Kaine attempts to slay able Mike Pence

Last nights Vice Presidential debate was painful in many respects.  The moderator lost control from the start, and that fed the constant interruptions and off topic answers.  I expect may did not tune in for the entire debate and who could blame them.

Governor Kaine tried to slam Mike Pence repeating 3 or 4 times - (paraphrased) Trump said he wants to prosecute women for having an abortion.

So here's a test... Do you believe Kaine?  Is that what Mr Trump said? And more importantly, is that what he meant or what he actually believes?

Here's the answer... Last year, Trump was asked specifically, that "IF abortion were illegal, should women be prosecuted." It was a gotcha question - and being a political neophyte, Trump assumed the reporter was asking a straight forward question along the lines of "will you uphold a law - (even if you don't agree with it)" - so he answered honestly - if it were illegal, I guess, yes. The question was not - "Hey Donald, should we make abortion illegal and jail any women who has one?" 

Seasoned politicians are tuned into questions like that and they are very good at side stepping and filibustering without answering because they recognize what is happening.  One of the reasons Trump won his partys nomination is that support for him came largely from people who are sick and tired of professional politicians who speak out of the sides of their mouths.  And sick of a media that has such a bias politically that they pull stunts like that.    

The funny thing is, moments earlier in the debate, Kaine said as governor, he had to approve putting 5 people to death in Virginia, against his belief in capitol punishment, because it was the law and he believes as governor, he has to follow the law not his own morals.  If Pence had his wits about him, he might have said right back to Kaine - "so you had to put people to death against your personal belief, if Virginia had a law that women should go to jail if they have an abortion, would you follow-through?" That would have been a great moment.

So, in context, does Donald want to put women in jail for having an abortion? Or was Tim Kaine really playing on his supporters ignorance of the context of the exchange between Trump and the reporter?

That question can be applied to almost every Tim Kaine attack on Mr Trump last night.  Was the quote accurate and in contect, or did Kaine twist it, playing on what he believes are ignorant supporters.  That's not a hard one to answer.

Sore Losers are the only Guarantee in November

No doubt about it, when the election results come in, supporters of whomever looses will be furious and the accusations of voter fraud and cheating will abound.  If it's close, the supreme court will likely be called in and that will raise the stakes and emotions even higher.

Should Hillary win, she will not very likely get majorities in either the house or senate.  There is a possibility that she will have learned from her husband that success can be achieved by working with the opposition.  It's not clear if republicans are willing to reciprocate.  The elephant in the room is the looming replacement of Justice Scalia.  The court has been a tit-for-tat replacement for years and only on the rarest of occasions has a seat changed from conservative or liberal or vice versa.  There are some old and frail folks on the court on both sides and the next president will shape the politics of the court for a generation - perhaps longer if appointments go to younger judges. The elements of her campaign designed to reel in the left - like free college, raising taxes on the rich will not happen because she will not get the legislative mandate.

Should Trump win, no one really knows what to expect.  It's hard to tell if he is pandering to the right or if he really plans to enact plans like building the wall.  I expect he will focus on domestic issues and stay away from international affairs, but if something big happens, all bets are off.  If he wins and keeps the congress, he should have an easy time with justices - and the right will be happy.  Every step he takes to dismantle Obamacare will be meet with visceral opposition, but if it does not get funded, it will die.  Since so much of the move to green energy has been by administrative decree and rule making - side stepping congress, it will be interesting to see where Trumps efforts to put the breaks on go.  Cutting subsidies for electric cars, cutting regulations that closed coal fired power plants. and hundreds of EPA rules that affect a variety of business.  If he does this right, he will succeed in growing the economy, but since he does not have the media on his side, he will have a rolling fight every step of the way.

We should be prepared for a few very rough November - January.  Maybe a few prayers for heavy snow and bitter cold will soften the blow.

How about some rules for debates

Post debate pain is sinking in.  The media insists that we have a winner and a loser.  But the measures are arbitrary and no one knows what scoring rules to use.   Actually, the real winner is likely to be the one that best matches your political perspective anyway.

So I propose the following rules and measurement tools.

1 - Timers are on but there is a filibuster twist.  Excluding the time the moderator(s) take to ask questions, candidates are suggested to take no more than 2 minutes to answer.  Regardless, they can see the timer and they can see the differential timer between the aggregates of the participants.  As the debate comes to a close - lets say one candidate used 8 minutes more time than the other - so when the debate reaches 8 minutes (or whatever that differential is) to go, the other candidate gets all that time with no rebuttal for the other one.  This will serve to keep answers short and sweet.  If the differential is less than 2 minutes - no award.

2 - Scoring:   For each question where the participants actually answer the question - 1 point.  Where they don't answer but just criticize the opponent, -1 point.
For each rebuttal where they address a specific accusation or counter point - 1 point.  Where a rebuttal is used to go off topic or criticize an opponent -1 point.  NOTE: If they satisfy the part where they earn the point and use remaining time to go off topic or criticize - then no points are deducted.

If they call an opponent a name or make a personal attack - 2 point deduction,  So if candidate A calls B an idiot - deduct 2.  If B suggests A is a bigot, racist, homophob or is fat - deduct 5 points. This is not that same as saying they are wrong on policy - but is a measure of civility in the debate.

If a candidate interrupts another, - 1 point deduction.  This can be somewhat arbitrary in application - but should be used only if the candidate being interrupted is stopped from speaking or forced to change the direction of reply.  So if one is speaking and the other mutters "wrong" - and the first continues to speak - this may be rude but is not a deduction under these rules. If they say "wrong" the the first stops and replys in any way - the other is charged 1 point.  The rude factor is addressed below.

Moderator bias adjustment.  Moderators always have a political perspective.  If a moderator displays bias by a) fact checking (even if correct)  b) asking questions in a attacking manner etc, then a 5 point bonus to the candidate they are against.  Call this the Candy Crowley or Lester Holt rule.

Finally, a demeanor bonus of 3 points is applied to each participant who can make it through the whole debate without eye-rolls, sighs, yawns, checking watches, or displayiIng other annoying non-verbals.  NOTE: This  is nearly impossible to achieve on either side.

There - take this scoring to your next debate and see who really wins.  The alternate version says to add 100 points at the end to the one you supported going in.



 

Bad Veggies

Imagine that we learn that 1% of the heads of lettuce brought into the USA from Guatemala tested positive for e-coli and reports of people dying were becoming more frequent and the country was becoming alarmed. 

If you were President, what would you do? 

A) Call Guatemala and ask them nicely to check into it? 

B) Tell Americans to be extra vigilant when eating lettuce or 

C) Ban all lettuce imports from Guatemala until we could figure out how to eliminate the e-coli or how to sort them before shipping so they never get here?

Ok, seems reasonable right? Lettuce has no feelings and no rights so blocking the import imposes little pain and forces the distributors to help solve the problem.

Are immigrants really that much of a different matter?  Do they have rights? Are we obligated to just accept the risks of bad guys coming in because we are dealing with real humans experiencing real pain and many are really at risk even though we know that the bad guys are trying very hard to infiltrate the ranks of those immigrants.

There are multiple issues at play here.  We can agree that the refugees from Syria and Africa are genuinely in need of help.  We can agree that their home countries are not safe places because of groups like Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and ISIS and/or the home country is ruled by dictators who do not protect their citizens.  Others are the victims of mother nature in the form of drought, floods etc. 

We should also be able to agree that there are those who would seek to infiltrate groups of these refugees in the hopes of getting a free pass into the USA or other "western" nation where they can cause trouble.

So the same question posed in the lettuce analogy is fair here.  Because we want to help the 99%, do we take the risk of letting in a few bad guys whose intent is to do us harm?   Few of us have much confidence in the Obama administrations ability to vet refugees with current technology and processes. So then the questions stands, if you are uncomfortable letting in the few bad guys, what steps do you take - what is reasonable - to identify the ones that pose less threat?  (I don't think you can eliminate all threat unless you just bring in small children.)

Mr Trump has proposed in his typically bombastic manner that we stop all immigration of Muslims.  The statement created broad outrage from some and broad support from many.  Those opposing it seem to assign racist or bigotry motives and labels to Trump which I don't think is fair. Some of those have not or will not even try to understand his proposal.  Is he trying to keep them out permanently or is he expressing concern about bringing in unknown risks.  

I think I understand it but I admit, I am reading between the lines and drawing inferences from others who have done the same.  I don't think it is racist or bigoted... I think, like the lettuce analogy, he is suggesting that we do not have all the tools in place to vet anyone properly and rather than take the risk of endangering our citizens, we a) hold off on letting anyone in for now, and b) Work quickly and diligently to find a way to sift through the masses with a risk acceptable vetting process.  Finally, and I have not heard him say this, but i believe this is a fair approach provided we take steps with others in the international community to find ways to care for refugees in a dignified manner in the meantime.  

I save my comments about Trumps approach to illegal immigrants for another post.

June 6 - D-Day

Today we celebrate and mourn.  We celebrate the victory the Allies had in taking the beaches of Normandy. We honor and mourn the tens of thousands that died that day.  Not much is said for the German soldiers died fighting, but there were no doubt thousands of them as well. 

Too many of us don't really know the history of World War II, or World War I or most of the wars before or since.   Unfortunately, history teachers get too caught up in dates and names and battles and less in the political plays that led to the war in the first place. WW I, we are taught was triggered because of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.  Who was he? Where was he from? How did that drag the whole world into war?  Surly it's was covered, right? But who really remembers? 

We all have heard that history repeats itself. We need to learn from history what happens when a people are lead down certain paths. Learn the tactics that were employed to get them to blindly follow charismatic leaders. Learn from history the cost of fighting for your values and honor of fighting for your country and countrymen. Learn from history, not so much who the heroes were, but what they did and the sacrifices they made.

D-Day was 70 years ago. What is too often lost in the commemorations is why they had to go in the first place. After all, history was just repeating itself.

If I punched you, kicked you, beat you...

What would you have done?  Seriously, think about what you would do if I held you captive and every day, punched you, kicked you, slapped you, tortured you, starved you.  In my eyes, you were no prize, after all. You were a terrorist. You and your people threatened my comfortable way of life, my security, my wealth and family.

If after almost 30 years of this, if you were set free, what would you have done?  Where would you have gone and what would you have done?

Who could blame you for coming after me?  Who could blame you for wanting my head on a platter, for creating riots and insurrection and, frankly, taking over everything and kicking me and my kind out?

It's difficult to imagine how you would react, other than wanting some revenge, a payback, an eye for an eye.  Conversely, what would it take, after all that, to turn the other cheek?  To forgive me, to hug me and love me and trust me. to laugh and cry with me and welcome me into your home? What would it take for you to say "the past is the past, lets build a new world together?"

Nelson Mandela went through all of this and more, and not only forgave his oppressors, he taught his people to forgive them and he taught his oppressors to forgive his people.  He could have been president for life, yet he served only 2 terms. He realized that this was not about him but was about the ideals of a moral, fair and just society.  He taught love, humility, fairness, equality and justice. We are a very long way from a perfect world, but Mandela will cast a warm and gentile light along that long and difficult path in the hopes that we don't stray too far off.

God has given us so few of these rare, selfless individuals who not only see the big picture but are filled with the spirit of a loving God and embody that same love for humanity.  His lessons are timeless. His impact will be felt for generations.  Shed a tear for him today and then thank God for sending him to us.

If not $15, Why not $20

This argument seems to be the gift that keeps on giving.  Whenever the left does not like the headlines, they run raising the minimum wage up the pole.  Today fast food workers are threatening a 100 city walkout.  Pardon me while I try to stop quivering.

Everyone claims to have the compassionate answer here.

Why not raise the minimum wage so these people can pay rent and buy groceries - to have a living wage?
Why not pay them enough to put put gas in their car, or enough to buy a car for that matter?
Why not pay them enough to cover their newly increased healthcare costs?
Why not pay them a little more so they can enjoy the value and pride of home ownership?
Why not chip in a little more so they can enjoy a vacation now and then like everyone else?
Why not a few cents more here and there so they can buy new shoes or a winter coat?

Do you have no compassion?  Are you just a greedy capitalist?

Why not pay them $15 an hour? Is that such a big deal? And when you realize that $15 was not such a big deal, and only raised the cost of a burger a few dollars, why not gamble and pay them $20 or $25 per hour. Really though, you can reason any way you want, if all this makes sense, just dig a little deeper in your greedy pockets and pay these folks 40k or 50k per year.

Conservatives use this argument pretty well to articulate that arguing for an increase without considering the cause and effect on the market is irrational.  It would be nice to pay a high school kid $20 per hour - but if nice was the only factor, it would surely be even nicer to pay him $30. But no one will pay for a burger and fries what they pay for a nice steak at the Chop House.  No one! So there is a balance to be struck.

But who gets to decide is at the core of the argument.  Business wants to let the market decide.  In every market there is a wage point where you can't get people who are smart enough or industrious enough or reliable enough to get a job done.  From that point up there is a marginal increase in all of those factors as wage rises. But there comes a point where good, smart, hard working people will not do a job because it either does not challenge them or they feel the job is beneath them for where they are in life.  There is also a point where the marginal increase in pay will not get any more work done so it is not benefiting the employer.  

If there were no minimum wage, you might see starting wages in some sectors drop. But who will apply and who will get those jobs.  At some point, employers need to raise the rates they pay because competition for good labor drives it up.   When I was a teenager, I made $2.37 per hour.  I told my boss I was leaving because I could make $2.50 elsewhere.  I was a hard and reliable worker and he raised my wage to $2.60.  I think minimum was something around $2.25 at the time. From that point forward I got regular raises.

A job at a fast food restaurant is not a career for most.  Some who like it may move up to asst manager or manager and beyond.  But the labor is just labor.  Cooking food there is not a skill - its all either mechanized or run by timers so no one has to think.  It does, however, provide an environment to learn for first time workers like teenagers.  You learn to follow directions. You learn to adhere to a schedule and be on time.  You learn how a chain of command works. You learn, hopefully that you are capable of more. You learn that this is not a job you want to do for life so a living wage is not the point.  You hopefully learn that hard work gets you a raise.  You might learn that not following the rules gets you fired - still a valuable lesson.  Employers at this level of the market understand that they are getting blank workers. No skills, no experience. They will have expense in training and they will have high turnover as employees build their skills and learn to market them in environments where there is more money to be made and more challenges to be met.

Can the federal government be the arbiter of fairness? Should there be a national minimum wage based on some perceived living wage?  Is the living wage the same in New York City or San Francisco as it is in Kalamazoo Mi?  Of course not.  You can get an apartment in MI $300 or $400/month.  In the mission district of San Francisco its over $3000 per month - and that's the cheapest part of the city.  Gas in California is in many places $1 higher per gallon than it is in South Carolina.

Question: How then do you set an appropriate national minimum?
Answer: You can't.  If you feel you need it, you have to do it locally or at least at the state level.

What about unions?  This is supposed to be their bread and butter.  Rallying and uniting workers to the benefit of all.  Unions are surly behind the current fast food strike movement. But to what end. Unless the plan is to make career workers out of fast food employees, they will not bite.  It's too easy to close an operation and open it elsewhere.  The long term prospect of a union gaining a foothold in that environment is no greater than the likelyhood that employees see that job as a career.  

So back to the reason this is in the headlines... Its there because someone does not want us focusing on healthcare.