Equality

The question about Government revolves around who benefits from it.

If you consider what we know about its origins, and this is mostly speculative, Government formed as a way to make decisions for the group.

If you look at the practices of aboriginal tribes they tend to follow a pattern. Generally they have a leader and often a council of elders who decide major issues.  Finally they allow all members a vote on the most significant issues.

This is because the Government is actually designed to benefit the greatest good not one person's ego.

This form of Government changes as the tribe grows or in some cases when a single person is able to alter the tribe dynamics and make it about himself.

As civilization advanced, so to speak we have seen many variations on Government but fundamentally the issue always remains does the Government serve the people or do the people serve the Government?

Generally people in power tend to forget their role as public servants, especially when they live in a time when they become beholden to special interests.

Now there are always some problems in a society as it develops and because of wealth accumulation most societies evolve towards concentration of power.  We like to say things like all people are equal before the law, but obviously that is not true as the wealthy are much less likely to be convicted

The lack of equality results in discontent that expresses itself in various ways.  The solution is to restore equality.  Can that happen while wealth is so unequal?

Probably not but equalizing wealth is a true challenge.

Time For It

I suppose if you just believe there is some sort of conspiracy trying to destroy the American way of life you are going to also accept theories about the deep state and people trying to stop prayer in the schools or elsewhere.

Of course the people doing this are not easily identified except as they.

They are ruining our way of life, disrespecting the flag, corrupting out youth, etc.

Interestingly the ancient Greeks executed Socrates for corrupting their youth, so its been going on a long time.

There is of course an identifiable source of all this.  Its been around for ever and is constantly disrupting things.

Its a force that is just about irresistible, although over the years many have tried to stop it.

They failed and those trying today will also fail.

Change is the problem and it simply can't be stopped.

It can be delayed but never stopped.

They Should Know Better

One of the strangest things about the current administration is how often they get things wrong and how bad they are at it.

In just the last few days we see the Secretary of State accusing a reporter of confusing Bangladesh with the Ukraine, and of breaking an agreement about topics.  She obviously knows where the Ukraine is and has text messages that contradict the agreement.

In DAVOS the Treasurer repeated the disproved idea that tax cuts pay for themselves.  They never have and never will, they enrich a few who get them.

Maybe the worst is the arguments made by the defense that no one has first hand knowledge of the "Quid Pro Quo" question about Ukraine the day after such a person was identified.

Its like catching your toddler surrounded by spilt cookies with crumbs on his lips but still saying it wasn't him.

They could probably all use a timeout.

Of course none of this was necessary and maybe the lesson here is that the leadership is so toxic that they can't find competent people for important positions.

I was watching a series about World War II where in the second half of the war, Hitler convinced that everyone around him was incompetent or disloyal decided to take charge.  It not likely that the outcome would have been different but time after time he issued idiotic commands that cost thousand of lives.

He was convinced he knew better than his Generals.

He clearly didn't.

Economy

As we go into tax season, Americans are forced to pay attention to how they did year over year.  In some cases all the care about is how big is their refund and when are they getting it.  Still it at least makes you notice the numbers on you W-2.

This is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.  For various reasons most working Americans should see a year over year increase in gross pay.  The current administration would like to take credit for that and if you are in certain categories maybe they should.  Of course gross pay isn't the best indicator, but its at least a easy to identify one.

IN many states any increase might be attributed to an increase in the minimum wage, not something done by the Federal Government  Twenty states increased minimum wage in 2019 and that has a significant impact on income growth.

The other issue is that much of the income growth is going to be consumed by higher deductibles and co-pays on health care.  Companies have been reducing cost by transferring costs to the employees.

Still the economy is doing well enough that many companies did give out raises.  Some more than others.  The real question is do they make a difference for most?

Economics uses averages but people live in singularity.  How many families feel significantly better off under this administration.  Certainly the people who have significant investments have done well and property values are doing OK, so the answer is, like always, it depends.

However, the people who were struggling before the last election are still struggling.  Manufacturing is pretty stagnant, tariffs hurt many and wage increase hardly offset increase expenses.

One of the things that happens in economics is that you measure by period.  So 2019 is compared to 2018, etc.  So things like the great recession of 2008-2009 get cooked in.  

I don't know if there has been a significant economic boom in the average person's income.  It doesn't seem like it, the main beneficiaries are those already doing well.

Cynicism

Many if not most Americans are looking at the Impeachment hearings and it seems like a lot of politics and not much crime.

The two crimes being charged are serious but in many people's view just more dirty politics.

Using a foreign power, or lies or manipulating the media to get elected all seems like the stuff politicians do, some just get caught.

One of the problems is that this particular President hasn't been shy about his behavior.

When you find a smoking gun because he hands it to you it loses some shock value.

The phone call was made but clearly he would be expected to talk to foreign leaders.  Delaying the aid is allowed under certain circumstances which didn't apply here, but that seems like a technicality.

So the crimes are not clear from the acts (like the Watergate burglary) but from the interpretation of the acts.

This turns it from a purely objective issue into a bit of a subjective one and that is a problem.

Cynical Americans see the two parties diametrically opposed and think this is just more politics.

I don't know if more witnesses confirming the events will convince the public.  It won't sway the Senate.

He did what he is accused of and a lot of people aren't sure its any worse than what the rest do.

We are too cynical.

Dangerous Trend

In this country we rejected the idea of having a King and decided to have a representative form of Government.  We did however provide for a strong Executive branch, equal to the Legislative and Judicial Branches.

Defining the limits of each Branches authority has always been a problem particularly when the Nation is faced with a crisis or a war.  In such time the Executive branch is given additional powers, temporarily, in order to act quickly.

We saw a significant expansion of these powers starting with the Great Depression.  The expansion continued during World War 2 and stayed at an elevated level to some extent since then.

We had enough wars and other crises that we have effectively changed from a Government of the people to a Government of a leader and followers.

When we elect a President now, he generally represents his or her own views which he shares to some extent with the Party that nominates him.  However, somewhat uniquely, the nominee only becomes the leader of the party after he gets nominated.  In other countries the party leader is well known and a strong representative of its values.

Here we see the winner of the last election effectively usurp the party he was nominated by.

We see the other party in nominating primaries where one of the leaders isn't even a member of that party.

We have in effect become a country where we vote for a particularly personality instead of a set of values.

This is a path that if not reversed will lead to a dictatorship.

Guilty as Charged but ?

So he did it, but is it a crime?

The answer is yes but they are not dramatic sort of crimes.

The first crime is trying to use the power of his office for personal gain.  The personal gain was to create a controversy about a political rival that he and his propaganda machine can use to attack.  This tactic was quite successful against his last opponent even when all the accusation were false.

In some ways he has succeeded in doing this as the involvement of the Biden's in Ukraine has garnered some headlines and I guarantee that will increase.  He failed in one aspect getting the Ukrainians to go along with it.

This is illegal because he held US Assets to pressure Ukraine.  Yes he eventually released them but that doesn't mean it wasn't a crime.  The GAO has pointed out it violated US law.

However, most Americans don't see this as particularly meaningful.  The see it as inappropriate and maybe a violation, but more like a speeding ticket than say a murder.  There is a deep suspicion that politicians are always doing things like this and the fact that this got exposed is more bad luck than anything out of the ordinary.  We don't trust Government and we keep seeing Media exposes about how Government has been lying to us for many years, maybe forever.

The second crime involves the cover up which is clear but once again seems like the sore to thing politicians do.  He put roadblocks in the path of the Congress which went around them instead of fighting them out in court.  That decision might be the one that results n the failure of the process.  Clearly the witnesses could clarify the crime and the issues.  The House could have waited for the courts to weigh in, but instead moved ahead hoping the Senate would get on-board.

It probably won't and thinking it would was more a pipe dream than anything else.

Possibly worse is that the process has been made boring.  Most of the Senate seems bored and the viewing public even more so.  It confirms the high school belief that History is boring.

Being a Democracy

As much as the founders and the constitution were impressive for their time we need to realize that their world view was dated.

For example, while we have noble words about how our Government is one of the people, the people who got to participate were generally free, white and male.

Everyone else was excluded.

In fact in our early years there were also restrictions concerning property ownership,

The words in the constitution have been interpreted differently over the years.  For example we have reinterpreted the second amendment expanding its meaning well beyond the Militia requirement.  

In other areas we have expanded the constitutional rights to include states and the laws they pass.

One area where we have strayed significantly from its intent is in the form of Government.  A strict reading of the Constitution clearly gives the Congress the power to govern and the President the power to manage.  There has been a shift since the pre-civil war days increasing the powers of the presidency and therefore decreasing the powers of the Congress.

This creates a bit of a problem in the sense that the President is not elected based on popular vote.  The electoral college and the Senate were designed to prevent the rabble from taking over the Government.  

If you consider two states, California and Wyoming, you see the disparity.  In California a senator represents about 40 million people while in Wyoming its about 500 thousand or 1/80th.  

The electoral college is not as bad but still unrepresentative.

Now one might argue that this protects small states from big ones, but it allows the smaller ones to exercise power based on geography, not demographics.

If we want to be a democracy we need to address this situation. Of course the situation itself prevents us from addressing it as the low population states can block any reform.   

Progressive Issues

One of the things we have to deal with in this country are people who become fervent about a cause or a candidate without actually having a lot of facts to base that on.

It has a lot to do with short attention spans, disillusionment and media blitzes.

Last election we saw this play out in the election of our current President, who appealed to disgruntled people by promising to roll back the clock.  He couldn't do that and of course hasn't.  However on the other side we saw similar disgruntled people get behind a progressive candidate promising to institute unrealistic policies.

Now politicians make promises and its the job of the voters with help from the media to interpret the validity of those promises.  The first problem is that getting policies passed is a complex process that can't be dictated by a single person.  Even with majorities in both houses, getting legislation passed can be a challenge and then it has to stand up to judicial review.

Still many voters and even more non-voters feel that they are lied to and they have some basis for that.  Unfortunately these over the top promises can poison the water once a nominee is selected who has a more realistic position (i.e. 2016 election).

Perhaps the most significant factor in the last presidential election were the people who decided not to vote because the candidate of their party was going to win anyways, had too many (false) accusations leveled at her, or wasn't progressive enough.  Of course this resulted in a victory for a person that has set back progressive policies by possibly decades, loaded the judicial system with problematic justices, ignore climate change and has bolstered inequality.

Fight for the issues you want in the primaries but then support the candidate who is most likely to help those issues in the general election.

Otherwise watch them wither.

Leadership

Our experiment with a B-List celebrity as our President is still going to last for another year.

Like many such people, he craves attention and being considered an A-Lister.

You would think being President would be enough but he only gets recognized, in a good way sort of, by his rich sycophants at his resort.

He knows that the political world and the mainstream media consider him a fool.

He has that loose cannon thing but he really has no idea about most issues and relies upon right wing media to tell him what to do.

On a day when we celebrate a leader who led by force of character and personal commitment we see the difference.

One persuaded people to follow his example, the other basically does a stand up routine at his rallies.

One was moral the other certainly isn't and might not know what it means.

One served the other only pursues his self interests.

One had a dream of equality the other caters to the worst instincts in people.

Today we celebrate Martin Luther King while we try to impeach the other.

Seems appropriate.

Sunday Jan 19t

I read a lot of intellectual analyze the American electorate.  In order to do this they have to lump people into categories.  So you have farmers, and women and white non-college educated men, and evangelicals, and so on.

Now statistically the groups share some common attributes and experiences that may in fact influence how a majority of them vote.  Then again it might not.

Not every person who went to college and live in a city making a good living votes for Democrats/  Not every soybean farmer in Kansas votes for Republicans.

Each person has a different reason for voting the way they do and I sometimes think its as much about where you live as anything else.

I used to travel quite a bit and one of the things you notice in hotels that give you a free breakfast is that what is on the communal TV varies greatly by region.

In Fort Worth it was of curse local news and weather with a large dose of conservatism in every ad.  Now there are always some political ads and when I was there the people running for office were all principled conservatives.  Other ads for goods appealed to religious and patriotic impulses to push their wares.  Of course some ads were simply the same ads you see everywhere.

In California it was very different.  A lot of ads were about how environmentally conscious the vendors were.  I don't think an election was on so I didn't get direct political ads, but I doubt I would have seen that many principled conservatives there.

The point I'm making is that the media sells to the public its demographics indicate and they then reinforce those beliefs.

So when you don't understand how someone in XXXXXX could support the things they do, you might need to live with the media they get.  The messages are not the same.

Saturday Musings

I suppose this is true everywhere and it might even be worse in other countries.  The Media has to find things to print or air that creates interest.  There are really a fairly small number of new interesting things every day so we rehash things until they basically liquify.

Take the upcoming Impeachment trial.  The issue is really did the President perform the actions he is accused of and if so are they serious enough to warrant dismissal.

It has even started yet but the amount written about it and aired about it on a daily basis is tremendous.

This isn't the only thing, we see coverage of the Democratic primaries that never seems to end when we haven't had a single one yet.

Apparently the Iowa caucus goers are incredibly shallow since the failure of a few Senators to campaign in person because of the Impeachment might cause them to lose.

I gather it the hand shaking that matters in that State.

Iowa has been a State for a long time and while many of us think of it as mostly farmland (all States generally are) or as a place where there is trouble in River City, it has a population that is as smart as the rest of the country generally.  It isn't the most diverse state, but I would think the voters can make up their minds knowing their favorite candidate has other obligations.

In fact the right wing of the country thinks the whole Impeachment is a scheme to keep Senators away so Biden can win.

The right wing of our country has become truly enamored of conspiracies and while they must miss the Clintons, they are finally moving on a bit.

They sheer amount of repetition they use to try to get these outrageous things into the public consciousness is a bit ingenious.

Its worked in the past, but maybe we are on to them this time around.

Time will tell.

Truth Be Told

Whenever I find myself listening to the current President talk, I find it hard to believe that it is not a piece of performance art.  He says things over and over that are generally not true and is convinced people will just believe him.

For example he keeps referring to his phone call with the Ukrainian president as a perfect call.  First that means nothing since what is a perfect call.  Second in that call and the abridged transcript, he clearly did some things that were far from perfect like requesting investigations as favors.  Third, we don't have the actual transcript, just an abridged version.

The people who heard that call were alarmed and it led to a whistleblower complaint, the actual transcript being classified and put on a special server and ultimately to this impeachment.

Should he be removed from office for the call?  That is open to debate but the call wasn't perfect.

His comment about the economy are exaggerated and his depiction of where we were under his predecessor are actually ludicrous.  Since the 2008/2009 financial crisis we have seen a fairly consistent recovery, falling unemployment, rising stock prices, improved economics.  Most of that has continued but he has increased the deficit, spent additional millions on defense and hurt farmers and manufacturing as well as some consumers with his tariffs.  Is the economy good.  Yes, generally but it is not perfect or the best ever unless you are one of his rich cronies who has more profits, less environmental requirements and tremendously increased income inequality.

Working people have less benefits, less old age security, less health care and generally reduce salaries as they have found lower paying jobs.

Its perfect for a few and otherwise you struggle to get by.

I gather some people buy into his lies and many others just ignore them since they are afraid of his clout in their primaries.

The media is a large part of the problem as some have become pure propaganda and the others try to balance their reporting when the scales are simply not working.

The attacks on the media are working as our free press have failed being brave.

I just wish the truth was told.

Sexist Politics?

People are of course entitled to their own opinions and in this country they even have the right to express them freely.  There may be some people who think a woman running for President faces challenges that a man doesn't.

We only have one example of this and that woman got a lot more votes than the man but lost because of the electoral college.  Even there, the number of votes that decided the election in a few states were a very small number.  It is certainly possible that some men and maybe women too, voted against her because of her sex.  I suppose some voted for her for the same reason.  Did it impact that election?  Maybe.

It would be non-sensical for anyone to think that a woman couldn't win an election, one already did per the popular vote.

So did Bernie Sanders take that position in 2018  It seems very unlikely both based on his progressive record, his experience in losing to a woman and common sense.

It also seems clear that Elizabeth Warren heard something that made her think he did say it.  Perhaps he did say it in some context which we don't have.  It doesn't make sense on its face which makes it difficult to believe.

More importantly it doesn't matter.  If in fact he thinks any group can't be elected, that's his right.  I didn't think America would elect a black president until they did.  My opinion wasn't based on my beliefs but rather my interpretation of the country as a whole.  How does this reflect anything about me except my wrong analysis?

If the view was that a group was unfit to be president, that might be newsworthy, but thinking they might lose seems like a simple prediction.

Why Warren even brought it up is political and why the media is playing it up is, well its the media.

Who really cares?

Boring Politics

If you follow the news you sometimes think that politics is something really important to Americans.

Well many Americans can't tell you who their elected representatives are.  Most are aware of who is President, hard not to notice, but not so much everyone else.

I'm sure there are plenty of surveys out there about this, but I simply check with young people I now and discover that they are much more interested in other things.

Life is what happens on a daily basis.  Certain things are related to politics but most things don't seem to be.

If you can't get a good paying job or if you can you probably don't think politics is the reason, although it might be.

I do think that most young people are concerned about climate change, how could they not be, but they tend to blame all politicians and older people without thinking about the politics involved.

One of the problems is how boring politics are.  Both the Impeachment hearings and the Democratic debates are hard to watch unless you are already committed.  Trump rallies on the other hand are much more entertaining.

Hopefully between now and the election we will find a way to energize Americans about the issues.

Arguing the finer points of how to achieve universal health care or other issues that are hard to follow won't do it.

Logic?

Our current position on climate change seems to be that we aren't going to impose controls that hurt our competitive position in the world.

So if a country like India, uses coal to try to provide electricity to its rural population we won't insist that our coal fired plants clean up.

They are anyways since the owners can see the future better than our administration.  It should also be noted that its the wages that move jobs to these countries, not the use of coal.

Certain industries complain to the dotard that they can't compete because of all our regulations.  He believes them and allows them to make a few extra dollars at the cost of the environment.  They still outsource to cheaper locations which remain cheaper because of labor costs.

So no new jobs and we all get a little closer to Armageddon.  The increase in profits help the stock price and a few well to do shareholders benefit..

This is the type of logic we have.

The environmental catastrophes we are seeing today are because of bad policies from the past.

We need to do better for the future.

We aren't.

People

Forget about political parties for a second and consider the state of the people.

A very small percentage have so much that they have no concerns about how to pay for things or how much they cost.

They are a small percentage but in a country such as ours that still adds up to a significant number.

Enough of them, mostly those new to the group, are very visible and flaunt their lifestyle and wealth.

They create a desire in others to be like them, to join that exclusive club.  A few do either because of a bright idea or perhaps sport talent but for most of us they are out of realistic reach.

Another percentage of Americans about (10%) are what we used to call comfortable.  They have accumulated some wealth and income and while not so secure as to be worry free, they can enjoy much of what America has to offer.

They likely have or had a job with a major corporation and earned, to some extent income and prestige.

Below them is the group that we tend to think of as the middle class, although that term is pretty vague.  They tend to be college educated, employed and are able (with credit) to afford a house, a nice car, some investments, some savings and generally resemble the Americans we see in most sitcoms.  They are not likely to have much of a cushion, likely to have student debt for themselves or their children and employer provided health insurance.  They live a life at risk of a major financial setback, such as loss of job and benefits or a major health crisis.

We now turn to working class Americans who comprise the rest.  The jobs they can get now are not as good as the high paying high benefit Union jobs their fathers had, as unions have been effectively attacked by the business owners.  They struggle on a regular basis to live a decent lifestyle and the industrious ones work multiple jobs and so do their spouses, and they still have trouble.  Many of them turn to alcohol or drugs to deal with the desperation of their lives and neither helps beyond the immediate high.  They struggle and are the most manipulated group.  They are told that immigrants and minorities have stolen the good jobs and the good benefits.  The very things they need, like health care and decent old age pensions, affordable or free education and job training are lambasted as giveaways to those "others" that come out of their tax dollars.

It is this last group that is most likely to want change or to decide that the system is so broken that it isn't even worth voting.

You see a concerted effort to convince them that the very people who moved their jobs, reduced their benefits and initiated the opioid epidemic have their best interests at heart.

As they like to say, what else do you have to lose?

Whatever it is, they will take it.

The Future

It should be noted that the two areas that continue to decline in this country are manufacturing and coal mining.

It is just cheaper to manufacture elsewhere and coal doesn't make sense anymore, there are cheaper alternatives.

This has impacted and continues to impacts certain areas of this country disproportionately and the solution is not a return to a past that is long gone but movement into the future.

There are already areas that have transitioned into new industries and abandoned most of the old.

Jobs in the service sector don't offer the same level of income and security for the unskilled as our old manufacturing economy used to.

The transition is therefore going to require that the Government fill some of the gaps in things like health care and pensions that have been created.

The alternative is a further increase in income inequality as those with the right skills or right connections do well and everyone else doesn't.

At this point people are being warned against voting for their own self interests with scare tactics and social issues.

We are a country of and for the people, so what serves them is what is right for America.

Why?

I don't favor assassinations.  I'm not greatly supportive of the idea that we have troops in places far from here fighting our "enemies".

I do believe that if someone attacks us or perhaps certain allies we need to respond.

However what exactly are we doing in the middle east at this point in time?

I remember when Iraq and Iran were engaged in a brutal war committing atrocities against each other.

The impact on most Americans was non-existent.  Those engaged in certain weapons production benefited to a certain extent.

Atrocities were committed and I don't condone those, but outside of feeling bad for humanity it wasn't a issue.

When the Russian and Afghans were fighting I also don't remember caring much, although I was interested.  Had Afghanistan become a Russian puppet state, I guess it would have been a bad thing, but it never seemed very likely.

What wasn't going on was the loss of American lives or the trillions of dollars down the drain.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, this all changed.  Now after almost 30 years, multiple regime changes, thousands of Americans killed and trillions of dollars spent, we see new players, shifting power centers and continuing conflict.

Would we have had 9-11 if we didn't intervene?

If those oil fields were part of Iraq would I care?

I can't imagine I would.

Responsibility

I read a lot of "exposes" talking about inequality and how this group or some other group has failed to be diverse enough.  Accepting the conclusion the question has to be who is at fault?

Take the Democratic candidates running for office.  It looks like with the exception of Andrew Yang the field is not going to be very diverse.  It clearly isn't going to be reflective of the Democratic party so who is at fault.  Well the public is.  The rules for participation were pretty clear and even fair, up to a point, but the candidates who will be on the stage met the levels for donations and polling.

Well we donate and respond to polls so the people up their were selected by us.  Maybe the rules were biased, maybe not, or maybe we are simply unhappy with the result, or at least the media is.  Still while clearly the results aren't very diverse, maybe we want it that way.

Similarly I see various organizations attacked for not being diverse enough.  Now when you have a single person doing the selecting its clear who's responsible.  Still even then it becomes an issue of qualified candidates.

In other organizations it becomes a matter of individual choice.  With the latest round of firings and hires and fires I see that the NFL is not diverse enough when it comes to head coaches.  Since each team makes their own selection one would realize the team owners are responsible, but not really as a group.  Were the head coaches hired the best possible?  Probably not but you would have to examine the details of each selection.  All you can really do is provide the opportunity to compete.  Would I like to see a more diverse group?  I would be fine with that, but I also realize each team is trying to win, not solve some social issue.

Yes, embedded racism is most likely the reason for a lack of diversity in these positions, but you can't eliminate racism at the top without addressing it at the bottom.  Too many minorities start off with a disadvantage in income and education to compete.  We really need to solve those causes.

State of the Union?

There is a scheduled stat of the union address coming up and without any advance knowledge except the general behavior of this President we know he will declare himself the Greatest of All Time.

Obviously he isn't, except in his own mind and in a few of his fervent followers.

The most surprising thing about his administration is that it hasn't resulted in more disastrous results.

The one place he likes to take credit is on the economy which in some respects remains strong.  It was strong when he replaced the previous President and while the stock market has continued its rally it is in some respects not as good.  Because of the tariffs and trade wars we have seen negative impacts on farmers and some manufacturing.  Some of this was offset by a tax reduction that contributes to the high deficit but most Americans are not worse off, some got richer and we continue to transition from manufacturing to service.

We do have that deficit to deal with and it is potentially devastating.

Concerning foreign affairs we are clearly much worse off than we were.  We were used by North Korea and provided them with a lot of propaganda.  Our allies no longer trust us.  The middle east is getting worse.  We did continue our policy which came close to eliminating ISIS but after our betrayal of the Kurds and our recent behavior is troublesome.  Its hard to imagine anyone thinking we are better off.

His behavior in the Ukraine was clearly self serving and has led to articles of Impeachment.  While he is likely to be acquitted on political grounds but the behavior has been confirmed.

Domestically some areas might depend on your political perspective, like abortion. Others like hate crimes, health care, tax fairness, gun control, social justice, we see nothing good.

Finally, everyone agrees that the country is more divided than anyone would want.  When you get elected due to a quirk in our constitution after losing the popular vote significantly, you should probably consider the desires of the majority.

He doesn't.

Is This Helping America?

When you consider the middle east and our involvement in it, it boils down to two issues, Oil and Israel.

Now for various reasons we have been identified as enemies by many natives in the region resulting in various attacks on us as "The Great Satan".

The current situation has a rather long and complex history, with escalations at each stage involving us more and more in countries which in all honesty have no great impact on America, except of course for the fact that we have troops there.

What is probably the next stage is increasing hostilities, possibly war, with Iran which I'm sure we can "defeat" but which I doubt we can subjugate.

We had at one time installed a friendly ruler there, the Shah, and we know how that worked out.

The question now is how many Americans and Iranians are going to die now?

It is almost certain that in ten years time we can use the following sentence,

"After xxx casualties and $xxx dollars we have no resolution in sight and must maintain our presence in the area."

So dead Americans and wasted billions, if not trillions.

Refugees and ruined lives for many Iranians.

And the benefit is?

Are the lives of our young people really that unimportant?

What about the potential terrorist victims here and abroad?

And no real reason why.

Justification?

When I watch some of the Sunday news shows, you hear explanations for certain action by this administration.  They are frequently illogical and condescending to both the American public and sometimes the world.

The recent assassination of an Iranian general has no real legal justification.  We are not at war with Iran and while we may attribute certain action by Militias in Iraq and Syria to Iranian influence to hold a high official in the Iranian government personally responsible would mean our officials can be held responsible for acts performed by militias we support.

If he was indeed planning an "imminent" attack on this country or our citizens it might be justification, but such an attack would need to be actually in the works and imminent.

It should also be noted that the attack was done without internal notification and on a third party countries territory.

No matter how bad he might have been, and he clearly was, he was still an official of a country we are not at war with.

The danger is that our ability to simply kill actors from a distance adds a new dimension to this sort of assassination.  Had we at least accused him internationally of war crimes we may have had some justification.

Repercussions are already started and they are likely to escalate.  That is not the reason the assassination was wrong, it is wrong because it is essentially a violation of "thou shall not kill".

Whatever exceptions we have applied to that, none of them seem to apply here.

Increasing Danger

Its impossible at this point to determine the full consequences of our recent assassination of a foreign General we are not at war with.  It Is at the very least a strong recruitment tool for various terrorists groups. The claims that this saved American lives is probably specious and of course without further information we will never know, but considering the lie record of this President it is likely false.

We see our country now on a heightened level of alert and everyone expects retaliation of some sort.  How much this will escalate the fighting in the middle east is unpredictable, but we have a President throwing fuel on the fire with ongoing public threat that sound a lot like rhetoric you usually hear for terrorist leaders or petty tyrants.

He may qualify as both.

The justifications for this assassination are not very convincing and certainly not based on sound legal doctrine.  The idea that it was done in self defense is just not very credible.  He was certainly providing advice and guidance to various militias operating in Syria and Iraq but that is nothing new and there is no evidence it was aimed at us in particular.  It is also unlikely that his death will make much difference since the people planning these events are still there.

It is very likely that plans will not be made to target American interests more than before.  It has made the world and this country less safe for Americans.  It is also likely to be the total end of any compliance with the nuclear deal they agreed to.

 Not too long ago there was a movie called "Real Genius" about students at I believe MIT .  In the movie they learned that Government project they were working on was for a weapon that would allow the military to assassinate foreign enemies from space, and they proceeded to effectively sabotage it.  The general idea of using science as an instrument of assassination was abhorrent to them.

Of course science has always enhanced our ability to kill each other and the movie while funny was naïve.  The research would go on despite their actions and our ability to kill remotely would grow.

Of course that is a double edged sword ultimately.

Terrorism?

Was the United States justified in assassinating Qassem Soleimani?

We are not at war with Iran or Iraq and our decision to bomb his vehicles in a foreign country is not justified by any normal rule of war.

Of course if you classify him as a terrorist and justify it on those grounds it may have some validity.

Was he a terrorist?  Well he was no friend to the US and may have provided some support to groups we consider terrorist, but it should be noted he was a high level official in the Iranian Government and was not accused of War Crimes in any recognized tribunal.

For us to determine he was a terrorist, and send an air strike into Iraq to kill him sounds a bit like a terrorist action itself..

What if Iran was to decide to execute American officials in retaliation?  They may not have the means but would our action give them that right?

Perhaps there are more details to come but on the facts it looks a lot like a terrorist attack.

If the rule is we did it because we can, well that isn't a great defense.

Fairness

There was a time when we thought of the world as effectively infinite, where its riches could be had simply by finding and taking them.  Of course since earliest times the challenge was for those who found the resource, i.e. a tree full of ripe fruit, to keep it for themselves.

So first come first served was effectively the order of the world.  This is in fact the fundamental requirement for a capitalist society, the ability to keep your assets and use them as you see fit.

However the world is not infinite.  Society has to decide what is fair?

We see wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer people as time passes. The old saying about the rich getting richer is truer today than it ever was.  It becomes especially problematic as technology finds replacements for human power.

The ability to get a entry level job and work your way up has become more and more a thing of the past.  We hear about the gig economy where people survive by having relatively short term gigs, one after the other.

The security of working at a company for years, getting promotions and pay raises and building up a pension is becoming a bit of an anachronism.  Instead everyone has to constantly compete and reinvent themselves, unable to achieve security or decent benefits, saddled with student debt, constantly on edge.

Of course its not all that way, but its is moving towards it.

Should each person have some guaranteed security and an opportunity to excel or should it remain a dog eat dog sort of world?

A rich country like ours can certainly help its citizens to a certain level of security regarding education, health care and old age pensions.  Or we can have the elites and the rest of us.

Hiding the Truth

Generally in a trial two things need to be determined. The first is whether what happened constituted a crime. The second is whether the accused did in fact commit the act.

Impeachment is really no different with a major difference. An Impeachable offense does not have to be a crime, only something deemed impeachable. The duty to determine that is invested in the House of Representatives and they have returned two impeachable acts.

Under our constitution, that determination is final and we now proceed to the Senate.

The Senate conducts the equivalent of a trial to determine a number of things. Did the President actually commit the acts he is accused of? Do those acts merit the only punishment available under the constitution, removal?

We see both of these items under assault or at least being challenged on social media by the President. Despite that, it is pretty clear he did in fact perform the acts he is accused of.

What is therefore the remaining issue, and the one that the last Impeachment trial turned on, is do the offenses merit removal? It seems most likely that the Senate will decide they don't and whatever your political leanings, the actions involved, at least so far, did not result in any specific harm to the country or its citizens, outside of the real but somewhat esoteric issue of violating the Constitution.

So assuming the Senate goes the way expected, the next step is the election to follow. This is the issue related to the details of the Senate trial currently being fought over.   The more witnesses and the longer it goes, the more likely the public will absorb the misdeeds that occurred.

A quick acquittal will keep the public uninformed.

Seems to be the result desired by Republicans.