Have you noticed how Republicans take over (previously respected) organizations and turn them into FOX-lite "news" sources? They took over the venerable conservative Chamber of Commerce and now one of its directors is under indictment with regard to coal mine deaths. They're apparently in the process of taking over NBC News. The ouster of David Gregory from Meet The Press (MTP) was apparently in part because Comcast (a separate cable service) wanted to use MTP as a lobbying arm for Conservative causes. Rupert Murdoch who owned FOX also bought the Wall Street Journal. There has hardly been a more revered conservative financial paper and now it can't be trusted to cover the bottom of the cat's box.
North Korea may say scary things and they are a nation which has a military and at least one nuclear bomb, but the Republicans are an invading army and they're among us.
Their latest effort is to replace Doug Elmendorf (I'm sure you all know that name, right) as head of the Congressional Budget Office. His offense? They don't like the numbers his non-partisan office puts out which show Obamacare saves money and that tax cuts for the rich don't boost the economy. Yep. They don't like him being honest.
Beware of invading Conservatives. Don't let them hide under your Christmas tree or they'll undermine it with broken toys & candy canes.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Power Tends to Corrupt -- and then there's the Overreach
Why did Bush or his CIA people torture? Why did Putin dream up Novo-Russia and take both Crimea and eastern Ukraine? Why do police officers in America shoot and kill so many unarmed people? Why do rich people think they can buy political power by flooding political campaigns with money?
Unaccountability.
Pres. Bush or his CIA people probably never thought once that any of the things they have done could or would lead to any kind of moment of accountability.
Vladimir Putin has a tremendous popularity in Russia (or at least he did before the price of oil dropped) and probably never thought for a second he would have difficulty continuing his presidency and his plan to create the new Russian empire.
Police officers in America often act when there are no witnesses and kill people whom the larger public thinks may have deserved it. There is no oversight. Who are these police officers? Some are simply seeking a good-paying job. Some are thugs who like to hurt people. The thugs love their position of power and hope to avoid scrutiny. Often the police corps simply envelops them with a blanket of immunity and secrecy.
George W. Bush referred to a room of very rich Republican campaign donors as "his base". The fact the general public doesn't know who those rich people are and what their individual agendas might be means they have the same secrecy as the police, but they have great wealth which gives them power over policy -- often more powerful than even a gun. Who watches the rich and their contributions? Nowadays nobody does because the Supreme Court overturned campaign finance law and opened the flood gates to individual OR corporate contributions. They've essentially said "corporations are people too, my friend".
It's important when a Senate report on the torturing (or Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and their application) is made public. If there is controversy in government then the public at large can consider this and decide to support or change that policy. There may even be retribution from other nations if we don't change our ways.
It's important when the media report on Russia's behavior in Ukraine, so everyone can decide whether it's valuable to oppose Putin or acquiesce to his aggression(s).
It's important when the president forms a commission or has the Dept. of Justice study a social problem like gun violence by police officers. That too should be made public, so the sovereign People can consider it and possible alternatives.
Oversight!
If we are truly a Democracy in that the People are the Sovereign, then we have to know about (apparent) violations of Law or social standards, so we can discuss the issue(s) and decide on a course we want to follow.
Unaccountability.
Pres. Bush or his CIA people probably never thought once that any of the things they have done could or would lead to any kind of moment of accountability.
Vladimir Putin has a tremendous popularity in Russia (or at least he did before the price of oil dropped) and probably never thought for a second he would have difficulty continuing his presidency and his plan to create the new Russian empire.
Police officers in America often act when there are no witnesses and kill people whom the larger public thinks may have deserved it. There is no oversight. Who are these police officers? Some are simply seeking a good-paying job. Some are thugs who like to hurt people. The thugs love their position of power and hope to avoid scrutiny. Often the police corps simply envelops them with a blanket of immunity and secrecy.
George W. Bush referred to a room of very rich Republican campaign donors as "his base". The fact the general public doesn't know who those rich people are and what their individual agendas might be means they have the same secrecy as the police, but they have great wealth which gives them power over policy -- often more powerful than even a gun. Who watches the rich and their contributions? Nowadays nobody does because the Supreme Court overturned campaign finance law and opened the flood gates to individual OR corporate contributions. They've essentially said "corporations are people too, my friend".
It's important when a Senate report on the torturing (or Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and their application) is made public. If there is controversy in government then the public at large can consider this and decide to support or change that policy. There may even be retribution from other nations if we don't change our ways.
It's important when the media report on Russia's behavior in Ukraine, so everyone can decide whether it's valuable to oppose Putin or acquiesce to his aggression(s).
It's important when the president forms a commission or has the Dept. of Justice study a social problem like gun violence by police officers. That too should be made public, so the sovereign People can consider it and possible alternatives.
Oversight!
If we are truly a Democracy in that the People are the Sovereign, then we have to know about (apparent) violations of Law or social standards, so we can discuss the issue(s) and decide on a course we want to follow.
Monday, December 15, 2014
Boxes, Cans and Plastic Bags
I was walking through the aisles of Walmart's Supercenter, where the groceries are, and it suddenly occurred to me that everything was in boxes, cans and plastic bags. Yes, I know you can get a can of beans, but there were a lot of what we call "prepared foods". I love a simple box of rice with seasonings or a bag of tortilla chips with a jar of salsa, but these are prepared and more costly than home-made foods. I couldn't fix the chips at home, so having a company make them and have them regularly on the store shelves is a great benefit to all of us who enjoy them. That's true of the prepared foods in general and that's a main reason we have them. But, I wondered, when was the last time I fixed my own meal from scratch.
I immediately thought about fixing a meal and settled on chili. It's not too hard or time consuming and I hadn't had any for a while. You begin with ground beef, maybe some sausage (ground or link), onions, green pepper, garlic (optional), tomatoes (diced at home or in a can), tomato juice (in a plastic bottle), pinto beans (from a can), kidney beans (from a can and already in a chili sauce), maybe some diced chilis (from a can or not is your choice) and some water. Already, in this home-made recipe, I have beans in a chili sauce and pre-diced tomatoes and tomato juice in a bottle and garlic powder instead of a clove of garlic and pre-diced chilis. It's real work to think of the really really raw ingredients and how long it would take to cook the dish that way.
Some people think raw foods are naturally better, but I think that's a bit impractical. We've grown used to having cans (or jars) of foods and bagged & boxed cereals, flour, sweeteners and various other things. Truly starting from scratch may be possible in many cases and for vegetables that's easier, but a lot of the boxed & canned things are fine. If you don't like the highly-refined flours (for example) you can get bagged whole-grain flour for making breads and such. It's odd, but you pay more for the less-refined because there are fewer people buying those.
Is it cheaper to begin with truly raw foods? I think some would be, but once you get beyond potatoes, onions, tomatoes, peppers, lettuce and things like that you have more expensive things like fresh herbs & spices. And, you have to do a tiny bit more to prepare and use them, so that's your time being used. Again, it's clear Americans favor the time-saving canned & boxed things to save time with some simple preparation issues: peeling or dicing or smashing (to paste) tomatoes for example are easier than doing it yourself and they're just as good.
Beyond that we are seduced into things like rice in a box (very cheap stuff) with some other seasonings (not so easy for everyone to toss together) to make a nicer dish. And, once we go down that road the possibilities for prepared foods becomes very complicated and more expensive and possibly less healthy for us. I noticed a box of pre-made servings of hash-brown potatoes. You wouldn't have to peel and cut any potatoes. Just pull one out of the freezer and put it in a toaster oven or on the frying pan for a few minutes. It's almost a miracle, but somehow it also seemed a lot less appealing than home-made. It's hard to grow up in our world and not be skeptical of food quality. Frozen meatballs or chicken strips are other examples. Is the meat quality what you really expect?
It pays to know whether you're eating healthy and reasonably-priced foods. If we then make the choice for easier prepared things then at least it's our choice. Just buying what's on the shelves without consideration is putting your wallet in someone else's hands.
I immediately thought about fixing a meal and settled on chili. It's not too hard or time consuming and I hadn't had any for a while. You begin with ground beef, maybe some sausage (ground or link), onions, green pepper, garlic (optional), tomatoes (diced at home or in a can), tomato juice (in a plastic bottle), pinto beans (from a can), kidney beans (from a can and already in a chili sauce), maybe some diced chilis (from a can or not is your choice) and some water. Already, in this home-made recipe, I have beans in a chili sauce and pre-diced tomatoes and tomato juice in a bottle and garlic powder instead of a clove of garlic and pre-diced chilis. It's real work to think of the really really raw ingredients and how long it would take to cook the dish that way.
Some people think raw foods are naturally better, but I think that's a bit impractical. We've grown used to having cans (or jars) of foods and bagged & boxed cereals, flour, sweeteners and various other things. Truly starting from scratch may be possible in many cases and for vegetables that's easier, but a lot of the boxed & canned things are fine. If you don't like the highly-refined flours (for example) you can get bagged whole-grain flour for making breads and such. It's odd, but you pay more for the less-refined because there are fewer people buying those.
Is it cheaper to begin with truly raw foods? I think some would be, but once you get beyond potatoes, onions, tomatoes, peppers, lettuce and things like that you have more expensive things like fresh herbs & spices. And, you have to do a tiny bit more to prepare and use them, so that's your time being used. Again, it's clear Americans favor the time-saving canned & boxed things to save time with some simple preparation issues: peeling or dicing or smashing (to paste) tomatoes for example are easier than doing it yourself and they're just as good.
Beyond that we are seduced into things like rice in a box (very cheap stuff) with some other seasonings (not so easy for everyone to toss together) to make a nicer dish. And, once we go down that road the possibilities for prepared foods becomes very complicated and more expensive and possibly less healthy for us. I noticed a box of pre-made servings of hash-brown potatoes. You wouldn't have to peel and cut any potatoes. Just pull one out of the freezer and put it in a toaster oven or on the frying pan for a few minutes. It's almost a miracle, but somehow it also seemed a lot less appealing than home-made. It's hard to grow up in our world and not be skeptical of food quality. Frozen meatballs or chicken strips are other examples. Is the meat quality what you really expect?
It pays to know whether you're eating healthy and reasonably-priced foods. If we then make the choice for easier prepared things then at least it's our choice. Just buying what's on the shelves without consideration is putting your wallet in someone else's hands.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
AUMF
Listening to the Senate committee grill Secretary of State John Kerry was quite curious. The Republicans seemed determined to get a suggestion for an AUMF from the president or to delay consideration of the matter until the new Congress sits (when the Republicans would have control of the committee). Congress has already delayed consideration of this for some months, but the election campaigns were on-going and that made sense. Now it doesn't. The president could have sent a suggested AUMF to Congress, but everything he suggests is just fodder for the Republicans to dismiss. In this instance it's simply better for Congress to pull itself up off the floor and do its job. I hope that's not asking too much.
To the question of an AUMF -- an authorization for the use of military force -- it's important for Congress to decide if modernizing the 2001, 2002 laws is necessary in their opinion. Those limited the Executive branch to fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates, though President George W. Bush surprised many by shifting from Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden and his part of al Qaeda were located) to Iraq. If they decide to leave those in place, then the president will continue under cover of those unless a court decides it's inappropriate. Sec. Kerry said today the courts have already ruled on that.
Assuming they decide modernization is needed, then they also need to decide if they want one over-arching AUMF for al Qaeda and all possible affiliates anywhere in the world or if they would prefer one for that and another for fighting ISIL in a more limited way (geographically or otherwise). I would suggest that two separate AUMFs is quite reasonable and leaving the old laws in effect for that purpose might suffice, though creating a new one specifically for the fight against ISIL would be very useful.
The AUMF for opposing ISIL could easily specify that the fight is geographically bound, though many other resources from other sites might be acceptable. For example, a stealth aircraft, cruise missile or drone can come from far away and training camps in countries neighboring Iraq-Syria are also necessary. A time duration is quite appealing as unlimited duration for this engagement commits us to unlimited involvement with all its costs and it isn't an incentive to actually complete the war in a timely fashion. With a time limit there should be a process for reconsideration, recommitment, reauthorization or extension which the Senate should be required to handle. This could be much like a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation process. The president (whomever it may be) could request an extension of the AUMF and then the Senate would consider it and vote to extend or not. A limitation on the use of ground troops is limiting and undesirable from the point-of-view of the Executive branch, but the Senate could include that if it desires. The list of exceptions to the rule is the problem.
It's essential we have two key things: recognition this is a fight America needs to fight and win AND authorization for use of sufficient resources & means to win. Other limits can be dealt with.
Sec. Kerry already stated the cost of the war is dealt with in the budget. That too needs to be reviewed by Congress and accepted or amended.
To the question of an AUMF -- an authorization for the use of military force -- it's important for Congress to decide if modernizing the 2001, 2002 laws is necessary in their opinion. Those limited the Executive branch to fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates, though President George W. Bush surprised many by shifting from Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden and his part of al Qaeda were located) to Iraq. If they decide to leave those in place, then the president will continue under cover of those unless a court decides it's inappropriate. Sec. Kerry said today the courts have already ruled on that.
Assuming they decide modernization is needed, then they also need to decide if they want one over-arching AUMF for al Qaeda and all possible affiliates anywhere in the world or if they would prefer one for that and another for fighting ISIL in a more limited way (geographically or otherwise). I would suggest that two separate AUMFs is quite reasonable and leaving the old laws in effect for that purpose might suffice, though creating a new one specifically for the fight against ISIL would be very useful.
The AUMF for opposing ISIL could easily specify that the fight is geographically bound, though many other resources from other sites might be acceptable. For example, a stealth aircraft, cruise missile or drone can come from far away and training camps in countries neighboring Iraq-Syria are also necessary. A time duration is quite appealing as unlimited duration for this engagement commits us to unlimited involvement with all its costs and it isn't an incentive to actually complete the war in a timely fashion. With a time limit there should be a process for reconsideration, recommitment, reauthorization or extension which the Senate should be required to handle. This could be much like a presidential nomination and Senate confirmation process. The president (whomever it may be) could request an extension of the AUMF and then the Senate would consider it and vote to extend or not. A limitation on the use of ground troops is limiting and undesirable from the point-of-view of the Executive branch, but the Senate could include that if it desires. The list of exceptions to the rule is the problem.
It's essential we have two key things: recognition this is a fight America needs to fight and win AND authorization for use of sufficient resources & means to win. Other limits can be dealt with.
Sec. Kerry already stated the cost of the war is dealt with in the budget. That too needs to be reviewed by Congress and accepted or amended.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Government Hates Trees -- Social Security Edition
I can swear the U.S. federal government hates trees. It keep chopping them down to make paper. Okay, so they use internet web sites too, but when I download their pages I need to print them to use as a reference.
Here's one single example: In the disabilities program called SSI there are reams of directions, instructions, limitations, programs and confusion. They don't mean to confuse, but it's the government. It's what they do naturally. They consider four different kinds of income and each has its own arcane rules which require many pages to describe. If you have a college education you could still make a mistake because it's very different than anything you encounter with taxes or ordinary work records. There is also the distinct possibility you can read the rules one year and they may be changed the next. It's enough to drive a person toward anarchy.
Simplifying the situation by telling candidates/recipients they must keep their assets (which could be converted quickly to cash) to $2000 or less and that all income from work or other means will reduce your benefit by half as much ($2 earned reduces benefit by $1, netting $1 gained) should be enough. Anyone having more than $2000 has their benefit reduced until that is spent down to the limit again.
Did you know that if you receive a check from a family member or friend for Christmas that they consider it unearned income and they reduce your SSI benefit by all but $20 of it. What's the point in receiving money for Christmas if they simply reduce your monthly SSI check?
Did you know that if you save some of the benefit they send you can build up your assets to $2000, but if you save money someone gives you they reduce your benefit by that much so that you really can't build up your assets? It doesn't make sense.
Social Security, simplify the lives of people whose lives are already difficult and maybe you will receive more than a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking!
Update:
As I was awaking this morning I was thinking about the Social Security rules for SSI as being a lot like an income tax.
Think of this: there is the income tax on earnings (about 30% for most workers) and the SSI rules reduce your benefit (check) by about one-half (50%) of your earnings, so the net effect is an 80% "tax" on earnings.
How much incentive to work can there be if you're being taxed at 80% *and* you aren't earning hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. There just isn't much left over (about $20 for every hundred earned).
So, aside from simplifying the rules, it seems to me that the limitation on earnings (reducing the benefit check by 50%) needs to be eliminated altogether. We shouldn't 'tax' earnings at this low level for these recipients. If you want people to work it just doesn't make sense. And, if you want fewer tax dollars wasted on government bureaucracy it just doesn't make sense.
The simple rule should be that SSI will provide money each month(currently about $725) as long as your total cash assets (what you need for housing & food) remain less than or equal to a set limit (currently $2000).
Then people would have an unlimited incentive to work (if they can) and there would be less complication in their lives and less need for complicated SSI rules and Social Security employees to enforce such rules.
Here's one single example: In the disabilities program called SSI there are reams of directions, instructions, limitations, programs and confusion. They don't mean to confuse, but it's the government. It's what they do naturally. They consider four different kinds of income and each has its own arcane rules which require many pages to describe. If you have a college education you could still make a mistake because it's very different than anything you encounter with taxes or ordinary work records. There is also the distinct possibility you can read the rules one year and they may be changed the next. It's enough to drive a person toward anarchy.
Simplifying the situation by telling candidates/recipients they must keep their assets (which could be converted quickly to cash) to $2000 or less and that all income from work or other means will reduce your benefit by half as much ($2 earned reduces benefit by $1, netting $1 gained) should be enough. Anyone having more than $2000 has their benefit reduced until that is spent down to the limit again.
Did you know that if you receive a check from a family member or friend for Christmas that they consider it unearned income and they reduce your SSI benefit by all but $20 of it. What's the point in receiving money for Christmas if they simply reduce your monthly SSI check?
Did you know that if you save some of the benefit they send you can build up your assets to $2000, but if you save money someone gives you they reduce your benefit by that much so that you really can't build up your assets? It doesn't make sense.
Social Security, simplify the lives of people whose lives are already difficult and maybe you will receive more than a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking!
Update:
As I was awaking this morning I was thinking about the Social Security rules for SSI as being a lot like an income tax.
Think of this: there is the income tax on earnings (about 30% for most workers) and the SSI rules reduce your benefit (check) by about one-half (50%) of your earnings, so the net effect is an 80% "tax" on earnings.
How much incentive to work can there be if you're being taxed at 80% *and* you aren't earning hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. There just isn't much left over (about $20 for every hundred earned).
So, aside from simplifying the rules, it seems to me that the limitation on earnings (reducing the benefit check by 50%) needs to be eliminated altogether. We shouldn't 'tax' earnings at this low level for these recipients. If you want people to work it just doesn't make sense. And, if you want fewer tax dollars wasted on government bureaucracy it just doesn't make sense.
The simple rule should be that SSI will provide money each month(currently about $725) as long as your total cash assets (what you need for housing & food) remain less than or equal to a set limit (currently $2000).
Then people would have an unlimited incentive to work (if they can) and there would be less complication in their lives and less need for complicated SSI rules and Social Security employees to enforce such rules.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
More On Leadership
When Jimmy Carter was president he tried to solve the problems of the Middle East, particularly the relations of Israel with its neighbors. The Republicans who followed achieved nothing on that front because they didn't want to upset the Saudis who controlled the flow of most of the world's oil.
Pres. Carter also considered the energy issue and decided to set a course: to develop alternative energy sources. He even put a solar panel on top of the White House and set the White House thermostat lower and pushed through a law to limit the speed of cars on the Interstate highway system. All good ideas at the time. The first thing Ronald Reagan did was appoint George H. W. Bush as his Vice President knowing Bush had run an oil company and was completely against alternative energy sources. The second was to remove the solar panel from the White House.
Sometimes leading the nation requires time to educate the public about issues and time to campaign to create a sufficiently large coalition that change can be made and kept in place.
When President Clinton wanted to reform the healthcare system he was following in the footsteps of several presidents: Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. The cost of healthcare was rising rapidly and he knew it was time for change. But, at that time there had not been a sustained campaign to gain momentum. His plan was rebuffed, but in time the Obama administration could build on that and got a plan (barely) passed into law. Now the effort has to be to keep it and improve it over time. The Republicans opposed these changes from start to finish and still claim they want to repeal the law. They, of course, also say they would replace it with something effective, but they have no real plan for that. If the Supreme Court doesn't knock it down this law will remain. And, it's due to the thoughtful leadership of previous recent Democratic presidents who took a lot of slings & arrows for trying to push the issue and the debate.
The Obama administration had to deal a lot with the economics of the country and regulating financial markets & banks. This helps us incrementally improve our standing with the American public on that topic. It hasn't yet enabled us to do significant change to improve the situation. However, we had achieved similar growth rates when Presidents Carter and Clinton ran the economy. Carter ran into the OPEC oil cartel, but Clinton achieved much more. By the end of his first term we had great results and a low unemployment rate (it went even lower), but we didn't have sufficient Congressional support for doing more. In fact, the Republicans had won the political arguments and had control of the House of Representatives. To slow Clinton they Impeached him over a personal scandal. This not only prevented further progress on the economy, but it became possible for a Republican to win the next presidential race. That victory came from the Supreme Court (a 5-4 vote) and it led to terrible disasters, both economic and others. The Obama administration had to pick up the pieces of that mess and fix a lot of problems. It did so quickly, but he too lost the House to Republicans in 2010. They couldn't Impeach him, but they tried everything else to harass him and slow him. In the Senate they filibustered all significant legislation and prevented nominations from being confirmed. It seems everything the Republicans touch leads to disaster. Even so, the Obama administration and the Democrats (when they had some power) pushed forward on clean alternative energy sources and the use of more rail (which is more energy efficient than trucking).
Leadership isn't always easy or fast, but if the issues before the nation are very important it's what a president has to aim for. Even if it means starting a conversation it has to be done with no self-congratulations since there is no certainty of achievement during that term.
Pres. Carter also considered the energy issue and decided to set a course: to develop alternative energy sources. He even put a solar panel on top of the White House and set the White House thermostat lower and pushed through a law to limit the speed of cars on the Interstate highway system. All good ideas at the time. The first thing Ronald Reagan did was appoint George H. W. Bush as his Vice President knowing Bush had run an oil company and was completely against alternative energy sources. The second was to remove the solar panel from the White House.
Sometimes leading the nation requires time to educate the public about issues and time to campaign to create a sufficiently large coalition that change can be made and kept in place.
When President Clinton wanted to reform the healthcare system he was following in the footsteps of several presidents: Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. The cost of healthcare was rising rapidly and he knew it was time for change. But, at that time there had not been a sustained campaign to gain momentum. His plan was rebuffed, but in time the Obama administration could build on that and got a plan (barely) passed into law. Now the effort has to be to keep it and improve it over time. The Republicans opposed these changes from start to finish and still claim they want to repeal the law. They, of course, also say they would replace it with something effective, but they have no real plan for that. If the Supreme Court doesn't knock it down this law will remain. And, it's due to the thoughtful leadership of previous recent Democratic presidents who took a lot of slings & arrows for trying to push the issue and the debate.
The Obama administration had to deal a lot with the economics of the country and regulating financial markets & banks. This helps us incrementally improve our standing with the American public on that topic. It hasn't yet enabled us to do significant change to improve the situation. However, we had achieved similar growth rates when Presidents Carter and Clinton ran the economy. Carter ran into the OPEC oil cartel, but Clinton achieved much more. By the end of his first term we had great results and a low unemployment rate (it went even lower), but we didn't have sufficient Congressional support for doing more. In fact, the Republicans had won the political arguments and had control of the House of Representatives. To slow Clinton they Impeached him over a personal scandal. This not only prevented further progress on the economy, but it became possible for a Republican to win the next presidential race. That victory came from the Supreme Court (a 5-4 vote) and it led to terrible disasters, both economic and others. The Obama administration had to pick up the pieces of that mess and fix a lot of problems. It did so quickly, but he too lost the House to Republicans in 2010. They couldn't Impeach him, but they tried everything else to harass him and slow him. In the Senate they filibustered all significant legislation and prevented nominations from being confirmed. It seems everything the Republicans touch leads to disaster. Even so, the Obama administration and the Democrats (when they had some power) pushed forward on clean alternative energy sources and the use of more rail (which is more energy efficient than trucking).
Leadership isn't always easy or fast, but if the issues before the nation are very important it's what a president has to aim for. Even if it means starting a conversation it has to be done with no self-congratulations since there is no certainty of achievement during that term.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Florida and Guns...Again
The Republicans in Florida must be entirely crazy. Now they have gone beyond the "Stand Your Ground" law. They practically encourage gun violence with their new law.
Florida goes too far!
Florida goes too far!
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Leadership
It takes intelligence, a knowledge of how to move people and to get things done, and a lot of other qualities like stubbornness or determination and energy. Our president, Barack Obama, has shown a lot of those qualities and an amazing patience with the obstructive Republicans who have put politics above the nation's well-being.
Republicans have been pretending for a long time to be more moderate than they actually are. For example, they invented the healthcare reform idea (including the individual mandate) which was implemented in Massachussetts and signed by Governor Mitt Romney and later adopted by Pres. Obama and the Democrats. Yet, Republicans have opposed this law (the PPACA or Obamacare) as vigorously as any I've ever seen. How can it be leadership to create something, argue for it and then oppose it with everything you can?
Pres. Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (in 2009) went ahead because they knew it would benefit millions of people and it would improve health care and it would control costs -- necessary to the long-term continuation of Medicare. That's leadership.
Did you know the Republicans invented the Cap & Trade system meant to fight climate change? They have also voted against it in the U.S. Senate and argued in campaigns for letting the coal plants of America and the world continue to pollute without constraint.
Pres. Obama has used the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate industry to protect the environment despite there being little political support and tremendous opposition. That's leadership.
During the Reagan and Bush years, including when Clinton was president, the Republicans favored deregulation of the financial industry and they pushed and pushed for that until, in 2007 & 2008, the economy fell apart and essentially stopped working. Pres. Obama took office in January of 2009 with unemployment increasing by millions and the economy sinking like a rock. It wasn't a very nice gift from the Bush administration. He and the Federal Reserve did everything possible and necessary to stop the crash and to put the system back onto a solid foundation which would last for many years. Yet the Republicans have argued this wasn't necessary and that it was awful and should be repealed.
Pres. Obama did what was needed to make the economy work and took the slings & arrows from the Republicans and the public in general. That's leadership.
Now when the economy is doing better the Republicans are trying to claim they were somehow responsible for these good things. It is incomprehensible.
Time and time again we see the president and his Democratic supporters in Congress tackling the difficult problems and those who will not follow attacking him. It reflects the old saying, "no good deed goes unpunished".
Recently Pres. Obama has been arguing the immigration system is broken and needs major repair. The Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to pass legislation which would improve things. The Speaker of the House won't bring the bill up for a vote, despite the fact there are probably sufficient votes to pass it. There is little followership to support the president's leadership.
The president went ahead with some new Executive Order regulations to try to improve the immigration system and all he's heard is anger from the Republicans, the media and much of the public. Doing what is useful and good for America isn't always popular. But, it's leadership in action.
For this the president's job approval poll numbers have dropped to only about 42%. It's not easy leading when there isn't both a consensus of what should be done and political support for it. But, leadership does what it must.
Now, if only we could get the Republicans to find some political advantage in agreeing. If they're constantly held back by political concerns they can never go along with the president -- and America is held back.
Republicans have been pretending for a long time to be more moderate than they actually are. For example, they invented the healthcare reform idea (including the individual mandate) which was implemented in Massachussetts and signed by Governor Mitt Romney and later adopted by Pres. Obama and the Democrats. Yet, Republicans have opposed this law (the PPACA or Obamacare) as vigorously as any I've ever seen. How can it be leadership to create something, argue for it and then oppose it with everything you can?
Pres. Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (in 2009) went ahead because they knew it would benefit millions of people and it would improve health care and it would control costs -- necessary to the long-term continuation of Medicare. That's leadership.
Did you know the Republicans invented the Cap & Trade system meant to fight climate change? They have also voted against it in the U.S. Senate and argued in campaigns for letting the coal plants of America and the world continue to pollute without constraint.
Pres. Obama has used the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate industry to protect the environment despite there being little political support and tremendous opposition. That's leadership.
During the Reagan and Bush years, including when Clinton was president, the Republicans favored deregulation of the financial industry and they pushed and pushed for that until, in 2007 & 2008, the economy fell apart and essentially stopped working. Pres. Obama took office in January of 2009 with unemployment increasing by millions and the economy sinking like a rock. It wasn't a very nice gift from the Bush administration. He and the Federal Reserve did everything possible and necessary to stop the crash and to put the system back onto a solid foundation which would last for many years. Yet the Republicans have argued this wasn't necessary and that it was awful and should be repealed.
Pres. Obama did what was needed to make the economy work and took the slings & arrows from the Republicans and the public in general. That's leadership.
Now when the economy is doing better the Republicans are trying to claim they were somehow responsible for these good things. It is incomprehensible.
Time and time again we see the president and his Democratic supporters in Congress tackling the difficult problems and those who will not follow attacking him. It reflects the old saying, "no good deed goes unpunished".
Recently Pres. Obama has been arguing the immigration system is broken and needs major repair. The Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to pass legislation which would improve things. The Speaker of the House won't bring the bill up for a vote, despite the fact there are probably sufficient votes to pass it. There is little followership to support the president's leadership.
The president went ahead with some new Executive Order regulations to try to improve the immigration system and all he's heard is anger from the Republicans, the media and much of the public. Doing what is useful and good for America isn't always popular. But, it's leadership in action.
For this the president's job approval poll numbers have dropped to only about 42%. It's not easy leading when there isn't both a consensus of what should be done and political support for it. But, leadership does what it must.
Now, if only we could get the Republicans to find some political advantage in agreeing. If they're constantly held back by political concerns they can never go along with the president -- and America is held back.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Interesting Developments
Simon Wiesenthal ADL Jews protected Neo-Nazis in Ukraine?
Three articles on elections & voting:
Emails detail Florida GOP gerrymandering effort
Winning the vote, losing the election, in Michigan
About Touch-Screen Voting
And the public is even more out of touch than politicians:
What's the unemployment rate? 32% according to some people
Solar Power to the rescue!!!
Solar cloth parking lots? What's that?
When will Solar & Wind be price competitive with Coal & other 'traditional' fuels? Now? Really?
The time for tax reform is now!
One reason we definitely need tax reform now
Three articles on elections & voting:
Emails detail Florida GOP gerrymandering effort
Winning the vote, losing the election, in Michigan
About Touch-Screen Voting
And the public is even more out of touch than politicians:
What's the unemployment rate? 32% according to some people
Solar Power to the rescue!!!
Solar cloth parking lots? What's that?
When will Solar & Wind be price competitive with Coal & other 'traditional' fuels? Now? Really?
The time for tax reform is now!
One reason we definitely need tax reform now
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Democratic Problems
Democrats got beat in the mid-terms and the Republicans are now pretending they aren't so radical and they might be interested in legislating. This means they could have been legislating before, but only held off to create a stalemate and to make the president look bad. Now they have power and it's dangerous.
The first issue I've read about is a potentially new position regarding Afghanistan. I don't know that anything has changed to require the president to change his position (leaving Afghanistan completely by the end of the year), but the Republicans win Congress and suddenly there's discussion of leaving some thousand soldiers in Afghanistan for the indefinite future. Is this what the Republican electorate was voting to get? No. The Republicans said they were trying to stop president Obama and the electorate voted for that. But, here we are.
Democrats just got beat and now the president is (supposedly) considering a change of policy on Afghanistan. Isn't it enough we just got beat, but why should we also give the Republicans another big stick to beat us over the head. Why should we make it all so clear to the public that Democrats don't stand for anything for very long? Why should we care if Putin and other world leaders see our president as a vacillating nothing?
If we leave troops in Afghanistan it will only be written in the history books that Democrats don't know how to govern and President Obama was a failure. How else could they write it?
The first issue I've read about is a potentially new position regarding Afghanistan. I don't know that anything has changed to require the president to change his position (leaving Afghanistan completely by the end of the year), but the Republicans win Congress and suddenly there's discussion of leaving some thousand soldiers in Afghanistan for the indefinite future. Is this what the Republican electorate was voting to get? No. The Republicans said they were trying to stop president Obama and the electorate voted for that. But, here we are.
Democrats just got beat and now the president is (supposedly) considering a change of policy on Afghanistan. Isn't it enough we just got beat, but why should we also give the Republicans another big stick to beat us over the head. Why should we make it all so clear to the public that Democrats don't stand for anything for very long? Why should we care if Putin and other world leaders see our president as a vacillating nothing?
If we leave troops in Afghanistan it will only be written in the history books that Democrats don't know how to govern and President Obama was a failure. How else could they write it?
Friday, November 21, 2014
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) Spoke
I had been listening to one political discussion and laid down to take a nap on my couch when I heard Senator Jeff Sessions speaking. Apparently one show ended and another had begun. Usually I might have changed channels or turned off the t.v., but I was nearly asleep and left it going.
Mostly I didn't hear what he had to say, but as I was waking he was nearing the end of his speech. So, I heard him say something most unusual. He said that taking advice from Pres. Hoover, yes Hoover, we should consider limiting all immigration to America to give time for the American wage to rise. He said that incoming people had the effect on the economy of pushing down wages.
Is this really the state of Republican economic analysis today. Is that belief held by others in the Republican party?
To negate the idea that this was something he just mentioned, he went into some detail about statistics, thus showing he had seriously looked at this idea. I wonder if he knows this kind of argument was sometimes used by those in the past who disliked all foreigners and simply disguised that with shallow arguments such as the economic one.
Mostly I didn't hear what he had to say, but as I was waking he was nearing the end of his speech. So, I heard him say something most unusual. He said that taking advice from Pres. Hoover, yes Hoover, we should consider limiting all immigration to America to give time for the American wage to rise. He said that incoming people had the effect on the economy of pushing down wages.
Is this really the state of Republican economic analysis today. Is that belief held by others in the Republican party?
To negate the idea that this was something he just mentioned, he went into some detail about statistics, thus showing he had seriously looked at this idea. I wonder if he knows this kind of argument was sometimes used by those in the past who disliked all foreigners and simply disguised that with shallow arguments such as the economic one.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Science Produces, Wall St. and Politicians Not So Much
In today's post I'm going to provide URL links to some very interesting developments. The first are scientific or technological developments which can benefit mankind tremendously. The others are indications of how the rest of the world fights over crumbs.
First, science produces:
Perhaps the biggest story about energy in our lifetimes!
Solar Power To Go
More Ethanol Bio-Fuels
Lower-Energy LED Lightbulbs!
Water From The AIR -- Imagine That
Discovered: Genes Associated With Violent Behavior
A Hospital That Produces More Energy Than It Uses -- How?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minestrone Soup for the Soul
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, other human endeavors:
Markets Rigged ?????
Lawsuit Over Rigged Markets
Income Inequality Hurts Business !!!
Programmer Says Electronic Voting Can Be Rigged...Easily
Does Our Election System Really Work?
Who Won the Civil War?
First, science produces:
Perhaps the biggest story about energy in our lifetimes!
Solar Power To Go
More Ethanol Bio-Fuels
Lower-Energy LED Lightbulbs!
Water From The AIR -- Imagine That
Discovered: Genes Associated With Violent Behavior
A Hospital That Produces More Energy Than It Uses -- How?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minestrone Soup for the Soul
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, other human endeavors:
Markets Rigged ?????
Lawsuit Over Rigged Markets
Income Inequality Hurts Business !!!
Programmer Says Electronic Voting Can Be Rigged...Easily
Does Our Election System Really Work?
Who Won the Civil War?
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert Mumbles
Hastert was interviewed on a morning C-SPAN program and among other things he said:
The Hastert Rule isn't really a rule at all. It just means that if there are 218 House members who will support a bill you bring it up for a vote AND that any Speaker who doesn't ensure a majority of his caucus can support a bill he probably won't be Speaker very long. Naturally these two ideas are contradictory. The way current Speaker of the House John Boehner has been operating (his version of the Hastert Rule) is that he ONLY brings a bill up for a vote if the majority of the Republican caucus will support it. That, naturally, divides the House by denying Democrats any chance whatsoever to find coalitions across the aisle on any bill. It's the most divisive behavior (in my memory) of any House Speaker...ever. I don't know that he does it of his own accord. It's probably forced on him by his caucus and the TEA party Republicans. Is it any wonder Boehner can't pass bills which are also brought up for a vote in the Senate. They're so partisan no Democrats in the Senate will touch them. Even Dennis Hastert's House (ending in 2006) did better than that.
He also said, "You either pay interest on the debt or on the inflation." Bizzare. Sure sure, the government pays interest on the debt and inflation implies higher costs for people. But, when there is debt it means we didn't raise enough taxes to pay our bills and the rich are the ones most likely to lend to the government and to receive back their principal and interest. So, it's a kind of welfare program for tax cheats (if you will). On the other hand, inflation hits everyone who consumes things. In a sense, like a consumption tax, that's regressive since the poor spend every penny they've got and the rich only spend part of their income. So, if we would just tax the rich, so goes Hastert's theory, and pay down the debt, the economy would boom and raise inflation and hurt the poor. But, isn't it still better to have a working work-force rather than have a bad economy requiring bigger government safety net spending to help the unemployed? His implication that you have to have either debt or inflation is also probably not to be believed. Underlying a complicated argument with one big lie or mistake isn't helpful.
Republicans are very confused.
The Hastert Rule isn't really a rule at all. It just means that if there are 218 House members who will support a bill you bring it up for a vote AND that any Speaker who doesn't ensure a majority of his caucus can support a bill he probably won't be Speaker very long. Naturally these two ideas are contradictory. The way current Speaker of the House John Boehner has been operating (his version of the Hastert Rule) is that he ONLY brings a bill up for a vote if the majority of the Republican caucus will support it. That, naturally, divides the House by denying Democrats any chance whatsoever to find coalitions across the aisle on any bill. It's the most divisive behavior (in my memory) of any House Speaker...ever. I don't know that he does it of his own accord. It's probably forced on him by his caucus and the TEA party Republicans. Is it any wonder Boehner can't pass bills which are also brought up for a vote in the Senate. They're so partisan no Democrats in the Senate will touch them. Even Dennis Hastert's House (ending in 2006) did better than that.
He also said, "You either pay interest on the debt or on the inflation." Bizzare. Sure sure, the government pays interest on the debt and inflation implies higher costs for people. But, when there is debt it means we didn't raise enough taxes to pay our bills and the rich are the ones most likely to lend to the government and to receive back their principal and interest. So, it's a kind of welfare program for tax cheats (if you will). On the other hand, inflation hits everyone who consumes things. In a sense, like a consumption tax, that's regressive since the poor spend every penny they've got and the rich only spend part of their income. So, if we would just tax the rich, so goes Hastert's theory, and pay down the debt, the economy would boom and raise inflation and hurt the poor. But, isn't it still better to have a working work-force rather than have a bad economy requiring bigger government safety net spending to help the unemployed? His implication that you have to have either debt or inflation is also probably not to be believed. Underlying a complicated argument with one big lie or mistake isn't helpful.
Republicans are very confused.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
It's About Time
Recently one of my nieces was married and at the wedding and the after-party everyone was saying "It's about time" because they had been engaged a long time. I think the president and Congress have had a similar kind of relationship: the Republicans didn't want to give the president any legislative victories, but now the Republicans have gained leadership positions and can take some of the credit for achievements. The Republicans, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) in particular, say they are now ready to find agreements and move the country forward. Hallelujah.
Now is the time for President Obama to show his great leadership and begin pushing the legislation of most importance to the country.
There are of course, some Liberal issues (if there is such a thing) which Republicans won't touch, so those will have to wait. But, on issues where Republicans have their own ideas there has to be room for progress.
Areas which may be of common or overlapping interest:
budget & appropriations, immigration reform (possibly without any citizenship possibilities), tax reform (probably takes far too long to get done soon), infrastructure spending, agreements on presidential action to destroy ISIL, campaign contribution transparency to end "dark" money which may come from foreign sources we don't want in American politics, raising the taxable-income cap to raise more money for Social Security and international trade (TPP)
This is a moment when the president's sense of "the urgency of now" can be shown most clearly!
Now is the time for President Obama to show his great leadership and begin pushing the legislation of most importance to the country.
There are of course, some Liberal issues (if there is such a thing) which Republicans won't touch, so those will have to wait. But, on issues where Republicans have their own ideas there has to be room for progress.
Areas which may be of common or overlapping interest:
budget & appropriations, immigration reform (possibly without any citizenship possibilities), tax reform (probably takes far too long to get done soon), infrastructure spending, agreements on presidential action to destroy ISIL, campaign contribution transparency to end "dark" money which may come from foreign sources we don't want in American politics, raising the taxable-income cap to raise more money for Social Security and international trade (TPP)
This is a moment when the president's sense of "the urgency of now" can be shown most clearly!
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
2014 Elections
I won't pretend I know the cause of everything which has and is happening in the elections, but one particular bit of information was very telling: that this electorate is much older than in the 2012 election where Pres. Obama was re-elected with over 50% support. Also, it was not as young. This may sound redundant, but it isn't. More older voters turned out, making it older AND many fewer younger voters turned out, making it older. This is particularly surprising since the Democrats knew the turnout of young voters was crucial. And, how the Republicans got the older voters to turn out against Pres. Obama has to be studied.
A lot of discussion among Democrats recently has been about the odd fact that Republican voters often vote against their own natural interests. In this election it's strange to see the older voters supporting Republicans who have discussed eliminating Medicare and Social Security. For those voters to have supported Republicans despite those policy positions is stunning. On the flip side is the question of why younger voters didn't vote, despite Democrat efforts to get them to the polling places.
The consequences of Republicans taking control of the Senate will obviously be significant and obviously an increase in the power of Republicans to oppose the president. If voters were angry about the inability of Democrats & Republicans to work together to get things done they didn't solve that by splitting power this way. Is it possible (again) they're voting against their own interests? The electorate isn't always easy to understand.
For those who think each election of this kind is the beginning of a huge trend I would remind them there were more Democratic incumbents up for reelection this time. In two years that will reverse and there will be even more Republican incumbents up for reelection.
A lot of discussion among Democrats recently has been about the odd fact that Republican voters often vote against their own natural interests. In this election it's strange to see the older voters supporting Republicans who have discussed eliminating Medicare and Social Security. For those voters to have supported Republicans despite those policy positions is stunning. On the flip side is the question of why younger voters didn't vote, despite Democrat efforts to get them to the polling places.
The consequences of Republicans taking control of the Senate will obviously be significant and obviously an increase in the power of Republicans to oppose the president. If voters were angry about the inability of Democrats & Republicans to work together to get things done they didn't solve that by splitting power this way. Is it possible (again) they're voting against their own interests? The electorate isn't always easy to understand.
For those who think each election of this kind is the beginning of a huge trend I would remind them there were more Democratic incumbents up for reelection this time. In two years that will reverse and there will be even more Republican incumbents up for reelection.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Strategy for Fighting ISIS-ISIL
We need foot soldiers from the region who are capable of facing-off with the ISIS "soldiers". That's of foremost importance.
Given the desert terrain the transportation of soldiers on the roads is rather limiting. We should focus on a weak spot in North-West Iraq where we can dominate for any period of time. That cuts off the Iraqi ISIS groups from Syrian support.
Since there are only a few roads from the north-west to Baghdad and other parts of eastern Iraq there are no easy escape routes for ISIS groups once they are attacked by overwhelming force.
Focus superior forces on one small location where they have a group and destroy that one group. Then, move on down the road doing the same. We can clear the main road from Syria toward Baghdad that way. Once there is a fork in the road we can either work on one road at a time or simply double the plan and work our way down each other branch toward bigger cities of Iraq. The ISIS groups will have no retreat or support from anyone.
They might seek to move toward Kurdistan, so a strong guard there is needed to keep them boxed-in.
Only once the fighting moves into larger cities could it become more difficult. Keeping civilians out of the way or somehow pushing ISIS fighters away from the citizenry is a tactic which needs some consideration. How can that be done?
Nibbling away at ISIS, one small group at a time means we don't need tremendous numbers of foot soldiers to work with our air forces. But, for a sustained effort it would be good to have sufficient forces to alternate or resupply our foot soldier units. Setting the pace of such a campaign is important and picking the right time of year is helpful. We control those things, not ISIS. We can control where we fight, the time, the manpower on each side, the entire effort.
Given the desert terrain the transportation of soldiers on the roads is rather limiting. We should focus on a weak spot in North-West Iraq where we can dominate for any period of time. That cuts off the Iraqi ISIS groups from Syrian support.
Since there are only a few roads from the north-west to Baghdad and other parts of eastern Iraq there are no easy escape routes for ISIS groups once they are attacked by overwhelming force.
Focus superior forces on one small location where they have a group and destroy that one group. Then, move on down the road doing the same. We can clear the main road from Syria toward Baghdad that way. Once there is a fork in the road we can either work on one road at a time or simply double the plan and work our way down each other branch toward bigger cities of Iraq. The ISIS groups will have no retreat or support from anyone.
They might seek to move toward Kurdistan, so a strong guard there is needed to keep them boxed-in.
Only once the fighting moves into larger cities could it become more difficult. Keeping civilians out of the way or somehow pushing ISIS fighters away from the citizenry is a tactic which needs some consideration. How can that be done?
Nibbling away at ISIS, one small group at a time means we don't need tremendous numbers of foot soldiers to work with our air forces. But, for a sustained effort it would be good to have sufficient forces to alternate or resupply our foot soldier units. Setting the pace of such a campaign is important and picking the right time of year is helpful. We control those things, not ISIS. We can control where we fight, the time, the manpower on each side, the entire effort.
The Democratic Agenda
I was thinking for a few days about the Democratic Agenda, particularly after I saw an article with a list of ten things Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants done. I already had three of her ten on my list and can happily add three more of hers. Are these "radical Leftist" goals? No. How the political Right or Left might want to deal with them could be.
Big Campaign Debate Issues This Year
Raise the minimum wage.
Immigration reform
Extend background checks on gun purchases.
Equal pay for equal work by women
Allow refinancing of student loans
How to handle the Middle East & ISIS-ISIL
Foreign Policy
Destroy ISIS-ISIL
Economic
Tax reform
Raise the minimum wage.
Equal pay for equal work by women
Allow refinancing of student loans
Infrastructure spending
Broadband internet for everyone
Net neutrality
Immigration reform
Some stronger Wall St. rules
Fundamental to Political System or Personal Rights
End corporate personhood.
Require Campaign contribution transparency.
Make foreign campaign contributions illegal.
Overturn voter ID laws.
Overturn the Hobby Lobby decision
Long-term Projects
Continue working for a nuclear bomb free world
Continue working toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace
Others
EFCA for union workers
Social Security solvency
Require gun locks on guns in households with children.
Close Guantanamo Bay prison
Finally, fill all ambassadorial posts.
Continue whittling away at over-use of filibusters in the Senate
Big Campaign Debate Issues This Year
Raise the minimum wage.
Immigration reform
Extend background checks on gun purchases.
Equal pay for equal work by women
Allow refinancing of student loans
How to handle the Middle East & ISIS-ISIL
Foreign Policy
Destroy ISIS-ISIL
Economic
Tax reform
Raise the minimum wage.
Equal pay for equal work by women
Allow refinancing of student loans
Infrastructure spending
Broadband internet for everyone
Net neutrality
Immigration reform
Some stronger Wall St. rules
Fundamental to Political System or Personal Rights
End corporate personhood.
Require Campaign contribution transparency.
Make foreign campaign contributions illegal.
Overturn voter ID laws.
Overturn the Hobby Lobby decision
Long-term Projects
Continue working for a nuclear bomb free world
Continue working toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace
Others
EFCA for union workers
Social Security solvency
Require gun locks on guns in households with children.
Close Guantanamo Bay prison
Finally, fill all ambassadorial posts.
Continue whittling away at over-use of filibusters in the Senate
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Breaking Gridlock
The public is disgusted with government. Why can't they get anything done? How can America move forward with this partisan gridlock?
Here are some ways to break the gridlock:
1. Impeach and convict and remove the president AND the vice president for no just cause, so that current Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) can become president. The Democrats in the Senate wouldn't enjoy cooperate because it's their duty to try a president and convict him/her.
2. Vote to overturn the majority of the House of Representatives -- throw out Speaker Boehner. Then Democrats would have control of the House, Senate and presidency. This would require a huge number of House races (currently being contested) to flip from Republican control to Democratic. Nobody has found a way to convince that many voters to change their vote.
3. Vote to kick out Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) who has abused the filibuster as nobody before ever dreamt possible. But, Republicans would elect another Leader who would probably continue the practice.
4. Vote to turn over the Senate to the Republicans. Problem is, only one-third of the Senate seats are up for election each cycle, so this would require at least another election. And, nobody has found a way to convince the electorate to change their views that fast.
In short, you can't just enforce "getting things done". If the public are not of a unified view, if there is no consensus, then things just aren't going to get done.
So, what should the voter do? Vote for the person you think is going to do the best job, as you see that. It's what the Founders of this country wanted. They didn't think it always necessary for Congress to move quickly or at all. They thought it was important for a sound majority to exist before anything could or should happen. Not changing things isn't the end of the world (usually).
As a partisan Democrat it bothers me that certain things aren't getting done and I blame Republicans for holding back the nation. There are Republicans who say it's President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (House Democrats Leader) and all the Democrats who are standing in the way. This is an extreme case of partisanship or of ideologies being less overlapping, but it is not "against the rules" or "a broken Congress". It's just frustrating.
Here are some ways to break the gridlock:
1. Impeach and convict and remove the president AND the vice president for no just cause, so that current Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) can become president. The Democrats in the Senate wouldn't enjoy cooperate because it's their duty to try a president and convict him/her.
2. Vote to overturn the majority of the House of Representatives -- throw out Speaker Boehner. Then Democrats would have control of the House, Senate and presidency. This would require a huge number of House races (currently being contested) to flip from Republican control to Democratic. Nobody has found a way to convince that many voters to change their vote.
3. Vote to kick out Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) who has abused the filibuster as nobody before ever dreamt possible. But, Republicans would elect another Leader who would probably continue the practice.
4. Vote to turn over the Senate to the Republicans. Problem is, only one-third of the Senate seats are up for election each cycle, so this would require at least another election. And, nobody has found a way to convince the electorate to change their views that fast.
In short, you can't just enforce "getting things done". If the public are not of a unified view, if there is no consensus, then things just aren't going to get done.
So, what should the voter do? Vote for the person you think is going to do the best job, as you see that. It's what the Founders of this country wanted. They didn't think it always necessary for Congress to move quickly or at all. They thought it was important for a sound majority to exist before anything could or should happen. Not changing things isn't the end of the world (usually).
As a partisan Democrat it bothers me that certain things aren't getting done and I blame Republicans for holding back the nation. There are Republicans who say it's President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (House Democrats Leader) and all the Democrats who are standing in the way. This is an extreme case of partisanship or of ideologies being less overlapping, but it is not "against the rules" or "a broken Congress". It's just frustrating.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Extreme Partisanship vs. Working Together
In campaigns across the country there has been a lot of discussion about the dysfunctionality of Washington and proposed solutions to increase "working across the aisle". Often the question of where this all began has arisen.
Consider the election of Lyndon Johnson. It was a huge landslide for the Democrat with a great deal of help from the African-American electorate and the unions. Republicans were quite concerned about their chances in the next election. To undermine Johnson the records now show Richard Nixon worked behind the scenes to undermine the Vietnam War peace talks. He was probably worried there would be a "breakthrough" at the peace talks in time to make the Democrats very popular in the November elections. Johnson withdrew from the race and stalwart Vice President Hubert Humphrey became the main candidate. Also entering the race was Democrat Robert "Bobby" Kennedy, brother of the slain former president John F. Kennedy. This divided the Democrats, but as John Kennedy had defeated Humphrey in the 1959-60 primary race it was seen by many as most likely Bobby Kennedy would do the same and become the nominee. He was quite charismatic, had the Kennedy aura and was known to be a very good campaigner with youth and great vigor. What Republican could hope to win that race?
At this point in history it's safe to say the change in the country because of the Civil Rights bills Johnson had pushed into law made the African-American vote a big advantage to the Democrats. What were the Republicans to do?
I don't know whose idea it was, but the Republicans devised a "Southern strategy" which was aimed at the White vote, particularly the men's vote. From that time until today the Solid South still votes Republican, unless there is an exceptional person such as Jimmy Carter (who was an unknown when he ran for office in 1975-76) or the charismatic Bill Clinton (who first ran in 1991-92). Another prong of the Republican plan was to undermine the unions, and even today you hear arguments for the Citizens United Court decision based on the need for individuals to be able to give large sums of campaign money to compete with the union giving.
The third prong of the Republican strategy may have come a bit later. I don't recall precisely when it began or who promoted it, but it may have been a fortuitous effect of the Southern Strategy affecting many in the West (the mid-west to the Rocky Mountain areas) and the rabid support for Arizonan Barry Goldwater. They joined the Southerners and made a strong coalition. The Republicans took advantage of this in 1980 with Ronald Reagan, born in the mid-west, but living in southern California. California has drifted more and more toward the Democrats, but in 1980 the candidacy of Reagan made it possible for them to win. Reagan's first campaign stop was in Philadelphia...Mississippi to win the Southern vote.
Finally, the biggest strategic decision, but one not involving any distinct electoral group (such as southerners or rogue Alaskans or maverick Arizonans) was to make themselves more distinct in the voter's mind from the Democrats -- to give them a clear choice. There may have been some in the Republican party who suggested this in the 1970s, but I think I recall hearing it first in the 1980s. This divided the country, eliminated a need for "working across the aisle" and led to some other major changes.
There has long been a two-sided coin to Republican thinking: should they allow the occasional Liberal Democratic president to get our turn at having a Conservative Right-Wing Republican president or should they try to push the country as a whole to the Right to avoid ever having a Liberal Democratic president, even if it means having more Centrist Democratic presidents and fewer Republican presidents altogether.
I believe the Bush family were the Conservative Right-Wingers who crept into the Republican tent (with Reagan's blessing) to garner support from that part of the Right's electorate. George H. W. Bush managed to present a moderate's image while holding some more radical views. His son George W. Bush didn't have the smooth veneer, but with help from his campaign team they used the phrase "Compassionate Conservative" and campaign rhetoric such as calling for a reduction in overseas military bases (believe it or not) to convince the public Dubya was okay. His policies in office were dramatically more radical. Since California had become more Democratic after Reagan it should also have been no surprise their candidate for the presidency in 1999-2000 was from the mid-West and South -- Texas in this case.
The Gore-Bush election of 2000 was the ultimate division of the country. It was decided by one U.S. Supreme Court vote. Some said, "the South has arisen again".
It was also the dream race for the Republicans. They not only defeated a true Liberal (Gore), but didn't have to put up a moderate Republican to win. They had it all: a Conservative Right-Wing presidency, control of the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Such power has never really been wielded before in America. And, it was a disaster.
Surprisingly, there were a few instances where Dubya worked across the aisles, but on at least one or two occasions "his" Congress didn't go along with his leadership. Even the radical president wasn't enough for the Republican members of Congress. This wasn't the first indication the Congressional Republicans were moving rapidly to the Right. In 1994 the Republicans got control of the House of Representatives with new Speaker Newt Gingrich declaring he was a revolutionary. But, he too was removed for being too willing to work with Democrats. The Party had clearly moved very far to the Right.
In 2008 Barack Obama was elected and even as he was being inaugurated the Republican Leader of the Republican caucus (the minority now) Sen. Mitch McConnell (of Kentucky) was saying his primary goal was to make Obama a one-term president (in essence to make him Carter II). If anyone had any doubts about the country being divided or any confusion why there was no "working across the aisle" it should have been over that day. Since then McConnell has used the filibuster more than ever before. It became so that years into his term the president still couldn't fill ordinary offices with his own appointees.
That is how it began and why we see such partisan divisiveness today.
Consider the election of Lyndon Johnson. It was a huge landslide for the Democrat with a great deal of help from the African-American electorate and the unions. Republicans were quite concerned about their chances in the next election. To undermine Johnson the records now show Richard Nixon worked behind the scenes to undermine the Vietnam War peace talks. He was probably worried there would be a "breakthrough" at the peace talks in time to make the Democrats very popular in the November elections. Johnson withdrew from the race and stalwart Vice President Hubert Humphrey became the main candidate. Also entering the race was Democrat Robert "Bobby" Kennedy, brother of the slain former president John F. Kennedy. This divided the Democrats, but as John Kennedy had defeated Humphrey in the 1959-60 primary race it was seen by many as most likely Bobby Kennedy would do the same and become the nominee. He was quite charismatic, had the Kennedy aura and was known to be a very good campaigner with youth and great vigor. What Republican could hope to win that race?
At this point in history it's safe to say the change in the country because of the Civil Rights bills Johnson had pushed into law made the African-American vote a big advantage to the Democrats. What were the Republicans to do?
I don't know whose idea it was, but the Republicans devised a "Southern strategy" which was aimed at the White vote, particularly the men's vote. From that time until today the Solid South still votes Republican, unless there is an exceptional person such as Jimmy Carter (who was an unknown when he ran for office in 1975-76) or the charismatic Bill Clinton (who first ran in 1991-92). Another prong of the Republican plan was to undermine the unions, and even today you hear arguments for the Citizens United Court decision based on the need for individuals to be able to give large sums of campaign money to compete with the union giving.
The third prong of the Republican strategy may have come a bit later. I don't recall precisely when it began or who promoted it, but it may have been a fortuitous effect of the Southern Strategy affecting many in the West (the mid-west to the Rocky Mountain areas) and the rabid support for Arizonan Barry Goldwater. They joined the Southerners and made a strong coalition. The Republicans took advantage of this in 1980 with Ronald Reagan, born in the mid-west, but living in southern California. California has drifted more and more toward the Democrats, but in 1980 the candidacy of Reagan made it possible for them to win. Reagan's first campaign stop was in Philadelphia...Mississippi to win the Southern vote.
Finally, the biggest strategic decision, but one not involving any distinct electoral group (such as southerners or rogue Alaskans or maverick Arizonans) was to make themselves more distinct in the voter's mind from the Democrats -- to give them a clear choice. There may have been some in the Republican party who suggested this in the 1970s, but I think I recall hearing it first in the 1980s. This divided the country, eliminated a need for "working across the aisle" and led to some other major changes.
There has long been a two-sided coin to Republican thinking: should they allow the occasional Liberal Democratic president to get our turn at having a Conservative Right-Wing Republican president or should they try to push the country as a whole to the Right to avoid ever having a Liberal Democratic president, even if it means having more Centrist Democratic presidents and fewer Republican presidents altogether.
I believe the Bush family were the Conservative Right-Wingers who crept into the Republican tent (with Reagan's blessing) to garner support from that part of the Right's electorate. George H. W. Bush managed to present a moderate's image while holding some more radical views. His son George W. Bush didn't have the smooth veneer, but with help from his campaign team they used the phrase "Compassionate Conservative" and campaign rhetoric such as calling for a reduction in overseas military bases (believe it or not) to convince the public Dubya was okay. His policies in office were dramatically more radical. Since California had become more Democratic after Reagan it should also have been no surprise their candidate for the presidency in 1999-2000 was from the mid-West and South -- Texas in this case.
The Gore-Bush election of 2000 was the ultimate division of the country. It was decided by one U.S. Supreme Court vote. Some said, "the South has arisen again".
It was also the dream race for the Republicans. They not only defeated a true Liberal (Gore), but didn't have to put up a moderate Republican to win. They had it all: a Conservative Right-Wing presidency, control of the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court. Such power has never really been wielded before in America. And, it was a disaster.
Surprisingly, there were a few instances where Dubya worked across the aisles, but on at least one or two occasions "his" Congress didn't go along with his leadership. Even the radical president wasn't enough for the Republican members of Congress. This wasn't the first indication the Congressional Republicans were moving rapidly to the Right. In 1994 the Republicans got control of the House of Representatives with new Speaker Newt Gingrich declaring he was a revolutionary. But, he too was removed for being too willing to work with Democrats. The Party had clearly moved very far to the Right.
In 2008 Barack Obama was elected and even as he was being inaugurated the Republican Leader of the Republican caucus (the minority now) Sen. Mitch McConnell (of Kentucky) was saying his primary goal was to make Obama a one-term president (in essence to make him Carter II). If anyone had any doubts about the country being divided or any confusion why there was no "working across the aisle" it should have been over that day. Since then McConnell has used the filibuster more than ever before. It became so that years into his term the president still couldn't fill ordinary offices with his own appointees.
That is how it began and why we see such partisan divisiveness today.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Better Safe Than Sorry
Everyone is getting worried about ebola. I've heard from people in the medical field and I've heard politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) from Florida, Colorado, North Carolina and elsewhere all calling for a ban on travel from the West Africa countries which have an epidemic of ebola.
It's time to be Safe Rather Than Sorry, put up this additional barrier and continue the existing medical filters to keep people with ebola out and to quarantine those who somehow still get here.
It's unfortunate we should have to do something like this, but the American people have every right to be concerned and demand their government help them avoid a catastrophe.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
In Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell says Clean Coal Doesn't Exist and that He's for Jobs
Clean Coal According to NBC News
In 1984 McConnell Objected to a New Coal Plant in Kentucky
McConnell, like many Republicans, wants to appear one way for the voters back home, but in Washington acts another way. He said Kentuckians can keep their Kynect website (funded by Obamacare / ACA ), but he would get rid of the ACA. How can Kynect connect to the government agencies necessary to operate properly if the ACA is ended? How can the insurance companies who would offer policies via Kynect be regulated to offering comparable good quality policies if the ACA is ended? Nope, it can't. But, McConnell wants people to think Kynect was just a website invented by Kentuckians and that's all it is, just a simple website. But, it's not.
Many Republicans around the country do this, but McConnell is the leader of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. He sets the tone for much of what happens in Washington and his main priority he announced just after Obama was elected president was to make him a failure, a one-term president. To that end he has filibustered more than any time in the past and opposed the president tooth-and-nail.
In the House of Representatives the Republicans are doing much the same thing. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) pretends to be Speaker of the Majority and only brings bills up for debate & a vote if they have support from the Republicans. That's never been done before. The Speaker is supposed to Speak for the whole House, not just his own party.
To end that kind of hypocrisy and gridlock we need new Republican leaders and a clear Democratic majority in the House and Senate to get things done.
In 1984 McConnell Objected to a New Coal Plant in Kentucky
McConnell, like many Republicans, wants to appear one way for the voters back home, but in Washington acts another way. He said Kentuckians can keep their Kynect website (funded by Obamacare / ACA ), but he would get rid of the ACA. How can Kynect connect to the government agencies necessary to operate properly if the ACA is ended? How can the insurance companies who would offer policies via Kynect be regulated to offering comparable good quality policies if the ACA is ended? Nope, it can't. But, McConnell wants people to think Kynect was just a website invented by Kentuckians and that's all it is, just a simple website. But, it's not.
Many Republicans around the country do this, but McConnell is the leader of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate. He sets the tone for much of what happens in Washington and his main priority he announced just after Obama was elected president was to make him a failure, a one-term president. To that end he has filibustered more than any time in the past and opposed the president tooth-and-nail.
In the House of Representatives the Republicans are doing much the same thing. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) pretends to be Speaker of the Majority and only brings bills up for debate & a vote if they have support from the Republicans. That's never been done before. The Speaker is supposed to Speak for the whole House, not just his own party.
To end that kind of hypocrisy and gridlock we need new Republican leaders and a clear Democratic majority in the House and Senate to get things done.
Friday, October 10, 2014
The Next Step in Political Argument
The Republicans are desperate and will slander, lie or anything to gain ground, especially in the close races. One original idea is something the Pat Roberts campaign is doing in Kansas. They're trying to make the old man look like a powerful figure in Washington, willing to stop the president single-handedly with a filibuster by claiming the president wants to immediately do something Roberts opposes. But, the White House response was "What?" They knew nothing of this supposed plan. Apparently the Roberts campaign just made it up to have an argument because they were losing. That's creative.
In West Virginia the Repbublican, Shelley Capito, is simply claiming motherhood and apple pie. I think she has no answer to the charges leveled by her opponent, the Democrat Natalie Tennant.
In many of these races the negativism has been both depressing and frustrating -- the real debate gets lost sometimes.
I think it's time, the election is near, to begin a positive policies only trend, so the public will know precisely (and have it in their minds) what the Democrats want to do in office. Give them a reminder in clear terms what they can vote FOR.
Of course, I prefer the set of policies which enable people to live out their version of The American Dream. I prefer the "family-friendly" set of policies. I prefer the Democratic policies which have already been enunciated in the last several years. It's a long list, so each candidate/campaign has to fashion a statement which fits their own views and recent utterings.
In West Virginia the Repbublican, Shelley Capito, is simply claiming motherhood and apple pie. I think she has no answer to the charges leveled by her opponent, the Democrat Natalie Tennant.
In many of these races the negativism has been both depressing and frustrating -- the real debate gets lost sometimes.
I think it's time, the election is near, to begin a positive policies only trend, so the public will know precisely (and have it in their minds) what the Democrats want to do in office. Give them a reminder in clear terms what they can vote FOR.
Of course, I prefer the set of policies which enable people to live out their version of The American Dream. I prefer the "family-friendly" set of policies. I prefer the Democratic policies which have already been enunciated in the last several years. It's a long list, so each candidate/campaign has to fashion a statement which fits their own views and recent utterings.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
W. Va. Senatorial Debate
The debate just ended and I was impressed with the performance of Sec. Tennant. The moderator also impressed me and he hasn't always done that in past years. His questions were well-placed and worded and led to very good debate discussion. Rep. Capito tried to fight, but sounded too canned and awkward when she tried to either repeat a prepared argument or to speak her own words. Sometimes she said things which were ungrammatical and she couldn't make sense. That's not to say she didn't land a few punches.
They talked about West Virginia, its economy, its people and the nation's foreign policy. They didn't try to nationalize the race and talk about the national issues unless they were closely related to the state and our people. That kind of focus can be good, but when you're talking about a U.S. Senate seat it's important to realize those senators vote to confirm federal Court judges and they usually have much longer and more complete debates about all issues, particularly foreign policy. I want a senator who is capable of thinking and standing up to a wayward president or Court nominee and not just someone who thinks about W. Va.
Sec. Tennant's main blows against Capito were her recent t.v. ad arguments that Capito is too tied to Wall St. bankers and the difference between Capito's words and official votes. I thought this part of the debate was clearly good for Tennant and Capito didn't have much of a rebuttal.
I suspect Sec. Tennant's experience with television broadcasting made it easier for her to handle this debate. Many people wouldn't be comfortable in front of t.v. cameras. Well, she showed by her discussion points that it wasn't just her comfort level which made her appear relevant, it was the content of her arguments. Bravo Sec. Tennant.
They talked about West Virginia, its economy, its people and the nation's foreign policy. They didn't try to nationalize the race and talk about the national issues unless they were closely related to the state and our people. That kind of focus can be good, but when you're talking about a U.S. Senate seat it's important to realize those senators vote to confirm federal Court judges and they usually have much longer and more complete debates about all issues, particularly foreign policy. I want a senator who is capable of thinking and standing up to a wayward president or Court nominee and not just someone who thinks about W. Va.
Sec. Tennant's main blows against Capito were her recent t.v. ad arguments that Capito is too tied to Wall St. bankers and the difference between Capito's words and official votes. I thought this part of the debate was clearly good for Tennant and Capito didn't have much of a rebuttal.
I suspect Sec. Tennant's experience with television broadcasting made it easier for her to handle this debate. Many people wouldn't be comfortable in front of t.v. cameras. Well, she showed by her discussion points that it wasn't just her comfort level which made her appear relevant, it was the content of her arguments. Bravo Sec. Tennant.
Monday, October 6, 2014
North Carolina Congressional Debate: Ellmers vs. Aiken
I just watched their debate and I was very impressed. I didn't expect to be, so this was a big surprise. Both candidates looked good, spoke clearly, used talking points and spoke directly to the immediate issue, and perhaps most importantly, they found ways to turns the discussion to their favor. This was most impressive as usually neither candidate in a Congressional race can do that and it's rare when even one candidate can.
The discussion hit on all the major issues of the day and I didn't really see either candidate landing a knockout punch. Each scored points for jabs and a few longer sequences, but then the other would come right back and do the same.
I don't know what the people of that district want, but they have two intelligent candidates from which to choose.
Personally, I can't imagine any individual Republican representative having the ability to do more than vote for their party line and Ms. Ellmers had difficulty showing she wasn't just another brick in that "just say no" wall. OTOH, Clay Aiken's belief that new members of Congress who believe in establishing relationships across the aisle and talking to everyone may be a bit naïve too.
Of course, party leadership decides whether to continue the House Speaker's rule of only allowing votes on bills the majority of the Republican caucus will approve. As far as I know the Democrats who have been Speaker never did that.
I look forward to seeing the polls and hearing how this race goes. It appears to be a tough one.
The discussion hit on all the major issues of the day and I didn't really see either candidate landing a knockout punch. Each scored points for jabs and a few longer sequences, but then the other would come right back and do the same.
I don't know what the people of that district want, but they have two intelligent candidates from which to choose.
Personally, I can't imagine any individual Republican representative having the ability to do more than vote for their party line and Ms. Ellmers had difficulty showing she wasn't just another brick in that "just say no" wall. OTOH, Clay Aiken's belief that new members of Congress who believe in establishing relationships across the aisle and talking to everyone may be a bit naïve too.
Of course, party leadership decides whether to continue the House Speaker's rule of only allowing votes on bills the majority of the Republican caucus will approve. As far as I know the Democrats who have been Speaker never did that.
I look forward to seeing the polls and hearing how this race goes. It appears to be a tough one.
As the Close Races Near the End
I've seen Republicans turn nasty in W.Va., so I wouldn't be surprised if they bring out the "guns from hell" everywhere to smear their opponents in hopes of turning close races into wins.
It shows they don't really believe the issues and proposed policies are really important so long as they can get into office. If they really believed that it was what they propose to do in office, then they would focus entirely on policies and leadership.
Republicans are offering no leadership, only hate and lies.
In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell doesn't care that he's opposed all federal gov't efforts to improve the economy (for Kentucky and all of America), he just wants to make his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, look bad. I suppose he thinks they already know what he would do in office -- just say "No". Vote for Grimes to have an a real positive agenda for America.
In West Virginia's 3rd District House race they're trying the same kind of smear campaign against Rep. Nick Rahall. A few years ago they did the same against the 1st District Rep who was a Democrat and they won, so I suppose they'll keep using the same tactic. But, Rahall has been a good representative for the state. Do West Virginians care about policies or just appearances.
I wonder where the other smear campaigns are around the country. The national media doesn't usually tell us.
It shows they don't really believe the issues and proposed policies are really important so long as they can get into office. If they really believed that it was what they propose to do in office, then they would focus entirely on policies and leadership.
Republicans are offering no leadership, only hate and lies.
In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell doesn't care that he's opposed all federal gov't efforts to improve the economy (for Kentucky and all of America), he just wants to make his opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, look bad. I suppose he thinks they already know what he would do in office -- just say "No". Vote for Grimes to have an a real positive agenda for America.
In West Virginia's 3rd District House race they're trying the same kind of smear campaign against Rep. Nick Rahall. A few years ago they did the same against the 1st District Rep who was a Democrat and they won, so I suppose they'll keep using the same tactic. But, Rahall has been a good representative for the state. Do West Virginians care about policies or just appearances.
I wonder where the other smear campaigns are around the country. The national media doesn't usually tell us.
Monday, September 29, 2014
What Right-Wing Republicans Stand FOR
I was listening to several campaign debates on C-SPAN and came across the Braley-Ernst debate in Iowa. This is a U.S. Senate race, so it's pretty important.
During the debate there were several moments when I thought Ernst lost touch with reality for a while. She smiles a lot, so it's hard to know whether she is experiencing something ecstatic or is merely following the advice of her "hard-working Iowan" campaign staff.
When asked about things she opposed she mentioned several things which aren't actually laws yet. On another occasion she was talking about tax reform and sounded entirely interested until she ended by saying she hadn't actually endorsed anything.
What I wonder is why nobody asks these Right-Wingers (are they all Right-Wingers in Congress now?) if they would be willing to vote for anything (anything at all) which Pres. Obama or indeed any Democratic president said they supported? I have a feeling they would all flinch and begin having spasms while trying to find a way to sit on the fence: opposing Democrats and sounding normal-ish when it comes to reasonable ways forward for America.
Is there anything these Right-Wingers would vote for if Pres. Obama had said publicly he would sign into law?
Even candidates like West Virginia's Shelley Capito (R-WV) try to sound entirely normal, but their practice in Washington has been to vote the party line -- and that is controlled by the far Right branch of the Congressional Republican caucus. Even Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) won't oppose them as he would lose his job.
Could Ernst or Capito vote for a minimum wage increase, knowing Pres. Obama would sign it into law?
America's Billionaires Are Getting Richer, What of Poorer Americans?
I'm almost amazed the president has been so free to (essentially) go to war in Iraq & Syria against ISIS. Generally the Congress demands an opportunity to debate it and vote for the war (if only to grab political credit for being hawkish) and in this case (as well as a year ago when the president wanted to go into Syria to get rid of Assad) the Congress, particularly the House Republicans have refused to vote. Why? Maybe, despite their desire to vote for war and killing, they just can't vote for something the president would agree to. That's beyond Right-Wing, that's asinine.
Democrats should challenge a few of these Republican candidates to some basic questions: can they ever vote for something, or even say publicly they endorse it, knowing the president may say publicly he endorses it too and would sign it into law if it gets to his desk?
In Kentucky Senator (and Republican Leader in the U. S. Senate) says he's against this and that and that his opponent, Alison Grimes (D-KY) sides with Pres. Obama. Yet, Mitch won't say why his job doesn't involve improving the economy, so more people can get jobs. Mitch won't say why people don't deserve some kind of pay raise as their productivity and the overall economy improves (and as billionaires get richer).
Are Republicans willing to say publicly they would vote against anything if it appears Pres. Obama is for it? Against an improving economy? Against National Security (as in the case of fighting ISIS)?
Where are the not so Right-Wing Republicans? Until I see any on the horizon I think America is better-off voting for Democrats who can work for America instead of just their own re-elections.
During the debate there were several moments when I thought Ernst lost touch with reality for a while. She smiles a lot, so it's hard to know whether she is experiencing something ecstatic or is merely following the advice of her "hard-working Iowan" campaign staff.
When asked about things she opposed she mentioned several things which aren't actually laws yet. On another occasion she was talking about tax reform and sounded entirely interested until she ended by saying she hadn't actually endorsed anything.
What I wonder is why nobody asks these Right-Wingers (are they all Right-Wingers in Congress now?) if they would be willing to vote for anything (anything at all) which Pres. Obama or indeed any Democratic president said they supported? I have a feeling they would all flinch and begin having spasms while trying to find a way to sit on the fence: opposing Democrats and sounding normal-ish when it comes to reasonable ways forward for America.
Is there anything these Right-Wingers would vote for if Pres. Obama had said publicly he would sign into law?
Even candidates like West Virginia's Shelley Capito (R-WV) try to sound entirely normal, but their practice in Washington has been to vote the party line -- and that is controlled by the far Right branch of the Congressional Republican caucus. Even Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) won't oppose them as he would lose his job.
Could Ernst or Capito vote for a minimum wage increase, knowing Pres. Obama would sign it into law?
America's Billionaires Are Getting Richer, What of Poorer Americans?
I'm almost amazed the president has been so free to (essentially) go to war in Iraq & Syria against ISIS. Generally the Congress demands an opportunity to debate it and vote for the war (if only to grab political credit for being hawkish) and in this case (as well as a year ago when the president wanted to go into Syria to get rid of Assad) the Congress, particularly the House Republicans have refused to vote. Why? Maybe, despite their desire to vote for war and killing, they just can't vote for something the president would agree to. That's beyond Right-Wing, that's asinine.
Democrats should challenge a few of these Republican candidates to some basic questions: can they ever vote for something, or even say publicly they endorse it, knowing the president may say publicly he endorses it too and would sign it into law if it gets to his desk?
In Kentucky Senator (and Republican Leader in the U. S. Senate) says he's against this and that and that his opponent, Alison Grimes (D-KY) sides with Pres. Obama. Yet, Mitch won't say why his job doesn't involve improving the economy, so more people can get jobs. Mitch won't say why people don't deserve some kind of pay raise as their productivity and the overall economy improves (and as billionaires get richer).
Are Republicans willing to say publicly they would vote against anything if it appears Pres. Obama is for it? Against an improving economy? Against National Security (as in the case of fighting ISIS)?
Where are the not so Right-Wing Republicans? Until I see any on the horizon I think America is better-off voting for Democrats who can work for America instead of just their own re-elections.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Republicans, Pres. Obama and War in the Middle-East
Republicans have begun trying to claim they want the war and have wanted it for some time, but that the president has had no play or has waffled and failed to lead. I laugh at that absurdity.
How quickly they forget Pres. Obama wanted to go into Syria to fight Assad and when Congress begged for time to debate and vote on it the only result they could come to was to neither debate nor vote on it. And, in the end, the president didn't have authority to fight Assad or ISIS and now we still have both to deal with.
Republican revision of history isn't hard to refute, but I can imagine their followers who dislike Pres. Obama would gobble it up without hesitation. Suckers.
Now they're begging for all-out war against ISIS-ISIL with foot soldiers and the whole nine-yards. I guess they've forgotten the trillions of dollars of debt and the lack of public support for more war after the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the "war on terror".
I expect the president will fight ISIS-ISIL and continue to support the return of sound government to Syria and Republicans will continue to tell lies.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Is the West Virginian's "Way of Life" in Danger?
Shelley Moore Capito says the West Virginia way of life is in danger, but I don't see it. Certainly, back in the 1980s that was true and a lot of young people left the state to find work elsewhere. The recession of 2007-2009 was too brief to have that impact, but it showed Republican economic ideas really hurt West Virginians. Today the economy is stable due to Democratic economic policies.
Look around and you won't see West Virginia in decline. New structures are being built. The roads are clogged with cars going somewhere. There is LIFE in West Virginia, but Shelley Moore Capito can't see it.
West Virginia, and America, needs the Democratic economic policies to continue growing. THAT, not Republicans who say "no" to everything, will keep America on the right track of growth and new jobs.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
America's Strategy for ISIS/ISIL
I think it might be wise to handle them quite different than al Qaeda in Afghanistan. They are a very mobile bunch and, perhaps like a herd of bison, need to be "allowed" to run together into a cul de sac where they can be slaughtered en masse. As I understand it there are a few thousand of them. That shouldn't require a huge military force on the part of a Middle-Eastern coalition.
I suggest this because it would be unwise to get into a protracted effort with many feet on the ground with bases and all the logistical nightmares of that and at the same time remain prepared to deal with Russia vis a via Ukraine.
It's not an easy situation, but it would be unwise to have a knee-jerk reaction to the ISIS crisis and overlook the bigger picture.
ISIS isn't a nation with all the resources that would bring, so one decisive battle could bring them down.
Friday, August 29, 2014
America's Plan in the Middle-East
The first thing to recognize is that the situation in the middle-east is a mess. That's not to say we've done anything to cause that, it just happened naturally, as a result of oppressive regimes and weak economies and radical militant Islamists.
I believe the dangers of this "mess" would reach Israel far before it would touch America. Yes, we must be vigilant about Americans who have become radicalized Muslims, but the Israelis face much more danger.
Over the years Israel and its neighboring countries have refused to broker a real lasting peace deal. This lack of leadership has let the situation grow worse. Now, those opposed to any kind of peace are having their say.
Is there any chance this can be turned to some advantage?
Could we use statecraft to nudge those middle-east powers to find some kind of consensus about arrangement of power to exclude the radicals? Could we show them it requires peace with Israel, not just in small ways, but a real normalization of national relations?
We might have to oppose ISIS/ISIL, but that has yet to be proven. Until then we should use the situation to our advantage to push Middle-Eastern nations to do something truly productive for the long-run.
The West Virginia Senate Race
As in Kentucky coal is important to West Virginians. The Republicans keep arguing the coal industry is under attack by Pres. Obama. But, isn't coal production at an all-time high? Maybe mechanization is enabling coal companies to dump workers.
What Shelley Moore Capito and other Republicans refuse to face is that they have no plan to grow the economy and to produce more jobs.
Democrats wanted to change tax law to take away the corporation's incentive to send jobs overseas, but Republicans said "No". It's time for Republicans to step aside and let the Democrats and their policies improve the economy.
Each month since the recovery began the Obama presidency created more new jobs than for the entire 8 years of the Bush administration. It's time to let Democrats have more say in making the economy grow stronger.
Senator Natalie Tennant can help to get the job done.
Mitch McConnell doesn't have an answer
When asked if his job was to create jobs in Kentucky Mitch McConnell said "No".
But, in his advertisements he says it was the job of the president and the Democrats. What hypocrisy!
It's interesting that Kentucky is losing coal jobs, but that coal production is up and sales overseas is at an all-time high. Doesn't that mean mechanization is replacing the workers? What does any politician have to do with that?
Mitch McConnell doesn't have any answers, just attacks on Pres. Obama.
We need politicians who can actually do the jobs they get elected to. Mitch McConnell just wants to blame somebody else for his own ineffectiveness.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Republicans ARE Living the Fantasy
I received two sort of related phone calls today: one from a debt collector trying to recover money on a bill from 2009 and the other a political advertisement by the Republican member of Congress running for senator I WV -- Shelley Moore Capito.
They're related because the debt I had a health issue which caused massive expenses (which I couldn't pay) going back to 1998. It's amazing to me they are still trying to recover some of that today, but it's more amazing they would have me take money I need for food to pay an ER doctor money which he has already written off. The only reason I have these debts is that I had health problems and no health care insurance money to pay the bills as they arose. But now, Republicans are arguing Obamacare is a bad thing because it forces us to have healthcare insurance and they would repeal it...putting me (and others like me) right back where I was when I ran up the first bills.
Do the Republicans not want people to have insurance? How exactly do they expect people to pay their bills and avoid bankruptcy? They don't have a plan of any significance and they know it.
That's living in fantasy land. But, people who live in the real world have real health issues and real bills and can't afford leaders who aren't willing to deal with our real problems. We can't afford health care without insurance and we can't afford Republicans who would take away our health care insurance.
We can't afford to live in a fantasy world.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
The Organizing Principle of America's Foreign Policy
When asked about foreign policy Hillary Clinton said it's not enough to "not do stupid things", it's important for great countries to have "an organizing principle". I agree, though I would have expressed it as "having a grand strategy" or "having a vision for the future" or something like that.
In the case of the recent American foreign policy I do believe there is an "organizing principle" and it has to do with two fundamental elements which existed from the 1980s onward: Europe has been lazy on security issues due to WWII fatigue & habit and America has growing debts which hobble us.
How this impacts our foreign policy is that we have worked more on developing international partnerships or coalitions to spread the cost of doing important things (like destroying bin Laden's al Qaeda) and this in turn requires Europeans to act more on issues of importance to themselves. This isn't a call for them to reassert themselves as conquistadors or to bring forth new Napoleons, but it requires them to wake up more to their security duties. The recent cases of the break-up of Yugoslavia and the genocide which followed and the difficulties between Ukraine and Russia come to mind. In neither have the Western European countries shown brightly.
Extrapolating this kernel of an idea leads America to demand local participants in activities they want America to help with. This limits the costs to America and establishes a rhythm and pattern to our behavior which the rest of the world can accept and work with. It also establishes the limits of power we will assert which may allow rogues like Vladimir Putin to exploit openings. Oddly, in the case of Putin and Ukraine it exercised the Western Europeans and may have helped develop their understanding of a stronger role for their military and diplomatic efforts in their part of the world. In some other places like the Middle-East they have wanted to use America to serve their purposes and wrt Saudi Arabia and oil states this has been destructive. It is all the better that we can move to an all-of-the-above energy policy (which we have) in order to demonstrate clearly we aren't anyone's toy and can't be bullied over energy. Incidentally, during recent months the price of gasoline has been declining despite the violence in the Middle-East. That wouldn't have been the normal order of things a few years ago.
Another benefit of this strategy is that America's humanitarian efforts, whether because of natural disaster or the costs of war, needn't always be one-sided -- we can more easily expect coalitions and group efforts as there are fewer human costs to other nations.
Hopefully the net effect of this many-sided organizing principle is to produce a future where America can focus more on domestic issues, avoid going so far into debt or of spending so much on our military or of being blackmailed on energy issues. This is a vision of a future where many countries cooperate on many issues and there needn't be super-powers when every country knows their own local region will be dominated mostly by local people and their interests. It's a more democratic vision.
Of course, I may be imagining too much and it's just that we're trillions of dollars in debt and the easiest way to get through that is to spend less. Sometimes the obvious is the truth.
In the case of the recent American foreign policy I do believe there is an "organizing principle" and it has to do with two fundamental elements which existed from the 1980s onward: Europe has been lazy on security issues due to WWII fatigue & habit and America has growing debts which hobble us.
How this impacts our foreign policy is that we have worked more on developing international partnerships or coalitions to spread the cost of doing important things (like destroying bin Laden's al Qaeda) and this in turn requires Europeans to act more on issues of importance to themselves. This isn't a call for them to reassert themselves as conquistadors or to bring forth new Napoleons, but it requires them to wake up more to their security duties. The recent cases of the break-up of Yugoslavia and the genocide which followed and the difficulties between Ukraine and Russia come to mind. In neither have the Western European countries shown brightly.
Extrapolating this kernel of an idea leads America to demand local participants in activities they want America to help with. This limits the costs to America and establishes a rhythm and pattern to our behavior which the rest of the world can accept and work with. It also establishes the limits of power we will assert which may allow rogues like Vladimir Putin to exploit openings. Oddly, in the case of Putin and Ukraine it exercised the Western Europeans and may have helped develop their understanding of a stronger role for their military and diplomatic efforts in their part of the world. In some other places like the Middle-East they have wanted to use America to serve their purposes and wrt Saudi Arabia and oil states this has been destructive. It is all the better that we can move to an all-of-the-above energy policy (which we have) in order to demonstrate clearly we aren't anyone's toy and can't be bullied over energy. Incidentally, during recent months the price of gasoline has been declining despite the violence in the Middle-East. That wouldn't have been the normal order of things a few years ago.
Another benefit of this strategy is that America's humanitarian efforts, whether because of natural disaster or the costs of war, needn't always be one-sided -- we can more easily expect coalitions and group efforts as there are fewer human costs to other nations.
Hopefully the net effect of this many-sided organizing principle is to produce a future where America can focus more on domestic issues, avoid going so far into debt or of spending so much on our military or of being blackmailed on energy issues. This is a vision of a future where many countries cooperate on many issues and there needn't be super-powers when every country knows their own local region will be dominated mostly by local people and their interests. It's a more democratic vision.
Of course, I may be imagining too much and it's just that we're trillions of dollars in debt and the easiest way to get through that is to spend less. Sometimes the obvious is the truth.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Politics July 2014
It is July and the pollsters are all saying the public is close to evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
I think that if you look at a lot of domestic issues which this country has faced since the 1960s the Democrats have served America better. We have sought to live up to the Constitutional demands of Equality by supporting the Civil Rights laws ensuring civil, economic and political opportunity for everyone. Getting a bank loan, being able to vote, getting married to someone society disapproves, freedom to ride in any seat on a bus -- these are all things Democrats have championed and continued to fight to accomplish. Republicans have fought to prevent many people from voting or from getting married to the person they love and they regularly dismiss our president for his skin color. Decades ago Republicans crowed they were the superior party for making the economy go. But, the economy ran fine with Jimmy Carter until OPEC used oil prices to hurt us all. The economy ran great with Bill Clinton and even an attempted Impeachment didn't stop the bull market which helped balance the budget and start reducing federal debt for the first time in forever. More recently it has been a bigger challenge: the Bush economy was run into the ground *twice* (how many presidents have caused TWO recessions during their time in office. Bush the Democrats, led by Pres. Obama, ended that recession (technically) in six months and had all the fundamentals going in the right direction within 5 years. That's not bad considering the scope of the crisis we all faced. Yes, the federal debt grew terrifically, but that was the price of Republican economic policies and not something Democrats planned or wanted. Today the economy is still moving in the right direction with over 50 months of job growth and a declining unemployment rate and with a GDP higher than ever. The Republicans in office today are still calling for deregulation and a return to the Bush-era economic disaster. During the last presidential race their candidate argued for more war and military spending to boost the economy. That's an immoral approach to growing the economy and just a bad idea. But, there are still Republicans in office who believe that's good policy.
On social issues we can have a free society or we can let Republicans shut off the rights of women to have privacy (with their doctor) to decide reproductive issues. Republicans have argued against birth control and many other things which most of us presume are private. Where is the "small government" belief Republicans claim they support? Their policies are incredibly intrusive and destructive.
On foreign policy they continually call for involvement in wars and yet claim if Pres. Obama does get us involved they would Impeach him. I don't know how to respond to that except to say it's crazy. Of course, they've also been considering Impeachment for other things (which they haven't yet specified). Their claim he is acting like a king is easily refuted by his acquiescence to their demand he not act militarily in Syria and his continual request they act on pressing issues to ensure better policy goes into effect than any Executive Order (which is dependent on extant law) could manage.
It seems every time they have the power of office they ignore pressing national issues in favor of playing political games. A small example is their current claim the president is executing a "war on coal" when the coal industry is in fact producing more coal than ever (most of which is sold overseas). The simple facts are contrary to their claims. But, it excites their base to hear those claims, so they continue.
Aside from their addiction to playing politics (instead of doing their legislative jobs) they show a lot of signs of simple incompetence. Recently a freshman member of the House addressed two administration officials as though they were from India. It was incredibly embarrassing. When we see some of them are still considering supporting New Jersey's governor Chris Christie in a presidential run it's embarrassing since he has so obviously misused his office and is being investigated by three groups which can charge him with crimes. This sad state of affairs also existed with the governor of Wisconsin, Walker. He was indicted. How many times has Speaker of the House John Boehner agreed to a deal with the administration, only to have members of his Republican caucus disagree and kill the deal. He doesn't even have the power to negotiate a deal. Who runs the Republican caucus? The Speaker is supposed to work for the entire House of Representatives, yet the Republican Speaker will only bring a bill to the floor if it has support from the majority of the Republicans. Why? Because they will (essentially) fire him if he tries to do his job by standing for ALL the House.
The Republicans criticize the president, but most of the time the Republicans are like clowns in a circus, running about in 50 directions and making embarrassing sounds with horns. For some observers they're just scary.
When will they do something about immigration, tax reform, infrastructure spending, regular road repairs, raising the minimum wage, ending corporate personhood, voting on nominees to fill ambassadorships, closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, etc. ? Democrats are ready to act, but Republicans are too busy arguing with themselves.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Monday, June 30, 2014
SCOTUS discussion on Hobby Lobby case
During the questioning Justice Kennedy remarked that the constitutionality of the law in question should be probably be taken up by the Court. Everyone laughed (presumably with rather than at him) because the law in question is the (already considered) Affordable Care Act (aka ACA, PPACA, Obamacare). Is it possible Justice Kennedy didn't even know the law in question was the ACA which had already been taken up by the Court and declared legal?
I think more than a few people in the room were probably laughing at him.
The Right is making a farce of our Supreme Court. It's time for Kennedy to retire.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Some good, some bad
We continually hear stories about violence and war and scandal, but we don't always hear about White-collar issues like banking and taxation or about good developments. I try to sometimes write about these. The following are a sample of both.
======================================================
Why does Los Angeles spend more on Wall Street fees than on fixing its own roads?
If everyone believes in a free market then why do we subsidize so many large profitable businesses?
If the individuals who lead our major corporations are patriots, then why do they hide so much company profit overseas to avoid taxes?
Fortunately, there are some people working to benefit everyone:
Thursday, June 12, 2014
The Middle East, War, Guns and America
I just read an article at ThinkProgress.org and it's incredible. The number of militant organizations with interests at war in the Middle East is insane. The recent upsurge of jihadist militancy in Iraq and bordering Syria should be terrifying to everyone. If they can empty banks and use the money to buy more weaponry and if they can chase off the (U.S.-trained) Iraqi army and take all the weaponry we sold/gave them they will use it against somebody to advance their cause.
We may continue for a while trying to oppose Assad in Syria, but in a lot of ways this mess looks like a plate of spaghetti topped with blood. We should be extremely cautious with our involvement and hold back as much as possible.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Selling Tesla Everywhere
The Dept. of Justice should challenge in court any state law banning the interstate sale of Tesla cars as a violation of interstate commerce law.
Isn't it the height of hypocrisy for the Right-Wingers to cry all the time about free trade and market capitalism and then to pass laws restricting it because they don't like the electric car?
Friday, May 23, 2014
"Happy" Strikes Fear in Iranian Conservatives
http://videos.rawstory.com/video/Iran-Happy-video
The kids were arrested for a short time, scolded and set free. There appears to be some balance between the conservative religious leaders and common sense. Kids want to be happy.
The kids were arrested for a short time, scolded and set free. There appears to be some balance between the conservative religious leaders and common sense. Kids want to be happy.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Is Russia running the revolt in Ukraine?
Take a look at the articles at these two URLs!
Forbes magazine has a series of articles (all at this one URL) on the topic:
Putin's man in Ukraine:
Looming problems Republicans will never fix
Republicans have already said they only want lower taxes on the rich, less government spending unless its borrowed money and more war. Well, there are other problems we know about and then there are the looming (mostly) unseen problems and Republicans, you can bet, are against fixing them.
Take a look at the articles at these URLs (web sites):
Pension funds at risk!
Energy prices may skyrocket!
Republicans are still having trouble putting gun locks on guns to prevent children from killing one another. They continue to talk about repealing Obamacare despite it helping millions of people get health care insurance for the first time in their lives. Their obsession at the moment is Benghazi, but they don't care about raising the minimum wage to help people and to push the economy.
Republicans simply say "No" to everything but destroying stuff. I don't know why.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Are We Killing Ourselves?
Were honey bees the "canary in the coal mine" wrt humans in America? The rate of autism in children has skyrocketed. Read the article linked to below and tell me if we would react dramatically if we learned foreigners were doing this to us?
Al Qaeda never did so much damage?
The Soviet Union didn't achieve this to hurt us?
What can we do to avoid total annihilation of ourselves?
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Ukraine and Russia
One major concern I have with America's response to the crisis in Ukraine is that it is very very easy to recognize so many familiar situations and events that we are drawn to responding as if it were a replay of events from by-gone days. For example, Vladimir Putin is not George W. Bush and to respond to him as though he were would be a mistake. Both may act as bullies or recklessly or as overly aggressive or similar in some other ways, but that is not all Putin is and to put blinders on ourselves to only see those similarities blinds us to other things. Similarly, this Russian aggression is not Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait. To claim total purity and exclaim, "This aggression shall not stand!" is to misunderstand the differences between then and now, there and here, and to ignore the mistakes of the past. Furthermore, the current Russian excitement about Ukraine is far from being similar to their invasion of Afghanistan in 1980. Recognize what exists now and don't rely on the sure-fire solutions of the past because today is a new day and may end in a new way.
There are some obvious things America can and should do without fail: support our NATO partners and require our NATO partners to support one another; support international law regarding national sovereignty; of course a major one is to "jaw jaw rather than war war", if that's possible. Beyond those there has to be some understanding of America's proper role in this situation, of the president's foreign policy, of the Russian goals, of Putin's personal goals and of limitations we all face. Rushing to war or to any solution without understanding the situation as it exists today is far too likely to result in problems.
So far the president's foreign policy has been one of peace & prosperity with tense situations being guided by and assisted by America, but in most cases requiring the participation of the peoples involved. In Libya we didn't put boots on the ground, but had Europeans and Libyan rebels involved while we provided information. In Syria we've had so much difficulty finding groups worthy of our support we haven't done as much, mostly non-lethal aid and help for Jordan to deal with refugees. America's interests are not always so directly involved that we have put our own troops in the fight. We did that in Afghanistan because it was necessary to get al Qaeda and bin Laden. We don't do that in other parts of the Middle East, though we often use drones to fight AQAP. This means our natural position wrt Ukraine and Russia is to assist the Ukrainians and others who support them with information, diplomatic efforts, non-lethal aid and economic sanctions against Russia. Of course, the degree of these efforts is variable.
Viewing this conflict as being like Vietnam and requiring massive troop involvement should require the support of the American people and today they're not even slightly interested. This isn't the Cold War era and Ukraine is not Vietnam. Viewing this as being similar to Saddam Hussein's Iraq would also be a big mistake because the Russian military, and Russia itself, is much larger and even more dangerous than Iraq's or Iran's. We don't attack Iran because it's not necessary and because militarily it would be extremely difficult to succeed. What would success against Russia look like? No, we must deal with the reality before us and not shadows of the past.
It would appear naive to ignore the secret forces behind revolutions or the Russian (supporter) instigators, but ignore them we must to have a sensible solution to the problem. As long as Americans are not secretly involved (and they should be punished if they are) and as long as we know the armed instigators are not Russians aiming to take over Ukraine there is no need to knee-jerk respond in a big military way. If Putin wants to use his army in a big way then he will have shown the world he is dangerous and would have to be stopped. Until then this is just a situation of provocation and instigation and intrigue, but without the huge dangers of all-out war.
No, without our national debt and our people's tiredness of war and all the other major issues facing us we should avoid massive involvement of our military. This doesn't mean our actions are etched in stone. They could change if the situation changes. But, the reality of today, not our memories of how things happened in the past, should inform us.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
More News on "Alternative" Energy Technologies
Alternative energy technology stories:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/19/researchers-use-nanomaterials-to-create-energy-producing-bionic-plants/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/22/solar-power-is-a-huge-water-saver/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/02/32-new-hybrid-trains-coming-to-america/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/05/3422885/cars-of-the-future-solar-hydrogen-aluminum/
Solar roadway materials are ready to roll!
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/07/3422342/hybrid-diesel-electric-trains/
and then there are Republicans in Congress
Republicans oppose background checks on guns despite evidence they work
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/31/arizona-gop-gives-private-prison-company-1-million-to-house-inmates-who-dont-exist/
I'd rather focus on the good things being done, but the Republicans stand in the way of a lot of it.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/19/researchers-use-nanomaterials-to-create-energy-producing-bionic-plants/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/22/solar-power-is-a-huge-water-saver/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/02/32-new-hybrid-trains-coming-to-america/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/05/3422885/cars-of-the-future-solar-hydrogen-aluminum/
Solar roadway materials are ready to roll!
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/07/3422342/hybrid-diesel-electric-trains/
and then there are Republicans in Congress
Republicans oppose background checks on guns despite evidence they work
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/31/arizona-gop-gives-private-prison-company-1-million-to-house-inmates-who-dont-exist/
I'd rather focus on the good things being done, but the Republicans stand in the way of a lot of it.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Insurance Policies Banks take on their Employees
WallStreetOnParade has an interesting article on insurance policies corporations, particularly banks, have taken on their own employees. It's rather amazing.
I can imagine some employees would be of such value to a company that their loss could do great economic harm. Why a policy would continue after an employee has left the company isn't so clear.
Even more confusing is why a bank would have policies on many lower-level employees who can be replaced without undue stress on the bank.
Then I saw the following...
"It is doubtful that regulators are fully aware that BOLI assets may actually remain under the control and management of the banks, rather than the insurance companies providing the death benefits."
What this means is they aren't actually putting the insurance premiums into the hands of an insurance company. The bank is holding onto those assets and continuing to use them to make profits.
But, that's not where the trickery ends.
"Both the buildup in the cash value of the policy over time and the payment of the death benefit are tax-free income to the bank; the more workers they insure, the more tax-free income they receive to help their bottom line; and the less corporations pay in their share of Federal income taxes, shifting more and more of the burden to the struggling middle class."
Yes, that's right, both the profits made from investing the premiums (as any corporations would invest) AND the death benefit paid to the bank are TAX FREE.
Wow, that's a big incentive to insure everyone in the world that you can afford and to gamble big with that money to make huge profits and then to kill all the insured people to collect huge death benefits...TAX-FREE.
This is clearly financial trickery run amok and it must be stopped.
The number of unusual deaths of JPMorgan bank employees in the last year or so has been hard to understand. Now it makes a lot of sense. Whether this means there is foul play isn't yet known.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Connecting Geopolitical Dots
Why was Assistant Secretary of State (for European affairs) Victoria Nuland caught talking to someone on a telephone about a revolution or coup for Ukraine?
Who was pushing for NATO and the European Union to reach all the way to the border of Russia (including Ukraine)? Wasn't it the Republicans in Congress during the Clinton administration who made that the U.S. policy? Was it the Bush administration?
Ms. Nuland's husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century (Neo-Conservatives). She had also been Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney for the period 2003-05.
When Russia's President Putin took control of Crimea there was mention of how he had done the same in Georgia (the former Soviet republic) during the Bush administration. It appears Putin has a strategy for grabbing a bit of territory here and a bit there to reestablish some kind of Russian empire. He has also said the fall of the Soviet Union was tragic. It's pretty clear his approach was (and is) entirely predictable.
Put these points together and it's easy to see how the recent events in Crimea (part of Ukraine, but formerly part of the Soviet Union) could come to be. But, was the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected president a policy of President Obama? I can't imagine it.
If not President Obama's policy, then whose was Ms. Nuland promoting? Who exactly was in Ukraine fomenting these changes? Was it entirely a domestic Ukrainian desire to align with the EU? But, was it also their desire to join NATO?
Recently the Neo-Conservative (Neo-Con) Bill Kristol lamented the American people are "war-weary", but he added that with the right leadership they can be led to awaken and fight. That was the same kind of language the Project for a New American Century used before 9/11. They said a "new Pearl Harbor" can stir the public. Does Mr. Kristol foresee another such tragedy? It should be remembered Bill Kristol was a key player in picking Sarah Palin to become Senator John McCain's running mate for the Republicans in 2008. John McCain is a war hawk who has promoted war against Iran and in Syria and more recently against Russia. He also said that if we couldn't have war, couldn't we at least sell military armaments to Ukraine.
These are (some of) the players: Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Senator John McCain. It's the same people who brought us "a new Pearl Harbor", the Iraq war and a lot of rhetoric about President Obama being weak on foreign policy, feckless and yet a dictator. What a bunch.
Then there's the missing Malaysian aircraft. In all likelihood it's just a tragic event, but speculating I wonder: is it possible someone has stolen it to use it as an attack weapon? Could it be part of a plan to create a new Pearl Harbor (a sudden devastating attack which awakens a war-weary public) or is it possibly just a diversion from thinking about Ukraine? Who knows. But, with the PNAC Neo-Cons it pays to consider many possibilities. They're a creative determined bunch who want war at nearly any cost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)