I'm frequently mystified by how some of us react to certain news articles about things which have almost no importance.
I'm never sure though if the outrage is real or just the reaction of a small number of "influencers" on social media.
We used to cite the adage that everyone was going to get 15 minutes of fame. I think the question now is can people get 15 minutes of privacy?
What is even more troubling is how many people react so strongly to how they perceive other people's behavior. If you draw the ire of the social media crowd, you are likely to be harassed and possibly threatened beyond your ability to withstand it. Further, via all sorts of apps that help identify you, this harassment may jump from the virtual world to the real world.
It has always been a feature of the internet that the privacy emboldened some to say things they wouldn't dare say to your face. It was a place that encouraged the worst of human behavior, but in those early days it was confined to the "nerd" crowd and went unnoticed by most.
Now of course social media is everywhere and many news stories I read cite reaction on one of them as some sort of indicator.
Of course we do also like our polls.
Still on any given day we can get all the outrage we need simply by reading trending events on our favorite social media site. A lot of the outrage is about things we never would have even heard about in the past.
Progress?
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Saturday, March 30, 2019
Saturday Thoughts
We see a number of cases that have gotten a lot of media attention recently. We have the college admissions scandal where wealthy people paid to get their children admitted, we have the Smollett case where he seems to have paid to get headlines and we have the recently concluded Mueller report where criminal charges were brought against a lot of people but the main guy wasn't charged.
I have to say the college thing is just another example that we have crooked and corrupt people in this country who can get away with fairly outrageous things. It happens because people who should be doing more work, generally accept as true things that aren't. College admissions boards have to fill a certain number of slots and this gets hard when you get to the ones on the margins. So if a trusted (even if maybe they shouldn't be) fellow employee gives you a recommendation, you don't really vet it. Maybe you should. One might wonder why in fact schools even offer scholarships for sports like crew. I get that football and basketball easily pay for themselves in the big schools, and in the middle of March madness I enjoy watching the games, but I'm not sure how they are in fact student athletes when all is said and done.
The Smollett case just seems to be a publicity stunt gone wrong and while it was a costly investigation the fact that he wasn't charges with a crime isn't really a big deal. He allegedly hired too people to pretend to attack him and it went wrong. Sure he probably lied and maybe he should be prosecuted, but it may have ended his role in Empire and if he has agreed to make restitution it should be a minor trivia question soon. It is no more a national disgrace than the migrant issue on the border is a national crisis. In fact it isn't much of anything when you come right down to it.
Finally we have the recently concluded Mueller investigation that resulted in a good number of prosecutions but apparently did not find evidence of criminal collusion but did find enough evidence of obstruction of justice by the President that he left the decision to the Attorney General. Without seeing the entire report it isn't easy to conclude much, but at the same time I am a bet leery of repeating the Benghazi or E-mail probes if recent memory. I realize that everything has a political impact but maybe constantly second guessing everything is just tedious. I know this isn't going away, and I would like to read the report, but can we at some point just move on?
The Administration may or may not be a criminal enterprise legally, but attacking health care, diverting money for a wall, allowing the financial markets to resume bad practices, failing to take action on climate change, attacking Social Security and Medicare should be where the focus goes, not what happened in 2016. We need a better outcome in 2020.
I have to say the college thing is just another example that we have crooked and corrupt people in this country who can get away with fairly outrageous things. It happens because people who should be doing more work, generally accept as true things that aren't. College admissions boards have to fill a certain number of slots and this gets hard when you get to the ones on the margins. So if a trusted (even if maybe they shouldn't be) fellow employee gives you a recommendation, you don't really vet it. Maybe you should. One might wonder why in fact schools even offer scholarships for sports like crew. I get that football and basketball easily pay for themselves in the big schools, and in the middle of March madness I enjoy watching the games, but I'm not sure how they are in fact student athletes when all is said and done.
The Smollett case just seems to be a publicity stunt gone wrong and while it was a costly investigation the fact that he wasn't charges with a crime isn't really a big deal. He allegedly hired too people to pretend to attack him and it went wrong. Sure he probably lied and maybe he should be prosecuted, but it may have ended his role in Empire and if he has agreed to make restitution it should be a minor trivia question soon. It is no more a national disgrace than the migrant issue on the border is a national crisis. In fact it isn't much of anything when you come right down to it.
Finally we have the recently concluded Mueller investigation that resulted in a good number of prosecutions but apparently did not find evidence of criminal collusion but did find enough evidence of obstruction of justice by the President that he left the decision to the Attorney General. Without seeing the entire report it isn't easy to conclude much, but at the same time I am a bet leery of repeating the Benghazi or E-mail probes if recent memory. I realize that everything has a political impact but maybe constantly second guessing everything is just tedious. I know this isn't going away, and I would like to read the report, but can we at some point just move on?
The Administration may or may not be a criminal enterprise legally, but attacking health care, diverting money for a wall, allowing the financial markets to resume bad practices, failing to take action on climate change, attacking Social Security and Medicare should be where the focus goes, not what happened in 2016. We need a better outcome in 2020.
Friday, March 29, 2019
Common Sense and the Common Man
I grew up in a working class neighborhood and spent my formative years with them. I may have done fairly well in some aspects of my life but those years have shaped who I am.
The simple fact is that these are the people who did the hard work of the world, who get up early and worked hard for fairly minimal pay.
You worked hard, often drank hard, often served in the Army, and took no bullshit from anyone.
They weren't necessarily loaded with book smarts, but they had street smarts, faced fairly continuously with people taking advantage of them, making promises they didn't mean and generally treating them poorly. The had to put up with it because it was often these same people who gave them jobs, and you had to work, it was just what you did.
Yet I see these people listening to one of the greatest bullshit artists I have ever seen and seeming to believe him?
Where has that common sense and healthy skepticism gone?
Yes, everyone lies to them to some extent, but this has reached extremes seldom seen before.
Where are the jobs he claims he is bringing back? He is taking away health care, not improving it. He is diverting money to build a useless wall to stop a crisis, that just isn't a crisis (may at least create a few jobs). He has increased the cost of many goods via tariffs that haven't led to a resurgence of the 50s, the robots are still in the factories.
I get the circus aspect of his rallies, but people actually seem to be falling for the con.
It makes me wonder if old Abe know what he was talking about when he said you can't fool all of the people all of the time? I hope so.
The simple fact is that these are the people who did the hard work of the world, who get up early and worked hard for fairly minimal pay.
You worked hard, often drank hard, often served in the Army, and took no bullshit from anyone.
They weren't necessarily loaded with book smarts, but they had street smarts, faced fairly continuously with people taking advantage of them, making promises they didn't mean and generally treating them poorly. The had to put up with it because it was often these same people who gave them jobs, and you had to work, it was just what you did.
Yet I see these people listening to one of the greatest bullshit artists I have ever seen and seeming to believe him?
Where has that common sense and healthy skepticism gone?
Yes, everyone lies to them to some extent, but this has reached extremes seldom seen before.
Where are the jobs he claims he is bringing back? He is taking away health care, not improving it. He is diverting money to build a useless wall to stop a crisis, that just isn't a crisis (may at least create a few jobs). He has increased the cost of many goods via tariffs that haven't led to a resurgence of the 50s, the robots are still in the factories.
I get the circus aspect of his rallies, but people actually seem to be falling for the con.
It makes me wonder if old Abe know what he was talking about when he said you can't fool all of the people all of the time? I hope so.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
America, Land Of the Free
There are decisions that most of us believed were made long ago that are becoming relevant today about the nature of America.
The biggest of those questions concern the nature of the country.
Are we a diverse melting pot where everyone is treated equally without regard to race, religion, sex or are we a bastion of white, Christian, male privilege?
It almost seems ridiculous to ask but the second option is on the rise and is becoming insidious.
We see it in all these social media posts talking about the good old days as if we all grew up in Mayberry RFD.
Well we didn't and despite the warmth exhibited on the show, it would have been no picnic.
People of color or people who were different didn't fare too well in places like that.
They often didn't even do well in bigger cities.
We really have to decide what kind of country we want to be.
We are already on the road to diversity and inclusion and attempts to stop it are doomed in the long term.
They can be pretty harmful in the short term though.
Is everyone entitle to be free and pursue happiness, or just some people?
I vote for everyone.
The biggest of those questions concern the nature of the country.
Are we a diverse melting pot where everyone is treated equally without regard to race, religion, sex or are we a bastion of white, Christian, male privilege?
It almost seems ridiculous to ask but the second option is on the rise and is becoming insidious.
We see it in all these social media posts talking about the good old days as if we all grew up in Mayberry RFD.
Well we didn't and despite the warmth exhibited on the show, it would have been no picnic.
People of color or people who were different didn't fare too well in places like that.
They often didn't even do well in bigger cities.
We really have to decide what kind of country we want to be.
We are already on the road to diversity and inclusion and attempts to stop it are doomed in the long term.
They can be pretty harmful in the short term though.
Is everyone entitle to be free and pursue happiness, or just some people?
I vote for everyone.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Health Insurance
We see the attacks on the Affordable Care Act continue as the administration has decided to support the ruling that it is unconstitutional.
Almost no one thinks that is a good legal argument, it is based on some convoluted logic concerning the last decision, that the individual mandate was constitutional under the congress' ability t tax.
Since subsequently they reduced the penalty (tax) to zero, it is no longer a real tax, meaning the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The argument goes on to say that the mandate is intertwined so deeply that if it is unconstitutional, the whole thing is.
Now this flies in the face of the act passed by congress that reduced the tax.
However, as odd as the argument actually is, the question arises why would the administration attack the rest of the law?
It has become very popular with most people, at least the provisions related to the pre-existing conditions, the dependent age increase, and the increase in coverage to so many.
It is almost as if the administration, who got hurt in the last mid-terms over health care, want to give their incumbents a handicap.
Still it is something to watch and in the very unlikely scenario where the entire law is invalidated, we will have to see what is offered up instead.
Maybe millions of uninsured, the Republican goal.
Almost no one thinks that is a good legal argument, it is based on some convoluted logic concerning the last decision, that the individual mandate was constitutional under the congress' ability t tax.
Since subsequently they reduced the penalty (tax) to zero, it is no longer a real tax, meaning the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The argument goes on to say that the mandate is intertwined so deeply that if it is unconstitutional, the whole thing is.
Now this flies in the face of the act passed by congress that reduced the tax.
However, as odd as the argument actually is, the question arises why would the administration attack the rest of the law?
It has become very popular with most people, at least the provisions related to the pre-existing conditions, the dependent age increase, and the increase in coverage to so many.
It is almost as if the administration, who got hurt in the last mid-terms over health care, want to give their incumbents a handicap.
Still it is something to watch and in the very unlikely scenario where the entire law is invalidated, we will have to see what is offered up instead.
Maybe millions of uninsured, the Republican goal.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Obstruction?
We are now going to spend a lot of time trying to get the full Mueller report released. One would think that since Republicans are saying it exonerates the President, they would want it out there. Well they don't. This is not because they have read it themselves, at least most of them, simply because they are concerned about what is actually in it.
The fact that actual collusion between the campaign and Russia wasn't found doesn't mean there aren't lots of other embarrassing details in it. The difference between acting badly and acting criminally is more important in a courtroom than in the realm of public opinion.
More significantly is the area of obstruction of justice.
The conclusion in the report was that the call was a difficult one and it left it to the Attorney General to determine. As a Presidential appointee, you might argue this is a foregone conclusion, although it could be legally sound also.
Part of the logic though is at best questionable.
One of the conclusions was that since the crime of collusion was not found, what was he obstructing?
Well the simple answer would be the investigation when he obviously was afraid that a crime might be found.
I believe the crime is obstructing Justice, not obstructing if guilty. Take a similar charge such as resisting arrest. If the police attempt to arrest you, even if they have the wrong person, and you resist, you are guilty of resisting anyway.
Similarly, if you obstruct, even if it turn out you didn't need to, well, you still obstructed.
The fact that actual collusion between the campaign and Russia wasn't found doesn't mean there aren't lots of other embarrassing details in it. The difference between acting badly and acting criminally is more important in a courtroom than in the realm of public opinion.
More significantly is the area of obstruction of justice.
The conclusion in the report was that the call was a difficult one and it left it to the Attorney General to determine. As a Presidential appointee, you might argue this is a foregone conclusion, although it could be legally sound also.
Part of the logic though is at best questionable.
One of the conclusions was that since the crime of collusion was not found, what was he obstructing?
Well the simple answer would be the investigation when he obviously was afraid that a crime might be found.
I believe the crime is obstructing Justice, not obstructing if guilty. Take a similar charge such as resisting arrest. If the police attempt to arrest you, even if they have the wrong person, and you resist, you are guilty of resisting anyway.
Similarly, if you obstruct, even if it turn out you didn't need to, well, you still obstructed.
Monday, March 25, 2019
No Indictment
There are still a lot of unanswered questions related to the Mueller report but the conclusions as provided by the AG indicate that no charges will be filed against the President, at least by the special counsel.
While this is being celebrated as vindication by the President, it is at best a minor hiatus, as we know the Democrat controlled House and possibly the Southern District of New York will continue investigating.
In fact on obstruction of justice the report left that decision to the AG because the evidence could be interpreted either way. The fact that the AG is not going to prosecute in no surprise, and it is certainly not exoneration since the jeopardy is still intact.
The report did highlight that the Russians did attempt to influence the election, and may have succeeded to at least some extent. The indictments that have been filed are generally for lying under oath although some are related to the actual election interference.
I suppose the celebration is similar to that of a accused criminal who hears the Grand Jury did not return an indictment.
Its better than the alternative.
While this is being celebrated as vindication by the President, it is at best a minor hiatus, as we know the Democrat controlled House and possibly the Southern District of New York will continue investigating.
In fact on obstruction of justice the report left that decision to the AG because the evidence could be interpreted either way. The fact that the AG is not going to prosecute in no surprise, and it is certainly not exoneration since the jeopardy is still intact.
The report did highlight that the Russians did attempt to influence the election, and may have succeeded to at least some extent. The indictments that have been filed are generally for lying under oath although some are related to the actual election interference.
I suppose the celebration is similar to that of a accused criminal who hears the Grand Jury did not return an indictment.
Its better than the alternative.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Affirmative Action
When you give someone more rights you aren't diminishing your own, although in some instances you might be losing an unfair advantage.
I was reading an account of a black man who got into and did well in an elite college. While he was there he was frequently (at lest it would seem frequently) accused of stealing a more deserving persons place because of affirmative action.
While it was unclear if affirmative action played any role in his admission, for the sake of argument lets say it did. Would he then have denied a more deserving person a place at that school?
Well more deserving isn't clear since any differences in their entrance qualifications could have been negated by the degree of difficulty they each faced. If the objective is to admit the most qualified students, admitting one who has demonstrated the ability to succeed in very difficult circumstances over one who was marginal in the best circumstances is not unfair.
These schools are looking for students who can excel and succeed in life. Evaluating the background and hardships faced is certainly a factor, as it is in all admissions (except those bought illegally or legally).
It is of course a measurable thing, since the students who get admitted to these schools don't all graduate. It turns out that the differences between affirmative action and non-affirmative action graduation rates is statistically insignificant. So they do belong and they do succeed.
It should also be noted that these schools have far more qualified applicants than slots. If you fail to get in it is because of everyone who got a slot, not just a black student.
Obstacles faced by applicants is a legitimate qualification and if someone faced with a lot more obstacles has a harder time getting to the finish line, he/she may still be a better.
Eliminate the obstacles if you want a level playing field.
I was reading an account of a black man who got into and did well in an elite college. While he was there he was frequently (at lest it would seem frequently) accused of stealing a more deserving persons place because of affirmative action.
While it was unclear if affirmative action played any role in his admission, for the sake of argument lets say it did. Would he then have denied a more deserving person a place at that school?
Well more deserving isn't clear since any differences in their entrance qualifications could have been negated by the degree of difficulty they each faced. If the objective is to admit the most qualified students, admitting one who has demonstrated the ability to succeed in very difficult circumstances over one who was marginal in the best circumstances is not unfair.
These schools are looking for students who can excel and succeed in life. Evaluating the background and hardships faced is certainly a factor, as it is in all admissions (except those bought illegally or legally).
It is of course a measurable thing, since the students who get admitted to these schools don't all graduate. It turns out that the differences between affirmative action and non-affirmative action graduation rates is statistically insignificant. So they do belong and they do succeed.
It should also be noted that these schools have far more qualified applicants than slots. If you fail to get in it is because of everyone who got a slot, not just a black student.
Obstacles faced by applicants is a legitimate qualification and if someone faced with a lot more obstacles has a harder time getting to the finish line, he/she may still be a better.
Eliminate the obstacles if you want a level playing field.
Saturday, March 23, 2019
Well It Didn't Go On Forever
The report has been delivered to the Attorney General and what is going to be released to the public is the question that needs to be answered.
We will now spend time arguing over what should or should not be released, unless of course the entire thing is released.
That would also not stop the ongoing questions and speculation about what didn't get into the report or what is in the supporting documentation.
When we are still speculating about who assassinated Kennedy, whether the Moon landing was real and what happened to Amelia Earhart, the odds that the report will put an end to ongoing speculation and recriminations is unlikely.
We do live in a time of media circuses and while real circuses have lost their appeal, the media ones go on and on.
There are still organizations that want to prove that one or both of the Clintons should be in jail.
Maybe they should, but there is no evidence of anything criminal, even if there is plenty of evidence of some bad judgment and some infidelity.
If we start making those things crimes very few of us would still be free.
The bad judgment is a killer.
We will now spend time arguing over what should or should not be released, unless of course the entire thing is released.
That would also not stop the ongoing questions and speculation about what didn't get into the report or what is in the supporting documentation.
When we are still speculating about who assassinated Kennedy, whether the Moon landing was real and what happened to Amelia Earhart, the odds that the report will put an end to ongoing speculation and recriminations is unlikely.
We do live in a time of media circuses and while real circuses have lost their appeal, the media ones go on and on.
There are still organizations that want to prove that one or both of the Clintons should be in jail.
Maybe they should, but there is no evidence of anything criminal, even if there is plenty of evidence of some bad judgment and some infidelity.
If we start making those things crimes very few of us would still be free.
The bad judgment is a killer.
Friday, March 22, 2019
Republic or Democracy
There are people, and some of our founding fathers were among them, who consider the average person untrustworthy.
If you allowed "the mob" to rule, they would be both unpredictable and probably attack the privileged property owners.
The constitution as originally written included a number of protections, certain restriction on who could vote (most of those have been eliminated) the Senate and the Electoral college.
The Senate was originally envisioned as respected property owners selected by each State's legislators to provide a check on the House, elected by the populace.
In addition they came up with the Electoral College, an indirect way to select the President, hoping to prevent a demagogue from swaying the masses and taking over.
Senators are now still apportioned evenly, 2 to State, but in those States they are elected via popular vote. They therefore still represent a check on the Government protecting the interests of smaller states.
The Electoral college is still in existence and because of that we have now in a number of cases had a President who did not receive the most popular votes.
Is this desirable? Well it doesn't represent the will of the people but it does allow a well organized minority party to manipulate the system (legally) and win an office they couldn't win in a popular election.
It has now become a political issue which is opposed by a majority of Americans.
Naturally we are seeing all sort of self interested arguments effectively repeating the insulting mantra that the "mob" cannot be trusted.
The Oligarchs making that argument are much more untrustworthy than the average person, they have been manipulating the system since the nation was founded.
May we should opt for real democracy?
If you allowed "the mob" to rule, they would be both unpredictable and probably attack the privileged property owners.
The constitution as originally written included a number of protections, certain restriction on who could vote (most of those have been eliminated) the Senate and the Electoral college.
The Senate was originally envisioned as respected property owners selected by each State's legislators to provide a check on the House, elected by the populace.
In addition they came up with the Electoral College, an indirect way to select the President, hoping to prevent a demagogue from swaying the masses and taking over.
Senators are now still apportioned evenly, 2 to State, but in those States they are elected via popular vote. They therefore still represent a check on the Government protecting the interests of smaller states.
The Electoral college is still in existence and because of that we have now in a number of cases had a President who did not receive the most popular votes.
Is this desirable? Well it doesn't represent the will of the people but it does allow a well organized minority party to manipulate the system (legally) and win an office they couldn't win in a popular election.
It has now become a political issue which is opposed by a majority of Americans.
Naturally we are seeing all sort of self interested arguments effectively repeating the insulting mantra that the "mob" cannot be trusted.
The Oligarchs making that argument are much more untrustworthy than the average person, they have been manipulating the system since the nation was founded.
May we should opt for real democracy?
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Devalued Labor
We have been seeing a significant shift in economics in that labor is getting cheaper because the supply has increased.
This is not all labor, some skilled labor is still in short supply.
However unskilled or low skilled labor has become widely available as we have added foreign sources and automation.
So much labor that used to require people is now done via automation or robots.
This has led to an overall drop in wages for the unskilled who use to get good pay working in factories or warehouses.
There is a long list of jobs that used to exist and which are now either gone or much reduced.
The trend isn't new, but it has accelerated.
It also isn't finished.
So while we may be reporting low unemployment, it isn't creating the pressure on the economy it once did, since many of the jobs are low paying.
In many sci-fi movies and books, the machines end up taking over. If you visit some of our more advanced factories, the future is now.
This is not all labor, some skilled labor is still in short supply.
However unskilled or low skilled labor has become widely available as we have added foreign sources and automation.
So much labor that used to require people is now done via automation or robots.
This has led to an overall drop in wages for the unskilled who use to get good pay working in factories or warehouses.
There is a long list of jobs that used to exist and which are now either gone or much reduced.
The trend isn't new, but it has accelerated.
It also isn't finished.
So while we may be reporting low unemployment, it isn't creating the pressure on the economy it once did, since many of the jobs are low paying.
In many sci-fi movies and books, the machines end up taking over. If you visit some of our more advanced factories, the future is now.
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
College Money
It has always been true that people with money, especially "old" money had little trouble getting their children into elite colleges. Of course it starts fairly early with elite private schools that make sure their grades and activities qualify them for admittance. Private tutors and prep courses help with the standardized tests and finally the right donation eases the final acceptance.
This is the legal if somewhat unfair way that money talks.
People who didn't start out wealthy and are faced with the issue of getting a semi-qualified child into an elite school had to find shadier, even illegal ways. Of course the legality of the system wasn't probably something they considered much, it was a fairly straightforward transaction, pay the price and get you children entrance into the world of elite colleges and the ability to hob nob with those aforementioned "old" money people.
I can't honestly speak as to whether these elite schools offer better education than say a state school. They might, they can certainly afford the best professors and equipment. Still the system they operate in gets them the students who have wealthy parents primarily, which is what makes them desirable. Getting into an elite school gives you membership into a fairly exclusive club. Whether you can calculate a profit loss ratio better than a graduate of a State School is fairly irrelevant. You will get in the door at prestigious firms, possible ones owned by your parents.
They also do of course get the best of the rest, meaning in a highly competitive competition the get to pick the students from less wealthy families who actually excel. Of course the ones that just miss getting accepted are in fact the victims of a system that accepts privileged students first.
The people caught up in the college admissions scandal wanted the best for their children who already lived a life of privilege and wealth. They are now likely to have this scandal attached to them instead of an elite degree. They aren't totally innocent unless they are in fact totally ignorant. After all, getting a scholarship for crew when you never participated in that sport, should have been a clue.
This is the legal if somewhat unfair way that money talks.
People who didn't start out wealthy and are faced with the issue of getting a semi-qualified child into an elite school had to find shadier, even illegal ways. Of course the legality of the system wasn't probably something they considered much, it was a fairly straightforward transaction, pay the price and get you children entrance into the world of elite colleges and the ability to hob nob with those aforementioned "old" money people.
I can't honestly speak as to whether these elite schools offer better education than say a state school. They might, they can certainly afford the best professors and equipment. Still the system they operate in gets them the students who have wealthy parents primarily, which is what makes them desirable. Getting into an elite school gives you membership into a fairly exclusive club. Whether you can calculate a profit loss ratio better than a graduate of a State School is fairly irrelevant. You will get in the door at prestigious firms, possible ones owned by your parents.
They also do of course get the best of the rest, meaning in a highly competitive competition the get to pick the students from less wealthy families who actually excel. Of course the ones that just miss getting accepted are in fact the victims of a system that accepts privileged students first.
The people caught up in the college admissions scandal wanted the best for their children who already lived a life of privilege and wealth. They are now likely to have this scandal attached to them instead of an elite degree. They aren't totally innocent unless they are in fact totally ignorant. After all, getting a scholarship for crew when you never participated in that sport, should have been a clue.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
How High?
There is a lot of anticipation about the Mueller report concerning how much there was illegal coordination between a Presidential Campaign and a foreign entity.
It has already resulted in a lot of indictment, guilty pleas and some sentencing, but the big question is how high up does it go?
This has more resemblance to some old movies about tying to bring down a mafia boss than it should.
Does anyone really think that the activities were done without the knowledge of the candidate?
The only real questions are was his knowledge of what happened criminal and if so what are we going to do about it?
The last time we had something similar to this, we had a lot more independence in congress and integrity.
Even members of the same party expected a certain type of behavior from our president and presidential candidates and criminal behavior was simply beyond what could be tolerated.
Its not so obvious today.
It seems unlikely that our President would do the honorable thing and resign so it would require that the House indict him and the Senate convict him.
These crimes, if proven, are what many consider "soft" crimes. Depending on the actual behavior, some will consider it as simply an infraction of rules that might be too restrictive.
Further, in today's political world, having principles isn't all that common.
How a vote will impact you politically is generally the main concern most of them have. As long as his somewhat rabid base stays loyal voting you conscience is a dangerous thing.
Not even sure it is worth the effort since at this point the more effective strategy is probably to win in 2020.
It has already resulted in a lot of indictment, guilty pleas and some sentencing, but the big question is how high up does it go?
This has more resemblance to some old movies about tying to bring down a mafia boss than it should.
Does anyone really think that the activities were done without the knowledge of the candidate?
The only real questions are was his knowledge of what happened criminal and if so what are we going to do about it?
The last time we had something similar to this, we had a lot more independence in congress and integrity.
Even members of the same party expected a certain type of behavior from our president and presidential candidates and criminal behavior was simply beyond what could be tolerated.
Its not so obvious today.
It seems unlikely that our President would do the honorable thing and resign so it would require that the House indict him and the Senate convict him.
These crimes, if proven, are what many consider "soft" crimes. Depending on the actual behavior, some will consider it as simply an infraction of rules that might be too restrictive.
Further, in today's political world, having principles isn't all that common.
How a vote will impact you politically is generally the main concern most of them have. As long as his somewhat rabid base stays loyal voting you conscience is a dangerous thing.
Not even sure it is worth the effort since at this point the more effective strategy is probably to win in 2020.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Tribal Economics
If we lived in a society where certain basic needs like health care, secure retirement and basic sustenance were guaranteed, it would allow people to pursue their passions.
Would this release of creative energy offset the claimed decrease in economic activity posited by the pure capitalists?
How productive are people forced to work for minimum wage at jobs they detest just to survive?
I suspect not very.
Still, forcing them to need these jobs increases the labor supply and drives down wages.
However would the release of the creative forces offset this or not?
This is probably the single biggest difference between Capitalists and Socialists. The idea that everyone should be taken care of to some degree versus a dog eat dog mentality.
In our earliest societies, as best we can tell from studying indigenous peoples, we had essentially a socialist society although everyone who could was expected to contribute. Those who couldn't because of age or other infirmity were generally taken care of.
There are a few instances where this was not true, generally in the harshest environments, although even there mostly they were not abandoned unless absolutely necessary.
As our original simple structures evolved we saw more of a disconnect between members and less of a desire to share.
Can we at this point in our society emulate our earliest ancestors and treat all people equally with merit being rewarded, but not excessively?
That remains to be seen
Would this release of creative energy offset the claimed decrease in economic activity posited by the pure capitalists?
How productive are people forced to work for minimum wage at jobs they detest just to survive?
I suspect not very.
Still, forcing them to need these jobs increases the labor supply and drives down wages.
However would the release of the creative forces offset this or not?
This is probably the single biggest difference between Capitalists and Socialists. The idea that everyone should be taken care of to some degree versus a dog eat dog mentality.
In our earliest societies, as best we can tell from studying indigenous peoples, we had essentially a socialist society although everyone who could was expected to contribute. Those who couldn't because of age or other infirmity were generally taken care of.
There are a few instances where this was not true, generally in the harshest environments, although even there mostly they were not abandoned unless absolutely necessary.
As our original simple structures evolved we saw more of a disconnect between members and less of a desire to share.
Can we at this point in our society emulate our earliest ancestors and treat all people equally with merit being rewarded, but not excessively?
That remains to be seen
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Health Care Thoughts
One of the things that makes health care so expensive in this country are the tests and procedures performed for the just in case things.
Malpractice lawsuits will examine bad outcomes and find the test or procedure that may have detected that condition. It often leads to settlements or court victories but that is looking at the issue via hindsight.
Suppose certain symptoms could indicate a rare disease that only impacts 1 out of a million people and that the other 999,999 people get no benefit from being tested for it. If the test can be done as part of a routine blood work up or something similar, the cost is probably not that much. Still to find the 1 in a million possible sufferer it has to be performed 1,000,000 times.
If you are the 1 in a million person it may all seem worth it. But is it? Consider all the possible scenarios that require expensive testing on people with almost no chance of having a disease or condition.
In some cases the testing isn't approved by various insurance review boards, which is probably a good thing overall, however most people don't like that process, since they have been told by their doctor that such a test may help detect this rare condition.
The doctor, most likely, feels required to tell the patient about the test since failure to do so, could, in the event he/she does have the condition, constitute a failure to apply all reasonable care.
So we test and test and apply treatments which often have very little actual benefit.
Performing test which are not needed in order to avoid being second guessed is costly. Effectively we have to test for almost every possibility even when some possibilities are extremely unlikely.
Its costly and there has to be a better way. Maybe let doctors use their best judgment and limit second guessing. Not likely under our legal system.
Malpractice lawsuits will examine bad outcomes and find the test or procedure that may have detected that condition. It often leads to settlements or court victories but that is looking at the issue via hindsight.
Suppose certain symptoms could indicate a rare disease that only impacts 1 out of a million people and that the other 999,999 people get no benefit from being tested for it. If the test can be done as part of a routine blood work up or something similar, the cost is probably not that much. Still to find the 1 in a million possible sufferer it has to be performed 1,000,000 times.
If you are the 1 in a million person it may all seem worth it. But is it? Consider all the possible scenarios that require expensive testing on people with almost no chance of having a disease or condition.
In some cases the testing isn't approved by various insurance review boards, which is probably a good thing overall, however most people don't like that process, since they have been told by their doctor that such a test may help detect this rare condition.
The doctor, most likely, feels required to tell the patient about the test since failure to do so, could, in the event he/she does have the condition, constitute a failure to apply all reasonable care.
So we test and test and apply treatments which often have very little actual benefit.
Performing test which are not needed in order to avoid being second guessed is costly. Effectively we have to test for almost every possibility even when some possibilities are extremely unlikely.
Its costly and there has to be a better way. Maybe let doctors use their best judgment and limit second guessing. Not likely under our legal system.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Economic vs Social Issues
What is maybe the most interesting thing about politics in America is how people who are often the most in need of Government assistance have in many cases become loyal to a party that is determined to take that assistance away.
To a large extent this has been accomplished by making politics about social issues more than economic ones.
It has coincided with the erosion of Unions in this country and the erosion of the middle class.
Things like Abortion, Gun Rights, immigration, and anti-Political Correctness have prompted many people to vote against what is clearly in their best economic interests.
Of course they are told that by helping business and giving tax breaks to big business while reducing regulations they will benefit down the road with more jobs and better economics, but that hasn't worked yet and isn't going to.
Even an issue that the Republicans have pushed for ages, free trade (which made the same promises) has somehow been turned upside down and blamed on the Democrats.
In fact, while much of the nation is finding their economics in trouble as low paying service jobs have replaced the high paying manufacturing jobs they once had, these same people have been persuaded to support the people largely responsible.
On the other hand, many of the people who have benefited the most have gone the other way.
The hard working farmer in Mississippi who sees the Democrats as the devils representatives on earth because they want to abort his kids, take away his guns and turn his children gay is supporting a party that is putting tariffs on his exports, making it harder to hire inexpensive help and making health care unaffordable.
The current economy is in a sense a false positive as workforce participation and low paying service jobs have created statistics that look good. Clearly a job is better generally than no job, but its far from the best economy ever, at least for the working man. For much of our history we had a labor shortage but now with automation and overseas production, we have a labor surplus.
We are going to need more Government services and probably a better way to pay for them.
Its something that needs to be talked about.
To a large extent this has been accomplished by making politics about social issues more than economic ones.
It has coincided with the erosion of Unions in this country and the erosion of the middle class.
Things like Abortion, Gun Rights, immigration, and anti-Political Correctness have prompted many people to vote against what is clearly in their best economic interests.
Of course they are told that by helping business and giving tax breaks to big business while reducing regulations they will benefit down the road with more jobs and better economics, but that hasn't worked yet and isn't going to.
Even an issue that the Republicans have pushed for ages, free trade (which made the same promises) has somehow been turned upside down and blamed on the Democrats.
In fact, while much of the nation is finding their economics in trouble as low paying service jobs have replaced the high paying manufacturing jobs they once had, these same people have been persuaded to support the people largely responsible.
On the other hand, many of the people who have benefited the most have gone the other way.
The hard working farmer in Mississippi who sees the Democrats as the devils representatives on earth because they want to abort his kids, take away his guns and turn his children gay is supporting a party that is putting tariffs on his exports, making it harder to hire inexpensive help and making health care unaffordable.
The current economy is in a sense a false positive as workforce participation and low paying service jobs have created statistics that look good. Clearly a job is better generally than no job, but its far from the best economy ever, at least for the working man. For much of our history we had a labor shortage but now with automation and overseas production, we have a labor surplus.
We are going to need more Government services and probably a better way to pay for them.
Its something that needs to be talked about.
Friday, March 15, 2019
Hate
Terrible news from New Zealand as misguided people decided they had the right to kill innocents in pursuit of some goal. The idea that any group of people can be treated as "targets" is dehumanizing to all of us. My heart goes out to the victims of this senseless violence.
There are people around the world preaching hate against those different from us. The problem with that is we are all people who share the same basic feelings, desires and fears. To create barriers benefits those preaching hate and who parlay that into holding power.
None of this is new. History has shown us time after time how hate mongers have succeeded in oppressing populations, and holding on to power until the bitter end.
They generally act like it is some "us" against some "them" but really in the end the only thing they care about is themselves. Whatever success they may achieve initially is often short lived leading to catastrophe for their followers.
Unfortunately we seem to fall for the hate promoters over and over again.
Its simply a lesson we need to learn.
There are people around the world preaching hate against those different from us. The problem with that is we are all people who share the same basic feelings, desires and fears. To create barriers benefits those preaching hate and who parlay that into holding power.
None of this is new. History has shown us time after time how hate mongers have succeeded in oppressing populations, and holding on to power until the bitter end.
They generally act like it is some "us" against some "them" but really in the end the only thing they care about is themselves. Whatever success they may achieve initially is often short lived leading to catastrophe for their followers.
Unfortunately we seem to fall for the hate promoters over and over again.
Its simply a lesson we need to learn.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Technology and Accidents
Its certainly not fully determined what was responsible for the two Boeing Max aircraft that crashed but it is beginning to look like it was related to some advanced technology.
I was reading that two other pilots reported an issue that occurred shortly after takeoff where as the autopilot was engaged the plane went into a fairly rapid descent. They quickly turned of the autopilot and regained control of the plane.
It may or may not be related to the actual crashes, but it certainly seems like uncorrected it would have had the same outcome. Why the pilots would not have corrected would probably be the never answered question.
It may of course be something completely different, but unless we had two suicidal pilots it is almost definitely related to some technological glitch.
Technology is becoming more and more controlling in many areas and we are seeing the introduction of self driving cars.
Many new cars now have technological warning systems such as warning you if you drift over a lane divided, some have auto braking systems as you approach an object.
These have some significant potential to improve safety but they also create some risk.
Systems that we rely on, which malfunction, can keep us from doing simple acts we would have routinely done without the system. If you over rely on the technology you become vulnerable. Even worse, you open yourself up to being hacked.
It is entirely possible that the two crashes were caused by the glitch in the autopilot system reported by other pilots and the difference was that the pilots who crashed didn't disengage the autopilot, because they trusted it. Maybe, maybe not.
I was reading that two other pilots reported an issue that occurred shortly after takeoff where as the autopilot was engaged the plane went into a fairly rapid descent. They quickly turned of the autopilot and regained control of the plane.
It may or may not be related to the actual crashes, but it certainly seems like uncorrected it would have had the same outcome. Why the pilots would not have corrected would probably be the never answered question.
It may of course be something completely different, but unless we had two suicidal pilots it is almost definitely related to some technological glitch.
Technology is becoming more and more controlling in many areas and we are seeing the introduction of self driving cars.
Many new cars now have technological warning systems such as warning you if you drift over a lane divided, some have auto braking systems as you approach an object.
These have some significant potential to improve safety but they also create some risk.
Systems that we rely on, which malfunction, can keep us from doing simple acts we would have routinely done without the system. If you over rely on the technology you become vulnerable. Even worse, you open yourself up to being hacked.
It is entirely possible that the two crashes were caused by the glitch in the autopilot system reported by other pilots and the difference was that the pilots who crashed didn't disengage the autopilot, because they trusted it. Maybe, maybe not.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Pollution
Nobody that I'm aware of is in favor of polluting the environment. I doubt there is anyone who would openly support that.
What the question becomes is what are we willing to do to prevent it?
At the individual level are we willing to make decisions that support a clean environment?
Are we willing to extend regulations to businesses that require them to?
Those are the decisions that cause the issue. If we could do everything with no pain or no cost, we would be fine.
However it costs money and effort to prevent pollution and sadly it costs even more to clean it up if we don't prevent it.
On an individual level many of us feel our decisions won't matter but of course its the sum of all those individual decisions that matter. There is no acceptable level of pollution, it all contributes to climate change, polluted air and water and tons of plastic in our oceans.
Similarly we allow businesses to continue to contaminate the air, ground and water.
Some of course behave better than others and some regulations have been passed to curb the worst abuses, but we have seen a bit of a reversal.
We already have sites around the country that were polluted years ago and which are now extremely costly to clean up. In many cases the original polluters are not available to pay for the clean up leaving the cost to us. Inevitably, without control we will have the same problem own the road.
What the question becomes is what are we willing to do to prevent it?
At the individual level are we willing to make decisions that support a clean environment?
Are we willing to extend regulations to businesses that require them to?
Those are the decisions that cause the issue. If we could do everything with no pain or no cost, we would be fine.
However it costs money and effort to prevent pollution and sadly it costs even more to clean it up if we don't prevent it.
On an individual level many of us feel our decisions won't matter but of course its the sum of all those individual decisions that matter. There is no acceptable level of pollution, it all contributes to climate change, polluted air and water and tons of plastic in our oceans.
Similarly we allow businesses to continue to contaminate the air, ground and water.
Some of course behave better than others and some regulations have been passed to curb the worst abuses, but we have seen a bit of a reversal.
We already have sites around the country that were polluted years ago and which are now extremely costly to clean up. In many cases the original polluters are not available to pay for the clean up leaving the cost to us. Inevitably, without control we will have the same problem own the road.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Trick(le) Down and out.
A view frequently shared by wealthy people is that building wealth is the way to improve the economy.
In order to build wealth you have to engage in some sort of business endeavor and that will create jobs, require supplies, and generally provide a stimulus to economic growth.
This is in fact the heart of trickle down economics and to some extent the basis of much of the Republican platform.
Its not a fair doctrine, in fact its more of a dog eat dog concept. Let the successful truly succeed and everyone will benefit, to some extent.
Naturally the movers and shakers will get the lions share and that is a good thing encouraging others to strive to succeed and accumulate wealth.
The theory is not completely wrong, a rising tide does in fact lift all ships.
You just have to have a ship.
One of the problems with the theory is that the majority of the people are simply viewed as potential assets who cost money. The goal is to pay them as little as you can in order to maximize profits.
Not the best thing if you are one of those workers.
Further, if you replace them totally with a machine that doesn't' suffer from fatigue or illness or demands for higher pay, it is even better
What are the workers to do? That is they're problem and making them figure that out may lead to new economic opportunities.
Look there's a trickle, better get some before it is all gone. .
In order to build wealth you have to engage in some sort of business endeavor and that will create jobs, require supplies, and generally provide a stimulus to economic growth.
This is in fact the heart of trickle down economics and to some extent the basis of much of the Republican platform.
Its not a fair doctrine, in fact its more of a dog eat dog concept. Let the successful truly succeed and everyone will benefit, to some extent.
Naturally the movers and shakers will get the lions share and that is a good thing encouraging others to strive to succeed and accumulate wealth.
The theory is not completely wrong, a rising tide does in fact lift all ships.
You just have to have a ship.
One of the problems with the theory is that the majority of the people are simply viewed as potential assets who cost money. The goal is to pay them as little as you can in order to maximize profits.
Not the best thing if you are one of those workers.
Further, if you replace them totally with a machine that doesn't' suffer from fatigue or illness or demands for higher pay, it is even better
What are the workers to do? That is they're problem and making them figure that out may lead to new economic opportunities.
Look there's a trickle, better get some before it is all gone. .
Monday, March 11, 2019
Loose cannons
Its hard to achieve much when you have no discipline.
You also have to be realistic.
Its important to understand that the press an media are almost never your friend. They may seem like it at times if playing you up gets them what they want, but they generally want to get readers or listeners or watchers, so if that can be achieved by throwing you to the wolves, expect to get bitten.
A lot of new congress people are finding that out.
Its worse in todays era when anybody can shoot out a message without much thought in a tweet.
Once its out there its done.
If it at least is on message it can't do much harm.
If it is related to infighting or promoting a fringe view, it isn't going to be helpful
You also have to be realistic.
Its important to understand that the press an media are almost never your friend. They may seem like it at times if playing you up gets them what they want, but they generally want to get readers or listeners or watchers, so if that can be achieved by throwing you to the wolves, expect to get bitten.
A lot of new congress people are finding that out.
Its worse in todays era when anybody can shoot out a message without much thought in a tweet.
Once its out there its done.
If it at least is on message it can't do much harm.
If it is related to infighting or promoting a fringe view, it isn't going to be helpful
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Budget Follies
We live in a country where the Government spends much more than it collects in taxes. Faced with that the last congress at the urging of the administration passed a tax break primarily for businesses and the wealthy. The deficit grew and so did the national debt.
National Debt is one of those things that is fine until the day that it isn't. Since we run higher and higher deficits we are forced to borrow to pay the interest on it. As it grows the interest grows and we need to borrow more.
We have actually been pretty fortunate in the fact that interest rates have been very low for an extended period of time. The interest on the debt is dependent on the amount of the debt and the interest rate.
There is no current achievable way to eliminate the deficit. We would need to take draconian measures to even come close. Massive cuts in popular programs or significant tax increases would be required and no one in politics is going to do that.
The other way to reduce or possibly even eliminate the deficit would be if the economy was to grow at a rate that we aren't even close to. achieving.
In the budget about to be proposed by the administration we see significant increases in defense and wall funding slightly offset by unacceptable reductions in domestic programs.
It includes unrealistic growth projections that make it look like we can actually reduce the deficit. So far this year the deficit has increased 77% over the prior fiscal year as growth has slowed, our trade deficits have increased and spending is greatly outstripping revenue.
It may improve a bit as the year progresses, but the year we are talking about started in October so we are approaching the half way point.
Since the financial crisis we have seen deficit numbers that were unimaginable not too long ago, but having gotten used to them we do not treat them as a crisis.
They are much more of a national emergency than the issue on our southern border.
National Debt is one of those things that is fine until the day that it isn't. Since we run higher and higher deficits we are forced to borrow to pay the interest on it. As it grows the interest grows and we need to borrow more.
We have actually been pretty fortunate in the fact that interest rates have been very low for an extended period of time. The interest on the debt is dependent on the amount of the debt and the interest rate.
There is no current achievable way to eliminate the deficit. We would need to take draconian measures to even come close. Massive cuts in popular programs or significant tax increases would be required and no one in politics is going to do that.
The other way to reduce or possibly even eliminate the deficit would be if the economy was to grow at a rate that we aren't even close to. achieving.
In the budget about to be proposed by the administration we see significant increases in defense and wall funding slightly offset by unacceptable reductions in domestic programs.
It includes unrealistic growth projections that make it look like we can actually reduce the deficit. So far this year the deficit has increased 77% over the prior fiscal year as growth has slowed, our trade deficits have increased and spending is greatly outstripping revenue.
It may improve a bit as the year progresses, but the year we are talking about started in October so we are approaching the half way point.
Since the financial crisis we have seen deficit numbers that were unimaginable not too long ago, but having gotten used to them we do not treat them as a crisis.
They are much more of a national emergency than the issue on our southern border.
Saturday, March 9, 2019
Recycling
Recycling has reached a point where it is often not practical or economical.
The issue is that China which used to buy our materials has started accepting significantly less. Without them the materials are generally not easily reused, at lest in most cases.
They used to sort through the items and effectively make them usable. In this country the cost of doing that is prohibitive.
So most recycled material are effectively contaminated with non recyclable stuff that needs to be sorted, but to do that is prohibitively expensive. Much of it is simply going into landfills.
More and more items are also packaged in materials that simply can't be recycled. Much of the plastic packaging used is not easily recycled.
The following article from the Atlantic list the issues.
Atlantic Article
One of the problems is that the true cost of products is not just the cost of manufacturing them.It is also the aftermarket costs they create.
The same problem exists with energy although it some ways a bit less traceable.
Like most things dealing with the problem on the back side is the hardest and most expensive method. If the items are biodegradable in the first place, the recycling issue doesn't exist. Plastic is a very convenient material for many applications, but other materials can be used.
When we shop we should be conscious of how we impact the planet and our worlds future. I'm a firm believer that most of us would prefer to do the right thing, if we could.
Each person is a minor impact, but small impacts can add up and while it may not be the complete solution it is a start.
To quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy and it is us"
The issue is that China which used to buy our materials has started accepting significantly less. Without them the materials are generally not easily reused, at lest in most cases.
They used to sort through the items and effectively make them usable. In this country the cost of doing that is prohibitive.
So most recycled material are effectively contaminated with non recyclable stuff that needs to be sorted, but to do that is prohibitively expensive. Much of it is simply going into landfills.
More and more items are also packaged in materials that simply can't be recycled. Much of the plastic packaging used is not easily recycled.
The following article from the Atlantic list the issues.
Atlantic Article
One of the problems is that the true cost of products is not just the cost of manufacturing them.It is also the aftermarket costs they create.
The same problem exists with energy although it some ways a bit less traceable.
Like most things dealing with the problem on the back side is the hardest and most expensive method. If the items are biodegradable in the first place, the recycling issue doesn't exist. Plastic is a very convenient material for many applications, but other materials can be used.
When we shop we should be conscious of how we impact the planet and our worlds future. I'm a firm believer that most of us would prefer to do the right thing, if we could.
Each person is a minor impact, but small impacts can add up and while it may not be the complete solution it is a start.
To quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy and it is us"
Friday, March 8, 2019
Filters
To some extent everything is a bit of a game, even things that are decidedly very important. People make it that way as at least some of them are always trying to gain an advantage, I'm not aware of any profession or endeavor which is not subject to some game playing.
Now politicians are probably the biggest game players of all since they spend much of their time figuring out what to do and how to position themselves. Once in a while someone comes along and changes the rules, causing a mad scramble.
We saw this in the 2016 election cycle but it really started in 2010 when the tea party started to infiltrate the Republican party. Of course there have always been factions within the parties but they seemed to be unwilling to even consider some of the accepted norms.
Now of course we see some of this in the Democratic party. It is possible that the failure of people who supported Bernie Sanders contributed to the Democratic candidates loss. It was a factor and it required every factor to get the outcome we did.
In the mid terms we have seen an influx of non-traditional representatives, some of whom are getting a lot of attention. Part of this is because they either don't know the accepted rules or don't care about them.
This of course provides ammunition to the other side to point out any foibles or mistakes they make.
What's worse is that many of the traditional filters are simply gone. In days past you often had more awareness of what you were saying or doing.
Of course now, with twitter, you can shoot off a comment in the privacy of your bedroom without any filters at all.
Every tweet is subject to analysis and in some cases fact checking and it is probably a good idea for many of the new players to find a filter who can provide feedback on proposed tweets.
Or not and let the games begin!
Now politicians are probably the biggest game players of all since they spend much of their time figuring out what to do and how to position themselves. Once in a while someone comes along and changes the rules, causing a mad scramble.
We saw this in the 2016 election cycle but it really started in 2010 when the tea party started to infiltrate the Republican party. Of course there have always been factions within the parties but they seemed to be unwilling to even consider some of the accepted norms.
Now of course we see some of this in the Democratic party. It is possible that the failure of people who supported Bernie Sanders contributed to the Democratic candidates loss. It was a factor and it required every factor to get the outcome we did.
In the mid terms we have seen an influx of non-traditional representatives, some of whom are getting a lot of attention. Part of this is because they either don't know the accepted rules or don't care about them.
This of course provides ammunition to the other side to point out any foibles or mistakes they make.
What's worse is that many of the traditional filters are simply gone. In days past you often had more awareness of what you were saying or doing.
Of course now, with twitter, you can shoot off a comment in the privacy of your bedroom without any filters at all.
Every tweet is subject to analysis and in some cases fact checking and it is probably a good idea for many of the new players to find a filter who can provide feedback on proposed tweets.
Or not and let the games begin!
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Anti-Semetism?
Israel is a country but in many ways it is also a symbol.
It is the ancient land that we know from the bible and a modern country situated in a dangerous part of the world with neighbors who would prefer it did not exist.
Historically that whole area was overrun during various periods in history but was effectively recreated after World War 2 by the occupying country.
This was partly in reaction to the atrocities committed against the Jewish people during that war and partially in response to the politics of the time.
It has had to fight for its survival ever since and it has done so successfully but in doing so it has also expanded its original borders and restricted the rights to some extent of the Palestinians.
I was in Israel in the early 80s and I'm sure it has continued to progress since then. I would like to clarify that being Israeli and being Jewish are not the same things.
Further Israelis in general have internal politics and a wide range of beliefs, although they almost universally accept that they have the right to exist.
They face a number of thorny issues including what to do with the West Bank, the essence of Israel as a Jewish State and the treatment of Palestinians.
Many Jews around the world support Israel both financially and politically. It is viewed by many as a homeland and a holy land.
Still, criticizing Israel or even arguing that pressure to support Israel in this country isn't anti-Semitic on the face of it.
It may be based on anti-Semitism, but it may simply be that you disagree with the policies of the country.
Further to argue that the other party is influenced by campaign donations is simply politics as usual.
This is the world we now live in, where comments made on social media are used to press an advantage, even where there really is nothing there.
It is the ancient land that we know from the bible and a modern country situated in a dangerous part of the world with neighbors who would prefer it did not exist.
Historically that whole area was overrun during various periods in history but was effectively recreated after World War 2 by the occupying country.
This was partly in reaction to the atrocities committed against the Jewish people during that war and partially in response to the politics of the time.
It has had to fight for its survival ever since and it has done so successfully but in doing so it has also expanded its original borders and restricted the rights to some extent of the Palestinians.
I was in Israel in the early 80s and I'm sure it has continued to progress since then. I would like to clarify that being Israeli and being Jewish are not the same things.
Further Israelis in general have internal politics and a wide range of beliefs, although they almost universally accept that they have the right to exist.
They face a number of thorny issues including what to do with the West Bank, the essence of Israel as a Jewish State and the treatment of Palestinians.
Many Jews around the world support Israel both financially and politically. It is viewed by many as a homeland and a holy land.
Still, criticizing Israel or even arguing that pressure to support Israel in this country isn't anti-Semitic on the face of it.
It may be based on anti-Semitism, but it may simply be that you disagree with the policies of the country.
Further to argue that the other party is influenced by campaign donations is simply politics as usual.
This is the world we now live in, where comments made on social media are used to press an advantage, even where there really is nothing there.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Our World
We all live on this planet and while many of us now lead lives that aren't all that connected to the natural world, we certainly are very dependent on it to survive.
The air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat are all dependent on it.
Of course most of the animals who live free are very dependent on the changes in climate.
We see habitats destroyed and species going extinct, and many of us don't seem to care.
Some of this is due to ignorance and some of it is due to arrogance.
We have been told that we were created to rule the world.
That God loves us and all things are part of his/her plan.
Others feel that there is a conspiracy of elite people trying to keep them down.
The logic of that is hard to understand, but its along the lines of the people who have everything don't want competition from regular people.
Usually these elite are framed as people who somehow profit off our troubles and control the media and the Government from behind the scenes.
So for some reason they are selling us on climate change because, well this is where the theory suffers. They want to control us but the reason is generally vague.
You can't trust the Government or media because some other guy tells you not to. Well since bad things happen to you from time to time he must be right.
It is much easier to believe that those things aren't your fault, that the world is controlled by others who make them happen.
Of course, as the water rises, and the weather deteriorates, it may eventually dawn on everyone that we are all in this together.
Lets hope its not too late.
The air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat are all dependent on it.
Of course most of the animals who live free are very dependent on the changes in climate.
We see habitats destroyed and species going extinct, and many of us don't seem to care.
Some of this is due to ignorance and some of it is due to arrogance.
We have been told that we were created to rule the world.
That God loves us and all things are part of his/her plan.
Others feel that there is a conspiracy of elite people trying to keep them down.
The logic of that is hard to understand, but its along the lines of the people who have everything don't want competition from regular people.
Usually these elite are framed as people who somehow profit off our troubles and control the media and the Government from behind the scenes.
So for some reason they are selling us on climate change because, well this is where the theory suffers. They want to control us but the reason is generally vague.
You can't trust the Government or media because some other guy tells you not to. Well since bad things happen to you from time to time he must be right.
It is much easier to believe that those things aren't your fault, that the world is controlled by others who make them happen.
Of course, as the water rises, and the weather deteriorates, it may eventually dawn on everyone that we are all in this together.
Lets hope its not too late.
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Wage Stagnation
One of the things that seems mystifying to many economists is that while we have seen an economic expansion of sorts since 2010 (the end of the great recession) we have not seen significant wage growth or increased inflation.
The following chart shows workforce participation percentages since 1950. The climb in the early pare of the graph represents the increased participation of women. However since its peak around 2000 we see about a 5 point drop in participation that continues.
source: tradingeconomics.com
To a large extent these are discouraged workers, people who lost "good" jobs and now exist on things like Government benefits (disability etc.) or have joined the underground economy managing to get by.
Many of them could, or would return to the workforce under the right conditions. Those conditions include better paying jobs. In effect they create a pool of available applicants primarily for low skill opportunities.
Our economic models rely primarily on data based on the industrial era of America. In that era, expansion meant more workers as the vast majority of work was in fact performed by them. As we enter the post industrial era, we see a change, not fully recognized in most models.
Much of the work is now automated and expansion does not necessarily lead to additional high paying industrial jobs. We do however see job creation and there is upward pressure on many skill positions. What we do not account for is the creation of low skill service jobs that are being created.
These jobs are generally fairly easy to fill and consequently low paying.
Replacing a high paying industrial job with a lower paying service job may help the unemployment rate, but it doesn't exert a lot of wage pressure. Further, we have those non-participating workers who effectively increase the number of available candidates while not being reflected in unemployment statistics.
The following chart shows workforce participation percentages since 1950. The climb in the early pare of the graph represents the increased participation of women. However since its peak around 2000 we see about a 5 point drop in participation that continues.
source: tradingeconomics.com
To a large extent these are discouraged workers, people who lost "good" jobs and now exist on things like Government benefits (disability etc.) or have joined the underground economy managing to get by.
Many of them could, or would return to the workforce under the right conditions. Those conditions include better paying jobs. In effect they create a pool of available applicants primarily for low skill opportunities.
Our economic models rely primarily on data based on the industrial era of America. In that era, expansion meant more workers as the vast majority of work was in fact performed by them. As we enter the post industrial era, we see a change, not fully recognized in most models.
Much of the work is now automated and expansion does not necessarily lead to additional high paying industrial jobs. We do however see job creation and there is upward pressure on many skill positions. What we do not account for is the creation of low skill service jobs that are being created.
These jobs are generally fairly easy to fill and consequently low paying.
Replacing a high paying industrial job with a lower paying service job may help the unemployment rate, but it doesn't exert a lot of wage pressure. Further, we have those non-participating workers who effectively increase the number of available candidates while not being reflected in unemployment statistics.
Monday, March 4, 2019
CPAC?
There was a time when CPAC was dominated by literate, intelligent people who argued the rightness of their conservative philosophy citing the constitution and the founding fathers.
It is now more of a joke.
We have the chief clown coming out and hugging the American flag as is he loves it.
He didn't love it enough to serve in a war.
As a con man he like to play to the crowd and as a snake oil salesman he simply lies about how great his product (in this case him) is.
What is interesting is that the principled conservatives have descended into a crowd of true believers, believing things that they argued against for many years.
Free trade was one of their core principles, when they had some.
Massive deficits and debt were never something they supported.
Cozying up to dictators was never one of their core values.
I don't know if the audience is different now or if the attendees have just decided to enjoy the circus while it lasts.
It is now more of a joke.
We have the chief clown coming out and hugging the American flag as is he loves it.
He didn't love it enough to serve in a war.
As a con man he like to play to the crowd and as a snake oil salesman he simply lies about how great his product (in this case him) is.
What is interesting is that the principled conservatives have descended into a crowd of true believers, believing things that they argued against for many years.
Free trade was one of their core principles, when they had some.
Massive deficits and debt were never something they supported.
Cozying up to dictators was never one of their core values.
I don't know if the audience is different now or if the attendees have just decided to enjoy the circus while it lasts.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Too Many Labels
I had a discussion with my wife about what we call a person who identifies with their birth sex. It is cisgender. Its not that easy to keep track of and the following link is helpful.
gender identifier terms
Not too long ago we just used men, women, boys, girls.
While respecting the rights of people to identify however they want there are things in the terminology that are a bit odd. In a lot of it they talk about the sex assigned at birth. Since I'm pretty sure they are not talking about God this is obviously the sex that would be indicated by the eternal genitalia they possess at birth. At least I'm not aware that we are assigning sex at that time on any other basis.
I guess in some instances, certain parents decide not to assign a sex at that time.
Still, there is still a big trend about having sex reveal parties also going on.
I have to say that I sometimes think we have created a situation in which many people are almost encouraged to have sexual identity anxiety.
There have always been those who felt uncomfortable in the sex they were born into. Sometimes this was expressed as a sexual desire for the same sex and other times it was related to a desire to act like the other sex.
For most of human history these types of behavior were considered unnatural or even sinful, something that needed to be hidden and something that could lead to punishment. Hopefully we now allow people to be who they are, although I'm sure there is still some discrimination.
Still for those who, and this is the great majority of people I know, having a label for identifying as the sex I was born with seems a bit too much. I'm also not sure that having to broadcast whether I am who I am or if I am now someone else is helpful to treating everyone the way they currently identify.
gender identifier terms
Not too long ago we just used men, women, boys, girls.
While respecting the rights of people to identify however they want there are things in the terminology that are a bit odd. In a lot of it they talk about the sex assigned at birth. Since I'm pretty sure they are not talking about God this is obviously the sex that would be indicated by the eternal genitalia they possess at birth. At least I'm not aware that we are assigning sex at that time on any other basis.
I guess in some instances, certain parents decide not to assign a sex at that time.
Still, there is still a big trend about having sex reveal parties also going on.
I have to say that I sometimes think we have created a situation in which many people are almost encouraged to have sexual identity anxiety.
There have always been those who felt uncomfortable in the sex they were born into. Sometimes this was expressed as a sexual desire for the same sex and other times it was related to a desire to act like the other sex.
For most of human history these types of behavior were considered unnatural or even sinful, something that needed to be hidden and something that could lead to punishment. Hopefully we now allow people to be who they are, although I'm sure there is still some discrimination.
Still for those who, and this is the great majority of people I know, having a label for identifying as the sex I was born with seems a bit too much. I'm also not sure that having to broadcast whether I am who I am or if I am now someone else is helpful to treating everyone the way they currently identify.
Saturday, March 2, 2019
They Can't Stop Lying
The problem with all the lies we are told by the administration is that over time they are revealed for what they are.
It seems like they prefer telling a lie over being honest.
If he had helped his son-in-law get a security clearance, who would really care?
He obviously did, but then he had to lie about it.
Why?
He just seems prone to lie for no real reason.
Yes there would have been a brief moment of criticism but it would have just passed.
The lie however, gives the story legs.
Lie after lie.
The question of whether there was collusion with the Russians is still unanswered. However a lot of the people involved felt compelled to lie. They have pled guilty or face a trial.
If there was no collusion, why are they lying?
It just seems to be a way of life in that group.
It seems like they prefer telling a lie over being honest.
If he had helped his son-in-law get a security clearance, who would really care?
He obviously did, but then he had to lie about it.
Why?
He just seems prone to lie for no real reason.
Yes there would have been a brief moment of criticism but it would have just passed.
The lie however, gives the story legs.
Lie after lie.
The question of whether there was collusion with the Russians is still unanswered. However a lot of the people involved felt compelled to lie. They have pled guilty or face a trial.
If there was no collusion, why are they lying?
It just seems to be a way of life in that group.
Friday, March 1, 2019
Electoral Racism
The ex Republican governor of Maine just praised the electoral college for keeping white people in power. This is of course a common republican position, but seldom discussed publicly.
This idea that there is something inherently better about white people is the essence of racism, and it is very common among Republicans and some Democrats.
The reason for the electoral college was rooted in a number of things, one of which was that very purpose. However, there is also the promise to lower population states that they will have some voice in how things are decided.
However, that is encapsulated in the way we elect the Senate where each state gets equal representation. Should this concept also apply to the way we elect the President?
Democracy promises that each person has an equal vote. The electoral college gives people in lower population states more of an impact than those in higher population state. That is why in the last election the popular vote winner ended up losing.
However, the situation is unlikely to change since the States that benefit would have to agree to the change.
Many of the checks and balances in our system is designed to protect the rights of certain minorities. Interesting that now they are protecting the rights of the majority.
This idea that there is something inherently better about white people is the essence of racism, and it is very common among Republicans and some Democrats.
The reason for the electoral college was rooted in a number of things, one of which was that very purpose. However, there is also the promise to lower population states that they will have some voice in how things are decided.
However, that is encapsulated in the way we elect the Senate where each state gets equal representation. Should this concept also apply to the way we elect the President?
Democracy promises that each person has an equal vote. The electoral college gives people in lower population states more of an impact than those in higher population state. That is why in the last election the popular vote winner ended up losing.
However, the situation is unlikely to change since the States that benefit would have to agree to the change.
Many of the checks and balances in our system is designed to protect the rights of certain minorities. Interesting that now they are protecting the rights of the majority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)