People in this country can get jobs but the jobs that they can get are just not what they used to be.
You used to be able to take care of a family working normal hours.
It's only the fortunate few who can still do that.
To say the economy is doing so wonderfully is misstating the facts.
This is unfortunately the results of the automation and technology improvements that have taken many good paying jobs and turned them into robotic jobs.
This was not the Utopian future predicted by some science fiction writers.
At least not for most of humanity.
This is the future where we destroy the climate, force most of humanity into debt and menial jobs while a small number of privileged elite enjoy the fruits of their labor.
The world needs to decide which path to take.
Egalitarian, or elitism.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
A Country in Debt
If you consider a simple economic construct, the country and many of its citizens are living on borrowed money and therefore borrowed time.
You can blame it on any number of things, but in many cases it simply comes down to wanting what we want now, and worry about tomorrow later.
This was part of the issue involved in the financial crisis of 2008-2009 where an assumption that home prices would only continue to go up led to loans on what is best described as a whisper and a prayer.
When they didn't go up and many of the mortgages couldn't be refinanced or paid, we had a collapse that almost drove us into a depression.
To solve that problem we inserted a great amount of money into the economy via stimulus to give us a jump start.
We are still living off a series of jump starts as we haven't reigned in spending and individual income growth has not kept up with debt increases.
We can't afford many of the things we want and the Government can't afford the programs it already has.
No one seems willing to do what needs to be done to address it so I guess eat, drink and be merry, until they take the T-Bird away.
You can blame it on any number of things, but in many cases it simply comes down to wanting what we want now, and worry about tomorrow later.
This was part of the issue involved in the financial crisis of 2008-2009 where an assumption that home prices would only continue to go up led to loans on what is best described as a whisper and a prayer.
When they didn't go up and many of the mortgages couldn't be refinanced or paid, we had a collapse that almost drove us into a depression.
To solve that problem we inserted a great amount of money into the economy via stimulus to give us a jump start.
We are still living off a series of jump starts as we haven't reigned in spending and individual income growth has not kept up with debt increases.
We can't afford many of the things we want and the Government can't afford the programs it already has.
No one seems willing to do what needs to be done to address it so I guess eat, drink and be merry, until they take the T-Bird away.
Monday, November 25, 2019
Profits
Our economy is basically based on profiteering.
Lets be clear, there is nothing wrong with making a profit, it inspires enterprise which stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
However it depends a lot on how many are eating at the trough.
Profit related to value added is productive, but profit related to effectively nothing is a problem.
In one model you might have the producer, say the farmer, who could sell direct to a consumer resulting is a single profit.
That became less possible so we see them selling to middlemen who take the product from the farm to the city say. A second profit.
Generally they then resell the product to retail outlets who sell to the consumers, a third profit.
This is true for almost all the things we buy with escalating profits. Of course there is usually some real service provided.
In health care of course we have multiple streams. There is the delivery of the medical service, the equipment used, and the cost of running the hospital. We then add the profit stream of the insurance provider.
How to reduce the cost unrelated to the actual delivery of health care would go a long way to making health care more affordable.
We just don't want to.
Lets be clear, there is nothing wrong with making a profit, it inspires enterprise which stimulates the economy and creates jobs.
However it depends a lot on how many are eating at the trough.
Profit related to value added is productive, but profit related to effectively nothing is a problem.
In one model you might have the producer, say the farmer, who could sell direct to a consumer resulting is a single profit.
That became less possible so we see them selling to middlemen who take the product from the farm to the city say. A second profit.
Generally they then resell the product to retail outlets who sell to the consumers, a third profit.
This is true for almost all the things we buy with escalating profits. Of course there is usually some real service provided.
In health care of course we have multiple streams. There is the delivery of the medical service, the equipment used, and the cost of running the hospital. We then add the profit stream of the insurance provider.
How to reduce the cost unrelated to the actual delivery of health care would go a long way to making health care more affordable.
We just don't want to.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Deflection!
Realistically, it is pretty obvious that Hunter Biden only got the job with Burisma because of who his father was. That is of course not corrupt unless it led to some sort of "quid pro quo" where Burisma benefited here.
Some say that this was when the VP got the Ukraine to fire the corrupt prosecutor, but since there is widespread consensus that this was strongly supported by the International community and his investigation into Burisma was over, it isn't much.
Children often benefit from famous parents, i.e. the Trump children but it isn't corrupt unless it actually is.
One may wonder if having Hunter Biden on the board didn't help Burisma in some situations where it could appear to others that it gave them an inside track to the American Government, but clearly they hired him for that very purpose and unless he did something corrupt for them it is simply the way business is.
Of course some will cling to the idea of corruption because it helps cloud the corruption of withholding Government assets or using your office for personal gain.
Those are actual acts of corruption, not flights of imagination.
Proof vs innuendo, I prefer the proof.
Some say that this was when the VP got the Ukraine to fire the corrupt prosecutor, but since there is widespread consensus that this was strongly supported by the International community and his investigation into Burisma was over, it isn't much.
Children often benefit from famous parents, i.e. the Trump children but it isn't corrupt unless it actually is.
One may wonder if having Hunter Biden on the board didn't help Burisma in some situations where it could appear to others that it gave them an inside track to the American Government, but clearly they hired him for that very purpose and unless he did something corrupt for them it is simply the way business is.
Of course some will cling to the idea of corruption because it helps cloud the corruption of withholding Government assets or using your office for personal gain.
Those are actual acts of corruption, not flights of imagination.
Proof vs innuendo, I prefer the proof.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Violating Standard Behavior
One of the things the impeachment hearings have revealed is that we have become a nation without a strict code of conduct.
This was the obvious conclusion from the last election when lies were thrown about recklessly against one candidate while facts concerning sexual misconduct, financial malfeasance and lying about the other candidate were dismissed as lies.
Now some might argue the opposite because we have now created a public space where the number of false accusations and rumors have led to everything being questioned.
One could pretend that all news sources are equally credible, but that would be incredibly naive.
We have long established well regarded news sources and then we have things like Infowars and Breitbart which range from pure fantasy to twisted truth.
To many people they are equally valid.
If you consider something like the shooting at Sandy Hook, we have a well documented actual event which was called a hoax by one of these media sources. It's ludicrous but it gets out there.
When some of these outrageous stories are debunked it tends to make all media suspect.
False news however started can be reported on as something being asserted, making it seem somewhat relevant if done enough.
This tactic is being used currently to make the behavior of the administration seem like something everyone does anyway and therefore no big deal.
It is a big deal to try to use your position in the Government to further your own interests.
Its not normal or common and accepting it is simply a lowering of our Standards.
This was the obvious conclusion from the last election when lies were thrown about recklessly against one candidate while facts concerning sexual misconduct, financial malfeasance and lying about the other candidate were dismissed as lies.
Now some might argue the opposite because we have now created a public space where the number of false accusations and rumors have led to everything being questioned.
One could pretend that all news sources are equally credible, but that would be incredibly naive.
We have long established well regarded news sources and then we have things like Infowars and Breitbart which range from pure fantasy to twisted truth.
To many people they are equally valid.
If you consider something like the shooting at Sandy Hook, we have a well documented actual event which was called a hoax by one of these media sources. It's ludicrous but it gets out there.
When some of these outrageous stories are debunked it tends to make all media suspect.
False news however started can be reported on as something being asserted, making it seem somewhat relevant if done enough.
This tactic is being used currently to make the behavior of the administration seem like something everyone does anyway and therefore no big deal.
It is a big deal to try to use your position in the Government to further your own interests.
Its not normal or common and accepting it is simply a lowering of our Standards.
Friday, November 22, 2019
Issues
Elections are often treated like popularity contests when they should be about issues.
If you consider the issues important to voters you get a mix of economic and social ones.
I believe most Americans are pretty close on how they feel about most issues, however because of the spin applied they feel far apart.
For example almost all Americans would like an immigration policy that protects our borders while still allowing legal immigration.
However it is generally presented by at least some media outlets as an all or nothing scenario.
For many years Governments didn't really enforce border security for many reason. One reason was simply that we needed many of the undocumented workers to take certain seasonal jobs.
When did this rise to a major issue? It seems like it was escalated by certain media outlets that created some catchy slogans. The one about us not being a country if we don't enforce our borders is catchy.
The border issues are more significant the closer you are to them, although even then it doesn't seem to be a major problem except for an unfortunate few.
Yet somehow it has grown into a divisive issue, simply because it serves a political purpose.
We should set logical and reasonable goals and implement policies to achieve them.
Instead we fight.
I believe most Americans are pretty close on how they feel about most issues, however because of the spin applied they feel far apart.
For example almost all Americans would like an immigration policy that protects our borders while still allowing legal immigration.
However it is generally presented by at least some media outlets as an all or nothing scenario.
For many years Governments didn't really enforce border security for many reason. One reason was simply that we needed many of the undocumented workers to take certain seasonal jobs.
When did this rise to a major issue? It seems like it was escalated by certain media outlets that created some catchy slogans. The one about us not being a country if we don't enforce our borders is catchy.
The border issues are more significant the closer you are to them, although even then it doesn't seem to be a major problem except for an unfortunate few.
Yet somehow it has grown into a divisive issue, simply because it serves a political purpose.
We should set logical and reasonable goals and implement policies to achieve them.
Instead we fight.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Fresh Blood
One of the things that is as certain as death and taxes is that people age.
This is a natural event and it can't be stopped.
Of course we live in an age where people live longer than ever and we like to imagine that age is something we can control, but of course we can't.
Watching the debate last night I simply couldn't get past one fact, the leading candidates are older than they really should be.
It is both a physical issue and mental one potentially but its more of a cultural one.
They may or may not experience significant deterioration in four to eight years, but certainly they are high risk. However listening to their answers they tend to reflect things not as relevant as they once were.
Take Joe Biden's attitude toward Marijuana, which he tried to correct last night but considering how most of his life he was in a world where it was considered bad he has deep cultural embedding to overcome.
Similarly, Elizabeth Warren thinks fondly of how her brothers served, and remembers inaccurately I think her mother checking the mail each day. A letter made her day and assured her the son was still alive. Her fond memories of military or alternative service was one step short of reinstituting the draft and her response seemed to assume only men would be asked to serve.
I generally think Bernie Sanders simply reflects the radicalism of his youth and while it plays fairly well, it just seems dated to me.
We are what we were and the world these folks grew up in is not the world of the future. There has to be a time when we pass the baton on to a new generation, and it just seems like its time.
This is a natural event and it can't be stopped.
Of course we live in an age where people live longer than ever and we like to imagine that age is something we can control, but of course we can't.
Watching the debate last night I simply couldn't get past one fact, the leading candidates are older than they really should be.
It is both a physical issue and mental one potentially but its more of a cultural one.
They may or may not experience significant deterioration in four to eight years, but certainly they are high risk. However listening to their answers they tend to reflect things not as relevant as they once were.
Take Joe Biden's attitude toward Marijuana, which he tried to correct last night but considering how most of his life he was in a world where it was considered bad he has deep cultural embedding to overcome.
Similarly, Elizabeth Warren thinks fondly of how her brothers served, and remembers inaccurately I think her mother checking the mail each day. A letter made her day and assured her the son was still alive. Her fond memories of military or alternative service was one step short of reinstituting the draft and her response seemed to assume only men would be asked to serve.
I generally think Bernie Sanders simply reflects the radicalism of his youth and while it plays fairly well, it just seems dated to me.
We are what we were and the world these folks grew up in is not the world of the future. There has to be a time when we pass the baton on to a new generation, and it just seems like its time.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
A Conspiracy for Everything!
Perhaps the worst thing about the explosion in media access that took place over the last 20 years or so is that we have enabled a golden age of conspiracy theories.
These conspiracies always existed but they lived on the fringe, not on our newsfeed.
It is more democratic but this is the real fake news, although each theory has proponents who would argue that.
Combined with the growing mistrust of "Government" we now find conspiracies everywhere.
If the Government experts announce vaccines are safe but some erroneous data indicates erroneously that it might correlate with an increase in autism we spawn a anti-vax movement, based on nothing at all.
In fact since vaccinations became nearly universal, you can correlate them with any thing else that also increased. Of course that isn't cause and effect, but not everyone understands that.
We have a menu of conspiracy theories so you can pick the ones you want. Our President likes anything that makes him look better, no matter how far-fetched. He obviously delves into far right web sites which in some cases simply make them up based on next to nothing.
It just seems like a big conspiracy.
These conspiracies always existed but they lived on the fringe, not on our newsfeed.
It is more democratic but this is the real fake news, although each theory has proponents who would argue that.
Combined with the growing mistrust of "Government" we now find conspiracies everywhere.
If the Government experts announce vaccines are safe but some erroneous data indicates erroneously that it might correlate with an increase in autism we spawn a anti-vax movement, based on nothing at all.
In fact since vaccinations became nearly universal, you can correlate them with any thing else that also increased. Of course that isn't cause and effect, but not everyone understands that.
We have a menu of conspiracy theories so you can pick the ones you want. Our President likes anything that makes him look better, no matter how far-fetched. He obviously delves into far right web sites which in some cases simply make them up based on next to nothing.
It just seems like a big conspiracy.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Independents
It wasn't that long ago when the Republican party was opposed to the expansion of executive power in this country.
Of course they did that when we had Democratic presidents.
It details some of the problems we have n this country (not just us) with having a semi official two party system.
While the largest group of voters (about 38%) identify themselves as independent, there are very few elected officials who are independent.
The ones that are, like Bernie Sanders, are really affiliated with a single party.
Certainly the two parties claim to stand for American values but they have become so partisan in certain areas, like gun control, abortions, equal rights that we come to a near stop on legislative progress.
As they go down this path, many people drop party affiliation as they view one as too left and one as too right. Of course as they leave they reduce the number of moderates in their old party leading to shifts to the fringes and more moderates leaving.
This plurality of Americans are poorly represented.
Of course they did that when we had Democratic presidents.
It details some of the problems we have n this country (not just us) with having a semi official two party system.
While the largest group of voters (about 38%) identify themselves as independent, there are very few elected officials who are independent.
The ones that are, like Bernie Sanders, are really affiliated with a single party.
Certainly the two parties claim to stand for American values but they have become so partisan in certain areas, like gun control, abortions, equal rights that we come to a near stop on legislative progress.
As they go down this path, many people drop party affiliation as they view one as too left and one as too right. Of course as they leave they reduce the number of moderates in their old party leading to shifts to the fringes and more moderates leaving.
This plurality of Americans are poorly represented.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
Saturday Thoughts
I don't know if the hearings are going to change anyone's mind about Impeachment, we no longer seem swayed by facts.
If you lost your job during the great recession and it hasn't come back yet, it isn't going to.
The wonderful benefits of automation are great but the reduced need for labor should be offset by increased hourly wages.
Listening to the administration, he wants the economy to be propped up by negative interest rates, guess the tax cuts didn't work, except for the wealthy.
What I find surprising is how many people around my age, or at least boomers are the real snowflakes, unhappy where they ended up and blaming everybody except themselves.
If you don't like your life, change it.
We think the millennials are spoiled but they got that listening to us.
If you lost your job during the great recession and it hasn't come back yet, it isn't going to.
The wonderful benefits of automation are great but the reduced need for labor should be offset by increased hourly wages.
Listening to the administration, he wants the economy to be propped up by negative interest rates, guess the tax cuts didn't work, except for the wealthy.
What I find surprising is how many people around my age, or at least boomers are the real snowflakes, unhappy where they ended up and blaming everybody except themselves.
If you don't like your life, change it.
We think the millennials are spoiled but they got that listening to us.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Whistleblower
Thee is a lot of commotion being made by certain Republicans concerning the identity of the Whistleblower who first reported the phone conversation with the Ukraine.
They argue that his identity should be disclosed since defendants have the right to face their accuser.
While this is not particularly relevant in an Impeachment inquiry, it is also irrelevant because the Whistleblower is not an accuser.
He reported a event that he felt might be a concern to the appropriate channels.
This is not an accuser under any definition of the word and to pretend otherwise is simply spin.
It would be like someone reporting a car accident to the police who would then investigate.
It is then the police who determine the circumstances and specifics of the situation and if someone did in fact break the law the actual witnesses and accusers would be identified.
The original person who notified the authorities is not an accuser or necessarily a witness.
The same hold true for the Whistleblower.
They argue that his identity should be disclosed since defendants have the right to face their accuser.
While this is not particularly relevant in an Impeachment inquiry, it is also irrelevant because the Whistleblower is not an accuser.
He reported a event that he felt might be a concern to the appropriate channels.
This is not an accuser under any definition of the word and to pretend otherwise is simply spin.
It would be like someone reporting a car accident to the police who would then investigate.
It is then the police who determine the circumstances and specifics of the situation and if someone did in fact break the law the actual witnesses and accusers would be identified.
The original person who notified the authorities is not an accuser or necessarily a witness.
The same hold true for the Whistleblower.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Why Public Hearings?
Most of the facts are known to anyone paying attention at this point so we are now going to have a spectacle designed to sway public opinion.
I don't think many opinions will be changed related to impeachment, maybe a few, but ultimately the following scenario is almost certain.
After the hearings the House will vote articles of Impeachment. The Senate will conduct what is likely to be a sham trial and acquit the President. There is a very small chance that when given the opportunity enough Senators may decide to vote for conviction but I doubt that very much.
So why are we bothering?
Its much more about the election than it is actual impeachment. The hearings will highlight the President's behavior and it is clearly inappropriate. Is it Impeachable? Well he will be impeached but probably not convicted, so there is no answer to that question.
Still highlighting the actions may be persuasive to certain voters.
If enough voters in certain swing states decide they have had enough of this guy and his empty promises, it will suffice.
If not, well that's a different outcome.
I don't think many opinions will be changed related to impeachment, maybe a few, but ultimately the following scenario is almost certain.
After the hearings the House will vote articles of Impeachment. The Senate will conduct what is likely to be a sham trial and acquit the President. There is a very small chance that when given the opportunity enough Senators may decide to vote for conviction but I doubt that very much.
So why are we bothering?
Its much more about the election than it is actual impeachment. The hearings will highlight the President's behavior and it is clearly inappropriate. Is it Impeachable? Well he will be impeached but probably not convicted, so there is no answer to that question.
Still highlighting the actions may be persuasive to certain voters.
If enough voters in certain swing states decide they have had enough of this guy and his empty promises, it will suffice.
If not, well that's a different outcome.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Veterans
Today is a day we set aside to honor Veterans and we certainly should.
They risked everything for this country, and many have long term issues because of it.
We have seen a change in attitudes to veterans over the years.
The Vietnam era was probably the low point as sometimes Veterans were blamed for things that happened during that war.
We now have returned to honoring Veterans for their service.
In many ways they represent the best of us and we should recognize that and make sure they are given the services they need.
They risked everything for this country, and many have long term issues because of it.
We have seen a change in attitudes to veterans over the years.
The Vietnam era was probably the low point as sometimes Veterans were blamed for things that happened during that war.
We now have returned to honoring Veterans for their service.
In many ways they represent the best of us and we should recognize that and make sure they are given the services they need.
Sunday, November 10, 2019
The Tide of Change
It was true in the early 1800s and is true today, the growing populations in certain areas is predictive of the politics of tomorrow.
It is fairly inevitable and while it takes a bit of time, like the tide it can't be stopped, just delayed.
Democracy is designed to create a Government that reflects its citizens and as the citizens change so does the Government.
Some might not like the changes and want to hold them back as long as possible, but one way to make them happen even faster is to tweak the dragon.
Inevitably we will have a significant change n the Republican party or they will cease to be relevant eventually.
Not everywhere and not all at once, but policies that rely on an aging population that is shrinking as a percentage of the total population can not survive forever.
Its what Democracy is supposed to do, represent the people, the people here now, not some past time.
Its actually a good thing and its happened before. Many things we considered essential to Government were not even considered a couple of hundred years ago.
Its call progress.
It is fairly inevitable and while it takes a bit of time, like the tide it can't be stopped, just delayed.
Democracy is designed to create a Government that reflects its citizens and as the citizens change so does the Government.
Some might not like the changes and want to hold them back as long as possible, but one way to make them happen even faster is to tweak the dragon.
Inevitably we will have a significant change n the Republican party or they will cease to be relevant eventually.
Not everywhere and not all at once, but policies that rely on an aging population that is shrinking as a percentage of the total population can not survive forever.
Its what Democracy is supposed to do, represent the people, the people here now, not some past time.
Its actually a good thing and its happened before. Many things we considered essential to Government were not even considered a couple of hundred years ago.
Its call progress.
Saturday, November 9, 2019
Politics Are Local
America has always had certain divisions.
Even when we were colonies under England we might have been unified because we were all on this continent but our origins and evolutions were very different.
Yes we sort of united to defeat a common enemy, England, but it took us a while to form a constitution and in that document we added the Bill of Rights because we didn't trust each other very much.
Our earliest divisions were central government vs states right. This evolved partly because of slavery as the slave states argued for states rights while opinions generally swung against slavery overall.
We had a bloody civil war but it might have ended formal slavery but it didn't end the conflict.
In fact, in many ways, once reconstruction ended the states enjoyed significant freedom.
It took the great depression and the subsequent world war for the federal government to rise again.
The country once again untied against a common enemy, Communism, and in doing so we saw significant trends toward centralized Government.
We are seeing a new crisis in which the efforts towards nationalized policies is running up against some opposition.
It seems fairly obvious that many of the issues are national in scope but this creates resistance.
Since our constitution has built in safeguards for the States (the Senate, the Electoral College), the issue has to be fought locally.
You can't just tell them one way is better, you have to convince them.
All politics are local after all.
Even when we were colonies under England we might have been unified because we were all on this continent but our origins and evolutions were very different.
Yes we sort of united to defeat a common enemy, England, but it took us a while to form a constitution and in that document we added the Bill of Rights because we didn't trust each other very much.
Our earliest divisions were central government vs states right. This evolved partly because of slavery as the slave states argued for states rights while opinions generally swung against slavery overall.
We had a bloody civil war but it might have ended formal slavery but it didn't end the conflict.
In fact, in many ways, once reconstruction ended the states enjoyed significant freedom.
It took the great depression and the subsequent world war for the federal government to rise again.
The country once again untied against a common enemy, Communism, and in doing so we saw significant trends toward centralized Government.
We are seeing a new crisis in which the efforts towards nationalized policies is running up against some opposition.
It seems fairly obvious that many of the issues are national in scope but this creates resistance.
Since our constitution has built in safeguards for the States (the Senate, the Electoral College), the issue has to be fought locally.
You can't just tell them one way is better, you have to convince them.
All politics are local after all.
Friday, November 8, 2019
Democrats Should?
In show after show about the upcoming primaries and subsequent election you hear pundits talk about what the Democrats should do.
They need to nominate a candidate who appeals to independent voters or who shuns far left policies or who can beat the incumbent.
Of course the advice is part of the new world we live in where cable has created so much time that simply needs to be filled with something.
Maybe years ago when party bosses decided who the nominee was going to be strategy like this could happen.
Today, however the decision is made in the primaries and those are decided by the people who vote.
The primaries have many flaws, participation is not what it should be and potentially we nominate candidates who don't really represent the party as a whole.
However the primaries are a form of Democracy which allows the voters to select the candidate.
The reasons any one person might vote for any one candidate can be complex, but I know we don't all get together and decide who to vote for.
The Democrats and the Republicans don't get to decide the candidate via back room deals.\\
Look at the last round of Republican primaries where the outcome was clearly not expected.
Democracy is simply a messy process, it will be who it will be.
They need to nominate a candidate who appeals to independent voters or who shuns far left policies or who can beat the incumbent.
Of course the advice is part of the new world we live in where cable has created so much time that simply needs to be filled with something.
Maybe years ago when party bosses decided who the nominee was going to be strategy like this could happen.
Today, however the decision is made in the primaries and those are decided by the people who vote.
The primaries have many flaws, participation is not what it should be and potentially we nominate candidates who don't really represent the party as a whole.
However the primaries are a form of Democracy which allows the voters to select the candidate.
The reasons any one person might vote for any one candidate can be complex, but I know we don't all get together and decide who to vote for.
The Democrats and the Republicans don't get to decide the candidate via back room deals.\\
Look at the last round of Republican primaries where the outcome was clearly not expected.
Democracy is simply a messy process, it will be who it will be.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Off Year Elections
Election held on off years don't include the "big" national offices but they still are elections with important State and local results.
How much of an indication are they for the even year elections is questionable unless of course a clear trend exists.
In general the elections confirmed that Democrats are doing well in traditional Republican suburbs but its not a done deal.
It did show that some of the factors that allowed the current President to run up big numbers in some States may be gone.
Still the electoral landscape would still make victory a possibility (the popular vote is probably going Democratic). What a lot of television pundits seem to ignore, it might make them uncomfortable, is that a lot of the 2016 success was based on his anti-abortion and racist positions. He tries to camouflage his racism, but he provides the racists plenty of signs.
This is in fact his real base and its probably unshakable, a racist isn't going to change easily and the anti-abortion group is fully committed.
Those groups are not enough to win the Presidency, he needs some dupes to think he is actually a conservative too. He really isn't, look at his budget deficit and his centralization of power in the executive branch, two very not conservative things to do.
Of course he also ran against a very unpopular opponent which hopefully isn't going to be repeated.
How much of an indication are they for the even year elections is questionable unless of course a clear trend exists.
In general the elections confirmed that Democrats are doing well in traditional Republican suburbs but its not a done deal.
It did show that some of the factors that allowed the current President to run up big numbers in some States may be gone.
Still the electoral landscape would still make victory a possibility (the popular vote is probably going Democratic). What a lot of television pundits seem to ignore, it might make them uncomfortable, is that a lot of the 2016 success was based on his anti-abortion and racist positions. He tries to camouflage his racism, but he provides the racists plenty of signs.
This is in fact his real base and its probably unshakable, a racist isn't going to change easily and the anti-abortion group is fully committed.
Those groups are not enough to win the Presidency, he needs some dupes to think he is actually a conservative too. He really isn't, look at his budget deficit and his centralization of power in the executive branch, two very not conservative things to do.
Of course he also ran against a very unpopular opponent which hopefully isn't going to be repeated.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Mandatory?
In America we cherish individual freedom, but what we cherish is freedom of decision.
We don't want to be told what to do, but of course we can take suggestions.
This is the problem with Universal Health Care, even if it is in fact better for almost everyone.
Or current system is inefficient and expensive but it pretends to offer us some choices.
Those choices may be limited by your employer or by your income, but we think we get to decide.
In fact once a year we tend to have some open season where a certain number of options are provided.
It doesn't matter if these choices are restrictive, at an individual level it has the appearance of freedom.
Its the first hurdle that universal mandatory plans have to overcome.
We don't like mandatory.
We don't want to be told what to do, but of course we can take suggestions.
This is the problem with Universal Health Care, even if it is in fact better for almost everyone.
Or current system is inefficient and expensive but it pretends to offer us some choices.
Those choices may be limited by your employer or by your income, but we think we get to decide.
In fact once a year we tend to have some open season where a certain number of options are provided.
It doesn't matter if these choices are restrictive, at an individual level it has the appearance of freedom.
Its the first hurdle that universal mandatory plans have to overcome.
We don't like mandatory.
Monday, November 4, 2019
Innocent or just missing evidence?
We don't generally give accused people the benefit of the doubt much anymore.
Many accused people, especially celebrities are considered guilty when accused.
Our system of justice says you are innocent until proven guilty, but the court of public opinion uses a much lower threshold.
The courts apply a beyond all reasonable doubt criteria for criminal cases and in many cases, even with criminal acquittals, there is plenty of reasonable evidence.
To protect the innocent we have erected many restrictions on what evidence can be admitted and what a jury can be exposed to.
There is an old adage that says it is better to let a 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent one.
Of course one wonders if future victims of those 100 would agree with that?
Many accused people, especially celebrities are considered guilty when accused.
Our system of justice says you are innocent until proven guilty, but the court of public opinion uses a much lower threshold.
The courts apply a beyond all reasonable doubt criteria for criminal cases and in many cases, even with criminal acquittals, there is plenty of reasonable evidence.
To protect the innocent we have erected many restrictions on what evidence can be admitted and what a jury can be exposed to.
There is an old adage that says it is better to let a 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent one.
Of course one wonders if future victims of those 100 would agree with that?
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Offensive Defense
The thing I have trouble understanding is why some seemingly intelligent people go on TV and say clearly outlandish things.
Some simply repeat meaningless talking points, propagated for the base but which I simply can't believe they actually believe.
For example, they continue to act like there was some issue with Hillary Clintons use of a private e-mail server when investigation after investigation uncovers no leaks, not compromised secrets and no wrongdoing.
The fact that a small number of emails received by her may have retroactively been determined to have classified data is meaningless since she was clearly in possession of a suitable security clearance.
The sender might need some retroactive instruction on procedures, but, none of these e-mails were hacked or provided to enemies of this country.
It might play well as a refrain with some of the base, but when I see someone who clearly should know better simply act like there was something there, it is clearly a talking point which I don't believe they can believe.
In fact the current strategy of many of these people is to drag out the Clinton's and try to argue their guy isn't any worse then they were. Well since they hate the Clintons so much, shouldn't they also condemn their guy?
Lies and hypocrisy are what they have left when the facts are not longer in question.
Some simply repeat meaningless talking points, propagated for the base but which I simply can't believe they actually believe.
For example, they continue to act like there was some issue with Hillary Clintons use of a private e-mail server when investigation after investigation uncovers no leaks, not compromised secrets and no wrongdoing.
The fact that a small number of emails received by her may have retroactively been determined to have classified data is meaningless since she was clearly in possession of a suitable security clearance.
The sender might need some retroactive instruction on procedures, but, none of these e-mails were hacked or provided to enemies of this country.
It might play well as a refrain with some of the base, but when I see someone who clearly should know better simply act like there was something there, it is clearly a talking point which I don't believe they can believe.
In fact the current strategy of many of these people is to drag out the Clinton's and try to argue their guy isn't any worse then they were. Well since they hate the Clintons so much, shouldn't they also condemn their guy?
Lies and hypocrisy are what they have left when the facts are not longer in question.
Saturday, November 2, 2019
Techno 1984
One of the great fears of the post World War era was that personal privacy would be sacrificed as the State became more omnipresent. The book 1984 detailed such a world but was inaccurate in its forecasts.
We have surrendered our privacy to big business, not big brother.
Of course big brother is there, but for various reasons has been constrained in its tracking.
Few such constraints apply to big business which knows what you are thinking, sometimes before you do.
It couldn't have happened without our cooperation and it was the rise of the Internet and computing power that was the real impetus.
Before them media was simply something broadcast and the information about effectiveness and preferences had to be obtained from things like focus groups.
Today they are pretty much aware of everything you do on-line and use it to target you.
It isn't going to stop, I'm not even sure the majority of us want it to.
The technological revolution has provided many benefits, privacy wasn't one of them.
We have surrendered our privacy to big business, not big brother.
Of course big brother is there, but for various reasons has been constrained in its tracking.
Few such constraints apply to big business which knows what you are thinking, sometimes before you do.
It couldn't have happened without our cooperation and it was the rise of the Internet and computing power that was the real impetus.
Before them media was simply something broadcast and the information about effectiveness and preferences had to be obtained from things like focus groups.
Today they are pretty much aware of everything you do on-line and use it to target you.
It isn't going to stop, I'm not even sure the majority of us want it to.
The technological revolution has provided many benefits, privacy wasn't one of them.
Friday, November 1, 2019
Health Care for All
The next election is likely to be decided, at least partly, by the issue of Health Care.
No one opposes providing it, although some seem to want to exclude certain people from receiving it, but the major issue is about how to pay for it and how to provide it.
Ultimately the health care we receive is provided by health care professionals, on-line resources, parents, various other providers using traditional or holistic methods, and, ourselves.
A great many things can be self treated or simply get better by themselves.
When something is more serious or traumatic, like a broken limb or bleeding wound, medical care is required. Still it is more efficient to make using the simplest remedies cost effective.
How to do this and provide a system that assures everyone has access to the care they need is the issue. Our current system works for a fairly large percentage of the population but not for many others.
A lot depends of whether you have a job with benefits or not and if not how you obtain health coverage. It also varies widely by where you live.
It would seem that one way would simply be to provide coverage to all those who don't currently have it and work out a transition plan for the rest.
We spend a tremendous amount on health care already and it would seem that an efficient system could reduce overall costs and provide the same or better coverage.
Its the details that are hard.
No one opposes providing it, although some seem to want to exclude certain people from receiving it, but the major issue is about how to pay for it and how to provide it.
Ultimately the health care we receive is provided by health care professionals, on-line resources, parents, various other providers using traditional or holistic methods, and, ourselves.
A great many things can be self treated or simply get better by themselves.
When something is more serious or traumatic, like a broken limb or bleeding wound, medical care is required. Still it is more efficient to make using the simplest remedies cost effective.
How to do this and provide a system that assures everyone has access to the care they need is the issue. Our current system works for a fairly large percentage of the population but not for many others.
A lot depends of whether you have a job with benefits or not and if not how you obtain health coverage. It also varies widely by where you live.
It would seem that one way would simply be to provide coverage to all those who don't currently have it and work out a transition plan for the rest.
We spend a tremendous amount on health care already and it would seem that an efficient system could reduce overall costs and provide the same or better coverage.
Its the details that are hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)