or leave it proposition.  They generally didn't take it and because of Senate rules you had to get at least some of them on-board.

Now, they have joined the process and by inputting into the process actually help create a negotiated agreement.

Even in cases where that agreement is about the same as the one that a single party would have developed, it is more likely to pass since they participated.  

Its how the process is supposed to work.

Nature

I was watching a show about packs of painted wolves in Africa and how they interact and hunt.

What wasn't clear near until nearly the end that everything that was happening was happening in a nature preserve surrounded by human habitation.

Yes in most ways they live as they always have, the animals, but they have limited range and are endangered.

Its very hard to find areas on this planet not being taken over by humans or at least not changed by us.

The oceans, as vast as they seem, now have huge islands of plastic garbage from us.  We have been devising ways to clean them up but of course it would have been easier not to create them in the first place.

Polar bears have recently infested a remote area in Siberia where humans live because the melting ice is destroying their habitat.  I don't imagine this will end well for the bears.

This isn't totally new, humans have been altering the environment since very early on, we just have now achieved worldwide capabilities.

In many cases its too late, a lot of species are simply gone and not coming back.

Nature is not kind.  It really operates on a survival of the fittest concept where the ability of a species to exploit another is generally limited to its own survival.  If you eliminate your food source you starve so over time the natural order ended up in a state of equilibrium.

Humans have gone outside of nature and converted habitats for our use.

We have sort of gotten away with it so far, although a fair number of modern ailments may be the result of our activity.

We can't get away with it forever, or can we?

Domestic Security

Negotiations are under way to avoid another Government shutdown and right now things aren't looking too good, at least according to some of the participants.

The only real issue comes down to funding for the wall that was a campaign promise of sorts.

Of course that promise included a promise that we wouldn't have to pay for it, which has apparently been forgotten.

Is a wall a good thing?

In certain areas we already have barriers and in other areas we rely more or less on the terrain to deter border crossings.

We are talking about thousands of mile of border, much of it quite inhospitable.

Certainly, people can be transported to the border in those areas and can cross, usually with the hope of being apprehended and applying for asylum.

The vase majority of these immigrants simply want an opportunity to plead their cases.

The other ones, the drug dealers and possibly terrorists, have better ways to cross, they can afford it.

You are really talking about two different worlds, that of the desperate immigrant looking for a better life and that of a criminal looking to make more money.

There have been many ways that drugs have gotten into this country and I can guarantee that long treks across inhospitable stretches of desert is not very popular, there are many easier ways.

Similarly, most terrorists simply fly into this country using various visas.  That's for terrorists that come from outside the country, we have always had our home grown ones.

Domestic security is important, but generally it is not tied into events on our southern border specifically.

Those people aren't the threat.

Brick and Mortar

What is the future of Brick and Mortar stores?

Clearly Internet shopping has hurt them and will continue to do so, but are they in fact doomed or will they simply evolve?

The answer is obviously dependent on a number of things, but it seems that they are starting to evolve.

They are already in many cases serving as a local pick up option for on-line buying.

The one advantage they have, or one of the advantages is the ability to get an item instantly.

You go, you see, you buy, you have it.

Even with some incredible technology on-line requires a certain waiting period.

Even if you are ordering on-line, the ability to pick up the item at a brick and mortar location can be persuasive.

They may have to improve this option, I have used it in the past at a number of locations and they weren't particularly well run.

Sears in particular seemed onerous when I used them, and once you get an e-mail saying it is ready for pick up, you shouldn't have to wait once you arrive.

Sears is going to be saved in some reduced version and whether they can be a going concern may provide the answer to the question about brick and mortar stores, or maybe they are just beyond salvation.

I will say that other stores were generally better than them although they all have some issues.

It would seem that to capitalize on the fact that you have the customer in the store, you might want to have them in the store instead of some remote pick-up location.

I digress.  One area the brick and mortar stores offer is the sense of a place to gather.  You don't really do a lot of on-line shopping in a group.  Malls are already further evolving into a place with more amenities and a more pleasant environment.  Food courts are not the only option anymore.

I think at least some brick and mortar establishments survive and even thrive.  On-line shopping is here to stay, but as a place for social interaction, instant gratification and on-line distribution, they are filling functions that can't be replicated easily.

Immigration

I find it a bit strange who many people who romanticize the shiploads of immigrants that used to come by ship to Ellis Island, act like a van load of immigrants on the border is a crisis.

They may cross the border illegally, but it is perfectly legal to request asylum.

They aren't terrorists or criminals, at least not more than any other random group, and most statistics indicate less.

Of course they are the clear cut leaders in immigration law violations.

The fervor over immigration is simply misguided.

We should have a way for people who want to come here, to come here legally, we need immigrants to fill jobs and help with our demographics.

Our current system is simply bad for everyone, costly, punitive, and in some cases cruel.

Its also pretty unfair in how its applied.

There will be additional border security of some sort based on the current negotiations.

Wouldn't be a problem if we opened up a broader path to letting hard working people immigrate.

Screen out the undesirables, we have always done that.

Speaking a different language doesn't make you undesirable, it makes you interesting.

Green New Deal

The sweeping reach of the proposal called the Green New Deal is probably going to make it problematic.

Of course the future is going to be green, it just depends on how we get there.

Tying the conversion to renewable energy to many other progressive issues may not be the best way to get there, unless of course the public accepts it.

The comparison to the new deal is also a bit problematic.

The new deal was enacted because of the Great Depression that created a true crisis in America and it did introduce some lasting programs.

Many of its initiatives were also found unconstitutional and subsequently reversed.

The adoption of affordable renewable energy is something we should be pursuing both because it is an industry of the future and good for the environment and our health.

Guaranteed health care for all is also a worthwhile goal as are the other initiatives, but lumping them all together gives too many failure points.

Its a bit unclear if the proposals by the Democrats include all the points outlined here,https://www.gp.org/gnd_full but by using the same language as the Green Party the assumption is it does.

We need renewable energy and it should be a goal we invest in to save the planet and future generations.

It shouldn't be encumbered by all the other items, which are by themselves quite controversial.

Blackface and ?

There's been a recent rash of instances where certain white politicians in Virginia have admitted to using black face in the past.

One of them also had a picture which may or may not have been him in his yearbook with a person in black face and a person in a Ku Klux Klan outfit in it.  There was no caption.

These incidents happened quite a few years ago and are considered racist, apparently.

The two admitted two incidents were performances, where they portrayed a black artist in some amateur type performance or at a costume party.

First, I have never, as far as I remember, ever put on black face, but I know that in at least one elementary school play many years ago we had a performance where some of us portrayed Native Americans and some of us portrayed Cowboys and make up was used.  Think we acted out a fake encounter while doing some very bad singing and dancing and mostly we were embarrassed.  However, it never had anything to do with racism, whatever our opinions were in those days about Native Americans were pretty much based on movies and TV in the Bronx.

I have seen movies where minstrel shows were portrayed and the cast were in black face and of course in the Jazz Singer we see a pretty famous performance involving black face.  Accepting that racism was pretty widespread in those years, it never seemed to me that these portrayals had anything to do with it, or in fact anything to do with actual black people.

So what I'm trying to figure out is why portraying a black artist in a private event is in fact racist.

Both portrayals were probably at best terrible but the intent wasn't to degrade the people portrayed, they were actually emulating them.

If a drag queen dresses up as Cher, is that some sort of anti-female act, or is it just entertainment?

I'm not advocating the use of black face but after all it is just make up and the message conveyed wearing it would be the more important thing.

It is certainly getting a lot of time on various news channels but it just seems like something done by young stupid (being young and stupid is redundant) people who don't seem to have had any bad intent.

Is it worth all this angst?

State of the Union

Just didn't get much out of the State of the Union address that I wasn't already aware of.

It just seems that most of the positive trends started under the previous administration and have continued despite current efforts.  Obviously that not completely true, but considering how little has been done in the last two years, its true more than false.

The economy is doing OK, not great, just OK.  It was in free fall in 2008 and 2009 and the actions designed to save it worked, although not immediately.  Also some areas are going to be permanently changed and the low skilled high paid manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past.  Most of those people have been forced to find lower paying service jobs which has reduced their standard of living.  Skilled people are in fact doing well, but they already were.

What is needed is a push to open new industries for the future and provide better skills training in our schools.

We just don't have a border crisis and the efforts to say we do are simply misspent effort.  We do have a potential infrastructure crisis, and we need to start fixing it, but so far despite rhetoric, no significant progress has been made.

What's going on in foreign policy is a real mixed bag and the war against ISIS is hardly over.  The strategies of the last two years were continuation of what we were already doing.  We may have prompted some additional NATO spending, or else it was prompted by more uncertainty in Europe. We see Russia continue its aggressive policies and we have pulled out of a nuclear treaty that may have been ineffective but now its non-existent.  In Asia, we have heightened tensions with China in Trade and territory disputes and maybe some improvement with North Korea (or maybe not).

We haven't seen any real progress in health care or prescription drugs and its unlikely that we will.  I hope I am wrong on this but I don't think I am.

He asked for bipartisanship but his view of that is that everyone do what he wants.

He touched on some hot button issues like abortion, making the courts more conservative, reducing regulations that are clearly partisan issues.  He seems to be aware that he has to reach our a bit past his base if he hopes to get re-elected, but not sure he knows how.

Time will tell.

Who Benefits

Your perception of things is clearly influenced by your environment.

If you look at color coded maps of the last presidential election you see a solid block of red in large areas with blue on the coasts and Illinois.

Many of the red states do not have major metropolitan areas.  They do have cities, an generally the cities show up as little blue islands if you expand the map, but the cities do not dominate those states.

In a city the benefits of Government are most evident.  They may not be as effective as people would want but if you consider the anarchy that would occur in the absence of Government you realize how needed it is.

In the country you can imagine a world without Government, although they generally depend on it more than they realize.

Nevertheless, less Government is appealing and certainly the appeal of lower taxes attracts many.

Its fairly easy for them to believe that a lot of the taxes they pay end up subsidizing undeserving people in those very cities, although the statistics show a different story.

The states that get back less than they pay to the Federal Government are mostly those blue states. You can see the numbers in the article I linked to.

States Net Benefit

The idea that big Government is mostly benefitting the undeserving is of course a myth that is perpetrated.

It really doesn't.

Infrastructure Repair

One of the things we all rely on but which might not be as reliable as it should be is the infrastructure on which our transportation rests.

It is a bipartisan issue that impacts everyone in many ways.

It certainly has more payoff than a useless wall on the border.

We don't actually ignore infrastructure, as anyone who has been stuck in traffic due to a work zone, but we aren't fixing it or building new infrastructure fast enough.

The problem is simply money.

The last time the federal excise tax on gasoline was increased was 1993.  It has been 18.4 cents a gallon and while not one wants to increase the cost of gasoline, it might be needed after 25 years.

Less potholes or a wall on the southern border.

I know what I would prefer.

Robin Hood Democrats?

Most of us are aware of the story of Robin Hood, a person who robbed from the rich to give to the poor.

While most likely fictional, it has resonated over the years as a popular story and has inspired a number of books and movies.

This popular legend resonates because it was pretty clear that the rich of that time exploited the labor of the serfs who worked their lands.

The rich exploiting the poor is something that has happened almost everywhere almost always.

It has led to significant disruptions, think the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution to name two.

However the system has always ultimately reverted back to this model, as some of us manage to excel and surpass the rest of us in acquiring wealth.

I don't think too many of us object to the people who do this, like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet.  They managed to create their own money and they certainly have the right to enjoy it.

What strikes many as unfair is how profits are distributed among those who generate them.  If you look at the statistics you see a number of trends which basically tell you the rich get richer and the poor are standing still at best.

One example would be CEO pay vs average worker pay.  In 1965 CEO's made about 25 times what the average worker made.  On average they now make closer to 200 times as much.  Have CEO's become that much better?

The problem of wage inequality is further compounded by the wealth inequality.  The average American has seen his wealth increase except of course the average hides a disturbing fact.  All that increase went to those in the upper percentiles while those in the bottom saw wealth stay the same or even decrease.

In the last election we saw the current President tap into the discontent this has sown by promising  to reverse that trend, however he has passed a tax bill that increases is.

The next election may see a whole different populist approach to fixing the problem, call it the Robin Hood one, or if you oppose it you might call it a socialist approach.

We'll see.

How About a Big Fan?

Why are we building a wall on the Southern Border when the Polar Vortex just crossed our Northern Border and was responsible for major disruptions and multiple deaths?

At this time of year I would much rather have weather cross into this country over our Southern Border!

I was thinking about how to stop something like these weather events when we get invaded by cold from the north in the winter and various nasty events from the south in the summer.

Why not a wall of border fans?

It wouldn't probably have any impact on the weather but it would make us feel like we were trying and who is going to run thought a bunch of spinning blades to sneak across the border?

They would have to be reversible so we could blow hot or cold, depending.

I suspect it might impact some migratory animals but I'm sure we can deal with that.

Just blow that Polar Vortex back to where it belongs.

Use warm Mexican weather to combat it, could be part of a trade agreement.

Canada could return the favor in the summer.

Since both would benefit, I'm sure they would be happy to finance the fan walls!

It is pretty clearly something that won't actually work, and it would be very expensive to build and maintain, but it isn't the first such proposal!

Certainly seems easier than actually working the underlying issues impacting climate change.

Scorecard 2

This is a continuation of sorts of my evaluations from yesterday.

In the environmental arena the administration maintains that the impact of human activity is not as significant as almost all scientists maintain.  They have rolled back what they consider unnecessary anti-competitive restrictions that were designed to reduce global warming.  In addition they have withdrawn from the Paris accord which they felt penalized America.  Many of these action's are being challenged in the courts and almost all of it was done by executive order or agency policy.  It hasn't resulted in a revival of the coal industry, one of the stated aims.  To the extent the executive orders stick, they may have helped some industries who explore and exploit carbon reserves, but generally much of what they were trying to do is happening because of economic forces.  With natural gas being cheaper and cleaner, few new coal plants are being built.

Health Care has been an area where they have been unable to achieve their stated objectives, namely to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  Whether that was a worthwhile goal is another question.  They admittedly got close and lost because of a single Senate vote.  They have taken actions to weaken it and have eliminated the penalty for not having insurance.  We certainly have not replaced it with a "much better" system and after the last election the debate has certainly changed.

They have also not been able to build a border wall that was promoted and touted as being paid for by Mexico.  That is still in negotiation although the chances right now don't look likely.  Whether such a wall would be effective or not is questionable, it just hasn't been funded

The stated objective of improving America's trade deals is a mixed bag.  New agreements seem imminent with Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA and at the very least it has updated areas that were not of concern when the original agreement was signed.  Are they significantly better?  I don't think we will know that until they are implemented.  We have withdrawn from the trans-pacific agreement which gives some of our competitors an advantage and we have ongoing issues with China and other countries over tariffs.  Good or bad remains to be seen.

In foreign affairs we have withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal although most indications are they were complying with it and have imposed additional sanctions.  There may or may not be improvement in our relationship with North Korea, although at this time it has not resulted in any notable reductions in their nuclear capability.  Some of our interactions with our allies have deteriorated although the long term outlook is unclear.

It is the midway point of the administration and the next two years it is going to deal with a divided congress.  Considering that it's party controlled both houses for the first two years, it didn't accomplish much of significance except the tax package.  That may be a good thing considering how you feel about the stated goals but its clear that it has a shortage of skills needed to get things passed.

So I would say it is about a C at this point, which is pretty generous.  Certainly not the most effective president ever.