What Is Inappropriate Behavior?

With all the allegations of sexual harassment in the news you start to wonder "What the F...?"

Having been in the workplace for many years, although apparently a pretty boring one, I'm aware that there is a certain amount of interaction between men and women, some of which is welcome and some not welcome at all.

People spend a lot of time at work and there is a lot of time for interactions.

I've always worked in places where there were strict rules but rules are meant to be broken and much like any other place where people are together I've seen romance's blossom, some hearts broken, both ways and some bitter aftermaths.

I have seen a few cases of clearly inappropriate behavior that were handled and discipline administered.

What I now wonder is how much else may have been going on and how much did some behavior which seemed normal at the time border on what I read as sexual harassment now.

One example concerns relatively young naive people, both men and women who at lunch or near the water cooler might be teased about certain things that might elicit a blush or an awkward response.

Of course this is something that I consider fairly normal but after reading some accounts, is it now considered harassment or bullying?

Also what constitutes inappropriate touching?  Apparently shoulder rubs are a no-no.  It just seems that they used to be considered a nice thing.  Obviously they were never ok if objected to but if offered and accepted it never seemed inappropriate.

I'm not defending anyone who went over the line or used their position to force certain inappropriate behavior, but the line seems to be shifting and I wonder where it is going to stop. 

I know that human nature isn't going to change.

Impact of Tax Manipulation

It is certainly possible that we will see a tax bill passed to appease big business, not because it is considered wonderful, but because it is needed so Republicans can say they got something done.

The bill itself is clearly not of much benefit to anyone not already fairly wealthy although it does throw the masses a few bones.  Of course the real impact won't be felt until people file their 2018 tax returns, well after the midterms and before that many individuals might actually see small increases in take home pay as the tax rates get reduced.

The vast majority of Americans today actually use the tax system as sort of a forced saving device where what the pay every pay period is a little too high resulting in a refund when they file their taxes.

Having that little more in you pay check may seem fine until you find out the usual refund from personal deductions and other things has vanished.

As I said, the details are still vague and we know the benefit to low and middle class people is almost nothing, with increases likely in many States that have high taxes, but its simply impossible to do all the math until the bill is actually finalized and conferenced.

That's not going to stop our dotard talking about how it doesn't help people like him (it does) and how it is all aimed at the middle class (it isn't). 

We do know it is going to be a bonanza for business and wealthy individuals and that it will significantly increase the debt.  The only hope would be that it stimulates the economy so much that the increase economic activity offsets the expenses.  However, considering the looming worker shortage and the current level of activity, the chances of that are pretty slim.

More likely to have the opposite effect, as any excess can be used to buy down debt as the Fed increases the discount rate. 

Let's hope not.

State Dotardism

You set up a ceremony to honor true living heroes who served the country well and it should be a nice photo opportunity and a chance to generate some good will.

Of course, our dotard can't handle it.

He effectively slurs Elizabeth Warren who may or may not have some minor amount of native American ancestry by calling her Pocahontas, acting like its a common nickname for her, it isn't except maybe among rabid supporters or our dotard.

So a simple press opportunity becomes a story highlighting how he disrespected the Navajo code writers and it was compounded by staging the ceremony in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson who was no friend to the Native Americans in his day.

This will enable him to talk about fake news not covering the fact that he recognized the code writers but instead focusing on something irrelevant.  Of course every story will mention the purpose of the event, so they did cover it but he gave them the man bites dog angle that will get published.

Let's assume for a second that it isn't just idiocy, although that is a strong candidate, but some calculated strategy to divert attention from other news.

The fact that he is trying to neuter the Financial Protection Agency which Warren was a major proponent of may be the reason, since its very possible the courts will make him get congressional approval of his appointment.

Of course this publicity leads to the obvious point that he is in the hands of the big banks that his supporters hate so he needs to deflect.

So insult Warren and disrespect the code writers, but then have his own fake fox news argue wasn't disrespect at all.

I'm sure they will, puppet President, puppet news channel, puppet Congress and maybe soon a puppet court system.

Wasn't this what we fought against during the war the code writers helped us win?

Payback?

Every analysis I see about the two tax "reform' proposals clearly show that the real impact is to borrow money from the wealthy and then give it to them in tax breaks.

The rest of the bill is pretty much just distraction where some deductions go away and some deductions increase with no real impact except on a few who tend to suffer.

But reducing taxes on the major campaign contributors is always there and I'm sure it guarantees future donations.

Hell they even have said it, failure to pass this will lead to dried up funding.

The donors want their payback and they want it now, or else.

That's why the Republicans are willing to push ahead with a law that is unpopular now and likely to be more so if it passes.

Getting those donations will allow them to attribute any economic progress to the bill, even though we are already close to full employment and most businesses are doing quite well.

In fact the odds of this economic situation continuing under this administration is questionable, so they need to pass it before a recession comes.

The economic expansion goes back to shortly after the great recession and generally we are overdue for a correction.  I hope we don't get one, but we always have in the past.

Increased debt to pay the donors increases the chance of higher interest rates and that could easily tip the scales.

So pass this give away while they can claim credit where none is due/

The donors will know they delivered.

Fake News and those who believe it.

Sometimes you talk to someone and they say something so wrong that you don't know what to do.

For example there are people who argue that the Earth is flat.  This despite the fact that by now enough people have circumnavigated it to fill a small country and there are countless pictures from space.

Since the new way to deny the obvious is to declare it fake news or a conspiracy, you reveal yourself as being part of one or the other when you dispute him/her.

Something has gone very wrong when a larger than usual group of people hold views that are simply inane.

I'm not talking about people who think aliens exist or that there was more than one shooter involved in the JFK assassination, although I guess some it started with those people.

There are people with shows that espouse views that are simply dangerous and ridiculous but have a lot of listeners.

Denying Sandy Hook or the Las Vegas shootings as being staged by a group that is trying to take away guns, I think that's the argument, is cruel and vicious to the survivors of those events and relatives of the victims who know first hand that the events were very real.

The idea that we live in a society where lies are assumed is a sad statement and unfortunately if the argument is that everything you produce as proof is fabricated, then there is no real way to argue with them.

They are best ignored but we have theories going around spread by these people that are in fact dangerous.

Take the anti-vac people who are causing diseases to re-appear that were close to eliminated.

The very small risk related to taking vaccinations is nothing compared to the risk of the diseases themselves.

Ignore the fact that the industries in the world have been spewing dangerous and unknown chemical into the atmosphere at breakneck speed, and blame certain development on tested and approved medical treatments sponsored by those get rich quick doctors.

If you react the same way to every risk, you would probably never leave your house without a load of  heavy duty sunscreen, you certainly wouldn't drive or fly and probably realize that walking or running were likely to kill you any second now.

What we really need in this country is a return to common sense where we realize that what you see in the movies or on TV is not necessarily representative of the real world and people who tell you everyone else is lying to you are the ones doing the lying.

Less virtual and more actual reality please.

Conservative?

People use this term as if it was something everyone understood.  There's a definition of it in the dictionary but in usage it represents lots of different things, many of which aren't at all conservative in the dictionary sense.

In the definition it refers to someone who is averse to change, but people who call themselves conservatives are trying to change many things.

From a family values point of view they want to get rid of abortions and eliminate gay marriage.

Those now each represent changes, but they would argue they want to return to the way it once was, but of course its still a change.

Conservatives are trying to change the tax system to give business more money and raise the deficit.  These are both changes.

Many people calling themselves conservatives want to define this as a Christian country which would certainly be a major and radical change to the country where religious freedom was a founding principle.

They only want you to be free to practice a form of Christianity.

Of course they ignore Christian values when it suits their purpose and ignore abuse against women and minorities which isn't very Christian at all.

They can call themselves whatever they want but there isn't much conservatism in their positions for the most part.

They make up issues such as political correctness or worrying about what language people speak.

A real conservative would respect our constitutional freedom including freedom of religion.  They would respect the principle that all men are created equal with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They would represent real American values, not this made up faux radical stuff they call conservative values.

Trade

Pretty much every time the dotard tweets it makes you shake your head.

The point is that he seems to believe a lot of what he tweets even when it is obviously wrong.

In fact one wonders how he can be so wrong so often, but then again a lot of other people ate getting like that too.

There really are only two major positions on trade, one is to have unrestricted free trade with other nations and the other is to restrict it.

Economists would argue that the first is the better strategy with maybe a few limited exceptions.  The reason is that is allows the most efficient producer to sell the most products leading to the most efficient us of resources.

The protected trade position ends up keeping inefficiencies in the system as they are protected form competition.

It may be a worthwhile policy, on a limited basis to protect a new business until it can mature by giving it favorable access to your domestic market, understanding that it will cost your people more, at least in the short term.

It doesn't seem like the dotard has a clue about trade and seems to think the way it gets measured is by who sells the most, "the winner" of the deal.

So when cheap foreign manufacturers ended up selling more to us, at least on the surface, the dotard feels it is a bad deal.

It is almost inevitable that in most circumstances foreign countries will sell us more products than we will sell them for the simple reason that our economy is so much bigger.  We are the jackpot market and we just buy more than anyone else.

Of course, being wrong about a fairly complex issue isn't the worst thing, one would think he would have economic advisers who could explain it.  They aren't the people on the Faux Channel though.